A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdoms 9781407309446, 9781407339252

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Introduction
Categorizations
Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings
Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses
Towing and punting
Masts and Standing Rigging
Sails and Rigging
Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Abbreviations
Appendix 1 - The Examples
Glossary of Technical Terms
Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

Citation preview

BAR S2358 2012 STEPHENS A CATEGORISATION AND EXAMINATION OF EGYPTIAN SHIPS AND BOATS

B A R Stephens 2358 cover.indd 1

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdoms Michael Allen Stephens

BAR International Series 2358 2012 14/03/2012 11:16:00

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdoms Michael Allen Stephens

BAR International Series 2358 2012

ISBN 9781407309446 paperback ISBN 9781407339252 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309446 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Evidence

2 Categorizations 2.1 Earlier categorization systems for Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats 2.1.1 Grasser 2.1.2 Reisner 2.1.3 Boreux 2.1.4 Tooley 2.1.5 Merriman 2.2 Proposed expanding of the reference and categorization systems of Reisner and Boreux 2.3 The Reisner hull categories 2.3.1 Those considered during this research project 2.3.2 Why some Reisner categories are not discussed in this work 2.3.3 The dating of the Reisner categories 2.4 The ETH Series of hull types 2.5 The Reisner hull types, by category and sub – category 2.5.1 Type I 2.5.2 Type II 2.5.3 Type III 2.5.4 Type IV 2.5.5 Type V 2.6 The ETH forms, by category and sub category 2.6.1 ETH 1 2.6.2 ETH 2 2.6.3 ETH 3 2.6.4 ETH 4 2.6.5 ETH 5 2.6.6 ETH 6 2.6.7 ETH 7 2.6.8 ETH 8 2.6.9 ETH 9 2.6.10 ETH 10 2.6.11 ETH 11 2.6.12 ETH 12 2.7 Summary and Dating

3 Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

3.1 Deck shapes 3.2 Covering Materials 3.3 Deck Houses and Canopy Frames 3.3.1 Type A. Free standing frames, positioned in the stern 3.3.2 Type B. Vertical sided, with cambered top i

1 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 16 20 26 29 32 32 35 35 36 36 36 38 40 41 41 42 43 43 49 49 50 50 50 51

3.3.3 Type C. Rectangular timber or fabric/matting covered 3.3.4 Type D 3.3.5 Type E Round topped shelters 3.3.6 Type F. Cargo stowage facilities 3.3.7 Type G. Free standing, for sacerdotal purposes 3.3.8 Type H. Baldachins 3.3.9 Type I. Awnings 3.3.10 Type J. Secondary awnings 3.3.11 Deck Railings 3.4 Stern rails 3.5 Side rails 3.6 Summary

4 Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses 4.1 Steerage and helm 4.1.1 Rudder shapes 4.1.2 Rudder construction 4.1.3 Loom shapes 4.1.4 Depictions of rudders in use 4.1.5 Rudder posts 4.1.6 Embellishment of the rudders 4.1.7 Rudder configurations 4.2 Mast stowage and mast rests 4.3 Mast trunks 4.4 Gangplanks 4.5 Rowing and paddling 4.6 Summary

5 Towing and punting

5.1 Towing by boats 5.2 Towing by combined means 5.3 Towing from ashore 5.4 Punting 5.5 Summary

6 Masts and Standing Rigging 6.1 Bipod Mast 6.1.1 The bipod masthead 6.1.2 Stepping and retaining the bipod 6.1.3 Lowering the mast 6.2 Hull length to mast height 6.3 Standing rigging 6.4 The tripod 6.5 The pole mast 6.5.1 Construction of the pole mast 6.5.2 Pole masthead 6.5.3 Mast foot 6.5.4 Securing the pole mast 6.5.5 Mast position 6.5.6 Ancillary mast fittings 6.5.7 Construction of the mast shoe ii

51 53 54 55 57 58 58 58 61 62 62 62 64 64 64 64 65 65 66 68 68 72 73 73 74 76 78 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 90 92 93 95 96 97 97 98 98 98 99 99

6.5.8 Standing rigging 6.6 Summary

7 Sails and Rigging

7.1 Yards and booms 7.1.1 The yard of the Old and Middle Kingdoms 7.1.2 The boom 7.1.3 Yard and boom combinations 7.1.4 Yard/Boom proportions 7.2 Sail construction 7.2.1 Sail shape 7.2.2 Securing the sail to the yard and boom 7.3 Raising the yard 7.4 Topping Lifts and Secondary Topping Lifts 7.4.1 Topping Lifts 7.4.2 Secondary topping lifts 7.4.3 Supporting the boom 7.4.4 Securing the boom 7.4.5 A sacred form of running rigging? 7.5 Making sail 7.5.1 Holding the sail to the wind 7.5.2 Bracing the yard 7.5.3 Sheeting the boom 7.6 Sail handling 7.6.1 Raising the boom 7.6.2 Furling the sail 7.7 Summary

8 Summary and Conclusions 9 Bibliography 10 Abbreviations Appendix 1 – The Examples 12.1 Abusir 12.2 Abydos 12.3 Asasif (Thebes) 12.4 Assiut 12.5 Aswan 12.6 Beni Hasan 12.7 Dahshur 12.8 Deir el Bahari 12.9 Deir el Gebrawi 12.10 Deshasha 12.11 El Bersheh 12.12 Elephantine 12.13 El – Hagarsa 12.14 El - Hammamiya 12.15 El - Hawawish 12.16 Giza 12.17 Helwan 12.18 Lisht

iii

99 100 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 109 110 112 112 112 112 113 113 114 120 124 126 126 128 129 130 131 131 136 137 140 143 144 146 147 147 147 151 155 156

12.19 Meir 12.20 Mo’Alla 12.21 Quseir el - Amarna 12.22 Rizagat 12.23 Saqqara 12.24 Sedment 12.25 Sheikh Said 12.26 Tell Ibrahim Awad 12.27 Thebes 12.28 Examples without provenance; or whose provenance is unclear.

Glossary of Technical Terms Appendix 2 Reisner Tabulated Data Appendix 3 ETH Tabulated Data

iv

157 165 165 165 165 186 186 187 187 189 197 199 215

List of Figures Fig. 1. [AB 05] (left) and [AB 06] (right), as catalogued in this research. From Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu-Re, 1913. Plate XIV. 4 Fig. 2. [ASI 07]. Image courtesy of Roemer - und Pelizaes - Museum, Hildesheim. Catalogue Number 1697. 5 Fig. 3. [S 52] (b) Altenmüller, H., Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara (Mainz, 1998). Plate. 20. 7 Fig. 4. T I H (a). From Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Plate. 19. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. Catalogued in this work as [TH 01]. Note the crew men standing on the platform protruding forward from the bow. 12 Fig. 5. T I H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, 1913, Item 4887. Plate XIV. 13 Fig. 6. [S 52] (c) From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu. Plate 22. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 15 Fig. 7. T I H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4882. Plate XIII. 16 Fig. 8. T II H (a). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1948. Plate 72a. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. 18 Fig. 9. T II H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4909. Plate XV. 18 Fig. 10. T II H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4846. Plate IX. 19 Fig. 11. T II H (d). From Garstang, The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt. Figure 88. Image courtesy of the University of Liverpool. 20 Fig. 12. T II H (e). From Petrie and Brunton, Sedment 1, 1924. Plate XX. 21 Fig. 13. T II H (f ). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4801. Plate II. 21 Fig. 14. T II H (g). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1920 (20.3.6) Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 22 Fig. 15. T III H (a). From Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. Vol. VI. Plate 47. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 25 Fig. 16. T III H (b). From Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. Vol. VI. Plate 50. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 25 Fig. 17. T III H (c). From Blackman, The Tomb of Antefoker. Plate IV. 25 Fig. 18. T III H (d). From Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir. Vol. I. Tomb of Senbi. Plate II. 26 Fig. 19. T III H (e). From Moussa and Altenmuller, das Grab Des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Figure. 12. Image courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 26 Fig. 20. T III H (f ). From Boreaux, Etudes de Nautique Egyptienne. Figure. 66. Image courtesy of IFAO, Cairo. 26 Fig. 21. T III H (g). From Kanawati, El-Hawawish. Vol. II. Figure. 17. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 27 Fig. 22. T IV H (a). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 21805. Plate 1a. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 28 Fig. 23. T IV H (b). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 9509. Figure 3. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 28 Fig. 24. T IV H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4803. Plate III 28 Fig. 25. T IV H (d). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 45089. Fig. 28. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 29 Fig. 26. T IV H (e). Image courtesy of Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien. Inv. No. 3923. 30 Fig. 27. T V H (a). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4811. Plate V. 32 Fig. 28. T V H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4915. Plate XVII. 32 Fig. 29. T V H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4917. Plate XVIV. 33

v

Fig. 30. T V H (d). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1948. Plate 64b. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. 33 Fig. 31. T V H (e). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. Plate. 34. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. 34 Fig. 32. ETH 1. From Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, Vol. II. Figure 19. Reproduced with the permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 34 Fig. 33. ETH 2. From Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti, 1913. Plate 119. 35 Fig. 34. ETH 3. From Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti, 1913. Plate 119. 36 Fig. 35. ETH 4. From de Morgan, Fouilles a’ Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Plate XXI. 37 Fig. 36. ETH 5. From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 45087. Figure 33. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. 37 Fig. 37. ETH 6. From Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahu-Re. 1913. Plate XII. 38 Fig. 38. ETH 7. From Moussa and Altenmuller, das Grab Des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Figure. 11. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 39 Fig. 39. ETH 8 (a). From Poujade, Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. 1948. Plate IV. 41 Fig. 40. ETH 8 (b). From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu, Plate 22 (a), courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 42 Fig. 41. ETH 8 (c). From Mcfarlane, The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. 1. The Tomb of Irukhapatah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 15. Plate 48. Reproduced with the permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 42 Fig. 42. ETH 9. From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4888. Plate XV. 43 Fig. 43. ETH 10. From Goyon, Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas’ in BIFAO. 69. 1971. Plate IV. Reproduced with the permission of BIFAO. 43 Fig. 44. ETH 11. From Petrie and Brunton, Sedment 1, Plate XXVI. 44 Fig. 45. ETH 12. From Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. Vol. IV. Plate. XV. 44 Fig. 46. Belaying pins aboard [DB 09] (a) and (b). From Naville, Deir El-Bahari, Part 3, 1913. Plate XIII. 72 Fig. 47. [DG 05] (a) and (b). From Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi, part II, 1902. Plate XIX. 74 Fig. 48. Rowers utilizing brackets aboard [L 03]. From Goedicke, Reused Blocks. Figure 49. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1922 (22.1.13) Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 75 Fig. 50. Grooved mast cap of [L 12] (a) From Goedicke. Reused Blocks. Figure 63. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 85 Fig. 51. Tensioned mast securing ropes aboard [L 10].Goedicke. Reused Blocks Figure 61. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 86 Fig. 52. [ELH 02] (a) and (b) From Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, Vol. I. Figure 9. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 87 Fig. 53. Tensioned ropes aboard [TH 03]. From Sharawi and Harpur. Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara, JEA 74. (London, 1988). Figure I. Image courtesy of Evyonne Harpur. 88 Fig. 54. [ELH 13] (a). Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish; Volume VI, Figure 3. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 92 Fig. 55. Tripod aboard [DG 01] (g). From Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others, Plate 32. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney. 95 Fig. 56. Tripod aboard [S 42] (b). From Pyramid Studies, ESS, (1988). Plate 9. 96 Fig. 57. The mast, sail, standing and running rigging of [DB 16] Group 2 (a). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art 107 Fig. 58. The mast, sail, and much less complex, but totally functional, standing and running rigging of [TH 02] (c). From Saleh. Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Fig. 10. Image courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 108 Fig. 59. Making sail aboard [S 52] (a). From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu, plate 19, courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. 109 Fig. 61. Controlling the sail aboard [L 11]. From Goedicke, Reused Blocks. Figure 62. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art 111

vi

1

Introduction

Ships and boats played an integral role in the creation, development and expansion of the Ancient Egyptian world. Without the Nile, the culture of Ancient Egypt could not have developed. There was, nor could there ever be, any greater influence on Egypt overall and upon the daily life of the Ancient Egyptians than their river.

and references to ships and boats abound in their religious texts. A common rule of thumb to differentiate a ship from a boat is that a boat can be placed onto a ship, but a ship cannot be placed onto a boat. A ship also requires a crew to operate it effectively, usually under the command of a recognized captain. A single individual, on the other hand, can often manage a boat. This rule of thumb has been employed in this work when considering what example is to be defined as a ship and which is to be classed as a boat.

Along the Nile, with its developing and complex web of canals and tributaries, the Nile was the only truly viable means for cheap, efficient transport over any great distance and for effective communication. Without water craft, Egypt would have struggled to develop past being a series of localized ruling families or tribal groups. There can have been few Egyptians who did not possess the skills to handle the simplest type available to them – the ubiquitous papyrus raft. These modest craft continued in existence alongside the more developed wooden hull forms, a number of which owed their shape to the earlier form of transportation. Not tethered entirely to their homeland, some Egyptians ventured further a field from their native soil on ocean voyages.

This work grew from an innate curiosity about the shapes and forms of the ships and boats of the Ancient World and particularly of the Ancient Egyptians. Many years sailing and the book by Nancy Jenkins, “The Boat beneath the Pyramid” which considered the vessel buried alongside the Great Pyramid of Giza sparked this curiosity; this craft is listed in the Appendix of this research paper as [G 01].1 Regretfully, a second buried vessel, located alongside the same Pyramid, could not be utilised, as the excavation of this vessel has not proceeded past its early, exploratory stages.

The development and construction of ships and boats reflect the level of technological, political and social development of a culture. Unless a society has advanced to a stage where specialist craftsmen, a surplus of consumable goods – including food and constructional materials - and an established social order exist, the development of water craft will enter a period of stagnation. On a cursory examination of the evidence, it could be assumed that the Egyptians had entered such a hiatus, but this would incorrect.

From this start point, the focus of research moved to the catalogue of model vessels in the Cairo Museum collection, published by Reisner, and the surviving hulls from Dahshur, two of which are recorded in Reisner’s catalogue. These sources were augmented and supported by the work by Boreux. Finds such as the timbers from Lisht added valuable information. The majority of the examples listed in Appendix 1 were sourced from publications, although I was able to personally view a number of the El-Hawawish vessels ([ELH 01] – [ELH 07]), as well as [P 45].

The ancient Egyptians reached a status very early in their civilization where, in relation to ship and boat construction, they had achieved a stage of technology which saw little development or major change until very late in their cultural status. This was not, however, a period of stagnation – their level of technological expertise developed within the boundaries of their available materials and maritime requirements, and clearly proved to be adequate for millennia. The developments undertaken by the Egyptians were refinements of their basic format of ship technology.

An interest in the greater variety of vessels to be known from the Old and Middle Kingdoms concentrated this researcher’s attention upon the craft of these periods. This, regretfully, precluded the use of the fine collection of model vessels from the Tutankhamen find, as they fell well outside the time scale of this research project. Three fragmentary examples of hull forms, supposedly not known until the Old Kingdom, have been included, as the categorization

In a society that was so reliant upon water born transport, it must come as no surprise that this dependency was also reflected in the religious values of the Ancient Egyptians

[G 01], N. Jenkins, The Boat Beneath the Pyramid, (New York, (1980). P. Lipke, The Royal Ship of Cheops, Oxford, 1984. C. Ward, Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats, Boston 2000. 1

1

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

system proposed in this research attempts to push back the previously accepted dates of some Egyptian hull shapes.2

expenditure of resources. Such expenditure may possibly have provided the spur for the introduction of the usage of model ships and boats. Not all excavated hulls from the period under consideration have survived their discovery. Hassan credits de Morgan, the excavator of the Dahshur vessels, with the finding of six hulls, but the locations of only four are known. Another vessel, possibly from Dyn I and listed in the Appendix as [S 01], was found at Saqqara, but, regretfully, was not preserved.6 Four vessels were discovered at Helwan, but were re-interred, and their location lost.7 Abusir has yielded a Dyn I craft, although its state of preservation is poor.8

It quickly became clear that the hull categories proposed by Reisner, although adequate at the time for his purpose of compiling the examples in the Cairo collection, was not broad enough to cover all hull forms utilised by the Egyptians. The existing classes of the basic list offered by Reisner required expansion, and the additional classes of hull forms not included amongst the models were in need of a categorization system of their own. 1.1 Evidence

Contrasting this rich source of evidence, the written record is poorer for the Old and Middle Kingdoms; however, texts and scenes describe ocean voyages, such as during the reign of Sneferu, bringing commodities such as turquoise back to Egypt. The recent discoveries at Wadi Gawasis of ship timbers from the Middle Kingdom also indicate the extent to which the State was organised to enable maritime trade to bring luxury goods back to Egypt. This site served as an entry port for such goods.

The complex and sophisticated method of ship and boat construction and operation utilised by the Egyptians during the Old and Middle Kingdoms indicates that they were consistent in style and technique. There is a considerable corpus of evidence to indicate the methods employed by the Ancient Egyptians to construct and utilise their ships and boats. The nature of the sources is diverse, consisting of reliefs depicting vessels being constructed or in use, models and surviving hulls or their fragmentary remains. There are a number of rock cut or brick built boats known, but these have played little part in this present research project.

The earliest finds of surviving Egyptian hulls which were sufficiently preserved to enable details of their construction to be examined were discovered buried at Dahshur, close to the burial of Senuseret III of the 12th dynasty. The role that these craft, listed here as [DA 01] (a) – (d), played in the funeral rites of the burial, if any, is unclear. The possibility exists that these examples, which may have been constructed either as ritual craft or functional vessels, did not actually form part of the funeral equipage of the king. Although these hulls, discovered by de Morgan, are a major primary source, their documentation is poor, although this has been clarified by Haldane. The hull illustrated by de Morgan cannot be specifically identified, and even the number of hulls discovered is open to speculation.

Giza and Dahshur are the find sites of surviving hulls, with a number of ships timbers found, reused in roadway construction at Lisht. Although these three sites are relatively close to each other, it must be considered as coincidental that these examples have survived, and nowhere else within Egypt proper. Ships timbers and associated ropes and fittings have been found at Wadi Gawasis, a site on the Red Sea coast.3 These have been interpreted as the remnants of organized fleets which were prefabricated in Egypt, dismantled and carried to the Red Sea then re-assembled and sailed to Punt.

Having been dismantled for restoration, [DA 01] (c) has provided evidence of shipbuilding techniques derived from a consideration of the joints, tool marks, carpenters lay out lines and the use of rope bindings in hull construction.9 At the time of their discovery the hulls were subjected to extreme levels of reworking, unfortunately resulting in important features demonstrating the method of construction being erased. Double dovetail joints now help to hold the timbers together, but these appear to be only modern additions. These hulls must be viewed with extreme

The Egyptians of the Early Dynastic period practiced the custom of the burial of boats close to the tombs of kings and the elite, a custom which recurred throughout the period under consideration in this study. D. O’Connor has discovered fourteen such craft at Abydos, hulls which are considered to be the earliest plank constructed hulls known.4 Interred in trenches cut into the rock and then enclosed and covered with mud brick walls, variations in the techniques of completing the boat graves, their sizes and noticeable inconstancies in alignment suggests that these hulls were not interred at the same time.5 The level of preservation of these craft is, regretfully, poor. The cost to the state for the surrender of such vessels to the grave must have been tremendous in terms of time, labour and the

W. Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, London, 1958. Tomb 3506. pls. 44, 66 and 67. 7 F. Raffaele, Helwan. http://xoomer.alice.it/francescoraf/hesyra/helwan. htm 8 A. Radwin, Ein Jenseitsboot Der 1. Dynastie Aus Abusir – Teil 1, Menes Band 5. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der agyptischen Fruhzeit und der Alten Reiches, Wiesbaden, 2008. pp. 559 – 657. J. Lindeman, Ein Jenseitsboot Der 1. Dynastie Aus Abusir – Teil 2, Menes Band 5. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der agyptischen Fruhzeit und der Alten Reiches, Wiesbaden, 2008. pp. 573 – 580. 9 D.C. Patch and C. Haldane, The Pharaohs Boat at the Carnegie, Pittsburgh, 1990. 6

These are [SKS 04], [H 01] and [H 04], all dated to Dyn II. It Portale De Archeologica, Archaeogate Egittologia, 17 May 2006. www.archaeogate.org/egittologia/article/441/8/joint-archaeologicalexpedition-at-mersawadi-gawasis-re.html 4 R. Pierce, After 5,000 year voyage, world’s oldest built boats deliver, http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/abydos.htm. Ward, Sacred and Secular, p. 39. J. N. Wilford, Early Pharaoh’s Ghostly Fleet,. http://www.library. cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/farflt.htm. 5 Ward, Sacred and Secular, p. 41. 2

3

2

Introduction

caution when examined as sources of the means of Egyptian nautical construction.

phases of hull construction would seem to be represented alongside each other. The scale of the hulls in relation to the shipwright’s final product gives a distorted view of hull size.

The extant sources were greatly augmented by the discovery and subsequent reassembly of the dismantled vessel [G 01] buried alongside the pyramid of Khufu at Giza. Although [G 01] is relatively well documented and has not undergone any drastic re-working, the same cannot be said for the hulls from Dahshur.10 Like the Dahshur boats, the provenance of [G 01] cannot be contested.

[G 0I], and especially the [DA 01] vessels, need to be viewed with consideration to the circumstances of their burial and find sites when considering the means employed in the construction of the Egyptian hull. The location of these hulls in conjunction with burial sites is a strong indication that they were either intended for use by the deceased in an afterlife, or buried after use during the funeral ceremonies, possibly to prevent the potential desecration of items which had been rendered sacred by their association with the burial rites for the dead. If such craft were not intended for re-use, at least in this life, the techniques used in their fabrication may possibly be at odds with those used to build more worldly hulls.

For the majority of Egyptian craft of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the only evidence for the shapes of their hulls is that derived by an examination of vessels in either model form or iconographic depiction. The models show considerable variety in quality and technique and, of course, in their level of preservation. Solid block forms prevail, with components such as deckhouses, steering gear and rigging added as necessary. A number of stone, ceramic or even models fashioned from unbaked mud are known. Rock cut pits and brick structures in the shape of boats have given additional information.

Allowance must also be made for the possibility of the constructional details of these hulls having become blurred, due to the methods employed in their reconstruction or preservation. Such caution is necessary especially for the [DA 01] examples, which lack ribs or a stringer to support their decks.12

The greatest numbers of examples available are either model boats or vessels depicted in tomb scenes or funerary temples. Model ships and boats were placed into tombs from a very early era. The majority of the surviving examples are from the Middle Kingdom, but it can be seen that they were utilised during earlier periods. [H 01] and [H 02] have been dated to Dyn 1, [EL 01] to Dyn II and [ELH 08] to Dyn VI, as are [M 31] to [M 36], [S 06] (a) and (b) and [S13] (a) – (h).11

A question which must be asked about the surviving hulls and hull fragments is whether or not they are to be considered as typical of everyday vessels, or are they constructed and intended for funerary purposes only? Do they show the techniques utilised to construct everyday working craft?

Despite the existence of numerous iconographic renditions depicting ships and boats in use, the same cannot be said of depictions of shipbuilding. Those known are lacking in clear detail, and must be viewed with caution, as various

In Appendix 1, the sources employed in this work have been divided according to provenance, with their find site first being cited in full and then abbreviated to form part of their individual reference number. This is followed by a sequential number and sub number, (where needed), then date, author and example type - i.e. - surviving hull or timber remnants, models (of timber, stone or ceramic) or painted/sculpted iconographic representations. The page, plate or figure number follows, with the orientation and location, where applicable. These are followed by the name of the tomb owner (if identifiable). When referred to in the text, the footnotes reflect these divisions.

For an in depth consideration of the construction and conservation of these hulls, see Ward, Sacred and Secular, Chapter VIII. 11 [H 01], Z.Y. Saad, The Excavations at Helwan, Oklohoma, 1969. p.183. pl. 104. [H 02], Saad, Helwan, pl. 103. [EL 01] W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, A. Krekler, et al, MDAIK 44. pls. 13 and 44. [ELH 08] Naguib Kanawati, TheRock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim, Vol III, Sydney, 1982, Tomb of Tjeti., pl. 9 (d). [M 31], G. Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Catalogue General des antiquities egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, 1913, Item 4882. pp. 53-54, pl. XIII. [M 32], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4883. J. Poujade, Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons, Paris, 1948, pl. V. [M 33], Reisner, Ships and Boats, pp. 53-54. [M 34], Ships and Boats. pp. 56-57, pl. XIV. [M 35], Ships and Boats. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VII. [M 36], Reisner, Ships and Boats, pl. XV. [S 06] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. XXXIII, fig. 18. [S 07] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 5, [S 08], Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. III, fig. II, G. Jequier, Les Pyramides des reines Neit et Apouit, Cairo, 1933, XXXVI, fig. II. [S 09], Poujade, Trois flotilles, fig. II. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. IV, Jequier, Neit et Apouit, pl. XXXV. [S 11], Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. 86. Jequier, Neit et Apouit, figs. 9, 10 and 20. [S 12], Poujade, Trois flotilles., [S 13] (a), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 27, B. Landstrom, Ships of the Pharaohs, N.Y and London, 1970. figs. 194 – 195. Cairo Museum Model 63 184. [S 13] (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. X. Cairo Museum Model 63 186. [S 13] (c), Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. IX. Cairo Museum Model 63 191. (d), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 21. Cairo Museum Model 63 192. (e), Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. VIII. Cairo Museum Model 63 193. (f), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 24. (g). Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 24. J. Vandier, Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne, 6 volumes. (h), Poujade, Trois flotilles, fig. 24. 10

Where the find site is unclear, as in the case of examples listed in catalogues by such annotations as “Purchased at Luxor” or where no point of discovery is offered, these examples have been identified in the Sources with the prefix [P and a number] to indicate the unclear nature of the provenance of the examples in question. A detailed consideration of the individual craft has been supplied in Appendix 1, as there is too wide a variety of information to be included in the main text. The central plank and first strakes of [DA 01] (c) display rows of shallow recesses, 2.2 x 2.0 x 0.5 – 1.2 cms. These may have been intended to receive stanchions to support the deck beams. Ward, Sacred and Secular, p. 87. fig. 37. 12

3

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 1. [AB 05] (left) and [AB 06] (right), as catalogued in this research. From Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu-Re, 1913. Plate XIV.

In the Tabulated Data, the examples have been listed by their location and number, and allocated a hull type. The Reisner hulls, which Reisner has categorized as Type, followed by a Roman numerical suffix, have been abbreviated to T, followed by the appropriate number and subcategory – e.g. Type II has become T II.

long life, and is to be seen as early as the Old Kingdom, such as [ELH 02] (a), dated to the late VI Dynasty.14 When dealing with the discipline of Egyptology, which is, overall, of relatively recent establishment, the researcher must face a number of problems, primarily in the constancy and reliability of the source materials. The standards of recording in the earlier periods were not always as thorough as those of more recent times. Concepts that had been proposed just prior to, or soon after, the Great War, have become the accepted standards and examples, with continuing political disturbances restricting further development.

The prefix ETH (Expedient Type Hull) followed by a class or sub – class number has been utilised in this work to designate a hull form or class from the Old to the end of the Middle Kingdom and which falls outside the categorization system as established by Reisner. This has been done to leave open a further expansion of Reisner’s categorization to include craft of the New Kingdom, the Pre Dynastic era and vessels of a purely ideological nature.

The ships and boats of Ancient Egypt have generally been viewed from their undoubted religious roles in ancient beliefs, but there has been less interest in them from an approach into research into their more common, every day usage. Perhaps the greatest problems to be faced, there being no overall shortage of examples to be found, was the need to resist the temptation to continually add new examples to the Data Base.

Iconographic representations and models of vessels have been treated in this work in the same manner as actual vessels, with allowance for vagaries in technique and artistic capability on the part of the ancient artists and craftsmen who produced them. The number of surviving craft is far too small for any overall picture of their characteristics and features to be established, and it is necessary, despite the occasional errors wrought by the ancient artists and model makers to rely on their ability to depict what they saw in day to day life.

An additional difficulty lies in the interpretation of extant sources, which have suffered through incorrect restoration or through possible misunderstanding of the techniques to construct the example. [P 07] is supposedly carved from a single piece; the stern, however, is of a different scale than the bow, being both lower and narrower. The bow is higher than the stern, but, again, this may be due to the stern being intended for a smaller model. To this researcher, this seems to be indicative of this section of the hull having been possibly originally intended for a smaller model, but utilised on a larger work.15

In some instances, however, iconographic depictions and models illustrate vessels whose hulls are extremely high and with a very short waterline.13 In the case of such models, the extremities of the hull are correspondingly high and steeply angled. This style of depiction can be seen to have had a For a few examples of iconographic depictions, see [BH 02] (b) and (c), P. Newberry, Beni Hasan, 4 vols, London, 1893 – 1900. pl. XIV. [BH 03] (a) – (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI. [BH 04] (b) - (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. Some instances of models are [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918, pl. XVIII. [ASI 07], E. Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Grabbeigaben, Nachtrage und Erganzungen. Mainz, 1991. pls. 6, 97 – 98, 6, 100. J. Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, New York, 1948, pl. 75b. J. Garstang, The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, London, 1907. fig 91. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 229. [DB 16] Group 1, H. Winlock, Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt, Mass, 1935. pls. 45 – 48, 79 – 81. [M 13], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4801, pp. 5 - 7. 13

N. Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. 1. fig. 8. 15 S.R.K. Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, vol II, Wooden Boats, revised and completed by R.O. Faulkner, London, 1972. British Museum Model. 9524. pp. 11 – 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. [P 07], a funerary craft displayed in the British Museum, is described by Glanville as being carved from a single piece. Although the bow merges into the hull both in plan and elevation, it can be seen that the stern area of the hull, aft of the bulwarks, is left unsupported, as the stern does not merge with the hull. 14

4

Introduction

Fig. 2. [ASI 07]. Image courtesy of Roemer - und Pelizaes - Museum, Hildesheim. Catalogue Number 1697.

Another instance of error is to be seen in the reassembly of [AB 05], a papyriform vessel, being rowed, which consists of several fragments of wall scene. The first impression is that of six fragments, constituting an almost complete vessel, one fragment being a section of the bow. Since, however, this section has no replicate bindings, and is also thinner than the stern; it cannot have belonged to those fragments constituting the rest of this craft. There are also difficulties with the actions and orientation of the crew.16

rudder, the one furthest aft, has a tiller. There is nothing to retain this second rudder other than two short lengths of rope, one from the head of the rudder post and the other between the rudder looms, just above the rudder blades. This impractical arrangement may represent an attempt on the part of the restorers to depict aboard this otherwise excellent model a steering configuration which is seen in some representations where there is a single rudder post and two rudders, turned by a single tiller. It is considered in this work that both configurations are incorrect.

Occasionally, extra fittings appear to have been added during restoration. [ASI 07] is shown, in one publication, with two rudders, both passed over the port quarter in some illustrations, and to either side of the rudder post in other illustrations.17

Despite these apparent discrepancies aboard [ASI 07], it is possible that, in this instance, we can see an example of a means for maneuvering water craft not depicted elsewhere in association with Ancient Egyptian vessels. A crewman forward, on the starboard side, appears to be struggling to manage the weight of a short shafted rudder, even though the rudder is secured to the side by a lashing. From his posture, this seems to have been intended to represent the use of either a sounding or punting pole, although it may just be possible that, since the rudder he is using is secured to the side of the hull, he is using it to move the vessel sideways, away from a dock or another craft.18

A much earlier illustration of this example has been published by Winlock, where the rudders have been positioned on either side of the stern. In the Martin-Pardey illustrations, they are lashed to the rudder post, but only one 16 These constitute examples [AB 05] and [AB 06] of this work. L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. Band II: Die Wandbilder, Leipzig 1913. pl. XIV. In support of this hypothesis, the arm of a crew member is seen, holding the upper end of an oar or paddle. This is much thinner than the looms of the oars in use aboard, and the arm is oriented in the opposite direction of the rowers, i.e. forward. 17 [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. For both rudders along the port quarter, see pl. 6, 100, for either side of the rudderpost, pls. 6, 97-98. Breasted, Servant Statues, pl. 75 (b).

He is to be seen standing just forward of the mast in Fig. 2, above. I have performed this action myself, when moving a small craft away from a dock when the water has been too deep to use an oar as a punting pole. 18

5

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Allowances need to be made, when examining the available material, for the number of examples from some areas and the apparent lack of evidence from others. Sites such as Giza, Meir or Saqqara may offer more examples than other sites, such as Abusir, Elephantine, Helwan or Sheik El Said, and yet the examples from these sites can serve as a rich source of information. The quality of restoration and the accuracy of the records of finds must also be viewed with caution in some instances, as occasionally these can be misleading. [P 17], a model of a papyriform boat and supposedly from Akhmim, shows inconsistency in the depiction of the bow and stern finials.19 A comparison of the published drawing (fig. 37, p. 9. of Reisner, Ships and Boats), when compared to Reisner’s pl. III, shows that the drawing and plate are at odds with each other, particularly in the shape and angle of the bow. Reisner’s fig. 37 shows the bow rising at 30°, and then turning horizontally forward. Pl. III, however, reveals that it rises at 20°, and that if the model had not been damaged, would continue onward without any sharp deviation.

erased. Double dovetail joints now help to hold the timbers together, but these appear to be only modern additions. [DA 01] (c), located in the Carnegie Museum, is displayed with a rudder post and rudder positioned on the starboard side. As displayed, the positioning is most probably incorrect. A wide gap exists between its shaft and the rudder post, which would result in the rudder being held at an angle to the hull axis. The rudder itself is too short to have reached into the water if the inboard end of the loom were to be secured against the upper reaches of the rudder post. This discrepancy may perhaps be explained as being due to an arbitrary allocation to this vessel of a rudder post and rudder found in the context of the excavation. Vagaries of interpretation also exist in scenes where the artist or modeler has either made an error, details have been omitted, or where scenes have been left incomplete. Some vessels are depicted with two rudders but only one rudder post, the shafts of the rudders aboard other examples cross. The modeler who constructed [P 11] has reversed the bow and stern finials. That at the “bow” is straight, while the stern finial curves forward and then up.23 The orientation of the crew of [P 11] is incorrect, as they go about their duties facing the stern, rather than the bow. In a confused scene, aboard [EB 06] (e), the foot of this vessels unstepped mast sits in a mast rest aboard [EB 06] (f), alongside.24

Aboard [M 15], a restored model of a T II H vessel, forty rowers, from different models, are to be seen.20 A tall pole, topped with a Horus head stands in the bow of this vessel, but this cannot be considered as original. Reisner has described the bow as the stern, despite the difference in height and the presence of the rudder support block. The restorers have positioned the rowers so that they face the bow. The craft is illustrated as fig. 15 of this work.

A consideration of [S 52] (b) shows that some confusion is present in the depiction of the boom. Although overall the boom is straight, an error seems to have occurred during the drafting of the scene. Inboard of the end of the boom, on the starboard side, and as if overlaying it, is a raised projection. It appears that the boom had originally been drawn either as a yard, as carried aboard [S 52] (a), ahead of [S 52] (b), and that it was then redrafted, either to create the depiction of a straight boom, or quite simply because the original depiction was simply too short.25

Occasionally, there may also be differences and variations in the depiction of an example from one recorder to another. [M 31], apparently a small sailing craft, is a good case in point. Reisner shows the hull bottom narrowing towards midships and widening towards both the bow and stern.21 This configuration is also to be seen in Landstrom’s illustration. Gottlicher and Werner, in contrast, have flared the lines of the hull bottom outwards from midships forward.22

[EB 10], dated to Dyn. XII, is a timber model of a papyriform vessel, being rowed, although a mast is also associated with the model, leaning against the forward edge of a crude shrine, positioned towards the stern. The workmanship of the vessel is very poor with angular sides; this angularity is repeated in the raised bow and vertical stern finial, both of which are capped with flat button umbels.26 There appears to be no other example of this hull configuration. Without the stern finial, the craft closely resembles a T IV H (d), and it is concluded here that this example is the result of the modeler converting such a model to depict a funerary craft.

The orientation of the mast aboard [M 31] is also conjectural. On one face of the masthead is a protruding block. Reisner’s line drawing (fig. 190) shows this as facing forward, but his plate (pl. XIII) shows it facing aft. The four vessels discovered at Dahshur, listed in this work as [DA 01] (a) – (d), although major primary sources, have suffered from poor documentation and extensive non sympathetic restoration. The hull illustrated by de Morgan cannot be specifically identified, and even the number of hulls discovered is open to speculation. At the time of their discovery the hulls were subjected to extreme levels of reworking with the unfortunate result of important features demonstrating the method of construction being 19 20 21 22

Despite such occasional error in depiction, a number of Glanville, Catalogue, British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 37. pl VIII. 24 Newbery, El Bersheh. part 1. The Tomb of Tehuti – Hetep. London. pl. XVIII. 25 [S 52] (a) – (g). Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara, Mainz, 1998. pls. 19 – 22. 26 Breasted, Servant Statues, pl. 64 (a). 23

Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4804, pp. 9 – 10. pl. III. Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4801, pp. 5 – 7. pl. II, fn. 4. Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882, p. 54. fig. 193. pl. XIII. Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XXXI

6

Introduction

Fig. 3. [S 52] (b) Altenmüller, H., Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara (Mainz, 1998). Plate. 20.

incidental details are revealed to the observer, giving aspects of details of Egyptian life upon the Nile. Crew members may occasionally be seen wearing floatation devices of papyrus across their shoulders, gentlemen sit sedately in wicker chairs fishing or a woman steering a cargo boat may also have her children about her.

it impossible to confirm the presence or absence of these fittings.

As the resource base of Ancient Egyptian vessels grew, the configurations of rigging and steerage also presented a need for categorization. Boreux had examined these aspects in some detail, but new material that has become available needs to be incorporated. These needs have been considered in this work, especially the Khufu vessel – [G 01].

No examination of Ancient Egyptian ships and boats, of any Dynasty or Kingdom, could be complete without at least a mention of the Greek historian Herodotus. Although his observations are from a period well outside the time scale of this research project, the influence of Herodotus on the topic has been great.27 Amongst the myriad of remarks and observations that he records, either from first hand experience or from that of other travelers, is a description of the construction and usage of Egyptian cargo vessel of his time. Herodotus states quite clearly that he is describing cargo craft, from which this researcher concludes that there needs be no assumption that other forms of water craft were similarly constructed. Regretfully, opinions are divided as to whether or not Herodotus ever visited Egypt, however his description of the country, its customs and history are the closest those observers and researchers in the modern world can come to holding factual observations of Egypt at that time in their hands.

Bow and stern angles, hull, mast and rigging proportions have been listed in the Tabulated Data. The examples utilised are listed by site, type and date.

The construction of the finials, baldachin, awning frames and deckhouse of [G 01] have received particular attention, as these are the only extant examples available for study. The techniques used to build these fittings aboard this vessel have been approached by this researcher from a constructional point of view, in an attempt to give these fittings the attention that they deserve. From the preliminary, non - destructive survey of the second vessel next to the Great Pyramid, there appear to be no finials included with this craft. Unfortunately, the non continuation of the clearance of the burial pit has made

For commentary on boats in the writings of Herodotus, see A. Lloyd, Herodotus, Book II, Commentary 1 – 98, pp. 384 – 390. Leiden, 1976.

27

7

2

Categorizations

2.1 Earlier categorization systems for Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats

differences in the features of the deckhouses were utilised to further develop his categories.2 Boreux recognised the influence that papyrus craft had played in the development of hull configuration, however he did not delve very deeply into the classification of hulls, being content to place craft into very basic categories. Cargo craft, for example, were categorised as Class A or Class B, more due to their deckhouse configurations than variations in hull shape.3

There are three extant systems for the classification of ancient Egyptian ships and boats, with an additional sub class of hull offered and a fourth system advanced in 2011. These systems are considered here in date order of their development. Grasser presented his system in 1869, Reisner in 1913, Boreux in 1925 and Merriman in 2011.

This usage of a broad characterisation technique of Boreux is also quite apparent in his categorisation of the profiles of papyrus craft. These were divided into two main forms, namely vessels either with equal and symmetrical extremities or unequal, non-symmetrical extremities.4 A third form consisted of papyrus craft where only one end of the craft was raised clear of the water.5 Unlike Reisner, there was no overall dating sequence offered, although dating criteria were offered throughout the text.

2.1.1 Grasser Boreux cites Grasser as the first authority to develop a classification system categorising the vessels of the ancient Egyptians.1 Grasser divided the forms into five categories, namely: 1. The lesser boats. (Class A), 2. River cargo boats. (Class B), 3. Larger river boats, which could be utilised both for travelling and cargo conveyance, either with or without a regular system of rowers. (Class C), 4. Boats conveying mummies. (Class D), and 5. Vessels for use on the Red Sea. (Class E).

2.1.4 Tooley A.M.J. Tooley offered an additional hull category to those of Reisner, intended to classify small utilitarian craft, of small scale and shallow draft, taking into account profile and internal construction. In her earlier submission, Tooley identified five features which were to be employed to identify these craft. These are: the small scale of the model, squared bow and shallow, spoon-shaped hull, a hollowed out interior; and a forked rudder support at the stern, however, no categorisation number was offered.6 It was intended that these small craft be accepted as being a more realistic reflection of working boats along the Nile, as oppose to model funerary boats.7 It was later proposed that this type of craft be classified as Type VIII, to expand the Reisner types. 8 The author was concerned to offer a system for identifying models which consisted of a fully hollowed hull, and proposed that such models were to be indicated by their hull type but with a suffix of viii; the lower case

2.1.2 Reisner Reisner developed a typological series of hull shapes, resulting in a list of eight categories. He based his system on the models and two surviving hulls in the Cairo Museum, with some references to tomb scenes. The hulls and models were depicted either in line drawing and/or as photographs; the latter being especially useful for research purposes, with a brief description of each item. A date sequence was also offered. Not all items in the catalogue were illustrated; some items, such as oars or rudders, were only numbered and described. 2.1.3 Boreux Boreux also developed a typological series, presented in his Etudes De Nautique Egyptienne. He proposed a system in which hull shapes were divided by perceived usage, and then sub-categorised by the regularity, or irregularity, of the bows and sterns of the vessels under consideration. The

Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 259. fig. 78. Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. pp. 259 – 260. fig 78 – 79. 4 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 222, figs. 64, 65. 5 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 223, fig. 66. 6 A.M.J. Tooley, ‘An unusual type of model boat’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol 72, 1986, p. 189. 7 A.M.J. Tooley, ‘An unusual type of model boat’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol 72, 1986, p. 192. 8 A.M.J. Tooley, ‘Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models’, in ZAS 118, 1991, p. 68. 2 3

Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 175. Grasser, Resultate de Dumicken (Das Seewesen der alten Aegypten), Berlin, 1869. 1

8

Categorizations

letter (a) was to indicate partially hollow models.9 A hollow Type II hull, for example, would be designated as a Type II/viii. Although of interest, the system, due to its aim of sub categorising hull types by modelling technique, has not been utilised in this work.

faced also with the problem (if that is the correct term) of iconographic depictions of hulls. As her work does not delve into the information available from sources other than models, I would suggest that her proposed categorization system is not of value to a wider research audience. As such, I have not followed her proposed categorisation system.

2.1.5 Merriman Ann Merriman proposed a categorization system, focusing upon models of Egyptian watercraft and utilising a very wide range of examples.10 She considered – quite rightly – that the system established by Reisner required expansion. Although many of her sources are from George Reisner’s Models of Ships and Boats, she conducted an exhaustive search for lesser known, or even unknown, examples, both by correspondence and by personal observation. A large number of examples held in various museums and collections, or offered for sale by various means, and whose authenticity is doubtful, were also listed. This forms a most useful adjunct to her work.

2.2 Proposed expanding of the reference and categorization systems of Reisner and Boreux The two major existing categorisation systems both have their merits. That of Reisner, being based upon extant models and surviving hulls with a single collection, formed a solid base of primary sources. It should be understood from the outset that Reisner devised his Catalogue for the purpose of assigning a typological number to the models and hulls in the Cairo Museum. He stated, most correctly, that every type of model boat in the collection had parallels in the tomb scenes.11 The reverse, however, was not the case, since not all the forms of hull depicted in the tombs were represented in the Cairo collection, an example of this being the T III H vessels – the papyrus rafts. Reisner was not able to include any great amount of ancillary material, given the boundaries of the intention behind his publishing of his Catalogue. The categorisation system of Boreux was based on a wider span of source material than that of Reisner, drawing upon tomb scenes, models and hull remains, as well as excavation reports and numerous secondary sources, such as Lepsius’s Denkmaler. Considerable attention was given to the classification of such aspects of shipping as sails, rigging and masts.

As the intent was to examine models of Egyptian watercraft, it therefore allowed only an overview and passing reference to the information deduced from the Khufu ship, found buried alongside the Great Pyramid and the surviving hulls from Dahshur. Focusing on models, the vast amount of information available from iconographic sources did not receive detailed consideration. Of concern to me is the method Merriman adopts to create some of her classes, many of which consist of single examples. A single instance of an example is generally not considered adequate to form a type. This, of course, could be overcome if her hull types and categorisations were based upon both models and iconographic depictions. Focusing only on models, the advantage of broader spectrum sourcing is lost. Rejecting the accepted means of categorising a hull or vessel type by its profile – which is standard nautical design and/or research procedure, Merriman has developed a system where an example is designated as either papyrus or timber construction, and then allocated to a class by virtue of the fittings and attributes – major or minor, to be seen aboard. Merriman offers a most useful consideration of the dating and distribution of find sites of the models utilized throughout the Egyptian Nomes – the administrative zones of Ancient Egypt.

The availability of new material since the publication of these two works presented the opportunity for both systems to be re-assessed and consolidated, providing a broader range of hull types with an accompanying re-examination of masts, rigging and fittings and proposed dates. This work attempts to offer such an expanded range of hull sub - categories, to increase the number of hull forms and categorise. Although both of the systems under consideration had merit, in this work, that of Reisner has been considered here to be the most efficient basis for the categorisation of Egyptian ships and boats of the period under consideration.

I have some difficulty in deciding her target audience. The methodology is in depth, and would appear, at least to me, to be of most value to a person with very specialist needs. For a researcher or curator examining the features (attributes) of a model, this work could hold considerable value. Models do vary considerably in the quality and quantity of fittings and fixtures carried aboard, but one is

2.3 The Reisner hull categories 2.3.1 Those considered during this research project Although Reisner offered eight classes of vessel in his categorisation system, only the opening five of those he proposed will be of concern in this work, as they pertain to the period upon which this research project is centred.12 The eight categories listed by Reisner are:

A.M.J. Tooley, ‘Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models’, in ZAS 118, 1991, p. 70. 10 A. Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods. Oxford, 2011. 9

11 12

9

Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. II Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. III.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Type I. Square - cut river craft, with two rudders. Allocated to the Old Kingdom.

that it existed prior to this dating. [G 01] belongs to this class, although Reisner was of the opinion that this craft came into existence just prior to the Middle Kingdom.16

Type II. River craft with tapering bow, rising stern and one rudder. This class of hull appears to have been very successful, and, apart from the ubiquitous papyrus rafts, is the most commonly found form of vessel, either in model or wall scene form. Reisner allocated this type to the Middle Kingdom; however a model from Helwan - [H 01] - suggests the possibility that the Type II may have been known as early as Dyn. I.13 A hull from Saqqara, [S 01], which, regretfully, was not preserved, augments this possibility. Allocated, as was [H 01], to the Old Kingdom, [S 01], if it has been dated correctly, exerts great influence on the accuracy of the dating of Reisner’s Type II hull.14 There are difficulties with the description of [S 01] when compared to iconographic representations and models of T II H craft. Viewed in profile, the hull must be classified as a T II H, especially when the upturned stern is factored in. The excavator records that the vessel had two holds containing pottery, one at each end of the cabin. Neither the published drawing nor the photographs, which indicate the pottery as being on the deck, confirm the existence of a hold. Three T II H models - [DB 16] Group 2 (b), (c) and (d) - have the main deck area hollowed out, with the central stringer and deck beams fashioned separately to the hull, and it is possible that the supposed holds may equate with this configuration. The cabin is also problematical, with planks laid on the deck between the two deposits of pottery perhaps serving as a symbolic cabin, but no other evidence as to the possible shape or structure of the hypothetical cabin was offered to clarify this matter. The cabins to be expected aboard this hull form are of lighter construction.

Type VI. Solar barques. As described in the catalogue, Reisner considers these as models of private craft. Type VII. Divine barques. Type VIII. New Empire boat models. These categories were then placed into three broad divisions; 1. Boats for ordinary use - (travel, conveyance of freight, hunting or pleasure). 2. Boats for funeral purposes - (ceremonial boats). 3. Solar boats used in the Under - World - (magical boats). A fourth category was also proposed, which were of both ceremonial and magical use. These consisted of boats placed in the temples for the use of the gods, or in ceremonies such as the Osiris mysteries. Continuing with the development of his categorisation, Reisner then divided his boats into another two broad categories, based upon the structure, or structural origin, of the hull form. Category (A) represented wooden boats and (B) the papyrus craft. By the combination of these functional and structural qualities, Reisner was able to present the following series of types: 1A - Types I and II,

The majority of the models in the Cairo collection as listed by Reisner are of the T II class.

1B - Types III and IV, 2B - Type V,

Type III. Swamp boat, papyrus rafts. There were no models of papyrus craft in the collection at the time of publication. When used for fishing or fowling, these could be paddled or punted. Two examples, however, [DG 04] (b) and [DG 05] (b), are both depictions of papyrus craft rigged with a bipod mast.15 Other examples show vessels built of papyrus being utilised as funeral vessels, where they are towed.

3A - Type VI; 4A - Type VII. The Type VIII was not included in this series of types.17 2.3.2 Why some Reisner categories are not discussed in this work

Type IV. Papyriform wooden boat of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. These craft reproduce in timber the earlier vessel of this shape. Undoubtedly, the Type III craft continued in use alongside the Type IV hull.

To reiterate, the purpose of this work was to reappraise the working and ceremonial vessels utilised during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. By necessity, this meant omitting vessels of the latter periods, as well as the purely mythical forms of craft. It is not to be forgotten that all the vessels of the period under consideration in this work, either found in association with burials as actual hulls, or present in model form, served a magical purpose. This is also true for depictions of vessels represented iconographically, either in tomb scenes, or present in texts.

Type V. Funeral bark (sic) of papyrus - form. Reisner placed this type in the Middle Kingdom, however it will be seen Z. Y. Saad, The Excavations at Helwan, Oklahoma, 1969, p. 183. pl. 104. Due to the very disturbed nature of the Helwan site, the allocated date must be viewed with caution. 14 W. Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasy III, London, 1958, Tomb 3506, pls. 44, 66 – 67. 15 [DG 04] (a) and (b), Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. Tomb of Zau and Tombs of the Northern Group. 2 vols. London, 1902. pl. XVII. [DG 05] (a) and (b), Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. XII. 13

16 17

10

Reisner, Ships and Boats, pl. XXII. Reisner, Ships and Boats, pp. III – IV.

Categorizations

The sixth and seventh classes proposed by Reisner were solar or divine barques, vessels of a fully magical nature, such as the Day and Night Boats of the Pyramid Texts, belonging purely to the realm of mythology and falling outside the boundaries of this research project. The Day and Night Boats, forming the Type VI class, were to be recognized not only from their most distinctive profiles, and their lack of crew, but also from the emblems of various deities. Known from the Old and through to the Middle Kingdoms, these vessels persisted in iconographic depictions. If such craft were ever built in timber and floated out upon the Nile is unknown; the possibility cannot be discounted, but there is no evidence for them.

“T”, these hulls, for working purposes, have been prefixed with the letters “ETH” (Expedient Type Hull), with a corresponding number and sub category. This has been done since the vessels of neither the Pre - Dynastic Era nor the New Kingdom have been considered in any great depth this work. A different research project will be necessary to cope with these aspects of Egyptian maritime and riverine history. Upon the completion of such a project, the various categorisations could then be re-numbered to offer a continuous type/date sequence. ETH 1. River craft. Both the bow and stern were fashioned with a rounded profile. The stern is extended by a flat or slightly angled platform.

The Type VIII class, the New Kingdom models, few of which were known at the time of the compilation of the Reisner Catalogue, were certainly not be the only class of vessels identifiable and classifiable from the New Kingdom. As Reisner was only classifying vessels known from models in the Cairo collection, other hulls dating from the New Kingdom were not considered, as they were only known iconographically. Unlike the Old Kingdom, with its rich variety of hull types, the New Kingdom was relatively sterile, with few variations, although some of the features of the latter craft can be tentatively identified in the Middle Kingdom. Only when the Type VII and VIII vessels and the New Kingdom classes and their associated time periods are considered can a full categorization of Ancient Egyptian shipping be established.

ETH 2. River craft characterised by a tapered, square cut bow and pointed stern. ETH 3. River craft, with both bow and stern truncated. ETH 4. River craft, with a truncated bow and rounded stern. ETH 5. River craft, with a square bow and rounded stern, as per the ETH 4 hull, but with different steerage equipment. ETH 6. Vessel for use at sea. The hull had a rounded bow and stern, stern rails and, in comparison to many of the vessels utilised by the Ancient Egyptians, had a relatively uncluttered deck.

2.3.3 The dating of the Reisner categories Reisner gave the following chronological succession for his hull types.18

ETH 7. River craft, with a hedgehog figurehead at bow, although other forms of animal heads could also appear here. A canoe or round profiled stern is the other qualifying feature of this hull.

IV-V Dynasty - Type I, (usually with paddlers), and Type III, both used by the living. This research paper has not noticed any T I craft being paddled. The T III vessels, however, were commonly paddled or poled.

ETH 8. River craft utilised to carry cargo. The shape of this class varies, with examples showing both rounded or truncated bows and sterns.

VI Dynasty - Types I, (with rowers), T III and T IV, used by the living.

ETH 9. River craft, with a pointed bow and rounded stern.

Intermediate Period between Dynasties VI and XII, - Types I, II, III and IV, along with the introduction of the Type V funeral barque.

ETH 10. River barge or lighter, used to convey specialised heavy cargoes, such as stone columns or sarcophagi. ETH 11. Undecked fishing or small work boats, with a pointed bow and stern.

To the XII Dynasty, Reisner allocated the Types II, III and IV, used by the living, the Type V funeral barques, and the solar barques of Type VI.

ETH 12. Funerary craft, with an animal head at both the bow and stern.

2.4 The ETH Series of hull types

2.5 The Reisner hull types, by category and sub – category

The following list and classifications are of hull shapes, identifiable from the Old and Middle Kingdoms, which this research project finds to be independent of Reisner’s typology. To differentiate them from those of Reisner, indicated by the prefix “Type”, abbreviated to the letter 18

2.5.1 Type I This Old Kingdom craft appears to have commenced as a vessel of very basic design, however, although the T I H (a)

Reisner, Ships and Boats. pp. II – IV.

11

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 4. T I H (a). From Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Plate. 19. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. Catalogued in this work as [TH 01]. Note the crew men standing on the platform protruding forward from the bow.

can be said to be relatively unsophisticated, the other two sub categories of this form indicate that development was underway. Well represented in both model form and wall scenes, these vessels were utilised for both travelling and cargo conveyanc. The hulls of the Type I form have been divided in this paper into three sub - categories.

This hull form is associated with either the bipod or the pole mast. For instances of this class with the bipod, see [DG 05] (a), [DG 06] (a), [M 01] (g), and [S 18] (c). The pole mast is carried by [ELH 02] (a), [S 18] (a) and (b) and [TH 01].19 On occasion, these craft are to be seen with sheltering canopies for the persons aboard; [M 34] being fitted with such a canopy.20 Upon the deck of [M 34], astern of the second pair of canopy posts, when counting from the bow, are a pair of holes, one hole per side, hard against the bulwark, which Reisner has postulated may be for the stepping of a bipod mast. This is unlikely, if only because there are no means for securing the mast, by any of the

2.5.1.1 T I H (a) There was a wide usage of this hull, which was flat bottomed, with angular bilges and a broad square cut bow and stern, although, when observed in profile, the bow and stern are rounded. The models show that the timbers constituting the bottom and bilges of this class ran parallel until flaring upwards and outwards at both bow and stern, with the width of the bows being greater than the stern. In one instance, aboard [TH 01], the bow is extended by an overhanging platform.

[DG 05] (a), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XII. [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. XX. [M 01] (g), A. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir, vol. 5. London, 1914 – 1953. pl. XXIII. [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol.1, fig. 9, pls. 2 and 6. [S 18] (a) – (c), Vandier, Manuel, fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships., figs. 143 – 144. [TH 01], M. Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes, Mainz, 1977, pl. 19. 20 [M 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4886. pp. 56 – 57. pl. XIV. 19

12

Categorizations

Fig. 5. T I H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, 1913, Item 4887. Plate XIV.

various means utilised by the Egyptians. 21 If, however, this were correct, it would place the mast almost amidships, aft of the usual point at which the mast was stepped. Such a configuration would further have resulted in the weight of the mast and sail having to be absorbed by the deck and bulwark timbers, and not imparted down into the hull. The drawing published by Poujade omits these holes.

55º and 70º. The surviving depictions of backstays are too few in number to gather adequate data.22 2.5.1.2 T I H (b). The hull of this class had a rounded cross-section; the profiles of the bow and stern also display a rounded under section, with a tapering forefoot. As with the T I H (a) form, the hull broadens toward the bow. Again, this form can be associated with both the bipod and pole mast; the pole mast predominates. The bipod is seen aboard [SKS 04] and [M 01] (e), while the pole is carried by [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f), [M 01] (c), [M 04] (b), and [M 35].23

It is noticeable that there was considerable variation in the BATH of this hull form, unlike the SATH, which is more consistent. An average for the BATH would fall between 15º and 25º with the average SATH falling between 25º and 30º. The hull length/mast height ratio seems to have been relatively short, between 1 – 1.5, with an average of 1.26. There was greater variation between the hull length/ waterline and mast step/hull length ratio ratios, averaging 2.15 and 0.42, respectfully. The forestay angle fell between

See the tabulated data for BATH and SATH angles. [SKS 04], Davies, The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said. ASE 10. London, 1901. Tomb of Uau. pl. XXIV. [M 01] (e), Blackman, Meir, pl. XXIII. [DG 01] (a), (d), and (f), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. VII. [M 01] (c), Blackman, Meir, pl. XXIII. [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir, pl. XLII. [M 35], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VII. 22

23

The positioning and means of stepping the various mast forms are discussed in Section 6. 21

13

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

When classifying an example as a Type I (a) or (b), there are two characteristic features by which to identify these hull forms. The first is the profile of the stern; the second is the presence of a distinctly shaped bulwark and stern platform. This is not to be confused with the ETH (1) form, which displays similar features, but has clear differences in profile.

Egyptian vessels is to be seen aboard the [DB 16] Group 2 examples, where it is used to form loops in the rudder retaining system, apparently to reduce abrasion and wear. The sail of [DB 16] Group 2 (a) has a bolt rope consisting of mixed white and black threads, which would assist in preventing the rope from decaying.

The stern is easily identified by its sharply canted angle, resulting in the majority of the stern being clear of the water. The canted stern resulted in a hull with a short waterline in relation to overall hull length. This in turn would have had an important effect on the effectiveness of the mast, which, although stepped well forward in relationship to the length of the hull, effectively became more central to the hulls pivotal centre. All classes of craft considered in this work have been measured between the uprights of the hull, i.e., the platforms have not been included in the measurement of the hull. The further forward the mast is placed the greater the impetus of the wind upon the sail.

Bindings are depicted along the junction of the lower edge of the bulwark and the deck line of [M 04] (b). Aboard this craft, five pairs of lashings are present, alternately facing towards or away from the next, which would have mitigated longitudinal movement of the bulwark. It must be concluded that the entire structure could be removed if necessary. If so, then the bulwark should, technically, be considered as a wash strake, although there would have been little or no wash to be dealt with on the Nile. The upper edge of the bulwark is, aboard some examples, strengthened with an additional timber, or, occasionally, of heavy rope. The additional strip is to be seen aboard [S 18] (a) and (b) and [ELH 02] (a).27 This strengthening possibly served to prevent damage to the upper edge of the bulwark while loading or unloading cargo.

The bulwark, commencing aft of the bow but forward of the point where the fore-foot meets the waterline, shows a continuous run to the highest point of the stern, where it then extends outwards, creating a projecting platform. The height of the bulwark increased from bow to stern. It would appear, from both models and scenes, that the bulwark was composed of two sections, which continued upward at the same angle as the hull sides. The sternwards section, in some instances, is outboard, although the forward section is placed along the edge of the deck. Aboard example [S 11], it can be seen that the lower edge was rebated, allowing it to be fitted against the recessed edge of the deck.24 Supporting upright stanchions or braces for the bulwark sections are not depicted, and how they were retained in position is unknown. Those aboard [M 04] (b) and [S 11] indicate that the forward bulwark section was the longer. The forward bulwark section of [S 11] overlaps the section aft.25

In a very few instances, the forward end of the raised bulwarks aboard Egyptian vessels which were fitted with them extended outwards to form a platform at the bow as well as the stern. The platform was sturdy enough to support crew members, who can be seen standing there. One example has already been seen aboard [TH 01], a T I H (a) craft, the other is aboard [S 52] (c), an ETH I vessel.28 There is variety in the models of the T I H (a) and (b) hulls, which may be open or fully decked. [M 35], a T I H (b) vessel, has three curved cross - timbers, which are sprung into place, and pierced to allow the fitting of the mast and rudder post. Three models of T I H (c) craft also have such cross - timbers; namely [M 31], [M 32] and [M 33].29 The value of these timbers as evidence relating to deck structure is limited. Their presence could be interpreted as indicating that this form of craft had heavily cambered decks, however it is also possible that models with these cambered crosstimbers merely represent the thwarts of small craft.

The forward end of the bulwark may also be cut at an angle, leaning towards the bow, as aboard [S 08], [S 11], [M 01] (c) and (e), [M 04] (b), and [M 34]. This feature is not restricted to T I H craft; it is also present aboard [M 04] (a), a T IV (b) craft.26 When modeled separately, the forward end of the aft section is positioned against the aftermost outboard edge of the forward, as may be inferred from [S 11]. The proportions of this example suggest that the forward element was of more robust proportions.

The structure of the stern projections can be deduced from the evidence of models. Reisner’s plan and text indicates that the remains of a rail were to be seen across the tip of the stern, but this is not evident in the drawings of Poujade or Boreux. Even if this missing item were to be present, such a simple construction would have been structurally inadequate. [M 34] is devoid of bracing or structural details,

Where the sections met, pairs of rope lashings were utilised to prevent movement. The use of white paint to depict these serves to show that the ropes used were of ordinary, untarred cordage. The usage of tarred rope aboard [S 11], Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. II. Jequier, Neit et Apouit. Cairo Museum Model 56 390. figs. 9, 10 and 20. 25 [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir, pl. XLII. [S 11], Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. II. Jequier, Neit et Apouit, figs. 9, 10 and 20. 26 [S 08], Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. III, fig. II. Jequier, Neit et Apouit, pl. XXXIV. Cairo Museum Model 56 394. [S 11], Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. II. Jequier, Neit et Apouit, figs. 9, 10 and 20. [M 01] (c) and (e), Blackman, Meir, pl. XXIII. [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir, pl. XLII. [M 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VIII. 24

Vandier, Manuel, fig. 301. [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol 1. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. 28 [TH 01], M. Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. pl. 19. [S 52] (c), Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 19. 29 [M 35], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. VIII. [M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pl. XIII. [M 32], Reisner, Ships and Boats.Item 4883. pl. XXVIII. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. V. [M 33], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4884. 27

14

Categorizations

Fig. 6. [S 52] (c) From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu. Plate 22. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

possibly due to the model being fully decked; the deck is flush with the bulwark.

two Meir craft are considerably higher. [SKS 04] has a BATH and SATH of equal angles, but the scene shows only fragments, and accuracy is questionable. The hull length/ mast height ratio averages 1.22, the hull length/water line is 1.91, and the mast step/hull length ratio averages 0.38. The forestay angles of the three examples where the forestay can be measured range from 65º to 78º.

It can be seen, from [S 08] and [S 09], two models of T I H (a) hulls, that three cross - beams braced the stern platforms at their lower levels.30 The first, of either rectangular crosssection or with a bevelled upper edge, was positioned across the outermost tip of the stern and the projecting bulwarks were recessed to fit over this beam. The second and third, flat on top but roughly semi-circular beneath, were located, one half way and the other fully, to the outer end of the bulwark. Ties held the bulwark extensions, cross- beams and rail together. A curved rib, placed fore and aft, additionally supported the structure; the stern platform was left open. The T I H (b) hull, having a rounded stern, as can be seen by [M 35], effectively projects further into the platform area, and has been provided with only one lower and upper crossbrace. The supporting rib is present. The area enclosed by the platform is undecked. An open frame positioned in the stern, aft of the rudder post (where fitted) and reaching to the outermost end of the hull is very indicative of a Type I craft, but it is not, however, to be universally found.

Using his categorisation system, Reisner allocated [M 36] to his Type I class, due its similarity to [M 35] and the presence of similar cross-braces in place of a deck, although lacking the raised bulwark and the projecting stern platform.33 Aboard [M 35] and [M 36] the cross - brace furthest aft has a rectangular slot to receive the rudder post, however it is here that the similarities end. The lack of a stern platform, the absence of a raised bulwark and the shallower profile of the hull at the stern are the grounds for [M 36] being considered here as having been correctly identified as a Type I. [DG 01] (e) has a profile equating to that of [M 36].34 As with [M 36], [DG 01] (e) has no projecting stern platform, is flush decked and has a centrally positioned rudder post. The context of this model indicates, however, that this was a hull form in use alongside the Type I hull. [M 36] and [DG 01] (e) have been allocated to another class in this work, and serve to form the ETH 9 category.

[M 35] is the only example of a model of the T I H (b) hull known to me. The hull type, however, is identifiable from its presence in iconographic representations and amongst examples representable of the T I H (b) are [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f), [DG 07] (d), [M 01] (c) and (e), [M 04] (b) and [SKS 04].31 Another instance of this hull form can be tentatively identified from a stele in Basel, however the scale is quite small and the published print unclear, and is, therefore, only mentioned here.32 The BATH and SATH of two examples of this hull, [M 01] (c) and (e) have similar proportions, although (e) is higher while the SATHs of

2.5.1.3

T I H (c)

This form consists of a hull with the same shape of the Type I (a) form, but lacking the corresponding bulwarks. Retaining the squared bow, stern and flat bottomed characteristics of the T I H (a), although the hull extremities of this form are more angular, the main differences of the T I H (c) class are the absence of the projecting platform at the stern and the provision of two rudders. Three instances of this class are known; [M 31], [M 32] and [M 33].35 These

30 [S 08], Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. III. fig II. Cairo Museum Model 56 494. Jequier, Neit et Apouit. pl. XXXIV. 31 [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. VII. [DG 07] (d), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi pl. X, [M 01] (c) and (e), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi pl. XXIII. [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [SKS 04], Davies, Sheik Said. pl. XXIV. 32 Fischer. ‘Boats in Non – nautical Titles’, in GM. vol. 126. Gottingen. 1992. p. 68, figs 4 (a) and (b).

[M 36], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4888. pl. XV. [DG 01] (e), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. VII. 35 [M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pl. XIII. [M 32], [M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4883. pl. XXVIII. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. V. [M 33],Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4884. 33 34

15

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 7. T I H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4882. Plate XIII.

As depicted by Reisner and Poujade, the junction of the hull sides and bottom are well inboard of the holes in the crossbeam meant to take the mast legs. The closeness of these holes to the sides of the hull would mean that the feet of the mast could not have reached very deeply into the hull and so did not stand on the bottom timbers. Gottlicher and Werner, however, have reversed the line of junction of the hull timbers at this point, and show the mast legs standing in the angle of the bilge. The line drawing by Reisner, however, is correct.36

appear to be the only extant examples of this category of hull, and, being from the one site, may, perhaps, indicate a localised ship building tradition. Two protruding timbers, extending from the stern, take the place of the platform. The protruding timbers of the decked examples bend sharply upwards; those of the undecked are lozenge shaped. A number of the characteristics of this hull form are also to be found in relation to the ETH (6) cargo craft. The bipod mast was utilised.

2.5.2 Type II

The BATH and SATHs of the first two examples are consistent at 16º and 23º, although the SATH of the third, [M 33], is higher, at 30º. The mast step/hull length figures show no consistency, ranging from 0.26 – 0. 31. Their average is 0.28.

The Type II hull is characterised by its tapered bow, rising stern and the use of a single rudder and rudder post. As considered previously, Boreux was of the opinion that some forms of Egyptian vessels owed the origins of their shape to papyrus craft. It may well be conjectured, in keeping with this opinion, that the Type II derived from the papyrus raft. Some forms of the T II are noticeably similar to such craft in profile, as is the comparably shaped papyriform hull of the Type IV.

These craft were steered by twin rudders. In all instances, two rudder posts are fitted, with no bracing or railing between the stern protrusions indicated. The rudder posts of [M 31] rest obliquely against the turn of the bilge; their ends are cut an acute angle, and the posts splay loosely outwards. Reisner has incorrectly illustrated them as being upright, and has compounded this error by labelling the illustration as a depiction of the base of the mast legs.

Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XXXI. Reisner, Ships and Boats. fig. 193. 36

16

Categorizations

The apex of the stern takes one of three configurations. The first is notched, to support the loom of the rudder; in the second a block (also notched) is to be seen. The third form sees the stern curve forward. The angle of deck at the stern could be very acute; in extreme cases, the helmsman stands on a platform, intended to overcome the steepness of the deck. Some instances of T II craft with this platform aboard are [ABY 01] (c) and (d), as well as [ABY 04] (a), [BH 03] (a) and (b).37 Other forms of craft may also be fitted with this feature, as may be seen from [DB 11], [DG 01] (b) and [S 78] (a) and (b).38 This helmsman’s platform is not, however, to be seen aboard any of the models, although the helmsman aboard [M 13] squats upon a narrow plank, placed fore - and - aft, which seems to have served the same purpose.39 Some models, however, do show that the deck inside the area enclosed by the bulwarks aft was cut at a shallower angle, such as aboard [ASI 07], and is particularly clear in the sterns of the [DB 16] Group 2 (a) – (f) vessels.40

additional purchase to the footing of the crew when working in this area.43 The steering configuration of the T II hulls is most distinctive. All vessels of T II form, excepting one subcategory, were steered by a single rudder, secured inboard against a rudder post positioned on the central line of the hull; the exception being the T II H (g) vessel. The rudder posts could be of substantial thickness. An interesting feature of these posts is a groove across the top, aligned longitudinally to the hull. In theory, this would have allowed the loom of the rudder to be secured across the top of the post, enabling the rudder to lie along the axis of the hull, and a number of restorations show such an arrangement, but the evidence does not support this. This research project has found no pictorial example that depicts the loom as being other than secured against the side of the post. A hook or loop, of various forms, protruding laterally from the post, served as a support and prevented the securing rope from working up the post. Some instances are [AS 01] (b), [DB 15], [DG 01] (d) and [EB 06] (e).44 This configuration would result in these vessels being constantly subjected to a bias, causing the bow to veer either to port or starboard, depending on which side of the rudder post the shaft was secured. The rudder was turned by means of a tiller, which, in most instances, hung down astern of the rudder post. A variation of the usual T II steering configuration, utilising an additional pair of posts between the rudder post and the stern, is the basis of a sub category – the T II H (e).

The bow could show a considerable overhang, which would enable the crew to work closer to the shore than the blunter bowed Type I craft, with the additional asset of the craft remaining in deeper water. Aboard a number of these craft the bow is fitted with a forward projecting beam, referred to by Reisner as a bow stick, which is considered in this paper as being a form of bow roller.41 The purpose of a bow roller is to prevent the mooring cable from slipping to one side or another of the bows, thus keeping the vessels head onto the point of securement and preventing damage to the bow area. The prevention of damage was undoubtedly a concern of the Egyptians, with consideration for their methods of hull construction, and, additionally, these fittings appear to have been robust enough to additionally serve as a work surface when loading or unloading cargo. Bow rollers took one of two forms, either widening towards the bows or being long and narrow. 42 In some instances the presence of black marks across the bow rollers can be noted. These may have been cleats or ropes, which would have given

Unlike the Type I (a) and (b) forms, which could have a frame or shelter in the stern, the shelters aboard T II craft always stood forward of the rudder post, due to the shape of the stern and the positioning of the rudder post. Deckhouses or shelters are not universally present. None of the T II models fitted out as rowing vessels as published by Reisner have such structures, but examples from outside that body of evidence, such as [ASI 02], [P 01] – [P 03] and especially the [DB 16], Group 2, (a) – ( f) vessels, may be cited as models of this hull type that were supplied with deckhouses. 45 Scenes such as [ABY 04] (b), [AS 01] (a) and (b), and

[ABY 01] (c) and (d), W. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Pennsylvania, 1974. pl. 70. [M 13], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4798. pp. 1-3. fig. 1. pl. 1. [DB 16] Group 2 (a) – (f), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pls. 33 – 37, 40 – 41. 70 – 76. 38 [ DB 11], Goedicke, Yale. Item 30. p. 64. [DG 01] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, Part II. pl. VII. [S 78] (a) and (b), A. Holwerder and P. Boeser, Beschreireibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederlanischen Reichsmuseums der Alterumer in Leiden, Atlas. Leiden, 1926. Chapel of Achet – Hetep – Her. pl. XX. 39 Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4798. pp. 1-3. pl. 1. 40 [ASI 07], E. Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 – 98, 6, 100. [DB 16] Group 2 (a) – (f), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pls. 33 – 37, 40 – 41. 70 – 76. 41 Reisner, Ships and Boats, p. XI. Winlock considered this item to be a fender. Models of Daily Life. p. 47. 42 For the narrow form, see [DB 16], Group 2. (a) – (f). Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pls. 33 – 37, 40 – 41. 70 – 76. [M 20], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4884. pp. 31 – 31. [M 21], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4885. pl. VIII. [S 55], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4913. pl. XVIII. [P 13], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35291. pp. 46 – 49. fig. 47. pl. IXa. For some instances of the latter; see [ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models Items 45087 and 45088. figs. 33 and 35. pls. VIc and VIIa. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Landstrom, Ships, fig. 251. [P 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats. pl. XXX. 37

. Some instances are aboard [ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. figs. 33 and 35. pls. VIc and VIIa. [M 42], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 22. fig. 19. pl. Iva. [P 13], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35292. pp. 49 – 51. fig. 47. pl. IXa. [P 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats. pl. XXX. 44 [AS 01] (a) and (b), B. Jaros-Deckert, Das Grab des Jnj – jtj – f. Die Wandmalereien der XI. Dynastie. Grabung im Asasif. pl. 14. [DB 15], D. Arnold, Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir-el-Bahari, vol. III, Mainz, 1981. pls. 8e and 9c. [EB 06] (e), P. Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. The Tomb of Tehuti-Hetep. pl. XVIII. [TH 12] (a), Davies, Five Theban Tombs, London, 1913. pl XXXVI. 45 [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918. pl. XVIII. [P 01], P. Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden, 1910. Catalogue item no. S 48, No 10. [P 02] Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Catalogue item S 48, No 11. [P 03], Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Catalogue item S 48, No 12. 43

17

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 8. T II H (a). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1948. Plate 72a. Courtesy of Princeton University Press.

Fig. 9. T II H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4909. Plate XV.

has been dubbed a harem boat, due to the peculiarity of the deckhouses depicted aboard.47 Where a mast is fitted to a Type II, it is always a pole. The Type II hulls have been divided into six sub-categories; T II H (a) to T II H (f).

[BH 03] (c) are just a few instances of T II H vessels with deckhouses.46 Although the representations of the T II vessels generally indicate a considerable level of standardisation, some peculiarities arose, due to the adaptation of the hull form to depict an aspect of life or belief. [EB 04] has been fitted out as a funeral craft by the addition of a somewhat crude shrine, while other examples, such as the [DB 16] fleet, are of Type II craft serving as kitchen boats. [BH 03] (c)

2.5.2.1 T II H (a) This form has a tapering bow and rising stern, which the

[ABY 04] (b), Simpson, Abydos, pl. XIV. [AS 01] (a) and (b), JarosDeckert, Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. [BH 03] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. 1. p. 33, pl. XVI. 46

[ EB 04], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4951. pp. 103 – 104. pl. XXIII. [BH 03] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI. 47

18

Categorizations

Fig. 10. T II H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4846. Plate IX.

models show to have been notched.48 Of the fifteen examples so classified in this work, three are from Asasif, four from Beni Hasan, and one from Sedment; the provenances of the remainder are unclear. There is a wide spread in the BATH and SATH angles and this is also to be noted in the hull length/mast height, which averages 2.21. The hull length/ water line is also very varied with an average of 2.78; the mast step/hull length averages 0.41.

quite prolific; sixty three being identified in the Appendix.50 Aside from [ABY 02], where the BATH is 50º, and perhaps not the product of a skilled artist, [EB 06] (a), [P 09] and [P 14], where the BATH is higher that the SATH, the BATH is either lower, or equal to, the SATH.51 The hull length/mast ratio lies between 1 and 2, averaging 1.72; the hull length/ water line shows considerable variation, but averages 3.24. The mast step/hull length approximates 0.44, and the three forestay angles which can be measured lie between 48º and 53º.

2.5.2.2 T II H (b)

2.5.2.4

This form was the same as T II H (a), but with this class the tip of the stern is topped with a block, which is in turn notched.49 Twenty nine examples of this class are identified here; in all instances, apart from [EB 11] (a), the BATH is lower than the SATH. The hull length/mast height ratio averages 1.46, the hull length/water line 3.0. The mast step/ hull length averages 0.40.

T II H (d)

A highly angled stern and a short, high hull and a wide deck define this form. The tip of the stern is capped with a block.52 Seven T II H (d) craft are listed in the Appendix; five of them are from Beni Hasan, suggestive of a local artistic tradition or style. There is a great variation in the SATHs and the mast step/hull length to be noticed with this class, averaging 0.35. Of the BATH angles, six lie between 25º and 30º, with the SATH between 40º and 55º. Only two examples have survived with masts; the hull length/mast height average is 1.54. The hull length/water line average is 2.85.

2.5.2.3 T II H (c) The T II H (c) had the same tapering bow and rising stern as the T II H (a), but the stern curved inwards. This craft was

2.5.2.5

T II H (e)

These hulls were similar to T II H (a), but usually with a pair of short upright posts, half the height of the rudder post

For some examples of T II H (a) models, see [BH 20], A. Tooley, ‘Boat Deck Plans, in ZAS 118, fig. 4. [SE 02], Petrie and Brunton, Sedment 1, London, 1924. pl. XXVI. [P 01], Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden, 1910. Catalogue item no. S 48, No 10. [P 03], Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden catalogue S 48, no. 12. [P 28], Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. Wiesbaden, 1971. pl. xv. For iconographic representations, [AS 01] (a) and (b), Jaros-Deckert, Das Grab des Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. 49 Some models are [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 – 98, 6, 100. [BH 12] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue, British Museum Models 41574 and 41575. pp. 22 – 27. figs. 21 and 24. pls. IVb, Va, Vb. EB 07], H. Schneider and M. Raven, Die Egyptische Oudheid. Catalogue no. 54. p. 70. [EB 08] (a), (b) and (c), Breasted, Servant Statues, pls. 76a, 77a, 96a. [EB 09], Breasted, Servant Statues. [EB 11] (a) – (e), [M 15], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4801. pp. 5-7. pl. II. For iconographic; [BH 09] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XII. 48

50 Some instances of this craft are [ABY 01] (c) and (d), Simpson, Abydos, pl. 70. [ABY 02], Simpson, Abydos, [ABY 04] (a) and (b), Simpson, Abydos, pl. XIV. [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918. pl. XVIII. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [BH 03] (a), - (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI. [BH 04] (b) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. 51 The undersurfaces of [P 09] and [P 14] display pronounced curves, which may be considered as accounting for the higher bow angle. 52 For some examples, see [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918. pl. XVIII. [BH 15] (a), (b) and (c), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 72 – 74, fig. 157. [BH 18] (c) and (d), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs 86 – 89. [S 67], J. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara, 1906 – 1907. Leipzig, 1908. pp. 9 – 11. pls. XXVII and XXVIII.

19

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 11. T II H (d). From Garstang, The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt. Figure 88. Image courtesy of the University of Liverpool.

positioned between it and the tip of the stern. Again, the stern is notched; they were not a prolific craft.53 Three of the five examples of this type show hull length/mast height ratios of just above or below 1.5, with an average of 1.47. The hull length/water line ratios lie between 3.3 and 4.1, averaging 3.69; the mast step/hull lengths are between 0.35 and 0.42, with an average of 0.39. 2.5.2.6

aboard. Although recognisable as basically a Type II in profile, the apex of the stern is strikingly different to the shapes generally encountered, consisting of a flat topped, round disc. This rounded extremity is similar in shape to the sterns of [DB 16] Group 3, (a) and (b), the two models of papyrus rafts found in the burial.55 The stern configuration prevented the loom of the rudder from being passed over it, and although the head of the loom is fastened to the centrally mounted rudder post, the loom passes through a fitting on the starboard quarter. Winlock comments that this would have required the helm to be put hard over in order to change course, with an attendant great loss of speed. Although this may seem as first as undesirable, it may be conjectured that this was the very thing that the Egyptians wanted, since in such circumstances the rudder could act as an effective brake, enabling the fishermen/ fowlers to strike at or gather aboard their prey. By the simple expedient of freeing the lashing that secured the shaft to the rudder post, while leaving it attached to the hull by the side fitting, the boat could have been effectively steered on a normal course. This, however, must be considered as speculation .

T II H (f)

This hull is rare, and there are not enough examples to draw conclusions from the tabulated data. Unlike the other T II hulls, this form was very long, although still fashioned with the characteristic bow and stern of the T II H (a) hull. These extremities are very finely shaped and this form seems to have served as a fast messenger craft, as may be seen by considering examples [BH 15] (d), [BH 18], (e), and especially [M 14] and [M 15]. Other craft could be interpreted as messenger or warships, such as the three [AS 01], (a) – (c) vessels, where an assault from T II H (a) craft by infantry and archers is progress. Such vessels are, however, standard T II H craft, which have been utilised to show a military presence. The T II H (f) hull would have been too unstable for fighting – its reason for existence must have been its ability to move quickly. The hull length/mast height average is 1.92, the hull length/water line is 2.53/1 and the mast step/hull length 0.44.

2.5.3 Type III This class of vessel is the ubiquitous papyrus raft. Reisner had no examples of this form of transportation among his museum collection, and this researcher is unaware of any actual Type III craft having been discovered. Examples of T III models are still extremely rare today. Two fine examples, of Middle Kingdom date, form the [DB 16] Group 3, (a) and (b).56

2.5.2.7 T II H (g) The only example of this T II variation is [DB 17].54 Winlock labeled this example as a Sporting Boat, his decision being due to the fittings and activities of those persons represented

The lack of instances of this form of water transport amongst tomb furnishings can only be interpreted as

[SE 03] (a) and (b), Breasted, Servant Statues, pls. 71 (b) and 74 (b). [SE 04] (a) and (b), Garstang, Burial Customs. pls. 71 (a) and 74 (a). Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. Pl. XX. [P 26]. Gottleicher and Werner, Schiffmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XXXIV. 54 Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pls. 51 and 82. 53

Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pl. 52. Winlock calls them canoes. pp. 67 – 68. 56 Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 67 – 68. pl. 52. See also Saad, The Excavations at Helwan. pl. 103. 55

20

Categorizations

Fig. 12. T II H (e). From Petrie and Brunton, Sedment 1, 1924. Plate XX.

Fig. 13. T II H (f). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4801. Plate II.

indicative of their not being buried as part of the funeral rites. Had such craft been included amongst the burial goods or items utilised during the funeral services there would be no reason for them to not have survived.

and across water, but perhaps the most unusual is that to be seen in offering scenes where the “Boatman’s Game” is being enacted. The purpose of this “game” is unclear, and range from supplying amusement for the tomb owner to a form of military training. Clearly, from the number of representations of such scenes, the game was considered

The T III vessels served multifarious purposes, from pleasurable pursuits, such as fishing or just gathering lotus flowers, to more prosaic tasks, such as leading cattle into

21

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 14. T II H (g). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1920 (20.3.6) Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

to be of importance to the owner of the tomb.57 A most plausible argument has been put forward that these scenes of mock combat were intended to demonstrate that the tomb owner’s servants were (or had been) enthusiastic in bringing offerings to the deceased, despite the risk of injury to themselves.58 The Boatman’s Game can be seen in scenes dated to as early as Dyn. IV, such [G 02] (b) (3) – (4).59 As listed by Bolshakov, the greater number of Boatman’s Game scenes are to be found before the end of Dyn V.60 During Dyn VI, with the increasing decline of the economic state of the Old Kingdom, the quality of depictions declined and fell out of use. They did, however, continue in provincial tombs. There was some revival of representations of such scenes during the Middle Kingdom, after which they fell into disuse.61

(a) – (c), and [S 54] have doubles/pairs.63 Triples are seen aboard [ELH 01] and [ELH 11] (a), and [M 11] (b), while quadruple bindings are seen at [DG 02].64 Occasionally, broad bands of lashings are seen, some of which are extreme and most likely more than would be required for structural integrity. The bands of lashings securing [ELH 12], [ELH 16], and [ELH 19] are possibly the widest to be seen.65 [DG 03] (h) also displays very broad bands of lashings amidships, although they are of lesser width towards the extremities of the vessel. [ELH 11] (a) carries a rare combination of double, triple and quadruple lashings.66 There does not seem to have been an established pattern of distribution, although some examples carry more bindings in the extremities of the craft rather than in the centre. This would seem to indicate that greater strength was required in these areas. As the raft tapered, there would, therefore, be less material in these areas, with an inherent tendency towards structural weakness. Occasionally, lashings are only present toward the bow and stern, such as aboard [BH

It can be difficult to designate examples as a Type III, as some display features that may indicate that they are papyriform vessels (see Type IV). When in doubt, a number of aspects have been utilised to decide upon allocation. The most obvious is the depiction of bindings along the length of the craft; these can either appear as single bands or as multiples. [AB 09], [ELH 16] and [S 29] (a) – (c) have singles.62 Examples such as [DA 06] (a) and (b), [DE 02] (b), [DE 04] (a), [ELH 02], (a) and (b), [ELH 04], [S 40]

[DA 06] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. Vienne. 1903. pl. XXIV. [DE 02] (b), N. Kanawati and A. McFarlane, Deshasha. The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 5. Sydney. 1993. pl. 33. W. F. Petrie, Deshasheh. London. 1897. [DE 04] (a), [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. I. fig. 8. [ELH 04], Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. I.fig. 12. [S 40] (a) and (b), G. Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti. Leipzig. Scene 99. [S 54], Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 33, 35, 39. 64 [ELH 01], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 8. [ELH 11] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. vol. IV. figs. 17 and 18. [M 11] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol II. pls. XXVI and XXVII. [DG 02], Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. part II. pl. III. 65 [ELH 12], Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. VI. fig. 3. [ELH 16], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VIII. fig 5. [ELH 19, Kanawati, ElHawawish. vol. IX. fig. 15. That this was not the usual means for depicting the bindings in El - Hawawish tombs may be understood by comparing these three examples with [ELH 01], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 8, with its evenly spaced sets of triple bindings and [ELH 10] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. 4. figs. 12 and 13,where alternating double and single bindings are to be seen. 66 [ELH 11] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. IV. fig. 18. 63

For some instances of the ‘Boatmans Game’, see [DG 03] (a) – (f), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pls. IV – V. [ELH 03], (a) and (c), Kanawati, ElHawawish. vol. I. fig. II. pl. 3. [ELH 05] (a) – (d), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol II. figs. 17 and 18. [G 02] (c) and (d), D. Dunham and W. Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. Boston. 1974. figs. 4 and 5. [G 13] (b) and (c), W. Simpson, Giza Mastabas. vol. 2. Boston. 1976. fig. 4. 58 A. Bolshakov, The Scene of Boatmen Jousting in Old Kingdom Tomb Representations, BSEG 17 (1993). pp. 29 - 39. 59 [G 02] (b) (3) – (4), D. Dunham and W. Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. Boston, 1974. figs. 4 and 5. 60 Bolshakov, Boatmen Jousting. p. 39. 61 [M 11] (c) and (d). Blackman, Meir, vol. II. pls. XXVI and XXVII are examples from the Middle Kingdom. 62 [AB 09], Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. [ELH 16], Kanawati, ElHawawish. vol. VIII. fig. 15. [S 29] (a) – (c), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. 57

22

Categorizations

06] (a) – (d), [BH 07], [DG 05] (b), and [DG 06] (b).67 The absence of lashings does not preclude a vessel from being identified as a papyrus craft and in some instances, as in the case of [BH 06] (a), and [BH 07], other factors, such as the presence of water weed under the hull must be considered when deciding if the craft is of papyrus or is a papyriform hull.68

[ELH 13] (a) display most elaborate graining patterns.73 The platforms additionally made it possible for a papyrus craft to be fitted with a mast as aboard [DG 04] (b) or to carry a canopy, as present aboard [ELH 13] (a), although they do not carry rudder posts.74 Their presence suggests that there were a number of variations of the usage made of the platforms, although consideration must be given to the possibility of iconographic error, the possible attempts to retain or adapt older burial customs or simply an attempt to show new ideas in nautical technology. [ABY 01] (d), a T II H (c) vessel with all appurtenances to be expected aboard such a vessel, has been fitted with a central platform, upon which stand the mast and a coffin on a bier. This would seem to be an unsuccessful attempt by the sculptor to marry old and new ideas into the scene.75 The platform aboard [DG 05] (b), a T III H (a) vessel, has been fitted with a mast, which would appear to be a weak point of attachment for coping with the tresses placed upon the craft by a mast and sail.76 This would, again, seem to be best explained as an attempt to unite old and new decorative themes. Aboard [G 10], a T IV H (b) craft, a long platform bears a cavetto cornice naos, extended at the forward edge by another roof of similar form. Uprights, braced fore and aft by pairs of knees, support a coffin (?). The stability of the supports appears to be suspect, as the attendant who sits under the forward roof can be seen to reaching back, steadying the coffin.77 Aboard [M 08] (a) a central platform is fitted; this is lower amidships, leaving a horizontal step at either end.78

The [DB 16] Group 3 examples show the bands of lashings running up the sides of the craft and then on to and across the upper surface. The possibility that this was the method used for the binding these craft is supported by [M 11] (b) – (e), where the lashings can be seen to extend to and over the edge of the upper surface of the vessel, along which can be seen the knotted ends.69 Where, such as in the depictions of the bands of lashings of vessels such as [DA 02] (a), (b) and (e), [DA 06] (a) and (b), [M 44] (b) – (c), and [S 02] (b), the bands are regularly spaced, this must be considered as a convenient iconographic style.70 As an additional means of preventing damage to the craft, most probably from the lashings, a rope was occasionally present along the length of the vessel. This can be seen on [AB 09], [ELH 01], [M 11] (b) and [M 12] (a), and [S 44] (a) (1).71 [M 12] (a) appears to have had more than one length of rope along the side, and aboard this craft the lashings and the longitudinal ropes seem to have been connected. A significant feature that may be seen in association with T III vessels is the provision of a central platform, generally the place where the occupant(s) stand and which gave a steadier footing. Some of these platforms may have well been of papyrus, but other examples are depicted with graining, to show that they are of timber, as seen aboard [BH 06] (a), [BH 07], [DG 02], [ELH 10] (a) and [ELH 12].72 The platforms aboard [ELH 10] (a), [ELH 12], and

A pad is occasionally seen between the platform and the upper surface of the craft, probably serving as a decoration or perhaps, additionally, to prevent damage, although the need to prevent damage to what was, after all, an easily replaceable asset was probably not high. The pad beneath the platforms of [S 22] (a), [S 49], [S 50], [S 51], [S 57] (a) (1) and [S 80] (h) equate only to the length of platform.79 Those on [DA 02] (a) [M 12] (a) and [S 05] (a), however, extend both forward and aft of the platform to midway between the platform ends and the ends of the craft.80 The ornately decorated [BH 06] (a) and [BH 07] appear to have been supplied with padding that runs the length of the vessels, with the padding changing short of the bow and stern to a pattern of thick vertical and light diagonal stripes; the lashings can be seen beneath these

[BH 06] (a) – (d), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXIV, [BH 07], Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXII. [DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. XII. [DG 06] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XX. I suggest that this is most likely an iconographic style that stemmed from the existence of the T IV H vessels, where the bindings were usually only depicted towards the bow and stern. 68 [BH 06] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXIV and [BH 07], Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXII. These two vessels could be interpreted as a T IV H craft; the presence of a timber central platform, the actions of the persons aboard, and the setting of the scene in a marsh has been interpreted as indicative of these two craft being T III H. [G 06] (a), N. Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pl. 31. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16., however, displays no bindings, but does have weed beneath the bow and stern. 69 [M 11] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. 70 [DA 02] (a), (b) and (e), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DA 06] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. pl. XXIV. [M 44] (b) – (c), Blackman, Meir. pl. III. [S 02] (b), N. Kanawati and A. Hassan, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. II. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 9. 1997. pl. 37. 71 [AB 09], [ELH 01], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 8. [M 11] (b), Blackman, Meir, vol. II. pls. XXVI and XXVII. [M 12] (a), Blackman, Meir. II vol. III. pls. VI and VII. [S 44] (a), (1), R. Macramallah, Le Mastaba D’Idout. Cairo, 1935. pl. V. 72 [BH 06] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXIV. [BH 07], Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXII. [DG 02], Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. VII. [ELH 10] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol III. pl 9 (d). [ELH 12], Kanawati, Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. VI. fig. 3. 67

[ELH 10] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. 4. figs. 12 and 13. [ELH 12], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. 4. fig. 3. [ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, ElHawawish. vol. 4. vol VII. fig. 25. 74 [DG 04] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. XII. [ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 3. 75 Simpson. Abydos. pl. 70. 76 [DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XII. 77 [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. 78 [M 08] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. VI. pl. XI. 79 [S 22] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chumhotep. figs. 4 – 5. pls. 5 – 6. [S 49], Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 9. [S 50], Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 11. [S 51], Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 13. [S 57] (a) (1), W. Davies, A. El-Khouli, A. Lloyd and A. Spencer, Saqqara Tombs, vol. I. London. 1984. [S 80], (h), N. Kanawati and M. Aber-Raziq, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 14. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. VI. pl. 50. 80 [DA 02] (a), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [M 12] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. III. XXVI and XXVII. [S 05] (a), Kanawati and Hassan. Teti Cemetery. pl. 53. 73

23

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

areas, although aboard the latter craft the patterned padding tapers out before reaching the stern.81 A reconsideration of these craft, however, shows that if the supposed patterned padding were to be removed from the bow and stern of [BH 06] (a) and the bow of [BH 07], this would leave the upper edges of the papyrus umbels and the lashings retaining them unsupported. The pattern at the stern of [BH 07] merges into the upper surface, but this is most probably an iconographic inaccuracy.

15º and 30º but never higher; the SATH could range from 20º to 40º. Only [DG 04] (b) and [DG 05] (b) are seen under sail. 2.5.3.2

This variation consists of a craft with equally shaped extremities, and constituted the second papyrus form of Boreux.84 The stern, however, is higher and can be sharply angled; the bow is low and almost horizontal. In such instances, there can be no difficulty in an allocation of a bow and stern. The BATH of this form shows greater consistency, with most falling into a range of 20º - 30º. The SATH, however, has a considerable spread of angles.

It is to be noticed that the pads can be of varying thicknesses; those of [BH 06] (a) and [BH 07] are very thick, as is that of [DA 02] (a), while that of [M 12] (a) is thinner that the reinforcing rope beneath it. On occasion, the pads may taper into the upper surface of the craft, as on [S 05] (a) or, like those of [M 12] (a), [S 05] (b), be square cut or cease at the ends of the platform.

2.5.3.3 T III H (c) The stern is rounded and may rise to a vertical configuration, although the bow is as per T III H (b). Again, this class was quite numerous.85 The BATH averaged 20º; the SATH had a greater spread – from 20º - 45º. Of the five highest SATH angles, four are from Saqqara.

Although there would appear to be no purpose for these pads, other than as decoration to stress or accentuate the wealth and status of the owner/user, such an interpretation may not be correct. Aboard [M 11] (a), where the tomb owner was depicted spear fishing or fowling - regretfully most of the figure is lost - there is no deck pad. The other papyrus craft present in this scene, however, either under construction – namely [M 11] (b) – or in use for fishing and the boatman’s game – [M 11] (c) to (e) – carry what can only be interpreted as a pad along the upper surface of the craft.82

2.5.3.4

T III H (d)

The extremities of this form of hull turn inwards to face the occupant, and can even be depicted as turning so far inboard as to face partially downward.86 2.5.3.5

When describing T III craft, the terms bow and stern for these vessels must, for the most part, be considered as a form of convenience. These craft were usually propelled either by punting or paddling and so could be moved in which ever direction the crew chose without consideration having to be made for turning the craft about so as to present the bow to the desired direction of advance.

T III H (e).

These were small, one man vessels, with a bow of similar shape to that of the T III (b), but with the other extremity slightly raised and cut off into a stub stern.87 These craft appear in fishing scenes, or may be found with the occupant assisting in the manoeuvring of larger vessels. The shape of the stern was possibly an adjunct to building, representing

Seven categories of papyrus raft are proposed in this research project. 2.5.3.1

T III H (b)

Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p.222, fig. 65. This form was quite numerous, with some examples being [BH 06] (a) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. 1. pl. XXIV. [BH 07], Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. 1. pl. XXXII. [BH 08] (c), (d) and (e), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol II. pl. IV. [DA 02] (a), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DA 06] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. pl. XXIV. [DG 03] (h), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pls. IV – V. [ELH 05], (e), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. figs. 17 and 18. [ELH 12], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol VI. fig. 3. [ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. [ELH 13] (a) is also fitted with a timber platform, upon which stands a flat roofed canopy. [G 02] (a) – (e), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. figs. 4 and 5. 85 See [BH 01] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XII. [DB 16] Group 3 (a) and (b), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 67 – 68. pl. 52. [M 11] (d) and (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. [S 05] (c) and (d), Kanawati and Hassan, Teti Cemetery. vol. II. pls. 53 and 54. [S 45] Section 1 (c) (3), Macramallah. D’Idout, pl. VII. [S 57] (b) (2) – (b) (5), Davies and El-Khouli, Lloyd and Spencer, Saqqara Tombs I. pls. 5 and 25. [TH 04] (a) and (b), Davies, The Tomb of Antefoker. London. 1920. [TH 09] (b), W. Schurmann, Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-Nefret. Karlsruhe. 1982. figs. 6 and 7b. pls. 6 and 7. 86 Examples are [M 11] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. [M 44] (a) – (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. I. pls. II, III. and IV. [P 23], Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XVI. 87 [DA 02] (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XXII. [ELH 10] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. III. pl. 9. [M 11] (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. XXVI and XXVII. [S 29] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 12. pl. 31. [S 40] (a), Steindorf, Das Grab des Ti. 84

T III H (a)

The extremities of the hull, which are similarly shaped, and of approximately equal height, define this form. This was Boreux’s first form of papyrus craft, with equal and symmetrical extremities.83 As with all type T III H vessels, the usage of the terms “bow” and “stern” is one of convenience. This class had a BATH that could fall between [BH 06] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXIV. [BH 07], Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXXII. 82 [M 11] (a) - (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. 83 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 222, fig. 64. [ABY 01] (a) and (b), Simpson, Abydos. pl. 70. [BH 06] (b) and (d), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXXIV. [BH 08] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. II. pl. IV. [BH 10] (a) – (f), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [DG 03] (a) – (g), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pls. IV – V. [S 02] (a), (b) and (c), Kanawati and Hassan, Teti Cemetery. vol II. pl. 37. [S 29] (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 12. pl. 31. [S 40] (c), Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti. Scene. 99. [P 22], Vandier, Manuel. vol. V. fig. 284. 81

24

Categorizations

Fig. 15. T III H (a). From Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. Vol. VI. Plate 47. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

Fig. 16. T III H (b). From Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. Vol. VI. Plate 50. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

Fig. 17. T III H (c). From Blackman, The Tomb of Antefoker. Plate IV.

a simpler form of construction. Of the five examples identified as T III H (e), two BATHs are higher than the SATH, [S 29] (a) and [S 40] (a), while the angles of [M 11] (e) are equal. The BATH of [DA 02] (b), however, is lower than the SATH. For such a humble craft, uniformity of depiction is, perhaps, not to be expected. 2.5.3.6

a hypothesis, it may be speculated that the T III H (f) craft have parallels with the T III H (e), or even be merely another iconographic means of depicting the simpler craft. The BATHs of the T III H (f) craft range from 35º - 32º. Instead of a BATH, [DG 08] (c), which has the form of a T III H (f), has been listed as having a SATH of 28º, but only due to the orientation of the person on board.

T III H (f)

2.5.3.7

These craft were of a very simple form, being merely a flat platform with one end curved upwards and the other cut off square.88 Although there is no data to support such

T III H (g).

Here the bow and stern angle upwards and their extremities have a rounded or conical shape. Landstrom depicts such a hull form, which he considers to be papyriform, citing three examples from the Tomb of Antefoker. He defines them as small craft, and is of the opinion that the three are unique;

[BH 10] (g), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol II. pl. XXIX. [DA 06] (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XXI. [DG 08] (e), (h) – (i), and (p). Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. III. [S 45], Section 1, (d), (1), Section 2, (f), Macramallah, D ‘Idout. pl. VII. 88

25

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 18. T III H (d). From Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir. Vol. I. Tomb of Senbi. Plate II.

Fig. 19. T III H (e). From Moussa and Altenmuller, das Grab Des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Figure. 12. Image courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

Fig. 20. T III H (f). From Boreaux, Etudes de Nautique Egyptienne. Figure. 66. Image courtesy of IFAO, Cairo.

they are listed in this work as [TH 07] (b) (c) and (d).89 Other instances of this form are, however, known from El - Hawawish and Meir.90 The presence of bindings along the hull, and, from El - Hawawish, the depiction of two of these craft, [ELH 03] (b) and (c) being repaired shows that these are of papyrus construction.

2.5.4 Type IV

[TH 07] (a) and (b), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. [ELH 03] (a) - (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol.1 fig. 11. pl. 3. [ELH 05], (a) - (d), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. figs. 17 and 18. [M 12] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. [M 45] (b). Blackman, Meir. vol. III. pls. VI and VII. See also [TH 08], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XIX.

The most significant features of these craft are the shapes of the outer sections of the bow and stern. Basically cylindrical, the major differences lay in the terminals with which they ended. The extremities of these vessels

This class consisted of vessels where the hull profiles of papyrus craft were replicated in timber. This replication saw aspects such as the lashings of the papyrus bundles being depicted on the timber hulls, running inwards for some distance from the bow and stern, but never for the full length of the hull.

89 90

26

Categorizations

Fig. 21. T III H (g). From Kanawati, El-Hawawish. Vol. II. Figure. 17. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

could be fashioned to depict such features as umbels, which represented the flaring ends of papyrus bundles, or as “buttons” and in some instances were fluted.91 The extremities could be very long, with, occasionally, one end shorter than the other, such aboard [ASW 01]. A further variation of this form is to be seen in the profile of [M 17], where the bow and stern are sharply angled and end in outward facing cylindrical protrusions; another sees very little rise in the extremities.92

cost measures and the need to use whatever timber was to hand, and that such extremely narrow hulls did not exist. Steering was achieved either by hand held rudders or by twin rudders supported by rudder posts and a horizontal bar positioned upon the deck. There are considerable variations in the means of depicting the steerage of this class of vessel. [M 47], which has lost its rudders, has twin rudder posts and the deck beam, while [DG 01] (b) and (c) have twin rudders, but only one rudder post. [DE 05] (a) and (b) are similarly equipped, but both rudders pass over the starboard quarter of [DE 05] (a), but over the port quarter of [DE 05] (b). [ELH 06] (c) has twin hand held rudders; their looms pass on either side of the stern. [G 10] also has twin hand held rudders, although there is confusion in the scene, and the looms pass from one side of the hull to the other. [P 18] has the complete assemblage of twin rudders, rudder posts and support beam.95

Another contributing factor for defining the characteristics of this class of hull is a low bulwark, which runs from immediately forward of the rudders to the point where the cylindrical shape of the bow began, as may be seen aboard the [DB 16] Group 1. (a) – (d) vessels. This was, however, not uniformly present. Crew members working on the bow and stern must have found it difficult to retain their footing. To facilitate their efforts, what appear to be rectangular profiled battens may be seen aboard some examples, placed across the replicated papyrus bundle lashings. They are to be noticed at the bows of [G 05] (b), [S 06] (a), and [S 28] (b).93 They are to be seen at the stern of [S 06] (a).

Both the bipod and pole mast are to be associated with this class of hull and both paddlers and rowers were employed to propel it. Four sub-categories of the Type IV class are offered here.

The T IV hulls show considerable variation in their proportions. Some models indicate that the hull form could be long and narrow, such as is seen with [P 18] and [P 20].94 Such vessels would have had very limited buoyancy, resulting in an unstable craft. Other examples, however, suggest that the T IV could be relatively wide, with a fuller and more stable hull. Upon consideration, the rending of very narrow hulls is most probably the result of idiosyncrasies on the part of the modeller, perhaps due to

2.5.4.1

T IV H (a)

This replicates the shape of the T III H (a) craft.96 A total of twenty nine of these craft are listed here; sixteen are from Saqqara; the rest are spread the length of Egypt. Usually, 95 [M 47], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4808. [DG 01] (b) and (c), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. VII. [DE 05] (a) and (b), Petrie, Desasheh. pl. XXV. [ELH 06] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [G 10], W. Simpson, The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. fig. 24. [P 18], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4807. 96 Some examples are: [ASI 05], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 45089. pp. 28 – 29. fig. 28. pl. Via. [ASW 01], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 21805. pp. 1 – 2. fig. 01. pl. 1a. [BH 19], Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. pl. 76b. [DA 02] (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 194 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DA 07], Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 153. fig. 36. [DG 01] (b) and (c), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. VII. [DE 01], N. Kanawati and A. McFarlane, Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. Sydney. 1993. pl. 32. [ELHA 02], N. Kanawati, The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Vol. III. Sydney. 1995. pl. 23. [M 47], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4808. pp. 14 – 16. [S 13] (d) and (e), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 63192 and 63193. fig. 21. pl. VIII. [S 30] (a) – (d), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 13. pl. 34.

For the button form, see [M 29], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4880. pl. XII. The fluted shape is seen aboard [DG 07] (a), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. X. [M 02] (b), Blackman, Meir. pl. XXIV. [M 04] (a) and (c), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [M 05] (a) and (b), Blackman. Meir. pl. XLIII. 92 [ASW 01], Glanville, Catalogue, British Museum Model 21805. pp. 1 – 2. fig. 01. pl. 1a. [M 17], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item. 4803. pp. 7-8. pl. II. 93 [G 05] (b), Kanawati, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 18. pls. 15 and 54. [S 06] (a), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Model 56 386. pl. 1. fig. 3. [S 28] (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. 94 [P 18], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4807. pp. 12 – 13. [P 20], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4911. pl. XVI. 91

27

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 22. T IV H (a). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 21805. Plate 1a. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 23. T IV H (b). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 9509. Figure 3. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 24. T IV H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4803. Plate III

28

Categorizations

Fig. 25. T IV H (d). From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 45089. Fig. 28. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

the BATH is lower or the same angle as the SATH, however the BATHs of [S 30] (b) and (d) and [S 31] (b) are higher.

however a low bulwark may still be present.99 The finials are of equal shape; umbels may also be present. Only nine of this form are listed in the Data; of these only three are complete enough to allow the hull length/water lines to be measured. Their average is 3.63.

These vessels could be sailed, and show a wide spread of hull length/mast height ratios, resulting in an average of 2.36 as well as a wide diversion of hull length/water line ratios averaging 3.42. The mast step/hull length ratio is generally consistent, falling between 0.31 and 0.41 with an average of 0.36. Only two examples have forestay and backstay angles which can be measured. 2.5.4.2

2.5.4.5

T IV H (e) category is recognisable by its short upright finials. A rare form of hull, [TH 11] and [P 41] appear to be the only known examples. The authenticity of [P 41] is unclear.

T IV H (b)

2.5.5 Type V

These craft replicate the shape the T III H (b) form.97 Of the thirty six examples listed, twenty three are from either Giza or Saqqara; six are from the same tomb.

This is another class of hull where the earlier papyrus craft has been replicated in timber. Reisner listed three certain examples of hulls of the Type V form, with two examples of uncertain form and one consisting of another hull form being utilised for funeral purposes. This is example [EB 04], a Type II model, (Reisner. Item 4952). [EB 04] was incorrectly listed by Reisner under the Type V heading as a Type I, however it is correctly categorised as a T II in the text; the two examples of which Reisner was uncertain as to their form were the [DA 01] craft.

The T IV H (b) craft show considerable uniformity in the BATH area, averaging 20º - 30º. Once again, however, the SATH angles are more divergent. Only two hull length/mast height ratios are offered; they both are just lower than 2, averaging 1.87, while the hull length/water line ratios are more divergent, from 1.67 to 5.4, averaging 3.18. The mast step/hull length average is 0.42. 2.5.4.3

T IV H (c)

The main delineating characteristics of the T V H subcategories are the form of the bow and stern finials. Reisner allowed for three configurations of bow and stern finials, which he considered might represent differing local traditions.100 These are noted below, against the sub categories of this hull form. He was of the opinion that the characteristic badge of this class is the presence aboard of either a mummy on a bier or a mummiform figure on a throne or a coffin.101 At the time he wrote, this was correct, however [G 01] and the Meket - Re discoveries – [DB 16] Group 1 (a) – (d) have placed this form in a new light.

This category has the outward facing cylindrical projections. Unlike the other T IV H forms, this hull shape is exceedingly rare; only [M 17] meets the requisite criteria.98 2.5.4.4

T IV H (e)

T IV H (d)

The extremities of these craft have only a slight rise; A few instances of this prolific class are; [DE 05] (a) and (b), Petrie, Deshasheh. pl. XXVII. [EH 03] (a), El-Khouli and Kanawati, ElHammamiya. pls. 42, 44 and 45. [G 03] (b), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. fig. 5. pl. V. [M 04] (a) and (c), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [M 05] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLIII. [M 29], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4880. pl. XII. [M 30], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4881. pl. XIII. [S 21] (a), J. Wilson, ‘Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom’, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago. October, 1944. p. 204. [S 24] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 28] (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 37] (e), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 74 – 76. [S 38] (d), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [S 39] (a) and (b), Steindorff, Ti. pl. 119. 98 Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4803. pp. 8 – 9. pl. II. 97

99 This form may be seen at [ASI 04], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 45089. pp. 28 – 29. fig. 28. pl. VIa. ELH 02] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls 2 and 6. ELH 06] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 60], A. Moussa and H. Altenmuller, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. Mainz. 1971. pl. 41a. [P 18], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4804. pp. 9 – 10. pl. III. [P 31], Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 69b. 100 Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. XXII. 101 Reisner, Ships and Boats. pp. XXI – XXII.

29

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

The bow sleeve of [G 01] consists of paired upper and lower covering timbers, masterful pieces of work, cut with T shaped cross-sections. These fitted around the backing timbers, their inboard ends keying into the truncated bow and stern and when positioned, the sleeve was continuous with the run of the hull and deck, with which it merged. Cut into the inner surface of the outboard end of each of these timbers is a recess which, when positioned in alignment with the covering timber on the opposite side of the bow or stern, created a mortise to receive a tenon to secure the finial. The lower sections of the finial were, in turn, shaped to form a mortise; when aligned to match the mortise cut into the upper, forward sections of the sleeve a long tenon inserted into the two mortise halves secured the finial to the sleeve. The stern sleeve consists of three sections per side, with two long timbers, between which are a triangular insert, with the apex facing aft.

Fig. 26. T IV H (e). Image courtesy of Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien. Inv. No. 3923.

It has been suggested that, rather than being a purpose built craft, the Type V form of vessel was produced by the addition of finials to a more common form of hull. Proposed by Nancy Jenkins, when considering the [DA 01] hulls, there is no evidence, other than their proximity to a pyramid complex, to indicate that they were associated with a royal burial. Deprived of its finials, [G 01] is truncated and open ended. In order to attach the characteristic finials, this problem had to be overcome.

Once secured in place, the sleeve/finial assemblies were effectively linked into the hull, with the protruding cheeks absorbing and spreading the load, substantially decreasing the risk of them breaking away from the hull. The lower covering timbers rested against the outer edges of the cheeks; the upper formed a continuation of the bulwark.

There appears to have been two similar methods by which the finials could be attached. In the first, as utilised aboard [G 01], they were attached to sleeves, which in turn were positioned onto pairs of timbers, “backing timbers” as Lipke calls them, protruding forward from the bow and stern. The second method, as aboard the [DA 01] vessels, saw the finials merely secured by a simple joint to the deck at the extremities of the bow and stern, without any associated sleeves.

In this work, it is proposed that the variation in the shapes of the backing timbers and cheeks of [G 01] are due to the different weight supporting needs of the sleeves. The bow sleeve curves upward at an angle of approximately 16° to its outboard end and its finial tilts slightly forward, increasing the downward thrust upon its sleeve. The stern sleeve rises to 30° at its outer extremity; its finial inclines inboard, over the deck. This incline would see the weight of the stern assembly achieving a status where the downward force generated by the weight of the sleeve would be balanced by that of the finial. The pressure from the weight of the complete sleeve/finial assembly would be directed back onto the hull and the backing timbers. The more robust backing timbers of the stern would be more suitable for the absorption of this pressure, which would, in effect, be applied from above. This proposed balance may be the reason why the construction of the stern sleeve seems to be less robust than that utilised in the bow. Forward, the backing timbers had to absorb pressures that could pull the finial forward and down, away from the hull. The more substantial cheeks of the bow backing timbers, with their heavy edges, resulted in the weight of the assemblage being fully absorbed.

The extremities of [G 01] are open ended; the side timbers do not meet at either bow or stern, necessitating the use of sleeves and backing timbers. The backing timbers of the bow are slenderer than those at the stern; substantial raised cheeks are present on the outward sides of the bow and stern timbers at their inboard ends. 102 Those for the bow have raised, clearly defined edges; those of the stern, however, are lower, and merge at their outboard edge at a shallow angle into the body of the timbers.103 To prevent the timbers from collapsing inwards, four transverse braces were fitted to each pair. The recesses to receive them are cut along the upper edge; when fitted the tops of the braces were flush with the edges.104 A docked out section on the inboard edge of all four lower backing timbers rested against the floor timbers of the hull, passing the stresses into some of the longest timbers of the hull.

The capping disks of the finials are retained by lashings passing through widely spaced holes in their upper surfaces. There are no recesses between the holes, and the lashings are exposed, although there would have been little danger of their being damaged.105

Jenkins, Boat, p. 82, ill. 56. This shows the restorer working with small scale models of the timbers. He holds two replicate backing timbers with the cheeks facing inwards, but this cannot be miss-interpreted as indicating the final position of these timbers on the restored hull. . 103 For the differences in shape of the cheeks, see Jenkins, Boat, ill. 44, 46 and 61. ill. 61, shows the backing timbers, to be seen stacked on the left. 104 See Jenkins, Boat, and Lipke, Royal Ship, figs. 44 and 52. Lashings through a pair of parallel lashing holes below these braces served to retain them in their recesses. 102

[DA 01] (a) shows the proposed second means of The conservators have left considerable slackness in these bindings, which are adequate to retain the disks, while reducing the strain placed upon the timbers. 105

30

Categorizations

attachment. The stern of this vessel has the remains of a square cut out, with what appears to be the stump of matching square tenon. It is possible that a similarly shaped cut out noticeable in the timbers of the foredeck was the matching location for securing the bow finial. Holes through the deck timbers aft of the recess may have been for bindings.

than a concomitant of religious purpose.110 This researcher is most inclined to agree with this, as [G 01] displays none of the cultic symbols associated with solar vessels. 2.5.5.1

T V H (a) (Reisner Form I)

This sub - category is the most commonly found and is distinguished by a bow finial, which is usually vertical, or almost vertical. The stern finial bends forward and then up.111 The bow finial of [P 02], which has been classified in this paper as a T V H (a), leans forward at 55°. The hull length/mast height ratios average 1.59. Some of the examples of this class have very high hull length/mast height ratios, perhaps due to artistic style, resulting in an average of 3.78. The mast step/hull length ratio averages 0.39.

It is assumed in this work that the finials were constructed in a similar manner to those of [G 01], with the exception of being socketed onto the tenon within the recess. This would suggest that the bases of the finials were squared; to prevent them from moving laterally; the bases of the finials were possibly flared outwards, to sit upon the deck, increasing the finial’s stability. Such a technique would allow for the usage of a secular craft for sacred purposes, but would not alter in any way the basic hull profile of the craft utilised. When sailed, these craft were fitted with the pole mast. Glanville has stated that these craft were only towed, and so were not to be found equipped with a mast.106 This has since been disproved, as shown by the [DB 16] Group 1 vessels, and examples such as [M 46], [EB 02], [P 02], [P 12] and [P 40].107 Although not buried with a mast, the presence of a heavy deck beam in the structure of [G 01] indicates that this craft could have carried a mast.

2.5.5.2

T V H (b) (Reisner Form II)

The bow finial curves inwards and then forwards, while that of the stern curves forward. Two examples are known; [S 33] and [S 56].112 Their hull length/waterline averages 3.88. 2.5.5.3

T V H (c) (Reisner Form III)

Both the bow and stern finials bend sternwards, then horizontally forward and then turn vertically. A very rare form of T V H vessel, only [S 34] meets the criteria for this hull form.113 It is possible that the stern finial is not original.

Vinson has proposed that this form of vessel, specifically [G 01], may have been known to the Ancient Egyptians as Dw3-T3.wy, or Praise of the Two Lands. He notes that the basic shape is known from a vase from the Step Pyramid, although, despite the craft appearing to be of a ceremonial nature, no other information is given, and cites the Palermo Stone, where Sneferu is recorded as building two Dw3-T3.wy craft in his regnal years two and three.108 The materials utilised differed between the years, but the shape of the craft, as indicated by the glyph for Year Three closely equates to the profile of [G 01].109 He follows with a most interesting argument that the royal ships may have been known to the Egyptians as 16 frame ships, due to the presence of the numerals constituting 16 in the Palermo Stone text for Sneferu’s Year Three ship construction, and equates this possibility to [G 01], which has 16 frames, or, to be technically correct, floor timbers. He concludes by suggesting the possibility that, rather than having any solar or purely divine symbolism, that the burial of such craft was more an expression of the king’s prestige and power rather

2.5.5.4

T V H (d)

The profile of this craft sees a replication of the stern finial of the T V H (a). The bow finial, however, takes a different form. A relatively short and thick form of finial, with a tapered waist, replaces the tall finial. Unlike T V H (a), the bow finial often lies at right angles to the line of the deck. The bow finials of [ASI 01], (a) and (b), as examples, are vertical; aboard [M 23], they are at 90°.114 Nine examples are listed in this work; the BATH averages 20º - 30º; [M 23] is higher than the SATH, as is that of [P 08]. The hull length/water line ratios are widely divergent, resulting in an average of 3.22. The mast step/hull length is 0.44. Vinson, ‘Notes on Two Old Egyptian Inscriptions’ in GM. vol. 190. 2002. pp. 91 – 95. 111 A few examples of this hull form are [AB 04], Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. IX. [AB 05] Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. [DB 07], Arnold, Mentuhotep. [DB 16] Group 1 (a) – (d), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 45 – 48. pls. 78 – 81. [G 01]. Jenkins, Boat. Paul Lipke, Royal Ship. Ward, Sacred and Secular. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. S 06] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 386 and 56 387. fig. 18. pl. XXXIII. [TH 05], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVII. [TH 06] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XX. [P 02], Boeser, Beschreibung. Leiden, catalogue no. S 48, No. 11. [P 19], Reisner, Ships And Boats. Item 4811. [P 40], North Carolina Museum of Art. http://ncartmuseum. org/collections/highlights/ancient/egyptian/041_lrg.shtml 112 [S 33], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4915. [S 56], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4913. pl. XVII. 113 [S 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4917. 114 For other examples of the T V H (d) see [BH 02] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XIV. [BH 05] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [DB 04] (a) and (b), D. Arnold, Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari. vol. III. pls. 3 and 64. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 110

Glanville, Catalogue. p. 11. [M 46], W. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. New York. 1990. fig. 179. [EB 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4948. pp. 100 – 101. pl. XXII. [P 02], P. Boeser, Beschreibung Der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden catalogue no. S 48, No 10. [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. [P 40], North Carolina Museum of Art. http://ncartmuseum.org/collections/highlights/ancient/ egyptian/041_lrg.shtml 108 Vinson, ‘Notes on Two Old Egyptian Inscriptions’ in GM. vol.190. 2002. pp. 89 – 91. 109 Vinson, ‘Notes on Two Old Egyptian Inscriptions’ in GM. vol. 190. 2002. p. 92., fig 2. 106

107

31

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 27. T V H (a). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4811. Plate V.

Fig. 28. T V H (b). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4915. Plate XVII.

2.5.5.5

2.6 The ETH forms, by category and sub category

T V H (e)

2.6.1 ETH 1

These vessels are defined by their finials; both of which curve gently inwards and then turn up. From the source material, it can be seen that this form was not prolific.115

The profile of the ETH I is characterised by a rounded bow and stern; it appears that when in use the hull was trimmed to leave the stern sitting higher than the bow. Although this class of hull is unknown from models, iconographic

There are two examples listed in this work; [DB 08], Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 64 (b). [P 07],Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 - 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. 115

32

Categorizations

Fig. 29. T V H (c). From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4917. Plate XVIV.

Fig. 30. T V H (d). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues, 1948. Plate 64b. Courtesy of Princeton University Press.

depictions provide evidence as to the salient features that particularise this form of craft.

however, significant differences. The rake of the stern is less acute and, unlike the TIH (b), where the bulwark gains considerably in height as it extends out over the stern, that of the ETH I either retains the same height along its length, or, at most, increases marginally. Unlike the TIH (a) and (b) craft, there is no heavy canopy frame at the stern. The ETH 1 craft are not depicted with rudder posts, all steerage being achieved by the use of hand held rudders; aboard [A 02] (c) and [S 19] (d); this operation is assisted by the use of a short tiller. It is possible that the stern platform was not entirely planked over, as occasionally, the rudder shafts are depicted as passing through the platform, as seen at examples [S 21] (c) and (d).

The form has some similarities with the TIH (b) craft. These are the upward curve of the stern and the presence of a bulwark, running from aft of the bow and extending over the stern to create a platform. The ETH 1 craft are well represented in the source material.116 There are, See, for instance, [DA 02] (c) and (d), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XIX. [ELH 02] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pl.s. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [M 09] (b), (c) and (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [S 04] (a) and (b), Kanawati and Hassan, Teti Cemetery. pl. 56. [S 19] (f), P. Duell, The Mastaba of Mereruka. Chicago. 1983. pls. 140 – 145. [S 83] (h), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 298. 116

Some depictions show thick shading at the bows and sterns, 33

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 31. T V H (e). From Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. Plate. 34. Courtesy of Princeton University Press.

Fig. 32. ETH 1. From Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, Vol. II. Figure 19. Reproduced with the permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

34

Categorizations

Fig. 33. ETH 2. From Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti, 1913. Plate 119.

which I suggest indicates an attempt by the respective artists to indicate that these areas of the hull were rounded both in profile and plan and not square cut, as with the T I H (a).117 The craft would seem to have been flush decked, despite variations in depiction. The owner of [M 09] (b) is aboard, and sits amidships. A section of the bulwark has been omitted to prevent his feet from being obscured. They rest on the deck line, although the rear legs of his seat are behind the continuation of the bulwark.

there appear to be no models of this craft.118 Where an awning over the helmsmen is depicted, the aftermost upright stands on the extreme end of the stern; steering was by hand held rudders. This form of hull also sees the presence of a raised central bulwark, as seen aboard Type IV and Type V hulls. The bipod mast is to be associated with the ETH 2, as can be seen aboard [EH 02], [S 16] (a), [S 32] (a), [S 58] (a). Of the twenty two examples listed here, only six are not from Saqqara or Giza, again suggesting that this hull form was localised. The BATH’s are very low, countered by, generally speaking, very high SATH’s; the BATH and SATH of [S 39] (c) are equal. There are considerable inconsistencies in the hull length/mast heights, which average 1.78, but greater consistency to be seen in the hull length/water line, with an average of 2.43. The mast step/ hull length rations are quite consistent, averaging 0.36; this consistency is reflected also in the forestay angles and to a lesser extent in the main and secondary backstays.

The ETH I may be seen with either the bipod or the pole mast. Forty two examples of the ETH 1 hull are known to me; of this total, only eleven are not from Saqqara. Although allowances must be made for the multiple appearances of this hull form in some tombs – such as [S 19] (a) – (f) and [S 52] (a) – (d), and although this may be seen elsewhere, such as [M 09] (b) – (d), it would appear that the usage of this hull type was concentrated in the Saqqara area. The BATH falls relatively consistently between 15° and 20º. The SATH of the Saqqara examples is, except for [S 19] (f) and [S 83] (h), higher than the BATH. Those of [ELH 2] (b) and [ELH 06] (b) are much higher, possibly due to the artistic style of their representation. The hull length/mast height ratios show an average of 1.45; the hull length/mast heights average 2.14. Leaving aside [ELH 02] (b), however, there is a relatively consistent pattern to these features of the ETH 1 craft. This is very noticeable for the mast step/ hull length ratio, averaging 0.34, and the forestay angles. There is a great divergency to be seen when the backstays are considered, however.

2.6.3 ETH 3 The bow and stern rise moderately, are square cut and can be seen both with and without a stern platform.119 This hull form is depicted in the same construction scene as ETH 2 [S 39] (c). This allows a comparison to be made of the profiles of the hulls of ETH 2 and ETH 3 and it can be seen that the hull depth of the ETH 3 craft is shallower. For examples of this craft, see, [DE 02] (c), Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 33. [DE 03] (c), Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pls. 44 and 48. [EH 02], El-Kouli and Kanawati, El-Hammamiya. pl. 37. [G 03] (c), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. Fig. 5. pl. V. [S 15], J. Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. Paris. 1961. pl. II. [S 16] (a), Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. III. [S 32] (a), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 37] (a), Steindorf, Ti. pl. 74. [S 39] (c), Steindorf, Ti. pl. 119. [S 58] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. l. 16. (a). [S 75] (d) and (e), Wilson, ‘Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1944. pl. XIII. 119 [G 06] (d), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [G 09] (a) and (c), Junker, Giza VI. [G 23] (b), Vandier, Manuel V. fig. 292. [S 13] (b) and (c), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 63 186 and 63 191. pls. X and IX. [S 16] (b), [S 23] (c), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 24] (d), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhote. pls.12 and 13. [S 26], Moussa 118

2.6.2 ETH 2 The profile of the ETH 2 hull is clearly revealed by [S 39] (c), which forms part of a shipbuilding scene from Saqqara. The hull displays a very deeply curved under surface; the bow is tapered and square cut; the stern tapers to a point. This craft is only known from iconographic depictions; Some instances are [ELH 02] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [M 09] (c) and (d Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. 117

35

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 34. ETH 3. From Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti, 1913. Plate 119.

Although normally present, not all depictions of this form are fitted with a raised central bulwark; [G 23] for example, has no bulwark. The majority of the rudders of this class are depicted as hand held, without tillers. When a mast is carried, it is a bipod.

(a), [S 36] (a), or [S 62] (a) and (b). The rudder (s) could be additionally supported by a rope grommet. This can be seen aboard [S 36] (a), which, although there are no tillers, has a rope grommet supporting the rudder closest to the stern. The BATHs fall between 15º and 25º; with the SATHs between 23º and 35º. The hull length/water lines are between 2.1 and 2.6, averaging 2.34.

As with the ETH I and ETH 2 vessels, of the twenty seven examples of this class of hull listed in Appendix 1 and Data Sheets, all but one are again from Giza or Saqqara, the exception being [SKS 01] (c), a model, of poor workmanship. The BATH is always lower than the SATH, except in the case of [S 22], which is an inked drawing only, and never finished. The discrepancy may have been corrected, had the scene ever been finished. The hull length/ mast height proportions are quite consistent, averaging 1.72, although there are greater variations in the hull length/water line ratios; these average 2.60. The mast step/hull length ratios are relatively consistent, with an average of 0.37, as are the forestay angles. The backstays show a greater spread of angles.

2.6.5 ETH 5 As above, but with a pair of horizontal protrusions at the stern, intended to steady the rudder.121 There was no stern platform. A single rudder and rudder post were used aboard this class, of which ten are known to me; the pole mast is to be associated with the ETH 5. Of the ten examples, only two have masts. A number of these craft, such as [ASI 06], (a) and (b), were previously categorised as Type II hulls by Reisner. Apart from [ASI 06] (a), the BATH is lower or the same angle as the SATH. The hull length/waterline is quite high, averaging 4.13; the mast step/hull length ratios are between 0.34 – 0.53, averaging 0.43.

2.6.4 ETH 4

2.6.6 ETH 6

A square bow and rounded stern, with or without stern platform, are the main features of this craft, which was not prolific, and is represented in this work by [DA 05] (a), (b) and (c), [S 36] (a) and [S 62] (b), with the possibility of [G 04] (c) also belonging to this class, based on the shape of the bow.120 A raised central bulwark is a feature of this hull. Bipod masts were fitted, and one or more hand held rudders, with or without tillers, were utilised for steering, as may be seen at [DA 05] (b) and (c), but not on [DA 05]

Seventeen of this class are recorded in this work, with twelve being from Abusir, all from the same excavation. Despite extreme damage to the Abusir examples, their consistencies show that they were the result of a unified pattern of depiction. The ETH 6 class was intended for use at sea, with the sail as the main means of propulsion, although oars were carried. The profiles of the bow and stern are rounded, the stern being provided with a railing barrier to give some protection to the helmsmen. An upright, similar in shape to a knife blade, stood at either

and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 32] (f), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 37] (b) and (f), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 74 – 76. [S 38] (b), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [S 39] (e), Steindorf, Ti. pl. 119. [S 43] (a) and (b), H. Petrie, Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels. BSEA. vol. LXV. pl. XVII. [S 62] (a), W. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. New York. 1990. fig. 64. Only [S 26] and [S 38] (b) are fitted with stern platforms. 120 [DA 05] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XXI. [S 36] (a), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 21 – 22. [S 62] (b), Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 64. [G 04] (c), Simpson, Mastaba of Khafkhufu.

[ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. [BH 11], Tooley, ‘An unusual type of model boat’ in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 72. [EB 01], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4947. p. 74. pl. XXI. [EB 03], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4951. [M 25], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4859. [S 65], Tooley, ‘Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models’ in ZAS 118. 1991. fig. 3. [P 10], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34274. pp. 42 – 43. fig. 40. pl. VIIIa. [P 12]. Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35291. 121

36

Categorizations

Fig. 35. ETH 4. From de Morgan, Fouilles a’ Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Plate XXI.

Fig. 36. ETH 5. From Glanville, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, BM 45087. Figure 33. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

extremity. As was usual for Egyptian hulls, the bows and sterns of these craft are depicted clear of the water. The lesser damaged examples of this hull show that the BATH and SATH were equal. The hull length/mast height ratios average 1.48; the hull length/water line ratios are 2.09. Of the three Abusir examples where the mast step/hull ratios can be measured, the consistency is most noticeable at 0.32 or 0.33. The bipod mast was fitted to these craft.

and or aft. There is no indication that [S 13] (a) was ever fitted with guard rails at the stern.122 A rope truss raised over the deck, supported on stanchions and extending from the bow and stern, supplied additional stiffening for these vessels. This truss was intended to prevent the hull from sagging (hogging) at the bow and stern if the vessel were to be lifted amidships by a wave, which would leave the bow and stern unsupported. The truss was tightened by a stick, passed through it and secured from untwisting by being tied to the midships stanchion.

The ETH (6) hull form is well represented by [S 13] (a) and indicates that apart from the raised central bulwark, the deck was flush, without raised decks fore and aft, such as were to be noticed as some of the features of the Type II hull. This would have been of advantage to the crew were they to be loading cargoes which required maximum support along their length, such as a cargo of long timbers, which would have been stressed and/or deformed by being placed against raised areas, such as raised decks forward

From the [AB 02] and [AB 03] examples, especially [AB 03] (f), it can be seen that the truss was not a single heavy cable, but a series of ropes, apparently eight in number, bound together at points along its length.123 [S 13] (a), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 27. Landstrom, Ships. figs 194 and 195. Cairo Museum Model 63 184. 123 Fragmented depictions of the truss can be seen aboard [AB 02], (a), (c) and (d), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XI and [AB 03] (a),- (c), (e), - (h), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XII. 122

37

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 37. ETH 6. From Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahu-Re. 1913. Plate XII.

There is a discrepancy in the depictions of the means of tightening the truss. It can be seen from [AB 03] (a), (b) and (e) that the tensioning stick is off centre, which contradicts Faulkner’s and Borchardt’s depiction, which indicates that the stick passed through the centre of the truss.124 Faulkner seems to have based his representation of Borchardt’s pl. XIII, which gives a more detailed depiction of [AB 03] (e) which shows the tensioning stick as passing through the truss centre. Comparing this plate to the same vessel in pl. XII, however shows that this is not so, and that the stick is off centre; two strands are on one side of the stick, and the other six on the other. Passing the stick through the centre of the truss would have resulted in a more even tightening; however, positioning the stick off centre most probably made the task easier to achieve.

An additional form of hull strengthening was employed along the hull, consisting of two ropes, run parallel and interlaced with a third run of rope. Similar to rope strengthening seen aboard cargo craft, it appears that these strengthening ropes were fitted at a lower level than that depicted for the river craft. 2.6.7 ETH 7 This craft had a most distinctive hull profile, being instantly recognisable by an inward facing figurehead, usually identified as that of a hedgehog. This class always has such a head located upon the bow.126 A second identifying characteristic is the shape of the stern, which has a rounded ‘canoe stern’ profile. An apparent aberration of this hull configuration can be seen, however, aboard [M 09] (a), which has a head at both the bow and stern. It could be plausibly argued that [DB 11] may also have had a hedgehog head at the stern, as the remains of a hedgehog head appears to be discernable, but the area is too damaged to be sure. These two examples and [P 45] form the ETH 12 class of vessel.

The presence of such a truss does not automatically indicate that a vessel so fitted was intended for use at sea. They are known from ship building scenes, involving craft intended for riverine usage, such as [S 59], where an ETH 7 is being constructed.125 It has been suggested that the use of the truss in ship building was intended to warp the hull into shape; however, any attempt to do so would pull a completed hull apart. Depictions of the truss in such scenes are surely intended to indicate a phase of hull construction where timbers are pulled into shape at an earlier phase of assembly. As an iconographical means for the depicting of boat building, it would have been understood by an Ancient Egyptian, to whom such constructional practices were known.

The stern of the ETH 7 is occasionally extended by a short platform, as aboard [S 17], [S 28] (a), [S 36] (d), [S 37] (d) and [S 58] (b). The purpose of the platform appears to have been to provide the helmsmen, where there was more than one rudder, with a wider platform from which to work, although this was not always the case, as can be seen from [G 03] (d), where there is no platform, but two helmsmen.

There are two variations of the truss, defined by their means of securement. In the first, the forward end is secured outboard, with the rope either passing under the hull behind the bow, or via a separate loop passing under the hull. Astern, the truss is either secured inboard. The other means of depiction shows the truss secured outboard at the extremities of the hull.

126 Some of the 23 examples in this work are [G 03] (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyabkh. Fig. 5. pl. V. [G 08], Junker, Giza V. fig. 14. [G 18] (b), Kanawati, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16. pl. 44. [G 23] (a), Vandier, Manuel. V. fig. 17. [M 09] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. Pl. XV. [S 14], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. 16. [S 17], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypte Ancienne. pl. 16. [S 23] (d), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 28] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 36] (d), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 21 – 22. [S 37] (d), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 74 – 76. [S 58] (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. [S 59], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pl. 19. [TIA 01], W. Haarlem, ‘A remarkable hedgehog ship from Tell Ibrahim Awad’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 82. pp. 197 – 198. pl. XXI 1 – 2. [TH 09] (a), W. Schurmann, Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-Nefret. Karlsruhe. 1982. figs. 6 and 7. pls. 6 and 7a.

Faulkner, ‘Egyptian Seagoing Ships’ in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 26. London. 1940. p. 4. fig. 1. Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XIII. 125 [S 59] Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pl. 19. 124

38

Categorizations

Fig. 38. ETH 7. From Moussa and Altenmuller, das Grab Des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Figure. 11. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

of longitudinal stringer, overlaid with deck beams. This repeated for the main deck, for an area of four deck beams inwards from the break of the decks in the bow and stern. The remainder of the area of the main deck, however, only shows the deck beams, without the presence of the longitudinal stringer. As can be seen from the published photos and drawings, the central section of beam was never depicted aboard this example.

The platform also provided a convenient way to extend the aft area of the awning, if one were fitted, as aboard [S 28] (a) and [S 58] (b). Where there was no platform, the aft most awning support is depicted standing on the edge of the stern, as is seen aboard [G 03] (d). The BATHs of the twenty three examples offered here are never higher than the SATH, although they are sometimes equal. The hull length/mast height averages 1.93, the mast step/hull length lay between 0.28 and 0.36, averaging 0.32. The averages of the hull length/water line ratios could be very high; their total average is 2.27.

The greater number of examples of ETH 7 craft occurs in the Giza/Saqqara area, which may, perhaps, serve to indicate that the part that these craft played in religious or ceremonial roles was localised. The purpose of the heads to be associated with this hull is unknown.

Distinct vertical lines inboard of the bow and stern could be considered as indicative of these areas being constructed of a different material than the rest of the hull. Acting counter to this suggestion, however, is a scene showing an ETH 7 craft - [S 59] - being constructed. The distinctive characteristics are present; the presence of a fore and aft truss could suggest a vessel intended for use at sea. This aspect of the scene, however, must be considered as one that depicts a stage of hull construction. There is no evidence to suggest that this form of vessel was utilised for any purpose than riverine traffic.

The size of these craft varied considerably, the smallest is [G 08], carrying a crew of only four. Dated to Dyn V, this is considered to be the earliest known depiction of a hull with a pole mast from dynastic times. This is open to debate, as [EL 01], a model hull of indeterminate hull type, dated to Dyn. IV, displays a mast step, the form of which suggests that the pole was in use even earlier than [G 08].127 Although badly damaged, it can be seen that [EL 01] was not decorated with the animal figurehead feature. [H 01], a damaged T II craft, has been dated to Dyn. II and had also been provided with a fitting to accept a pole mast. The date of this example must, however, be taken as tentative, the Helwan site has been badly disturbed. Both the bipod and pole mast may be seen aboard the ETH 7.

The construction of the deck is suggested by [TIA 01], which shows the presence of deck beams, but no central stringer. The apparent lack of this feature is not entirely unknown aboard Egyptian craft of the period, since the existent models of T I H craft do not display this feature, and its absence is to be noted occasionally aboard models dated to later periods, such as [ASI 03], a T II H (a) vessel and [P 09], a T II H (c). The stringer is a most noticeable feature of the constructional techniques utilised aboard [G 01], although it cannot be seen, as it is covered by the deck sections. A most unusual configuration of deck is to be noted aboard [DB 05], a T II H (c) craft. The raised decks at the bow and stern have the usual configuration

[TIA 01] is the only model of an ETH 7 I know of, which hampers any consideration of the details of deck structure of this class of vessel. The pictorial evidence, with the crews either standing upon the line of the deck or rowing or paddling from behind a bulwark, indicates that the ETH 7 craft were flush decked and the bulwarks continuous 127

39

Kaiser, et al. MDAIK 44. pls. 13 and 34.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

with the run of the hull. There are no depictions of rudder posts; the rudders are always hand held, although aboard one example, [S 14], they are retained from loss by a retaining rope and grommet. A timber beam, with a half round profile, is positioned across the deck; the rudders are secured against the forward edge of this beam. This craft also has retaining ropes and grommets for the oars, so it may be possible that this apparent discrepancy in the standard means of depicting an ETH 7 vessel stems from the artist carrying the depictions of ropes and grommets on throughout the composition of the scene.

There are differences in the steering equipment utilised upon these craft and in their usage. Aboard [S 52] (g), the helmsman holds onto both the tiller and the loom, as if forcing the blade into the water, while in the same scene, the helmsman of [S 52] (f) holds the tiller with one hand. Their colleague in the stern of [S 52] (a) has turned to face aft and holds the tiller with both hands. Rarely, the ETH 8 may also be seen with a pair of rudders, mounted on the stern quarter, as aboard [S 36] (e) (3). The rudders of this example are passed through grommets and are also supplied with securing ropes. In contrast, [AB 01] (a), (b) and (c) have twin rudders over the stern quarter, but there are no surviving details of how they were secured.132

2.6.8 ETH 8

Boreux allowed for two classes of cargo vessel, delineated by their deck structures into Class A and B.133 Class A had a stern cabin and a domed main deck house. Class B displayed a similar arrangement; the main deck house, however, was rectangular.

These are cargo craft, whose hull profile has some affinity with that of the Type I (c) class, but the hull is lower. The extant models indicate that they were broad with, generally, a square bow and stern. Other examples may have rounded hull extremities, as is to be seen from [S 32] (b) and [S 74] (g) and (h).128 Although occasionally depicted under sail, these craft are usually seen being moved either by oars or by a combination of oars and punting poles. [DG 01] (g), [S 32] (b), [S 52] (g), and [S 81] (b) are some examples of this class of vessel under sail.129 These examples indicate the ability of the crews to utilise their masts and sails despite the presence of encumbering deck structures. The bipod mast is the only mast form associated with these vessels; unstepped bipod masts are often seen aboard these craft.

Three sub categories are proposed here, with the deck structures of Boreux being interchangeable. 2.6.8.1

ETH 8 (a)

A hull with truncated bow and stern is indicative of this form.134 There seems to have been no bulwark, although the hull is occasionally depicted with a strengthening rope at deck level or an interlaced truss below deck level, as is present. The rope along the deck is seen aboard [S 18] (d). The interlaced truss is to be seen aboard to [AB 01] (a) – (f). [M 01] (a) is an ETH 8 (a) craft that has been strengthened by the addition of a short truss on three uprights, placed forward of the mast. The efficiency of this truss must be considered as questionable, as it did not span any great length of the deck.

The ETH 8 craft may also be seen with an arched or angular profiled deckhouse, which fills the stern, although this not universal, and were steered by varying combinations of rudders. An upward and outward curving protrusion on either quarter of the stern, similar to that seen on the TIH (c) hull may also be present, instances of this being [D 04] (a), (b) and (c) and [S 52] (e) – (g).130 This served, where fitted, to assist with the management of the rudders aboard this form. These projections may be present both with and without the presence of rudder posts. The posts are present aboard [S 18] (c), and [S 69] (c).131 In either combination, the rudders were generally positioned against the edge of the protrusion, and turned by the use of a short tiller. The rudders could be hand held, secured though the usage of rope loops and preventer lines, or supported by rudder posts.

A pair of projections at the stern can also be present, as aboard [S 18] (d). A railing, forward of the main deck structure, served both as a guardrail and seat for the crew when moving their vessel with oars. This rail is not a universal fitting. It is not present aboard [AB 01] (a) – (f), for example, but is seen aboard [S 82] (d) and (e). The rudders can be seen as hand held, secured by grommets and preventer ropes, seen aboard [S 36] (e), (3), or secured to rudder posts, as fitted to [S 10] (a) and (b) and [S 18] (d). The majority of the ETH 8 (a) rudders are hand held. Of the twenty ETH 8 (a) examples listed, twelve are from

See [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Caio Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393. pl. IV. [S 32] (b), A. Moussa and F. Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. Mainz. 1975. pl. 8. [S 74] (g) and (h), McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. fig. 4. pl. 11. McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. I. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. 129 [DG 01] (g), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 32] (b), [S 52] (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 19 – 22. [S 74] (g) – (h), McFarlane, Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. 1999. fig. 4. pl. 11. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 1. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. [S 81] (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 296. 130 [DA 04] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. [S 52] (e) – (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 20 – 22. 131 [S 18] (c), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. [S 69] (c), C. Firth – B. Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemetaries. 1906 – 1907. pl. 53 128

[S 52] (a), (f), and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. [S 36] (e) (3), Steindorff, Ti. pls 21 – 2. [AB 01] (a) – (c), M. Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Reliefs. Prague, 1977. pls. 3 – 8. 133 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. pp. 259 - 260. 134 See [AB 01], (a) - (f), Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. pls. 3 – 8. [DG 01] (g), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. VII. [M 01] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [S 03], Kanawati and Hassan, Teti Cemetery. pl. 57. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393. [S 18] (d), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 – 144. [S 36] (e), 1- 6, Steindorf, Ti. pls. 21 – 22. [ S 82] (d) – (e), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 298. 132

40

Categorizations

Fig. 39. ETH 8 (a). From Poujade, Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. 1948. Plate IV.

Saqqara (six from the same tomb) and an equal number from Abusir, also from the one tomb. The BATH angles are considerably lower than the SATH; the hull length/mast height averages 1.30, the hull length/ water line ratio averages are close to 1.5 although two, [S 18] d) and [S 82] (d) are higher than 2.5; the average is 1.94. Only two examples have masts stepped; they show hull length/mast step ratios of 0.34 and 0.41, respectfully.

stern than the ETH 8 (b) vessels. The bow and stern are either rounded, with a downward curve, or square cut. Some examples of the former are [S 74] (g) and (h), [S 78] (c) and [S 82] (c), while a few instances of the latter are [G 06], (b) and (c). Only rarely were rails fitted at the bow; these may be seen aboard [S 78] (c). Of the eight examples, only two have masts. Three of the four measurable hull length/ water line ratios are close to 2.0, the fourth is slightly less; the average is 1.09.

2.6.8.2 ETH 8 (b)

2.6.9 ETH 9

Twenty two examples are listed; continuing the pattern, eighteen are from Saqqara; eight from the one tomb. A longer and lower profile characterises the ETH 8 (b), with either a rounded or angular bow and stern.135 The ETH 8 (b) also displays a stern extension, which can curve either up or down and low bulwarks.136 A railing was utilised, as per the ETH 8 (a) craft.137 Rudder posts may also be fitted, as can be seen fitted to [DG 01] (g), [S 69] (c) and [S 81] (g) and (h). The BATHs are relatively consistent, with the majority being between 15º and 25º. The majority of the SATH angles are between 20º - 30º. The five measurable hull length/mast height ratios are close to 1.5, averaging 1.57 and the hull length/water line ratios average 1.98.

Two examples of this form are known, [M 36] and [DG 01] (e), one a model and the other from a tomb scene; both are fitted with a pole mast.138 The greatest variation in the profiles of the T I hulls and the ETH 9 vessels is to be seen aboard [M 36], which has a rounded bow and stern, similar to the T I H (b) vessels, but lacking the projecting stern platform. Although the artist has compressed the hull to fit into the scene, the same features are identifiable aboard [DG 01] (e). It is the lack of a projecting platform, which serves to remove this hull form from the Type I categories. Neither of the ETH 9 examples have bulwarks.

2.6.8.3

2.6.10 ETH 10

ETH 8 (c)

These were heavy transport barges, of solid and robust construction; the profiles of this class are symmetrical, with square cut bow and stern, although the deck aft seems to have projected past the transom. Tall, knife - blade shaped posts are present at the bow and stern. Their purpose is unclear; similar objects are seen aboard the ETH 6 vessels such as [AB 02] (a) – (d) and [AB 03] (a) – (h). It may be possible that they were extensions of one or more bow and stern posts, and that they therefore could have served to provide points for securing hull timbers. This would

The hull of this form is longer and shows a higher angled Some examples of this form are [DA 04] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. [S 32] (b), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 52] (e), (f) and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 20 – 22. [S 69], (a) - (c), Firth – Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. 1906 – 1907. pl. 53. [TH 02] (a), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 136 [DA 04] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX [S 52] (e) – (g), [S 69] (b) and (c), Firth – Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. 1906 – 1907. pl. 53 [S 81] (b) and (c), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 296. [S 83] (d) – (h), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 298. 137 See [S 32] b, Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 69] (a) – (c), Firth – Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. 1906 – 1907. pl. 53. 135

[M 36], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4888. pl. XV. [DG 01] (e), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. VII. 138

41

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 40. ETH 8 (b). From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu, Plate 22 (a), courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

Fig. 41. ETH 8 (c). From Mcfarlane, The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. 1. The Tomb of Irukhapatah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 15. Plate 48. Reproduced with the permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

equate to Landstrom’s reconstruction of an ETH 6 craft.139 However, as the ETH 6 craft had narrowing bows and sterns, and considering that the ETH 10 vessels were for the transport of heavy cargo, the proposed reconstruction by Goyon, which shows the bow and stern broad and flat, is perhaps the most plausible. [L 11], has four such posts at the bow, and has been tentatively identified in this work as an ETH 10 craft. The vessels of the ETH 10 class from Saqqara - [S 41] (a), (b), (c) and (d) - are fitted with eight of these posts at either extremity.140 How this could have affected the strength of the hull is unknown.

(a), (c) and (d), indicate that the tripod mast was carried aboard these vessels. In keeping with the practice upon river craft, there are no guardrails at the stern. Low raised decks are present at the bow and stern. The two BATHs which can be measured, [S 41] (a) and (c), are both 15º. 2.6.11 ETH 11 This class represents the small utilitarian workboat, whose salient features are a sharply pointed bow and stern.141 In contrast to most Egyptian hulls, these are of equal height. The pole mast is to be associated with this form, as is a rudder post and single rudder. The BATH is always lower than the SATH.

There are no rudder posts, and the rudders, of which there appear to have been four in number, are hand held, and have no tillers. The surviving examples of this hull form, [S 41] Landstrom, Ships. pp. 66 – 67. figs 197 – 199. [S 41] (a) – (d), G. Goyon, ‘Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas’ in BIFAO. 69. 1971. pls. III – IV. [L 11], H. Goedicke, Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. pl. 62.

[ELHA 01], N. Kanawati, The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Vol. III. Sydney. 1995. pl. 23. [ELHA 03], Kanawati, The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. pl. 40. [M 02] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XVIII. [RI 01], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4817. pp. 21 – 22. pl. VI. [SE 01], Petrie and Brunton, Sedment I. pl. XXVI. [TH 02] (b), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A.

139

141

140

42

Categorizations

Fig. 42. ETH 9. From Reisner, Models of Ships and Boats, Item 4888. Plate XV.

Fig. 43. ETH 10. From Goyon, Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas’ in BIFAO. 69. 1971. Plate IV. Reproduced with the permission of BIFAO.

2.6.12 ETH 12

Figure 45. [P 45] is said to date from the Middle Kingdom, but its authenticity is questionable.142

A long, low, hull, with an animal head topped finial at either extremity makes this craft immediately identifiable. This form is tentatively proposed as meriting a separate categorisation, as it was to be frequently seen in the New Kingdom. The only example that appears to be known for the Old and Middle Kingdoms is [M 09] shown below, as

2.7 Summary and Dating In this chapter, the merits, as viewed by this researcher, of [P 46], Macquarie University Museum of Ancient Cultures. Sydney, NSW. Unpublished. Said to be from Beni Hasan. Merriman, p. 437, has placed it amongst her examples of examples of questionable authenticity. 142

43

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 44. ETH 11. From Petrie and Brunton, Sedment 1, Plate XXVI.

Fig. 45. ETH 12. From Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. Vol. IV. Plate. XV.

44

Categorizations

Despite Reisners dating, SKS [04] suggests to this researcher that the TIH (b) hull may have been known as early as Dyn II.

the existing categorisation systems for Ancient Egyptian watercraft of the period were considered. The Reisner series of hulls, developed from and for the models and hulls of ships and boats in the Cairo collection, were reviewed and an expansion of this hull sequence is proposed. The dating of these Reisner hulls was considered, with the suggestion that some of these forms be dated to earlier periods than previously believed. Additional categories of hull were also offered, tentatively labelled with the pre-fix Expedient Type Hull (ETH), with the intention of developing a means for the categorisation of classes of hull known only from iconographic representation, again from the period under research. For both the Reisner and the ETH vessels, the salient characteristics of the identifying features were considered.

It can be seen that the T II H (b) vessels were employed over the greatest spread time, however T II H (c) were the most prolific of these craft; of the T II H craft listed in the Catalogue, they are the most numerous, with sixty three examples. The usage of the Type III vessels can be traced as early as Dyn V. It must, however, be conjectured that they were known earlier, but that their representation has not survived in the artistic records. Interestingly, the main periods where T III H craft are depicted form two clusters – Dynasties V – VI and Dynasties X – XII. The T III H (f) is the simplest of these vessels. T III H (d) and T III H (e) are the rarest of these vessels, with five examples of each of these known. All the T III H (d) craft, all examples are from Meir; four are from the same find site, [M 44] (a) – (d). The fifth is example [M 11] (a), with such a concentration suggesting either a localised usage of this form or a possible local artistic preference or style. This localisation is not to be noticed for the T III H (e).

The attendant charts offer proposed dates for the Reisner and ETH classes of hulls. Although relatively unsophisticated hull forms, T I H (a) and (c), in accompaniment with the more elaborate shape of the T I H (b), seems to have wide usage, and, apart from [SKS 04], whose dating to Dyn II is questionable, is not known before Dyn V or later than Dyn VI.

Replicating in timber the shapes of papyrus craft, the dating of these vessels show that it had wide spread usage, with the majority of examples coming from the earlier period. Thirty T IV H (a) craft are listed in the Catalogue of this work, of which twenty two are dated prior to Dyn VIII. Of thirty six T IV H (b) examples, only three are dated to the Middle Kingdom. There are nine T IV H (d) examples – five are dated to the Middle Kingdom. The rarest form is these vessels is T IV H (c), of which a single example is recorded in this work, followed by T IV H (e), with two instances; these examples are from the Middle Kingdom.

The Type II craft were perhaps the most successful hull class utilised by the Ancient Egyptians, and a wide range of subcategories are offered in this work. Reisner dated them to the Middle Kingdom, and the majority of the examples known are from this period, however, it can be seen from the sources that the form was known much earlier, possibly as early as Dyn I. The lack, apart from [S 01], of examples of this hull form prior to Dyn V, does not negate the possibility of its having been used during the Old Kingdom.

45

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

46

Categorizations

Although examples of most of the T V H craft are not prolific, this class of hull was in use during both the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Of the twenty eight examples of T V H (a) vessels listed in the Catalogue, five of them are surviving hulls, with the most spectacular being that buried next to the Great Pyramid – [G 01] of this work; an example of a hull shape which was used at least as early as Dyn IV. The rarest of the T V H craft is the single instance of T V H (c), followed by the almost equally rare T V H (b) and (e) forms, with two instances of each of these two sub categories appearing in the Catalogue.

may be misleading, as of the ETH I hulls, thirteen are from just two tombs – [S 19] (a) – (f) and [S 83] (a) – (j). The sources for the ETH 3 vessels have a greater diversity, with only one example from outside Saqqara, but of the total, six are from the one scene – [S 13] (b) – (i). The ETH 6 vessels are similar, with twelve of the seventeen examples being from Abusir; of these, eight are from the one source, and are recorded in this work as [AB 03] (a) – (h). Of the three sub categories of the ETH 8 vessels, the majority are from Saqqara. Many of the ETH hull forms did not survive the Old Kingdom, although examples of ETH 11, ETH 12 and a single example of ETH 8 (a) have been dated to after this era. Why this falling away in the rich artistic heritage of nautical depictions occurred is unknown, although it may be postulated that economic decline, political turmoil and changes in artistic requirements all played their part.

The representations and models of ETH vessels show a similar clustering of Dynasties as the Reisner hull categories. A number appear to have had very localised usage, such as ETH 1, with thirty one of the forty two examples of this hull considered in this work being from Saqqara, or the ETH 3, where, of twenty seven examples, twenty are from Saqqara and six from Giza. This, however,

47

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

48

3

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

3.1 Deck shapes

[EB 05], but occasionally it may cover two.1 This is seen on [ASI 06] (a) and (b), [EB 04] and [M 19], to name but a few.2 To confuse the issue, [EB 03] is depicted with the central stringer, but, although rigged with a pole mast, there is no rectangle on the deck. The [DB 16] vessels are mixed, with two of the “yachts” [DB 16] Group 1 (a) and (b), having rectangles which extend between two deck beams, while those aboard the other craft in this assemblage, both Group 1 and Group 2, run between three beams.

The shape and layout of the deck of any craft is influenced by the task for which it is to be utilised. The evidence from models indicates that Egyptian riverine craft were either; Flat decked - D. (a), or, Cambered - D. (b).

It has been suggested that the role of the central stringer was to act as a form of spine or stiffening for the hull. The presence, however, of a break in the run of the stringer can only be understood as this feature being a support for the deck beams and that the stringer was not intended to act as a substitute keel for the hull; a supposition strengthened by a consideration of the construction of the deck of [G 01]. The purpose of the central beams of the deck at the bow and stern must also be understood in this light. The rectangle itself depicts the opening in the deck through which where the crew passed the mast foot when stepping the mast. A mast shoe may be present at the forward edge of this rectangle, but it is not always so. This is to be noticed aboard [BH 12] (a) and (b), [BH 16] (a), [M 13], [M 17] and [M 18].3

The D. (a) form can be subdivided, again into two subcategories, namely; D. (a) 1, and D. (a) 2. The D. (a) 1 configuration saw the deck areas at the bow or stern continuous with the midships deck surface; a raised bulwark delineates the central deck area, as is to be noticed aboard T IV H vessels, the most notable being [G 01]. In some instances, the central stringer and the cross beams supporting the deck are depicted. In such cases, these beams and stringers are painted red, with the timbers constituting the deck planking painted white.

The size of the [G 01] stringer is most substantial, Ward listing it as 26 x 0.26 x 0.11 metres, constructed of two sections. This was paralleled by a carling, of similar dimensions to the stringer, along the edges of the deck on either side.4 Despite the strength inferred by these dimensions, the stringer is not tied into the structure of the bow and stern and cannot, as has been suggested, have been sufficient to stiffen the hull, and have only been intended

The D. (a) 2 configuration is characterised by a raised deck at the bow and stern, flush with the run of the bulwark; the central deck area being lower than the bulwark. This form of deck is that seen aboard T II H vessels. At the rise of the raised deck at the bow and stern, a heavy cross beam is to be seen. Between these cross beams extends the central stringer that runs beneath the deck beams of the main deck. Deck beams also run across the fore and aft raised decks, as does a short central beam, running fore and aft, as is seen beneath the main deck. As with the D. (a) 1 configuration, these beams and stringers are also painted red, with the timbers of deck planking white.

[BH 12] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 41574 and 41575. pp. 22 – 27. figs. 21 and 24. pls. IVb, Va, Vc. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. pl. 24. [DB 03], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4910. pl. XVI. [DB 17], Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 64 – 68. pls. 51 and 82. [EB 05], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4955. p. 108. pl. XXIV. 2 [ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. pp. 33 – 37. figs. 33 and 35. pls. VIc and VIIa. [EB 04], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4952. pp. 105 – 106. pl. XXIII. [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4841. pp. 28 – 30. pl. VII. 3 [BH 12] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 41574 and 41575. pp. 22 – 27. figs. 21 and 24. pls. IVb, Va, Vc. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. pl. 24. [M 13], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4798. pp.1 – 3. pl. I. [M 17], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4803. pp. 8 – 9. pl. II. [M 18], Reisner, Ships and Boats,. Item 4805. pp. 11 – 12. pl. IV. 4 Ward, Sacred and Secular. p. 54. 1

In both forms the location of the mast step receives the same treatment. The central stringer usually stops at either end of a rectangle, painted on the deck, also in red, with the sides of the rectangle being shown as being of thinner timber than the stringer itself. Usually the rectangle spans the distance between two deck beams, some instances being [BH 12] (a) and (b), [BH 16] (a), [DB 03], [DB 17] and

49

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

to support the deck beams, preventing them from springing the hull timbers.

at their relevant sections below. As they fall outside of the parameters of this work, the varieties of timber utilised are not considered in this work, except as observations or footnotes.

The D. (b) form paralleled the D. (a) 1 form, but with a cambered main or central deck. Occasionally, the stern deck is also cambered, as present on [P 09]. Aboard [ASI 03] and [P 14], the camber is so acute that it rises higher than the bulwark.5 This may, of course, be due to idiosyncrasies on the part of the modeller.

3.3 Deck Houses and Canopy Frames In this research, it is proposed that 10 forms of deckhouse or frame can be associated with Egyptian ships and boats during the period under consideration, with a number of sub categories, which are considered in the text. The categories are;

Upon the Nile, the deck of an Egyptian vessel could become very cluttered. The Type I craft may serve to demonstrate the fittings that, as circumstances dictated, would have to be utilised or accommodated aboard a Nile vessel. There would be one or more structures on deck, rudder post(s), the mast, (raised or lowered) and the uprights upon which the mast, spars, sail and rigging were stowed when not in use. Often a sheltering canopy was rigged, covering a large part of the remaining exposed deck, reducing access to the rigging. Additionally, some of these craft were fitted with mast shoes which, since they always remained in situ, took up space on deck at all times. By contrast, although the evidence for sea going craft is limited, it indicates that the decks of these vessels were bare of any structures other than a gantry to give support to the mast when lowered.

(A). Freestanding frames, located in the stern. (B). Canopies, vertical sided, with cambered top. These could also be complemented by an additional structure positioned before the forward end of the canopy.8 Two forms of this class of structure are offered here. (C). Rectangular deckhouses with timber or fabric/matting covered frames. Their roofs had either a slightly arched cross-section or were flat. Some examples have an awning extending both fore and aft.9 (D). A flat roofed cabin, similar to C, with U shaped uprights, either at both ends, or aft. (E). Vertical sided, round topped shelters, of varying complexity of construction. These range from simple arched, covered frames to double roomed enclosures. (F). Cargo storage facilities. There were two forms utilised for storage, both consisting of an enclosed structure of basket weave. The first was linked to another deckhouse; the later was free standing. (G). Free standing shelters of a sacerdotal purpose. This category is unaccompanied by another deckhouse and consisted of a varying number of poles, supporting a light roof. (H). Baldachins. These have been assessed under this heading only if they are free standing, and associated with, but not attached to, another deckhouse. Where no other structure is present, structures which have a similar appearance to baldachins are treated as canopies. (I). Awnings. When fitted, they are the only means of shelter carried aboard. (J). Secondary Awnings. These provided cover forward and/or aft of the main structure. Consideration is also given to the usage of this form as extra screening for the deckhouse .

3.2 Covering Materials The materials used to construct and clad the assorted deckhouses and frames were timber, cloth and matting. [G 01] has yielded examples of all three materials, although, apart from the timber cabin, the intended positioning of the cloth and matting is unknown. Lipke cites Iskander to give the following plant materials utilised for the matting and the matting forms aboard [G 01].6 (a) Typha Australis, arranged transversally and stitched with thread, (b) Juncus stems (rushes). Thin strips interwoven to form a narrow net work, and (c) Typha leaves placed longitudinally or transversally and stitched with thread. The matting varied from very fine to quite course work, although some of the depictions showing coarser work may be due to iconographic method or allowance for the scale of the depiction or model. For examples of finer work, see [S 19] (a) and (c) and [S 28] (a) and (b), for coarser work, [TH 06] (a) and for very coarse matting, see [BH 03] (c).7

3.3.1 Type A. Free standing frames, positioned in the stern

Timber framing, panelling and the shapes of the tops of supporting poles for canopies and awnings are considered

This form of structure is represented in two forms; Type (A) (1). A strongly timbered frame, with numerous uprights. These progressively decrease in height

[P 09], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34273. pp. 39 – 40. fig. 37. pl. VIIb. [ASI 03], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 45097. pp. 27 – 28. fig. 26. pl. Vc. [P 14], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35293. pp. 52 – 55. fig. 54. pl. Xa. 6 Lipke, Royal Ship. p. 14. 7 [S 19] (a) and (c), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 - 143. [S 28] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [TH 06] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XX. [BH 03] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. 1. p. 33, pl. XVI 5

8 9

50

See Baldachins and Secondary Awnings, below. See also Type J, below.

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

towards the stern, resulting in a roof with a horizontally profile.10

of these vessels, [M 01] (e), the baldachin may have a brace running from its upper horizontal member to inboard of the bow. This is not seen aboard the other craft, [M 01] (d).13

Type (A) (2). A lighter structure, with uprights of equal height. The resulting roofline conforms to the rise of the bulwark. [DG 01] (a), and (d) – (f) are fitted with this type of frame.11

The bases of four of the pairs of uprights aboard [M 34] were positioned into holes drilled against the bulwark, resulting in a structure that conformed to the width of the deck. The last pair was positioned upon a cross-rail at the stern. This irregularity of shape was apparently to be regardless of any inconvenience that this would have presented to the crew, were the sides of the canopy to be covered as well as the top.

The (A) (1) type is the most commonly depicted of these structures. This is associated with both the Type I (a) and (b) hulls, and has some similarity to the flat roofed form of annex to be seen aboard some cargo boats (see Type F below). Typically, the (a) type frames are depicted as uncovered, however [M 01] (c) and (f), displaying the characteristic flat roof profile of this form, are shown as covered with woven matting. [ELH 02] (a) and [ELH 06] (a) are examples of uncovered (A) (1) frames. The rudder loom is often represented as passing along the side of this framework, or even through it, and then through the projecting stern platform. The validity of this steerage configuration is discussed in Chapter 4. In some instances, it is passed through the roof and then through the deck area of the stern projection. It may be judged that the frame did not extend fully from side to side, but left room for the crew to work. This may be confirmed by [DG 07] (d), a TIH (b) vessel, where the helmsman sits on the deck beside the frame.12 The sailor responsible for handling the braces usually takes his station on top of the type (a) frame. There seem to be no representations of this structure in model form, and although forming a major characteristic of the Type I (a) and (b) craft, it is not universally shown in association with painted representations. The iconographic evidence, however, indicates that this structure was flat roofed.

Longitudinal beams were positioned upon the supporting uprights, which in turn supported five curved transverse beams, connecting each pair of posts. Reisner shows the uprights as square in section, and with little tapering until they reached the longitudinal beams. They then narrowed, with the narrowed section passing through both the longitudinal and transverse beams, securing them together. The ends of these sections do not protrude above the upper edge of the transverse beams. How these beams were prevented from pulling apart cannot be deduced from the model, however, rope loops, passing from beneath the head of the uprights and over the upper frame members, are depicted aboard [S 37] (e). There are no knees or bracing fitted to prevent the elements of the frame from moving.14 Type (B) (2). The framework of this category of deckhouse was very heavy, intended to support a timberroofed deckhouse, with the uprights square in section and is fitted aboard [S 11] and [S 12]. The sides of the deckhouses are, however, open. The forward pair of uprights is braced transversally by a pair of knees, which are continued across the deck by a beam, which would have given lateral, but not longitudinal, bracing. These deckhouses do not cover the entire deck; they narrow towards the stern, and would have allowed rudders to be passed through the stern projection. The aft end of the deckhouse closed in by vertical timber bars. In neither instance is there any evidence to indicate how the rudders were mounted.15

3.3.2 Type B. Vertical sided, with cambered top As for the Type A, the Type B deckhouses have two sub categories, reflecting the materials of their construction. Type (B) (1). This form was covered with fabric or matting, the jointing and structure of this form of deckhouse being attested from modelled sources. [M 34], a T 1 H (a) hull, retains the greater part of the framework for such a structure. The [M 34] frame originally consisted of five pairs of uprights; the height aft is lower than forward. Despite this lowering of height aft, the curvature of the profile line approximates that of the deck.

3.3.3 Type C. Rectangular timber or fabric/matting covered Type C. (1). [G 01] has supplied a complete example of the timber form, and although caution dictates care, since this particular vessel was associated with a royal burial, the method would seem to be in keeping with the methods used on more everyday craft. The structure of this example consists of a series of panels, five per side, forming the fore and

Other depictions of this form of deck structure, also from Meir, [M 01] (d) and (e), are of equal height fore and aft. Both are Type I (a) craft and both have a baldachin immediately forward of the main deckhouse. Aboard one Carried aboard [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [ELH 17] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VIII. fig. 12. [S 18] (a) and (b), Vandier, Manuel. Fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. 11 [DG 01] (a), (d) – (f), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. Part II. pl. VII. 12 [DG 07] (d), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. X.

[M 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4886. pp. 56 – 57. pl. XIV. [M 01] (d) and (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. 14 Steindorff, Ti. pls. 74 – 76. 15 [S 11], Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. II. Jequier, Neit et Apouit. figs. 9, 10 and 20. Cairo Museum Model 56 390. As illustrated by Jequier, the hull is too short in relationship to the height of the stern. [S 12], Jequier, Neit et Apouit. Cairo Museum Model 56 391.

10

13

51

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

aft walls, with each end of the structure consisting of bulkheads, forming one-piece cross- walls, with openings for doors. The panel width sizes are noticeably irregular. Working from the drawings published by Lipke, (figs. 52 and 70) of the starboard side of the cabin, the foremost panel is the widest, measuring 2×2 metres, while that immediately astern of it is the narrowest, at 1×5 metres. Continuing astern, the remaining panels (starboard side) are 1×73, 1×7 and 1×85 metres wide. These measurements have been taken along the topmost line of the structure. The end bulkheads are arched to conform to the profile of the roof; they are wider than the fore and aft walls that run between them and are also higher than the roof. The stern bulkhead is narrower than that forward, as the structure widens forwards, conforming to the widening of the hull. This need also sees the panel sections increase in height, from the stern forward, to allow for the curvature of the deck, resulting in a roof that is horizontal. The usage of panels for construction is continued in the roof, which consists of another ten panels laid into rebates in the supporting roof crossbeams, longitudinal roof beam, and side wall. This technique of building allowed for ease of dismantling and removal.

which were positioned on the outside of the infill, were cut adjacent to the rebate. The sections of panel are joined together by lashings passed through three pairs of holes, placed vertically and equally spaced. Lipke observes (p. 107) that the lower ends of the vertical frame elements of the panels extend 10 to 13 cm further than the bottom cross rail, passing through the deck, where they are lashed to their adjacent deck beams. The upper edges of the panelling frames were rebated to accept the outer ends of the roof sections. The cabin has a single door, on the starboard side, in the stern bulkhead, and a double door in the forward bulkhead, on the port side. Both consist of a frame of wide, but thin, timbers; their thinness may be judged from the size of the lashing holes noticeable in the outer edges, where the width of the holes is approximately one-third the thickness of the timber. These holes are carried through and emerge to the rear of the framing of both bulkheads. Landstrom (fig. 92) has located these lashing holes in the front of the uprights, not the side. Lipke’s drawing (fig 70) shows the lashing holes as being in the side panel. Jenkins (figs 93 and 132) confirms the Lipke configuration.

The side panels consist of rectangular frames, with two bracing horizontal strips; the whole assembled with free and fixed mortise and tenon joints. The panelling infill consists of vertical timber sections, of irregular width. Free mortise and tenon joints secured these to each other; the upper and lower ends of the infill planks being cut to form fixed tenons. Jenkins shows a dismantled panel and indicates that the free joints were equally spaced. Although five joints between each infill element of the panelling can be seen, indicating the existence of rows of joints across the panels, the entire panel is not depicted.16 Some of the joints are located in areas that will be covered by the cross bracing when the panel is re - assembled. Fig. 87 of Jenkins shows that the horizontal braces were secured to the infill by lashings passed through two holes, set one above the other, but at 45°. It can also be seen that the outer edge of an upright element of this frame has been cut off at a 45° angle, and that another timber, either a top or bottom cross member has been removed, and lies on its side. The tenon at its end can be seen, as can a rabbet cut the length of the cross member.17 A similar groove can be seen along the length of the side element, as well as the mortises for the tenons of the cross braces. Apart from the mortise and tenon joints in the corners, holding the frame together, the jointing used in the construction of the panels can be seen from this illustration to have consisted firstly of a rebate. This was carried around all four inner surfaces, wide enough to admit the ends and edges of the panelling. Mortises for the upper and lower ends of the infill were then cut into the rebate, while those in the upright elements for the cross braces,

The bulkheads appear to have been weakly secured; the restorers have passed lashings through the holes and attached them to the adjacent uprights for the canopy poles. If this method of securing the end bulkheads is correct, then it would have mitigated against the removal of the frame, as it would have left the bulkheads secured only by the ties at deck level, the main roof beam (which was positioned against the inside surface of the ends), and the fore and aft stringers which ran on either side of the roof. Aboard [G 01], these have been utilised to assist in holding down both the roof panels and the canopy elements. (See Type I) I propose that the cabin would not be erected without the bulkheads being in place, since this would have left the main roof beam unsupported at its extremities. In the forward bulkhead, a vertical section, the same thickness of the outer framing was fitted, forming two sections. The area to starboard was filled in with recessed, vertical panelling. On the port side, doors were used close the area off. This recessing of the panelling, which can also be seen in the stern bulkhead, may have served as a visual balance to the adjacent doors, which would have been similar in appearance when closed. Unlike that astern, the forward bulkhead has no external cross bracing. This may be due to the wider span of panelling to be fitted than that forward, or it could indicate that aboard the kings ship, the forward end of the structure was of more importance ceremonially. Cambered roof beams, docked out towards their outboard ends, fitted over the upper rails of the frames, locking the structure together. A central longitudinal timber constituted the main roof beam. This, supported by three palmette

Jenkins, Boat. p. 104. fig 87. Jenkins, Boat. p. 104. Discolouration of the ends of the infill sections indicates that they were inserted into the rebate. No scale is given, nor does the author indicate if the top or bottom of the panel is illustrated, however the projection of the end of the side element would strongly suggest that it is the bottom. 16 17

52

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

topped columns, as well as the bulkheads, absorbed the weight of the roof, preventing the cross beams from bowing under the weight of the roof panels, forcing the bulkheads outwards. [ASI 02], with a smaller deckhouse, also has such a column, serving the same function.18 The undersides of the main and crossbeams aboard [G 01] are rounded. To accommodate the crossbeams, the upper surface of the main beam has rounded grooves cut across it. The tops of the columns do not make contact with the main beam, the carvers having left a protruding tongue of timber, dished to receive the beam.

to which the covering material is attached.20 These areas may show stitching or lashings, indicative of the means of securing the matting, such as aboard [TH 03].21 Another means of cladding this type of shelter is seen in the structure of the shelters aboard, for example, [DA 03] (a) and (b), [ELH 06] (b) and [S 74] (a) – (f).22 In this configuration, the covering materials were mixed, with the upper sides being matting covered and the lower areas consisting of timbers running fore and aft. This would have imparted greater strength to the structure, mitigating against damage.

The roof panels consist of frames, with timber infill. The sections of this infill were joined together by free mortise and tenon joints. The infill is irregular, as are those of the sidewall panels, and is inserted into the frames in a fore and aft direction. The infill is flush with the frames upper surface. Timber sections positioned at 90° to the infill brace the panels; these extend past the outboard edge of the frame, stopping flush at the outer edge of the bulkhead panels.

3.3.4 Type D This form of shelter takes the profile of the C (2), but with the addition of forked uprights, as seen aboard [DE 01], [G 05] (a) and (c), [G 18] (b), and [G 23] (a) and (b).23 There is no clear evidence for the means of construction of this form, although it cannot have been merely a simple shelter, with crossed posts at either end forming the forked uprights or a frame of poles, with forked upper ends and with a ridge pole between them. The frames for this latter form of shelter is seen aboard [S 78] (b) and similar configurations are present aboard [EB 06] (a) – (g); these are discussed below, as (J) (b) Secondary Awnings. Regretfully, there are no depictions of the frame with a cover. Aboard [G 05] (a) and (c), a crew member kneels on the roof, indicating that this is a flat surface. The deckhouse fitted to [S 60] seems to be the nearest extant model equating to the iconographic representations of the Type D deckhouse.24

The doors consisted of unframed vertical planking, with one edge extended top and bottom to form the pivots, as can be seen in Jenkins, fig. 32. Free mortise and tenon joints hold the sections together, bolstered by nine half round, horizontal battens on the inner face of the doors. Pairs of holes, at approx 30° to each other, and linked by a groove, are cut through the battens and the door planking, holding lashings by which the battens which strengthen the doors are secured. The inner ends of these battens are cut off square; the outer ends, those that would be against the bulkheads, were cut away at a shallow angle, to facilitate their opening fully without coming into contact with the bulkhead.

A use that does not seem to have been proposed is that they served to support a shortened form of hogging truss. Such a truss is seen aboard [M 01] (a), although it only spans the midships section of deck. This appears to the only example of such a truss, but lack of further such evidence itself does not mitigate against the possibility. However, considering the constructional methods utilised to build deckhouses by the Egyptians, it is unlikely that such deckhouses would be sturdy enough to absorb the stresses that would be placed upon them.

Type C. (2) Examples [P 38] and [P 39] are both models of the fabric covered form of the Type C deckhouse. They indicate that this deckhouse type consisted of heavy timber uprights, with the spaces between filled with fabric, and having strongly framed bulkheads. These would have imparted considerable strength to the structure. The cabin of [P 38] is rectangular, with a curved roof; the cabin sides are divided into three areas by vertical stripes. A vestibule extends the cabin, which has a single door on the right hand side. The left side of the vestibule does not have a bulkhead, but is not clear if this is the result of damage or an intentional work by the modeller. [P 39] shows the same details as [P 38], but without the vestibule.19

[DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 19] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 - 143. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 28] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 58] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 21 [TH 03], G. Sharawi and Y. Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. London. 1988. fig. 1. [DB 17], Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 64 – 68. pls. 51 and 82. 22 [DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 - 1895, pl. XIX. Vandier, Manuel, fig. 324. [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 74] (a) – (f), A. McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah (Irukaptah). The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. Sydney. 1999. fig. 4. pl. 11. 23 [DE 01], Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 32. [G 05] (a) and (c), Kanawati, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. 18. pls. 15 and 54. Junker. Giza III. fig. 29. [G 18] (b), Kanawati, ‘Tomb of Seshemnefer’, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16. pl. 44. [G 23] (a) and (b), Vandier, Manuel. vol. V. fig 292. 24 [EB 06] (a) – (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. pl. XVIII. [S 78] (b), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. 20

The matting covered forms often have a band of matting at either end, probably indicating the presence of a frame

[ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918. pl. XVIII. [P 38], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4920. fig. 302. pl. XXXI. [P 39], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4921. fig. 303. pl. XXXI. 18 19

53

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

3.3.5 Type E Round topped shelters

require longitudinal braces, both to support the covering material and to prevent the shelter from collapsing. As such, I consider that this type of depiction is merely an artistic aid for the modeller to show a Type E shelter.

Type E. (a). In its simplest form, these consisted of an open-ended framework of curved tops and upright poles, braced longitudinally by one or more horizontal struts per side. Aboard models fitted with these structures, the lower ends of the uprights are let into the deck, and are devoid of any indication as to any method of securement. As reconstructed, the canopy uprights of [G 01] are secured by lashings beneath the deck, and it may be suggested that a similar method was utilised in association with the Type E shelters.

Type E (b) A more complex form of the Type E shelter saw lightly framed bulkheads fitted to enclose one or both ends of the basic Type E shelter, as is present aboard [DB 16] Group 2 vessels. Aboard the [DB 16] Group 2 (a) and (b) craft, both ends of the shelter were enclosed; doors were added; the sternmost door was positioned to starboard, avoiding the rudder post, with the forward door located centrally. Timber door frames were fitted, with a timber socket attached to the lower edge of the doorsill. Structurally, these frames were weak, and the bulkheads gave little extra strength, being mere panels of fabric. Due to this weakness, the doors were not hung inside the doorframes, but against them, preventing the doors from jamming in the frames, and also reducing the possibility of the door latch releasing.

The ends of the longitudinal braces of the basic Type E protrude past the uprights, to prevent the lashings, by which they are secured to the uprights, from slipping off; this configuration is noticeable in the construction of the shelters on [BH 12] (a), [BH 15] (a), [BH 17], [BH 18] (c), [DB 03], [DB 17] and [P 32].25 The lashing utilised was a simple cross-over, passed around the horizontal strut on each side of the upright, crossed at the rear, and then passed between the strut and the attendant upright. This is very apparent aboard [BH 18] (c), [DB 03], and [P 32]. The canopy aboard [DB 03] has a strut at deck level, secured to the frame by plaster, not lashings. This may indicate that some elements of the frames were secured by techniques other than with lashings, perhaps through the use of timber dowels, and that, although the bases of the uprights of the modelled structures were fitted into holes in the deck, the genuine article may have simply stood on the deck. The frame of the structure aboard [DB 17] supports this possibility, which is similarly equipped.

As aboard [G 01], projections extend from the upper and lower extremities of one side of the doors; the lower was positioned in the socket, while the upper projection was secured by a rope loop. Winlock observes that this would ensure that when the cabin flexed, due to wind pressure or the motion of the hull, the door would go with it. Damage to the door and frame would be prevented, as the means of suspension would allow them to move against each other in position. The doors opened inwards to the cabin; both had a small vestibule at their forward end.27

The longitudinal braces are always positioned on the outside of the shelter, which would have given more support to the covering materials and served to maintain the shape of the covering. Where the shelter has been depicted with two or more bays, the proportions of each bay are of equal size; some instances of this being aboard [BH 12] a), [BH 15] (a), [BH 17], [BH 18] (c) [DB 03], [DB 17] and [P 32]. There are no examples of this form of shelter where the number of bays exceeds three. The roof consists of a single panel of covering material, sometimes elaborately decorated, the length of the shelter, or slightly longer. The edges of the covering material are secured to the uppermost longitudinal brace on either side. A variation of the Type E (a) form may be implied by that carried aboard [P 28], which carries an arched shelter, with frames only at the ends. The covering is plain and roughly finished; the lower levels are not covered. Gottlicher and Werner cite another instance of a similar shelter of similar appearance.26 A shelter with frames only at the ends would be structurally unsound, and as such would

Examples [DB 16] Group 2 (c) – (f) had the simpler form of this shelter, with only one end being enclosed. There are number of iconographic depictions of shelters which I identify as being of the Type E (b) form, due to their fully enclosed sides and the rounded cross section of their tops. Some examples are [ASI 07], [EB 06] (a) – (g) and [EB 08] (a).28 There were variations in the complexity of this form of cabin. [DB 16] Group 2 (b) has windows on either side, partially closed off with vertical bars, which would allow for ventilation of the cabin, while maintaining privacy. These windows are also present aboard [AS 01] (b) and [BH 09] (b).29 Instead of vertical bars, the [BH 09] (b) cabin window has a vertical and horizontal element, dividing the opening into four sections. Something similar may have been intended for the cabin of [BH 09] (d), but the form of hull and deck structure is uncertain. It can be seen from [DB 16] Group 2 (b) that the windows could be uncovered

[BH 12] (a), Glanville, Catalogue, British Museum Models 41574. pp. 22 – 25. fig. 21. pl. IVb and Va. [BH 15] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 72 – 74. [BH 17], Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. [BH 18] (c), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 86 – 89. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 216 and 220. [DB 03], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4910. pl. XVI. [DB 17], Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 64 – 68. pl. 51 and 82. [P 32], Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 72a. 26 A similar shelter is shown by Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XL. no.4 (Limoges E 965) with a chequered cover. 25

[DB 16] Group 2, (a) and (b), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 45 – 49. pls. 33 – 35, 70 and 72. 28 [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [EB 06] (a) – (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. pl. XVIII. [EB 08] (a), Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. pl. 77a. 29 [AS 01] (b), Jaros-Deckert, Das Grab des Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. [BH 09] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. II. pl. XII. 27

54

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

or closed off by rolling up or unrolling a portion of the side cladding.

the frame uprights, where they are extended across the deck, are smaller, and set into a third timber element, which both secures and strengthens them. The bulkhead itself sits inside the side wall frames, unlike the stern bulkhead. The vestibule has been formed by extending the side walls and roof. The lower ends of its uprights are also fashioned as knees that extend across the deck, but only for a short distance. They do not meet or overlap in any way.

Type E. (c). [ASI 02] is fitted with a very developed form of Type E shelter, consisting of a cabin with vestibule, to which an extension has been added; perhaps a continuation of development from the Type E (b) form, as seen aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a) and (b). The framing and joinery of this example indicates that such structures could be extremely rigid, strong enough to defy any possible flexing of the frame. Aboard the [DB 16] Group 2 (a) and (b) examples, allowance had to be made for the possibility of the door pivots springing out of their mounts. This is not the case with [ASI 02]; however, the doors are firmly positioned, at both the upper and lower ends, although the doors are constructed in the same matter, with projecting pivots above and below, and still hung against the door frame, not inside it. The lower pivot fits into a hole in the deck, while a wooden socket secures the upper. This would also have been of assistance when assembling or dismantling the frame. The artisan who constructed this model has been at some pains to replicate the complex joinery of the full size item. The evidence from this example indicates that such frames could be assembled and disassembled as required.

The forward cabin consists of side walls, a bulkhead and the roof. When covered, there was no access to the deck forward of this area, obliging the occupant(s) to pass back through the main cabin to exit . Although the forward cabin is the same length as that aft, there are noticeable differences. Again, it may be seen that assembly and dismantling requirements played a part in its construction. The end bulkhead consists of two identical halves. Each half is composed of a curved roof beam, on the underside of which the modeller has fashioned three projections, to accommodate the three uprights that, in conjunction with a base plate, constitute the frame(s). Each of the two intervening spaces thus created are braced at all four corners by knees, which have been individually crafted to support its appropriate constructional elements. Upon close examination, the side walls and roof frames can be seen to consist of two separate sections, or bays, assembled from matching halves, and positioned one against the other, abutting the vestibule. Reisner describes the structure as consisting of two side walls and a roof, similar to the after cabin, however it is noticeable that each section of the bulkhead consists of a rectangular frame, braced with knees at all four corners, and with an additional upright in the centre. Where these frames abut, a double upright is formed. The roof framing reflects this layout, forming a double cross beam in the centre of the roof. This method of assembly would have left the roof inherently weak, as the joints along the centre line of the roof frame would have to rely on the strength of the wall frames to prevent the structure from springing apart under pressure. The insertion of a centrally located lotus form topped column, secured to the doubled, lengthwise beams, compensated for this weakness.

The main cabin consists of two sections, divided lengthwise, with five curved half cross ribs, set into two horizontal beams and secured with stopped mortise and tenon joints, forming the roof sections. The end ribs abut the bulkheads, and the roof sections are each braced by two horizontal strips, pegged to the outside of the timbers. The bulkheads consist of two horizontal plates and five uprights, secured to the plates by stopped mortise and tenon joints. The upper plates are grooved along their length to receive the outer horizontal roof beam. Knees, facing fore and aft, brace the corners of each of the side bulkhead frames. The aft bulkhead of the cabin consists of an individual frame, with a single timber forming the arch of the roof, supported by two uprights, which continue across the deck in the form of large knees, which Reisner has christened a knee beam. A long overlap joint joins their ends, while the upper extremities are secured to the roof element by mortise and tenon joints. The door frame consists of two uprights, one long and one short, compensating for the arch of the roof, and linked by a lintel.30

The cross beams for the roof are built up of two pieces per half section, and consist of long scarfed joints, pegged together. The complete frame, of both cabins and vestibule, is pegged to the deck.

Another horizontal element, from the centre of the inboard edge of the longer door frame upright, divides the end bulkhead into two halves. The intervening spaces are filled in with planking, half the thickness of the frame elements, and flush with the outside. The forward bulkhead is of similar construction, but with the door centrally positioned; again, timber paneling fills in the spaces. There are two significant differences in the structure. The lower ends of

3.3.6 Type F. Cargo stowage facilities Cargo was either stacked upon the deck without any covering, as seen aboard [S 83] (g) – (j), or stowed within deckhouses or enclosures.31 Boreux offered two forms of stowage facility, consisting of;

30 The outer end of the lintel, where it joins the bulkhead uprights, is secured with a mortice and tenon joint, while the inner end utilised a stopped half overlap.

31

55

[S 83] (g) – (j), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 298, 2 - 3.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(F). (a). A rectangular deckhouse, with a rounded upper surface.32

of the enclosure, both in iconographic and model form, follow the curve of the deck, although there are variations in the shape of the roof. The framework of the structure may be of substantial proportions or have little support. Examples AB 01] (a) – (d), for instance, have very heavy horizontal and vertical framework, while [S 10 (a) and (b) have a heavy beam along the upper edge of the cargo house with no vertical support framing.

(F). (b). A longer deckhouse, flat roofed.33 These were designated by Boreux as Class A and Class B forms.34 To the forms of Boreux, this paper offers a third form, the (F) (c). This was a tall, narrow structure, with a flat or rounded top of varying height. There was no annex with this facility.35 The Type F (c) structure is considered in this paper as a form developed for usage aboard craft with limited storage area. The structure is usually depicted as constructed entirely of basket weave, which would seem to indicate that it was intended for the stowage of grain.

The usage of either vertical or horizontal lines, indicative of woven matting serve to indicate the cladding materials of the walls of the storage area. Although designated as indicative of cargo vessels, craft with the Type F (b) structure may also be depicted as being utilised for passenger conveyance. In such instances, the passenger is depicted sitting in the side doorway of the main structure, and may have a servant either in attendance outside, or approaching the door, as seen at [AB 01] (b). This, and the presence of rudder posts on the stern quarters of [S 10] (a) and (b), show that the Type F structure did not cover the entire deck.

Cargo vessels fitted with the (F) (a) and (b) forms reveal a basic layout. In the stern was often an annex for the crew. This was not always depicted, as may be seen aboard [S 83] (g) – (j). The annex was usually depicted with a curved profile, rounding down to the stern, although the roof line may also descend straight to the stern, resulting in a triangular profile.36 With both these forms, the cargo house proper immediately abutted the forward edge of the annex and covered the deck to well forward of midships. Aboard [S 36] (e) (1) – (6), the shelter extends out over the stern.37 In some instances, the annex and main structure were at the same height.38 Often, however, the roof of the annex was the higher.39

A door positioned in the side gave access to the main superstructure. The doors were usually centrally located. When depicted, these side doors are seen to be very low. Access to the annex was achieved by the same means. Side doors in the main structure are seen aboard [AB 01] (a), (b), (c) and (d), [S 32] (a) and (b), [S 52] (c) and (d). A door is seen in the side of the annex aboard [AB 01] (a). [S 10] (a) and (b) have a pair of doors facing forward, allowing access to the bows from a second, independent cabin, located at the forward end of the cargo storage area. [M 01] (a) has a similar pairing of superstructure elements, although aboard this craft there is no enclosed central cargo area, the space being depicted as open.40 There is some difficulty with the depiction of the annex and forward cabin aboard [M 01] (a). Both may be interpreted as being extended at their forward end, however, due to any other such example, this may be also be an attempt by the artist to show, instead, the forward bulkheads of these two structures. Their rectilinear outline is in accordance with the shapes of the superstructures of [S 10] (a) and (b). Between the inner ends of the two deckhouses are three crutches, which support a hogging truss, unattested to in other representations of this form of cargo vessel. The forward end descends into the forward deck structure; that aft seems to have been merely looped around the aft upright. The apparent confusion in depictions may be due to changes in the layout of the scene, as the vessel has both a pole mast and a dismounted bipod.

The cargo house was a rectangular enclosure, either open topped or covered. The outlines of the frames for the sides Some instances are [DA 04] (a), (b) and (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. Pl. XIX. [S 78] (c), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. [S 81] (b) and (c), (e) – (g), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 296. 33 [AB 01] (a), (b) and (c), M. Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Reliefs. (Prague, 1977). pls. 3 – 8. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393. pl. IV. Jequier, Neit et Apouit. pl. XXXV. 34 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. pp. 259 – 260. figs. 78 – 79. 35 [AS 02], Jaros-Deckert, JnJ – jtj – f. fig. 16. [DG 01] (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. VII [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [TH 01], Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. pl. 19. 36 The curved annex is carried by [AB 01] (a) – (c), Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses.pls. 3 – 8. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 392 and 56 39. [S 18] (d), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 – 144. [S 20] (a), Duel, Mereruka. pl. 134. [S 32] (c), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 52 (f) and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 21 – 22. The straight is present aboard [G 06] (b) and (c), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [S 52] (e), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 21 – 22. [S 74] (g) and (h), McFarlane, Iarew - Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. fig. 4. pl. 11. McFarlane, Iarew - Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. I. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. 37 [S 36] (e) (1) – (6), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 21 – 22. 38 [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Caio Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393. pl. IV. [S 32] (c), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 69] (b), Firth and Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. pl. 53. [S 74] (g) and (h), McFarlane, Iarew - Ka – Ptah. pl. 11. fig. 4. 39 [AB 01] (a), (b) and (c), M. Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. pls. 3 – 8. [S 18] (d), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 – 144. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. [S 52] (e), (f) and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. [S 69] (a) and (c), Firth and Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. pl. 53. [S 78] (c), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. 32

The method of construction is clear, although, due to the need to adapt the storage area as needed, there may have been no ‘standard’ layout. It may be seen from both models and painted representations that the Type F superstructure did not cover the full width of the deck. The depictions of convex roof form of the Type F structure 40

56

[M 01] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII.

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

indicate that it was composed of a different fabric and constructional technique than that utilised for the construction of the sides. This form is not merely arched, but tapers towards the fore and aft extremities. The purpose for this difference of form may have been to allow for the conveyance of cargoes such as bulk grain, piled higher than the sides.

with a central platform. The platform is clearly indicated as timber aboard [ELH 13] (a).45 The iconographic representations of these structures show the Type G form with roofs supported by either two, three, or four poles aside, and at least one example of a Type G structure, aboard [G 10], indicates that they might be extended forward by an additional, lower, roof. There appear, however, to be no models fitted with the Type G shelter with more than two poles per side. The heads of the supporting poles took the form of either open or closed papyrus bud finials. Some examples of vessels with the closed bud are seen on [BH 05] (c), [DA 02] (e), [DB 08], [ELH 13] (a), and [G 10] while the open finial is present aboard [DB 07], [ELH 14] and [P 08].46

3.3.7 Type G. Free standing, for sacerdotal purposes This form of deck structure was a naos, and usually stood amidships or further aft. The religious purposes for which the Type G was utilised generally restricted it to the Type IV and Type V craft, however it can also be found upon papyrus rafts, the deck area of which have been augmented with a central timber platform. Aboard most examples, the roof is arched, with the arch rising from the forward edge of the structure, reaching its peak, where more than two poles per side were fitted, between the first and second pole, before declining towards the stern. The aft end is almost never lower than the forward end. Reisner does illustrate two examples where this is not so, namely [EB 02] and [M 23].41 [M 23] cannot be allowed, as Reisner himself states that the poles for the shelter are not original. [EB 02] is also suspect, as the shelter is positioned well towards the bows, forward of the mast, with which this model was equipped. It may, of course, simply be that the modeller has positioned the shelter incorrectly. Two vessels from Deir El Gebrawi - [DG 01] (b) and (c) - each carry a naos where the roof is depicted as domed. Instances for the depiction of flat roofed Type G forms may also be seen, as aboard [BH 16] (a), [DG 05] (b).42

How the poles were secured to the deck is uncertain, since they are usually fitted into the deck of the models, however [DG 01] (b) and (c) show that knees at deck level could brace the lower extremities. In this scene, above [DG 01] (b) and (c), are two sledges, upon which have been erected Type G shelters. These shelters are also strengthened by knees. [DA 02] (a) and (e) each have a naos of the Type G form; the first has two poles per side, the other four, positioned upon sledges.47 The arched roof of the Type G could take one of three forms. Form A. The roof could spring from a cavetto cornice.48

Variations occur in the form of the underside of the roof. This may follow the curve of the upper surface as present on [BH 02] (c), [BH 05] (b), [DA 02] (e), [DB 06], [DB 16] (a) - (d), [EH 06] (c).43 Other examples grow thicker towards the forward end, as aboard [M 24] and [P 07] or have a horizontal profile. Horizontal profiles are seen aboard [EB 10], [M 19], [M 23]. The aft end of the naos aboard [M 19] is supported by a wall, not poles.44 Three vessels from El - Hawawish - [ELH 13] (a), [ELH 14] and [ELH 18] - although having suffered severe damage - can be seen to have Type G shelters mounted on Type III hulls, fitted

Form B. From a horizontal element with a forward projection,49 or Form C. It could rise directly from the top of the forward pair of poles.50

[ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 3. [ELH 14], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. fig. 25. [ELH 18], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. IX. fig. 8. 46 [BH 05] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [DA 02] (e), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DB 08], Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 64 (b). [ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 3. [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. [DB 07], Arnold, Mentuhotep. [ELH 14], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 25 [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 - 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 47 [DG 01] (b) and (c), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [DA 02] (a) and (e), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. 48 [ASI 01] (a), BIFAO. 1911. [DB 06], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 48040. p. 9. pl. IId. [DB 07], Arnold, Mentuhotep. [S 68], Quibell. Excavations at Saqqara. 1906-1907. pls. XXVI and XXIX. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 - 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. 49 [BH 02] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XIV. [BH 05] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [G 12] (a), Simpson, Qar and Idu. figs. 35 and 37. 50 [DA 02] (a) and (e), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DB 16 Group I. (a) – (d), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 45 – 48. pls. 78 – 81. [M 29], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4880. pl. XII. [S 23] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 24] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 12 and 13. 45

[EB 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4948. pp. 100 - 101. pl. XXII. [M 23], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4847. pl. IX. 42 [DG 01] (b) and (c), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. VII. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. [DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XII. 43 [BH 02] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XIV. [BH 05] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [DA 02] (e), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DB 06], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 48040. p. 9. pl. IId. [DB 16] Group 1. (a) - (d), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 45 – 48. pls. 78 – 81. [EH 06] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. 44 [M 24], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4851. pl. X. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9510. [EB 10], Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. Pl. 64 (a). [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4841. pp. 28 -30. pl. VIII. [M 23], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4847. pl. IX. 41

57

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

3.3.8 Type H. Baldachins

as a four pole, curved roof structure. [BH 04] (c) is similar, but with a domed roof. The craft are equipped with the pole mast and, as these masts have been lowered, the evidence would seem to indicate that the baldachins could only be erected when the mast was down, to prevent the obstruction of the forward rigging. This is demonstrated aboard [BH 02] (b), where the owner is depicted, sitting in the bows. In the absence of a baldachin, he is being shaded by a crew member, who holds aloft a shield, an action which, perhaps, is meant to send a double message.52

These small structures positioned in the bows are known from both the Old and Middle Kingdoms. [G 01] carries one, as does [AB 04], both from the Old Kingdom. These two royal examples of baldachins differ slightly; that of [G 01] having only five supporting poles per side, as opposed to six for [AB 04]. The angle of the deck of [AB 04] is steeper than that of [G 01], making it unsuitable for the positioning of a seat. This has been allowed for by the provision of a short ramp and levelling platform. The bases of the supporting poles can be seen to pass down to the deck on the outside of this platform. From these variations, it would seem that there was no religious requirement for uniformity of construction.

[M 01] (e), however, with a flat roofed baldachin, immediately forward of a Type B (1) awning supplies some apparently contradictory evidence. A rope extends from the outside of the baldachin roof, past the outside of the forward pole to just aft of the bow. This could be interpreted as a means for bracing the structure. The angle, however, is correct for it to have been intended to depict the forestay. A line drawn from the masthead to the bow would cut through the forward end of the roof. Considering the overall confused nature of the vessels depicted in these scenes, it would appear that bracing of the baldachin aboard [M 01] (e) is the result of changes in the composition of the scene. [M 01] (d) has a similar structure, but without any bracing.53

[G 01] shows that the construction of these shelters was

both simple and subtle. The [G 01] baldachin roof has a supporting frame consisting of slightly curved end ribs with straight, flat, side beams. These cross at the corners, with the side beams locking into the end ribs, which are docked out on their upper edges; the roof tapers slightly towards the bow. Four pairs of double holes are discernible in the end piece which supports the aft end of the roof, (apart from the holes for the supporting poles), which correspond to holes pierced in the roof planking.51 These allowed lashings to be passed through both the roof planking and its supporting rib, securing the roof to the frame; there is no regularity in the layout of these holes. It can be seen that, as was noticeable in the construction of the doors, a groove runs between the holes constituting each pair, resulting in the lashings being lower than the surface of the underside of the supporting rib. The number of lashing holes at the forward end of the roof is difficult to discern, but appears to have been three in number, with the holes being cut in alternative plank ends to those at the sternwards end. This resulted in each plank with holes being separated from the next by an unpierced plank. The elements of the roof were held together by at least two rows of free mortise and tenon joints, as were used in the construction of the deckhouse.

3.3.9 Type I. Awnings These awnings were mere fabric or matting covers, supported by poles and cross beams, intended to provide shelter for those on or working about the deck Type (I). (a). In their simplest form, the Type I awnings consisted of four uprights, supporting the covering.54 Type (I). (b). In a more advanced form, this type of awning takes the shape of long, multi bayed structures. The tops of the uprights may be finished as open papyrus flowers; these are to be seen on [S 36] (a) and [S 37] (e). This form may have been chosen for the additional security that this flared shape gave to the rope loops. [S 37] (e) shows that rope loops from under these papyrus flowers and over the top rails kept the awning frame together.55

Posts tipped with papyrus bud finials support the roof, their projecting tops passing though the timber elements; this would have allowed the roof to be secured by lashings.

3.3.10 Type J. Secondary awnings

The bases of the poles are inserted into a rectangular base, which in turn is lashed to the deck through holes in the planking; no other bracing is evident. Aboard [AB 04], the height of the mast allowed the forestay to clear the forward end of the baldachin. The angle - 120° - falls at the higher end of the range of angles at which the forestay is depicted in the Old Kingdom. These vary from 110 - 120°, for both the bipod and pole masts.

These could become very complex items of shipboard fitting. Unlike Type I configuration of awning, the secondary awnings were utilised in either one of two ways, being either;

Less elegant forms of baldachin are carried by [BH 03] (a) and (b). That of [BH 03] (a) has a flat roof and rear wall, with the aft end supported on poles; the shape of the pole heads is unclear. The baldachin aboard [BH 03] (b) shows

52

51

Type (J). (a). Extended from either or both ends of a cabin, with some examples are [G 03] (c) and (d), [G 06] (d) and [BH 03] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XVI. [BH 04] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [BH 02] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XIV. 53 [M 01] (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [M 01] (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. 54 See [BH 16] (a) and (b), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. 55 [S 36] (a), Steindorf, Das Grab des Ti. pls. 21 – 22. [S 37] (e), Steindorf, Das Grab des Ti. pls. 74 – 76.

Jenkins, Boat. fig 59.

58

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

(e), [S 74] (a) – (f).56 When a mast is in use, the forward awning sometimes stops at the mast; in other depictions, it continues forward. These configurations may be seen by considering [S 26], [S 27] (a) and (b), [S 58] (a) and (b), as well as [S 74] (a) – (f) as examples of the forward awning stopping at the mast.57 Awnings continuing forward past the mast are represented by [M 9] (b), [S 04] (a) and (b). A variation of the Type (J) (a) is to be seen aboard [S 38] (d), where the awning continues past the mast, but has no awning aft.

36] (b) and (c); here the bracing is on the inside.60 The awning may have covered a cabin standing centrally on deck, as the supports in this area are thinner and closer together than the posts in the bow area. These thin posts are framed at either end of the hypothetical cabin by thick posts, without papyrus bud tips, braced by two ropes, placed obliquely, lashed together where they cross. The ropes are on the outside of the posts.

Type (J). (b). This type was erected over a cabin, and served, by providing additional shade, to give increased comfort by providing an air gap over the main structure. It has been proposed that the awning placed over the cabin of [G 01] was able to serve as a form of cooling system, through the evaporation of water poured over it. Although of interest, there is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis. There are two forms of this proposed awning offered here, the (J) (b) (1) and (J) (b) (2).

[G 01] is fitted with an awning frame, which extends from astern of the baldachin to the after end of the deckhouse. The complete frame consists of two sections, one over the deck forward, and the other covering the deckhouse, with that over the deckhouse being structurally the more complex of the two. It can be seen, from an examination of the layout of the frames constituting the two sections, that they could be assembled either in conjunction with, or independent of, each other. Structurally independent, but linked together by short sections of rail, the two frames could be assembled and utilised even if the deckhouse was not present. The photographs by Jenkins and the drawn elevation of the complete awning as depicted in the hull profile of [G 01] published by Lipke are not in concordance. Differences may be noted in the height of the cross-beams supporting the awning over the deckhouse, the lengths of over-lap of the rails, the height of the forward end of the awning section which covers the deck and in the lack of any depiction of cross-beams in this area. Lipke indicates that the framework over the deckhouse stood proud of this structure, with the supporting poles much further outboard of the deckhouse. Jenkins shows the awning cross-beams resting upon the rails securing the roof of the deckhouse, although they are correctly shown as standing proud of the roof.61

Type (J) (b) (1).

The Type (J) (a) does not appear to have been a substantial structure, having few supporting uprights. The aft section of awning usually reaches the tip of the stern, while the forward section runs to the rise of the bulwarks. Rarely, there will be an awning forward of the cabin, but none aft. This can occur in the same scene as is seen aboard [S 28] (a) and (b). [S 28] (a) is covered from the rise of the bulwark forward to the tip of the stern; [S 28] (b), however has no awning aft, leaving the helmsmen in the open. [S 78] (a) has a similar configuration. The helmsmen aboard this craft stand on a platform, which allows them to see forward, over the cabin and awning forward.58 Aboard some vessels, it is possible that the covering was not left in place while the vessel was under way, as, aboard [G 03] (d), a male figure steadies himself by placing his hand around the awning beam.59 This person stands forward of the cabin, beside the awning, not under it. The top of his head is aligned with the upper edge of the awning, and his right hand, with which he braces himself, is seen passed over and around the top rail of the awning. From this, it may be suggested that when under way, the awning covers may have been removed, but the frames left in place.

The cross-beams are held down by rails, which have been lashed to those of the roof at three points, namely the forward and aft ends of the deckhouse, with the third lashing located at the eighth post astern from the forward bulkhead.62 The Lipke configuration would prevent any of these poles from being so positioned, and as such they stand free of contact with the walls.63

Diagonal bracing for light frames is known, as seen at [S

The awning frame covering the foredeck of [G 01], classified here as free standing, despite its linkage to the awning frame over the deckhouse, is a considerably weaker structure than that over the deckhouse. The restorer has stated that he is unsure of the intended purpose of the

[G 03] (c) and (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. fig. 5. pl. V. [G 06] (d) and (e), Tombs at Giza. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [S 74] (a) – (f), A. McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah (Irukaptah). The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. Sydney. 1999. fig. 4. pl. 11. 57 [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 58] (a) and (b), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. [S 74] (a) – (f), McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah. fig. 4. pl. 11. 58 [S 28] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 78] (a), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. 59 [G 03] (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. fig. 5. pl. V. 56

[S 36] (b) and (c), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 21 – 22. Jenkins, Boat. figs 79, 91, 93, pl. IX, Lipke, Royal Ship. fig. 52. 62 The number of lashings required to bind the adjacent deck-house and awning rails together would probably have been higher when the vessel was in use, with the three sets of lashings present being adequate for museum conservation and display purposes. 63 Both Jenkins and Lipke are in agreement in showing the poles secured against the bulwarks, but Jenkins’s photographs show the sides of the deckhouse as being closer to the bulwarks than does fig. 52 of Lipke. 60 61

59

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

awning frame, as it would seem to be inadequate to support the weight of a covering of matting.64

to avoid making the securing pegs of the poles excessively long, and suspect to breakage. The overlap at the sixth cross beam is the junction of the second section of rail of the forward awning section and the short rails which attach the forward awning to that over the deckhouse. These short sections would have locked the two awnings together, as well as giving the awning some additional strength; its forward end is positioned on top of the second rail section. The removal of one of these sections of rail would have enabled the crew to fold the awning covering out of the way in this area, allowing unimpeded access to the gangway, which was located at this point.68 Such a removal would have exposed the frame to the risk of structural distortion. To prevent this, a rail was fitted, extending from the aft edge of the forward bulkhead to the fourth cross beam aft of the front of the awning.69

The forward frame has been utilised as a convenient point for the positioning of five pairs of oars, whose purpose is also unclear. The restorer positioned them here purely for display purposes; their original intended purpose is unclear.65 The frame consists of six pairs of poles, longitudinal rails and cross beams (not depicted in Lipke’s fig 52); the poles are topped with papyrus-bud finials, and stepped into notched stanchions positioned against the junction of the hull side and bottom planking. The angles at which the poles are brought to the deck places them close to the longitudinal side girders, themselves placed inboard from the sides of the hull, which additionally serve as bulwarks. The poles, as per the restoration, are additionally lashed to their adjacent deck beams. If correct, this would have prevented them lifting under wind pressure, as they would be under such stresses with a fabric awning spread over them.

The awning framework over the deckhouse is stronger and more complex than that covering the deck. It consists of eighteen pairs of poles, of the same shape as those forward; the larger number of structural elements would have allowed it to carry a greater weight. The method of securement is, however, different, and may be interpreted as indicating that this covering was less likely to be dismantled. Unlike [M 34], where the awning cross beams rest on top of the rails, and the mixed positioning of the beams of the forward section of awning of [G 01], in this area of [G 01] the beams sit under the retaining rails; their ends are docked out to accommodate the rails, showing that this was their intended location.70 The constructional differences between the Type B (1) and this section of the [G 01] awning, however, may have been to allow for the presence of the deckhouse rails beneath the awning cross beams.71

The longitudinal rails, two per side and rectangular in section, are pierced to receive the projecting tongues of the poles, with the rails overlapping at the third pole aft from the forward end of the frame; the aft end of the forward rail is positioned on top the forward end of the second rail. Lipke shows a very short overlap, whereas Jenkins indicates that the overlap of the forward rail (starboard side) extends the length between the third pole to the fourth, counting from forward.66 On the port side, the overlap extends further, to half the distance between the fourth and fifth poles.67

It would have been possible to secure the beams by lashing them to the cabin rails. To attempt to utilise one set of rails to serve two purposes would have been fraught with difficulty. If the cabin were to be dismantled, it would have been necessary to re-arrange the rails, to prevent movement distorting the awning once it lost the additional strengthening effect imparted by contact with the cabin roof. Difficulties would have been faced if the cabin were to be re-erected while the covering awning was still in place.

It may be conjectured that the purpose of this extra rail length was to allow for extending the awning forward to the aft end of the baldachin, although there are no spare poles to support it and nor unused stanchions to accommodate them. Such an extension would bring the awning into contact with the baldachin at a lower height than the roof. Lipke’s fig 52, on the other hand, shows the height of the forward poles as being so high that an extended awning would have passed over the roof of the baldachin without contact .

Rails, positioned below the deck beams, inboard of the strengthening longitudinal side girders and drilled with stopped holes to receive the bases, support the poles. Pairs of holes for the securing lashings were drilled vertically into the upper surfaces of the side girders, approximately one third of the thickness of the timber from the inboard edge and emerged through the inboard sides, again at a point approximately one third of the dimension of the girders.

The cross-rails are also rectangular, with very little camber, unlike those over the deckhouse. Three are secured by to the longitudinal rails by the protruding pegs at the top of the pole; the others are lashed directly to the rails. There is no regular order to this, with the second, third and fifth beam being so secured. The ends of the fourth and sixth cross beams, which coincide with the points of the over lap of the rails, are positioned under rather than on top of the rails, and I suggest the possibility of this having been done

These numberings and descriptions have been taken from Jenkins, Boat, fig 79, which is a view of the forward area of [G 01], viewed from the starboard bow. 69 Jenkins, Boat, fig 79. 70 [M 34], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VIII. 71 Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. IX. Jenkins illustrates that the camber of the cross beams flattened out to allow their ends to sit comfortably atop the cabin roof retaining rails. 68

Lipke, Royal Ship. p. 130. Lipke, Royal Ship. p. 88. 66 Interestingly, despite fig. 52, his fig. 64 is in agreement with the Jenkins photos. 67 Jenkins, Boat. fig. 93. Lipke, Royal Ship. fig. 93, pls. V and X. 64 65

60

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

As reconstructed, a lashing is passed down through the attendant pair of holes, resulting in a loop, which holds the pole against the girder. The emergent ends of the lashing pass around the lower end of the pole and are tied off. There is no planking at any point along the hull between the side girders and the hull sides, which must have facilitated the maintenance and fitting/removal of these and the other lashings that served to secure the structural elements.

against the cabin bulkhead. Aboard [EB 06] (c), (d) and (f) the support post is positioned between the forward edge of the cabin and the mast crutch. This may, however, have provided a precarious point of securement since, on these craft, additional support for the horizontal beam is provided by a bracket, supporting a short upright, topped with a crutch, placed on top of the cabin roof. Aboard some craft rigged with a bipod mast, these awnings are to be seen positioned forward and/or aft of the main deck structure. In some instances, it can reach forward, past the mast.73 This may be considered most impracticable, since the sail utilised with the bipod mast is commonly depicted as being taken to deck level, with the boom secured behind the mast, and would have prevented the effective operation of the sail. The presence of the awning, however, would not necessarily have precluded the usage of the mast. With the boom positioned on the deck and with consideration of limitations imposed by the shape of the bipod, the lower area of the sail would only have a modest amount of twist when the yard was braced. Were the awning material to be split across its length at the mast step, passed around the legs of the mast and then laced closed the awning and sail could have been used in unison. A simple and alternately means would have been the employment of separate panels of awning material, laced together at either side of the mast.

Although the poles do not make contact with the sides of the cabin, the first and last of the poles supporting the awning over the deckhouse are positioned adjacent to the inboard sides of the bulkheads. Each pole is restrained by four sets of lashings, passing through pairs of holes that pass through the side of the bulkhead and emerge to its rear, so that a person facing the cabin from either fore or aft cannot see the lashings. The side rails do not protrude beyond the outer extremities of these features, ensuring that the covering materials of the frame would not have obscured the edges of the bulkheads, allowing them to be fully displayed. Unlike the awning poles forward, those over the deckhouse are regular in spacing. Type (J) (b) (2).

3.3.11 Deck Railings

A different system for the construction of a framework for secondary awnings over the deckhouse may be seen aboard examples [EB 06] (a) – (d) and (f) – (g); T II craft, with Type E (a) deckhouses.72 Such a hull shape would not have mitigated against the construction of an awning frame such as aboard [G 01], and a frame of uprights and cross-beams could have been utilised, but the shape of the deckhouse, however, did impose limitations. Only one line of structural strength, adequate to support a frame, was present, namely, along the top of the cabin roof. Were a rectangular awning to be placed over the Type E deckhouse, the result would, if the purpose of these awnings were to provide cooling through evaporation, have left large areas of air space which would have had no effect upon the temperature of the structure below it. There is no depiction of any fabric covering, but it must be concluded that a covering was intended.

There was limited usage of these fittings aboard the majority of Nilotic Egyptian craft, possibly due to the calm conditions to be dealt with on the Nile, while craft used at sea were supplied with them at the stern. Cargo vessels are often, although not universally, fitted with railings at the bow. They are not present aboard [S 10] (a) and (b), [S 18] (d) or [S 52] (e) – (g).74 They served as an aid to navigation and boat handling, rather than as a form of security or restraint for cargo or animals carried aboard, although instances of the penning of animals in this area are not unknown. Where rails are fitted in the bow, and the crew are rowing, the rails are utilised either as seats or foot rests. The Egyptian artists seem to have been able to indulge in some variety in their depictions of the rowers, who may sit with their legs inboard or who may be seen sitting astride the railing, such as the rowers of [DA 04] (a) – (c).75 When standing, the rowers might place one foot upon the rail, so that they are standing on the very edge of the deck, as is done by those aboard [S 78] (c). Occasionally, the rowers are depicted with their outboard leg on the outside of the rail, so that they, in effect, stand outside the rails, as seen in the arrangement of the rowers aboard [S 81] (c), (e) – (h). Aboard [S 83] (g) the rower closest to the forward mast

The components of this form of are braced astern against the forward edge of the rudder post, supported fore and aft of the cabin by a pole with a forked top, placed along the centre line of the hull. Possibly this could be positioned in the mast step, as appears to be the case aboard [EB 06] (a), which is under tow and has no mast aboard. The vessel to the left of the scene has no mast, since the area forward of where the mast step would be is taken up by an elegant seat and foot rest. The poles possibly supported a now lost baldachin.

As aboard [S 38] (a) – (e) Steindorf, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393. pl. IV. [S 18] (d), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 – 144. [S 52] (e) – (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. 75 [DA 04] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 302. 73

This is different from the towing craft [EB 06] (b) where the mast crutch is in place, with the forward support pole 72

74

[EB 06] (a) – (d) and (f) – (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. part I. pl. XVIII.

61

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

stowage upright places one foot against it to gain added purchase as he plies his oar.76

indicating that the deck was the same level throughout its length.

Two sub categories of DR (1) are proposed here. For both, the rail rises from the tip of the bow, or just inboard of it, and turns aft. Short stanchions support the rails.

3.5 Side rails Side rails are present aboard [S 76] (a).79 The raised bulwark is topped with a railing, supported by uprights; these lean perpendicular to the angle of the run of the deck. Three standing crewmen are rowing; as depicted, they are standing outboard of the railing.

Deck Railing (a). The forward end of the rail is curved; and results in a rail with a continuous run aft. This curve of the rail is quite sharp and completed before it reaches the first of the stanchions.

It has been suggested by Goyon that side rails were fitted aboard the cargo craft [S 41] (a) – (d) and that rails extended from both the bow and stern, with a wide break amidships, to allow for access to this area of the vessel.80 This is difficult to accept, since aboard all four craft it can be seen that the hypothetical railings consist of two sections and do not extend past the ends of the sledges upon which the columns have been positioned. Between the sledges, as well as both forward and aft of the sledges, no railings are evident. The railings, if such they are, are not continuous, and are only present adjacent to the sledges, if indeed they are sledges, and run parallel to the line of these features, and not the line of the deck, resulting in variations in height of the uprights. The aft end of the left hand railing, for example, is higher than the forward end. Since the sledges appear to be supported above the deck by beams passed under them, to spread the weight of the columns across the deck, the railings may more practicably be interpreted as tie-down points, preventing the cargo from moving. The flimsy nature of a railing as depicted by Goyon would not have been effectual in preventing the loss of the cargo if it were to move laterally, and longitudinal movement would also need to be avoided. The deck itself appears to have been flush, as the feet of the crew members standing towards the bows are to be seen.

Deck Railing (b). The rail is straight; the forward end secured to a stanchion which rises vertical to the bow, with the rail positioned atop this element and the stanchions which are positioned astern of it. 3.4 Stern rails The fitting of stern railings aboard vessels intended for usage at sea served both as assistance in the handling and control of the rudders, and gave some security and protection to the helmsmen against the possibility of being lost overboard due to wave action. It is noticeable that these railings underwent very considerable changes in height. Stern Railings (a). These railings only reach to knee height, and are seen aboard the [AB 03] craft.77 They appear to be positioned atop the bulwarks, however, it can be seen from the heights of the crew in relation to the deck/ bulwarks, that a small deck must have existed in the stern for the helmsmen. This is proposed by Landstrom, in his reconstruction of this form of vessel. They consist of a top and bottom rail, with upright stanchions between them, interspaced with lashings. As these lashings pass around the top and bottom rails, and are then covered with horizontal lines (possibly representing whipping of the ropes), it is conjectured here that these lashings were intended to overcome the tensions imparted to them by the rudders, and to keep the top rail in place.

Goyon also proposes that the railing supports consist of uprights topped with a ring, through which the rail was passed, and it must be said this proposition gains strength by an examination of the supposed railing. However, there is no continuous run fore-and-aft. Short spans of railing fitted adjacent to the length of the cargo would have done little to prevent loss if the sledges were to move.

Stern Railings (b). Aboard [S 42] (b), the railings rise immediately abaft the sternmost edge of the bulwark and extend out over the stern. They are waist high, with five horizontal rails, and noticeably more robust in construction; there are no vertical lashings and the uprights appear to rise directly from the upper level of the deck. The scene shows the starboard side rails passing on the port side of the raised stern upright. The stern of [42] (b) however, agrees with the stern as represented by [S 13] (a) although it does not seem that railings had ever been fitted.78 The crewmen who stand in this area are the same height as their fellows forward,

3.6 Summary While Chapter 2 approached the matter of hull forms utilised by the Ancient Egyptians and considered both the categorisation system of Reisner and the proposed expansion of that system and the introduction of a means to categorise other forms of Egyptian hull, Chapter 3 has considered the shapes of the Egyptian deck, the significance of the deck stringer and the deck houses and other such structures that were employed.

[S 78] (c), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. [S 81] (c), (e) – (h), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 296. [S 83] (g), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 298, 2 – 3. 77 [AB 03], Borchardt, Sahu – Re, pl. XII. 78 [S 42] (b), M. Bietak, ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’, in Pyramid Studies, EES. 1988. pp. 35 – 40. pl. 9. [S 13] (a), Poujade, Trois flotilles. fig. 27. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 194 – 195. Cairo Museum Model 63 184. 76

[S 76] (a), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. IX. Also H. Hohr, The Mastaba of Hetep – Her – Akhti. Leiden. 1943. fig. 2. Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 156. fig. 38. 80 [S 41] (a) – (d), Goyon, Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas’ in BIFAO. 69. 1971. pls. III – IV. 79

62

Deck Houses, Canopies and Deck Fittings

The role of the central stringer, often considered to be a means of stiffening the hull, has been re-examined. This researcher is brought to the conclusion that this characteristic of Egyptian ship construction and the short stringer under the decks at bow and stern were not to stiffen the hull, but to support the deck beams. The fact that the main stringer was cut at the mast step, and that it did not run the full length of the hull, is in itself enough to negate any possibility of its serving as any form of spine/substitute keel.

often present in the bows of cargo craft, where they assisted the crew in the handling of the vessel. Stern rails, however, are seen aboard vessels intended for use at sea; the height of these fittings saw a considerable increase, probably as the Egyptian shipwright reacted to a need to increase the security of the helmsmen. The presence of side railings aboard Nilotic vessels and the plausibility for the presence of such rails aboard heavy cargo craft (specifically ETH 10 vessels) was also examined. This researcher is led to the conclusion that although side rails were employed aboard lighter craft, the interpretation of scenes appearing to depict such rails aboard ETH 10 vessels are incorrect. Side rails could not have been adequate to restrain the weight of cargos such as stone columns, were such a cargo to shift during transport.

The evidence for the majority of the structures employed on deck has been derived from a consideration of models or iconographic depictions, but in the case of the deckhouse and awnings carried aboard [G 01], surviving material evidence has enabled a more in-depth examination of the building techniques employed in their construction and utilisation. Sheltering awnings, so necessary when out in the Egyptian sun, and as a means of protecting cargoes, have also been considered. The existing categories of cargo storage facilities have been considered, with an extra category, intended for the storage of grain, added to the two categories proposed by Boreux.

Light though the majority of structures appear to have been, they were adequate for the purposes for which they were intended. There is evidence that these structures could be assembled and removed as needed, demonstrating the ingenuity of the shipwrights. The doors utilised with structures that needed them were cleverly adapted to allow for flexing of or against the framework. The carpentry of surviving ships doors show demonstrates the skills of those who constructed them.

Railings and their employment were also reviewed. These fittings, not universally found aboard Egyptian vessels, are

63

4

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

4.1 Steerage and helm

from one-piece timbers.4 The unexcavated ship adjacent to the burial pit of [G 01] has been seen to have loose oar blades lying amongst the timbers.5 The rudders fitted to the Dahshur craft consist of at least two sections of blade, jointed to the loom by mortise and tenon joints; those of [DA 01] had two or three such joints per half blade.6 If this is the case aboard ceremonial craft, the rudders and oars aboard everyday craft were, most likely, also of segmented construction.7

Before considering the steerage configurations utilised by the Egyptians, consideration must be given to the elements that constituted their steerage assemblies. The term rudder is technically incorrect, since the steering device utilised (by no means exclusively) by the ancient Egyptians consisted of an oar (or oars), passed over, or to the side of, the sterns of their craft.

The loom of the Egyptian rudder may also have been built up and not of one solid piece. The possible use of such a segmented loom is indicated from a rudder fitted aboard [M 15]. The loom of [M 15] consists of two sections, joined by a long overlapping half lap joint. Two pins, of different sizes, which pass through both halves of the joint, secure the sections together. The pin closest to the rudder blade is the smaller of the two.8

The Egyptians achieved steerage by a number of means, of varying complexity. At its simplest, craft were steered by hand held rudders; more developed forms saw the usage of rudder posts, with or without beams positioned across the deck to support the rudder looms. 4.1.1 Rudder shapes The blades of the rudders utilised by the Egyptians were of three shapes. These were:

There is no scale given to indicate the proportion of the loom that was covered by this joint. The rudder loom of [M 15] may be an isolated instance, but it is clear that some care has been taken to produce the finished rudder.

(a). Lancet, with the edges of the blade merging into the loom,1 (b). Lancet, but with squared shoulders,2 and (c). Globular.3

The depiction of the various rudder configurations seems to have been a source of some difficulty to the Egyptian artists, with their need to observe ceremonial requirements. On occasions, the loom(s) have had to be taken behind and/ or around aspects of the scene, to avoid obscuring detail. Aboard [G 10], for example, the looms are taken behind the helmsmen, but over the side of the hull closest to the viewer. Some craft, however, carry a centrally located rudder post, but the loom of the rudder is depicted as passing over the stern quarter; some instances of this being [ELH 06] (a), [S 18] (a), [TH 01], and [TH 05].9 In these

4.1.2 Rudder construction The rudders used aboard Egyptian vessels were of composite construction. Despite their royal context, the rudders and the other oars for [G 01], the length of which range from 6.58 – 8.35 meters in length, were not cut

See [AB 01] (a) - (d), Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, pls. 3 – 8. [AS 01] (a), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97- 98. 6, 100. Winlock, Servant Statues, pl. 75 (b). [G 12] (a), Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 35. [M 01] (b) and (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [M 09] (a), (c) and (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [M 29], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4880. pl. XII. [M 30], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4881. pl. XIII. 2 See [ASI 01] (b), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. [BH 15] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 72 - 74. fig. 157. [G 01], Jenkins, Boat. figs. 134 and 136. [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. [M 01] (a) - (f), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [TH 10] (a), Vandier, Manuel V. fig. 292. 3 See [ABY 01] (c) and (d), Simpson, Abydos. pl. 70. [BH 03] (a) – (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI. [BH 16] (a) – (c), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 – 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 - 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 1

Ward, in Sacred and Secular. p. 55, has written that they were, but in personal correspondence she has advised me that this is an error. 5 Ward, Sacred and Secular. p. 67 6 Ward, Sacred and Secular. p. 96. See, also, Haldane. The Pharaoh’s Boat at the Carnegie. fig 15. Two half blades are illustrated. See also Reisner, Ships and Boats. 4938, pl. XXVII. This is one half of a rudder from a model ship. (Not listed in Catalogue.) Three tenons are seen. 7 Modern timber oars, as a comparison, are constructed of a single central shaft, the length of the oar, with half sections added at the lower end, to form the final implement 8 [M 15], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4801. pp. 5 – 7. pl. II. 9 [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [TH 01], Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. pl. 19. [TH 05], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVII. 4

64

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

instances, iconographic procedure is the most probable cause, with the sculptor following draft lines, regardless of nautical practicality.

[BH 03] (a), (b) and (c), [BH 04] (b) and (c), [BH 05] (a) and (b), [EB 06] (a) – (g).12 (b). Tapering, with the thickest section being at the top of the rudder,13 (c). Thicker in the centre, carried by [M 20], [M 30] and [P 10].14

Aside from the needs of the artist to avoid obscuring detail, a number of depictions occur of the rudder in use where the practicality of the configuration may be questioned. These may be the result of an iconographic style or perhaps the result of changes in tomb decoration, with both earlier and later workings showing in the same scene, either through damage or through the tombs decoration being left incomplete. The quality of the iconographic rendering of rudders can result in discrepancies in the understanding of the functioning of Egyptian steering equipment. This, for example, may be seen in the confusion with the rudders of [M 01] (d), (e) and (g). [M 01] (d) and (e) are fitted with three rudders, while [M 01] (g) has two rudder looms. Considering the lack of other instances of triple rudders, coupled with the crowded nature of the registers, it must be concluded that the artist (s) has been forced to alter the original depiction, with the result that discrepancies have occurred. [DG 01] (b), (c) and (g) have one rudder post, two rudders and one tiller. [DE 05] (a) and (b) have twin rudders, but only one rudder post. Restored models may also be misleading; [ASI 07] has two rudders and only one rudder post, and [M 42] is displayed with a rudder at both bow and stern. [P 10], in contrast to [M 42], is displayed with a rudder at the bow, pivoted in the notch of the bow roller, positioned along the foredeck.10

4.1.4 Depictions of rudders in use Where more than one rudder is in use, apart from funerary craft with their twin rudders, the helmsmen are shown standing in a row along the stern. This may indicate that the helmsmen all stood on the same side, although it could also be an iconographic device for regularity when depicting the blades below the water line. It is considered in this paper that the helmsmen moved to the side of the vessel, depending on the direction in which it was turning. If turning to port, they aligned themselves along the port stern quarter and along the starboard quarter if turning to starboard. Placing all the rudders on the same side of the craft would have enabled each of the helmsmen to imitate the stance and actions of the person in front of him, maximising the pressure exerted by the rudders and ensuring that all the rudders were braced and angled in the same direction. An additional advantage to be derived from such a disposition of the rudders is that the pressure of the water against the rudders would also force the looms of the rudders against the side of the hull, giving greater firmness to the steering. This method is still used for steering small craft in Asia.

Unfinished works can also lead to misinterpretation. Aboard both [M 04] (a) and (c), for example, there is some confusion with the presentation of the steerage equipment.11 The loom of the port side rudder appears to pass across both of the rudder posts, and the tiller of the starboard rudder is shown passing behind one rudder post and the loom of the port side rudder loom. This confusion is due to these vessels being part of an unfinished scene, in draft form only, which has not progressed past the first draft stage, and the artist has not had the opportunity to tidy up the work. The rudders of [M 04] (c) display the same unfinished appearance; the loom of the port side rudder passes on the starboard side of the starboard rudder post. Again, the reason would seem to be due to the unfinished state of the work.

When funerary craft with twin rudders are depicted, the artist always places one rudder post and rudder combination slightly forward of its twin, to ensure that the type of vessel is not in doubt. The representation of a second row of helmsmen along the opposite side of the vessel when viewed would have been difficult, but certainly not beyond the abilities of Egyptian artists. A common means for the illustrating of multiples of the same item in the cannon of Egyptian art was to show a single item and to then place a series of overlapping partial outlines, extending from the first unit, representative of the rest of the objects to be depicted. By showing a helmsman on the opposite side of the vessel, and then using this technique, extra helmsmen could have been depicted, although the resulting composition would have appeared clumsy, at least

4.1.3 Loom shapes The looms were either;

[BH 02] (b) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [BH 03] (a), (b) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan., pl. XVI. [BH 04] (b) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. [EB 06] (a) – (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. pl. XVIII. 13 See, as examples, [AB 01] (a) - (c), Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. pls. 3 – 8 [AB 07], Borchard, Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. [AB 08], Borchard, Sahu – Re. [DA 04] (a) - (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. [DG 05] (a) and (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [EB 08] (b), Breasted, Egyptian Servant Statues. pl. 77a. [ELH 02] (a) - (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a), - (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 12. [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. . 14 [M 20], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4844. pp. 31 – 32. pls. VIII and XXV. [M 30], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4881. pl. XIII. [P 10], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34274. pp. 42 – 43. fig. 40. pl. VIIIa. 12

(a). Parallel sided, as present aboard [BH 02] (b) and (c),

[M 01] (d), (e) and (g), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [DG 01] (b), (c) and (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [DE 05] (a) and (b), Petrie, Deshasheh. pl. XXV. [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [M 42], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. [P 10], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34274. pp. 42 – 43. fig. 40. pl. VIIIa. 11 [M 04] (a) and (c), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. 10

65

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

to modern eyes. This postulated form of depiction does not appear to have been used.

mast step) positioned upon the aft deck. He based this proposed fixture on the trefoil shape seen on the aft deck aboard some models.19 Although plausible, the trefoil shape aboard [M 27] is aft of the site of the rudder post, as shown in Reisner’s plan, and the deck of [EB 04] is devoid of any steerage fixtures. The trefoil markings are most likely to have indicated a means of strengthening the stern area.

Although implied, through the presence of looms, the rudder blades are not universally shown, as seen from [ELH 02] (b) and [ELH 06] (b).15 There does not seem to have been any particular rudder and mast combination. 4.1.5 Rudder posts

Examples [DA 01] (a) – (d) present evidence of how the rudders and rudder posts were secured, at least for their individual class of hull. Unfortunately, despite the evidence for ship construction derived from [G 01], this craft has given negligible evidence for the configuration of the steerage equipment aboard this class of vessel. The validity of the steering gear fitted aboard the restored [G 01] is considered below.

The primary function of these fixtures was to provide support for the upper reaches of the rudder loom, allowing rudders with longer looms to be shipped. This would have resulted in better helm control, with the additional benefit of needing fewer helmsmen. [BH 02] (a) and (b), [BH 05] (a) and [P 40], however, show that, occasionally, the posts also serve as points to which the standing rigging and/or the running rigging of the pole mast was secured.16 Although this may indicate that the rudder posts were securely anchored into the deck, the accuracy of depictions showing, especially, the secondary backstays secured to the rudder posts, raises questions as to the accuracy of such depictions. The secondary backstays gave support by fanning out from the mast and running downwards to the sides of the hull, absorbing any tendency of the mast to sway laterally; by running from the pole mast to a centrally located rudder post would negate any support that these aspects of the rigging would have provided.

The rudder posts fall into six broad categories. The sixth is a variation on the RP2 form, but, occasionally, with Horus heads. These are; RP1. Narrow, with a rounded cross section and parallel sides. These posts could be either short or tall. The RP1 is not seen aboard vessels fitted with the bipod mast and can be much thinner than the pole mast. Often, but not exclusively, depicted in pairs, these posts are either; (a). Round topped,20 or

The rudder posts show considerable variations, ranging from simple, one - piece posts to a complex unit, apparently built up from segments. [M 24] has black lines around the base of the rudder post, and this type of marking is seen aboard [EB 06] (a) and (c).17 These may be strengthening bands of metal, although the presence of such black lines could also be interpreted as being indicative of tarred bindings.

(b). Decorated at their tops by Horus heads.21 The bases of these posts may be square or octagonal in shape. Rudder posts with square bases are seen aboard [TH 08], [P 08], [P 09], and [P 14]; those carried by [ASI 06] (a), [P 11] and [P 16] have octagonal bases.22 A beam across the deck aft of the rudder posts, giving additional support to the rudders, is to be associated with this type of rudder post. This beam may also be decorated with Horus heads.23

The foot of the post was square or octagonal, accommodated in an appropriately shaped recess. When fitted with one rudder post, the recess was usually set into the beam along the centre of the aft deck. There is some evidence to suggest that this may not have been a hard and fast rule and there may have been variations. The rudder post of [P 43] appears to have been off - set.18

The rudder posts of [DB 16] Group 1, (a) and (b) do not Landstrom, Royal Ship. p. 84. See [EB 04], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4952. pp. 105 – 106. pl. XXIII. [M 27], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4869. pls. XXVIII and XXX. 20 Some instances are [BH 04[ (b) – (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [BH 18] (b), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 86 – 89. [DG 01] (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. VII. [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El Hawawish. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. 21 [BH 02] (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XIV. [DB 16] Group 1 (c), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 47 and 80. [M 46], Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. [P 07]. Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 – 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. [P 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4811. pp. 17 - 18. pl. V. 22 [TH 08], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XIX. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. [P 09], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34273. pp. 39 – 41. fig. 37. pl. VIIb. [P 14], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35293. pp. 52 – 55. fig. 54. pl. Xa. [ASI 06] (a), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 45087. pp. 33 – 35. fig. 33. pl. VIc. [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. [P 16], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 59011. pp. 58 – 59. fig. 60. pl. Xc. 23 See, for example, [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 – 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 19

Where there were two rudder posts, they were positioned into one of the transverse deck beams. There were never more than two rudder posts utilised. An additional method of securing the rudder posts has been proposed by Landstrom, consisting of a triple armed rudder post support (of similar construction to the triple armed [ELH 02] (b), Kanawati, El Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. 16 [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [P 40], North Carolina Museum of Art. 17 [M 24], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4851. pl. X. [EB 06] (a) and (c), Newberry, El Bersheh. pl. XVIII. 18 [P 43], Michael C. Carlos Museum. Item L 1999.25.2. 15

66

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

have the heads, while those of [DB 16] Group 1, (c) and (d) are equipped with RP1 (b) posts. The posts aboard (a) and (b) are round sectioned, flat topped, and roughly squared at the base to fit into the holes in the deck beams; there are no Horus heads fitted. Since the report published by Winlock states that these posts were those found, and not restorations, it must be concluded that this was how the models were fitted when placed in the tomb. Winlock considered that some of the models had been damaged prior to burial and that these posts had been hasty replacements. Had they been present, however, they would have brought these posts into the scope of the RP1 (b). With consideration given to the excavators observations, the rudder posts aboard [DB 16] Group 1, (a) and (b) have not been allocated a separate classification.

lies across the edges of the beams, while that of [DA 01] (b) is fitted into grooves along their edges.27 [DA 01] (c) also has these grooves in its deck beams. This could have resulted in the deck beam that received the rudder posts being wider than aboard the previous craft. The Horus heads were secured to three of the four Dahshur posts by mortise and tenon joints; the head on the left post of [DA 01] (a) is now nailed into place. They are also present aboard [DA 01] (a) and (b). Those of [DA 01] (c) and (d) have tenons to receive such decorations, but the heads have not survived.28 RP2. These were as thick, as and often thicker than, the mast. The RP2 had a square base and rounded top, which in numerous instances has one or more fore and aft grooves.29 Above the square base, the edges of the post were either rounded or had the edges chamfered, resulting in an octagonal shaft.30 A number of examples are depicted with one or more tapers in the length of the post. Some examples of single tapers are [BH 02] (a) and (b), [BH 03] (a) and (b). [TH 07] (a) tapers twice.31

These tall narrow posts, as depicted in both iconographic representations and model form, seem to be lacking adequate strength for their task. Securing the rudder shafts at two points, namely at the cross - beam in the deck and the upper reaches of the posts would have limited most fore-and aft movement of the rudder posts. There was, however, the risk that the pressure exerted by the rudders against the posts would distort them laterally or result in them twisting. A method for strengthening pairs of RP1 posts, however, is indicated aboard the [DA 01] craft where, a form of cross - bracing was utilised. The rudder posts aboard [DA 01] (a) were supplied with a cross - brace, fitted between their inboard faces; such a brace is fitted aboard [P 19].24 One post, although from Dahshur, was not originally fitted to [DA 01] (a); the hole for the rudder post in the deck had to be enlarged to secure it. Reisner states that this was the left post, although neither his text nor his drawings clarify whether or not by this he meant the port side of the vessel, as the drawings of both posts lack any indication of direction of perspective.25 The bracing, from the published drawings, was secured to the “right hand” post by the insertion of its end into a square sectioned hole at the base of the Horus head. The other end was inserted into a rectangular slot in the opposite post, below the base of the head; no dimensions are given. The dimensions of the cross - brace are recorded for [DA 01] (b). The marks on the posts indicate that this had been square sectioned, with approximately 4 cm wide faces. The ends of the brace were fashioned into tenons, 15 mm square, which fitted into mortises, which are them selves 15 mm from the top of the post. The bracing therefore can be considered as not being of a substantial size.26

These tapers would have served to lighten the post, with a resultant lowering of the centre of gravity of the vessel. Aboard Type II craft, the main and secondary backstays for the mast were, in some instances, secured to the post. See, for some examples of this, [BH 02] (b) and (c). RP3. This type flares towards the top. They were either; (a). Round topped, or;32 (b). Flat, with a recess cut in the apex, possibly to hold the rudder shaft, seen on board [EB 06] (b) and (f). A simplified model of such a post is carried by [EB 03]; the sides of the post are parallel. The rudder post fitted to [DB 17] is of similar configuration.33 RP4. Straight sided, flaring outwards at the top to result in a Y shaped profile, when viewed from the side.34 It must be concluded that the flared top was a means of preventing the loom of the rudder from slipping up the post. The purpose Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. 87. Ward, Sacred and Secular. p. 95. 29 [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [P 09], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 34273. pp. 39 – 40. fig. 37. pl. VIIb. [P 13], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35291. pp. 46 – 49. fig. 47. pl. IXa. 30 [ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. pp. 33 – 37. figs. 33 and 35. pls. VIc and VIIa. [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4841. pp. 28 – 30. pl. VII. [M 42], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue, British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [P 13], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35291. pp. 46 – 49. fig. 47. pl. IXa. 31 [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [BH 03] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI. [TH 07] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. 32 See [DG 01] (a), (d) – (f), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. VII. 33 [EB 06] (b) and (f), Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. pl. XVIII. [EB 03], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4951. pp. 103 – 104. pl. XXIII. [DB 17], Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 64 – 68. pl. 51 and 82. 34 See [M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pp. 53-54, pl. XIII. [M 32], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4883. pl. XXVIII. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. V. 27 28

Upon passing through the deck beam, the bases of the rudder posts aboard the Dahshur craft were inserted into shallow recesses in the hull sides. The width of this beam aboard [DA 01] (b) may have been greater than aboard [DA 01] (a), but Reisner’s description is unclear. He speaks of the deck planking of [DA 01] (b) being fitted in a different manner than that of [DA 01] (a). The deck of [DA 01] (a) 24 25 26

Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4811. pp. 17 – 18. pl. V. Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. 86. Reisner, Ships and Boats. p. 87.

67

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

of the groove is unclear, although Poujade has suggested a quite reasonable configuration for the rudder and rudder post configuration.35 Its practicality however is not, for this researcher, convincing.

The looms may also be capped with Horus heads, as fitted to the RP1 (b) and RP6 (a) forms of rudder post and often occur aboard Type V craft. 40 Other forms of decoration also occur. The blades of the two oars fitted by the restorers as rudders aboard [G 01] are decorated with an arrowhead motif, with the raised section of the loom, which lies along the rudder blade serving as the shaft.

As with the RP2 form, the purpose of the grooves over the tops of the RP4 rudder posts is unclear. It must be accepted, however, from the frequency of their representation that they were intended to serve a purpose of some importance. Although some models show the rudder loom positioned across the top of the RP2, these seem, from the greater body of evidence, to be incorrect restorations. The restorers of [DB 16] group 2 (d) positioned one end of the mast and yards into the mast rest, with the other ends laid upon the top of the rudder post. This arrangement was based on the restorer’s judgement of the original assemblage, but must be treated with caution. Winlock specified that this assemblage had been put together for the purpose of taking the photograph.

4.1.7 Rudder configurations There were a number of simple but significant variations in the configuration of the Egyptian rudder. These configurations were; RC1. Hand held, with no other restraints.41 Some examples are fitted with a tiller.42 RC2. Hand held, but secured to the hull through a grommet. This was sometimes augmented a preventer line, and vessels both with and without these fittings can appear alongside each other. Grommets and preventer ropes are present aboard [S 38] (b) and [S 76] (b). [S 38] (a) and [S 38] (e), however, have grommets but no preventer lines, and [AB 07] and [AB 08] have preventer lines, but no grommets. 43

RP5. These are straight sided, but have a shallow vee cut into their top. This form of rudder post is generally found aboard cargo craft, where, if fitted, they are positioned on either side of the deckhouse.36 RP6. (a). This was a variation of the RP1 (b) type. The upper section of the post retained the thinness of the RP1 (b), as well as the Horus head, but had chamfered sides for much of its length. The lower section was squared, similar to the RP2.37

A further variation to the RC2 configuration utilised beams of a half round section, which protruded outboard, also at deck level, as aboard [AB 02] (c) and [S 37] (a) – (f).44 Where such beams are present, the looms of the rudders are secured against the forward edge of the securing bar. This may possibly have influenced the RC3 method of securement.

RP6. (b). The RP6 (b) was round topped, and chamfered along its entire length, resulting in an octagonal crosssection.38

RC3. Two rudders were fitted, one on either side of the stern. These were secured to a supporting beam across the deck, either with or without rudder posts and are seen in association with [M 29], [M 30] and [S 14]. In this form,

4.1.6 Embellishment of the rudders In most instances the rudders are plain; however the rudders may occasionally display extensive decoration. This usually sees the rudder blades depicted with floral emblems, augmented by symbols such as the Eye of Horus as seen aboard [P 07] and [M 46]; lotus flowers are seen on the rudder blades of [P 08] and [M 43]. The presence of such decoration is not, however, the definitive sign of a funerary boat, although they appear in scenes of a funerary nature, as may be seen from the decorated rudders on other craft, such as [BH 03] (a) and (c).39

Some instances of rudder looms capped with Horus heads are [DB 08], Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 64 (b). [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. [TH 05], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVII. [TH 06] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XX. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 41 See [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 28] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 58] (a) and (b), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. [S 76] (a), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. IX. Also H. Hohr, The Mastaba of Hetep – Her – Akhti. Leiden. 1943. fig. 2. Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 156. fig. 38. 42 As aboard [DA 02] (a), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII. [DA 05] (b) and (c), [DG 07] (a) and (b), [ELH 06] (a) and (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [ELH 13] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 3. [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. [G 12] (a), Simpson, Qar and Idu. figs. 35 and 37. [S 19] (b) – (e), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 141 – 145. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. 43 [S 38] (a) – (e), Steindorff, Ti. pls 77 – 81. [S 76] (b), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. IX. [AB 07], Borchard, Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. [AB 08], Borchard, Sahu – Re. 44 [AB 02] (c), Borchardt, Sahu – Re, pl. XI. [S 37] (a) – (f), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 74 – 76. 40

Poujade, Trois flotilles. p. 26. fig. 14. Some examples are [M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pl. XIII. [M 33], Reisner, Ships and Boats. pp. 53-54. [S 10] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. IV, Jequier, Neit et Apouit, pl. XXXV. [S 18] (d), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Also – Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 - 144. 37 [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918, pl. XVIII. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 38 [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. [P 16], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 59011. pp. 58 – 59. fig. 60. pl. Xc. 39 [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 - 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [BH 03] (a) and (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XVI 35 36

68

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

the looms are secured to the stern - most edge of the beam. The rudders of [M 29] and [M 30] are fitted with tillers.45

RC1. (b). The more developed form of RC1 saw the utilisation of a tiller. This would have presented an increased control of the rudder, with fewer requirements for physical effort, since the lower hand would serve as a fulcrum, while the upper turned the rudder via the tiller. As the helmsman would still need to force blade into the water and to support the weight of the rudder it may be argued that was not any great improvement after all. The configuration does not seem to have had a long life.

RC4. This configuration consisted of a centrally positioned rudder post and a single rudder, which either passed through the stern of the hull or passed by the side of the annex, even occasionally passing over the side of the stern quarter. Tillers and preventer lines were often used with this configuration.

The ability of such a simple arrangement to influence the course of a vessel must be queried. At face value, such would appear to be plausible, however, this researcher has sailed a small timber boat with a replicated Egyptian rig, and found practically no need for a rudder, as most directional control was achieved by trimming the sail. A vessel being propelled by oars or paddles would also achieve the majority of its steering ability via the obedience of the crew to the instructions from the captain or pilot of the vessel, with the rudder(s) serving to steady the craft. I have steered Army assault boats being moved by paddlers, vessels with no greater pretensions to hydrographical fineness than a T I H craft. The rudder employed was a hand held oar, placed over the stern of the craft and not secured by any other means. This steering arrangement gave some limited control and it must be concluded that the Egyptian sailor was no better served by his rudder.

RC5. Single rudder; passed over the peak of the stern. The loom is secured to the hull, with the upper reaches of the loom secured to the rudder post; a preventer line is often fitted. The length of the tiller could be quite extreme. Some examples of this configuration have also been fitted with a horizontal lever at the base of the tiller; this is present aboard [EB 06] (a), (b), (c) and (f).46 What advantage this could provide is questionable. There would have been little or no increase in leverage against the tiller/rudder. It may be that the additional lever enabled the helmsman to stand closer to the side of the vessel, increasing his view forward. RC1. (a). This is the most basic form of rudder employed by the Ancient Egyptians. Both hands would be utilised with this grip when turning the rudder. When utilising a rudder not equipped with a tiller, the helmsman’s usual stance, when the craft was facing right, saw him with the inboard foot forward, creating a “striding” posture. In this stance, the left arm was raised, with the right hand at the waist or thigh level, as aboard [DA 03] (b), [DG 05] (a) and (b), [S 23] (a). The pattern of the arms was reversed if the vessel faced left, as shown by the helmsmen of [AB 01] (a), (b) and (c), [ELH 06] (b) and [S 24] (a).47 The leading helmsman aboard [G 03] (a), which faces left, however, has his left leg forward, as may his colleague steering [G 03] (b). Aboard [DE 02] (c), the helmsman is sitting.48

A not unknown presence to be seen aboard is that of an individual, gesturing to the crew and giving instructions. He is present aboard [DE 02] (c), [L 04] (b), [S 14] and [TH 03].50 His status is occasionally reinforced by a baton, often hand shaped, with which he directs the crew. It must be conjectured that he was the sailing master or first officer of the craft. RC2. (a). This variation of the basic concept of the rudder utilised grommets, showing as horizontal half circles, (one per rudder), secured to the hull. These may appear at the junction between the deck line and the bulwark or at deck level. The rudder preventer ropes ran from the junction of the shaft and blade, and were secured to the grommet. This simple but effective method of securement was of dual benefit. It gave greater security to the rudder, preventing its loss if the helmsman were to loose his grip on the rudder, and also made the task of steering easier, by transferring the weight of the rudder from the hands of the helmsman to the hull itself.

No matter which posture was adopted, the crew member (s) handling the steering would have been at an oblique angle to the fore-and-aft axis of the craft, in turn allowing the rudder to be held close to the side. Since the helmsmen stood slightly inboard of the edge of the deck, the rudders would project outwards at a shallow angle. Occasionally, as aboard [EH 03] (c) and [G 03] (d), the rudder furthest aft was longer.49

[M 29], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4880. pl. XII. [M 30], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4881. pl. XIII. [S 14], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. II. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 306. 46 [EB 06] (a) - (c) and (f), Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. pl. XVIII. 47 [DA 03] (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 - 1895, pl. XIX. [DG 05] (a) and (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XII. [S 23] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [AB 01] (a) – (c), Verner, The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. pls. 3 – 8 [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 24] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pl. 12. 48 [G 03] (a) - (b), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. fig. 5. pl. V. [DE 02] (c), Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 33. 49 [EH 03] (c), El-Khouli and Kanawati, El-Hammamiya. pl. 51. [G 03] (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. fig. 5. pl. V. 45

RC2 (b). Some depictions of the grommet and preventer rope configuration which was utilised to secure the rudder show the rudders positioned against the forward edge of protruding beams, as seen on [S 14], [S 37] (a) – (c), (e) and

[DE 02] (c), Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 33. [L 04] (b), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. fig. 50. [S 14], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. 16. [TH 03], Sharawi and Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. fig. 1. 50

69

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(f). This configuration was possibly also originally present aboard [S 37] (d), but the detail is unclear.51

This could explain the loss of the rudder posts, if they had been omitted or decayed.

It is suggested here that this form of steerage would give the rudders an increased firmness. When positioned aft of the beam, the rudders would have tended to trail a little astern, with the amount of trail being controlled by the preventer rope. Under way, the pressure of the water against the looms would force them against the beam, providing a firmer pivotal point against which to turn the rudder.

The rudder rest placed across the deck in the RC3 (a) format could be round, half round, or rectangular in profile. [G 01] has a round beam, although, from its appearance, this may be a modern replacement. The round form is carried by [S 60] and the half round by [S 06] (a) and (b).54 Flat rests are seen aboard [M 47], [P 11] and [P 18]. Horus heads were sometimes fitted at their ends.55 Aboard [P 19] the aft edge of the rudder support is recessed to hold the looms, as is that aboard [S 33].56

RC2 (c). This configuration was fitted aboard the ETH 8 (b) craft. The loom was very long, and was braced against the base of the sternwards projection, apparently on the outboard side. Looms passing on the outboard side can be clearly seen aboard [DA 04] (a) - (c), [S 20] (a) and [S52] (e) – (g). 52 The presence of a grommet to secure the loom to the hull would be suspected.

RC3. (b). This form was utilised with the RP 1 form of rudder posts. A technological development may be seen in some examples of this form, where a horizontal bar links the tillers. This is to be seen aboard [P 08].57 This linkage would allow one man to control both rudders.

Tillers were utilised; often the helmsman sat ahead of his rudder, and had to reach back to hold it, as may be seen aboard [DA 04] (b), [DG 01] (c), (d) and (f) as well as [S 52] (e) and (f). Aboard [DA 04] (b) the helmsman sits sideways, with his left arm draped over the loom. Aboard [DG 01] (c), the helmsman squats on deck and has to turn his head aft wards to see his rudders, unlike his more fortunate compatriot aboard [DG 01] (b) ahead, who has been provided with a platform to sit on. The helmsman of [S 52] (e) stands faces aft, holding the tiller. Aboard [S 20] (a), the helmsman is standing, holding onto both loom and tiller.53

RC4. From its iconographical depictions, this configuration apparently consisted of a centrally positioned rudder post and a single rudder, which passed by the side of the annex, even occasionally passing over the side of the stern quarter, or through the stern platform. A single rudder, utilised with a central rudder post, is a most practicable configuration, and is the form of steerage utilised aboard T II vessels. A configuration where the rudder appears to have been passed by the side of the annex, even when attached to a centrally positioned rudder post, is more problematic. As there are no models to clarify this point, such a configuration must be considered as suspect and most likely poorly finished work by the artist, or the result of sculptors set out lines on a wall having lost their painted covering. Despite their apparent impracticability, these steerage configurations in Egyptian scenes must be considered. Aboard [ELH 02] (a) and [S 18] (a), for example, the loom passes outside of the bulwark; this is also seen aboard [M 04] (b). The looms of [ELH 02] (a) and [S 18] (b) and (c), however, take the latter form, passing through the stern area, although [S 18] (c) does not have a rudder post. Aboard [DG 01] (a) and (d) to (g), the looms appear to be much deeper into the hull at the stern.58 I must conclude that the configuration as seen aboard such craft as [ELH 06] (a), [S 18] (a), and [M 04] (b) are not accurate depictions, although it may be conjectured that, occasionally, the centrally mounted rudder was mounted over the side of the hull, although I can think of no advantage to be gained.

RC3. (a). The best known example of this form is that fitted to [G 01], however, this researcher holds doubts as to the accuracy of the restoration. [G 01] is a Type V, which, apart from the twin rudders and crossbeam, would usually be fitted with a pair of rudder posts. The lack of these is the main cause of doubt in this paper as to the accuracy of the displayed steerage configuration fitted to this vessel. The shape of the extra oars lashed, for the convenience of display, to the forward canopy frame is identical with that of those positioned as rudders. Perhaps these were placed into the burial pit for symbolic or ritual purposes, without any practical role in the propulsion or steering of the vessel. A number of rudders were positioned around the burial canopy of Tutankhamun, which, although of New Kingdom date, possibly reflects the practices of earlier times.

RC5. This method securing the rudder is to be found upon

The published plans of [G 01] indicate that a number of deck beams appear to be missing from the stern area, either through their non - survival in the pit or because they were not placed into the pit at the time that the vessel was buried.

[S 60], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pl. 41a. [S 06] (a) and (b), Poujade, Trois flotilles. Cairo Museum Models 56 386 and 56 387. fig. 3. pl. I. 55 [EB 13]. Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4973. pl. XXX. [P 07], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. [P 08], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 - 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 56 [P 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4811. pp. 17 – 18. pl. V. [S 33], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4915. 57 Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. 58 [S 18] (a) – (c), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [DG 01] (a), (d) - (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. VII. 54

[S 14], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. 16. [S 37] (a) – (d), Steindorff, Ti. pls. 74 - 76. 52 [DA 04] (a) - (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 302. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. [S52] (e) – (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. 53 [DA 04] (b), Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 324. [DG 01] (b) - (f), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. VII. [S 52] (e) and (f), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. 51

70

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

the Type II hull, in almost all its variants, as well as the ETH 11. This configuration represents a great improvement on the forms of steering previously utilised. There are three variations of this form, all of which utilise the RP2. In each sub category, a tiller turned the rudder; the positioning of the rudder saw the tiller hanging between the post and the stern. Any models which show the tiller forward of the post must be considered as having been inaccurately restored.

(d) have, admittedly, suffered damage to these areas of the scene, which may explain the lack of hooks on their rudder posts. Two interesting variants of RP 3 appear in this scene, aboard [EB 06] (b) and (f). The top of the rudder post of [EB 06] (b) appears to be capped with, or cut into, three vertical protrusions. The top of the post of [EB 06] (f) has two vertical protrusions. The bases of these protrusions in both instances are the point where the horizontal retaining lashings for the rudder loom are to be seen.

RC5. (a). The loom passes over the stern, which potentially allowed the rudder to lie along the centre line of the hull. The positioning of the rudder post, itself on the centre line, however, prevented this. The loom passed to one side or the other of the post and was secured to its upper reaches.

There were two other points at which the rudder was secured aboard these craft. These consist of a lashing across the stern with the loom resting in the groove atop the stern, holding the blade in the water and preventer ropes, from the stern to the lower end of the loom.

In order for the helmsmen to turn the rudder, the securing lashing had to be relatively loose. This would, conversely, have rendered the loom liable to slippage. To prevent the shaft of the rudder from creeping up or down the post, either a hook or a curved projection, or “cows horn” as Winlock has termed it, was often fitted below the apex of the rudder post.59 The lashings for the upper reaches of the loom were, in some instances, passed through the horn. This is to be seen aboard [AS 01] (b), [BH 02] (a) and (b), [DB 16] Group 2, (a) – (f).60 Aboard these last vessels the lashings had been badly damaged, however the restorers were presented with enough surviving material to be able to correctly repair the damage.

The stern lashing in the [DB 16] Group 2 (a) – (f) examples consisted of a rope loop over the loom, and secured to two loops of tarred cord passing through holes on either side of the groove on the stern. These lashing holes are to be seen in the sterns of models where the lashings have not survived, as can be seen aboard [M 43], [P 06], and [P 14].61 The [DB 16] Group 2 examples show that the securing loop was of untarred rope, secured at one side to a tarred loop, and at the other, secured through another tarred loop by a tapered wooden belaying pin, the pin itself being secured permanently to the tarred second loop. The releasing of the loom, by the removal of the pin, allowed the rudder to be raised.62

The horn, however, is not universally represented, and Type II craft may appear in the same scene both with and without this fitting as may be seen by comparing [AS 01] (b) to [AS 01] (c). This feature is not confined to T II craft. [DG 01] (d), which has a RP3 (a) rudder post, seems to also have been similarly equipped. Although the boom is depicted as passing through the horn, this cannot be correct. The hook is present on [EB 06] (d) and (f). The horn is often shown as a half circle. In some representations, the upper end does not touch the rudder post, and both models and tomb scenes show that, instead of the half circle, this feature could consist of a smaller projection, either a quarter of a circle or a bent, protruding arm. [ASI 02] has an upright with such an arm, which has been identified, probably incorrectly, as a mast rest by Reisner; however the shape is more akin to a rudder post.

The preventer rope limited the outwards movement of the rudder. Aboard the [DB 16] Group 2 examples, the preventers are doubled length - wise, passed twice around the loom immediately above the blade, and once at a point above it, and then secured at the stern to a loop inboard. Any tendency for these hitches to slip upwards along the loom would be effectively counteracted by the pull of the water against the rudder while the craft was under way. The two hitches around the loom are to be seen fitted to [AS 01] (a), [SE 03] (b), [SE 04] (b) and [BH 16] (a) (as displayed).63 The [DB 16] Group 1 craft have a similar configuration. Single preventer ropes also occur, and can be seen rigged aboard [S 76] (b) and [TH 07] (a).

The lack of the projection may, in some instances, be due to a desire on the part of the artist to indicate differences of direction or action. Of the [EB 06] vessels, five have substantially the same rudder post; one, however, [EB 06] (c), does not have the projecting hook. This is considered here to be a deliberate omission by the artist, who would otherwise have obscured the adjacent text. [EB 06] (a) and

The [BH 02] (a) and (b) rudders ride higher in relationship to the stern, due to the very high rudder posts and the inward curve of the sterns. This sharp angle allows the preventers to be taken only from the top of the blade and be secured inboard. [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [P 06], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 66220. p. 8. fig. 7. pl. IIa. [P 14], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35293. pp. 52 – 55. fig. 54. pl. Xa. 62 See Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pl. 84. A number of these pins had become separated from their places, and had to be either repositioned or replicated by the restorer. 63 [AS 01] (a), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj – Jnj – f. pl. 14. [SE 03] (b), Breasted, Servant Statues, pl. 74 (b). [SE 04] (b), Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. pl. XX. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. 61

For example, [AS 01] (b), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj - Jtj - f. pl. 14. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [TH 07], Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. [TH 12] (a), Davies, Five Theban Tombs. pl. XXXVI. 60 [AS 01] (b), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj - Jtj - f. pl. 14. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [DB 16] Group 2, (a) – (f) pls. 33 – 37, 40 – 41. 70 – 76., 59

71

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 46. Belaying pins aboard [DB 09] (a) and (b). From Naville, Deir El-Bahari, Part 3, 1913. Plate XIII.

RC5 (b). This variant of the RC5 configuration is present on [SE 04] (a) and (b), as well as [P 42], and continued the usage of the centrally mounted rudder post, but this was augmented by the utilisation of two RP1 (a) posts, inboard of the stern. The loom of the rudder was supported by a shallow groove on the tip of the stern and prevented from moving laterally by the additional posts.

dependant upon the type of mast utilised, hull form and the deck fittings of the individual craft; the means utilised was the mast rest. These generally consisted of an upright, crossed at the top by a second, curved timber, with some examples being [BH 03] (b), [EB 06] (b) – (g). It is to be noted that there were variations in size and shape of these fittings; aboard [ASI 06] (b), however, the model maker has fitted a plank with a rectangular notch at the top into the mast step.

RC5. (c). This category was almost identical to the RC5 (a), but, instead of resting in a groove across the stern, the loom was positioned between a pair of struts protruding outwards from the stern.64

4.2 Mast stowage and mast rests

Where the vessel was fitted with a deckhouse, the bipod was generally laid along the roof, although aboard cargo craft, and vessels without a deckhouse, the bipod could be hooked over a pair of mast rests. [G 06] (a) and (b) as well as [S 42] (e) – (k) suggest that aboard some cargo craft, the rests may have been placed to one side of the side of the deck, out of the way of the storage area. In other instances of cargo vessels, however, the mast is positioned on top of the deckhouses.65

Stowage was achieved by a number of differing means,

There were two means for pole mast stowage. The first

This is seen aboard [ASI 06] (a) and (b), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. figs. 33 and 35. pls. VIc and VIIa. [M 25], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4859.

65

The often-slender nature of the rudder posts, at least at their base, may indicate that they did not require a very substantial footing, unlike the uprights utilised for mast stowage.

See [M 01] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [S 03], Kanawati and Hasan, Teti Cemetery. pl. 57. [S 52] (e) and (f), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 - 22.

64

72

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

saw the upper reaches of the mast placed into a mast rest in the stern, with the foot supported upon another rest placed into the vacant mast step.66 Aboard some vessels a mast rest is shown lashed against the rudder post, which can be interpreted as evidence for such mast rests being left permanently in place. It must be surmised that the stern rest had a separate recess in the deck to receive it.67 This method of stowage was unsuitable for the T II craft, as this would have deprived them of their rudder post. Aboard [AS 02], however, the pole is placed horizontally across a mast rest and the rudder post; more than half the mast is unsupported. This may be a special circumstance, with the crew tying the masthead to the rudder post, due to the clutter in the bows.

the main deck and the raised fore-deck. Although rounded externally, the cut away area to support the foot of the mast is square. 4.3 Mast trunks A major development in Egyptian shipboard technology occurred towards the end of the Old Kingdom, when the mast began to be stepped via the use of knees, utilised as mast trunks. These either secured the foot of the mast on deck, or, more commonly, steadied the leg of the mast, with the foot placed into a step within the hull. The shapes and construction of these fitting are considered here, while the usage this form of fitting to secure the mast is examined in Section 6. Correctly speaking, a mast is stepped when the foot is placed into a step positioned upon the inner timbers on the bottom of the hull. One or more trunks steady the leg of the mast.

The second means of stowage saw the upper reach of the mast passed over the top of the forward end of the cabin, with the foot secured forward, towards the bows. This would appear to have had limited use and is seen only aboard T II craft, notably [EB 06] (b) – (g).

When, as in some instances, the Egyptians utilised a mast trunk positioned upon the deck to retain the mast foot, this fitting is better known as a tabernacle. Hornell and Landstrom, however, have both used the term tabernacle to describe the barrier of posts and rails, seen aboard [DG 05] (a) and (b), and [DG 06] (a).69

[M 35] carries a post topped with a totally round face, pierced with a hole. This appears to be the only known example of such a form. When secured towards the bows, three possible stowage methods were employed. The first saw the mast foot positioned into a low bracket, with a backing plate to prevent the foot moving forward or laterally. A more commonly utilised method was to place the mast foot upon a shorter rest, similar in shape to that commonly employed further aft. The third method saw the foot left resting upon the deck, apparently without further restraint. In such instances, it must hypothesised that either a rope lashing was utilised to restrain the foot or that the forward bracket has not been shown.

Mast trunks consisting of knees could be of single, double or triple elements. [M 47] has been fitted with a pair of single knees. [ASI 02], [DB 16] (both Groups) and [DB 17] have trunks with triple arms; that aboard [DB 13] consists of two knees.70 Utilised with the bipod and pole masts, the single elements are the simplest, with their main difference being in the fashioning of the shape of rear face, which could be either flat, or recessed to give a better fit and greater security to the mast leg (or legs). When employed with the bipod, it is possible that some of these single knees saw them inclined inwards. The legs of the bipod were angled, and so the bases of the knees would need to be bevelled, angling the knee across the deck, to receive the mast.

The rests placed towards the bows are; MRS (F) (a). These were the shortened version of the taller mast rests and were utilised with the pole mast.68 Their purpose was to secure the foot of the mast, preventing it from rolling about the deck.

4.4 Gangplanks

MRS (F) (b). Curved timbers, backed by a vertical timber element. These were also only for use with the pole mast and are represented by [M 27] and [EB 06] (b). [M 27] is the only known model of this rest. The bottom of the rest is lower than the bottom edge of the backing plate, which results in the plate being positioned upon the foredeck. The side of the backing plate is thicker at its base, which would result in a stronger fitting. The rest sits across the junction of

The gangplank was run out from the bulwarks, forward. Aboard [G 01], the gangplank consists of four planks, placed longitudinally. The outer end is cut off roughly square; the upper and lower surfaces of the outboard ends of the gangplank meet at an angle.71 The angle between the [DG 05] (a) and (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XX. 70 [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918, pl. XVIII. [DB 16], Group 1, (a) – (d). Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 45 – 48. pls. 78 – 81. Group 2, Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pls. 33 – 41. 70 – 76. [DB 17], Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 64 – 68. pls. 51 and 82. [DB 13], D. Arnold, Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el Bahari. vol. III. Mainz. 1981. pl. 5. 71 Jenkins, Boat. ill. 91. The ends of the planking constituting the gangplank aboard [G 01] are in a very ragged condition and may be the results of timber degradation after the burial of the vessel. 69

66 [G 11], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 19 (c). [M 09] (c) and (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [S 18] (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [TH 02] (b), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 67 [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El Hawawish. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [S 18] (a) - (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [TH 02] (b), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 68 See [EB 06] (f) and, possibly, (d) and (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. part 1. pl. XVIII. See also [TH 07] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII.

73

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 47. [DG 05] (a) and (b). From Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi, part II, 1902. Plate XIX.

upper and lower surfaces of the gangplank of [G 01] would have allowed the outboard end of the gangplank to present a low surface at the point of contact with the shore, reducing the possibility of persons using it tripping, as might more easily happen if the planks were the same thickness throughout their full length. A cross brace, approximately one third of the gangplank’s length from the inboard end, is cut off square, with no tapering. The overall length of the gangplank is quite short, which would require the vessel to be moored close against a dock or pier, and not against an unmade feature, such as the river bank, where a longer gangplank would have been needed.

form, with a square recess at one end. This may have served as a means of securing the gangplank when in use.73 An advanced form of gangplank is carried aboard [P 02], where the upper surface was shaped into a series of steps.74 When considered in proportion to the length of the plank, the individual steps were deep, but at the inboard end the steps had only a very shallow rise, which formed the beginning of the next step. Such a shape would have allowed a person to pass along the gangplank with a minimal danger of tripping over the ascending area at the inboard end of each step. A gangplank of this form would be suitable for boarding in situations where the water allowed the vessel to be brought closer to the shore, unlike the [M 05] (a) gangplank, or the [G 01] form, which, from its configuration, was used in association with a pier or dock. The form under consideration here would seem to be most suitable if the vessel were to be loading in a canal, where it could come close to the bank, but not as close as could be expected if mooring against a pier.

[M 05] (a) also carries a gangplank. As rendered, it is the same thickness along much of its length, although the under surface appears to be cut away towards the outboard end, resulting in its meeting the shore at an acute angle. Since this angling occurs at the base line of the register, the artist may have utilised this as a means of producing a neater finish in this area. If, however, he has accurately depicted the equipment that was utilised, then a gangplank of this shape would have been ideal for usage aboard a craft operating among river banks in shallow water, with the attendant difficulty of bringing the craft conveniently close to the shore. [M 05] (b) is being boarded from the shore, with the craft secured by a mooring rope to a peg driven into the riverbank. The inboard end of the gangplank does not seem to have been secured. An attentive servant steadies the gangplank, a possible indication that the inboard end was not secured.72 Very narrow gangplanks are seen from the bows of [EB 06] (e), (f) and (g). [S 67] has a similar

72

4.5 Rowing and paddling Although the Nile sailor was able to utilise the current to journey northwards, it was still necessary for the craft to be propelled, in order to provide steerage - way. The Egyptians provided the necessary locomotive force either by rowing (or paddling), and towing, either by another craft

[EB 06] (e), (f) and (g), Newberry, El Bersheh. Part 1.[S 67], J. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara. 1906-1907. Leiden. 1960. pp. 9 – 11. pl. XXVII and XXVIII. 74 [P 02], Boeser, Beschreibung Der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden catalogue no S 48, No. 10. 73

[M 05] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XLIII.

74

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

or by towing teams ashore. Occasionally, both forms of locomotion were combined. Oars must be secured to the hull to give their full mechanical advantage. In common with the techniques utilised to secure the rudders to the hull, grommets and preventer ropes were commonly used during the period under consideration. Oars with grommets may be seen aboard [AS 01] (a) – (c), [DB 10], [S 14] and [S 43] (a), while grommets and preventer ropes are present aboard [AB 05] and [L 04] (a).75 Apart from these mechanical devices, brackets occasionally occur, against which the oars are worked. The earliest examples of such an additional device, apart from grommets and preventer ropes, are aboard [L 03], [L 10] and [L 11].76 The oars are worked over the rail, through grommets, backed by angled brackets. A type of outrigger may have been utilised to enable the crew to row standing and this form of rowing device may possibly have been fitted aboard [TH 07] (a). This is a very challenging depiction, and it may be incorrect to use the term of outrigger. The fixtures aboard [TH 07] (a) seem more like a bracket to enable the crew to row when standing, or, perhaps, to enable them to face forward and propel their craft by sculling. Aboard [DG 04] (b) a crewman holding an oar faces forward, and may have been engaged in such an action. The rowers aboard [TH 07] (a), incidentally, are clearly not engaged in the task of rowing - they stand idle, apparently awaiting instructions.77 Landstrom has called the hypothetical devices outriggers, and they have become generally accepted as such. There are, however, no indications of the means by which the oar is secured aboard this vessel. A proposal has been put forward that, aboard [TH 07] (a), rather than brackets or outriggers, they are actually seats for the crew.78 The crews utilised various means of seating when rowing. These consisted of stools or blocks,79 and thwarts.80 Aboard cargo ships, the crew sometimes utilised the railings at the bow as seats.81 If outriggers were fitted aboard [TH 07] (a), then the rower furthest aft has no ‘bracket’, while there is a spare ‘bracket’ in the bows; a similar situation is also to be seen aboard [BH 02] (b). Curved seats for the rowers are seen aboard [EB 06] (b). Aboard this latter craft, the configuration of

Fig. 48. Rowers utilizing brackets aboard [L 03]. From Goedicke, Reused Blocks. Figure 49. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1922 (22.1.13) Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

the oars is similar – the rower furthest aft has no means of securing his oar, although here the crew are clearly seen to be seated and rowing. It is to be remembered that long, notched brackets, against which the oars are worked, are seen along the bulwarks of [L 03] and [L 10]. Regretfully, until further evidence to confirm or refute the possibility of the use of outriggers is found, a clear decision on this matter must remain in abeyance.

[AS 01] (a) – (c), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj – jtj – f. pl. 14. [DB 10], H. Goedicke, Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. 1998. part 3. pl. 64 (b). [S 14], Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypt Ancienne. pl. 16. [S 43] (a), Petrie, Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels. pl. XVIII. 76 [L 03], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. fig. 49. [L 10], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 61. [L 11], Goedicke. Reused Blocks. pl. 62. 77 [TH 07] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. [DG 04] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. part II. pl. XVII. 78 Personal email correspondence with Noreen Doyle, 2005. 79 [BH 04] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [M 18], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4805. pp. 11 – 12. pl. IV. [P 24], Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XVI. 80 See [M 14], and [M 15], [P 16], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 59011. pp. 58 – 59. fig. 60. pl. Xc, [DB 16] Group 2 (b), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 45 – 49. pls. 35 and 72. 81 Some instances of this are [DA 04] (a) – (c), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XX. [S 36] (e) (4), Steindorff. Ti. pls. 21 – 22. [S 78] (c), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. 75

Boreux categorised three forms of rowing, namely: a. Attaque; (the rower dips the oar blade into the water) b. La passe dans l’eau; (the drive or pull stroke that propels the craft forward) and c. Degage. Here the rower raises the blade from the water and leans forward, ready to commence the cycle again, if required. These three basic categories allowed the artist to depict

75

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

the standard actions to be seen when rowing. An example of this means of depicting the crossing of a canal or river may be seen from [S 21] (b) – (e), where boats are towing a funeral craft.82 By utilising the three rowing forms as categorised by Boreux, the artist was able to depict a canal crossing. Aboard [S 21] (b), the rowers, bending their knees, are commencing the stroke. Their fellows ahead, aboard [S 21] (c), appear to have almost fallen back onto the bulwark as they ply their oars; in an iconographic error, the rower closest to the bow and the rower ahead of him both hold the same oar. Having reached the far shore, the rowers aboard [S 21] (d) stand at rest, although they have not relinquished their oars. This means of using variations in oar positions in the same scene is also to be seen elsewhere at Saqqara, such as where [S 23] (a) is under tow from [S 23] (b) and (c), as is [S 24] (a) from [S 24] (b) and (c).83 Degage is not depicted in these latter scenes.

done, especially for [EH 03] (a), to prevent the centrally located person aboard and a shrine (?) that stands upon the deck on a rectangular base from being obscured.86 Generally, the crew are depicted utilising their paddles in unison, imparting maximum force to the craft through a concentrated effort of movement. [S 66] however, does not conform to the normal depiction means for the representation of paddlers in action.87 Instead of a combined stroke, aboard this vessel each man raises his paddle overhead and commences his stroke after the man forward of him has begun his, resulting in a ripple effect along the hull. The paddlers lean well over the side to make their stroke; the craft itself seems to be very large to be moved by paddlers. Considering that [S 66] came from royal funerary temple (King Userkaf), this depiction may represent a special occurrence in the king’s reign. The most likely reason for this form of depiction would, this researcher suggests, be due to the artist’s need to show how vehemently the crew were plying their paddles. The only viable means available for the artist to utilise for such a depiction would have been via the multiple depictions of the phases of the paddle strokes during a paddling cycle.

From the position of the hands of the rowers in some scenes, however, it can be suggested that, when moving along canals, rowers stood up, or changed their grip to allow for space restrictions, enabling them to use their oars in a confined area. Crew members standing while rowing are to be seen aboard [S 43] (a), [S 52] (c) and (d), and [S 76] (a). This is to be seen aboard [AS 01] (b), where the crew appear to be using their bodies to shelter the soldiers aboard.84

4.6 Summary Chapter 4 deals with the ancillary items of equipment to be found associated with Egyptian watercraft; the steering equipment, mast stowage and gangplanks, as well as the techniques and equipment for moving craft by either rowing or paddling. It has been proposed that the development of the steerage equipment of the Egyptians underwent numerous technological developments, with the introducing of mechanical advantages, such as tillers, grommets, preventer lines and rudderposts.

When rowing, the oar is grasped with both hands over the loom. Some examples, however, show the rowers with the upper hand under the loom, and the lower over it. This grip can only be used when the oar is almost upright; it is to be seen aboard [S 19] (f) and [S 21] (b) – (e). Aboard [TH 07] (a), although the crew is standing and apparently awaiting orders, they still can be seen to be holding their oars almost vertically. When using this grip, the rowers did not always stand, as seen aboard craft such as [AB 01] (a) and (b), where the crew sits upon the bow rails and row.85 The combination of grommets and preventer ropes would have made this a simple configuration to set up.

The means of constructing rudders, and the shapes of their looms were also examined, as was the possibility that artistic and religious conventions could play a role in the means of depicting this equipment. The danger of misinterpretation that these needs could introduce was also proposed. An overview and categorisation of rudderposts, their strength and means of securement has been offered.

The paddle is the poor cousin of the oar; smaller and more easily, and cheaply, constructed, the use of the paddle demands more physical effort on the part of crew than the oar. Paddlers always faced forward, and aboard Egyptian craft during the period under consideration could be depicted as squatting on deck, kneeling or standing. Although usually arranged in an orderly row, the paddlers could occasionally be divided into two uneven groups, as are the men aboard [EH 03] (a) and (d). This was probably

The means of securing and stowing the masts employed aboard Egyptian vessels of the period are considered in the following chapter, but here the means of stowing them when unstepped and the development of the mast trunks utilised to retain them when in use has also been discussed. The gangplanks employed can be seen to have been adapted to suit their various purposes.

J. Wilson, ‘Funeral Services of the Old Kingdom’, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago, October, 1944. Vol III, No. 4. p. 206. 83 [S 23] (b) and (c), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 24] (a) - (c), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 12 and 13. 84 [S 43] (a), Petrie, Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels. pl. XVIII. [S 52] (c) and (d), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 20. [S 76] (a), Holwerda and Boeser, Achet – Hetep – Her. pl. IX. [AS 01] (b), Jaros-Deckert, Jnj - Jtj - f. pl. 14. 85 [S 19] (f), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 145. [S 21] (b) – (e), Wilson, ‘Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom’, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1944. p. 204. [TH 07] (a), Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. 82

Rowing, paddling and the evidence for rowing techniques based on artistic depictions and the means of holding the oar have been examined. One of the proposals in this [EH 03] (a) and (d), El-Khouli and Kanawati, El-Hammamiya. pls. 42, 44 and 45. 87 [S 66], W. Stevenson-Smith, The Art and Archeticture of Ancient Egypt. Penguin, 1958. p. 71. fig. 32. Landstrom, Ships. fig. 171. Jones, Boats. British Museum Press. 1995. fig. 61. 86

76

Ancillary Deck Fittings and Their Uses

work, based on the techniques of holding the oar, is that often the Egyptian rower stood when rowing along canals, probably due to the narrowness of the canal. There was a clear artistic means by which a voyage across a river could

be depicted. Paddling appears to have been a more sedate activity, although the artist was quite capable of depicting it in a more frantic light.

77

5

Towing and punting

Craft being towed could be handled by either by persons working from the river and canal banks, by another vessel, or by a combination of both. Towing from the river or canal banks was carried out by one or more teams, perhaps crew members landed for the purpose.

tow ropes; one leading forward from the bows, one aft.2 The rope leading aft is supported on two short, crook topped uprights. The forward of the pair is positioned at the proper place for a mast, were such to be fitted, namely just aft of the junction of the line of the cutwater and the water line. This would have prevented the rope being carried over the side were the craft to broach to, with its attendant dangers for the crew.

When towing by another craft is depicted, it may be seen that there were a various means by which the tow could be secured aboard the towed and towing vessels. In the first, the rope was secured in the bows of the leading vessel, from where it was passed along the deck and out over the stern quarter. The point of attachment is that usually utilised to fasten the forestay, which is slightly inboard of the bow, although the tow rope rises from the very tip of the bow of [S 21] (d).1

5.1 Towing by boats There seems to have been two means utilised for the towing of other vessels. [BH 02] (a) – (c) are linked by twin tow ropes, as are [BH 05] (a) and (b).3 The tow ropes seen at [BH 02] (a) and (b) commence forward, beneath the point where the rudder post stands aboard T II vessels. As the post aboard T II craft was set into a deck beam, this may have ensued that there was adequate hull strength to take the weight of the craft astern. The tow from [BH 02] (a) comes aboard [BH 02] (b) well aft of the bow, as does the tow to [BH 02] (c). This seen also at [BH 05] (a) and (b), although the depiction of these craft shows them as being of lighter build.

Securing the tow in the bows of the towing vessel would have placed this craft into a potentially dangerous position, as the applied weight of the towed craft would have created a tendency for the leading craft to be pulled off its heading. This was also applicable, although to a lesser extent, for the towed craft. To prevent this from occurring, it would have been imperative that both vessels paid close attention to their steering. How this was achieved is discussed below. An equal potential danger was that of injury to the crew of the towing vessel. If it were to broach to, under the weight of the craft astern, the towing cable would be pulled over the side, probably taking any of the crew who were on that side of the vessel overboard with it.

Aboard [DG 01] (a), a T I H (b) a heavy rope runs outboard through the stern but this goes to side of the T IV H (a) craft astern. How the tow was secured aboard [DG 01] (a) is not shown, but it may have been similar to [S 18] (b). The tow from [ELH 06] (b), an ETH 1 craft seems to rise from the bows and pass over the side, meeting the side of [ELH 06] (c), a T IV H (d) on the opposite side to the viewer. 4

The securing of the towing rope in the bows of the leading vessel may have been intended to allow the hull to absorb the stresses exerted on the hull, lessening the danger of hull damage. The presence of the central stringers supporting the Egyptian decks would have dispersed these stresses over a larger portion of the hull than if the tow were to be secured in the area of the stern. It is to be remembered that the central stringers were not continuous timbers from bow to stern but supported the fore and stern decks, as well as the main deck. As there appears to have been neither stem nor sternpost utilised in hull construction, the stern would have been pulled apart had the tow been secured there. Aboard [S 18] (b), the tow secured to the rudder post, but the craft is not under sail, but being punted. [S 46], however, has two

Although not common, the tow was occasionally secured to the rudder post(s). This means has already been seen in use aboard [S 18] (b), with its very substantial single rudder post, towing a timber vessel, and [BH 05] (a), which is towing a papyrus craft. A similar configuration to [S 08] (b) may have possibly have been rigged aboard [DG 01] (a), which is towing two papyrus craft.

[S 18] (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [S 46], Macramallah, D’Idout. pl. VIII. 3 [BH 02] (a) – (c), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XIV. [BH 05] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. 4 [S 18] (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [ELH 06] (b) and (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. 2

[S 21] (d), Wilson, ‘Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom’, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1944. p. 204.

1

78

Towing and punting

Fig. 49. [S 46] under tow. From Macramallah. Mastaba of I’dout. 1935. Plate. VIII

5.2 Towing by combined means

his shoulders and is pulling against it. A crew member of the craft towing [DA 02] (a) pulls the craft forward with a short tow rope.5

In some instances, towing is being carried out by a combination of water and land based means. This method utilised the combination of a team of men ashore, assisted by a towing craft. As these appear in the context of depictions of the towing of funerary vessels, this may illustrate the technique that was utilised when moving such craft along canals.

What can be deduced from this is that the main force of the tow is not taken up by the towing vessels, and the towing rope aboard the craft in question can be seen to have little or no tension upon it at the moment depicted. The stress imparted by the weight of the towed vessel is being taken by the team of crew members ashore. The task of the towing crews, then, must be considered as keeping the towed craft on its intended course.

[S 23] (b) is under tow from the shore and from craft ahead. Both ropes rise from the beginning of the bulwark; one runs ashore, the other passes forward over [S 23] (c) and [S 23] (d). The rope does not appear to be secured to either of the towing craft, being hand held by one man in each of the towing craft. This method is reversed aboard [S 24] (b) – (d). Aboard [S 76] (b), the tow to the craft forward is taken from the opposite side of the craft to the viewer; the point for securing the rope from shore has been lost. A crew member of [S 76] (b) has passed the rope around

5.3 Towing from ashore Two tow ropes are secured to [M 04] (a) and, probably [M 5 [S 23] (b) – (d), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 8 and 9. [S 24] (b) -(d), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. pls. 12 and 13. [S 76] (b), Holwerda and Boeser, Achet – Hetep – Her. pl. IX. [DA 02] (a), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XXII.

79

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

04] (d); the ropes pass to the hull well aft of the rise of the bulwark. These must be interpreted as craft being moved along a canal, narrow enough to allow a team on each bank. This would have the benefits of both greatly easing the effort required to move the craft, and would also ease the task of steering, as the force of the tow would be evenly applied to either side of the vessel. [G 10] is also under tow from ashore by two teams, and although being steered, a crew member in the bows appears to be keeping the craft on course with a punting pole.6

[G 03] (c) and (d).8 The purpose of these men seems to have been to act in the role of pilot. In modern times, pilots are viewed by mariners with a mixture of respect for their local knowledge of the waters in their area and mild scorn for their lack of responsibility if the vessel comes to grief. Perhaps the Egyptian artists were expressing a comical opinion of these men - and for the same reasons. Boreux refers to these crew members as quartiers-maites (quartermasters); a nautical term for a junior officer who assists with navigation.9

5.4 Punting

Punting poles are trailed astern aboard [S 18] (a) and (b), but, as the crews are not rowing, they offer no difficulty for the crew. This seems to have been replicated aboard [ELH 06] (a) – (c), although aboard [ELH 06] (a), an oar the same size as the steering oars was utilised.10 This may have been similarly depicted aboard [ELH 06] (c), although damage to the lower end of the pole/oar has obscured this detail. Aboard [ELH 06] (b), the presence of a tow rope, rising from the bows area and running aft to [ELH 06] (c) astern appears to have prevented the artist from depicting the lower areas of the pole/oar, as the towrope passes on the side towards the viewer of the scene. The lookout of this craft hold the end of a sounding pole, but, as the vertical zig zag lines below the craft, depicting the water, can be seen to be undamaged, it must be concluded that the lower end of the pole/oar was not depicted in this particular scene. Trailing the pole astern may, by indicating a change in depth through a change in the angle of the loosely held pole, indicate a change in the depth of the water. With a slowly moving craft, holding the pole forward would permit the operator to feel the depth ahead. With a more rapidly moving craft, trailing the pole aft would have negated the risk of the holder being pushed off the deck, were the craft to strike shallow water. As the depth of the Nile varied considerably from low waters prior to the Inundation and reached maximum depth, and speed, at the height of Inundation, various techniques of operating the sounding pole and of deciding the waters depth would have been required.

A final form of mechanical impetus utilised by the Egyptians was derived from the usage of punting poles. These may be seen in use aboard a number of the Beni Hasan examples, where they are fashioned as straight poles.7 Although these vessels were being poled, they are also depicted as being already under sail or with the crew making sail. Perhaps this serves to indicate that, when commencing a voyage, the craft was poled away from the river bank whilst the sail was being set. It would be important to get out into the river, to gain room to manoeuvre the craft when getting under way. A punting pole is also in use aboard [DG 01] (e), although the craft has not set sail; all the other vessels in the scene are moving under sail. Again, the punting pole is straight. It has already been seen that, aboard [ASI 07], where the crew are setting sail, a crew member positioned towards the bow is, apparently, moving the vessel sideways, using a short shafted rudder which is lashed to the bulwark. The presence of so many craft from Beni Hasan being moved by the combination of sail and punting poles may perhaps indicate that, at the time of the scenes being rendered, the denizens of this area of the Nile were experiencing a period when the water levels were very low, or that the prevailing wind conditions were not adequate for the task of moving a vessel. An additional purpose of the pole may have been to sound the depth of the waters of the river. A crew member in the bow of [BH 05] (a) holds his punting pole down and outwards into the water forward of the vessel. Another means of sounding the depth of the waters of the Nile may be indicated by the means by which punting or sounding poles were held. In the bows of both [ELH 02] (a) and (b) is to be seen a sailor, with a pole which trails astern, whilst he watches forward. Aboard both craft, the pole passes across or amongst the looms of the oars of the rowers, which, if it were to occur in real life, would have presented a great nuisance for them. The same intrusion of the sounding pole amongst the oars of the rowers is to be seen aboard

The base of the pole used on [G 02] (d) flares out slightly and is split to form two prongs, which, by creating a wider surface area, would have served to give greater purchase against the river bottom. They also are to be seen aboard [DA 03] (a) and (b), [G 13] (b) and (c), [G 14], [M 11] (c) and (d), [M 44] (c). 11 The lookouts in the bows of [S 28] (a) and (b) hold punting poles with the flared, divided base; these are held vertically, with the flared end resting on the

[ELH 02] (a) and (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [G 03] (c) and (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. fig. 5. pl. V. 9 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. pp. 408 - 414. 10 [S 18] (a) - (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [ELH 06] (a) - (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. 11 [G 02] (d), Dunham and Simpson, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh. figs. 4 and 5. [DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. [G 13] (b) and (c), Simpson, Sekhemka. Fig. 4. [G 14], Simpson, Mastaba of Iasen. fig. 30. [M 11] (c) and (d), Blackman, Meir. vol. II. pls. IV, XXVI – XXVII. [M 44] (c), Blackman, Meir. vol. I. pls. II, III and IV. 8

[M 04] (a) and (d), Blackman, Meir. pl. XLII. [G 10], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 24. 7 [BH 12] (a), Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 41574. pp. 22 – 25. fig. 21. pls. IVb and Va. [BH 14] (b), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 57 – 59. [BH 15] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs.72 – 74. [BH 17], Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 229. [BH 18] (a) and (c), Garstang, Burial Customs. figs. 86 - 89. 6

80

Towing and punting

deck. Those in the bows of [S 32] (d) and (f) and [S 78] (a) are depicted in the same stance.12

tow ropes were influenced and restricted by the techniques of hull construction. As has been proposed, the central stringers along decks and the shorter sections along the decks at the bow and stern were not continuous, one piece timbers; therefore, the tow ropes could not be secured to the stern of the towing craft, as is the usual configuration for towing. Instead, the Egyptians appear to have secured the tow in the bows of the towing vessel. This would allow the deck to absorb much of the strain imposed by the weight of the craft aft. Alternatively, the tow could be secured to the rudderpost, but this does not seem to have been common.

Although the majority of depictions of the punting pole show it as straight, those in use aboard [EB 06] (a) – (c) have curved or crook shaped tops.13 This shape would have made it easier to retain a grip on the pole, if it were to become stuck in the mud whilst the craft was under way, and may also have allowed the user to exert a greater downward force, as the users hands would not slip off the end of the pole. I have often pushed small craft through shallow water, using an oar, and on occasion lost the oar when it became stuck in the muddy bottom. This can be a most embarrassing experience, leaving the punter without the means to continue his journey. 5.5 Summary

Craft were also towed either by combined means – a towing boat and a team of men ashore, probably when moving along a canal. Alternatively, craft could be towed by teams ashore; again, it is suggested here that this represented movement along a canal.

The employment of towing and punting as means for moving vessels was well known to the Egyptians. This researcher considers that their techniques for attaching the

Punting poles were also employed, both to keep craft on course and to test for the depth of the water. This most simple tool is most useful under riverine conditions.

[S 28] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 11. pl. 30. [S 32] (d) and (f), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. [S 78] (a), Holwerder and Boeser, Achet – Hetep. pl. XX. 13 [EB 06] (a) – (c), Newberry, El Bersheh. part. I. pl. XVIII. 12

81

6

Masts and Standing Rigging

The Egyptian sailor of the Old and Middle Kingdom was unable to leave the mast in position, being obliged by the prevailing conditions present upon the Nile to be able to conveniently lower and stow the mast when not under sail.

these forms of mast have had, a variation of the bipod and tripod mast forms is to be seen rigged aboard some modern Indonesian vessels, where aspects of two mast forms have been united. Carried aboard a few modernised “Pinisi” class of schooner, the fore mast consists of a lower mast and top mast, with the foot of the mast secured to a pair of uprights, rising from the deck. A horizontal beam positioned across the face of the uprights forward is matched by another across the sternwards face of the uprights. These serve to lock the mast into place. A second mast element runs forward from the junction of the lower and top mast. This is secured to the deck between another pair of uprights, slightly forward of the main mast section, which serves to prevent the mast from moving forward under the pressure of the sails. In effect, this creates a bipod mast, standing along the axis of the craft, instead of across its width. Lateral movement of the mast is achieved by stout ladders from the deck to the junction of all three sections of the mast; the lower mast section, the top mast and the section that runs forward. These ladders serve the dual functions of both shrouds and ratlines. Although the mast can be considered as a bipod, it could also be argued that the lower section of the mast, in conjunction with the bracing supplied by the side ladders, create a tripod, with an additional brace forward. No matter how it is viewed, the result is a very stable mast, although one that is limited in regard to its effect on sail handling, as no sails can be spread on the forward side of the mast, although jibs are carried. Aboard Indonesian vessels with such a rig, only the forward mast is configured in this way; the mizzen mast is of the pole form.

Journeying beyond Egypt, embarking upon the open sea, the rig utilised was an adaptation of the bipod. The progressive pole mast, however, does not seem to have gone to sea, at least until the Middle Kingdom. Two main types of mast are known from the period under consideration; the bipod and the pole mast. There is some evidence for the existence of a tripod mast, but it would appear that this form was never been widely adopted. The pole mast is the most common mast form to be seen aboard sailing craft today, although the bipod is still utilised on reed vessels on Lake Titicaca, and until recently on Burmese rice boats. Hornell illustrates two forms of the tripod as used by Indonesian sailors and Boreux shows a variant of one of these two.1 The first consisted of two poles, joined to a strong mast cap. A third timber, pivoted from a rope passed between the main mast elements, is carried forward to create the tripod. As depicted by Hornell, the mast cap is curved at the apex and the central timber, which carries forward to create the tripod, is shown running in the opposite direction to the curve of the cap, indicating that the cap faces aft. This not in concord with Boreux’s illustration of this type of mast as at fig. 135 (b), where the mast cap faces forward. The mizzen mast, which is smaller but of the same basic shape as the main mast, is not shown as having a mast cap.

A great disadvantage with the bipod lay in the difficulty of sail handling that it imposed, as the ability to manoeuvre the craft through the manipulation of the yard and/or boom was restricted. Some of the masthead configurations restricted the former, while the latter was extremely hampered by often being placed against the mast legs. Only by allowing the boom to move freely would the sail have been very effective. This, however, does not seem to have been considered desirable, as the boom is to be seen either placed aft of the mast or even on the deck, held down by crew members sitting upon it.

Hornell’s second Indonesian bipod mast entailed the usage of a frame consisting of two uprights and a horizontal beam close to the upper ends of the uprights. This beam protrudes at either end of the uprights, and the outer timbers of the mast are pivoted against it. When raised, the lower ends rest on the deck. There is no mast cap; instead, the upper ends of the mast timbers are lashed together. The central mast timber is taken forward; the upper end of one of the outside timbers is extended to form a crutch, over which passes the halyard. This form of mast has not disappeared, as this researcher has seen such masts fitted to Javanese and Balinese fishing vessels. Indicative of the long life that that

The Egyptians of the Pre-Dynastic Period had known the pole mast, as is clear from its depiction on pottery of the period. Examples [EL 01] and [H 01] suggest that the

Hornell, Water Transport, fig. 45. Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. pp. 356 – 357. fig. 135 (b). 1

82

Masts and Standing Rigging

pole was utilised during Dyn I - II.2 [EL 01] is particularly interesting; due to the information it offers for the means by which the forces of the pole mast were spread across the fabric of the hull. The excavator has proposed that a short pole was placed in the leading hole, the foot of the mast in the other, and a beam passed between them, resting in recesses, such as the one present in the starboard side, with the three elements bound together to secure the mast. If this find can be substantiated by other examples, it will push the use of the pole mast by the dynastic Egyptians back from Dynasty V, where their re-introduction of it is first recorded. [H 01] is, however, suspect, due to the disturbed nature of the site.

(b) and [M 47].3 Regretfully, [ELH 06] (b) has lost the tip of its mast. The legs of [M 47] are brought together obliquely and secured by a peg and two rope ties which serve to strengthen this otherwise fragile model mast. Approximately one third of the inner faces are in contact. Aboard [M 47], the mast is stepped into timber mast shoes on deck, while that of [DG 05] (a) is secured against a barrier consisting of posts and rails. The lower ends of the mast legs have suffered damage and been partially lost. Thick ropes, arranged in a ‘wishbone’ format retain the mast of [ELH 06] (b). The BPM (a) (2) is close in form to the BPM (a) (1) and consists of two timbers, jointed without the benefit of any reinforcing cross bars, but with a recognizable mast cap.4

It was not until late Dyn V that the pole was to become firmly established as a major factor in Egyptian maritime technology. There appear to be no early representations of the bipod, with its single forestay and numerous backstays, which, by the advent of the Old Kingdom, had become the characteristic mast of the Egyptians at this time. Once the pole was re-introduced, (if indeed it ever went out of use), it seems to have quickly acquired dominance. The bipod did not just disappear, and both the pole and bipod may be seen in the same scene.

BPM (b) is characterized by horizontal cross - beams and, in some examples, a mast cap. The cross - beams were either; BPM (b) (1). Positioned horizontally between the inner edges of the mast legs,5 or occasionally, BPM (b) (2). Secured across their forward faces, as seen in the mast structures of [S 52] (e) – (g),6 or

6.1 Bipod Mast The form and structure of the bipod fall into two areas;

BPM (b) (2) (a). The cross - beams were wider than the distance they spanned and protruded at either side.7

(a) A simple form, and

Instances may be seen with all three of the BPM (b) categories of the lowest cross - beam being positioned against the opposite side of the mast than the beams above it.8 The purpose of this configuration is discussed below, where the securing of the stepped bipod is considered. As with the BPM (a), there are no indications of the presence of any means for strengthening such mast timbers. The purpose of the cross - beams was most likely not to strengthen a mast built of numerous short lengths of timber, as the rigging was probably sufficient to absorb the lateral forces exerted against the mast. They are considered in this work to have served to lessen any tendency for the mast to twist and distort along its length, i.e., to counteract the torsion placed upon the mast by the pressures applied to the mast by the bracing of the yard.

(b) The complex form, utilizing reinforcing cross bars. These may be seen both with and without various forms of mast cap. These forms are abbreviated and referred to below as BPM (a) and BPM (b). BPM (a) is sub – divided into BPM (a) (1) and BPM (a) (2). The BPM (b) is again sub - divided into BPM (b) (1) and BPM (b) (2) and (2) (a). The number of timbers utilised for the construction of bipod masts is unknown, despite the evidence available from models and iconographic depictions, as no surviving bipod is unknown. Structurally, a mast made of short, jointed timbers would have been weaker than one built of single piece legs. These would require the fitting of timber splints, ropes or metal sheaths over the joints. There are no painted or model depictions to support the existence of such reinforcements.

[DG 05] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [M 47], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4808. pp. 14 – 16. 4 See [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XX. [ELH 11] (e), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. IV. figs. 17 and 18. pl. [G 04] (b), Simpson, Khafkhufu. [G 06] (a) and (b), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [S 19] (a) and (b), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 – 141. 5 [DE 03] (b), Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pls. 44 and 48. [DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [S 19] (c), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 142. [S 38] (a) – (d), Steindorf, Ti. pl. 119. 6 [S 52] (e) – (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. 7 [AB 02] (a) and (c), Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XI. [AB 03] (a), (e) and (h), Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XII. 8 See [G 06] (f), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [L 11], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 62. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 58] (a) and (b) Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 3

The BPM (a) (1) consists of two timbers, jointed without reinforcing cross bars or a mast cap. There are three examples of this form offered here, [DG 05] (a), [ELH 06]

[EL 01], W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, A. Krekler. Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. MDAIK 44. pls. 13 and 34. [H 01], Saad, Helwan. p. 183. pl. 104. 2

83

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

The cross - beams vary considerably in number and distribution along the mast. Their number does not seem to indicate that a craft was of any particular size. [DG 05] (b) has sixteen cross - beams, in the upper half of the mast, and can be seen to be a small papyrus craft. [DG 05] (a), however, also a small vessel, has none, nor does [DG 06] (a). [S 52] (e) has a similar number of cross bars as [DG 05] (b). [S 52] (f) and (g), both the same size as [S 52] (e), have less cross bars; interestingly, none of the three have the lower bar. [S 52] (g) is under sail; there are no depicted means of securing the mast. Other vessels, such as [S 58] (a), [S 04] (a) and (b), and [S 19] (a) and (b) were large, if size were to be judged by the number of oars or rowers depicted, yet their associated masts have few reinforcements.9

method used for the BPM (a) or by a mast cap. There were a number of forms that these caps could take. These are: • BPMH (a). Tapering, flat faced front and rear, with a flat or rounded top. • BPMH (b). Tapering, with the apex protruding forward. • BPMH (c). Tapering, with a protruding ring at the apex. • BPMH (d). As above, but with a strengthening ring at the base. BPMH (a). There are two models of this masthead form, [M 31] and [M 32].11 The components consist of a leg and cap, fashioned as one piece, to which is secured a second, shorter leg. The opposite, lower side of the cap is cut away for approximately half its length and receives the top of the second leg. This section is squared off for neatness of fit and is secured by pegs. A number of holes pass through the cap, either directly from front to rear, or obliquely, for the attachment of the stays. It is important to remember that these are models.

There was no standardization for the numbers and distribution of the cross beams. Those in the masts of [M 31] and [M 32] are concentrated in the upper third of the mast, as are those of [ELH 02] (b) and [L 12]. Other examples see them spread over the top half of the mast, but still with the greater number in the upper reaches, as seen aboard [AB 02] (a) and (c), [AB 03] (a) and (e). Conversely, [DE 01] has no mast cap and the legs barely meet, but the mast has seven cross beams, five of which are in the upper third of the mast. [AB 03] (a) and (e) as well as [DA 03] (b) carry masts with cross beams which extend down the legs for over half the length of the mast.

The masts aboard [S 19] (a) – (c) have similar caps, but the masts appear to have been constructed by different means; only the mast of [S 19] (c) has been fitted with cross – bars. Legs of equal length meet at the base of the cap. This difference is most likely due to the difference in the medium. The maker of the masts for [M 31] and [M 32], wishing to depict a particular type of mast, was able to simplify his task by only cutting two components, not three, as he would have had to do if he had cut individual legs. Mereruka’s artist had no such need, and portrayed the mast as he saw it.

The distance between the upright elements of the BPM (b) form gradually decreased, and is suggestive of experimentation by the Egyptian sailor. In some instances, such as [ELH 13] (b) and [ELH 15] (a), this developing parallelism of the mast legs is very pronounced. The continued contraction is to be seen in the masts aboard [S 38] (a) – (e). Boreux has alluded to the change in shape, but a comparison of his fig. 134 (a), p. 356, shows that the degree of parallelism that he indicates is not as acute as he implies. Eventually, it becomes difficult to establish if a bipod or pole mast was being utilised, as can be seen by a consideration of the masts aboard [M 01] (g) and [M 09] (a) and (b).10 Why this contraction occurred is open to debate. It is proposed further into this section, when dealing with the stepping of the bipod, that changes in the method of securing the mast led to a redesign of the mast form.

This shape of masthead would not be advantageous for the crew. As the yard lay across and against the face of the masthead, the angle to which the yard could be braced was restricted, limiting the ability of the craft to manoeuvrer. It may be more accurate to say that this form would serve to diminish the already restricted angle to which the yard could be braced. BPMH (b). This form was utilised both at sea and on the Nile, and can been seen at Fig. 38.12 It must be concluded that the purpose of the forward projection was to allow the yard to be suspended slightly forward of the face of the mast cap. To assist in this, there was a fore and aft groove across the top of the mast cap. This would overcome some of the difficulties of bracing the yard, by allowing greater movement. A fine instance of this groove is to be seen at example – [L 12] (a).

6.1.1 The bipod masthead The mast legs were joined at or near their tops by either the

BPMH (c). This form, to be seen on [S 38] (a) – (e), [S 74] (c), is possibly a simplified means of depicting a bipod,

[M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pp. 53-54, pl. XIII. [M 32], Reisner, Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4883. J. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. V. [ELH 02] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [L 12], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 63. [AB 02] (a) and (c), Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XI. [AB 03] (a) and (e), Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XII. [DE 01], Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 32. [DA 03] (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. 10 [ELH 13] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. Fig. 3. [ELH 15] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. fig. 30. [S 38] (a) – (e). Steindorff, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [M 01] (g), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [M 09] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. 9

[M 31], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pp. 53-54, pl. XIII. [M 32], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4883. J. Poujade, Trois flotilles. pl. V. 12 This masthead is present aboard [AB 02] (a) and (c), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XI. [AB 03] (a) and (e), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XII. [DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. 1894 - 1895, pl. XIX. Vandier, Manuel, fig. 324. [L 12] (a), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 62. [TH 10] (a), Vandier, Manual, fig. 292. 11

84

Masts and Standing Rigging

Fig. 50. Grooved mast cap of [L 12] (a) From Goedicke. Reused Blocks. Figure 63. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

with the ring at the top being the point to which the fore and main backstays were taken.13

A variation of this means of rigging the boom slings saw the bracket replaced by loops or eyelets, one on either side of the mast, as aboard [M 09] (a) and (b) as well as [S 52] (a) and (b). The pole mast was also fitted with eyelets or loops, as seen aboard [S 19] (d) and [TH 02] (c).15

BPMH (d). This is present aboard [G 06] (b) and (c).14 Although the Egyptian rig utilised in conjunction with the bipod was very basic, devices to be associated with some instances of bipod mast reveals that the Egyptians had developed a more advanced level of sail handling and were not content to merely allow the boom to hang unsupported, or to lie on deck.

In both configurations, the slings for the boom were passed through these, allowing the boom to be raised. Where the bracket or loops and eyelets are not seen, their presence may be inferred from the configuration of the slings. This is seen at [ELH 02] (b), [S 04] (a) and (b), [S 19] (b). It may be possible that [DG 01] (g), with a tripod mast, was similarly equipped.

There are two forms of these devices. The first consisted of a Y shaped bracket, located some two thirds along the length of the mast. These brackets are seen aboard [AB 03] (a) and (e), although damage has erased any other examples aboard the [AB 02] and [AB 03] craft; [S 19] (a) and (c) also have these brackets.

6.1.2 Stepping and retaining the bipod It is proposed in this work that there were three ways of securing the bipod, although other possibilities have also been proposed, and are appraised below. The methods recognized here are;

[S 38] (a) – (e), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [S 74] (c), McFarlane, Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. fig. 4. pl. 11. McFarlane, Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. I. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. 14 [G 06] (b) and (c), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. 13

[AB 03] (a) and (e). Borchardt, Sahu - Re. pl. XII. [M 09] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. p. XV. [S 52] (a) and (b), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 21. [S 19] (d), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 144. [TH 02] (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 15

85

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 51. Tensioned mast securing ropes aboard [L 10].Goedicke. Reused Blocks Figure 61. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

(A). The mast retained by tensioned ropes; this is discussed below.

(A). (1). This configuration saw the ropes rise from the deck, between the mast and the hull sides, taken around the individual mast leg (and over the lower support bar, where shown as fitted), and then led back downwards towards the deck. Here, they were secured to slings or loops. Aboard some examples, these loops rise above the level of the bulwark. These are clearly seen aboard [S 42] (a) and (b).18 In other instances, however, the inboard fittings are not shown, and no indication is given as to the means by which they are secured.

(B). The mast standing on deck, lashed to large knees, positioned along the deck, a few examples being [M 47], [S 19] (a) and (c).16 (C). The mast secured against a post and rail framework positioned across the deck, and are present aboard [DG 05] (a) - (b) and [DG 06] (a).17 Hornell and Landstrom have both referred to this fitting as a tabernacle, a term which shall be used here for convenience. In shipwright terminology, a tabernacle is a bracket or socket, positioned upon the deck or cabin structure, which negates the need to pass the mast through the deck and onto a mast step within the hull.

The ropes were placed under tension by the simple expedient of passing a stick through the loops, which were then tightened by twisting. In a number of depictions the stick is shown and can be seen aboard [ELH 11] (e), [L 10] and [L 11]. The stick of [L 10] passes through the centre of the rope; that of [L 11], however, does not. To retain the tension, the end of the stick was tucked behind the mast leg, as aboard [L 11], or tied off, as [S 42] (b).19

Method (A) would appear to be the most common, with two styles for depicting the ropes.

[S 42] (a) and (b), Bietak, ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’, in Pyramid Studies, EES. 1988. pp. 35 – 40. pl. 9. 19 [ELH 11] (e), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. IV. figs. 17 and 18. [L 10], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 61. [L 11], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 62. [S 42] (b), Bietak, ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’, in Pyramid Studies, EES. 1988. pp. 35 – 40. pl. 9. 18

[M 47] Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4808. pp. 14 – 16. [S 19] (a) and (c), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 and 144. 17 [DG 05] (a) - (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XVII. [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XX. 16

86

Masts and Standing Rigging

Fig. 52. [ELH 02] (a) and (b) From Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, Vol. I. Figure 9. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

The usage of tensioned ropes as a method of retention, with the outward pressure that it would place upon the mast legs, may be the reason for the lower cross bar being utilised as the point over which the ropes were passed. The lower bar would absorb this pressure.

aboard [ELH 02] (b).22 Here, the ropes hang loosely from the cross bar, with the boom passing through them. The ropes are not held down to any point, nor are they shown as being under any tension and yet the artist seems to have been at some pains to depict them. Interestingly, the unsecured lower ends of these ropes apparently cover an even lower cross brace, the ends of which protrude at either side of the loops and are the same width as the bar above it. I have not seen this elsewhere, and cannot offer an explanation for this depiction. Although sail is set aboard this example, the oars are out and rowers sit by them, ready to row. It might be that the artist has given us evidence that, when making short trips, the mast was not fully secured, to allow for ease of handling if the ship had to turn into the wind.

(A). (2). The ropes are shown crossed or as cross-hatching between the mast legs.20 At first, this form was considered during the research for this paper merely as an iconographic device; however this form of representation is now accepted as a means of rigging the mast fixating ropes. There appear to be no depictions of this form of the securing ropes where these ropes are placed under tension. Unlike the (A) (1) method, this variation would tend to pull the mast in onto itself, adding to its strength.

[ELH 02] (a) offers no clues; she carries a pole mast, which is very securely lashed into place. The tomb owner is not depicted as being aboard his ship, and the area under the awning which protrudes forward of the cabin is vacant. The artists who painted these scenes were operating in a provincial environment and had more freedom in what they depicted. The rope configuration aboard [ELH 17 (b) may have shown the same configuration as aboard [ELH 02] (b), but the scene is too badly damaged for this to be confirmed.23 The tomb owner stands amidships; before him is what could be considered to be the rendition of a timber object, with the grain pattern emphasized. Upon reconsideration, however, these markings can only represent the mast fixation ropes. Although the mast has not survived, this is the point where it would have stood. The “ropes” are very similar to the depiction of those of [ELH 02] (b). If this is correct, and these are ropes, then they are also looped in a figure eight configuration, comparable to

Some scenes with either the (A) (1) or (A) (2) form show the mast and lower crossbar, but not the lashings, while others have the lashings but not the bar. The fixation ropes loop around the mast legs without anything to restrain them, which clearly would have resulted in the ropes merely slipping back down the mast legs. Two examples of this are seen at El – Hawawish, aboard [ELH 06] (b) and [ELH 15] (a). Neither has the lower bar, nor do they have any cross bars in the upper reaches of the mast. [DE 01], by contrast, has neither ropes nor bar, as is seen also aboard [G 04] (b) and (c).21 The most unusual depiction of the securing ropes is seen See [DA 03] (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 8. pl. 21. [S 38] (a), Steindorf, Ti. pl. 77. 21 [ELH 06] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [ELH 15] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. [DE 01], Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 32. [G 04] (b) and (c), Simpson, Mastaba of Khafkhufu. 20

22 23

87

[ELH 02] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 17] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VIII. fig. 12.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 53. Tensioned ropes aboard [TH 03]. From Sharawi and Harpur. Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara, JEA 74. (London, 1988). Figure I. Image courtesy of Evyonne Harpur.

those of [ELH 02] (b), with the artist again accentuating this feature. Large aboard [ELH 02] (b), the ropes, if such they are, were vastly out of proportion on that of [ELH 17] (b) where they are almost twice the height of the owner. One definite and one possibly similar method of depicting the securing ropes, unseen in any other known scene, may perhaps be indicative of a local school of painting.

lay of the ropes is seen, but the twisted areas are thicker, and devoid of any markings to characterise them as rope. This depiction may possibly indicate that the tensioned ropes could be protected by the provision of a fabric cover. There appear to be no other instances of this means of depiction. Landstrom has proposed two hypothetical methods for stepping the mast, utilizing tensioned securing ropes. In one, the feet of the mast legs are placed upon timber pads, positioned on the floor timbers and straddle the junction between the hull bottom and the garboard strakes. The crew brings the mast upright by pulling on the forestay and some of the secondary backstays, led forward for the

The treatment of the tensioning ropes on [TH 03] is of interest.24 Where these pass around the legs of the bipod, the [TH 03], Sharawi and Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. London. 1988. fig. 1. 24

88

Masts and Standing Rigging

purpose. With the mast erect, it rests against the aft edge of a deck beam, wider than the rest, to which it is lashed, and is further secured by the fitting of the tensioning ropes.

fixings together.26 The lashings and hull fittings supporting this suggested method seem very inadequate. It is difficult to accept that a deck beam could have been held in place with adequate strength in order for it to be both retained and able to turn.

His second method proposed that the feet of the mast were inserted into holes in a deck beam; although how the mast is to be lifted high enough to enable this to be achieved is not explained. Landstrom does not seem to place much faith in this method . The feet of the mast were again to be placed upon timber pads.

When raised, the feet of the mast swung down into wooden shoes, which Borchardt has placed upon a deck positioned above the timbers of the hull bottom. He shows the central stringer as being cut away forward of the mast, and the area left open fore and aft of the pivoting deck beam. This area most probably was left open, although it would have been a simple matter to fit removable planking once the mast was raised or lowered. Aboard both [AB 03] (f) and (h), a crew member can be seen standing waist up in this open area. [G 01] appears to support the proposal that it was unnecessary to cut away a section of the central stringer, at least for the bipod. The bipod would, after all, have straddled the stringer. This method is to be considered as impractical and the need was for a simple method.

These two methods, although plausible in their own way, are rejected here, due firstly to the possibility of hull damage and, with the second method, the extreme difficulty that would have presented itself to a crew trying to lift the mast and insert the feet into the deck beam holes, which, incidentally, is the method that would have been necessary to use aboard [M 31]. The width of the beams is many times greater than their thickness and any real vessel utilizing this method would have required a deck beam of enormous width. The holes themselves would need to be much larger than the circumference of the mast legs, resulting in the increased possibility of the mast moving, with resultant damage to either the mast or the fabric of the hull.

The majority of models fitted with its cousin, the pole mast, however, must be accepted as having the run of the central stringer interrupted to allow for the stepping of the pole. The decking of [G 01] consists of removable sections. Planking against the bulwarks would have facilitated the passage of the crew members as they moved about the ship.

It is this researcher’s belief that Landstrom’s suggested stepping techniques carried with them the possibility of hull damage stems from the constructional method employed by the Egyptians. Hulls built utilizing such constructional techniques would have precluded certain actions on the part of the crew.

Landstrom proposed a technique, also derived from the [AB 02] and [AB 03] vessels, where the mast was secured to a beam and swung upward, using the beam as an axle; the beam itself did not turn. This method is also shown by Boreux.27 At the mast feet, which Landstrom shows in the lowered condition, are what have been interpreted as being large stones, secured to the mast legs, their weight being intended to facilitate raising the mast. As with the hypothetical system proposed by Bochardt, the mast feet came to rest in timber shoes, placed upon the floor timbers of the hull, which would have again strained the hull timbers by setting up two points of great stress, especially when the tensioning ropes were tightened. The proposed stone weights are also of concern, since it would have been no more desirable to have large stones forced against the hull timbers than it would to have the mast feet themselves pressing down onto them. If, however, the objects depicted towards the base of the mast legs are stones, then their purpose must have been to assist in the raising of the mast.

[G 01] indicates the care needed when fitting the garboard strakes to the floor timbers of the hull, and the junctions of these timbers would have represented a serious point of weakness. Since the Egyptian hull relied upon the tightness of the internal lashings to retain hull integrity, the placing of the mast feet against the hull timbers, even on pads, would have placed increased stresses upon the hull at one of its weakest points. The supporting action of the water against the hull would certainly have cushioned the downward pressure of the mast, but this may well have been overcome by the increased pressure generated by the tightening of the securing ropes, with a resultant increase in the danger of a hull rupture. Crews at sea would have faced not only the need to raise and lower their masts, but had also the need to be able to do so more quickly than the river sailor, who had only to deal with the easier conditions of the Nile. Borchardt offers a method, based upon the masts of the [AB 02] and [AB 03] vessels.25 Here the mast is permanently lashed to a pole, passing across the hull, pivoting, by means of lashings, on the round topped uprights which appear on either side of the hull, forward of the mast. A short, thick, plank placed across the forward face of the base of the mast legs, all held together by tensioned ropes, holds the assemblage of

It is proposed in this publication that the Egyptians did devise a means of pivoting the mast, where the weight of the bipod was utilised to help keep the mast in place. In this proposed system, the mast legs were lashed to a deck beam, leaving enough play in the ropes to allow these points to act as fulcrums. This would obviate the requirement for a beam that needed to be turned. In this suggested method, the mast feet would not have reached the timbers of the hull bottom, Borchardt, Sahu – Re. ill. 18. p. 155. Landstrom, Ships. p. 66. fig 199. Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 486. fig 189 26

[AB 02] (a) – (d), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XI. [AB 03] (a) - (h), Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. XII.

27

25

89

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

but been left slightly above it. At sea, the mast only had to be brought down onto the frame towards the stern of the ship. The river sailor, however, completely unstepped his mast, and laid it up onto the cabin roof, or onto uprights, out of the way of the crew.

The end of the lower leg of the mast of [TH 10] (a) is slightly forward of the junction of the forefoot and the water line. The other leg stretches further forward but this may have been due to a desire of the artist to use the line of the kilt worn by the person paying out the rope to delineate his mast depiction. Showing the mast turned sideways must be accepted as the sculptor following iconographic convention, with the mast so turned to ensure that the entire mast was depicted, leaving no doubt as to what was being done. The mast could, conceivably, have been lowered by turning it and bringing it down, balanced on one foot if the said foot was held in a rope stirrup, such as has been hypothesised in this work as possibly having been used. Although possible, and one must question why the Egyptian sailor would wish to utilise such a technique, the descent of the mast would have been difficult to control, since it would have had a natural tendency to fall back onto both feet. Pivoting the mast on both feet was the easiest and simplest method. Iconographic convention would appear to be the most likely answer.

This method or, a possible variation, with the feet of the mast legs being secured by a form of rope stirrup or loop, would have served. Landstrom’s proposed methods of raising the mast, utilising the forestay and some of the secondary backstays, would still apply. When raised, the weight of the mast would have served to keep the feet firmly in place in the stirrups, with the tensioned fixation ropes preventing the mast from lifting under the effect of the wind against the sail, or from rocking side to side. No direct pressure would be applied to the hull bottom, as the forces exerted upon the mast and the deck beam to which it was lashed would have been passed downwards via the supporting stanchion, and dissipated into the hull by the partial rib underneath the beam. This is based on the premise that the technique used in the construction of [G 01] was the usual method.

Other means of stepping the bipod saw the use of a structure, generally referred to as a tabernacle, consisting of posts and rails, or the lashing the mast to knees. Both methods would have enabled the Egyptians to step the bipod on the deck, without the need for the mast feet to be positioned on the hull planking.

It is proposed here that this suggested method of stepping the mast is plausible and would overcome the difficulties presented by other theories put forward. It would however have carried with it the potential danger of hull rupture if one or both of the proposed rope stirrups were to break.

Two versions of the tabernacle are seen at Deir El Gebrawi. [DG 05] (a) appears to carry two uprights, with three cross braces, while [DG 06] (a) has two pairs of uprights and two cross braces; one of the uprights [DG 05] (a) has been lost. For such frames to be securely affixed, the uprights would need to be inserted into either into a deck beam or a floor timber, or secured by a combination of both, with the uprights secured against the forward edge of the deck beam. The feet of the mast legs, to be firmly secured to the cross rails, would need to have stood upon the surface of the beam behind the tabernacle frame, and, possibly, wedged into the angle between the uprights and the rails.

6.1.3 Lowering the mast [TH 10] (a) is the only example I know of to give an indication to the means by which the mast was lowered.28 Two crewmen face the stern of the vessel, with the weight of the mast supported on their backs, while another figure at the bow assists by paying out a rope, attached to the forward point of the mast cap, which is of the BPMH (b) form. The rope being paid out can be interpreted as being the forestay, and as the sailors are oriented towards the stern they must be lowering the mast. If they were raising the mast, the sailors would have been facing the bow, and pushing the mast upwards. The mast has been depicted on its side, as if balancing on one leg. Unfortunately there is little that can be gleaned from this depiction of how the mast was prevented from slipping forwards during this operation. In order to prevent the mast from obscuring the rowers and the cabin, the artist has shown the feet resting upon the deckhouse. The artist has either foreshortened the bow, or else inadvertently made the deckhouse too long forward. To allow for this, the lowering action is shown as taking place upon the roof of the deckhouse.

[DG 05] (b) could be interpreted as carrying a mast whose legs branch out into a pair of downward facing forks, as if the mast had four feet, not two, with three cross braces behind them. The junctions of the mast legs with the forked lower ends are above the level of the topmost cross rail. This would have resulted in a structural weakness in the mast. If forked legs had been used, it would have been sounder to have constructed the mast so that when stepped the junction of the elements of the mast was below the top rail, or even better, at the level of the lower rail. A possibility put forward here is that these forked elements may be mast-securing ropes, or perhaps a tabernacle, with twin pairs of uprights, as aboard [DG 06] (a), was intended and which has been misinterpreted through damage. It is considered here that this depiction is incorrect and that the [DB 06] (a) form had been intended.

The scene can, however, serve to suggest that the BPMH (b) was used as an attachment point to secure the forestay. Aboard [L 12] (a) and (b), it can be seen that the halyard passes over the top of the masthead.29

28 29

The Egyptians may well have found this method useful,

[TH 10] (a), Vandier, Manuel V. pl. 292. [L 12] (a) and (b), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 63.

90

Masts and Standing Rigging

although its apparent lack of widespread usage would seem to be indicated by the fact that it is found represented in only one area. Possibly it was utilised only on small craft, and a glance at the [DG 06] and [DG 06] examples cannot fail to give the impression that the vessels were very small. No ropes for binding the mast legs to the tabernacle are shown, and the scenes have a bare minimum of rigging, with only the fore and main backstays being represented. This researcher has seen this form of mast securement used aboard Indonesian fishing boats, although it is not common.

documented, and is to be seen in association with [DG 02], [ELH 10] and [ELH 12].32 The late fifth and early sixth dynasties saw the development of the use of knees to support the mast. Knees are pieces of curved timber, used to join structural members as bracing in a hull, usually by nailing or bolting. In the Ancient Egyptian context, they are to be envisaged as angular timbers, secured at the deck level and serving as anchoring points to which the feet of the mast are lashed. An alternate name for such a device is a mast shoe, however the term knee is preferred here. Knees also appear as structural elements in baldachins and deck awnings.

There can be no doubt that the artist(s) in this tomb were aware of the numerous secondary backstays so often represented, as [DG 05] (b) is supported by numerous secondary backstays, as well as what may be a double forestay.30 At first glance, this craft seems to be a papyriform vessel. However, it displays the traits of a papyrus craft, has the deck platform that was used to give a firmer footing, and also has water weed beneath it, so often present when a papyrus vessel is depicted. The backstays have all been taken to the far side of the deck shelter, to avoid the partial obscuring of the depiction of the owner. The mast is strengthened by some sixteen cross bars, spread over the top half of the mast.

It may be considered that the introduction of this new technique led to the eventual continued development and ultimate dominance of the more effective pole mast. The pole did not, however, come into immediate usage. The Ancients felt their way forward in mast development and the associated rigging that was utilised in conjunction with the developing masts. [ELH 02] (a) and (b), [ELH 06] (a) and (b), and [S 19] (a) – (e) show that the bipod and pole masts existed alongside each other. Some of the finest illustrations of the use of knees to secure the bipod are carried by some of the [S 19] vessels. The mast aboard [S 19] (c) shows all the upper elements of the bipod, but the mast is adapted to suit the new method of securing. It still has a large cap, numerous cross beams and the multiple secondary backstays, as well as the fore and main backstays, but there is no lower cross beam, and the legs are positioned against two knees. The sculptor has depicted lashings at two points on the knees, although he has failed to take them around the mast legs.

The artist may have been faced with the need to depict an archaic style of vessel; a papyrus craft such as would have been utilised in the funerary rituals of an earlier period. Not being familiar with such a craft, the artist depicting [DG 05] (b) perpetrated an error, and Egyptian scenes are a fertile ground for finding iconographic errors. This is, of course, mere speculation, but the evidence suggests that there are grounds for advancing the hypothesis. This proposed usage of archaic forms of hull by an artist is not beyond the realms of possibility. [ELH 02] (c) and [ELH 06] (c), both papyriform vessels under tow, are replaced at [ELH 13] (a) by a papyrus craft, as if to emphasize the usage of a more traditional type of vessel in this monument.31

The knees curve outwards at their lower ends. [S 19] (a) is depicted with a different style of knee. The knees fitted to the leading ship are similar to that known even in relatively modern times used aboard rice boats utilised on Burmese rivers. These Burmese craft carried a bipod mast, supported by two uprights on the deck, which were shaped similarly to those on [S 19] (a). The Burmese mast, however, was pivoted, while that of [S 19] (a) is lashed into place.

The mounting of a tabernacle on a papyrus craft would have presented difficulties, due to the nature of the crafts construction and materials, but these difficulties could have been overcome. A beam, for example, lashed across the deck would have served to allow for the insertion of the uprights for the tabernacle. If, however, such a method was employed, there is no surviving evidence for its usage. A second possible method, and which seems to have been employed here, was to position the uprights of the tabernacle upon the inserted deck platform. This, of necessity, would have been of timber if it were to both survive the strains placed upon it and give a secure footing for the mast. The use of timber for the deck platform is well

Instead of curving outward at the base, the knees aboard this vessel taper slightly towards their tops. The top of the port side knee is rounded over, although of the starboard side has been lost. The double lashings with which the mast was secured are clearly depicted. Unlike the previous craft, this mast has no reinforcing cross beams. [S 19] (b) has a bipod with neither beams nor knees, but does have the double lashings where the knees would have been. How the knees were actually mounted on the hull cannot be deduced from these examples. [M 47], a T IV H (a) craft, carries a bipod secured against two knees, which are

[DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [ELH 02] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. 1, fig. 9, pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (c), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [ELH 13] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VII. fig. 3. 30

[DG 02], Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. part II. pl. III. [ELH 10] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. IV. figs. 12 and 13. [ELH 12], Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. VI. fig. 3.

31

32

91

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 54. [ELH 13] (a). Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish; Volume VI, Figure 3. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

positioned on the deck and face towards the bow. A simple form of bipod is associated with this model. For this method to work, additional beams would have needed to be inserted longitudinally, parallel to the central stringer, between at least two deck beams, to support the knees. Such additional beams were to be a regular feature with the latter pole mast and its step.

would have been of considerable difficulty, although not impossible. Narrowing the width would have made this task easier. The technique of securing the bipod with knees does not seem to have had a very long life, although it rapidly became the dominant form of mast shoe for the pole. This new method may have even hastened the demise of the bipod, due to the difficulties already alluded to. In all, it is unlikely that this variation of mast shoe gave the Egyptians any benefit, doing away as it seems to have done with the flexibility, effectiveness and more economical system of earlier times. With the previous methods, one mast could have been used on different ships. With knees, the mast would need to be built specifically for a particular ship, with the attendant difficulties of fitting it aboard another craft. Perhaps this is why Mereruka, the owner of the tomb, had such fittings depicted in his scenes, to show that he could afford such valuable and specialised equipment.

[M 47] suggests that the mast feet may have been set into shallow holes cut into the deck - which in effect means cut into a deck beam - with the backs of the knees hollowed to accept the legs.33 It would have been imperative for the mast to be very carefully made so as to fit correctly into place. The knees themselves would have presented constructional problems. Those seen aboard [S 19] (c) appear to be of substantial size, as tall as some of the crew. The timbers from which they were cut must have been very difficult to obtain. Wooden knees are strongest when they are cut from timber that has been grown in a curved shape. Composite, or built, knees are not as strong, and there is nothing to indicate that those of [S 19] (c) are not individually of one piece, but, considering the medium of display utilised, such a lack of evidence is, perhaps, to be expected.

6.2 Hull length to mast height Although it is not possible to give the height of the various forms of Egyptian masts, some indication of proportion can be obtained by a consideration of the variations in the ratios of the hull length when compared to the mast heights. Such a comparison also serves to indicate the increasing usage of the pole mast during the Old Kingdom, with the peak period of duality, when the bipod and pole were most numerous along side each other, being during the VI Dynasty. Allowances must be made for the medium

There would be good engineering reasons to reduce the distance between the mast legs. Positioned adjacent to the central stringer along the axis of the hull, the cutting and shaping of knees to accept the angled base of the mast legs 33

See Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4808. pp. 14 - 16. figs. 71 – 73.

92

Masts and Standing Rigging

utilised to depict the hull and mast combination, as some examples have been contracted or distorted to allow them to be depicted within a restricted area, or been fitted with masts that are very disproportional to the size of the hull. The masts carried by [G 23] (a) and [S 74] (a) – (d) are some instances for short bipods; it can be seen that the masts of these latter vessels have been contracted to fit into the available space. [S 13] (b) and (c) have been supplied with short model bipods, of primitive workmanship. [SE 02] and [P 13] are rigged with short pole masts, as is [M 17]; however this mast may not be original.34

that the bipod was the higher of the two main forms of mast utilised by the Egyptians. 6.3 Standing rigging The standing rigging reflects both its development for usage on papyrus craft and the sailing conditions on the Nile. Generally, a single forestay proved adequate to prevent the mast from falling backward. This is understandable as the stresses placed against the mast came from astern. Some craft, however, notably [AB 04], [BH 02] (a) and (b), [G 19] (a) seem to have been rigged with a double forestay.37 This additional forestay may have been intended to counter any tendency for the pole mast to waver from the pressure of the wind either from aft or, more likely, from across the stern quarters.

The bipods of Dyn IV fall between 1.43 and 1.97, with an extremely high figure of 2.38/1 for [G 23] (a). The means for depicting the single pole mast known from this era – [DE 05] (b) - is unusual, as both this example and [DE 05] (a) are painted onto a timber slab, which is devoid of the usual register lines to be expected of Egyptian art. Although there is some evidence for the pole having been employed prior to the Old Kingdom, this example appears to be the earliest recorded depiction of the rig utilised.35

The pressure of the wind from aft, however, pushing against the mast and sail, had to be absorbed and distributed. This was achieved by the use of a main backstay and numerous secondary backstays. The fore and main backstays were secured at the bow and stern of the vessel. There were variations of this, as may be seen aboard [S 26] and [S 27] (a) and (b). The main backstays of these examples are taken to the tip of the awning over the stern area. This can only be considered as an iconographic device, perhaps to avoid covering the details of the vessel in this area. A comparison between [S 27] (a) and [S 58] (a), with the same awning and deckhouse configuration shows the backstay of [S 58] (a) being taken to the tip of the stern.38

There appears to have been no propensity for carrying shorter masts by ETH 8 craft, whose small crews might reasonably be expected to benefit from the ease of sail handling that would come from a mast of lesser height. Both tall and short masts are to be seen aboard these ships, although only a limited number of examples are complete enough for measurement. The Hull Length to Mast Height (HL/MH) of [G 06] (b) and (c), both ETH 8 vessels, is 1.28 and 1.33 respectively, while that of [G 06] (d), (an ETH 3), [G 06] (e), (an ETH 2) and [G 06] (g), (a type IV) are 1.5, 1.63 and 1.82. [S 18] (d) is 1.6, while the other craft in this scene, [S 18] (a) – (c), are between 1.24 and 1.3. [S 52] (e) and (g) are 1.56 and 2/1, while [S 52] (a) – (c) lie between 1.44 and 1.92. [M 01] (a) has a HL/MH of 1.2; the other vessels associated with this example, which can be measured, range from 0.86 to 1.72.36

The secondary backstays were secured at points along the sides of the stern quarters. This ensured that no one point of the hull was subjected to undue strain. Although this was necessary with a papyrus hull, with the stronger timber hull there was less need . Such an arrangement was not, however, universal. [S 52] (g), a cargo vessel, carries a bipod without stays.39 There are no mast-securing ropes or stays, however two ropes descend from either side of the masthead. To port, these are together, to starboard, they are well apart. As the sail is braced to port, i.e., taking the wind from starboard; this may indicate an alternative means of supporting the mast other than with a multitude of stays. The foot of the sail on the starboard side touches the starboard leg of the mast. Although it might be conjectured that the absence of the usual number of stays indicates a departure from the usual means of stepping the mast, the accompanying text and crew figures take up a great deal of space. As there is little room around this vessel, the artist may possibly have considered that there was insufficient space to add the stays. This lack of backstays is surprising; as the other two vessels

The ratios from the Middle Kingdom, when compared to those of the Old Kingdom, appear to be relatively constant, with a greater variation to be noticed in the length of the hulls upon which they were employed, indicative of longer hulls with shorter masts. Vessels rigged with the bipod mast showed the most consistency in height and the pole mast the greatest range of mast height to hull length ratios. This seems to indicate [G 23] (a), Vandier, Manuel. V. fig. 292. [S 74] (a) – (d), McFarlane, Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. fig. 4. pl. 11. McFarlane, Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. I. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. [S 13] (b) and (c), Poujade, Trois flotilles. pls. IX and X. [SE 02], Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. pl. XXVI. [P 13], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35292. pp. 49 – 51. fig. 51. pl. IXb. [M 17], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4803. pp. 8 – 9. pl. III. 35 [DE 05] (a) and (b), Petrie, Deshasheh. pl. XXVII. The earliest example of a boat with a pole mast appears to be [EL 01], Kaiser, et al, MDAIK 44. pls. 13 and 44. 36 The [M01] craft were apparently subjected to redrafting during the preparation of the tomb, and are therefore suspect. 34

[AB 04], Borchardt, Sahu – Re. pl. IX. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [G 19] (a), Weeks. Mastaba of Iymery. fig. 25. 38 [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Cnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 58] (a), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 39 [S 52] (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 - 22. 37

93

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

under sail from the same tomb, [S 52] (b) and (g), have the conventional arrangement of main and secondary backstays, as do other examples of cargo vessels under sail, such as [S 20] (a) and [S 32] (b).40

the holes into a more practical configuration. The ropes would be under less strain, due to the reduced angles under which they were passed through the cap, and the area of timber which would be able to take the pull of the secondary backstays would be increased, giving a stronger masthead. This would have brought the holes into the configuration proposed here. The hypothetical metal sheathing would have made it even stronger. This mast is usually shown with the tongue facing towards the bow, suggesting that it was to keep the forestay clear of the yard. This does at least give this feature a purpose for its existence. However, Vandier shows an illustration of this mast and its associated hull where the tongue is facing toward the stern. Reisner’s drawing (p. 190) depicts the tongue forward, but his plate (pl XIII) shows it facing aft.

Due to the configuration of the ropes descending from the masthead [S 52] (g), this vessel must be considered as being rigged with shrouds. A very similar configuration, however, may also be seen aboard [L 11]. On this vessel, four ropes run from the starboard leg of the mast to the deck; they are attached to the leg at the same point as four of the secondary backstays. As the backstays are still shown running aft, it must be concluded that these four ropes are also intended to act as shrouds for the mast Representations of mastheads without the depiction of holes or loops merely show the ropes as being taken to the masthead. The observer most likely understood that they were passed through the mast cap, and the artist did not feel it necessary to depict any other fittings. To attach the secondary backstays, the sailor could either pass the ropes through holes in the mast cap, attach them to the mast cross braces, on those masts where they protruded, or merely tie them to the mast legs.

The mast aboard [M 32] is similar to [M 31], but without the tongue. Surviving pieces of the rigging are still attached to the mast, some of which emerge from the sides of the masthead while others are secured to the legs by simply being passed through loops at the ends of the cordage. Aboard [S 26] and [S 27] (a) and (b) the sculptor has quite clearly shown the secondary backstays as taken to the mast legs, opposite the ends of the crossbars. The representational technique is of interest. The top pair of secondary backstays is depicted going to either side of the masthead. The others, four aboard [S 26], five aboard [S 27] (a) and (b), have been represented only for the port side, with none for the starboard, all being taken down to the port side. The topmost starboard side secondary backstay is present on all three craft, but not those to be expected below it. The top starboard secondary is taken to the port side of the vessel.

[M 31] suggests how the first method was carried out; an examination of this model may well prove that the protruding tongue was not meant to be sited facing forward. Holes are drilled obliquely through the cap, passing from the presumed rear and emerging on the centre line of the side of the cap. This would indicate that the secondary backstays were meant to be concentrated at the masthead. This concentration is to be seen aboard [DG 01] (a), (d) – (g). [S 19] (c) has seven of its ten secondary stays attached to the cap, while the other two with bipods have theirs at the base or just below the cap.41

Other examples show a similar configuration, although the positions of the secondary backstays are reversed. [DE 01], also facing left, shows the main backstay, although not the pair of secondary backstays, as had been seen with [S 27] (a) and (b). Nine of these are shown, all taken to the starboard mast leg, but secured to the deck on the port side. This is repeated aboard [S 19] (a) and (c). Aboard [S 58] (a) and (b), the craft are travelling in the opposite direction and the pattern is reversed. Here, the stays, eight in number, are taken to the port side mast leg, but are secured to the deck on the starboard side of the hull. This was also to be seen aboard [ELH11] (e), although the scene is badly damaged. To compound the confusion, the backstays of [ELH 02] (a) and (b), the first being fitted with a pole mast, the latter with a bipod, are taken behind the sail. Different configurations can appear in the same scene. The [S 38] vessels display a mixture of representational styles. The ships face to the left, but aboard [S 38] (a) and (d), all the secondary backstays taken from the starboard mast leg and secured on the port side of the hull. Aboard [S 38] (b) the secondary backstays run from the starboard leg to either side of the cabin, while those of [S 38] (c) are taken from either side of the mast and are secured to the deck at either side of the hull. Five are for the port side, and can be seen against the cabin bulkhead.

If the forward facing position of the tongue on this mast is correct, then the drilling of holes from the rear to the side would have resulted in the weakening the cap. The strains imposed by the secondary backstays would have been supported by a relatively small area of the cap, possibly resulting in pieces of the structure being pulled away. The ropes could have been secured at their points of attachment by either looping them through the holes, or by simply knotting their ends. If this were to be done, considerable abrasion would have occurred as the ropes worked in the holes. Such a configuration would have placed these ropes under a very high level of stress, since they would have been first passed at a sharp angle through the cap, and then splayed down and outwards. Allowance must be given to the possibilities that either the modeller has been in error, or that the tongue was not meant to face towards the bow, but rather, towards the stern. Reversing the mast would bring [S 52] (b) and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. [S 32] (b), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. pl. 8. 41 [M 31], G. Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4882. pp. 53-54, pl. XIII. [DG 01] (a), (d) – (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 19] (c), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 42. 40

94

Masts and Standing Rigging

Fig. 55. Tripod aboard [DG 01] (g). From Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others, Plate 32. Reproduced with permission of Macquarie University, Sydney.

Four others stop at the line of the cabin roof, showing that they were secured on the starboard side. This unevenness in the number of the number of secondary backstays would seem to suggest that actual masts did have an extra secondary backstay. This, it is hypothesized here, would be taken to the side opposite to that towards which the sail was braced, supplying an extra stiffening to the standing rigging against the force of the wind.

forestays of [S 19] (c) – (e), which suggests that the loops aboard these craft are of rope. Since the bulwarks and the sides of the protruding stern platforms of Egyptian vessels seem to have been relatively fragile, it may be that the loops were secured to the (unseen) platform frames. The secondary backstays aboard the [S 19] vessels do not appear to be under any great tension, since the securing loops are not greatly elongated. This may possibly be due to the use of knees to secure the masts aboard these vessels. If the mast were held securely, the secondary backstays would only come into play if the vessel were to pitch, throwing strain upon the mast.

A final method of securing the secondary backstays was to them run from the ends of the cross - beams. These are the BPM (2) (a) style; the bars were secured across the forward face of the mast. Had they been placed to the rear, the pull of the ropes would have wrenched the bars away from their points of fixation.

6.4 The tripod Before turning to the pole mast, it may be appropriate to deal with an apparent attempt by the Egyptians to utilize more, not less, elements in their masts, namely, the tripod. What advantage the use of the tripod could have availed the Ancients is difficult to say. A tripod mast is very stable if the central leg is carried forward, however, the tripod configuration utililised by the Egyptians appears to have been of a less orthodox form. Hornell, in Water Transport, fig. 45 (b) may be consulted for examples of the usual form of tripod, however the vessels that would have utilised this

How the secondary backstays were secured along the deck is open to debate. [S 19] (a) and [S 19] (c) – (e) have loops along the line of the bulwark aft. [S 19] (b), which is devoid of them, is also without of a forestay and its securing loop.42 There is a mixture of masts amongst these craft, and both the bipod and pole masts have loops at the stern. There is a similarity to the loops utilised securing the 42

[ S 19] (a) – (d), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 – 145.

95

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 56. Tripod aboard [S 42] (b). From Pyramid Studies, ESS, (1988). Plate 9.

form of mast would have been fitted with a fore and aft sail, and not a sail spread by yard and boom, as utilised by the Egyptians.

carried is a fore and aft rig, with the yard left permanently in place. The sail is pendant from the yard, and is gathered in to the yard and mast when not in use.

The number of examples of the tripod mast is limited. A complete example is to be seen aboard [DG 01] (g).43 The mast is standing and looks like a bipod, with an added central leg; there is a noticeable gap between the three elements at their apex. Three forward facing knees secure the mast; this removes the possibility that the central leg was an iconographic misrepresentation of the halyards for the yard, which are in some instances depicted as being brought down to the deck between the mast legs.

Had the third mast element been taken forward, it would have obstructed the sail but obviated the need for the forestay, which is depicted in the scene. As with the representation showing the forked mast legs, this researcher must conjecture that either the artist has not understood his subject, (quite likely, if such was not a standard form of ships rigging), or that the excavator has been amiss in the recording of the scene. Regretfully, the possible tripods aboard [S 41] and [S 42] have little to offer in the way of clarification.

As the three elements of the [DG 01] (g) mast stand almost parallel to each other, there can have little if any advantage in its utilization. Regretfully, although this representation of the tripod is the most complete, the quality of the drawing depicting it is very basic. Stepped and unstepped tripods are also known from the [S 41] and [S 42] vessels at the causeway of Unas. The masts of [S 41] (a), (c) and (d) are lowered, while those aboard [S 42] (a) and (b) are standing.44

The means of retaining the bipod is also unclear. The secondary backstays of [S 42] (b) all congregate along the aft edge of the bulwark, with no means of securing them depicted. The main and secondary backstays of [DG 01] (g) are taken to the roof of the tall deckhouse in the stern. They do not approach the deck, and it must be concluded that the artist rendering the ships in this scene has either made an error or has not understood his topic. There are other errors in this scene, notably the treatment of the rudders aboard [DG 01] (b) and (c), as well as those fitted to [DG 01] (g). Aboard all three of these vessels, a single rudder post is shown, with two rudders, turned by a single tiller, a configuration which is impossible to operate.

The legs of the tripods aboard [S 41] (a), (c) and (d) meet at their apex and are slightly separated at the base. Tensioned securing ropes are fitted to [S 42] (a) and (b), with sticks for increasing/decreasing the amount of tension to be seen passed through the starboard side rope of [S 42] (b).45

6.5 The pole mast

An advantage to be derived from the stability of the tripod is in the reduction needed in the standing rigging, but this asset does not seem to have availed itself to the Ancient Egyptians. [DG 01] (g) still shows numerous backstays, and the sail is the usual square sail, spread by a yard and boom. There seems to be no significant change in the sail depicted as being utilised with this mast format, and the usual Egyptian square sail, carried across the face of the mast, is present. Aboard Indonesian vessels which this researcher has seen rigged with a tripod mast, the sail

Representations of this mast form show it as either parallel sided or tapering towards the head.46 Generally, the rig associated is of a very practical format, superior to the other configurations utilised by the Egyptians. Some very doubtful rigging configurations are to be noted for this form of mast; however, where a practical assemblage is overlaid by would what appear to be non- functional elements. It is suggested in this paper that these represent attempts to retain religious requirements within the context

[DG 01] (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 41] (a), (c) and (d), Goyon, Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas’ in BIFAO. 69. 1971. pls. III – IV. [S 42] (a) and (b), Bietak, ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’, in Pyramid Studies, EES. 1988. pp. 35 – 40. pl. 9. 45 [S 42] (a) and (b), Bietak, ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’, in Pyramid Studies, EES. 1988. pp. 35 – 40. pl. 9.

For some instances of the former, see [DG 01] (a) and (d), (e) and (f), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [M 35], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VII. For the latter, [M 43], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25361. pp. 20 – 21. figs. 19 – 20. pl. IVa. [DB 16] Group 1 (a) – (d), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 59 – 64. pls. 45 – 48. pls. 78 – 81. [TH 02] (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A.

43

46

44

96

Masts and Standing Rigging

those of [P 50] (a) appear to have been attached after the casting of the cap, while those of [P 50] (b) seem to have been cast as a one item. A text inscribed upon the former suggests that it was the property of a ships master engaged in maritime, as opposed to riverine, sailing, under the authority of the Vizier.49 The text, as interpreted by Goedicke, suggests, incidentally, that the Vizier was engaging in foreign trade, possibly outside of Royal control or authority, and in a private role. Goedicke only discussed [P 50] (a), arguing against [P 50] (a) as being the finial of a mast. By inference it must be assumed that this argument would also have been applied to [P 50] (b). He also questions the ability of the unit to resist the strains of the sail against it, which he considers to have been fitted over a mast element too slender to be of adequate strength. One may, however, make a useful comparison with the tall, slender mast fitted to [ASI 02]. Goedicke concludes that [P 50] (a) had been the top of one of the two posts which formed the gantry of such vessels as the [AB 02] (a) and (c) examples. As [P 50] (a) and (b) are of Middle Kingdom origin, and the pole mast was now supreme, this researcher prefers to accept that the examples are those of mast finials.50 Similar representations of mast finials (as they are considered to be in this work) are [ASI 07], which has a top half loop and two pairs of equidistantly spaced side flanges, and [EB 12] a green faience model of a masthead has a tapering body with a rounded tip, and three pairs of flanges.51 • PMH (c). The forestay and main backstay are secured, as above. At a lower level was one or more forward facing bracket, through which were passed the halyards, such as fitted to [ASI 07]. A variation on this form is seen aboard [TH 02] (c), which has a collar between the mast cap and the bracket, to which pass the topping lifts for the yard.52 • PMH (d). The halyards were passed through two pairs of flanges, positioned on either side of the masthead. This is to be seen at the mastheads of [AS I 02] and [BH 03] (a).53 • PMH (e). A vertical series of holes drilled through the mast were utilised for the securing of the halyards, as at [EB 03] and [M 35].54

of a developing maritime continuum. This may be seen, for example, by consideration of the rigging of the mast aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a), with its 26 slings for the boom.47 This configuration is considered below and in Section 6. The greatest diversification of the rigging utilised with the pole mast is to be seen in the configurations of the standing and running rigging. 6.5.1 Construction of the pole mast As with the previously considered mast forms, there appears to be no direct evidence that the pole was of segmented construction. This form of mast, however, does lend itself to the usage of segments of timber to construct the whole. Overlapping varying lengths of timber and then rounding them can construct a satisfactory pole mast. I have built masts in this way, although a single timber element greatly simplifies the construction of a pole mast. This has, however, involved the utilization of modern glues; the Ancients would have possibly utilised bindings for such construction, although glues were known to them. If the pole had been built up of segments, then bindings should also be seen down the mast. Although such is not common, the mast aboard [P 10] can certainly be so interpreted. Masts, such as that aboard [TH 02] (c), may display rings around the mast. These are the points to which the slings for the boom are secured, and which form an important aspect of the rigging for this form of mast. The rings appear only in the upper reaches of the mast. The stays and secondary backstays are concentrated in the upper third of the mast, not distributed down the mast in a fashion that would be required to reinforce structural weakness. 6.5.2 Pole masthead As with the bipod, there were variations in shape for the head of the pole mast. These took the following forms. • PMH (a). A simple arrangement, carried by [M 19] and [P 35], consisting of rope loops utilised to suspend the yard and secure the halyards.48 Although this means would have worked, the ability of this form to survive the stresses of extended usage must be questioned, although it undoubtedly would have worked. This configuration may possibly be merely a modeller’s device. • PMH (b). A half loop protrudes from the mast top, to which was secured the forestay and main backstay; a series of flanges protrude from the side of the masthead, through which are passed the halyards. There is some evidence that this configuration could have consisted of a shaped or cast cap, with the top half loop and side flanges having either been cast in one with the rest of the cap. [P 50] (a) and (b) each have two pairs of flanges;

Scenes depicting pole masts do not always utilize any of these configurations, with the artist satisfied to merely take the halyards and stays to the mast without showing any Goedick, ‘An Ancient Naval Finial of The Middle Kingdom’ in Egypt and the Levant. Wien. 2000. pp. 77 – 81. 50 [P 50] (a) and (b), National Archaeology Museum of Athens. Items 1939 and 1940. 51 [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [EB 12], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item. 4956. p. 108. pl. XXVII. 52 [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [TH 02] (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 53 [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918, pl. XVIII. [BH 03] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. 1. p. 33, pl. XVI. 54 [EB 03], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4951. pp. 103 – 104. pl. XXIII. [M 35], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4887. Poujade, Trois flotilles, pl. VII. 49

DG 16 Group 2 (a), Winlock, Models of Daily Life. pp. 45 – 49. pls. 33 – 34, and 70. 48 [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4841. pp. 28 – 30. pl. VII. [P 35], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4839. p. 29. pl. XXIX. 47

97

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

means of securing them. Some examples of this can be see aboard [ELH 02], (a), [ELH 06] (a), and [S 58] (a) and (b).55

• MS (b). This form consisted of three knees, also recessed at the rear, and is divided into two sub categories; • MS (b) (1). The lateral arms are set at 90° to the forward facing central arm, and, • MS (b). (2). The lateral arms are curved forward. • MS (c). A deck mounted collar. This collar was rectangular, with a square recess cut in the aft edge and with a pin passed horizontally through it.60 • MS (d). In this configuration the mast was passed through a broad thwart and stepped onto the hull bottom, secured into a base plate. This was for small craft only.

6.5.3 Mast foot The lower reaches of the mast, as it passed through the deck, could be either round or square.56 The foot of the mast itself took one of three shapes. These are; (a). A truncated pyramid or point, which would have been suitable for insertion into a socket,57 (b). Rounded, 58 or (c). Square cut, but with the edges still rounded, as seen at [M 27].59

A difficulty to be considered with the use of knees lies in the iconographic means of rendering the mast shoe. It may well be that scenes showing a mast supported by a single knee may have been intended to show either the (a) or a (b) class of mast shoe. Similarly, depictions such as [ABY 01] (d), [ABY 04] (a) and [DB 10], all of which apparently show a pair of knees, one facing forward, the other aft, must also be considered as (a) or (b) mast shoes.61 In instances where a mast shoe appears to be flat at the aft edge, it has been treated in this work as being an iconographic style or method, and not as a depiction of the means utilised to retain the pole. This form can be seen aboard [BH 02] (a) and (b ).62

6.5.4 Securing the pole mast The primary method utilised with the pole was a mast shoe composed of knees, continuing the means that had been experimented with in conjunction with the bipod. The knees had a partially recessed back, to receive the lower end of the mast and assist with preventing the mast from moving laterally. Various means were utilised to retain the mast in this fitting, with some showing the mast lashed into place, others have brackets at the rear, through which pins are passed.

• MS (a). The only extant example of this is [DB 13]. The side arms splay outward at approx 50°. This configuration would have absorbed both forward and oblique pressure exerted by the mast.63 • MS (b). (1). This is a relatively rare form, but can be found aboard [DB 16] Group 1 (a) and (b) and [DB 17]. Their side arms are positioned along the forward edge of the rectangle, so that the mast stood on the cross beam. • MS (b). (2). This is the most commonly seen form, and is fitted to [DB 16] Group 1 (c) and (d), as well as [DB 16] Group 2 (a) – (f).

The mast step is not always present aboard models of craft with the pole mast, and may not be noticeable aboard vessels seen in wall scenes. Their absence from models may be attributable to the means of depicting the decks of some craft, especially T II and T IV vessels, which were usually painted with lines along and across the deck, depicting the longitudinal stringer and the deck beams. Aboard examples with the detail in paint, the stringer and deck beams form a rectangle, painted along the axis of the deck, delineating the area where the mast is to stand. Fore and aft of this rectangle, the longitudinal stringer stops. The mast is, in these instances, generally shown as being positioned against the forward end of the rectangle. The rectangle doubtlessly indicated that the deck was cut away here, to enable the crew to position the foot of the mast into a shoe or plate on the hull bottom. Aboard [DB 16] Group 2, (b) and (d), the hulls are partially hollowed out and the stringer and beams are modelled in timber.

6.5.5 Mast position An analysis of the positioning of the mast indicates that the point at which the Egyptian mast was stepped saw little change. Although the position of the bipod remained constant, it is, however, possible to detect some movement of the pole mast aft by the time of the Middle Kingdom. It is necessary to remember, when considering this positioning, that the hulls with platforms extending aft over the stern have, in this work, been measured between the verticals of the length of the hull, as opposed to considering the overall length of the hull/stern platform combined. The tabulated data of the examples utilised in this work show that, proportionally, the when considering the mast step to hull length ratios, the pre - Middle Kingdom mast locale falls into a ratio of between 0×3/1 and 0×4/1. Two examples,

The mast steps used were either; • MS (a). This consisted of two knees and a recessed back, to receive the foot. [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pl.s. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [S 58] (a) and (b), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 56 See Mast Step types, below. 57 [ASI 02], Reisner, Ships and Boats, Item 4918, pl. XVIII. [P 23], Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XVI. 58 [G 06] (b) and [TH 02] (b), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. [TH 07] (a). Davies, Antefoker. pl. XVIII. 59 [M 27], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4869. pls. XI, XXVIII and XXX. 55

[M 14], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4799. pp. 4 – 5. pl. I. [ABY 01] (d), Simpson, Abydos. pl. 70. [ABY 04] (a), Simpson, Abydos. pl. XIV. [DB 10], H. Goedicke, Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. 1998. part 3. pl. 64 (b). 62 [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XIV. 63 Arnold, Mentuhotep. vol. III. pl. 5 (b). 60

61

98

Masts and Standing Rigging

however, lie outside this range, the maximum being 0×61/1, with another at 0×5/1 and a third at 0×46/1. The former is [DG 06] (a), a papyrus craft under sail; the second example is [DE 05] (b). The quality of the depiction of both of these examples is questionable, as is the third example, [M 01] (f).64 The [M 01] vessels in particular are poorly drafted; the MS/HL ratios of the other [M 01] craft approximates 0×4/1.

as the mast is not original.66 Squatting figures on the deck of [DB 16] Group 1 (a) hold the ends of ropes, which appear to descend from two of the collars. This configuration, which has been put together by the excavator, may possibly have been due to influence from examples such as [BH 02] (a), and [M 42] where a similar action is being undertaken.67 The conclusion to be reached, through a reconsideration of the evidence, must be that the persons on deck holding the ropes were, in fact, supporting the mast and sail, possibly for ritualistic purposes.68

6.5.6 Ancillary mast fittings The masthead forms listed above were, in many instances, accompanied by fittings lower down the mast, through which were passed the slings for the boom and yard. These fittings consisted of collars with rings or hooks, one or more pairs of flanges, or rope bands and loops. The slings for the boom aboard [M 09] (b) pass through a pair of loops well below the yard, as do those of [S 18] (a). [BH 02] (b) carries a small sail, very low on the mast, and so all the ancillary fittings are very high above the yard. Aboard [M 19] the slings are tied to the mast and [BH 16] (a) has two pairs of loops below the height of the yard; these have not been utilised by the restorers.65

6.5.7 Construction of the mast shoe • MS (b) (1). The construction of this form was quite basic; the three arms were merely butted against each other, which would have left the shoe structurally weak. Brackets are seen at the rear of the MS (b) (1) shoe aboard [DB 16] Group 1 (a); a peg passed through these brackets and tied in place would have mitigated the likelihood of the mast moving. Lashings around the three elements of the shoe would have served a dual purpose, both to retain the mast and strengthen the mast shoe. • MS (b) (2). Aboard the [DB 16] vessels fitted with this form, it can be seen that they were of more robust. The construction was the same as that of the MS (b) (1), but the timbers are twice the thickness. Both the MS (b) (1) and MS (b) (2), as fitted to the [DB 16] craft, were intended to receive a square sectioned mast foot.

A most plausible and effective arrangement for the control of the yard and boom is the mast configuration present aboard [TH 02] (c). The pole mast and rigging of [TH 02] (c) show considerable sophistication. The masthead consists of a cap, with a protrusion at the top, through which the fore and main backstays pass; there are two main backstays. Between the cap and the upward curved yard is a collar, through which the lifts for the yard pass. There are two pairs of slings for the boom, which pass through two projecting collars mid point on the mast. This example has not undergone restoration, and the details, despite extreme damage, show how advanced the Egyptian rig had become.

The MS (b) (2) mast shoe fitted to [ASI 02] shows considerable complexity, and is intended to receive a mast with a rounded configuration. The shoe consists of a thick upright, cut out to form the recess for the mast, with the upper third half as thick again as the rest of the upright, and cut into stout, squared shoulders. A stopped tongue and groove joint allows the arms to be fitted beneath the protruding shoulders, creating an exceedingly strong joint. Four pairs of holes down the rear of the shoe indicate that brackets had been fitted to receive pegs or ropes to retain the mast.

The [DB 16] vessels have, however, undergone restoration, and the accuracy of some details must be questioned. Aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a), three collars are fitted to the mast, in association with twenty-six loops, securing the slings. Winlock’s drawing of this mast (fig. 71) differs from his pl. 34. Winlock fig. 71 indicates that the ropes which passed through the collar rings were taken to the deck and either held by persons there or secured to the bulwark, where they serve as shrouds; pl. 34, however, indicates that the ropes running through the centre collar passed to the boom. One must conjecture that the ropes through the other collar rings were originally so secured. The description of the restoration work carried on this craft is also unclear, and it would appear that errors have crept in. [P 11] shows a less confused pattern, similar to [DB 16] Group 2 (a), but, unfortunately, its veracity is questionable,

6.5.8 Standing rigging The configurations of the standing rigging of the pole indicate the level of development reached by the Egyptians in retaining this mast. At first, as would be expected from conservative sailors, the secondary backstays were taken to the sides of the hull, as had been employed with the bipod; this can be seen aboard [ELH 02] (a) and [ELH 06] (a), [DG 01] (d) – (f) and [S 18] (a).69 The position of the secondaries [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. 67 [BH 02] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [M 42], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. 68 I propose, at Chapter 7.4.5 that the Egyptians utilised both a secular and a sacred form of rigging. 69 [ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [DG 01] (d) – (f), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. VII. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. 66

[DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XX. [DE 05] (b), Petrie, Deshasheh. pl. XXVII. [M 01] (f), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. 65 [M 09] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [BH 02] (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XIV. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. 64

99

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

was gradually moved forward, approximately midships, but still aft of the mast; at least some of them served a double purpose as shrouds. Interestingly, the secondary backstays aboard [DG 05] (b), which carries a tripod mast rigged to a tabernacle, are also secured to the deck close to midships. Another means of securing the backstays is depicted in the sterns of [BH 03] (a) and (b), [BH 05] (a), and saw both the main and secondary backstays secured to the rudder post, suggesting that the securing of the foot of the pole was very strong. It must be concluded also that this is indicative also of the strength and stability of the rudder post as carried by these two vessels.

The bipod mast, although perhaps not the earliest form of mast utilised by the Ancient Egyptians, is the classic mast used during the Old Kingdom. It can be seen that it existed along side the pole mast, by which it was eventually superseded. A utilitarian mast, the shape of the bipod restricted the ability of the Egyptian sailor to manoeuvre his craft. It has been suggested in this research that the gradual contraction of the bipod mast legs was due to an attempt to increase the usefulness of this mast form. A classification series for the configurations of the bipod and its features has been offered, as has the means of securing this form of mast, which would have posed several difficulties. A number of means for raising and lowering this mast were considered, and a hypothesis put forward for a practical means of achieving this, as was the suggestion that some of the characteristics of this mast as depicted in iconographic representations were influenced by artistic convention.

Generally, at all times during the period under consideration, a single forestay was adequate, and may be seen aboard numerous examples, such as [DG 01] (a), (d) – (f), [S 18] (a) and [S 19] (d) and (e).70 Where not depicted, such as aboard [BH 05] (a), this must be due to iconographic needs although in some examples damage has destroyed the evidence. Occasionally, double forestays were utilised, such as aboard [BH 02], (a) and (b) and [BH 03] (a) and (b). This seems, incidentally, to have also been the case aboard [DG 05] (b).

The pole mast, with its technologically supremacy, has received similar consideration, with attention being given to the formats of the masthead, foot and the means by which it was secured. As with the bipod, classification systems have been proffered.

6.6 Summary

The tripod mast can only be considered as a failure in the context of Egyptian nautical technology. How long it was in use is unknown; the few clear depictions of a tripod would seem to indicate that the rendering artists were at a loss as to how to portray it, and that it had not become entrenched in the lexicon of artistic forms and scenes. Although the tripod is a very stable mast, the iconographic representations indicate that there was no reduction in the amount of standing rigging associated with the Egyptian tripod, although this non reduction may be due to artistic convention, rather than nautical practicability.

In Chapter 6, the complex matter of the mast forms utilised by the Ancient Egyptians of the Old and Middle Kingdoms has been evaluated. This required consideration not only of the forms of mast employed but their location aboard the vessel, the means utilised to secure them in place when in use and the means employed to stow them when not in use. The standing rigging of the bipod and pole masts, so important a feature for mast retention, was also considered. There was not adequate evidence for the standing rigging of the tripod form to be deduced.

[DG 01] (a), (d) – (f), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [S 19] (d) and (e), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 143 and 144. 70

100

7

Sails and Rigging

7.1 Yards and booms

• Y (3). The yard is thick in the centre and tapers towards the tips, rigged aboard [BH 05] (a), [BH 16] (a), [G 19] (a), [M 37] and [M 38], [TH 01], [P 11].4 [M 42] has a straight yard and boom, but these are not original. • Y (4). A heavy yard, tapering towards the extremities, which were then flared. This yard is referred to in this paper as a balance beam yard.5 • Y (5). (a). The yard was straight in the centre but tapering towards the extremities. The tips of the yard curve upward and then outward, and were probably structurally weak. [ELH 06] (a), [M 9] (a), [S 18] (a), [S 19] (a) – (d) and [TH 01] carry this yard.6 The fragile nature of the yard of this shape may be judged by the occasional presence of a short section of rope, seen inboard of the start of the curve, running to the brace. This to be seen aboard [S 19] (a) – (d), as well as [TH 01]. The addition of the strengthening rope would have spread the force exerted against the yard by the braces over a wider area. Not all ships in the same scene this rope section as part of their rigging; it is not present, for example, aboard [S 19] (e). Its presence does not seem to have been dictated by the size of the vessel. • Y (5). (b). As above, but the yard does not taper. [DG 05] (a) and (b) carry this yard. • Y (6). This yard is similar to the Y 5 (a) spar; however, with this form the ends curve down and then outwards. Examples [S 27] (a) and (b) carry this yard.7 • Y (7). This form of the yard was long, tapered and curved upward, some examples being [DG 01] (a) and

A yard and boom spread the Egyptian sail during the Old and Middle Kingdoms and it was not until well into the New Kingdom that the loose footed sail became the established sail configuration of the Egyptians. [DE 05] (b), however, suggests that the loose footed sail may have been known. This vessel appears to have been rigged without a boom and the sail billows forward, with the foot well away from the mast; only the port tip of the foot is in contact with the mast. There are no other details of the rigging, except for a few backstays, and the yard is not well defined. A somewhat similar comparison to the sail aboard [DE 05] (b) may be seen aboard [S 52] (g).1 The yard and boom combination presented both advantages and difficulties. Utilised with the bipod and tripod forms of mast, the boom, in particular, would have been a source of considerable inconvenience, obstructing the crew as they worked on deck and limiting, especially, the effectiveness of the sail. Lying across the mast legs, the boom could not be braced around, to give the craft better sailing qualities. This applied also, but to a lesser extent, to the yard. Vessels rigged with a pole mast, however, would have been at a particular advantage, as the boom could be braced, as well as the yard, giving greater sail control. 7.1.1 The yard of the Old and Middle Kingdoms A number of forms of yard were utilised by the Egyptians. These are;

[BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 19. Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. [G 19] (a), Weeks, Fig. 25. [M 37], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4890. pl. XXVII. [M 38], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4891. pl. XXVIII. [TH 01], Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. pl. 19. [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. [M 42], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. 5 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 381. fig. 152. See also [DE 01], Kanawati and McFarlane, Deshasha. pl. 32. [G 06], (d), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [L 12] (a), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 63. [S 16] (a), Pirenne, Histoire de la Civilisation. pl. III. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 277. [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. S 38] (a) – (e), Steindorf, Ti. pls. 77 – 81. [S 58] (a) and (b), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 6 [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [M 9] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [S 19] (a) – (d), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 – 144. [TH 01], Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. pl. 19. 7 [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. 4

• Y (1). This was a simple, straight timber.2 • Y (2). As above, but with the addition of a yoke, to which the halyard was secured.3 This consisted of an arched central section, with horizontal arms, which lay flush against the upper face of the yard. The yoke was fashioned separately to the yard; [S 19] (f) shows that it was secured to the yard by lashings. [DE 05] (b), Petrie, Deshasheh. Pl. XXVII. [S 52] (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 - 22. 2 See Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 66. fig 141. (a). Also [ASI 07],Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [SE 03] (b), Breasted, Servant Statues. pls. 71(b) and 74 (b). [SE 04] (b), Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. pl. XX. 3 For some instances of the yoke, see [G 11], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig 19 (c). [S 18] (a) and (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [S 19] (f), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 145. 1

101

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(d) - (g), [M 04] (b), [M 09] (a) and [TH 02] (b) and (c).8 The yoke was also associated with the Y. (7) form.9

called upon to augment this by sitting on the boom, as aboard [AB 01] (f), [S 26], [S 27] (a) and (b).14

The yard may be depicted either with or without strengthening bindings and such depictions are fairly numerous.10 This may, possibly, indicate that these yards were constructed of shorter sections of timber, joined together, but there is little conclusive evidence. It is possible that [M 01] (f) had been rigged with a yard of double thickness, while the yard (and boom) of [BH 16] (a) are certainly of one piece construction.11

• B (2). Here the boom tapered towards the tips, as seen board [S 19] (a) and (c).15 7.1.3 Yard and boom combinations The Egyptians utilised varying configurations of yard and boom. Straight yard and boom combinations are commonly seen.16 Tapering yards and straight booms are known, as seen aboard [BH 05] (a) and [BH 16] (a).17 Curved yards with either a curved or straight boom also make their appearance. For the former; see [DG 01] (a), (d), (f) and (g), [S 18] (a), and for the latter; [DG 01] (e) and [TH 02] (b) and (c).18

7.1.2 The boom During the Old Kingdom the booms of bipod rigged craft are often shown as shorter than the yard, but variations to this occur. The booms aboard [S 19] (a) and (c) are longer than the yard. This is also true for some examples rigged with the pole. While the boom of [ELH 02] (a), for example, is shorter than the yard, the booms of [DG 01] (a), (d) – (f) are longer. As with the yard, strengthening bindings also occur.12 The forms utilised were;

7.1.4 Yard/Boom proportions When compared to the proportions of the yard, the size of the boom may, in some instances, be seen to be very slender. The booms aboard [S 19] (a) and (d), for example, are very thin, as are those aboard [BH 05] (a), [BH 15] (d), [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f). Conversely, aboard [S 74] (a) – (d), the yards are very short and thick, possibly due to the artists having to fit their work into a very confined area.19 The masts carried by these craft are also much shorter than is usual.

• B (1). Straight, as per the (a) form of yard. This could be either; (a). the same length as the yard, as rigged on [ASI 07], [BH 02] (b) and (c); or (b). a very short, heavy, timber, usually associated with the bipod mast. When this form of the boom was used, it must be conjectured that the Egyptians relied upon its weight to hold down the foot of the sail and is often seen on the deck, aft of the mast. This may well have worked in calmer weather conditions along the Nile and is to be seen aboard craft such as [AB 01] (f), [DA 03] (a) and (b), [ELH 11] (e), [G 06] (d); a similar configuration is seen aboard [L 08], although in this instance it appears to lie forward of the mast. 13 In some instances, however, members of the crew appear to have been

This disparity between the heaviness of the yard and the lightness of the boom is to be explained through the different purposes of these rigging elements. The yard needed to be stronger, as it had to be able to absorb both the stresses imposed upon it during the hoisting of the sail and to then support the weight of the sail whilst under way, whereas the boom was merely required to keep the lower edge of the sail spread. Aboard some examples, such as [DG 01] (a), (d) – (g), [M 05] (b) and [S 18] (b), the boom is longer than the hull.20

DG 01] (a) and (d) - (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [M 04] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XLII. [M 09] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [TH 02] (b) and (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 9 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 366. fig 141(b). See also [G 11], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 19 (c). [S 18] (b) and (c), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. 10 Boreaux, Etudes de nautique egyptienne. fig.143. p. 367. For some examples of bindings, see [DA 03] (b), [DG 01] (d) and (e), [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [L 12] (a), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 63. [M 09] (a) (c) and (d). Without bindings; [DG 01] (a), (f) and (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [DG 05] (a) and (b), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. pl. XII. [G 11], Simpson, Qar and Idu. fig. 19 (c). [S 19] (a), (e) and (f), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140, 144 and 145. 11 [M 01] (f), Blackman, Meir. pl. XXIII. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. 12 See, for example, [DG 01] (d), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [L 08], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. fig. 56. [M 09] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [TH 03], Sharawi and Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. London. 1988. fig. 1. 13 AB 01] (f), Verner, Ptahshepses. pl. 8. [DA 03] (a) and (b), de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour. pl. XIX. Vandier, Manuel. fig. 324. [ELH 11] (e), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. figs 17 and 18. [G 06] (d), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [L 08], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. fig. 56. 8

[AB 01] (f), Verner, Ptahshepses. pl. 8. [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchcnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 9. pl.22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchcnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. 15 [S 19] (a) and (c), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 140 and 142. 16 [ABY 01] (d), Simpson. Abydos, pl. 70. [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. [SE 03] (b), Breasted, Servant Statues. pls. 71(b) and 74(b). [SE 04] (b), Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. pl. XX. 17 [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. pl. XXIX. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Also, Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. pl. 24. 18 [DG 01] (a), (d) - (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [TH 02] (b) - (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 19 [S 19] (a) and (d), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 140 and 143. [BH 05] (a), Newberry, Beni Hasan. vol. I. pl. XXIX. [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f). Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 74] (a) – (d), McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. 10. fig. 4. pl. 11. McFarlane, Tomb of Iarew – Ka – Ptah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. vol. I. 2000. pls. 46 – 48. 20 [DG 01] (a), (d) – (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [M 05] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XLIII. [S 18] (b), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. 14

102

Sails and Rigging

7.2 Sail construction

bipod, also rigged with the Sail (a).22 The yard was usually hoisted almost to the very tip of the mast.23 [ELH 06] (a), however, is rigged with a Y 5 (a) yard, and is, therefore, slung lower down the mast.

The panels of the Old Kingdom sail seem to have been laid horizontally as indicated by those carried by [ELH 02] (a) and (b), [ELH 11] (e) and [M 25] (a) and (b), while those of the Middle Kingdom were vertical. The means of assembling the sail would not need to change; the leeches of the existing sail form were most likely simply reworked, so that they became the head and foot of the sail instead. A textile fragment, 65 centimetres long and with a pleat 1 centimeter wide, bent twice as a sort of reinforcement has been found in the context of the Wadi Gawasis ship remains; it may have been a fragment of a sail.21

Occasionally, as seen on [DG 06] (a), the boom was carried well above the deck. This sail shape may, in a few instances, have been depicted in such a manner as to give rise to its being interpreted as a triangular sail, spread by a yard and tapering to a point at the foot.24 Sail (b). There were two means of carrying this sail, which gives it its two sub-categories. The earlier configuration, Sail (b) (1), saw the fabric of the sail slung vertically, suspended along one of its short edges from the yard. This form of the sail is seen aboard [S 26] and [S 27] (a) and (b).25 When the Sail (b) (1) form was utilised, the yard was usually hoisted almost to the very top of the mast. In the latter configuration, Sail (b) (2), the mass of the sail was spread horizontally, along one of its wide edges, as aboard [M 46].26 This resulted in a correspondingly wider yard, which was carried much lower on the mast.

The usual method utilised to prevent the tearing of sails is to sew a bolt rope along all sides of the sail. Such a rope has been worked into the sail of [DB 16] Group 2 (a). It consists of white and black strands, indicating that it was a mixture of tarred and untarred rope yarns, allowing flexibility as well as helping to prevent the bolt rope from decay. Sails of varying sizes may appear in the same scene, as may be seen by comparing [BH 02] (b) to [BH 02] (a). The former carries a very narrow sail, as opposed to [BH 02] (a), ahead. The sail, which is carried low on the mast, is only half the height of that aboard [BH 02] (a). This is indicative of the Egyptian sailor being able to alter the size of his sail, as required. [BH 16] (a) demonstrates how this was done; the sail of this example, spread by a straight, and quite robust, yard and boom, is attached by lace lines, and consists of three horizontal panels of fabric. The two lower panels are removable, and may be considered as bonnets. The comparative size of the sail carried aboard [BH 02] (b) suggests that [BH 16] may not be an isolated example, despite the differences of the medium of presentation.

Sail (c). This seems to have come into use in Dyn IV and is carried aboard [ASI 07], [BH 02] (a) and [BH 05] (a). Sail (c) is to be seen in scenes in conjunction with the Sail (b) form as may be noticed by comparing the sails of [BH 02] (a) and (b). As has already been seen, [BH 16] (a) indicates that the Egyptian sailors also utilised bonnets, giving them the ability to transform a Sail (b) (2) into a Sail (c). Sail (d). This form would appear to be an adaptation of the Sail (b) (2), designed to be used with the curved forms of yard and boom. Bell shaped; this sail was similar to Sail (c), but with the corners extended into points. The upper and lower edges were curved, allowing this sail to be utilised with the Y 7 and B 3.27

7.2.1 Sail shape There were four shapes of sail employed, with a possible fifth, although this form is probably incorrect. These were; • • • • •

Sail (e). As suggested above, the representations of the Sail (e) form is, probably, the result of an error in depiction of vessels carrying shape (c) sails by the artists who decorated [DG 05] (a) and (b). It is suggested here that what was intended was the depiction of the Sail (a) form. Aboard these two craft, the yard is hoisted to the tip of the mast, as

Sail (a). Trapezoidal, Sail (b). Rectangular, with two sub categories, Sail (c). Square. Sail (d). Bell shaped. Sail (e). Triangular. Landstrom supports the possibility this sail shape having been employed. The evidence can, however, be interpreted as indicating that this proposed form of sail being the result of an iconographic attempt to render the trapezoidal sail, braced at an acute angle.

See [ELH 02] (a) and (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. I. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. [ELH 06] (a) and (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. 23 [DA 03] (a) and (b), Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. pl. XIX. [G 06] (f), Kanawati, Tombs at Saqqara. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [M 09] (a) and (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [S 32] (b), Moussa and Junge, Two Tombs of Craftsmen. Pl. 8. [S 52] (b) and (g), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 22. [S 58] (a) and (b), Mousa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. [TH 03], Shari and Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. London. 1988. fig. 1. 24 [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. Part II. pl. XX. 25 [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. 26 [M 46], Hayes, Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. 27 [DG 01], (a), (d), (f) and (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144. [TH 01], Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. pl. 19. [TH 02] (b), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. fig. 10. pl. A. 22

Sail (a). This sail was wider at the top than the bottom, due to its usage with the bipod mast, where the boom lay on the deck. The introduction of the pole mast, however, did not see the sudden demise of the Sail (a) shape, as it can be seen aboard craft in the same scenes as vessels with the It Portale De Archeologica, Archaeogate Egittologia, 17 May 2006. www.archaeogate.org/egittologia/article/441/8/joint-archaeologicalexpedition-at-mersawadi-gawasis-re.html 21

103

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

with the Sail (a) form. No means for securing the foot of this proposed form of sail are indicated.

sail, is badly damaged. [P 36], the second example, displays a quite complex arrangement, which comes closer to that of the securing technique of example [DB 16] Group 2 (a). A rope is passed along the sewn edge, secured at regular intervals. The outer end of this rope passes around the tip of the spar, and is then secured to a hole in the sail. A remnant of the spiralling lace rope for securing the sail is present. Whether the spar was a yard or a boom is unclear, however, as Reisner speaks of another piece of string attached to the corner of the sail, which may have passed up the outside edge; it is concluded here that Reisner viewed it as a boom. The evidence must be considered as strongly indicative that the Egyptians bound their sails and secured them to the yard and boom by means of lace lines.

When the Sail (a) form was braced, the resultant twisting of the sail would produce the likeness of a triangle. Lying on deck, against the legs of the bipod or tripod mast, the boom could not turn, as could the yard. Cutting a trapezoid shape and, holding the upper and lower edges straight and viewing from the side, twisting the wider upper edge, can demonstrate a simple replication of this effect.28 As the Sail (e) is seen only aboard [DG 05] (a) and (b) and not elsewhere appears to indicate that this sail shape was the result of error; a localised iconographic style or idiosyncrasy of an individual artist, and not that of a sail utilised along the Nile.

7.3 Raising the yard

7.2.2 Securing the sail to the yard and boom

Initially, the means of raising the yard were simple and uncomplicated; however, however, as the rigging developed these simple means soon become complex. The basic configuration saw the halyard secured to the yard either by the yoke or the more simple means of seizing the halyard to the yard. Aboard craft rigged with the bipod, the halyard was then either passed through a hole through the top of the mast or over the top of the masthead. The halyard was then brought down and secured to the deck, either between the mast legs or slightly aft.

The method of securing the sail during the Old Kingdom is unclear, but the Middle Kingdom has provided a number of examples of the means utilised with the pole mast and from which the technique employed during earlier periods may be inferred. Along the head and foot of the sail was a light rope, attached at intervals. Spiralling around the yard or boom and through the light rope was a lace line, which held the sail in place. The removal of this lace line allowed the sail to be unbent from the yard and boom. The corners of the sail were secured by the lace line. This arrangement is seen aboard [ASI 07], [BH 16] (a), [DB 16], Group 2 (a) and, most probably, [M 19]. Aboard the latter, the yard is carried aft of the mast. Reisner’s fig 116 and fig 117 for [M 19] are not specific, at variance with [M 19] pl. VII and do not give a complete depiction of the running rigging. Despite fig 116, it can be seen from Reisner pl. VII that the yard is carried aft of the mast, while the boom is forward. This configuration appears, from the condition of the model, as illustrated, to be original, although, as the sail can be seen from pl VII to be crumpled, the question must be if the restorers have incorrectly placed the yard aft during museum preparation. Positioning the masthead fittings and yard aft of the mast would have resulted in extreme difficulty in sail handling.

As the rigging evolved, more than one halyard was utilised to support the yard. [DG 05] (b) has a single halyard, as does [DG 06] (a), [L 12] (a) and (b), [S 19] (b), (c) and (d), [S 26], [S 27] (a) and (b). [S 58] (b) has two; [S 58] (a) appears to have three.29 If so, this is appears to be the only such example. As the possible third halyard is the point where all the secondary backstays aboard this craft are shown as ending, this may possibly an error on the part of the sculptor. [M 09] (a) and (b) each have two halyards; aboard [M 09] (a), two halyards are seen descending to the deck, forward of the mast, those of [M 09] (b) are aft of the mast. Despite being accepted in this paper as the halyards, it is equally possibly that they are the running ends of the slings for the boom. Some craft rigged with the pole also show the halyard taken aft of the mast. [ELH 02] (a) has a single halyard, which comes to the deck between the mast and the forward deckhouse, as does [ELH 06] (a). The artist has, in some instances, stressed the strength of the halyard, as can be seen aboard [S 18] (a).

The light rope/lace line configuration is certainly present aboard [M 46], [SE 04] (b) and [P 11]. Aboard example [DB 16] Group 2 (a), no lace line is recorded for the boom, but the possibility is raised by Winlock that this may be due to error on the part of the modeller, or to this element of the rigging being broken and not recognised amongst the large amounts of fragmented cordage found.

7.4 Topping Lifts and Secondary Topping Lifts These aspects of rigging are divided here into Topping

Reisner offers two instances of yards or booms (both are damaged) which display these features, but are not associated with a model hull. [M 37], a model of a spar and

[DG 05] (b), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi, pl. XII. [DG 06] (a), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. XX. [L 12] (a) and (b), Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 63. [S 19] (b) - (d), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 141 – 143. [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Niachchnum und Chnumhorep. fig. 8. pl. 21. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Niachchnum und Chnumhorep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 58] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 29

This may be seen by a consideration of the sails of [S 58] (a) and (b), and [DA 03] (b).

28

104

Sails and Rigging

Lifts and Secondary Topping Lifts. This division is due to the functions of topping lifts and the need to clarify their function(s).

face of the mast, or through eyelets or loops along the mast.33 [TH 02] (c) is fitted with a collar; the lower edge of the collar flares out into a blunted triangle, through which the starboard topping lift passes. The port side of the collar on this example has been lost.

7.4.1 Topping Lifts

Both models and iconographic representations indicate that Secondary Topping Lifts were rigged aboard craft where, with the earlier, simpler rig, such were not necessary. These craft carry relatively short yard and booms, yet they have been given the extra items of rigging. [DB 16] Group 2 (a) is an outstanding example of over rigging .34

As an adjunct to the development of the rigging, one or more pairs of topping lifts were introduced.30 Topping lifts are sections of the rigging which run from the masthead, or close to the masthead, to the extremities of the yard, and give it extra support. They additionally allowed the yard to be kept in a horizontal position . For the purposes of this work, if a single pair of lifts is present, but does not reach the extremities of the yard, then they have been considered as topping lifts and not as secondaries, which do not reach the extremities. Some instances of the single topping lifts not reaching to the end of the yard are seen rigged aboard [S 18] (a) and [TH 02] (c).

A secondary change ensuing from utilising a wider sail was the need to carry the sail lower down the mast, reducing its sail carrying capacity. The wider a spar, the wider apart the lifts must be positioned, to support the yard, or it will potentially snap at the point of balance where the halyard is secured. This increase in the distance between the lifts would then impact on the ability of the crew to make sail. The outer sections of a yard cannot be raised higher than the height at which the lifts are secured, and so the sharpness of the angle between the lifts and the yard would lessen the height to which it could be reasonable to expect the crew to be able to raise it. The introduction of the Yard 5 (a) and Yard 7 may have been the results of attempts to decrease this loss by allowing the sail to catch more wind. [S 18] (a), which has a very complex rig, never the less is indicative of the lower mast to yard ratio and the need for the lifts to be closer to the centre of the yard for effectiveness.

Although they were common features during Middle Kingdom, it can be seen that they were introduced during the Old Kingdom, and are to be seen, as examples, aboard [DG 01] (a) and (g), [ELH 13] (b), and [TH 02] (c), which are both Old Kingdom.31 Interestingly, the topping lifts aboard [ABY 01] (d) and [ABY 04] (a) hang loosely from the yard and masthead. This would indicate that the topping lifts were occasionally not hauled taught, but left lose with, perhaps, the weight of the boom serving to square the yard and sail. When the crews aboard [AB 02] (d) and [AB 04] (a) lowered the yards, the topping lifts would have supported the yard.

7.4.3 Supporting the boom

The presence or absence of topping lifts does not seem to be indicative of a vessel of any particular size. They are not seen aboard craft rigged with the Sail (a) form, but are, however, seen aboard vessels with Sail (b) (2), Sail (c) and Sail (d) forms. These sails were bulkier and the need to carry a wider yard obliged the Egyptians to alter the configuration of their rigging. The yard, being now wider than its predecessor, would have been much more susceptible to breakage unless it was given additional support.

Like the yard, the means of securing the boom could be either very simple or complex. It is considered in this paper that the changes were the results of changes in sail and mast shape. The boom was either: (a). Positioned on deck, aft of the mast, with no other means of retaining it other than the crew sitting upon it, as aboard [S 26], [S 27] (a) and (b), [S 38] (a) – (d), [M 09] (a). Aboard [S 19] (a) and (c), some of the crew stand upon the boom.

7.4.2 Secondary topping lifts

(b). Carried above the deck and against the forward edge of the mast, be it a bipod or pole and supported by one or more pairs of slings from either side of the mast. There were a number of various fittings that the slings were passed through. Aboard some examples, they passed

These are usually to be seen spread evenly along the length of the yard.32 There were two methods utilised to secure the Secondary Topping Lifts at the mast. They were either passed through a common ring or bracket, on the forward See [ABY 01] (d), Simpson, Abydos. pl. 70. [ABY 02] Simpson, Abydos. pl. 72. [ABY 04] (a), Simpson, Abydos. pl. XIV. [DG 01] (a) and (d) – (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [ELH 06] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. vol. II. fig. 19. [ELH 13] (b), Kanawati, vol VII. fig. 25. [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4841. pp. 28 – 30. pl. VII. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. 31 [DG 01] (a) and (g), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. [ELH 13] (b), Kanawati, El-Hawawish. fig. 3. [TH 02] (c), Saleh, Three Old Kingdom Tombs. fig. 10. pl. A. 32 Some examples are [SE 03] (b), Breasted, Servant Statues. pls. 71(b) and 74 (b). [SE 04] (b), Petrie and Brunton, Sedment. pl. XX. [P 11], Glanville, Catalogue. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. 30

For the former – see [DB 16] Group 2 (a) and for the latter – [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [BH 02] (a) and (b) Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. 34 For examples of models, see [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Also, Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. pl. 24. [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item. 4841. [M 24], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item 4851. pl. X. [M 46], Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt. fig. 179. [SE 03] (b), Breasted, Servant Statues. pls. 71(b) and 74(b). [SE 04] (a), Breasted, Servant Statues. pls 71(a) and 74 (a). For iconographic depictions, [BH 02] (a) and (b), Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XIV. 33

105

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

7.4.4 Securing the boom

through a Y shaped bracket, set on the forward face of the mast. This feature is only utilised with the bipod and is seen aboard [AB 03] (a) and (e).35 Faulkner does not discuss this bracket and considered that the sail utilised at sea was loose footed. Landstrom considers that it served as an aid to raising the mast. I am of the opinion that both were incorrect.

It would appear, when a craft was rigged with the bipod, that the boom was not secured. The closest to any such depiction appears to be [ELH 02] (b), where the boom passes through loosely mast securing ropes. The possible tendency for the boom to lift is indicated by depictions where the crew are to be seen sitting on the boom. This means is used by the crews to restrain the boom as has already been seen aboard such as [AB 01] (f), [S 26], [S 27] (a) and (b).36

Eyelets or loops positioned at approximately two thirds the height of the mast were also utilised. [M 09] (b) has loops rigged onto its mast, while examples of eyelets are present on [BH 05] (a) and [M 27]. The significance of these brackets, eyelets and loops lie in their bearing on the technological level of the Egyptians as early as Dyn. IV and indicates that despite the limitations of the bipod they had derived a more developed configuration for the rigging than the (a) form of handling the boom.

Aboard vessels rigged with the pole mast, however, lateral movement was prevented by a simple cross binding, which would allow the boom to turn when the sail was braced. This is seen aboard [DB 12] and [S 18] (a). [M 19] was probably so equipped, but Reisner’s drawing does not equate with the published photo. [DB 16] Group 1 (a) is more complex, but the basic arrangement is still discernable. The height of the boom would vary, as can be seen from [DG 01] (a), (d) and (f), and [ELH 02] (a), as it would be necessary to clear the knee(s) that constituted the mast shoe. This was not always done, as can be seen by an examination of the rigging of [ELH 06] (a), where the boom is carried below the top of the shoe.

Aboard [S 19] (d) and (e), rigged with pole masts, the slings commence half way along the boom, and returning to the inboard position just either side of the mast. The slings on the boom of [S 18] (a) start slightly inboard of the edge of the sail, and return to a point half way along the yard. [S 19] (a) -(c), rigged with bipods are similarly equipped, as are [M 09] (a) and (b). These latter craft are important; not only do they show the legs of the bipod as being close enough to almost constitute pole masts, they also show loops (?) attached to the mast, to act as rigging points for the lower lifts. Regretfully, these depictions have suffered damage, especially to the areas between the mast loops and the masthead, as it is possible that these depictions originally showed the attachments from which the lifts for the yard were led down to the deck.

These simple forms of securing the yard and boom were apparently adequate for daily usage. 7.4.5 A sacred form of running rigging? During the Old Kingdom the running rigging of the pole mast was comparatively simple. During the Middle Kingdom, however, the complexity of the rigging utilised aboard some T II and the [DB 16] Group 1 vessels leads me pose the suggestion that there may have been two variations of the rigging employed with the pole mast. Were there, in effect, two forms of rigging utilised with this mast - one intended for religious purposes and a second that served mere secular purposes.

Aboard [M 09] (b), two crew members are sitting forward of the mast, facing each other. Between them are two ropes that descend from the rigging. At first glance, they appear to run from the loop on the starboard side of the mast, but since the slings are shown, the conclusion must be that these two ropes were meant to depict the running ends of the lifts for the boom. [M 09] (a) has two, or possibly three, ropes descending from the upper reaches of the mast, although damage to the scene has obliterated the loops and masthead. Again, two crew men are shown sitting on the deck, this time aft of the mast, and the ropes are led down to them. [TH 02] (b), which is badly damaged, does appear to show the running ends of the upper lifts being directed to the deck, although the mast of this ship is a pole. It can be seen that the slings for the boom were passed through a loop or eyelet. The boom is supported by not one but two sets of slings, although the details of the attachment of the slings to the mast have not survived. Despite changes to their rig, the Egyptians seem to have never developed the concept of the block past the stage of a single roller, thus being denied the multiplication of power provided by multiple sheave blocks.

If such a hypothesis as the existence of a sacred form of rigging can be accepted, I further propose that there were two identifying characteristics serving as indicative of this proposed Sacred Rigging. The running rigging as seen aboard some craft of a funerary nature can be seen to be diametrically opposed to the practicalities of every day usage. The mast of [DB 16] Group 2 (a), with its quite practicable standing rigging and its welter of running rigging, is often cited as evidence for the daily practices utilised by the Egyptians of this period. This researcher, having considered the evidence, suggests that there are, however, grounds to question this. The securing of the boom to the mast by a lashing that [AB 01] (f), Verner, Ptahshepses. pl. 8. [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchcnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 9. pl.22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchcnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. 36

35

[AB 03] (a) and (e), Borchardt, Sahu-Re. pl. XII.

106

Sails and Rigging

Fig. 57. The mast, sail, standing and running rigging of [DB 16] Group 2 (a). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy

of The Metropolitan Museum of Art

107

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 58. The mast, sail, and much less complex, but totally functional, standing and running rigging of [TH 02] (c). From Saleh. Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Fig. 10. Image courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

would allow for lateral movement is indisputable and is to be seen aboard [DB 12] and [DB 16] Groups 1 and 2 (a). There is even some practicality for the eight pairs of double lifts aboard [DB 12] (four per side of the yard), but to accept that it was necessary to support the boom by no less than twenty six lifts as aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a) must be considered as totally impractical; there are simply too many for the task. The method by which they are secured - taken from one side of the boom, up through individual loops on the mast and then down to the other side of the boom - would prevent the crew from being able to raise or lower the sail without the greatest of difficulty. A comparison between the rigging of aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a) and [TH 02] (c) below may serve to show a strong, practical rigging configuration, as opposed to the excesses of that aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a), above.

Winlock considered that the configuration aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a) was to prevent the boom from swinging from side to side when the vessel rolled. This cannot be the intended purpose – any tendency for the boom to swing would have been overcome by the lashing that secured the boom to the mast. Something similar to the rigging of [DB 16] Group 2 (a) may have been intended aboard [BH 05] (a), which has several rings protruding from the mast, below the yard, and three lifts from the mast to the port side of the boom. The second proposed characteristic of the hypothesised sacred rigging serving a religious purpose is to be deduced from the postures of a number of the persons aboard some craft. Aboard [BH 02] (a), [BH 05] (a), [BH 18] (c) and (d), [SE 03] (b), [SE 04] (b), [P 11] and [P 42], persons

108

Sails and Rigging

Fig. 59. Making sail aboard [S 52] (a). From Altenmuller, Die Wanddarstellung im Grab Des Mehu, plate 19, courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo.

stand facing the mast, holding the running rigging in their hands. As the sail is set, although lost aboard [BH 18] (c) and (d), the halyards and lifts should be secured to the hull sides. Instead, these people are in effect holding up the sail. Considering the garb of those carrying out this task, it would appear that they are not common sailors. [P 11], a T IV H (a) craft, is most definitely of a religious nature.

making sail, and aboard these same examples the artists have utilised the depiction of a wild scrimmage amidships, as the crew tail onto the halyard, to show the frantic activity that accompanied this action.37 Crew members are even to be seen standing on their fellow’s shoulders, which must be considered as an iconographic device to indicate that the rig was demanding of the crew when undertaking this action.

I conclude it to be plausible that there was a form of sacred rigging, identifiable by excessive amounts of rigging and with members of the deceased person’s family or retainers holding and controlling the rigging during the funeral voyage. Perhaps this reflects the days when funeral craft were constructed of papyrus, with the inherent weaknesses associated with such hulls. Considering the limited number of such examples, and that they are restricted to so few areas of discovery, these renditions may also reflect localised funereal practices.

As the sail was raised aboard craft rigged with the bipod, poles were used to keep the leeward leech free. These are to be seen in use aboard [L 10], [L 11] and [S 58] (a) and (b).38 The technical limitations imposed upon the crew as they sought to raise the yard and sail must have been fraught with the risk of both the vessel and the sail being damaged, as the craft would not have been easily manageable until the sail was hoisted and set. The use of oars would have been needed to give some control. Surprisingly, there does not seem to have been any great change in the means utilised to set sail aboard craft rigged with a pole mast. Although the boom was now carried well

7.5 Making sail Raising the yard with its attendant weight of sail would have been a difficult task, carried out without the mechanical advantages of blocks and not made any easier by the additional difficulty of having to carry out the task with the sail loose, and billowing in the breeze. Aboard [S 19] (b), [S 52] (a), [S 58] (a) and [TH 03] the crews are seen

[S 19] (b), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 141. [S 52] (a), Altenmuller, Mehu. pl. 19. [S 58] (a), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 17 and 18. [TH 03], Sharawi and Harpur, ‘Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara’, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74. London. 1988. fig. 1. 38 [L 10], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 61. [L 11], Goedicke, Reused Blocks. pl. 62. [S 58] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. 16 and 17. 37

109

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Fig. 60. Pushing against the sail, as seen aboard [S 58] (a). From Moussa and Altenmuller, Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay, plate 16. Image courtesy Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Kairo. above the deck, it seems that there was a continuation in the earlier technique, and that the sail was not cast loose from its gaskets and hoisted with the boom already in position. The crews aboard [G 08] and [S 52] (a) are making sail; the boom of [G 08] is on the deck, while that of [S 52] (a) is not depicted, although it is seen aboard [S 52] (b), ahead.39 As an alternative to any conservatism on the part of the Egyptian mariner, the similarity of the means depicted for setting sail with the new pole mast, reflecting the means used with the bipod, may instead reflect the conservatism of the artist, utilising the old form of depiction with the new mast type. The ability to raise the boom is to be seen aboard [DB 12] and, especially, [DG 01] (e), where the yard and boom sit together in the centre of the mast.40

On this vessel, four ropes run from the starboard leg of the mast to the deck; they are attached to the leg at the same point as four of the secondary backstays. Two loops are shown on the port leech of the sail; to the lower is secured a rope, and a crew member is to be seen pulling the sails leech forward. A forked pole is inserted into the other loop; this pole also has a light rope attached. This, in conjunction with lines taken to the sail leeches, (more properly called bowlines), I interpret as indicative of the means by which the Egyptians overcame the difficulty of utilising a square sail with a yard and boom in conjunction with a bipod mast. Bowlines served to keep the sail flat when running with the wind. Such lines, holding the leeches of the sail are taken towards the bow, hence their name. In Ancient Egyptian contexts, they are only to be seen in Old Kingdom scenes, and not Middle Kingdom.

7.5.1 Holding the sail to the wind

The pole mast may also have required similar assistance. [M 46] is fitted with leech lines, taken from the centre of the leeches to the rudder posts. It must be conjectured that the presence of such lines aboard this example was to create a tauter sail configuration.

With the bipod and, possibly, the tripod, a difficulty to be faced was to prevent the sail from bagging, a problem also to be associated with the tall sail on the pole mast. The leeward edge of the sail would bag. This difficulty was overcome by pulling the leeward edge of the sail inward, via a forked pole inserted into a loop attached to the edge of the sail, or a similarly attached short length of rope. These can be seen aboard [L 11], [S 58] (a) and (b), and, probably, [L 10]. [L 11] has both of these means being utilised aboard.

The point at which the lifts are secured to the yard varies. Those aboard [ELH 06] (a) start well inboard of the junction of the sail and yard. The lifts for the yard of [S 18] (a) start from the masthead, run to the yard inboard of the edge of the sail, return to a loop half way between the yard and the masthead and then run to the deck. Running the lifts to the same point as aboard [S 18] (a) is replicated in lesser detail aboard [DG 01, (a), (e) and (f), although the configuration

[G 08], Junker, Giza V. fig. 14. [S 52] (a) and (b), Altenmuller, Mehu. pls. 19 – 21. 40 [DB 12], Goedicke, Yale. Item 31. p. 64. [DG 01] (e), Davies, Deir el Gebrawi. part II. pl. VII. 39

110

Sails and Rigging

Fig. 61. Controlling the sail aboard [L 11]. From Goedicke, Reused Blocks. Figure 62. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art

111

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

7.5.3 Sheeting the boom

of the lifts once they have been taken to the mast is not depicted. [DG 01] (e) has utilised the new rig to bring the yard and boom together, the yard having been lowered and the boom raised.

This action is only rarely depicted; however, it can be seen that the Egyptian sailor sheeted the boom by the utilisation of an identical arrangement as utilised for the yard. Whilst moving the yard to the desired angle is achieved by hauling on the braces, the boom is angled by the usage of ropes attached close to the tips of the boom. In nautical terminology, these ropes are called the sheets, and hauling on them is referred to as sheeting the boom. That this configuration was a simple and effective arrangement can be judged from its usage aboard any craft rigged with yard and boom. It was developed by most maritime cultures and its usage aboard any craft rigged with yard and boom may still be seen today. The action of bracing is to be seen aboard [S 18] (a); the helmsman holds the braces, whilst another crew member, sitting on the deck, operates the sheets.43

These examples also suggest that aspects of the new type of rig may have been tried on other types of mast, as [DG 01] (g), with its tripod mast, has been depicted with the new style sail and lifts. 7.5.2 Bracing the yard Yards are braced by the manipulation of the braces, to position the sail at an angle to the wind, allowing the craft to proceed at a tangent to the direction of the wind, rather than merely running before it. This action is usually carried out from the stern quarter of a vessel. Where a deck house or similar structure was present in the stern, bracing the yard was commonly depicted as being carried out by a sailor who took up his post on top of the structure; a few instances of this are seen aboard [S 18] (a), as well as [ELH 11] (c) and [S 58] (a).

7.6 Sail handling Problems arise when considering how the sail utilised in conjunction with either the bipod or pole mast was handled. Aboard a craft rigged with a loose footed sail, the yard is raised, the sail released from its gaskets, braced as required and then sheeted home. This was not the case aboard Egyptian craft of the period under consideration in this paper.

Scenes of bracing the yard serve to indicate the effect upon the speed of a towing craft as opposed to an unburdened vessel. Examples from El-Hawawish, with three vessels in each scene, show the leading craft running unimpeded, with the sailor handling the braces standing, in a striding posture, while, aboard the towing craft astern, the sailor charged with the braces is sitting. This may be seen by comparing [ELH 02] (a), which is unimpeded, to [ELH 02] (b), and [ELH 06] (a) and (b). The striding posture is not, however, a localised form of iconographic depiction. The crewman holding the braces aboard [S 27] (a) and [S 58] (a) are depicted in similar poses. Neither of these two craft is towing another. Depictions of the sitting position is not universal to vessels that are engaged in towing, and may seen aboard craft which are unimpeded, as at [DA 03] (a) and (b).

The bipod presents the greatest number of problems, the major problem being the positioning of the boom, which, upon Egyptian craft of the period, was a passive member of the rigging configuration. There is a difficulty to be faced when fitting a sail, spread by a yard and boom, to a bipod mast, with the boom being the greatest cause for concern. The boom, as depicted by the Egyptian artist, can appear at deck level, be shown on deck and aft of the mast, or at approximately head height, with the yard passing either before or aft of the mast. Perhaps the difficulty of dealing with the boom is the cause for its being omitted from some scenes, such as [S 04] (a) and (b). The lexicon of the Egyptian artist seems to have carried over the depiction of the bipod yard and boom to the pole; the yard of [S 18] (a) is forward of the mast. The boom is shown aft, and is secured with a simple cross lashing. [S 19] (e), in contrast, has both yard and boom on the same side of the pole mast.

The means of depicting the braces take two forms. They are either of a single, continuous rope, or, rarely, two individual ropes. For the former, see [ELH 02] (a), [S 19] (c) and (e), [S 26] and [S 27] (a) and (b). The latter form is carried aboard [S 20] (a).41 Where depicted, the knots securing the braces to the yard are topped with a loop, from which the end of the brace protrudes. This can be seen aboard [G 06] (f), [S 27] (b).42 This possibly served to ease the task of removing the braces for the purposes of stowing the yard when it was lowered.

The yard is less problematical, as it at least lay across the face of the masthead, at or above the point where the taper of the mast legs united. The boom, however, is the cause for the difficulty of reconciliation between the depictions of the bipod and its rig as opposed to the restrictions that it placed upon its usage. 7.6.1 Raising the boom

[ELH 02] (a), Kanawati, El-Hawawish, vol. 1, fig. 9, pls. 2 and 6. [S 19] (c) and (e), Duell, Mereruka. pls. 42 – 43. [S 26], Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 9. pl. 22. [S 27] (a) and (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. [S 20] (a), Duell, Mereruka. pl. 134. 42 [G 06] (f), Kanawati, Tombs at Giza. vol. I. pls. 31 and 37. [S 27] (b), Moussa and Altenmuller, Nianchchnum und Khnumhotep. fig. 10. pl. 25. 41

As the rigging evolved and the boom came up from the [S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. fig. 301. Landstrom, Ships. figs. 143 and 144.

43

112

Sails and Rigging

deck, it became necessary to support the boom. This saw the utilisation of slings taken to loops or brackets fitted along the mast, by which the boom was supported, and raised when necessary. This is well illustrated in the rig of [S 18] (a), where the loose ends of the slings, once they have been brought back down to the boom, are wrapped around the mast. This is also seen aboard [M 19], with the same probably present in the rigging of [DB 12], judging from the evidence in this damaged scene. Of considerable interest aboard [M 9] (b) is the depiction of loops or rings on the mast, through which the slings are passed, before being directed down to the deck. This very important feature would enable the boom to be raised. Aboard [DG 01] (e), the boom has been raised to the centre of the mast, with the yard lowered to meet it.44

while lowering the sail and its attendant yard. Aboard [ASI 07], the free ends of the slings hang from the yard. These are considered in this paper to have served either as reef points or as a means of binding the yard and boom together once the yard and sail were lowered. [BH 16] (a), with its hypothetical bonnets, could also be adapted to furl the sail.46 Regretfully, as with depictions of lowering the mast, the furling of sails does not seem to have been a significant part of the topics utilised by the artists of the period. 7.7 Summary As with the shapes of the masts employed by the Ancient Egyptians, the sails, yards, booms and running rigging of the period under research were matters of greater complexity than might at first be thought. The shapes of the yards and booms have been considered in this chapter, as has their combinations and proportions. Sail shapes, the means of raising and securing the yard and boom and sail handling have been considered. Classification systems have been offered for the yards, booms and sails have been offered.

7.6.2 Furling the sail To furl the sail, the Egyptian sailor utilised a number of methods, requiring him to carry out a number of possible actions or a combination of actions. The crew could either lower the yard, raise the boom or do both, as was done aboard [DG 01] (e). Having taken whichever action they chose, it was necessary for the sail to be bundled around the yard and boom, to facilitate storage. [M 01] (a) shows that, at least aboard this vessel, the sail was left attached to the yard and boom when lowered and stowed.45 Reef points may have been employed to control and secure the sail

It has been suggested in this work that there was a sacred form of rigging utilised with the pole mast, reflecting the nautical practices, techniques and burial usage of earlier times. The fact that this proposed sacred form was utilised with the pole adds strength to the hypothesis that the bipod was not the earliest form of mast the Egyptians had utilised.

[S 18] (a), Vandier, Manuel. Fig. 301. Also – Landstrom, Ships. fig. 143. [M 19], Reisner, Ships and Boats. Item. 4841. [DB 12], Goedicke, Yale. Item. 31. p. 64. [M 09] (b), Blackman, Meir. vol. IV. pl. XV. [DG 01] (e), Davies, Deir El Gebrawi. pl. VII. 45 [M 01] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. 44

[DG 01] (e), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. [M 01] (a), Blackman, Meir. vol. V. pl. XXIII. [ASI 07], Martin-Pardey, Corpus Antiquitatum. pls. 6, 97 and 98. Also – Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. [BH 16] (a), Garstang, Burial Customs. fig. 91. Also, Landstrom, Ships. fig. 251. pl. 24. 46

113

8

Summary and Conclusions

There can have been no greater influence on Egypt overall, and upon the daily life of the Ancient Egyptians themselves, than the Nile, without which Egypt could not have existed. Complementing this influence was the usage of ships and boats along the Nile, with some craft venturing further afield from the homeland on ocean voyages.

it is proposed, will be adequate for initial classification purposes, pending the development of a fuller typological series. It must be concluded that the dating sequence offered by Reisner is basically accurate, although the possibility of the T II H craft having been developed earlier than the Middle Kingdom has been proffered. More examples will be required to confirm this hypothesis regarding the development of this hull type. Similarly, another research project will be required to address the New Kingdom, Pre Dynastic and mythological or magical vessels.

The development of the means to classify the Egyptian hull forms commenced as early as 1869, with Grasser’s classification system of five categories, which included river craft, cargo vessels and vessels for use on the Red Sea. The system published by Boreux, in 1925, appears to me to have been influenced by that of Grasser, although Boreux did not delve very deeply into the varieties of hull configurations, and offered less categories than had Grasser. He did, however, recognise the influence that papyrus craft had played in the development of Egyptian hull forms and examined in broad spectrum most aspects of ancient Egyptian craft. He did not offer a dating sequence.

It is evident that a greater variety of vessels are identifiable from the Old Kingdom than during the Middle Kingdom. The cause of this reduction in hull forms is unknown; speculation may range from its being due to a greater homogeneity in the internal economic and political situation through Egypt, to more mundane causes, such as iconographic convention, or environmental causes, such as changes in levels of the Nile.

Reisner, publishing between these two dates and systems, developed a typological series of eight hull shapes, with an associated dating sequence. The system was intended to categorise the models of ships and boats (and two surviving hulls) in the Cairo Museum collection. In keeping with the influence of Grasser, this researcher must conclude that the system of Boreux was also influenced by that of Reisner.

The T I H craft, for example, whose distinct underwater hull form would have been most useful for getting off sandbars in the slow running Nile, disappeared from the records. Cargo vessels, a vital necessity along the Nile, no longer appeared amongst the source material, although cargo vessels and heavy barges would still have been needed, and are attested to in the New Kingdom. The unique form of the ETH 7, with its distinctive figurehead, did not survive past Dynasty VI; nor did the ETH 10, indeed, the majority of the ETH craft are lost to history after the Old Kingdom although other craft showed great persistence – the T IV H and T V H continued on, as did the ubiquitous papyrus raft.

Having considered, and used, his system, I must conclude that Reisner’s typological series, although sound, and founded on a solid base of primary sources, needed to be expanded, both in the areas of sub - categories of his Types and in the areas of hull forms known only from iconographic depictions. As this work concentrates on the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the augmentation of the Reisner categories by the ETH hull shapes and their dating has, it is suggested here, gone some way to satisfying such a requirement for these periods.

The development of another form of hull – Reisner’s T II H vessels, proved to be, without doubt, the most effective and versatile hull form utilised by the Egyptians of the period under consideration. Although the greatest number of examples is from the Middle Kingdom, there is evidence to suggest that it was known at an earlier age, possibly as early as Dyn I. It must be concluded, from its hull shape, that its development was influenced by the shapes of papyrus craft, in keeping with the concepts of Boreux.

The expansion of the existing Reisner typological series has been dealt with in this work by the simple means of introducing sub categories to his established types, however the craft not recorded by Reisner, due to their forms not being known from the Cairo collection, required a different approach. The term Expedient Type Hull, (ETH), followed by a type number and, where required, a sub category, has been adopted, to differentiate these additional types. This,

The construction of the Egyptian timber hull, with its internal binding techniques for holding the timbers together,

114

Summary and Conclusions

would have resulted in a highly stressed vessel. The bindings imposed tensions that would have exerted considerable inwards pressures, which needed to be overcome in order to prevent the hull collapsing in upon itself. Heavy deck beams, serving the dual purpose of supporting the deck and retaining hull integrity, counteracted these pressures. The hull symmetry and the strength of the decks that is to be deduced from the models of the T II H vessels shows a greater understanding of hull construction than might be implied by the usage of free mortise and tenon jointing and rope lashings.

although it is incorrect to refer to them, as they often are, as papyrus boats. They were rafts, floating due to the buoyancy of the reeds from which they were constructed, unlike timber vessels, which float due to the displacement of water. The greater number of examples of ETH craft occurs in the Giza/Saqqara area, with the majority being depicted in wall scenes. This clustering of types, such as the ETH 7 vessels may, perhaps, serve to indicate that these craft played an important role in religious or ceremonial roles that were localised in the Giza/Saqqara area or indicated local forms of shipbuilding. This apparent localisation of hull types may be compared to the greater spread of sites for the Reisner typological series hulls, which have a much larger number of models amongst their number. This is particularly high if, when considering this, allowance is made for the high number of instances of T III H vessels, of which there are very few models extant.

The central stringer positioned along the hull immediately beneath the deck did not function as a substitute keel. The stringer did not run the full length of the hull as is to be seen from [G 01] as well as the numerous examples of model T II hulls. Aboard T II vessels the stringer was segmented at the mast slot, the sides of which consisted of two thinner paralleled timbers, and ceased at the rise of the deck areas at the bow and stern. These bow and stern areas of deck were framed by a heavy deck beam, constituting the rise of the deck, and were supported by another short run of central stringer, commencing from the heavy cross beam. If the stringer had been intended to serve as a keel substitute, this segmentation would have constituted a serious weakness.

The assemblage of the examples in Appendix 1 of this work has enabled this researcher to appreciate the difficulties of interpretation that can be resultant from incorrect restoration and display or from the misinterpretation of the techniques of depiction utilised by the Egyptian artists. Where scenes have not been completed, or where the paint or plaster used to complete scenes has been lost, the crossing of lines used to lay out a scene can lead to errors in understanding. Comparisons between these scenes and the standard or customary depictions and models allows for the correct usages and techniques of the Egyptian sailor to be understood.

This form of deck construction is seen also aboard non T II hulls, such as [ASI 06] (a) and (d), [M 23] and [P 11]; the large number of T II models tending to give the impression that this form of deck construction was only to be found in association with the T II H craft. The decks were either flat or showed significant camber; examples which display excessive camber must be considered as being the result of an idiosyncrasy of the model maker, not representational of craft being depicted. [G 01] shows that the decking itself was easily removable; even aboard a royal vessel, the decks were covered with sections of joined planks.

Although the concept of regionalisation of means of depiction must be viewed with some caution, there are other instances where I conclude that local themes are depicted. Of the ten examples of T III H (f) craft listed in the Appendix, eight are from Saqqara, with seven of them coming from just two tombs. The presence of a canopy aboard a T III H craft is rare, but three are known from El- Hawawish. These, it is concluded in this work, represent instances of a local style of iconographic depiction towards the end of the Old Kingdom, at a time when the established social order was breaking down, and artistic conventions and religious beliefs were in a state of flux.

The techniques used to construct and secure the finials to [G 01] show the high level of development and the complex, superior quality work that the Egyptian shipwright could aspire to and indeed achieve. It must also be concluded that they were perfectly aware of, and capable of, utilising the knowledge of the principles of weight distribution to assist in the retention of the finials by balancing them in the hull of [G 01]. The achievement of these works of art it was due to the skill and highly developed quality of workmanship, not the quality and scope of the tools available the Egyptian shipwright.

It is the opinion of this researcher that artistic convention played a role in the depictions of Egyptian vessels, especially papyrus craft. The presence of water weed has been a major contributing factor in this present work when there has been doubt, in the identification and classification of a hull as being either papyrifom or constructed of papyrus. Elaborately depicted graining has been utilised in some scenes by the artist to stress that the platforms often found aboard a papyrus craft are of timber, which I conclude to be a means of also stressing the wealth of the tombs owner.

Their papyrus craft, whose existence ran parallel to the timber vessels, reflected the continuing necessity of this form of water transport to the Ancients. These were simple craft; probably well within the capabilities of any Egyptian with some basic tools and manual dexterity. The influence of these early craft in the forms and lines of the timber craft that evolved from them cannot be too highly stressed,

Consideration must also be given to the presence of the numerous secondary backstays present aboard many

115

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

icographically rendered craft. Seen both with the bipod and pole, I must query their effectiveness and actual presence aboard functioning craft. If, as is most likely, this means for supporting the mast was evolved for use aboard vessels constructed of papyrus, with the need to spread the forces of the wind against the mast over a wider area of the hull, it seems less likely to have been needed aboard a craft of timber construction. Aboard [S 19] (a) - (c), rigged with bipods, and [S 19] (d) and (e), with pole masts, the secondary backstays are taken (apart from aboard [S 19] (c) ) to the bulwark, where it projects out past the stern to form a platform; rope loops, which protrude from the top of the bulwarks are used to secure the secondary backstays. The evidence for the securing of the bulwarks of Egyptian vessels indicates that these were only lightly secured, and the aft platforms were themselves of flimsy construction.1 Aboard [S 18] (a), the individual secondary backstays are secured along the top of the bulwark. Such a means of securing the secondary backstays must have resulted in any movement of the mast placing great pressure against an inherently weak area of the hull, effectively reversing the reason for the development of this aspect of rigging. The artist who painted [ELH 02] (a), with a pole mast and [ELH 02] (b), which has a bipod, seems to have added the secondaries almost as an afterthought, taking the upper reaches to the edge of the sail and the lower ends to the deckhouses. The presence of numerous secondary backstay aboard craft rigged with pole masts is also problematical. As seen aboard [S 19] (d) and (e), the secondaries are depicted as running to the bulwark, on the side closest to the viewer. [TH 02] (c), which carries an otherwise most effective and efficient looking pole mast and rig, also has a welter of secondary backstays, which appear to serve no purpose; they are spread along the bulwark, commencing at the extreme aft end, and stop at the edge of the yard. [S 52] (a) and (b), both rigged with poles, show similarities to [S 19] (d) and (e), with the secondaries being taken to the bulwark aft, although they are not grouped into clusters.

boom. This contraction could have been the catalyst for the bipod giving way to the more efficient pole mast, if indeed it had not been in use prior to the Old Kingdom. It has been proposed in this work that the dating of the pole mast should be revised and the commencement of the use of this mast type be allocated to an earlier period than is presently accepted.2 The available evidence indicates that the Egyptian tripod mast was not a successful enterprise and the iconographic representations of simplistically rendered tripods must be considered as artistic devices. There was no advantage to be gained in sail handling or in mast construction, nor was it configured to give a steadier structure. Looking past this technological failure, the experiment with tripod masts demonstrates, if nothing else, the willingness of the Egyptian sailor to adapt and experiment with his rigging. This experimentation does not appear to have extended to developing a new means of securing the tripod, and the techniques utilised with the bipod were employed. The bipod shows considerable complexity in construction, rigging and means of securement. The earlier use of ropes to retain the bipod gave way, or existed alongside of, the use of timber knees, placed upon the deck. I cannot accept that this change gave any technical advantage, as it carried with it its own difficulties, especially in stepping the mast, which, in effect, would have needed to stand on the deck. The means of stepping the bipod mast have been considered in this work, and a possible means of stepping, utilising rope stirrups, proposed. As with the tripod, the presence of simplistic depictions of the bipod, especially of the masthead, must be considered as artistic devices, as the information derived from more detailed depictions and to a lesser extent of models, allow a picture of a mast of considerable technical sophistication to be presented. The usage of knees to secure the bipod is also the product of an adapting technology; although it may possibly have extended the life of the bipod, it did not succeed in preserving it. The contraction of the mast uprights may indicate that the more conservative boat owners tried to adapt their masts to compete with the pole, but that the greater efficiency of the pole won through. A typological series of mastheads for both the bipod and pole mastheads is offered in this project.

It must also be queried if artistic convention was the cause for craft such as [BH 02] (a) and (b), both with pole masts, having both backstays and secondary backstays taken to the rudder post. Taking the secondaries to either side of the hull could at least have prevented the mast from developing lateral sway; by not doing so, and clustering them along the central axis of the hull, would negate any support that they would have provided. Again, I must conclude that they were depicted in order to satisfy convention.

There is no evidence that the bipod was constructed with legs of segmented construction. Although tempting, the constructional evidence provided by the model masts aboard [M 31] and [M 32] cannot be accepted as correctly representing the means utilised to construct the bipod.

Despite any queries regarding the role of artistic convention, it can be seen that the Egyptians felt their way forward with their rigging, slowly adapting the configurations that they employed. The gradual modification of the bipod saw the distance between the uprights of the mast contract, resulting in an increased effectiveness of the rigging, as it would allow the yard to be braced at an increased angle to the wind, although this would not have applied to the

Although possessing some complexities in the configuration of its masthead fittings, the pole mast, [G 08] carries what is considered to be the earliest example of a pole mast, however, if [S01], a T II H craft, has been correctly dated, then the pole must have been known as early as Dyn I. The T II vessels always carried the pole. 2

Aboard [S 19] (c), the secondaries are secured further forward, but still taken to loops protruding from the top of the bulwark. 1

116

Summary and Conclusions

which eventually won out over the bipod and tripod, generally utilised a simple rig and a more practical means of retaining the mast when stepped. It appears that, by the Middle Kingdom, there may have been a double forestay, which would serve to stabilise the pole.

difficulty of having to carry out the task with the sail loose, and billowing in the breeze. The wild scrimmage amidships, which appear aboard some examples, as the crew tail onto the halyard, shows the frantic activity that accompanied this task. Crew members are even to be seen standing on their fellow’s shoulders, which must be considered as an iconographic device to indicate that the rig was demanding of the crew when undertaking this action.

Even though the rig associated with this mast is usually of a very practical format, superior to the other configurations utilised by the Egyptians, some very doubtful rigging configurations are to be noted. In these, the usual practical assemblage is overlaid by would what appear to be non functional elements. It is suggested in this work that these represent attempts to retain religious requirements within the context of a developing maritime continuum, such as the rigging aboard [DB 16] Group 2 (a), with 26 slings for the boom. On some craft rigged with the pole mast, the postures and actions of some of the persons aboard serve as the basis of my proposition that these are depictions of the rig as configured serving a religious purpose. Aboard [BH 02] (a), [BH 05] (a), [BH 18] (c) and (d), [SE 03] (b), [SE 04] (b), [P 11] and [P 42], persons stand facing the mast, holding the rigging in their hands. As the sail is set, the halyards and lifts should be secured. Instead, these people are in effect holding up the sail; their garb indicates that they are not common sailors.

As the sail was raised aboard craft rigged with the bipod, poles were used to keep the leeward leech free; such as aboard [10], [L 11] and [S 58] (a) and (b). The technical limitations imposed upon the crew as they sought to raise the yard and sail must have been fraught with the risk of both the vessel and the sail being damaged, as the craft would not have been easily manageable until the sail was hoisted and set. The use of oars would have been needed to give some control. Surprisingly, there does not seem to have been any great change in the means utilised to set sail aboard craft rigged with a pole mast, where the boom, once the sail was set, was carried well above the deck. It appears, however, that the earlier technique remained in use, and that the sail was not cast loose from its gaskets and hoisted with the boom already in position. The crews aboard [G 08] and [S 52] (a) are making sail; the boom of [G 08] is on the deck, while that of [S 52] (a) is not depicted, although it is seen aboard [S 52] (b), ahead. As an alternative to any conservatism on the part of the Egyptian mariner, the similarity of the means depicted for setting sail with the new pole mast, reflecting the means used with the bipod, may instead reflect the conservatism of the artist, utilising the old form of depiction with the new mast type. The ability to raise the boom is to be seen aboard [DB 12] and, especially, [DG 01] (e), where the yard and boom sit together in the centre of the mast.

I conclude it to be plausible that the people aboard in this depiction were members of the deceased persons family, or retainers, holding and controlling the rigging during the funeral voyage. I also hypothesise that this may reflect the practice and technology of earlier days, when funeral craft were constructed of papyrus and lacked the strength to cope with the stresses imposed by a mast and its attendant rigging. As with the bipod, there is very little direct evidence of the pole being of segmented construction. The mast, however, does lend itself to the usage of segments of timber to construct the whole. If the pole had been built up of segments, then bindings should also be present along the mast; the mast aboard [P 10] can certainly be so interpreted.

The pole allowed for enhanced sail usage, as the yard and, unlike with the bipod, the boom, could be braced at greater angles against the wind, resulting in a more effective rig. No matter which form of mast was utilised, however, the Egyptian sailor, deprived of block and tackle rigging, never evolved an easy way of setting sail.

Some examples, such as [TH 02] (c), may display rings around the mast, serving as the points to which the slings for the boom are secured. The rings appear only in the upper reaches of the mast. The stays and secondary backstays are concentrated in the upper third of the mast, not distributed down the mast in a fashion that would be required to reinforce structural weakness. Any example where these rings are made of twine, representing rope, must be considered as merely a modeller’s technique, as rope fittings would not be sturdy enough to survive usage, unless the crew were content to be constantly fitting replacements.

The position of the mast during the period under consideration did not demonstrate any dramatic change. If the mast step to hull position is measured, and the overall length of the hull, including overhanging stern platforms are included in that measurement, there appears to be noticeable variations. The evidence shows that there was a major shift in the configuration of the Egyptian sail of the Old Kingdom, as opposed to that utilised in the Middle Kingdom. The sail panels were horizontal during the Old Kingdom, but vertical for the Middle, a change which I believe was due to the carrying of a lower but wider sail, although the older,

Raising the yard, with its attendant weight of sail, would have been a difficult task, carried out without the mechanical advantages of blocks, not made any easier by the additional

117

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

taller sail did not disappear, and may be seen in context with smaller sails.3

The Egyptian means of steerage evolved from a greater or lesser number of helmsmen simply holding individual steering oars over the side of the craft. It is this researchers opinion that where there are more than one such helmsman depicted, they all stood along the same side of the vessel, on the side that the craft was turning. I have experimented with this method; when the helmsmen stand on the side towards which the vessel is turning the rudders are forced against the hull, enabling the helmsmen to put all their effort into managing the vessel, rather than having to overcome the drag exerted by the water against their rudders.

The yards utilised to carry and spread the sail are a matter of some interest, as they suggest that technological changes to the rigging were necessary. There was a greater variety of yards employed in the Old Kingdom; from a nautical technological approach, they suggest to me that there was a need to have the yard, and hence forth, the sail, as high upon the mast as possible. The simple, straight timber of Y (1) form could not be hoisted fully to the masthead, however, with the addition of a yoke, forming the Y (2) yard, it could. The other forms utilised appear to have been intended to either enable the vessel to carry its yard as high as possible, or to enable the sail to catch the wind as high as possible. Even today, on the Nile, the tall lateen sails utilised are intended to catch the wind coming over high river banks, and to spill the wind down into the rest of the sail.

At first, there were no mechanical advantages for the Egyptian helmsmen; the earliest mechanical development in steering was the introduction of a tiller to the still hand held rudders. The usage of preventer ropes, as seen employed by the Egyptian rower, again provided additional support and added security against the loss of the rudder(s); once introduced, this technical innovation had a very long life.

The booms employed by the Egyptians were simpler than the yards, although technological progress was to be seen there too. Depictions of the bipod, with the boom lying on the deck, relying on its weight or augmented by the weight of various crewmen, can give a misleading impression of Egyptian sailing techniques. Although the evidence shows that positioning the boom on deck was done, there is also evidence the rigging utilised by the Egyptian sailor of the Old Kingdom enabled him to carry the boom above the deck, both on the Nile and at sea. A bracket, placed across the face of the bipod, allowed the boom to be suspended above the deck; loops upon either leg of the bipod also served the same purpose. This ability to carry the boom higher than the deck was continued with the pole mast, from the later Old Kingdom onwards. One must, however, conclude that a rig which utilised a boom with a bipod mast was, regretfully, an unsatisfactory combination.

The peak of Egyptian steerage development was that carried by the T II vessels, as well as the ETH craft. This saw the utilisation of a single rudder, passing over the stern and supported by a rudder post; this configuration continued on into the New Kingdom. A groove, notch or block across the top of the stern, aligned longitudinally to the hull, would have allowed the loom of the rudder to be secured across the top of the post, enabling the rudder to lie along the axis of the hull. A number of restorations show such an arrangement, but the evidence does not support the accuracy of this; the correct configuration saw the loom secured by a lashing to one side or the other of the rudderpost. A hook or loop, protruding laterally from the post, prevented the securing rope from working upwards. The rudder was turned with a tiller, which, in most instances, hung down astern of the rudder post. Some examples show two rudders and one rudder post; this is totally incorrect, and such a configuration cannot work and must be understood as being an artistic error or error of restoration. The rudder posts themselves are of differing levels of complexity, and have been given categorisations in this paper.

It would appear that the sail did not always give the speed and manoeuvrability required, and that oars were called into play. A number of examples depict vessels either being moved by both sail and oars, or by sail, with the oars rigged outboard and ready for use, such as [S 04] (a) and (b), [S 19] (a), (c) – (e), but not [S 19] (b), which is setting sail, as is [S 52] (a), but not [S 52] (b), whose sail is fully set. The oars of [S 58] (a) are rigged, but unmanned; the rowers are probably the crew members who are setting sail. [ELH 02] (a) and (b) are under sail, with some of the crew scattered along the side, rowing, as is seen aboard [ELH 06] (a) and (b), although there appear to have only been rowers in the bow area. These representations lead to the conclusion that, if required to do so, the Egyptian sailor moved his vessel by oar while setting sail. As such representations are to be seen during both the Old and Middle Kingdoms, it can be concluded that this combination of means to propel vessels was factual, and not the product of an iconographic convention.

A variation of this steering configuration, utilising an additional pair of posts between the rudder post and the stern, was also employed; the additional pair of posts assisted in retaining the loom of the rudder. Another development was the usage of a pair of rudders, supported by rudder posts; occasionally these were operated by a single crew member. These are usually associated with funereal craft. As with all non-powered vessels, however, the greater amount of directional control of the Egyptian vessels would have derived from the manipulation of the sails, from being towed or via the efforts of rowers and paddlers. Rowers generally sat, either on stools or blocks, as did paddlers, although these crew members could also kneel. Rowers did not always sit; the evidence of their posture and the positioning of their hands of some rowers leads me to the

Compare, for example, the sail carried by [BH 02} (a) to that carried by [BH 02] (b).

3

118

Summary and Conclusions

conclusion that on occasion they also stood up to ply the oar, most probably when moving along a canal or close to the shore, where there was limited room between the boats sides and the shore to manage their oars if they were sitting.

both. Where the latter was employed, the greater effort was from the teams ashore, the towing craft merely assisting by guiding the towed vessel. As well as an expansion of the Reisner categories and the introduction of new hull categories, a categorisation system for the assorted deck houses and structures found aboard Egyptian vessels is also offered in this work. These ranged from simple shelters to deckhouses of considerable refinement. The basis for these structures is of light frames, with coverings and infills of various complexities and strengths. Despite the complexity of some of the categories, it is proposed in this study that even the sturdiest form, including that aboard [G 01], could be easily dismantled.

The means utilised by the Egyptian rower were simple, but gave considerable flexibility in rowing techniques. Rope grommets held the oar in position against the hull; without such a means of securement, the oar cannot be utilised to full advantage. In a few instances, additional mechanical aids were utilised, as low, narrow brackets can occasionally be seen, against which the oars are worked. Taller, more arched features, similar to brackets are known and have been proposed as outriggers for the oars, however, the evidence for this is inconclusive, and in this work they are considered to be seats for the rowers.

To summarise, this researcher is led to the conclusion that the models, scenes and surviving hulls of Egyptian ships and boats, with their attendant rigging, fittings and deckhouses, are evidence of a strong and vibrant maritime culture. The Egyptian sailor was conservative, but able to develop and experiment with rigging; what did not work was discarded, as shown by the attempts to utilise the tripod mast. The workmanship of the craftsmen who constructed [G 01] clearly demonstrates the high quality work that these men were capable of. Overlying this maritime culture were artistic conventions, which caused some aspects of this continuum of maritime development to be clouded, but not obscured. A wide spectrum of vessels of many varying hull shapes, with their attendant masts, rigging and deckhouses existed, evolved and, for reasons unknown, in many cases fell away from usage. The richness of the Old Kingdom gave way to the more stereotypical hulls of the Middle Kingdom, but the even amongst these vessels there was variety, versatility and an ongoing maritime development.

The usage of preventer ropes, running from the bulwark or grommet to the shaft of the oar, was an ingenious device, which gave both additional support to enable a stronger impetus to be imparted to the oar and added security against the possible loss of the oar if it were dropped. I have experimented with this configuration; a simple grommet is not overly restrictive and allows the loom to move laterally when in use, which restricts the efficiency of the stroke. With preventer ropes, the rowers are able to push against the preventers, resulting in a firmer operation of the oars. Rowers and paddlers were not the only means utilised by the Egyptians to move their vessels. The strictures imposed by their having to live and work along the Nile and its associated canals presented them with the necessity of having, on occasion, to tow some craft; the evidence shows that this was achieved by either by other boats, by teams of men working from ashore, or by combinations of

119

9

Bibliography

Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. 2 vols . (London, 1902). Davies, N. de G., Five Theban Tombs. (London, 1913). Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. (London, 1920). Davies, W.V., El-Khouli, A., Lloyd, A.B. and Spencer, A.J. Saqqara Tombs, vol. I: The Mastabas of Mereri and Wernu. (London 1984). de Morgan.J.J., Fouilles a’ Dahchour. 1894 – 1895. Vienna, 1903. Doyle, N., Sitting on Tholes, Offering Anchors: Some Challenges of Interpretation in Ancient Egyptian Nautical Iconography, Tropis VII: Proceedings of the 7 th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity (27 August – 31 August, 1999. Pylos). Duell, P.,The Mastaba of Mereruka, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1938). Dunham, D, and Simpson, W.K., The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III G 7530-7540. (Boston, 1974). Early Dynastic Egyptian News, Abydos Boats, http:// members.xoom.virgilio.it/_XOOM/francescoraf/hesyra/ news.htm Edwards, I.E.S., The Pyramids of Egypt, (Harmondsworth, 1975). Egypt Web Search, Ankhtifi & His Valiant Band, http:// www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ank.htm Egyptian Museum. A Selection of Model Boats from the tomb of Meketre. http://homepage.powerup.com. au/~ancient/museum10.htm El-Khouli. A. and Kanawati. N., Quseir El-Amarna. (Sydney, 1989). El-Khouli, A. and Kanawati. N., Quseir El - Amarna. The Tombs of Pepy-ankh and Khewen-wekh. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 1. (Sydney, 1989). El-Khouli, A, and Kanawati, N., The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya, (Sydney, 1990). Emery, W., Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, (London, 1958). Evripidou, S., Ancient vessel retraces voyages of the past, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/699687/posts Faulkner, R., Egyptian Seagoing Ships, JEA, vol. 26. (London, 1940) Firth, C.M., and Gunn, B., Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, Cairo, 1935. Fisher, H.G., Dendera in the Third Millenium BC. (New York, 1968).

Abubaker, A.M. and Moustafa, A., The Funerary Boat of Khufu, Beitrage zur Agyptischen Bauforschung und Alterumskunde, 12 (1971) Akhet Egyptology. The Horizon to the Past. http://www. akhet.co.uk/mertetes.htm Altenmüller, H., Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara (Mainz, 1998). Arnold, D., Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, vol. III, (Mainz, 1981). Arnold, D., The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. (New York 1992) Bass. G., A history of seafaring based on underwater archaeology. (London, 1972). Beyond the Pyramids: Egyptian Regional Art from the Museo Egizio, Turin, ed. G. Robins (Atlanta, 1990). Belger, C., Deck, Ruderbanke und Mastbefistigung an Agyptischen Schiffsmodellen, ZAS 33 (1895). Bietak. M., Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches, Pyramid Studies, EES, (1988). Blackman, A.M., The Earliest Boats on the Nile. A Supplementary Note by the Editor. JEA 4 (1917) Blackman. A.M., The Rock Tombs of Meir, 6 vols, (London, 1914-53). Blue, L., Book Review: Sacred and secular: ancient Egyptian ships and boats. http://antiquity.ac.uk.reviews/ blue.html Bolshakov. A., The Scene of Boatmen jousting in Old Kingdom Tomb Representations. BSEG 17 (1993). Borchardt L., Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahu-Re (Leipzig. 1913). Boeser. P.A.A., Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung (Leiden, 1910). Boreux, C., Etudes de Nautique Egyptienne, (Cairo, 1925). Bowen, R., Ancient Egyptian Hull Forms, MM1960. Breasted, J. H., Egyptian Servant Statues. (Bollington Series 13: New York,1948) Breasted, J.H., The Earliest Boats on the Nile, JEA 4 (1917) Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. (London 1959). Catelogue. Beyond the Pyramids: Regional Art from the Museo Egizio, Turin. (Georgia, 1990). Cerny. J., “A Note on the Recently Discovered boat of Cheops”, JEA 41, London, 1955. Davies, N. de G., The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh. (London, 1901). Davies, N. de G., The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said. ASE 10. (London, 1901).

120

Bibliography

Fisher, H.G., Boats in Non-nautical Titles of the Old Kingdom, GM 126 (1992). Galan, J.M., Two Old Kingdom officials connected with boats, JEA, vol. 86 (London, 2000) Garstang, J., The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt. (London, 1907). Gilbert, G.P., Ancient Egyptian Sea Power and the Origin of Maritime Forces. Foundations of International Thinking on Sea Power, (Canberra, 2007) Glanville, S.R.K (revised and completed by R.O. Faulkner), Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, vol II: Wooden Model Boats, (London, 1972). Goedicke, H., Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale, (New Haven,1998) Goedicke, H., An Ancient Naval Finial Of The Middle Kingdom, Egypt and the Levant, (Wien 2000). Goedicke, H., Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht, (MMA: New York, 1971). Gottlicher, A. and Werner W., Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten (Wiesbaden, 1971). Goyon, G., Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussée Monumentale d’Ounas, BIFAO 69 (1971) Haarlem. W. A remarkable ‘hedgehog ship’ from Tell Ibrahim Awad’, JEA 82. (London, 1996). Haldane, C., The Dashur Boats, (Texas, 1984) Haldane, C., A Fourth Dashur Boat, AJA 88 (1984). Haldane, C., A Fourth Boat from Dashur, JEA 71 (1985). Harpur, Y., Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom. (London, 1987). Hassan, S., Excavations at Giza, The Solar Boats of Khafra, vol IV – Part 1. (Cairo, 1946). Hassan, S., Mastabas of Princess Hemet-Re and Others, (Cairo, 1975). Hayes, W. C., The Sceptre of Egypt. (New York 1990). Holwerda, A.E.J. and Boeser, P.A.A., Beschreibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden, Atlas. (Leiden, 1926). Hornell, J., Water Transport, Origins & Early Evolutions, (London, 1971). Hassan, S., The Mastaba of Neb-Kaw-Her, Excavations at Saqqara, 1937 – 1938 – vol I. (Cairo, 1975). Jaros-Deckert. B., Das Grab des Jnj - jtj - f. Die Wandmalereien der XI. Dynastie. Grabung im Asasif 1963-1970. (Mainz, 1984). Jarett - Bell, C.D., Ancient Egyptian Ship Design, AEE, September, December, parts II, IV, (London, 1933). Jarett - Bell, C.D,. Rowing in the XVIII TH Dynasty, Ancient Egypt, (London, 1930). Jenkins, Nancy, The Boat Beneath the Pyramid (New York, (1980). Jequier. G. Les Pyramides des reines Neit et Apouit. (Cairo 1933). Jones, D., Boats, (London 1995). Jones, D., Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms, (London, 1988). Jones. D., Model Boats from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. (Griffith Instute, 1990). Junker, H., Giza, 12 vols. (Vienna, 1929-55).

Kaiser, W., Dreyer, G., Krekler, A., et al, Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. MDAIK 44. (Mainz, 1988). Kanawati, N., and McFarlane, A., Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 5. (Sydney, 1993). Kanawati. N., The Tombs of El-Hagarsa, vol. III. (Sydney, 1995). Kanawati. N., The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim, 10 vols, (Sydney, 1980-92). Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza, vol I. Kaiemankh (G4561) and Seshemnefer I (G4940). The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16. (Warminster). Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza, vol II. Seshathetep/Heti (G5150) Nesutnefer, (G4970) and Seshemnefer II (G4970). The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 18. (Warminster). Kanawati, N., and Abder-Raziq M., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara vol. VI. The Tomb of Nikauisesi. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 14. (Warminster 2000). Kanawati, N., Hassan, A., The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. vol. II. The Tomb of Ankhmahor. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 9. (Wiltshire, 1997). Kanawati, N., and Abder-Raziq. M., The Teti Cemetary at Saqqara. vol. V. The Tomb of Hesi. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 13. (Warminster, 1999). Kanawati, N., and Abder-Raziq. M., The Unis Cemetary at Saqqara vol II. The Tombs of Iynefert and Ihy (reused by Idut). The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 19. (Oxford. 2003). Kanawati, N., The Tomb of Hesi. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 14. Vol. 6, (Sydney, 1995). Kanawati, N., and Aber-Raziq, M., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol VI. The Tomb of Nikauisesi. (Wiltshire, 2000). Kanawati. N., Setting the record straight, Macquarie University News, http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ showitem.asp?ItemID=99 Killen. G. Ancient Egyptian Furniture vol 1. Warminster. 1980. Kosty, P., Ancient Egyptian Boats at Abydos, http://www. upennmuseum.com/pressreleases/forum.pl?msg=43 Landstrom. Bjorn. Ships of the Pharaohs. Garden City, N.Y. and London. 1970. Le Bateaux, http://2terres.hautesavoie.net/begypte/texte/ bateaux.htm Lehner, Mark., The Complete Pyramids. (London, 1997). Lindeman, Jan., Ein Jenseitsboot Der 1 Dynastie Aus Abusir – Teil 2, Menes, Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der agyptischen Fruhzeit und der Alten Reiches, (Weisbaden, 2008). Lipke, Paul. The Royal Ship of Cheops. BAR International Series 225. (Oxford, 1984). Lloyd, A.B., Herodotus, Book II, Commentary 1 – 98. Etudes Preliminarires Aux Religions Orientales Dans L’Empire Romain, (Leiden, 1976). Lucas, A., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Ed. J.R. Harris. (London, 1962). Macramallah. R., Mastaba of I’dout. (Cairo, 1935). Martin – Pardey, E., Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum.

121

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Quibell. J. Excavations at Saqqara. 1906-1907. (Leipzig,1908). Rachewiltz, B., The Rock tomb of Irw-K3-Pth, (Leiden, 1960). Radwan, Ali., Ein Jenseitsboot Der 1 Dynastie Aus Abusir – Teil 1, Menes, Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der agyptischen Fruhzeit und der Alten Reiches, (Weisbaden, 2008). Reisner. G., Models of Ships and Boats. Catalogue general, des antiquities egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, 1913. Saad. Z. Y., The Excavations at Helwan. (Oklahoma, 1969). Saleh, M., Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes (Mainz, 1977). Schneider, H. D, and Raven, M. J., Die Egyptische Oudheid. (Leiden,1981). Schurmann, W., Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-Nefret, (Karlsruhe, 1982). Sedment tomb 1580. date: early Middle Kingdom (about 2000 BC). http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/ sedment/1580/ Sedment tomb 1729. http://www.petrie.ucl.uk/digital_ egypt/sedment/tombs/1729.html Sharawi, G., and Harpur, Y., Reliefs from various Tombs at Saqqara, JEA 74. (London, 1988). Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos:The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. (Pennsylvania, 1974). Simpson. W., The Mastabas of Kawab and Khafkhufu I and II. (Boston, 1978). Simpson. W., Giza Mastabas. Vol. 2. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. G7101 and G7102. (Boston. 1976). Simpson, W., Mastabas of the Western Cemetery: Part I. (Boston, 1980). Solver, C.V., The Egyptian Obelisk Ships, MM vol 23. (Cambridge 1940). Solver, C.V., Egyptian Obelisk Ships, MM vol 33. (Cambridge 1947). Sowada, K, Callaghan, P, and Bentley., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 12, Vol. IV. (Sydney, 1999). Spanel, D., Ancient Egyptian Boat Models of the Herakleopolitan Period and Eleventh Dynasty, SAK, Band 12. (Hamburg,1985). Steffy, J. R., Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. (Texas, 1994) Steindorff, G. Das Grab des Ti. Leipzig. 1913. Stevenson-Smith. W., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, (Penguin, 1958) The Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum. Model of a Nile Boat. http://www.khm.at/staticE/page1527.html Tooley, A.M.J. “An unusual type of model boat”, JEA, 72. (London, 1986). Tooley, A.M.J., Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models, ZAS 118 (1991). Tooley, A.M.J., Egyptian Models and Scenes, (Buckinghamshire, 1995). Unprovenanced sculpted bow of a sailing vessel. Item UC 14315. Unprovenanced reliefs of the Old Kingdom. http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/saqqara/okreliefs.html

Grabbeigaben, Nachtrage und Erganzungen. (Mainz, 1991). Marx, E., Egyptian Shipping of the Eighteenth and Ninteenth Dynasties, MM vol 32 (Cambridge, 1946). McFarlane, A., Tomb of Irukaptah. BACE, vol. 10, (Sydney, 1999). McFarlane, A., The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. 1. The Tomb of Irukhapatah. The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 15 (Sydney 2000). Merriman, A., Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods. BAR International Series 2263. (Oxford, 1911). Mohr. H. T., The Mastaba of Hetep - Her - Akhti. (Leiden, 1943). Morgan, J. de., Fouilles a Dahchour, Mars-Juin 1894. (Vienne 1895). Morgan, J. de., Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894- 1895. (Vienne 1903). Moussa, A. M. and Altenmuller, H., Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. (Mainz, 1971). Moussa, A. M. and H. Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. (Mainz, 1977). Moussa, A. M. and Junge, F., Two Tombs of Craftsmen, (Mainz, 1975). Muller, C.F., Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-nefret, (Karlsruhe, 1982). National Archaeological Museum of Athens. http://www. culture.gr/2/21/214/21405m/Im05m064.jpg Naville. E. Deir El Bahari.Part 3. (London, 1913.) Newberry. P., Beni Hasan, 4 vols. (London, 1893 - 1900) Newberry. E. Percy. El Bersheh. Part 1. The Tomb Of Tehuti-Hetep. London. Nour, Z.M, Iskander, Z, Osman M.S. and Moustafa, A.Y., The Cheops Boat, Part 1. (Cairo, 1960). Patch, D.C. and Haldane. C. W., The Pharoah’s Boat at the Carnegie. (Pittsburgh, 1990). Petrie, W.M.F., Deshasheh, (London, 1898). Petrie, W.F.M. Egyptian Shipping, AEE, March, June, parts I, II. Petrie, W.F.M. Wooden Ship Construction, AEE, September, December, parts III, IV, (London, 1933). Petrie, W.M. F., Deshasheh, (London, 1897). Petrie, F. and Brunton, G., Sedment I, (London, 1924). Petrie, H. Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels, BSEA, vol. LXV. (London, 1952). Pierce, R. After 5,000 year voyage, world’s oldest built boats deliver, http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/abydos. htm Pierce, R., Abydos Boat, http://www.geocities.com/ TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Abydosboat.html Pirenne, J., Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypte Ancienne, (Paris, 1961). Porter, B, and Moss R., Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, I – VII (Oxford, 1927-28). Posner, G., Le Vizir Antefoqer, Pyramid Studies, EES, (1988). Poujade, J. Trois flotillas de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. (Paris, 1948).

122

Bibliography

Vinson. S., Notes on Two Old Egyptian Inscriptions, GM (Gottingen, 2002). Viracocha Expedition – General Information. About the Boat. http://www.xplorainternational.com/gen%20boat. htm Virtual Egypt. http://www.virtual-egypt-museum.org/ Collection/Content/WOD.XL00173.html Wilson, J., Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, JNES, vol III, (Chicago, October 1944). Wilford. J.N., Early Pharaoh’s Ghostly Fleet. http://www. library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/farflt.htm Winlock H. Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt, (Cambridge, Mass. 1955). World Art Treasures. http://www.bergerfoundation.ch/wat4/ picture Saad, Z., The Excavations at Helwan. (Oklahoma, 1969)

Unprovenanced fragment of a timber model boat. http:// www.petrie.ucl.ac.uk/search/detail/results/detail.asp?01_ objectidentifier=UC31848 Vandier. J., Manuel d’Archaeologie Egyptianne, 6 vols. (Paris, 1952-78). Vandier, J., Mo’alla. La Tombe D’Ankhtifi et La Tombe De Sebekhotep. (Cairo, 1950). Van Haarlem, Willem., “A remarkable ‘hedgehog – ship’ from Tell Ibrahim Awad” in JEA, 1996, vol. 82. Ward, C., Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats. (Boston, 2000). Verner. M., Abusir 1: The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Reliefs. (Prague, 1977). Westerdorf, W., Das Alte Agypten. (Baden-Baden, 1968). Vinson. S., Egyptian Boats and Ships, (Buckinghamshire, 1994). Vinson, S., The Earliest representations of Brailed Sails, JARCE XXX (1993)

123

10

Abbreviations

AEE. Ancient Egypt and the East. AJA. American Journal of Archaeology. ASE. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. Athens. National Archaeological Museum of Athens. http:// www.culture.gr/2/21/214/21405m/Im05m064.jpg BACE. Bulletin Australian Centre of Egyptology Blackman. Meir: Blackman. A.M., The Rock Tombs of Meir, 6 Vols, (London, 1914-53). Borchardt. Sahu – Re: Borchardt. L., Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. Band II: Die Wandbilder.Sahu Re. (Leipzig,1913) Boreux, C. Etudes de Nautique: Boreux, C. Etudes de Nautique Egyptienne: L’art de la Navigation en Egypte jusqu’a la Fin de l’Ancien Empire. (Cairo, 1925). Breasted. Servant Statues. Breasted. J. H. Egyptian Servant Statues. (Bollington Series 13: New York,1948). BSEA. British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Davies. Antefoker . Davies, N. de G. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. (London, 1920). Davies and El-Khouli, Lloyd and Spencer. Saqqara Tombs: Davies, W.V. – El-Khouli, A. – Lloyd, A.B. – Spencer.A.J., Saqqara Tombs I. The Mastabas of Mereri and Wernu. (1984). Davies. Deir El Gebrawi. Davies, N. de G. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. (London. 1902) Davies. Sheik Said. Davies, N. de G. The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said (ASE 10: London, 1901). de Morgan. Fouilles. De Morgan, J.J. Fouilles a Dahchour 1894 – 1895. Vienna, 1903. Dieter Arnold. Mentuhotep. Dieter Arnold. Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, (Mainz, 1981) Duell. Mereruka. Duell, P. The Mastaba of Mereruka, (Chicago, 1938). 2 vols E.E.S. Egypt Exploration Society. Firth, C.M. - Gunn, B., Teti. Firth, C.M., and Gunn, B., Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, Cairo, 1935 Garstang. Burial Customs. Garstang, The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt. (London, 1907). Glanville. Catalogue. Glanville, S.R.K., Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, vol II, Wooden Model Boats, revised and completed by R.O. Faulkner, (London, 1972). Goedicke. Reused Blocks. Goedicke, H., Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Goedicke. Ancient Naval Finial. Goedicke, H., An Ancient Naval Finial Of The Middle Kingdom, Egypt and the

Levant, (Wien 2000). G.M. Gottinger Miszellen. Beitrage zur agyptologischen Diskussion. Holwerder. Achet – Hetep. Holwerda, A.E.J. and Boeser, P.A.A., Beschreibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden, Atlas. (Leiden, 1926). Chapel of Achet - Hetep – Her. JARCE. Journal of the American Researcher Centre in Egypt. Jaros-Deckert. Jnj - jtj - f. Jaros-Deckert. B., Das Grab des Jnj - jtj - f. Die Wandmalereien der XI. Dynastie. Grabung im Asasif 1963-1970 5. (Mainz, 1984). JEA. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Jenkins. Boat: Jenkins. N. The Boat Beneath the Pyramid. (New York, 1980). JNES. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Kanawati. El-Hagarsa. Kanawati. N., The Tombs of ElHagarsa, vol. III. (Sydney, 1995). Kanawati N. and Hassan. A. Teti Cemetary: Kanawati N. and Hassan. A. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. II Landstrom. Ships. Landstrom. B. Ships of the Pharaohs. Garden City, N.Y. and London. 1970. Lipke. Royal Ship. Lipke, P., The Royal Ship of Cheops. (Greenwich, 1984). Martin-Pardey. E. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Grabbeigaben, Nachtrage und Erganzungen. (Mainz,1991). MDAIK. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen InstitutsAbteilung Kairo. MIFAO. Memoires de l’Institut francais d’Archeologie orientale de Caire. MM. Mariners Mirror. Moussa and Altenmuller. Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Moussa, A. M. and H. Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. (Mainz, 1977). Moussa and Altenmuller. Nefer and Ka-Hay. Moussa, A. M. and H. Altenmuller. Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. (Mainz, 1971). Newberry. Beni Hasan. Newberry. P., Beni Hasan, 4 vols. (London, 1893 - 1900) Newberry. P. El Bersheh. The Tomb of Tehuti-Hetep. Newberry. P. El Bersheh. Part 1. The Tomb Of TehutiHetep. London. Petrie and Brunton. Sedment. Petrie, F. and Brunton, G., Sedment I, (London, 1924). Poujade. Trois flotillas. Poujade, J. Trois flotillas de la

124

Abbreviations

Simpson. Mastabas. Simpson, W., Mastabas of the Western Cemetary: Part 1. (Boston, 1980) Tooley. A. Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models, ZAS 118 (1991). Verner. Ptahshepses: Verner. M., The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Reliefs. (Prague, 1977). Ward. Sacred and Secular: Ward, C., Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats. (Iowa, 2000). Winlock H. Models of Daily Life: Winlock H. Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge, Mass. 1955. ZAS. Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde.

VIieme dynastie des pharons. Paris Rachewiltz, Irw - k3 – Pth: Rachewiltz, B. de., The Rock Tomb of Irw – k3 - Pth (Leiden, 1960). Reisner. Ships and Boats. Reisner. G., Models of Ships and Boats. Catalogue general, des antiquities egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, 1913. SAK: Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur. Simpson. Abydos: Simpson, W., The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos:The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13 (Pennsylvania, 1974) Simpson. Qar and Idu. Simpson. W., Giza Mastabas. vol. 2. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu

125

Appendix 1 – The Examples

• • • • • • •

The examples employed in this study have been divided according to locality, followed by a sequential number, then date, author and example type - i.e. - surviving hull or timber remnants, models (of timber, stone or ceramic) or painted/sculpted representations. The page, plate or figure number follows, with the orientation and location, where applicable. These are followed by the name of the tomb owner (if identifiable).

Examples without provenance or whose provenance is unclear. [P 01] – [P 49]

Those examples without provenance, or whose provenance is unclear, are listed by their abbreviated collection name and number, and then numbered consecutively. If a date for an example without provenance is given, it must be considered as tentative, and is followed by an asterisk. Where an example is very badly damaged, is represented only by a published drawing or is a photo, from which only approximate angles can be gained, this is reflected in the Tabulated Data by the symbol #. The angles of the bow and stern are given. These are derived by measuring between the water line and the beginning of the rise of the bow/stern. This is to allow for examples where the shape of the bow/ stern changes - i.e., curves or sags, preventing a straight line of angle to be measured. The state of preservation and a description of the example are also given.

12.1 Abusir [AB 01] Date: Mid. Dyn V. Verner. The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. pls. 3 – 8. Wall scenes. Five cargo craft, moving under oars and one vessel under sail.1 Room 3, South Wall. Facing left. (a) Vessel with truncated bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Slight damage. A long rectangular cabin stands on deck; aft of this, filling the stern, is an annex with a concave roof, which reaches the tip of the stern. There is a door in the side of the annex, as well as a centrally located door in the side of the main structure. Four rowers are in action in the bow, and two hand held rudders are in use. Inboard of the bow and stern, and passing under them, is a cable, with close-set horizontal lines. Between them, along the hull, passes a band with a zigzag pattern. HL/WL, 1×51/1.

Where more than one vessel is present, they are considered from left to right, and top to bottom, unless otherwise stated. The find sites in alpha numerical order are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Quesir El-Amarna [QEA 01] Rizgagat [RI 01] Saqqara [S 01] – [S 80] Sedment [SE 01] – [SE] Sheik Said [SKS 01] – [SKS 04] Tell Ibrahim Awad [TIA 01] Thebes [TH 01] – [TH 12]

Abusir [AB 01] - [AB 10] Abydos [ABY 01] - [ABY 04] Asasif [AS 01] - [AS 04] Assiut [ASI 01] - [ASI 09] Aswan [ASW 01] Beni Hasan [BH 01] - [BH 20] Dahshur [DA 01] - [DA 07] Deir El Bahari [DB 01] – [DB 18] Deir el Gebrawi [DG 01] – [DG 09] Deshasha [DE 01] – [DE 05] El Bersheh [EB 01] – [EB 13] Elephantine [EL 01] El-Hagarsa [ELHA 01] – [ELHA 03] El Hammamiya [EH 01] – [EH 03] El-Hawawish [ELH 01] – [ELH 19] Giza [G 01] – [G 23] Helwan [H 01] – [H 02] Lisht [L 01] – [L 14] Meir [M 01] – [M 47] Mo’Alla [MOA 01] – [MOA]

(b) As above, BATH 18° SATH 25°. Undamaged. Deckhouses and rudders, as above, however there is no door in the stern cabin, and only three rowers. HL/WL, 1× 6/1. (c) Hull, angles, deckhouses and steering, as above. The end of the stern is lost; three rowers are standing.2 (d) The midships and truncated stern survive. Badly damaged. SATH 25°. A longitudinal band and rope under the stern is present, as per [AB 01] (a). The blades of two rudders are seen, as are the remnants of a main cabin. (e) Deckhouses and end of stern lost. Badly damaged. The damage to these examples is stated at each sub-numbering. This area is also damaged, and the proportions of the rowers are out of balance, resulting in the second and third rower having inordinately long arms. Possibly a fourth rower was originally intended to stand here. 1

2

126

Appendix 1 – The Examples

BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bow, stern, longitudinal bands and ropes; as per [AB 01] (a). Rudders; as above.

shaped upright is fitted, as seen aboard [AB 02] (a). A band of rope, with horizontal lines, passes under the stern quarter. The rudders are hand held, without tillers.9

(f) Vessel under sail. pl. 8. South wall, facing right. Most of the bow, stern and rigging are lost. SATH 30°. A cabin, extended forward by an awning, stands on deck; there appears to have been a raised bulwark. A bipod mast was possibly fitted; the crew sits on the boom, which is at deck level and the remains of four rudders are seen. 3 Backstays, 50°.

(d) Bow, as per [AB 02] (a) and (b), and remnant of a gantry. BATH 20°. The cable with horizontal marks, as seen aboard [AB 02] (b), has a loop at its top, which holds a beam, to which the longitudinal cable over the deck is secured.10 A short, Y shaped upright supports this cable. Between it and the forward facing forked pole is a straight pole; from its inboard end hangs a loop, supporting a round object. At midpoint of the horizontal pole there is another loop, supporting a round object.11 The heads of the poles of the gantry are the same as aboard [AB 02] (a).

[AB 02] Date: Dyn V

[AB 03]

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XI. Fragmentary wall scenes. Four sailing vessels, moving under oars. North end of the east wall. Facing left. Moderate to extreme damage.

Date: Dyn V Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XII. Wall scene. Stationary sailing vessels, with lowered masts. South end of west wall. Moderate to severe damage.

(a) Hull lost; a blade like upright is present at the bow. A forked pole protrudes forward past it; another is seen further inboard, lashed loosely to a pole, placed at a shallower angle. The end of a cable rises behind these two poles, passing over the deck and descending towards the stern. This is to be considered as a truss, and is so referred to below. The truss is tightened by a stick, passed through it, secured from untwisting by being tied to the midships upright. 4 A bipod mast lies between two upright poles aft, supported by a rope slung between the uprights.5 The masthead curves forward, and the cross bars of the mast protrude past the outsides of the legs; there are holes through the ends of the bars. No rigging is seen. The crew are rowing standing. A cabin or deck shelter stands forward of the gantry.

(a) Rounded bow and stern, with platform.12 BATH and SATH 18°. Top of bow lost. Supporting ropes and cables along the hull, as per [AB 02] (b) - (e). The strakes of the hull are depicted as continuous one-piece timbers from the bow to the supporting rope that passes under the stern. The crook topped upright supporting the horizontal pole from the bow is clearly seen; the rope loop that blocked a view of it aboard [AB 02] (d) is further forward. The truss, supported by uprights, as per [AB 02] (a) - (c), passes to the deck at the forward of the edge of the stern rails.13 Masthead and cross beams; as per [AB 02] (a). At two thirds of the mast is a V shaped bracket. Gantry, as per [AB 02] (a); forward of it another rope loop, possibly attached to the longitudinal rope, supports a round object. The rudders and oars are shipped; the preventer ropes can be clearly seen. The rudder looms pass under the lower railing and outboard of the gantry. HL/MH, 1×52/1 (approx), HL/WL, 1×73/1, MS/HL ×32/1.

(b) Vessel with rounded bow, midships and portion of rounded stern, extended by a railing of vertical and horizontal bars. BATH 20°. Twin ropes run along the hull, interlaced by a third. An identical rope configuration passes under the bow. Immediately aft of this is a rope or cable, marked by horizontal lines. The oars are passed through grommets at the bulwark, and have securing ropes from the top of the blades to the grommets. The looms of three rudders are seen; these also have preventer ropes.6

(b) Bow, midships and portion of stern. Rudders, as above, however, here the looms pass behind the round rail supports and between the gantry posts. Other details, as above.14 HL/ MH, 1×46/1, HL/WL, 1×73/1, MS/HL, ×31/1.

(c) Stern with railings, as above.7 SATH 18°. Mast, oars and rowers, as per [AB 02] (a), although the top of the left gantry post narrows and is shown as rounded.8 A blade

(c) Fragments of bow and midships areas. No pertinent details, although the tensioning stick for the truss is seen, as per [AB 02] (a).

The foot of the sail reaches the port end of the boom and inboard of this is a pair of inward sloping vertical lines. 4 Compare this example to Faulkner, fig. 1. ‘Egyptian Seagoing Ships’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 26. p. 4. See also [AB 02] (a) - (c). 5 Referred to below after this entry as a gantry. 6 It can be seen that the rudder looms are outside the stern rails. The railings extend well past the tip of the stern. The lower railing is raised above the top of the hull by round supports, possibly the ends of round beams. 7 A small section of the forward hull is seen, as well as the upper bodies of two rowers. 8 The top of the other post is lost. 3

They are also outside of the railing, and are passed through grommets, as per the oars of [AB 02] (b). Between each upright, linking the upper and lower rail, is a heavy rope lashing, holding the two together. 10 The size of this cable may be inferred from the presence of a crew member, who stands on the cable. 11 The top of a crook topped upright can be seen behind this. 12 Ahead of [AB 03] (a) are the blades of three rudders. No other details can be discerned. 13 A tensioning stick for the truss is present. 14 It can be seen that the forward and aft ends of the cable are not plaited or twisted, but are individual ropes. These areas of the cable are prevented from twisting by the application of lashings around the cable. 9

127

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. Stern of vessel. SATH 30°. Three hand held rudders are fitted; their looms taper towards the blades, where securing ropes are attached.

(d) Three fragments of midships; the preventer ropes for the oars can be seen. (e) BATH and SATH 18°. The rudder looms, as per [AB 03] (b), other details; as per example [AB 03] (a).15 HL/MH, 1×46/1, HL/WL, 1×73/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

[AB 08]

(f) As per [AB 03] (d). The strakes, as per [AB 03] (a).

Date: Dyn. V

(g) As per [AB 03] (c).

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. Rudders only. SATH 28°.

(h) As above.

[AB 09]

[AB 04]

Date: Dyn V

Date: Dyn V

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. Fragment. Papyrus craft. A rope runs along the deck line. Single rope bindings are evenly spaced along the hull.

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. IX. Fragment of wall scene. Bow of ship. BATH 14°. The bow terminates in a vertical finial, topped with a disk. A baldachin with six straight posts aside stands on the fore deck, covering a throne.16 The rise of a bulwark is seen further aft, and a forestay reaches the deck immediately forward of the baldachin.17

[AB 10] Date: Dyn V Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XVI. Bow of a papyriform (?) craft. BATH 18°. There are no bindings, but the beginnings of a central platform are seen.

[AB 05] Date: Dyn V

12.2 Abydos

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. Five fragments of a wall scene.18 Papyriform vessel, being rowed. SATH 30° (approx). The remnants of two helmsmen are seen; their rudders are hand held, passed through grommets at deck level; the end of a preventer rope points downward from the aft rudder loop. The oars also have loops and preventer ropes.

[ABY 01] Date: Dyn. XII – XIII. Simpson. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos. pl. 70. Stele. Four vessels are depicted, positioned upon broad registers. Good condition.

[AB 06] Date: Dyn.V

(a) and (b) Papyrus craft; (a) is utilised for fishing, (b) for fowling. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Both have a central platform.

Borchardt. Das Grabdenkmal Des Konigs Sahu – Re. pl. XIV. Fragment of wall scene. Bow of vessel. BATH 20°.

(c) Sailing vessel with incurved stern, facing left. BATH 20° SATH 32°. A coffin is carried amidships, supported on a series of short uprights, possibly a sledge. The yard, boom and pole mast are stowed. In the stern, they rest upon an upright abutting the rudder post. There is no upright forward, and the mast and yards rest upon the edge of the coffin. Two pairs of flanges protrude from the masthead. Rising from the deck beneath the rudder post is an arched platform, intended to assist the helmsman to stand upon the sloping deck. HL/MH, 1×3/1, HL/WL, 2×67/1.

[AB 07] Date: Dyn.V Forward of this example is the upright stern ‘blade’, the end of the railings and three rudder blades of a now lost ship. 16 To counter the rocker of the deck, a horizontal platform, approached by a ramp, is positioned beneath the seat. 17 The angle is 62° and may be a double forestay. The forestay touches the leading edge of the canopy roof. 18 The first impression that this scene gives is that there are six fragments constituting this example, the sixth being a section of the bow. Since, however, the section has no replicate bindings depicted, and is also thinner than the stern, it cannot have belonged to this craft. In support of this hypothesis, the arm of a crew member is seen, holding the upper end of an oar or paddle. This implement is much thinner than the looms of the oars of the rowers and the arm is oriented in the opposite direction of the rowers, ie. forward. 15

(d) As above, facing right. BATH 25° SATH 22°. A central platform is fitted, bearing the mummy of the deceased.19 Two mast-securing knees can be seen on the deck beneath The head of the mummy is to the right, with the mast appearing to pass through the chest of the deceased. 19

128

Appendix 1 – The Examples

the mummy. The yard carries a broad, narrow sail, and is fitted with a pair of topping lifts, secured a quarter of the length of the yard inboard of the outer edges of the sail. Stern platform, identical to (c), but there is no helmsman. No fore or backstays are seen, but the halyard is secured to the side of the hull, midway between the mast and rudder post. HL/MH, 1×56/1, HL/WL, 2×5/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

topping lifts hanging below; the boom has four slings per side. The ends of the yard and boom are unsupported. A single rudder with tiller passes over the stern, and is secured to a rudder post; at its base is a platform for the helmsman. HL/MH, 2×21/1, MS/HL, ×45/1. (b) Vessel with unstepped pole mast, details of hull and steering; as above. Three pairs of flanges protrude from beneath the head of the mast. The mast foot is positioned inboard of the bows, and the mast lies along the sloping roof of a cabin, forward of the rudder post. HL/MH, 1×03/1, HL/WL, 2×82/1.

[ABY 02] Date: Dyn. XII-XIII Simpson. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos. pl. 72. Stele. Vessel with incurved bow and stern, under sail. Facing left. Slight damage. BATH 50° SATH 30°. A pole mast carries a straight yard and boom.20 Amidships is a rectangular shape, upon the deck, which may be a coffin. A single rudder post and rudder are fitted. Fore and backstays are present; the backstay is taken to the deck immediately forward of the rudder post. The halyard descends to the aft end of the coffin (?), and the starboard brace is secured to the deck adjacent to the mast. There is no port brace depicted. Forestay, 48°, backstay, 70°. HL/MH, 1×28/1 HL/ WL, 1×58/1, MS/HL, ×56/1.

12.3 Asasif (Thebes) [AS 01] Date: Dyn. XI Jaros-Deckert. Das Grab des Jnj - jtj - f. pl. 14. Foldout No. 2. Wall scene. Three vessels, with tapering bows and upturned sterns, under oars.24 Facing left, (a) - (c), top to bottom. Moderate damage.25 (c) BATH 16° SATH 15°. No raised bulwark is depicted. The oars pass through grommets at deck level. The top of the rudder post is lost, but a short preventer rope is present in the stern.26 HL/WL, 2·27/1.

[ABY 03] Date: Dyn. II – XIII Simpson. Abydos, pl. 78. Stele. Papyriform (?) vessel, with rising, tapering bow and stern, being rowed. Good condition. 21 BATH and SATH 30°. The loom of the rudder, instead of passing over the stern, passes through it. HL/MH, 1×22/1, HL/WL, 2/1, MS/HL, ×18/1.

(d) BATH 20° SATH 15°. The crew are standing, and their posture shows that they are sculling, not rowing. A small cabin with a window (?) stands forward of the rudder post.27 The rudder is secured against the side of the post by horizontal lashings, which pass around a hook protruding upward from the side of the post.28 HL/WL, 2·09/1.

[ABY 04]

(e) BATH and SATH - as per [AS 01] (a). Rudder; as above, but without the hook. The stern is damaged; if there was a preventer rope it has been lost.

Date: Dyn. XII-XIII Simpson. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos. pl. XIV. Stele. Two vessels, one under sail, both have long bows and incurved sterns. Slight damage.

[AS 02] Date: Dyn XI

(a) BATH 20° SATH 30°.22 A mast step secures a pole mast that carries a broad, narrow sail on a straight yard and boom.23 The yard has two lifts per side, with a pair of

Jaros-Deckert. Das Grab des Jnj - jtj – f. fig. 16. Wall scene. Vessel, hull and steering, as per [AS 01] (b). BATH 25° SATH 30°. A mast shoe stands amidships; a crook topped upright stands in it. Across this, reaching aft to the rudder post and forward, almost to the bow, is a beam or pole, possibly the mast. HL/WL, 2×19/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

The sail is the same shape as [ABY 01] (c), although in this example the topping lifts are secured midway between the mast and the tips of the yard. The bow of this example, which curves inwards, is considerably higher than the stern. In the bow is an enclosure, in which a male figure stands. 21 Poor draughtsmanship is evident in the depiction of the stowed mast. Two uprights with forked tops are depicted, the forward being lower than the one aft. The mast, however, lies parallel to the register line, and therefore is unsupported by the aft upright, which has been utilised by the artist as the rest for the upper reaches of the rudder loom. (There is no separate rudder post). 22 The hull has been depicted sitting on, not in, the water. No HL/WL is offered for this example. 23 Although the vessel faces right, the artist has curved the sides of the sail in the opposite direction, as if the wind is blowing from the right, with this example sailing into the wind. 20

[AS 03] All three have single rudders, passed over the stern, and utilise a tiller and rudder post. No masts or rigging is seen. 25 The scene depicts an assault by infantry, flanked by archers. 26 Dark rectangular sections along the deck line would seem to indicate the presence of heavy deck beams. 27 Compare with [DB 16], Group 2 (b). 28 The rowers are standing, possibly to give protection to the infantry aboard. 24

129

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Date: Dyn XI

stern, topped by a block. There is some light damage to the hull, where inserted pieces have worked loose. DP. BATH 25° SATH 50°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks. Along the outside of the hull at deck level are seen the protruding ends of deck beams. A cabin with an attached vestibule stands on deck. A rudder post stands immediately aft of the cabin.32 Forward of the cabin is a mast shoe, consisting of three diverging arms, set into the central section by large mortise and tenon joints.33 Aft of the mast shoe is a short beam, with four half round recesses cut into the lower surface.34 HL/MH, 1·5/1, HL/ WL, 2·5/1, MS/HL, ·33/1.

Jaros-Deckert. Das Grab des Jnj - jtj – f. fig. 19. Wall scene. Remains of two vessels, as above. Facing left. The midships areas have been lost. (a) BATH 30° SATH 35°. A single rudder passes over the tip of the stern (b) BATH 30° SATH 42°. The stern turns inwards, and is cut of flat at 45°. HL/WL, 1×81/1. [AS 04] Date:

[ASI 03]

Dyn XI

Date: XI - XII Dyn

Jaros-Deckert. Das Grab des Jnj - jtj – f. fig. 26. Wall scene. Fragment of pole mast. Two pairs of eyelets protrude from the masthead, below them, on the left, are two single eyelets.

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a boat. British Museum Model 45097. pp. 27 – 28. fig. 27. pl. Vc. BATH 10° SATH 37°. Tapering bow and slightly incurved stern, with its upper edge notched to support the rudder loom. The hull is hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks and a raised deck, with a high camber; the foredeck is raised above the level of the bulwarks. A rudder post stands on the centre line of the deck. Holes in the deck forward of midships indicate that a pole mast may have been fitted. HL/WL, 2×2/1, MS/HL, ×38/1.

12.4 Assiut [ASI 01] Date: Dyn. X - XII. Beyond the Pyramids. 1990. Two timber models of funerary craft. pls. 26 and 27. For (b), see Breasted. Egyptian Servant Statues. pl. 64b. Good condition. Tomb of Shemes.

[ASI 04]

(a) Vessel, originally under sail. BATH 20° SATH 30° (approx). The bow finial is vertical, flat topped and narrows in the centre. The stern finial bends forward and up. A raised bulwark is present. A rudder rest, of rectangular cross section, extends across the deck inboard of the stern finial. There are two rudder posts; forward of these is a simple naos, supported by four plain poles; the roof is almost flat. No rudders are present.

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a papyriform boat.35 British Museum Model 45089. pp. 28 – 30. fig. 28. pl. VIa. BATH 14° SATH 15°. A square hole in the deck, forward of midships, may have been for a mast. The crew face forward and their squatting posture indicating that the craft was paddled. There is no sign of steering gear. HL/WL, 3×18/1 (approx).

Date: Dyn. XI – XII

29

[ASI 05]

(b) Vessel, under oars.30 Little damage. BATH 25° SATH 33°. Hull details, as above, but lacking the naos. There are four pairs of rowers. Twin rudder posts and rudders are fitted; rudder rest; as above. A single helmsman holds the remains of two tillers. A mast rest stands on the deck.31 HL/ MH 1×47/1, HL/WL 2×59/1, MS/HL ×4/1.

Date: Dyn. XI – XII Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a papyriform boat. British Museum Model 46605. pp. 30 – 33. fig. 30. pl. VIb. BATH and SATH 15°. Badly preserved, with the tip of the bow lost. Flush decked. Fittings and steering, as above.

[ASI 02] Date: Dyn. IX - X. (P.M.)

A peg protrudes from the port side of the post, close to the top, while another post, this time with a short bracket, stands forward of the cabin. Reisner considers that the peg on the former served as a mast rest and the latter item was also a mast rest. 33 The back of the shoe is rounded out, leaving a recess to receive the mast. The slender mast, with two pairs of protruding lobes at the head, is shod with copper. 34 This appears to have served as a point of securement for the halyards. 35 Although the shape of this example indicates that it was patterned after the form of a papyrus craft, there are no indications of the bindings that held such craft together. The sides of the vessel are painted red, as, apparently, was the deck. This colouration is indicative of timber, not papyrus. 32

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4918, pl. XVIII. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and rising Three crew members are in the attitude of raising sail. The stump of a pole mast protrudes from the deck, but there are no supporting knees. 30 See also; Breasted, Servant Statues, pl. 69a. IFAO. April 1981. Paris. Louvre, Catalogue item E 12027. 31 As shown in IFAO, April 1981, a mast is present, with the masthead in the rest, while the foot passes outboard, between the rudder posts and against the stern finial. Breasted does not show such a mast. IFAQ, 1911, shows the mast reversed, with the mast foot in the rest and the head over the stern. 29

130

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[ASI 06]

of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and stern, under oars, the stern topped by a block.42 DP. BATH 18° SATH 22°. A single rudder post is fitted, but there is no rudder. A short post stands forward of midships, probably at the site of the mast. HL/WL, 3×29/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

Date: Dyn. XI – XII Glanville. Catalogue. Two timber model boats. British Museum Models 45087 and 45088. pp. 33 – 37. figs. 33 and 37. pls. VIc and VIIa.

[ASI 09] Date: Dyn. XI – XII

(a) DP.36 BATH 22° SATH 17°. The main deck is hollowed out, resulting in bulwarks, which merge with the fore and after decks. These protrude outwards, forming a notch to support the loom of the rudder. Along the axis of the foredeck is a beam, widening to form a bow roller. A large rudder post is fitted, standing on the main deck, against the rise of the aft deck. A square hole midships shows where a pole mast had been fitted. HL/WL, 6×82/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

Two timber models of papyriform craft, one under oars, the other being sailed. Museo Egizio, Turin. Items 8657 and 8659.43 (a) Vessel under sail. BATH and SATH not offered. D.P. A low bulwark borders the main deck area. Aft stand two rudder posts, and positioned almost across the stern is a thick rudder rest, with slightly upturned tips.44 Forward of the rudder posts is a deckhouse, supported by four poles. The roof is highest forward, and is slightly arched. There are no rudders.

(b) BATH and SATH 20°.37 The stern curves upwards, forming a grooved block to support the loom of the rudder. Projecting outwards are two pegs, probably to dampen sideways movement of the rudder. Rudder post and location; as per [ASI 06] (a). A rectangular sectioned mast rest, (or rudder post) with a deep rectangular recess, stands in the mast hole. HL/WL, 4×23/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

(b) As above, under oars but without the deckhouse. Hull angles, as above.45 There are no rudders or rudder rest.

[ASI 07]

12.5 Aswan

Date: Dyn. XI

[ASW 01]

Martin-Pardey. E. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Grabbeigaben, Nachtrage und Erganzungen. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and stern. pls. 6, 97 and 98, 6,100. 38 BATH 35° SATH 50°. DP. Main and stern deck areas slightly hollowed out, leaving bulwarks.39 A pole mast is fitted, supported by a flat mast shoe laid along the deck. A straight yard, narrowing slightly towards the tips, is carried; the boom is straight; the sail is laced to the yard.40 A single rudder post is utilised; forward of it is a tunnel shaped cabin. The sides consist of two equal sized panels, with a chequered roof.41 HL/MH, 1.51/1, HL/WL, 2.95/1, MS/HL, .41/1.

Date: Dyn IX Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a papyriform boat. British Museum Model 21805.46 pp. 1 – 3. fig. 1. pl. Ia. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The hull is partially hollowed out, leaving bulwarks. Two rudder posts are fitted, but these are most probably modern restorations.47 12.6 Beni Hasan [BH 01] Date: Dyn XII

[ASI 08]

Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Tomb No. 2. Three vessels. pl. XII. Main chamber, East wall. Facing left. Moderate to severe damage.48

Date: Dyn XII Breasted. Egyptian Servant Statues. pl. 72b. Timber model

Oars are present, however, some restoration seems to have taken place. Both scoop and lancet bladed oars are fitted, but the scoop bladed oars are facing the wrong direction. 43 http://www.museoegizio.org/pages/hp_en.jsp 44 The mast is lost, but the pattern painted on the deck indicates that it was a pole mast. 45 The deck is painted, but only with lines (five in number) across the deck, and without a fore and aft stringer. As the model rowers sit atop the lines across the deck, I hypothesise that they represent thwarts. 46 The bow and stern are elongated; especially the bow, and the extremities are flared. 47 The author observes that twin posts are unusual, and that only a single rudder or post would be expected on this class of vessel. See, however, for example, [BH 13], (a) and (b) and [ME 05] (a). The types of steering configurations are considered in Section 4. There is no evidence of this example having had mast or rigging. 48 The third craft is not considered here, as it is mostly lost. 42

The plan and elevation of this example shows a broad hull, with rounded bow and stern, but a shallow profile, with an elongated bow and stern. 37 Despite some differences to (a), the similarity of (a) and (b) indicates that they are most probably the products of the same workshop. The decks and bulwarks equate to (a), although the deck at the bow is less rounded. 38 See also Breasted, Servant Statues. pl. 75b. 39 The hollowing out the stern deck appears to have been intended to give the helmsman a flat place to sit, counteracting the acute angle of the deck. 40 The sail, having been partially rolled up, obscures the method of attaching the sail and boom. Some of the slings for the yard pass through individual staples on the mast, and reef points hang down the face of the sail. 41 This vessel is illustrated with two rudders, both passed over the port quarter. They are lashed to the rudder post, but only one has a tiller. 36

131

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(a). Papyrus craft. BATH and SATH 20°. Thick bands of lashings are evenly distributed along the hull.

(a) Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars.52 BATH and SATH 30°. The mast is stowed, two pairs of loops project from its upper reach. The foot of the mast faces towards the bows, supported on a mast rest (now almost totally lost) amidships. A straight yard and boom lie along the mast. A rudder, with tiller, is secured to the side of the rudder post; the helmsman sits on a horizontal platform. Forward of the rudder post is a cabin, decorated with shields, over which passes the support beam for an awning. The forward support has been lost. HL/MH, 1×38/1, HL/WL, 2×89/1.

(b). Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern. BATH and SATH 20°. HL/WL, 3×0/1. [BH 02] Date: Dyn. XII Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Three vessels. pl. XIV. These are considered from right to left. Main chamber, East Wall. Facing right.

(b) Hull, mast, fittings and rowers as per (a); although the cabin is devoid of decoration, the frame for the awning is complete. HL/MH, 1×71/1, HL/WL, 2×5/1, MS/HL, ×43/1.

(a) Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern, under sail. BATH and SATH 30°. A pole mast is fitted, secured by lashings to a single knee. A straight yard and boom spread a square sail.49 The lifts and slings for the yard and boom are taken to bands on the mast. A rudder post and a single rudder with a tiller are fitted; a rope from the deck aft secures the rudder. A loop protrudes from the side of the rudder post at its upper end.50 Forward of the rudder post is a rectangular cabin, embellished with shields. An upright at either end of the cabin and a horizontal beam from mast to rudder post probably served to support an awning. Twin towropes pass to the vessel astern and the craft has twin forestays. Forestays, 54°, (outer), 52°, main backstay, 43°, secondaries, 30°. HL/MH, 1×54/1, HL/WL, 3/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

(c) Hull, as above. BATH 30° SATH 38°. There are no rowers or mast.53 The deck is mostly taken up by a large cabin, covered with panels of matting of varied weave. Windows and ventilators appear along the top. Forward of the cabin, and abutting its front bulkhead is an awning, similar to a naos. A helmsman sitting on top of the cabin operates a decorated rudder.54 HL/WL, 3×35/1. [BH 04] Date: Dyn. XII Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Tomb No. 3, left section. pl. XXIX.

(b) Hull and details; as above, although there is no cabin and the beam for the “awning”, which is supported by a crook topped post, does not extend to the mast. The sail, carried low on the mast, is only half the height of [BH 02] (a). Oars are in use, worked against rollocks or curved brackets; twenty rowers standing along the side.51 Forestays and main backstay, as above. Secondaries, 35° HL/MH, 1×62/1, HL/WL, 2×71/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

(a) Vessel under construction.55 BATH 25° SATH 30°. (b) Hull, rudder and cabin, as per [BH 03] (c), being rowed.56 BATH 25° SATH 35°. The rowers are sitting, apparently on stools. HL/WL, 3×33/1. (c) Hull and steering, as above, but the rowers are standing. A canopy extends from midships aft to the rudder post. The dismounted pole mast rests against the forward edge of the canopy, but the rowers conceal the details of how the foot is secured. The owner sits under a domed baldachin in the bow.57 HL/WL, 3×2/1.

(c) Funerary vessel. BATH 20°, SATH 25°. Twin rudders, operated by individual helmsmen holding tillers, are secured to rudder posts, with projecting loops, as per (a). Immediately forward of the posts is a naos with a curved roof, supported by four poles, covering a mummy. The towropes are secured to either side of the hull forward. HL/ WL, 3×5/1.

[BH 05] Date: Dyn. XII

[BH 03]

Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Two vessels, one sailing, the other towed. Tomb No. 3. pl. XXIX. Facing left.

Date: Dyn. XII Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Three vessels, rowing or being towed. pl. XVI. East wall, facing left. Some moderate damage.

The rowers are standing, although the angle of the stern does not allow some of the oars to reach the water. 53 It was probably being towed, but no towrope survives. 54 Newberry has titled this as a harem vessel. 55 The decision as to which is bow and stern is derived from the shallower angle and longer shape of the right hand end of the hull. See also Petrie, Ancient Egypt and the East, September, December, 1933, p.66 and fig. 59. 56 There is, however, no structure forward of the end of the cabin. 57 A horizontal platform is fitted beneath the seat to compensate for the angle of the deck. 52

Persons on the deck hold the halyards; their long kilts indicate that they are not common sailors. 50 The backstay and secondary backstays are taken to the rudder post. 51 Example (c) is being towed astern. The towropes to (c) pass over the side adjacent to the rudder posts of (b). 49

132

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[BH 09]

(a) Hull cabin and steering, as per [BH 01] (a). BATH and SATH 30°. The mast has seven pairs of loops protruding from it. One pair is above the yard, one pair level with it, and the rest below. Both yard and boom are straight although the yard tapers towards the tips. The panels of the sail are laid vertically. Backstays, 25° HL/MH, 2×1/1, HL/ WL, 2×7/1, MS/HL, ×48/1.

Date: Dyn XII Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. II. Wall scenes. Tomb No. 17. Four vessels rowing or being towed, four under sail. pl. XII. Moderate damage, and the quality of the work is poor. (a) - (d) are considered from right to left, (e) - (h) from left to right.

(b) Papyrus vessel, under tow. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The bow finial bends inwards and up, as does the stern. Twin rudders and rudder posts are fitted. A naos, the roof supported by papyrus bud tipped poles, stands on deck. Equally spaced bindings are seen along the hull.

(a) Vessel with pointed bow and rising stern (the tip of which is lost). BATH 20° SATH 30°. There appears to be no bulwark. A rudder post stands in the stern, with the loom of the rudder passing to the side of the top. Fourteen rowers (with only thirteen oars) stand along the deck in pairs.59 The towrope is secured to a ring or bollard on deck at the starboard quarter. HL/WL, 2×2/1

[BH 06] Date: Dyn XII

(b) Sailing vessel, under tow, with rising stern, most of bow lost. BATH 30° SATH 40°. Rudder and rudder post, as above; the loom is thinnest at the lower end. Abutting the post is a cabin, with a side window. On deck forward is a mast shoe, consisting of two knees, with a securing pin passed horizontally through the centre. A stick or post with a round top stands here; this may represent a mast rest.60

Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Wall scene. Four papyrus vessels. pl. XXXIV. Main Chamber. East wall, south side. Facing left. Tomb No. 3. (c) BATH 20° SATH 35°. Equally spaced pairs of bindings are seen at the bow and stern. A central platform of timber is fitted. There is no water weed present.

(c) Vessel with pointed bow and rising stern. BATH 30° SATH 40°. Steering, as above. Ten rowers, diminishing in height, from the stern forward. Some stand, while others are sitting. A towrope passes from the starboard quarter to (d). HL/WL, 1×92/1.

(d) BATH 20° SATH 40°. Bindings, as above. (e) As above. A person in the bow is apparently steering with a paddle. (f) BATH and SATH 30°. Bindings; as above.

(d) The bow of this example has been distorted to avoid the rudder of (c). SATH 40°. The towrope comes aboard aft of the starboard bow. Rudder as per [BH 09] (b).61 HL/ WL, 2×05/1.

[BH 07] Date: Dyn XII

(e) Sailing vessel, with pointed bow and incurved stern. BATH and SATH 30°. Steering and mast shoe; as per [BH 09] (b). A short pole mast is fitted.62 Both yard and boom are straight. HL/MH, 3×1/1, HL/WL, 2×84/1, MS/HL, ×31/1.

Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. I. Papyrus craft. pl. XXXII. East wall, north side, facing right. Angles and details; as per [BH 06] (a). [BH 08]

(f) As above, BATH 30° SATH 40°. Mast shoe, as per [BH 09] (b). The head of the mast is lost, but the boom is straight. A rectangular cabin stands in the stern; the aft end is lost, and the top of the rudder post appears to protrude through the roof. A horizontal tiller turns the rudder. HL/ WL, 2×1/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

Date: Dyn XII Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol. II. Wall scene. Five papyrus craft. Tomb 15. pl. IV. Main chamber, north wall. The third craft is fitted with a central platform, with the occupants fowling in a papyrus thicket. (BATH 20° SATH 28°). The bow is higher than the stern, whose outer extremity is horizontal. A single crew member steers, with a hand held rudder.

This pairing may be an attempt to show that the artist intended the viewer to understand that there were seven rowers aside. 60 An oblique line from mast shoe to rudder post may possibly be considered as the mast, but there are no clarifying details and it could easily be a brace for the cabin. The shape of the stern is obscured by the loom of the rudder and the arm of a crew member of [BH 09] (c), who is holding onto the rudder of [BH 09] (b). 61 The presence of a rectangular cabin, with two central doors, suggests to me that this was an attempt to depict a cargo vessel. The poor drafting of this section of the scene, however, makes it impossible to determine the accuracy of this supposition. 62 The crew appear to be furling the sail. The yard and boom are close to the deck, and the arms of the crew are pointing downward, not upwards, as they would have been had they been pulling the halyard(s) to raise sail. 59

The hull angles of the other examples are 30°, with one end higher and no indication as to bow or stern. A comparison to [BH 08] (c), however, indicates that the higher end was to be considered as the bow.58 A crew member standing at the higher end of (b) may be punting, but as the crews are involved in the ‘boatman’s game’, this is not conclusive.

58

133

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(g) As above. BATH and SATH 30°. A pole mast with straight yard and boom carries a rectangular sail; there is no mast shoe. The head of the mast is lost.63 HL/MH 3×13/1 (approx), HL/WL, 2×08/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

(a) DP. BATH 30° SATH 35°. The deck is flush, without bulwarks or camber. A deckhouse, consisting of upright poles supporting a tunnel shaped cover, painted with pairs of shields, stands between the midships and the single rudder post. A horizontal brace is lashed to the poles on either side. HL/MH, 1×53/1, HL/WL, 3×01/1, MS/WL, ×40/1.

(h) (As above. BATH and SATH 40°. The base of the mast is lost; mast shoe; as above. A rectangular cabin stands in the stern, similarly to (f), but in this instance the rudder post seems to stand to the side of the cabin. HL/MH, 2×22/1, HL/WL, 2×11/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

(b) As above, but without a deckhouse. BATH 30° SATH 35°. The crew are rowing, sitting on blocks. HL/WL, 2×63/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

[BH 10]

[BH 13]

Date: Dyn XII.

Date: Dyn. XII. (P and M).

Newberry. Beni Hasan. vol II. Wall scene. Tomb No. 29. Seven papyrus vessels. pl. XXIX.

Garstang, Burial Customs. Two timber models of papyriform boats, being rowed or sailed. figs. 45 and 46. Tomb of Antef. Hull angles not discernible.

Moderate to severe damage.

(a). Vessel being rowed. Fitted with twin rudders and rudder posts. The rudders have tillers, and are supported by a rectangular sectioned bar placed across the deck aft of the helmsman. Painted representations of bindings are seen at the bow and stern.65

(a) BATH 15° SATH 20°. (b) BATH and SATH 22°. (c) Bow mainly lost, SATH 20°.

(b). Vessel under sail. The deck is flat, without bulwarks. Steering, as above. A naos with an arched roof, supported by four papyrus bud tipped poles, stands aft of midships. The roof is not solid, having a rectangular hole cut through it. A short bipod mast stands on deck; a straight yard and boom are also present.

(d) BATH 20° SATH 18°. (e) Bow mainly lost, SATH 22°. (f) BATH and SATH 15°. (g) Only the flat, square cut stern (?) survives; the bow was possibly curved, but is now lost.64

[BH 14]

[BH 11]

Date: Dyn. XII. (P and M)

Date: M.K.

Garstang. Burial Customs. Two models of boats, being either rowed or sailed. figs 57 – 59. Tomb of Nefery. (116).

Tooley. “An unusual type of model boat” in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol 72, 1986, pp. 189 – 192. Timber model of boat with rounded stern and square cut bow. Tomb 203. BATH 17° SATH 18°. The craft is hollowed out, with a forked rudder recess at the stern. A notch is cut in the forward edge of the aft thwart, possibly to receive a rudder post and a hole in the thwart, forward of midships, was for a mast. MS/HL, ×42/1.

(a). Sailing vessel, with tapered bow and incurved stern, being rowed. BATH 20° SATH 30° (approx). The main deck area is slightly hollowed out. Twenty crew members stand, rowing. A single rudder and rudder post are fitted; the rudder has a tiller.66 The upper end of a pole mast rests against the post; its rigging is spiralled around the mast. HL/WL 2×96/1. (b). As above, under sail. BATH 30° SATH 40° (approx).67 A short pole mast is fitted; a straight yard and boom are associated. HL/MH, 2×2/1, HL/WL, 2×44/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

[BH 12] Date: Dyn XII. Glanville. Catalogue. Two timber models of boats, with pointed bows and upturned sterns, tipped with a block to support the rudder. British Museum Models 41574 and B.M. 41575. pp. 22 – 27. figs. 21 and 24. pls. IVb, Va, and IVb and Vb. Tomb of Sobkheti. 63 64

[BH 15]

Four thin, vertical lines are seen along the hull, but these are shadows cast by the oars. 66 The rudder has been removed in fig 58. 67 This example is poorly preserved. 65

A crew member stands on the boom. Examples of this form may be seen at [DG 06] and [S 76].

134

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Date: M. K. (Dyn. XII?).

[BH 17]

Garstang. Burial Customs. Four timber models of boats. figs. 72 - 74, and fig. 57.68 Tomb of Nefwa. (No.186).

Date: Dyn. XII (?). Garstang. Burial Customs. Timber model of a boat with incurved stern and tapering bow. fig. 229.73 Tomb of Khety-A. (Tomb 575). BATH 30° SATH 40°. A pole mast carries a sail on a straight yard and boom; the sail is laced on. A single rudder with tiller and a rudder post are fitted. Forward of the post is a round topped deckhouse, as per [BH 15] (a). HL/MH, 1×93/1, HL/WL, 3×48/1, MS/HL, ×38/1.

(a). Vessel with tapered bow and incurved stern, under sail. BATH 30° SATH 55°. A single rudder with tiller and a rudder post are fitted. A tall pole mast carries a square sail, spread by a straight yard and boom. The sail hangs in the centre of the mast. Forward of the rudder post is a tunnel shaped cabin. The sides consist of four pairs of uprights, with two horizontal bracing rods per side. These are on the outside of the uprights. HL/MH, 1×58/1, HL/WL, 2×05/1, MS/HL, ×37/1.

[BH 18]

(b). As above, but under oars.69 BATH 25° SATH 45°. Mast and steering, as per (a). The foot of the mast with a sail, yard and boom, rests on the deck forward and slopes obliquely past the rudder post. HL/WL, 3×32/1.

Date: M.K. Garstang. Burial Customs. Five timber models of boats. Tomb of Khnem - Nekhti and Neter - Nekhta. (Tomb 585). figs 86 - 89 and 163.74

(c). As above, under oars. BATH 25° SATH 45°. HL/ WL, 3 ×6/1.

(a). Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars.75 BATH 25° SATH 40°. The main deck is slightly hollowed out. A single rudder with tiller and a single rudder post are fitted. The loom rests on top of the rudder post. HL/WL, 2×7/1.

(d). Vessel as above, but considerably longer. SATH 30° SATH 35°. A pole mast is fitted, but no other details of the rigging have survived. A single rudder post is present. Cabin, similar to [BH 15] (a), but with only two uprights per side. HL/MH, 1×92/1, HL/WL, 1×98/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

(b). As above. BATH 30° SATH 45°. The rudder is secured to the tip of the stern by a grommet, and against the side of the rudder post by lashings.76 HL/WL, 2×25/1.

[BH 16] Date: M.K. M.K. (P and M).

(c). As above, the hull is very short and high. BATH 40° SATH 55°. Rudder as per 18 (a); a broken securing rope is present at the top of the blade. A pole mast lies on the deck and the stump of a mast rest stands in the mast hole. Abutting the rudder post is a tunnel shaped cabin. HL/WL, 2×18/1, MS/HL, ×29/1.

Garstang. Burial Customs. Two timber models of boats. fig. 91. Tomb of Ma’a. (No. 500).70 (a). Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. DP. A bow roller is fitted and a pole mast stands amidships, without a mast shoe. Four pairs of eyelets are spaced unevenly along the mast.71 The sail, spread by a straight yard and boom, is attached by lace lines, and consists of three horizontal panels of fabric. The two lower panels are removable, and may be considered as bonnets. A flat topped shelter stands between the mast and rudder post.72 Oars are secured along the sides of the hull by grommets. HL/WL, 4×22/1.

(d). Vessel with tapering bow and incurved stern.77 BATH 25° SATH 40°. The rudder and mast are lost. An enclosed, round topped cabin stands forward of the rudder post.78 The sides are divided into six uneven panels by vertical stripes. HL/WL, 2×89/1. (e). Vessel, as above, under oars. BATH 20° SATH 35°. Steering, as above, a hook protrudes from the side of the post. The rowers sit on stools or blocks.

(b). Hull and shelter, as above. BATH 20° SATH 30°. There is no mast; the crew sits on the deck to row, although their oars are shipped and secured against the side. The preventer loops for the aft most pair are adjacent to the rudder post. HL/WL, 5×12/1.

[BH 19] Date: Dyn. XII See SAK 12, pl. 23. See, also, Landstrom. Ships. figs 216 and 220. 75 The crew is rowing, but their oars are piled up on the deck. 76 It may be seen that the head of the loom is too far inboard, as the tiller is forward of the post. 77 See also Landstrom. Ships. fig. 220. 78 As two female figures are inside, it has been proposed by Garstang that this example represents a vessel intended for the harem, or ladies of the house. 73

In the text, Garstang incorrectly refers to this example as fig. 142. (p. 84). For 15 (d), see SAK 12, pl. 22. 69 The rowers have lost their oars. 70 See also Landstrom. Ships. fig. 251, and pl. 24, ZAS 12. 71 The restorers have not utilised these eyelets, and the rigging is very simplified. 72 As displayed, the rudder is incorrectly positioned, as it passes along the starboard quarter, and not over the tip of the stern. 68

74

135

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Breasted. Egyptian Servant Statues. Timber model of a papyriform(?) vessel, being poled. pl. 76b. Bristol Museum, H 4595.79 Tomb 275 (Thaay). Dyn. XII. BATH 17° SATH 28°. HL/WL, 3×92/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

planking is laid in grooves, as aboard (c). A rudder post and rudder is present on the starboard side.85

[BH 20]

[DA 02]

Date: Dyn. XI

Date: Dyn. VI. (Dyn. V - VI. P and M).

Tooley. Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models, in ZAS 118 (1991). Timber model of a boat, with rising bow and stern. Tomb 140. fig. 4.80 BATH 10° SATH 15°. The hull is fully hollowed out, except for the foredeck, which is flush with the sides; a bow roller is fitted. The stern has a notch to receive the loom of the rudder.81 No water line is suggested. MS/HL, ×47/1.

de Morgan. Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Wall scene. Two timber boats and three papyrus vessels, over two registers. Mastaba of In-Sneferu-Ishetef. (Mastaba No. 2). pl. XXII.86 Badly damaged.

(d).

Pittsburgh. Hull angles, as above.

[DA 01]

(a). Papyrus vessel. BATH 20° SATH 25°. The end of the stern is lost. A long pad is present on deck, and conforms to the line of the upper surface of the vessel. A naos stands on a sledge amidships. A single helmsman with hand held rudder and tiller is indicated at the stern. Regularly spaced bands of lashings are present along the hull.

Date: Dyn XII

(b). See after (d), below.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber hulls, most probably of funerary vessels.82 Two are in the Egyptian Museum, two in the USA. All four originally carried twin rudders and rudder posts. None were fitted with a mast.

(c). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The bulwark appears to merge into the hull towards the bow. A sailor in the stern holds a rope from the bow of (a). The crew row standing. HL/WL, 2×14/1.

12.7 Dahshur

(a). BATH not recorded, SATH 20°.83 The hull is constructed of irregular sections of timber, joined by double dovetail clamps and mortise and tenon joints. The deck beams pass through the sides; the decking is secured to the beams by pegs. A low bulwark is present, but does not extend along the full length of the hull. A mortise in the stern was probably intended to receive the securing tenon for a finial, indicative of a funerary craft; there appears to be another in the bow. The holes for two rudder posts can be seen in the stern.84

(d). Hull, rudder and rowers, as above. BATH and SATH 20°. HL/WL, 2×48/1. Between (a) and (c) is (b), a small, stub sterned craft, adequate for the one man who kneels upon it.87 (BATH 20° SATH 30°) The presence of lashings along its length confirms that the craft is papyrus. 88 (e). Papyrus vessel. BATH and SATH 20°. A structure with four poles aside covers a coffin (?) on a sledge. The poles are tipped with papyrus buds; the forward pole merges into the leading edge of the roof.89

(b). As above. Item 4926. The deck planks fit into grooves along the upper edge of the deck beams. Only the planks at bow and stern can be removed. (c).

[DA 03]

Carnegie Museum. BATH 15° SATH 30°. The deck

Date: Dyn VI

Two bands of lashings at the bow suggest that this may be a papyriform vessel. 80 See also Garstang, Burial Customs. p. 217. 81 From the dowel holes, it would appear that the craft originally had two broad thwarts, one in the stern and the other forward of midships. 82 For the uncovering of these vessels, see also de Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour, Mars – Juin, 1894. pls. XXIV – XXX. Having been subjected to extreme levels of reworking by the restorers, important features demonstrating the method of construction have been erased. These hulls must be viewed with extreme caution when examined as sources of the means of Egyptian nautical construction. 83 Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4925. This angle is measured from Reisner, fig. 317, but a comparison to his fig. 313 suggests that he has incorrectly labelled a drawing of the stern as the bow. BATH and SATH 10°, according to Landstrom. 84 Reisner describes the rudders and posts, but does not provide a line drawing or illustration of them. It appears that the allocation of rudders and rudder posts by the excavator to these examples was arbitrary. 79

The positioning is most probably incorrect. A wide gap exists between its shaft and the rudder post, which would result in the rudder being held at an angle to the hull axis. The rudder itself is too short to have reached into the water if the inboard end of the loom were to be secured against the upper reaches of the rudder post. 86 See also Wilson. pl. XIV. This drawing has been used as an adjunct to the de Morgan plates. de Morgan has named the owner of the tomb as Snefrou - Ani - Mert - F. 87 It appears that it was the task of this individual to assist with the towing arrangements. 88 The curve of the underside of this example hull is depicted beneath the water surface. Such a depiction is most unusual. It can be seen from the plate that this is not an addition by the recording artist. 89 The undulating surface has been argued as by Wilson (p. 207) as representing the ground over which the craft was dragged to reach the tomb. Those towing it walk on a level surface. 85

136

Appendix 1 – The Examples

de Morgan. Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Wall scene. Two vessels, under sail. pl. XIX. 90 Moderate damage.

23°. A single hand held rudder with tiller is in use. HL/ WL, 2×52/1.

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform. BATH 20° SATH 25°. A rectangular cabin, the upper section covered with matting, stands aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning, whose uprights are also clad in matting. The forward awning reaches the end of the bulwark, despite the presence of the sail. A bipod mast with a forward curving head carries a tall, narrow sail. The panels of fabric of the sail are laid horizontally. The yard is lost, but a straight boom lies on deck, aft of the mast legs. HL/MH, 1×88/1, HL/WL, 2× 49/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

(c). Details, as per (a). Angles, as above. Two hand held rudders with tillers are in use. HL/WL, 2×42/1

(b). The bow is square cut, with an angled stern. Rigging, sail, cabin and awning; as above. BATH and SATH 20°. The yard is straight. Cross beams are fitted to the mast, and cross - hatched markings between the mast legs indicate mast-securing ropes. Two hand held rudders are in use. HL/ MH, 1×74/1, HL/WL, 2×32/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

(a). BATH 20° SATH 30°. Bands of bindings are evenly spaced along the hull and a thick central platform is fitted.

[DA 06] Date: Dyn. VI de Morgan. Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Wall scene. Three papyrus craft. pl. XXIV. The bows of (a) and (b) touch.

(b). Details, as above. Beneath the stern of this craft is (c). (c). Craft with raised bow and square cut stern. BATH 25°. No constructional details can be discerned.

[DA 04]

[DA 07]

Date: Dyn VI

Date: Dyn. VI

de Morgan. Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Wall scene. Three cargo craft. pl. XX.91 Slight damage.

Boreux. Etudes de Nautique. Wall scene. Papyriform craft. p. 153. fig. 36. The bow is partially lost. BATH and SATH 30°. A central platform is fitted, upon which stands a naos, with four papyrus bud tipped poles aside. Coffins (?) are stacked on deck fore and aft of the naos.

(a). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH 20°. A curved timber extends outward from the stern, serving as a fulcrum for the hand held rudder. An annex stands in the stern, rounding down to the tip of the stern. Forward of this is a rectangular structure, with a low arched roof. Between its forward edge and the bow is fitted a railing, upon which the crew sit to row. HL/WL, 2×06/1.

12.8 Deir el Bahari [DB 01]

(b). As above. BATH 10° SATH 20°. HL/WL, 1×73/1.

Date: Dyn XI

(c). As per (a). BATH and SATH 20°. HL/WL, 2×0/1.

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat. British Museum Model 47636. pp. 8 – 9. fig. 8. pl. 11b. BATH 8° SATH 25°. The tip of the bow is lost; the stern is slightly higher.93 The deck is flat, with very low bulwarks. There is no evidence of mast and rigging.

[DA 05] Date: Dyn. VI de Morgan. Fouilles a Dahchour, 1894 – 1895. Wall scene. Three vessels with cabins and awnings, under oars. pl. XXI. Facing left. Moderate damage.

[DB 02]

(a). Vessel with angled bow and rounded stern, extended by a platform. BATH 20° SATH 25°. The end of the bow is lost. A raised bulwark extends over the stern. A rectangular cabin stands amidships, extended fore and aft by an awning. Two rudders, without tillers, are in use.92

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern, topped with a block. Item 4909, pl. XV. Tomb of Mentuhotep (?).94 DP. BATH 25° SATH 35°. The central deck area is slightly hollowed out, leaving

Date: M.K.

Glanville considers that the tip of the stern is lost, but the presence of a foot facing towards the lost section of the hull, as well as what appears to be a recess to receive a rudder loom suggests that it is the bow that has been lost. The model may not have been finished; due to its inconclusive shape and condition, the hull in any category in this work. It might, however, be a form of Type II. 94 See Reisner, Ships and Boats, p. 63, where he questions the tomb ownership. 93

(b). Hull, cabin and awning, as above. BATH 15° SATH See also Vandier. Manuel. fig. 324. Facing right. Also Vandier. Manuel. fig. 302. Facing left. 92 The details of the upper reaches of the rudders are worn, but the positioning of the arms of the helmsmen indicates that there are no tillers. 90 91

137

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

low bulwarks. A bow roller is fitted. Where the mast could be expected stands a mast rest, with a U shaped top. There is no mast or rudder, although a rudder post is fitted.95 HL/ WL, 3×75/1, MS/HL, ×45/1.

have been fitted with a mast. The forward edge of the bow is lost.

[DB 03]

Date: Dyn. XI

Date: ND.

Glanville. Catalogue. British Museum Model 48040. p. 9. pl. IId. Roof of a naos, with cavetto cornice edge.

[DB 06]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model boat; as above. Item 4910, pl. XVI. Abutting the rudder post is a tunnel shaped cabin, composed of vertical and horizontal poles; the sides are not enclosed. The horizontal poles are on the outside of the shelter. A mast rest stands in the mast shoe, which consists of two side arms, with a rectangular upright to receive the foot of the mast or its rest.96 HL/WL, 4×09/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

[DB 07] Date: Dyn. XI Arnold. Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir elBahari. vol. II. Fragments of a wall scene. Funerary vessel, with cavetto cornice naos. Half the stern is lost. BATH 30° SATH 40° (approx). A low bulwark extends well up the slope of the bow and stern.99 The bow finial is vertical and topped with a standing sphinx. The naos has two poles per side, with open papyrus flower tips. The stern finial bends almost horizontally forward, then upward at 60° (approx).

[DB 04] Date: Dyn. XI Arnold. Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari. vol. III. pls. 3 and 64. Two timber models of funerary vessels.97 Poor condition.

[DB 08] Date: Dyn. XI

(a). BATH 20° SATH 35°. (The stern finial is lost). The main deck area is slightly hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks. The bow finial leans inwards from the line of the deck. A single rudder post survives on the starboard side, supporting a rudder.

Breasted. Servant Statues. Timber model of a funerary vessel. pl. 64 (b). Tomb of Mentuhotep. BATH 20° SATH 23°. The main deck is hollowed out and the finials bend inward and then up. Twin rudders and posts are fitted, topped with Horus heads. A cross beam supports the rudder looms at the stern. A bier stands on deck amidships. This is covered by cavetto cornice naos, supported on six poles with papyrus bud tips. These are set into the sides of the bier. HL/WL, 2×83/1 (approx).

(b). BATH 20° SATH 28°. Deck and stern finial; as above. A finial stands at 90° to the bow. A single rudder post with a short rudder stands on the starboard side of the stern quarter. [DB 05]

[DB 09]

Date: Dyn. XI

Date: Dyn. XI.

Arnold. Der Temple des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir elBahari. vol. III. pls. 4 and 65. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars. BATH 20° SATH 25°. DP.98 The stern is very long when compared to the bow; accentuated by the loss of some of the bow. The main deck is hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks, which merge with the decks at bow and stern. A single rudder post is fitted. On either side of the apex of the stern is a hole, drilled vertically, which probably held a securing rope for the rudder. A short, slightly curved timber protrudes from the side of the rudder post. Against the rise of the foredeck is a forked mast rest, although the model does not seem to

Naville. Deir El Bahari. part 3. pl. XIII. fig. 7. Two fragments of wall scene, showing means of securing the rigging. Temple of Mentuhotep. (a). Two arched uprights, through which pass, and depend, ropes. To prevent these from pulling free, some of the ropes are taken forward, with a tapered pin passed laterally through them.100 (b). Top of arched upright, through which pass two heavier ropes. Four thinner ropes rise from beneath, through which a tapered pin is passed. The point of a second pin is seen to the right.

The heights of the rudder post and the mast rest are reversed in fig. 226, p. 63. 96 See Reisner. Ships and Boats. fig. 239. 97 Both consist of block models, with the finials added. Half joints and pegs secured these. 98 The central area of the main deck, however, only shows the deck beams, without the presence of the longitudional beam. This is, however, present at either end of the deck. As can be seen from pl. 4, the central section of beam was never depicted aboard this example. 95

The vessel is fitted with a central platform, but there is nothing to indicate that this is anything other than a timber craft. The king is poling the craft. 100 What the upper reaches of these ropes were attached to is unknown, but from their thinness and number it would appear that they were part of the running rigging. 99

138

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[DB 10]

[DB 15]

Date: Dyn. XI.

Date: Dyn. XI

Goedicke. Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. Item 28, p. 62. Fragment of wall scene showing two crewmen rowing. The oars are passed through grommets on the edge of the bulwark. Behind the rowers is seen a crook topped mast rest, which stands in a substantial support on deck. This seems to be tubular, with the lower end flaring outward.101

Arnold. Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir elBahari. vol. III. Timber models of rudder posts with upward protruding side hooks.104 [DB 16] Date: MK, late Dyn. XI - early Dyn. XII

[DB 11]

Winlock. Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt. Timber model boats. Tomb of Meket - Re.105 Moderate damage, now restored. These are divided here into groups, by type.

Date: Dyn. XI Goedicke. Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. Item 30, p. 64. Fragment of wall scene, possibly showing the lower bodies of three helmsmen and the ends of three rudder posts and tillers. The three stand on a platform, intended to overcome the camber of the deck.102 The remains of what appears to be an animal figurehead may be seen aft.

Group 1. Four models of funerary craft, designated as “yachts” (models T - W) by Winlock. pp. 59 – 64 and 97 – 101. pls. 45 – 48 and 78 – 81. (a). DP, with low central bulwarks. The craft is under sail. BATH 30° SATH 36°. The bow finial leans forward at 15° from vertical. The stern finial also bends well forward. Across the deck at the stern is a horizontal bar, which supports the looms of the twin rudders. The heads of neither the rudders nor rudder posts are decorated.106 The rudders are turned by tillers, and have preventer ropes, taken to the rudder support bar.

[DB 12] Date: Dyn. XI Goedicke. Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. Fragment of wall scene, showing the remains of a pole mast and running rigging. Item 31, p. 64. The boom is secured to the mast with a simple cross lashing; a thick rope curves downwards toward the mast from the left side of the boom but this does not appear to have been repeated on the other side. Four pairs of slings on either side of the mast support the yard.

A tall, tapering pole mast is fitted into a three-armed mast shoe on deck and carries a straight yard and boom; there is no sail. 107 A naos with an arched roof and papyrus bud poles stands centrally on deck. To counter the rise of the deck, a platform has been placed beneath, it to give a horizontal surface upon which to place the owners seat. A large, crook topped mast rest and a gangplank were also carried. HL/ MH, 1×54/1. HL/WL, 3×91/1, MS/HL, ×37/1.

[DB 13] Date: Dyn. XI

(b). As above. BATH 30° SATH 38°. The finials are less acutely angled, with the bow finial standing almost vertically. The craft is being paddled. HL/WL, 3×46/1, MS/ HL, ×38/1.

Arnold. Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir elBahari. vol. III. pl. 5 (b) Timber model of a mast shoe for a pole mast. Although crudely constructed, it can be seen that the back is hollowed out to receive the mast and that two feet extend outwards from the upright section at approximately 50°.

(c). As per [DB 16] (a), but with a vertical bow finial. BATH and SATH 30°; the mast and rigging are lost. The rudder posts are fitted with Horus heads, although not so the rudders. HL/WL, 3×49/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

[DB 14] Date: Dyn. XI

pls. 8e and 9c. The former belongs to example 5, above; the latter is broken off, just above the point where the hook and post meet. 105 This miniature fleet has provided invaluable evidence of the means of stepping the mast, the techniques of sail construction, securing and controlling different configurations of rudders and rudder posts and different forms of deckhouse. The validity of the evidence derived from the vessels of this collection in relation to the form of the rigging of secular vessels, however, is questioned further on in this paper. The possibility is considered in Chapter 7.4.5 that the form of rigging depicted on funerary ships was different to that utilised in every day situations. 106 Winlock has suggested that these items of equipment may have been fitted as repairs before burial. 107 The mast was allocated to this hull during restoration, as its length matched the remaining rigging of this example. (Winlock, Models of Daily Life. p. 92) 104

Arnold. Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir elBahari. vol. III. pl.8. Timber models of mast rests.103 Slight to severe damage. These examples have tapering bases; their tops are shaped either as crooks or are in a U form. The details of the construction and shape of the support are unclear; the left edge has been lost and the right was never depicted. A half ring or bracket protrudes from the right hand edge of the upright section. 102 The researcher is unaware of any other depiction of a vessel where three rudder posts are fitted, although there are numerous examples of craft with multiple hand held rudders. 103 The remains of 16 mast rests are shown. 101

139

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(d). As above. BATH 30° SATH 34°. A mast rest, as aboard (a), is positioned in the mast shoe. The mast is lost. HL/WL, 3×54/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

Group 3. Two timber models of papyrus vessels.110 pp. 67 – 68 and 102 - 103. pl. 52. BATH and SATH 25°. [DB 17]

Group 2. Six timber models of boats, with tapered bows and incurved sterns. Labelled N - S by Winlock. Two of these vessels (R and S) are equipped as kitchen tenders, the rest he defines as travelling boats.108 The decks are painted. pp. 45 – 59 and 92 – 97. pls. 35 – 43 and 70 – 76.

Date: MK, late Dyn. XI - early Dyn. XII Winlock. Models of Daily Life. Timber model of a boat with tapering bow and rounded, flat-topped stern, being paddled.111 pp. 64 – 67. pl. 51. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The main deck is slightly hollowed out, but externally the run of the hull from bow to stern is continuous. A three - armed mast shoe stands on deck, but there is no mast. A tall, tunnel shaped shelter stands in the stern; the top half is covered and painted with a shield on either side. Although a single rudder and rudder post are fitted, the loom is supported on the starboard side by a cleat, ending in a horizontally protruding notch.112 HL/WL, 2×7/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

(a). BATH 27° SATH 32°, under sail. The central deck is slightly hollowed out, as is the area inside the stern, for the convenience of the helmsman. A single rudder post and rudder with tiller is fitted. The tip of the stern is grooved to support the loom, which is secured by a lashing tied across it, as well as a securing rope to the loom, at the top of the blade. The pole mast stands in a three armed mast shoe, the mast carries a square sail, spread by a straight yard and boom; the boom is very high on the mast. A tunnel shaped cabin with a foyer stands against the rudder post; there is a door at either end of the cabin. A bow roller lies along the foredeck. HL/MH, 1×5/1, HL/WL, 3×06/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

[DB 18] Date: Dyn. XI

(b). BATH 30° SATH 32°, under oars. Details, as above, except that a crook topped mast rest stands in the mast shoe, and a barred window is seen in the sides of the cabin. Aft of the break of the fore deck to forward of the cabin, the hull is partially hollowed out, on either side of the longitudinal stringer and a central run of the deck, which is the width of the mast shoe, creating a second deck area, below the deck beams. These beams, five in number, are modelled separately; the crew stand in this hollowed out area, rowing. The mast is lost. HL/WL 2×72/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

Westendorf. Das Alte Aegypten. Timber model of a papyriform boat, being paddled. p. 73. Tomb of Mekti - Re. BATH and SATH 30°. The main deck area is hollowed out; the resulting low bulwarks are flush with the run of the hull. In the stern is a four posted cavetto cornice naos. The poles have papyrus bud tips. A single helmsman operated a (now lost) hand held rudder. A thick, crook topped mast rest stands on deck and supports a pole mast. HL/MH, 1×45/1, HL/WL, 3×54/1, MS/HL, ×39/1. 12.9 Deir el Gebrawi

(c). BATH 28° SATH 34°, under sail, but the mast is lost. Fittings, as per (a), although the cabin has no foyer or doors, and also has a solid rear bulkhead. HL/WL, 2×97/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

[DG 01] Date: Dyn. VI

(d). BATH 24° SATH 28°, under oars. Other details, as per (b), however the hollowed out areas run from the full distance between the fore and stern decks. Eight deck beams are modelled separately. A crook topped mast rest stands in the mast shoe. The cabin, which is the same as above, has been positioned amidships, facing aft.109 HL/ MH, 1×5/1. HL/WL, 3×22/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

Davies. N. de G. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Wall scene. Five sailing vessels and two towed papyriform craft. pl. VII. West bulkhead, left half, facing right . Four of the vessels have pole masts; the fifth has a tripod.113 Tomb of Zau. (a). Sailing ship with tapering bow and a stern platform, in which stands a rectangular frame. Forward of this is a rudder post and a globular (round?) topped mast rest. The mast rest tapers almost to a point. A pole mast, secured to a knee, carries a curved yard and boom; the boom is longer

(e). BATH 32° SATH 35°, under sail. The mast is lost, cabin as per (c); a. Details, as per Group 2 (a). HL/WL, 3×2/1, MS/HL, ×38/1. (f). BATH 28° SATH 38°, being rowed. Cabin, as above, hull as per (b), except that only three beams are modelled. HL/WL, 2×52/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

A trawl net is stretched between them, but, as displayed, the paddlers are facing the wrong way, ie; advancing stern first. This, however, would present no great difficulty, as this form of flotation, being merely a raft, is not adversely affected by directional change. There are no central platforms fitted, and the bindings are clear. Damaged stone model [H 02], dated to Dyn. II, is the only other example of such a vessel I am aware of. 111 Labelled as a sporting boat by Winlock, Models of Daily Life. p. 64. 112 This would have caused the vessel to constantly turn sharply to starboard. 113 Due to the contorted shapes of a number of the hulls, BATH and SATH are not offered for these examples. 110

The angles of the rudders of models O, Q and S prevent them reaching an even approximate water line. The cause of this aberration lies in the height of the rudder posts, which are too short for the task. 109 One end of the mast, yard and boom have been laid into the rest by the restorers, with their other ends poised on top of the rudder post. 108

140

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[DG 02]

than the hull. The single rudder, with a long tiller, passes to the side of the frame and through stern platform.114 Forestay, 65°, backstays, 30°. HL/MH, 1×26/1, HL/WL, 2×13/1, MS/ HL, ×38/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Wall scene. Bow and stern of a papyrus craft, fitted with a central platform. pls. III and IV. South Bulkhead, West side, facing left.119 Badly damaged, with the midships section lost. Tomb of Zau. BATH 17° SATH 23°.120

(b) and (c). Papyriform vessels, with fore and aft fluting of the finials. Twin rudders are shown, but only a single rudder post and tiller. At deck level forward of the rudder post is a patterned rectangular strip.115 Midships of these stands a naos, with an arched roof, supported by four poles, braced by knees.

[DG 03]

(d). Sailing ship, as per [DG 01] (a), although the mast rest and rudder post are closer together. The yard and boom are on same side of mast. A half round loop or bracket protrudes from the side of the rudder post.116 A pair of slings taken to the mid point of the mast supports the boom. The rudder appears to pass through the frame at the stern.117 Forestay, 73°, backstays, 45°. HL/MH, 1×67/1, HL/WL, 1×74/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Wall scene. Eight papyrus craft. pl. V.121 Moderate damage. Tomb of Zau.

(e). Sailing ship with pointed bow and stern, but no stern platform, although it still carries a frame. Aft of the rudder post can be discerned a short mast rest, with a pointed base. The yard has been lowered and the boom raised to the centre of the mast. The curvature of the yard is very pronounced, with the yard and boom on same side of the mast; the boom is straight. The lashings that secure the mast to the knee are seen.118 Forestay, 73°, backstays, 43°. HL/ MH, 1×05/1, HL/WL, 2×31/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

(a).

BATH 18° SATH 25°

(b).

BATH 22°. Stern lost.

(c).

BATH and SATH 25°

(d).

BATH 18° SATH 19°

(e).

BATH and SATH - 23°

(f).

BATH 16° SATH 23°

(g). BATH 20° SATH 28°. A crew of seven men are fishing, with a net. Broad bands of lashings are seen along the hull, especially in the midships area of the hull.

(f). Details as per [DG 01] (a), but the hull has a bulbous bow and stern. A short mast rest with a pointed base stands slightly aft of the rudder post. A rectangular deckhouse stands between the rudder post and mast. Forestay, 77°, backstays, 35°. HL/MH, ×95/1, HL/WL, 1×4/1, MS/HL, ×31/1.

(h). BATH 17° SATH 25°. Bands of lashings; as per (g).122 [DG 04]

(g). Sailing ship with a truncated bow and stern; extended aft by a short projection. A deckhouse with a rounded top stands in the stern, with a long canopy reaching to the bow. There is a single rudder post and tiller, but twin rudders. Yard and boom; as per [DG 01] (d). The mast is a tripod, secured by lashings to three knees. There is no a mast cap or structured masthead. Forestay, 70°, backstays, 48°. HL/ MH, 1×09/1, HL/WL, 1×61/1, MS/HL, ×34/1 (measured from the central mast foot).

Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Two papyrus craft. pl. XVII. Facing right.123 Moderate damage. Tomb of Asa. (a). BATH 22° SATH 28°. Broad bands of lashings are seen along the hull and there is water weed at either end. The tip of the bow is lost. Graining shows that the platform is of timber. Aft of this craft are two other papyrus craft. Due to poor recording, they are not considered here. 121 (a) – (f) are engaged in the ‘boatman’s’ game; one crew member is hanging under the bow (?) of his craft. Some moderate damage, especially to (h). 122 There is water weed at the bow and stern, but only single strands, unlike other scenes, where the weed is much more luxuriant. The stance of the occupant is interesting: although his right (?) foot is flat upon the surface of the craft, he stands upon the toes of his left foot: he is about to step forward to cast his spear. 123 The second craft may be of timber, and be of a hull form with a platform projecting from the stern, but there is water weed beneath the bow, and this example is therefore considered here as a papyrus craft under sail. 119

A very thick towrope passes from the stern of [DG 01] (a) to 1 (b). The towrope is not secured to the tip of the bow but contacts (b) on the port side. Another rope passes from (b) to (c), from the port quarter of (b) to the port side of the bow of (c). 115 This may represent a strengthening beam across the stern quarter. Each of these examples has a male figure standing on a pedestal in the bow. The weight of the forward end of the pedestal is taken by the finials, indicating that they were of robust construction. 116 The boom is shown passing through a bracket on the rudder post. This must be considered as erroneous. 117 Midships, a crew member is rolling up a towrope, which is loose over the bow. 118 A crew member is poling the craft, pushing with his foot against the mast. 114

120

141

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(b). Stern damaged, details of bow unclear. BATH 27°. Two thin uprights with forked tops support a straight yard with a yoke and upturned tips. A mast is also seen; for most of its length it appears to be a pole, but the right hand end is split and I must conclude that this is a bipod.

a barrier, consisting of two pairs of vertical uprights, linked by horizontal beams. The uprights protrude above the top horizontal beam. There are no rudders present. Forestay, 55°, backstay, 46°. HL/MH, 1×64/1, MS/HL, ×61/1. (b). Papyrus vessel.129 BATH 18° SATH 25°. A naos stands amidships, with four supporting poles and a highly arched roof. The tips of the poles protrude through the roof. A crew member is poling the craft.130

[DG 05] Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Two vessels with bipod masts, under sail. pl. XIX. North wall. Facing right. Moderate damage. Tomb of Asa.

[DG 07]

(a). Ship with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform. BATH 20° SATH 25°. The mast has no cross beams, and is secured against a barrier, the standing sections of which slope at the corresponding angle as the mast legs and are kept apart by two narrow and one broad horizontal braces. The sail appears to be triangular, spread from a straight yard with moderately upturned tips and a yoke.124 Forestay, 70°,125 main backstay, 60°. HL/MH, 1×0/1, HL/ WL, 3×21/1, MS/HL, ×38/1.

Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part I. Wall scene, badly damaged. pl. X. West wall. Facing right. Two ships with stern platforms are present, each towing a papyriform vessel. Tomb of Aba.

Date: Dyn. VI

(a). Papyriform vessel, with fluted bow and stern. BATH 30° (approx) SATH 38°. A central platform is fitted, upon which stands a cavetto cornice naos, covering a large storage box or coffin. The naos has four papyrus bud topped posts, with the ends of the rear posts protruding through the roof. A hand held rudder, operated with a tiller, is in use. The helmsman sits upon a platform, to counteract the curve of the deck.

(b). Papyrus vessel. BATH 20° SATH 25°. Water weed is present at the bow and stern.126 A central platform is fitted, on which stands a flat roofed structure. Forward of this is a barrier, as above, and two inverted U shaped posts.127 The details of the mast and these posts are unclear due to damage, although 16 cross beams are present. Sail and yard, as per (a); there is no yoke. Two rudders are in use; enough survives of the rudder furthest aft to show that these were hand held. Forestay, 70°, backstay, 45°. HL/MH, 1×38/1, HL/WL, 5×53/1, MS/HL, ×28/1.

(b). SATH 35°. Only the stern remains. This is extended by an overhanging platform, to the end of which a canopy extends. A single rudder with tiller is fitted, passed over the starboard quarter.131 (c). Papyriform craft, as per 5 (a). The tip of the bow is lost.132 BATH 30° SATH 35.

[DG 06]

(d). Hull lost forward of mast. SATH 40°. The stern is extended by a platform, mostly lost. Instead of an awning, an open frame of vertical and horizontal elements occupies the stern. Rudder and helmsman, as per 5 (b). The base of a pole mast is secured by lashings to single knee. The yard is lost, but the remnant of the boom curves upward.

Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Wall scene. Papyrus raft, ahead of a sailing vessel. pl. XX. East wall. Facing right.128 Some severe damage. Tomb of Asa.

[DG 08]

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, the stern extended by a short platform. BATH 24° SATH 25°. A bipod mast, without cross beams, carries a sail with a straight yard and a boom with upcurved tips. The mast is positioned against

Date: Dyn. VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part I. Wall scenes, showing eight papyrus vessels. pls. III - VI. South wall.133 Tomb of Aba.

This feature of some examples of yards consisted of a short length of timber, tapering towards the ends, but with a raised, half round protrusion in its centre. This formed a point of attachment for the halyard. In a few instances, smaller versions of this appeared close to the tips of the yard. 125 It is possible that there are two forestays present, running parallel, but the details at the deck are lost, and the matter is unclear. 126 The decision that this is of papyrus is reached despite the lack of bindings along the midships area of the hull, due to presence of the weed. 127 The construction and securing of masts is considered in Section 6. For a possible comparison of this mast, see also [DB 10], (a) and (b). Compare Davies’s publication to Boreaux, fig. 87. 128 Two other papyrus vessels and the bow of a third are seen in the register below. These are not considered here, due to the quality of the drawing and the amount of damage the scene has suffered. There is water weed beneath one end of the third of these craft. 124

Water weed is present under the bow and stern The lower end of his pole has been lost - the surviving section, as it touches the tip of (a), appears at first glance to be a rope. Davies has indicated the continuance of the pole below the bow of (a). 131 As the helmsman is outside the awning it must be concluded that it did not cover the full width of the deck. 132 In place of the shrine, this craft carries a sledge, upon which stands a cavetto cornice shrine, with four papyrus tipped poles aside. 133 The plates are considered from right to left and the vessels from top to bottom. 129

130

142

Appendix 1 – The Examples

12.10 Deshasha

(a). Papyrus vessel with central platform, facing right. BATH 22° SATH 20°. Bindings are present only at the bow and stern, but the presence of water weed in these areas confirms the nature of this example. The depiction of the hull is very simplistic, with the profile almost the same width from bow to stern, and very elongated. (b).

[DE 01] Date: O.K. (Djedkare?). Kanawati and McFarlane. Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. pl. 32. Chapel, west bulkhead. Facing left. Wall scene. Ship under sail. Tomb of Inti. BATH 20° SATH 25°. The tips of bow and stern are lost; the masthead and lower legs of the mast are damaged. A bipod mast carries a tall sail, spread by a balance beam yard. The boom lies on deck; there are no tensioning ropes. Cross braces appear only in the upper reaches of the mast. Aft of midships is a rectangular cabin, with a “U” shaped bracket on its roof aft. Twin hand held rudders with preventer ropes are in use. Forestay, 60°, main backstay, 55°, secondaries, 60° - 65°. HL/MH, 1×34/1 (approx), HL/WL, 2×41/1, MS/ HL, ×31/1.

No lashings show. Bow lost, SATH 25°.

(c). Bands of lashings are evenly distributed along the sides. BATH 20° SATH 18°. (d). BATH 20° SATH 18°. Bands of lashings are evenly distributed along the sides. The bow is arched.134 (e). Papyrus craft, but with the bow (?) square cut. SATH 28°. Bindings are evenly spaced along the craft, appearing even at the extreme forward edge. (f).

BATH 25° SATH 30°.

(g).

BATH 25° SATH 30°.

[DE 02] Date: O.K. (Djedkare?).

(h). Papyrus craft, with the bow (?) square cut. SATH not offered, due to shape. Bindings; as per [DG 08] (e). (i).

As above.

(j).

BATH 19°. Stern lost.

Kanawati and McFarlane. Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. Wall scene. Papyrus craft being built and a timber vessel used for fishing. pl. 33. Chapel. North bulkhead. Facing right. Considered from right to left. Moderate damage. (a). Papyrus vessel. BATH 25° SATH 30°. This craft has lost most of its details.135

(k). Papyrus vessel with central platform, facing left. BATH 23° SATH 28°. Other details, as per [DG 08] (a). Again, the depiction of the hull is very simplistic, with the profile almost the same width from bow to stern, and very elongated. (l).

(b). As above, BATH 30° SATH 40°. Pairs of lashings are seen along the length of the craft. There are no supporting props. Papyrus gatherers carry fresh materials to the construction site.136

BATH 30° SATH 40°

(c). Vessel with pointed stern and tapered, blunt bow, facing right, being rowed. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The rowers are standing; the helmsman, by contrast, sits, operating a hand held rudder, which has a preventer rope. HL/WL, 3×25/1.

(m). BATH 30° SATH 32° (n).

BATH 30° SATH 35°

(o).

BATH 30° SATH 35°.

[DE 03]

(p). Papyrus craft, with the bow (?) square cut. SATH not offered, due to shape. No bindings are seen.

Date: (Djedkare?).

[DG 09]

Kanawati and McFarlane. Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others. Wall scenes. Tomb of Shedu. pls. 44 and 48, and, (for (c), pl. 46. Papyrus vessels, being used for fishing (a) or fowling (b); also a timber vessel, moving under paddles (c). Badly damaged.

Date: Dyn: VI Davies. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrawi. part II. Wall Scene. Tomb of Henqu. Papyrus vessel. pl. XXIII. Hull angles not offered, due to poor preservation. Poorly preserved. A central platform is fitted; there is no indication of graining. Broad bands of lashings are seen along the hull.

(a). BATH 22° SATH 20°. Portico, West wall, south of the A boat builder stands with on foot on (a) and the other on (b), tying a rope. 136 The bases of the stems are ragged, indicating that they were cut or snapped off, not pulled. 135

Since a papyrus raft could be easily propelled in either direction without any due regard to its shape, it is possible that the craft is being poled backwards. 134

143

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

entrance, facing right. Register details lost, but water weed is seen at the stern. The majority of the bow is lost. The occupant stands on a central platform, devoid of markings. Evenly spaced sets of bindings run the length of the hull, except at the stern.

secured by loose preventer ropes. There is only one rudder post, and one tiller. A structure stands forward of the rudder post. Its form is the same as the open sided naos commonly associated with funerary vessels.139 The hull is painted white. HL/WL, 4 ×2/1.

(b). SATH 25°. Chapel, South wall, facing right. Water weed, as above. Most of the hull is lost. Central platform, as above. (c). Vessel with tapering stern and rounded (?) bow; being rowed. Chapel. East wall, north of entrance. Facing left. BATH 15° SATH 30°. In the stern stands a short post, with a U shaped top, possibly a mast rest, against which passes a single rudder. The loom of the rudder passes over the port quarter. Aft of the post stands a tall, thin post.137 HL/ WL, 1×89/1.

(b). BATH 18° SATH 35°. A pole mast is fitted, secured to a single knee. A square sail, with a straight foot, is spread by a thin, slightly upwards curved yard. The boom is not depicted but the sail billows forward, with the foot well away from the mast; only the port tip of the foot is in contact with the mast.140 Two rudders pass over the port quarter, their securing ropes are taut and a helmsman is present. Rudder post, as above. Between the helmsman and the mast is a deckhouse of the same shape as [DE 05] (a). Backstays, 50°. HL/MH, 1×9/1, HL/WL, 5×4/1, MS/HL, ×5/1.

[DE 04]

12.11 El Bersheh

Date: OK

[EB 01]

Petrie. Deshasheh. Fragment of wall scene. Tomb of Shedu. pl. XXV. Facing right. Two vessels, one of papyrus, the other papyriform. Moderate damage, with the ends of the bows of both vessels lost.

Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing craft, with tapered, sharply curved bow and stern, on a plinth. Item 4947. p. 94. pl. XXI. DP. Main deck area slightly hollowed out. BATH and SATH 20°. A projection from the stern gives a semi circular recess for the loom of the rudder. A bow roller is fitted.

(a). BATH 25° SATH 30°. Equally spaced pairs of lashings are seen along the sides of the craft.138 (b). BATH and SATH 28°. Although this example is a timber hull, here a central platform has been fitted. A horizontal platform in the stern gives the helmsman a place to sit, and another figure in the posture of a mourner sits on a similar platform in the bows. Amidships is a naos, slightly damaged, and fore and aft are placed what I consider from their appearance to be storage boxes. A hand held rudder is fitted.

[EB 02] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a funerary vessel, on a plinth. Item 4948. pp. 100 -101. pl. XXII. DP. BATH 15° SATH 20°. The hull is slightly hollowed out, leaving a flat deck. The bow finial rises vertically; that of the stern bends forward, then up; both have stylised bindings. Twin rudder posts are fitted; a bar across the deck gives the rudders additional support. Forward of midships stands a naos with an almost flat roof, supported by four poles with papyrus bud tips. A pole mast is associated, with the remains of a sail.141 HL/MH, 2×1/1.

[DE 05] Date: O.K Petrie. Deshasheh. Painted timber slab. Two papyriform vessels, one being rowed, the other under sail. Tomb of Mera. pl. XXVII. There is no continuous register line; instead each vessel has a short base line, below the centre of the hull. Consequently, the blades of the rudders hang in mid air.

[EB 03] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing ship, with truncated bow and rounding stern. Item 4951. pp. 103-

(a). BATH 25° SATH 30°, facing left; the crew are paddling. Two rudders pass over the starboard quarter,

In this instance, however, it is depicted as enclosed, the lower quarter painted with horizontal stripes of red and brown, and the rest of the cover white. 140 This may serve to indicate that the boom could be left loose, ie, not lashed to the mast. 141 Reisner describes these remnants, but does not reproduce them in the text, nor does he show the yard and boom. One section of the sail - an edge - is described as bound with over stitch, while another section, consisting of a corner, has both edges bound. 139

This serves as the point to which the rope secured to the calf astern is fastened. The rope is taken to a point high on the post. That the post was not a fixture can be seen by the crew member who holds the post upright. Another crewman stands in the bow with another such pole and rope. 138 The crew is kneeling, holding upright tapering poles, narrowest at the bottom. These may perhaps be punting poles, although their shape is unusual. I conjecture that holding the poles upright may possibly be indicative of a means of showing respect for the deceased. I have seen no other instance of this action. 137

144

Appendix 1 – The Examples

104. pl. XXIII. DP. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A mast is fitted, but the deck does not show a mast slot. A single rudder post is fitted, and a projection from the stern served to prevent lateral movement of the rudder. A canopy stands forward of the mast.142 HL/MH, 1×99/1, HL/WL, 3×89/1, MS/HL, ×53/1.

rudder post is fitted. The helmsman operates the rudder with a tiller, which has a horizontal extension at its lower end. The towrope passes from the starboard bow quarter to (b). HL/WL, 2×46/1. (b). Hull, cabin and awning frame, as above, although the forward awning support stands against the front of the cabin. BATH and SATH 20°. Forward of the cabin is a short crook topped mast support. The mast lies across the upright and forward edge of the cabin and is positioned on the deck forward against a vertical plate. A spiral along the length of the mast serves to indicate the rigging. The rudder loom is secured to the side of the rudder post by a horizontal lashing; a loop around the loom from the top of the stern prevents the rudder from rising clear of the water. The rowers sit on round edged benches or seats. HL/MH, 1×6/1, HL/WL, 2×33/1, MS/HL, ×45/1.

[EB 04] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and incurved stern. Item 4952. pp. 105 -106. pl. XXIII. BATH 30° SATH 40°. DP.143 A bow roller is fitted, but the mast and steering gear are lost. Between where they stood is a canopy. HL/WL, 4×63/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

(c). Hull, cabin, mast and awning as per [EB 06] (a), although the stern curves inwards. BATH 20° SATH 28°. The rowers have been lost, as has the means of securing the foot of the mast. An additional upright supports the awning beam, positioned in the centre of top of the cabin. Rudder and tiller as per (a), but devoid of securing ropes. HL/MH, 1×23/1, HL/WL, 2×6/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

[EB 05] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model, as above. Item 4955. p. 108. pl. XXIV. BATH 20° SATH 35° (approx). DP, as above. The deck is not hollowed out, and all fittings have been lost. HL/WL, 3.5/1, (approx), MS/HL, × 47/1.

(d). Hull, cabin, mast and fittings as per [EB 06] (b). BATH 24° SATH 30°. The oars are raised along the hull.147 HL/MH, 1×4/1, HL/WL, 1×6/1, MS/HL, ×5/1.

[EB 06]

(e). Hull, mast and fittings as per [EB 06] (b). BATH 20° SATH 24°. Details of the cabin are lost; there are no oars. The foot of the mast rests in a forked upright on the deck of the next vessel. The tip of the rudder post is roughly conical, and a hook protrudes from its side. Forward, a narrow gangplank extends over the side. HL/WL, 2×45/1, MS/HL, ×27/1.

Date: Dyn XII Newberry. El Bersheh. part 1. The Tomb Of Tehuti-Hetep. (Tomb No. 2). pl. XVIII.144 Wall scene. Seven vessels are present, either being rowed, towed or lying at rest, devoid of crew members. Moderate damage.

(f). Tapering bow, BATH 28°. The oars, as above. The top of the rudder post extends above the awning beam of [EB 06] (e), the rudder, however, passes over the beam and behind the port quarter. The foot of the mast is upon the deck of [EB 06] (g), although the shape of the upright cannot be ascertained. There is a gangplank over the side.

(a). Vessel with tapering bow and upwards, pointed stern, under tow. 145 BATH 20° SATH 15°. Aft of midships stands a cabin, consisting of three equally sized sections. Forward and aft of the cabin are slender crook topped uprights, supporting a thin, horizontal beam. The aft end of this beam turns 90° downwards, and rests against the rudder post.146 A single rudder passes over the tip of the stern; a single

(g). BATH 26°. The remains of three uprights can be seen supporting the awning beam. The oars are against the side, and a gangplank can be seen. No mast is associated with this vessel.

Partially lost, due to damage, the canopy consisted of two uprights, supporting a ridgepole, with upright walls and an angled roof. One wall and one half of the roof survive. 143 Black lines, at 45°, mark the junctions of the central stringer and the deck beams. A half circle, with a central arm, all arms pointing forward, is painted onto the stern deck. 144 Facing right. All these examples have pole masts, which have been lowered and stowed. 145 On the forward deck stands an elaborate sedan chair, covered by the remains of a baldachin. The poles mainly survive, but the roof is lost. Newberry, p. 27 allows that this could be a throne, but is most likely to be a sedan chair. To counter the angle of the deck, this stands on a separate platform. For probable confirmation, see the sedan chair in Newberry, pls. XIII and XXIX. 146 It is considered by the researcher that the purpose of this beam was to support a simple awning over the cabin. This in agreement with Landstrom, who, however, has proposed that there would have been three such beams to support the awning. 142

[EB 07] Date: M.K* Schneider and Raven. Die Egyptische Oudheid. Cat. No. 54. Timber model, with tapering bow and incurved stern, There is confusion in the depiction of the next three examples, as feet of their masts are carried over and positioned aboard the vessels alongside. Only the bows of (e) and (f) can be seen. 147

145

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

topped with a block. Tomb of Djehutyhotep. p. 70.148 BATH 25° SATH 30°. Moderately good condition, with some cracks in the stern. The main deck is slightly hollowed out; the resulting bulwarks merge into the decks at bow and stern. A pole mast, painted with horizontal bands around the upper third of its length is fitted.149 A cabin, with a vertical sides and rounded roof, occupies the space between the rudder post and the mast. There is no rudder. HL/HM, 1×43/1, HL/WL, 3×73/1, MS/HL, ×45/1.

a flat roofed canopy that stands over a bier. A pole mast leans against the canopies forward edge. HL/WL, 3×02/1 (approx). [EB 11] Date: Dyn XI/XII Spanel. SAK 12. pl. 20. Five timber model boats, one of which is under sail. Shape and site, as per [EB 08].153

[EB 08] Date: Dyn. XI/XII Breasted. Egyptian Servant Statues. pls 76a, 77a, 96a. BFA, 21.494. 3 timber model boats, as above. Tomb of Djehutinakhte.150

(a).

BATH 40°, SATH 32°. HL/WL, 2×83/1.

(b).

BATH 20° SATH 35°. HL/WL, 3/1.

(c). BATH 22° SATH 40°. HL/MH, 1×33/1, HL/WL, 2×76/1, MS/HL, ×46/1.

(a). Angles not given. Fitted as a kitchen boat. A heavy, tunnel shaped, cabin occupies two thirds of the deck. (b). BATH 35° SATH 36° (approx). Cabin; as above, but extended forward by an awning with three uprights per side, sits forward of the rudder post and rudder.

(d).

BATH 25° SATH 35°. HL/WL, 3×09/1.

(e).

BATH 21° SATH 43°. HL/WL, 2×38/1.

[EB 12] Date: ND

(c). BATH 25° SATH 35°. Main deck area hollowed out. A single rudder post is fitted, but no other rigging. Shields and a spear case are carried aboard. HL/WL, 2×43/1.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Green faience model of a masthead. Item 4956. p. 108. pl. XXVII. Tapering, with a rounded tip, and three pairs of protruding eyelets.154

[EB 09]

[EB 13]

Date: Dyn XII*

Date: ND

Timber model of a sailing vessel. Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XVI. Hull form, as above. Tomb of Djehutinakhte. BATH 16° SATH 35°.151 DP. A single rudder post is fitted, against which is lashed a pole mast and yard. The foot of the mast rests on deck, forward. HL/MH, 1×68/1, HL/WL, 2×66/1.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4973. pl. XXX. Timber model of a rudder rest, with a Horus head at either end. 12.12 Elephantine [EL 01]

[EB 10]

Date: Dyn IV

Date: Dyn XII.

Kaiser. W., Dreyer, G., Krekler, A., et al, MDAIK 44. Forward section of a ceramic model boat, flat bottomed, with curving sides. pls. 13 and 44.155 BATH 30°. In the starboard side is a rectangular recess, with two holes below it. On the floor of the hull is a V shaped mast step, with two holes on the longitudinal axis of the hull.

Breasted. Egyptian Servant Statues. Timber model of a papyriform vessel, being rowed. pl. 64 (a).152 Site, as per [EB 08]. Good condition. BATH 25° SATH 20°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out, resulting in flush bulwarks. Two rudder posts are fitted; forward of these is For an interesting debate on the dating of this tomb, and of the Type II hull forms, see Donald B. Spanel, in ‘Ancient Egyptian Boats of the Herakleopolitan Era’ in SAK 12, 1985, pp. 243 – 253. 149 From the appearance of the timber of this mast when I viewed it in 1998, I conclude that it is a modern replacement. 150 Breasted uses the spelling of Dehuti - Nekht. Unfortunately, no complete catalogue of the finds from this tomb has been compiled. Breasted states that this example was probably meant to be towed, but a mast step, consisting of two knees, is to be seen on deck. 151 The drawing published by Gottlicher and Werner gives angles of 20 and 30° 152 Displayed in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. 148

A sixth vessel appears in this plate, but is indistinct. It is the same craft as [EB 08] (a), although a figure squatting in the bows in [EB 08] (a) faces astern in this group. 154 Reisner also cites another such example - 4950 - from El - Bersheh, complete with the rest of the mast but does not provide a drawing or plate. Compare, however, [EB 12] with two examples from the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Inventory No. 1939. 155 The stern is lost, as are the tip of the bow and a section of the port side. 153

146

Appendix 1 – The Examples

12.13 El – Hagarsa [ELHA 01]

Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders. Forestay, 50°, main backstay, 35°, secondaries, 45°. HL/MH, 2×18/1(approx), HL/WL, 2×78/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

Date: Late Dyn.VIII (Possibly).

[EH 03]

Kanawati. The Tombs of El-Hagarsa, vol. III. Wall scene. Timber craft, facing right, being rowed. pl. 23. Chapel, south wall, eastern end . Moderate damage. BATH 33° SATH 37°. A single rudder post supports a globular bladed rudder. The crew stands up to row.

Date: Mid Dyn. V El - Khouli and Kanawati. The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya. Wall scene. Four craft, moving under oars or paddles. pls. 42, 44 and 45. West wall of chapel. Another vessel, being paddled, facing right, is seen on the east bulkhead.

[ELHA 02]

(a). Papyriform vessel, the underside of bow lost. SATH 35°. The vessel is being paddled, with the paddlers divided into two uneven groups.158 To allow for the angle of the stern, the helmsmen stand on a horizontal platform, operating hand held rudders, without tillers.

Date: Late Dyn.VIII. (Possibly). Kanawati. The Tombs of El-Hagarsa, vol. III. Wall scene. Papyriform craft, facing left. pl. 30. Chapel, centre of the north wall.156 BATH 25° SATH 30°.

(b). Ship with hedgehog figurehead, being paddled; the paddles passed over a central bulwark. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The helmsmen are lost, although three rudders are present, their blades touching.159 A rectangular cabin stands aft of midships; a bipod mast (mostly lost) lies broadside on the roof. The upper half of the cabin is covered in matting; there are no awnings fore or aft. HL/WL, 2×13/1.

[ELHA 03] Date: Late Dyn.VIII. (Possibly). Kanawati. The Tombs of El-Hagarsa, vol. III. Wall scene. Timber craft, being rowed. pl. 40. Facing right. Tomb of Mery-aa. Slight damage. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The bow is sharply pointed; the tip of the stern is lost, but it can be seen that it had the same steering gear as aboard (1).

(c). Ship with tapering stern and squared bow. BATH 12° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark is present. Cabin and mast, as above. The mast is supported forward of the cabin by an upright. There is no crook depicted at its top.160 The feet of the mast legs are rounded. Three helmsmen are present, using hand held rudders. The closer to the stern, the longer the rudder looms aboard this example become. There are no details of yards or sail. HL/MH, 1×24/1, HL/WL, 3×78/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

12.14 El - Hammamiya [EH 01] Date: Mid Dyn. V El – Khouli and Kanawati. The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya. Wall scene. Papyriform (?) vessel. pl. 36. South entrance corridor, north wall. Facing right. Tomb of Kai-Khent. BATH 20° SATH 30° (approx, the scene is badly damaged). There are three sets of bindings present at the stern and one set at the bow, with none visible between, nor is there any weed at either bow or stern.157

(d). Papyriform vessel, being paddled.161 BATH 15° SATH 30°. Two paddlers sit forward of midships, one sits aft. A single helmsman operates a hand held rudder. HL/ WL, 3×04/1. 12.15 El - Hawawish

[EH 02]

[ELH 01]

Date: Mid Dyn. V

Date: Dyn. VI. (Possibly the end of the reign of Pepi II ?)

El – Khouli and Kanawati. The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya. Wall scene. Ship with square cut bow and tapered stern, under sail. pl. 37. Badly damaged, with most of the mast (a bipod) and sail lost. BATH 8° SATH 25°. A central bulwark is present. A rectangular cabin, devoid of decoration, stands aft of midships.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. 1. Wall scene. Papyrus craft. Tomb of Ka - Hep. fig. 8. Chapel, South bulkhead, east of entrance . This was possibly done to prevent the central figure (a female) and a shrine(?) that stands on a rectangular base upon the deck from being obscured. The tip of the stern protrudes into the base line of the register above. 159 The second and third rudders (which do not reach the water line) intrude into the left hand frame of the scene. 160 Possibly two uprights, with a cross piece, was used to support the legs of a bipod if needed. 161 El-Khouli and Kanawati, pl. 51. 158

The decision that this craft is papyriform is based upon the lack of any depictions of bindings along the hull. There is some plant growth both beneath and around the bow, but this is not the weed form usually seen. 157 These absences make it possible that this example was not of papyrus construction, but their absences may be attributable to the scene being damaged. 156

147

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Moderate damage. BATH 20° SATH 27°. The owner stands on a central platform, which is devoid of markings. Triple sets of lashings are seen along the hull. A rope runs the length of the upper edge of the craft.

Traces of two helmsmen are seen. One short, narrow rudder post survives, supporting a rudder turned with a tiller. No rudder blades depicted. The rudders are both on the same side of the vessel.

[ELH 02]

[ELH 03]

Date: Dyn. VI

Date: Dyn. VI

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. 1. Wall scene. Three vessels, being sailed or towed. fig. 9. pls. 2 and 6. South wall. West of entrance. Facing left. Slight to heavy damage.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. I. Wall scene. Six papyrus craft, either in use or being repaired. fig. 11, pl. 3. Chapel. West wall. (a). Two craft, with rounded bow and stern, which, when meeting the line of the deck, form points. Angles, not given. Pairs of bindings are evenly spaced the hull. There is no weed present at either bow or stern.166

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform, under sail. BATH 20° SATH 26°.162 The mast (a pole) stands in a single mast shoe, to which it is secured by two lashings. The boom is straight and higher than the top of the shoe. A single halyard for the missing yard survives; the sail is tall and narrow, consisting of horizontal panels of fabric. A single sling is seen on the starboard half of the boom; secured to the midpoint of the mast. The bulwark (which is flush and not raised) is topped with a banded strip, commencing from aft of the bow and ceasing adjacent to the rudder post and mast rest.163

(b). As above, with rounded, upward pointing bows and sterns. Workers are seen, apparently tying ropes that rise from the deck. Bindings, as per 3 (a), but only three sets of bindings are seen. (c). As above. The craft have been returned to the water. [ELH 04]

An open frame stands in the stern, with a rectangular structure, possibly covered with matting, forward. A tall narrow rudder post and a crook topped mast rest stand between them. The rudder passes through the stern frame and the platform; a preventer rope seems to be present, secured to the loom at water level. A tiller is fitted, but no rudder blade is shown. The oars also have preventer ropes. Secondary backstays, 40°. HL/MH, 1×33/1, HL/WL, 3×3/1. MS/HL, ×41/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. I. Wall scene. Papyrus craft. fig. 12. Chapel, North wall, west section. Moderate damage. BATH 30° SATH 35°. The stern is mainly lost. Pairs of lashings are seen equally spaced along the craft.167 [ELH 05]

(b). As above. BATH 20° SATH 34°. A cabin (?) stands aft of midships; it has a short extension forward, supported by a forked upright, similar to the mast rest of (a). Aft, the awning reaches the tip of the stern, where it is supported by a broad, matting (?) covered upright. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, without tillers; no rudder blades are depicted. The oars have no securing ropes. The mast is a bipod; the tensioning ropes hang loose from the lower cross brace, with the boom passing through them. A single sling for the boom survives. Forestay 76°,164 HL/MH, 1×23/1. HL/WL, 3×06/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

Date: Dyn. VI, (end of Pepi II’s reign ?). Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. II. figs. 17 and 18. Wall scene. Five papyrus craft. Tomb of Shepsi - Pu Min/Kheni. (H 24). Chapel, South wall, east of the entrance.168 Moderate damage. (a) - (d). Four craft, as per [ELH 03] (b and c), above. Angles not given. (e). Slight damage to the bow; the vessel faces right. BATH 25° SATH 33°. The lashings are evenly spaced and sized and water weed is seen at bow and stern. There is no central platform.

(c). Papyriform vessel.165 A large item of panelled timber stands beneath a naos. SATH 29°. Two stout papyrus bud tipped posts survive, supporting the aft end of the roof.

[ELH 06]

The construction details of the stern platform cannot be ascertained, as the artist painted the hull as a single block of colour. At the bow and stern are small upright patches of black. I believe these may be an attempt by the artist to stress the narrowing of the hull extremities. 163 This may possibly be a rope bound along the bulwark to protect the timbers. 164 The sharp angle of the forestay would preclude it from reaching the masthead. 165 The finials are very elaborate. This example is badly damaged from midships forward, although the finial of the bow survives. 162

A comparison of these two craft to the others in the scene shows that they are depicted three times. The variation in form of the first two appears to be due to two artists having worked on the same scene. 167 The remains of two other papyrus craft can be seen at the bottom of Fig. 12, but they are too fragmentary to be of value. 168 Painted by the same artist who decorated [ELH 01]. 166

148

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Date: Dyn. VI, (end of Pepi II’s reign ?).

Facing right. BATH 35° SATH 30°. The craft is being steered with a single hand held rudder.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. II. Wall scene. Three ships, sailing or being towed. fig. 19. South wall, west of the entrance. The vessels face left.

(d). BATH and SATH 23°. The stern (?) is damaged, but both ends seem to have been the same height. [ELH 08]

(a). Vessel under sail; the stern is extended by a platform. Badly damaged at bow and stern. BATH 25° SATH 30° (approx). A pole mast, secured by a mast shoe and lashings, carries a straight boom and a yard with upcurved tips. The boom is below the height of the mast shoe; one sling survives on the starboard side.169 Deckhouses, as per 2 (a), although the forward structure is rounded; the top is covered with a different material than the sides. The helmsman sits on this structure, holding the tiller, which is above his head.170 Between the deckhouses stands a thick post.171 Main backstay, 30°, secondary, 45°.

Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol III. Timber model of a boat. Tomb of Tjeti., pl. 9 (d). BATH 55° SATH 45°. Deck area is hollowed out to leave raised bulwarks. There are no details of fittings or crew, but two pegs midships and one in the stern indicates that some fittings had been present.174 [ELH 09]

(b). Vessel with rounded bow and stern. BATH 25° SATH 40°. Good condition, slight damage to the yard, masthead lost. A framed cabin of matting and horizontal timber (?) is present, extended forward of the cabin and aft to the stern by an awning. The ropes used for securing the bipod mast are shown in a ‘wishbone’ configuration. A towrope hangs over the starboard side, passing to the vessel astern. Two rowers are sitting forward, with their oars raised from the water.172 Two hand held rudders, without tillers, are in use; no blades are seen. HL/MH, 1×55/1 (approx), HL/WL, 1×82/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol III. fig 5 (a). East wall of chapel. Fragmentary scene. Stern of a papyrus craft. SATH 30°. Facing left. Pairs of lashings hold the craft together. [ELH 10] Date: Dyn. V. (Djedkare?). Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. IV. Wall scene. Two papyrus craft. figs. 12 and 13. Chapel of Hesi - Min. (M 22). West wall. Considered from right to left. Badly damaged.

(c). Papyriform vessel with canopy, under tow. BATH 25° SATH 26°. A cavetto cornice naos is present, supported by straight, undecorated poles. Twin rudders are depicted; the looms pass on either side of the stern. HL/WL, 3×49/1.

(a). BATH 22° SATH 20° (approx - most of the bow is lost). The bindings alternate from single to double. A thick timber central platform is fitted. Water weed is present at the stern.

[ELH 07] Date: Dyn. VI, (end of Pepi II’s reign ?). Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. II. Wall scene. chapel, north wall, west of entrance. Four papyrus (?) craft, their crews engaged in fishing or cattle fording. fig. 22.173 Moderate damage.

(b). Stub tailed craft. BATH 30° SATH 35°. Bindings, as above.

(a).

Date: Dyn. V. (Djedkare?).

[ELH 11]

Outline of a craft. Angles not offered.

(b). Craft with raised, rounded stern; the bow is damaged. Angles, as above. (c).

Kanawati. El- The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. IV. Wall scene. Shipbuilding, sailing and fishing activities are depicted. figs 17 and 18. East wall.175 Very heavily damaged.

Bow and stern of equal height, slightly flared ends.

(a). Papyrus vessel. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The crew are paddling, stern first, to the right. The lashings are irregular, with double, triple and quadruple bindings.

As compared to [ELH 02] (a), where the boom is higher. 170 For such a configuration – see also [M 01] (e) and (g). 171 This could be considered as a rudder post, but as the loom of the rudder can be seen to pass over the port quarter, and the post may be conjectured to have stood on the centre line of the hull, the post is not being utilised as a support for the rudder. 172 This small number of rowers may indicate that they were for assisting in the manoeuvring of the vessel near the shore. 173 None of these examples show any bindings or have water weed present. 169

The shape is reminiscent of a hull form (the Type II) not considered to have existed prior to the Middle Kingdom. Hull forms and dating are considered in Chapter 1. 175 The scenes in this work are viewed from fig 18, lower strip of illustration, to fig 17; the upper strip of fig 18 links the scenes. 174

149

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(b). Papyrus vessel, bow lost, the stern badly damaged and the stern angle uncertain. Despite the damage, the lashings can be seen to be irregular in number.

with a possible fourth indicated at the forward end of the naos. A helmsman operates a hand held rudder.179 (b). Ship with bipod mast, under sail. Bow lost, SATH 35°. The legs of the mast are parallel, without cross beams or tensioning ropes. The masthead is lost, lifts for the yard are seen. A rectangular cabin stood amidships, with an awning, at least aft, over the helmsmen. Three hand held rudders are present; the rudder furthest aft has a tiller. The rudder blades are not depicted below the water.180

(c). Papyrus vessel under construction. One end lost, probably the bow. SATH 30°. No details of the bindings have survived. (d). Papyrus vessel under construction. Tip of bow lost, stern area damaged. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Two men work in the centre, as per (a), while the bow and stern are also have a man working on them. Beneath each of these two builders broad props support the vessel.

[ELH 14] Date: Dyn. VI

(e). Ship under sail. Almost all the hull and cabin are lost. A bipod mast without cross beams stands forward of the cabin, which shows traces of a matting cover. The sail panels are horizontal. The tips of the yard are lost; the boom sits on deck, aft of the mast. Tensioning ropes, passed around the mast legs, secure the mast. A stick for increasing the tension is seen passed through the portside ropes; the stick does not pass through the centre of the rope. Between cabin and mast stands a single post, with a crook top, supporting the forward end of the cabin awning, which also extended aft. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, without tillers. A crew member sits on top of the awning aft, operating the braces of the yard. Main backstay, 40°, secondaries, 45° - 50°.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VII. fig. 25. Wall scene. Chapel, south wall. Facing right. Papyrus (?) craft, under tow, with naos and central platform.181 Tomb of Bawi. (BA 48). Hull mostly lost, but it can be seen that the poles were tipped with open papyrus flowers. The remains of two rudders are discernible, with a possible third to the left. [ELH 15] Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VII. Wall scene. Bow of a ship, under sail and the remains of a papyrus vessel. fig 30. South wall . Chapel of Gehesa.

[ELH 12] Date: Early Dyn. VI. (Pepi II ?).

(a). Sailing craft, facing right. Badly damaged. BATH 20°. The bow is truncated, with a raised bulwark. A bipod mast is present; its legs are almost parallel, and without horizontal bracing. Securing ropes pass around the legs, but are not tensioned. The remains of the sail reach the deck, but no boom is seen. Aft of the mast is a forked upright, supporting a horizontal beam, possibly the remains of an awning.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VI. Wall scene. Papyrus vessel, with central platform. fig 3. South wall. Facing right .176 Chapel of Hesi-Min. (F1). SATH 45° (approx). The bow is lost. The timber of the platform is heavily grained; very broad bands of lashings hold the craft together. [ELH 13]

(b). Papyrus craft; the hull tapers to finely shaped finials. BATH 30° SATH 35° (approx). The bindings are evenly

Date: Dyn. VI

179 Although the top of the rudder has been lost, the position of the helmsman’s left hand shows that the rudder was turned with the aid of a tiller. At the bow, a right hand and left arm can be seen, over the side, holding a rope, which reaches the water. This is considered here as a towrope. Since the rope hangs vertically, there can be no strain upon it; the conclusion must be drawn that (a) is not yet underway. 180 Immediately astern of (b) are the remnants of a small craft. Only the tips of the bow and stern survive, along with an oblique line to the left, which could have been either a rudder or a towrope. Bindings survive on the tip on the left. This is lower than that on the right. As the bow of an Egyptian vessel was usually lower than the stern, it is conceivable that this craft faced left, probably assisting with a towrope. An oblique line from the area of this hypothetical bow angles left, towards the water. Some faint lines are seen closer to (a), but these give no information, other than to suggest the presence of other small craft. Due to the artists not having depicted any oar blades below the water, this avenue of investigation is also closed. The spacing of these outlines, however, convinces me that three small craft were originally present. 181 There are no bindings present, and the only feature to indicate that this may be a papyrus craft lies in the central platform. This is, however, by no means conclusive. A team on the shore is towing the craft.

Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VII. Wall scene. Tomb of Hesi-Min/Sesi. (G42). fig. 3. South wall of chapel. Two craft are facing right, with indications of three smaller vessels between them. Considerable damage to both, with the smaller vessels being almost totally lost. (a). Papyrus craft.177 BATH 20° SATH 35°. A central platform of timber is fitted.178 A naos with a flat roof stands on the platform. Three papyrus bud tipped poles survive, Water weed and lotus flowers are present below the stern. Water weed at the stern and surviving lashings along the hull confirm that this is a papyrus craft. 178 The artist seems to have been at some pains to confirm, by the use of graining, the nature of the material. 176 177

150

Appendix 1 – The Examples

spaced in pairs and a rope runs the length of the upper edge of the hull.

Date: Mid. Dyn VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. IX. Wall scene. Papyriform vessel. fig 8. Chapel of Mereru. Very badly damaged. The hull almost entirely lost, but a naos with four poles per side stands on deck, covering a timber coffin or storage box. At least one helmsman was present, operating his rudder with the aid of a tiller.

[ELH 16] Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VIII. fig. 5. North wall. Facing right. Papyrus vessel. Chapel of Bawi. (G 97). Extremely damaged. BATH 40°. The remains of broad bands of lashings can be seen along the hull. The outline of a crewman can be seen in the stern, possibly poling the craft.182 A smaller vessel was present to the left of this example, but it is too badly damaged to provide any information of value.

[ELH 19] Date: Mid. Dyn VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. IX. Wall scene. Papyrus vessel. fig. 15. Chapel, north wall. Facing right . Chapel of Bawi (G 126). Moderate damage. BATH 30° SATH 40° (approx). Broad bands of lashings are seen equally spaced along the hull. An assistant in the stern is poling; he stands on a separate register line.

[ELH 17] Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati. The Rock Tombs of El- Hawawish; The Cemetery of Akhmim. vol. VIII. Wall scene. fig 12. West wall. Facing left. Three craft are present. Chapel of Tjeti-aa. Very badly damaged.

12.16 Giza [G 01]

(a). Stern of a vessel, with platform. SATH indeterminable. An awning frame consisting of horizontal and vertical elements stands in the stern. The top of the frame is almost horizontal, and higher than the tip of the stern. The loom of the rudder passes diagonally across the outside of the frame and stern.183

Date: Dyn. IV Timber hull of a funerary craft, with rectangular cabin. BATH 12° SATH 16°. Found dismantled in a pit along the south face of the Khufu pyramid.185 Extending over the cabin is a frame, possibly intended to support an awning, to assist in cooling the cabin. Twin steering oars are present, but there are no rudder posts or tillers. The rudder looms are lashed to a rudder rest, of a half - round profile, secured to the deck.186 It may be possible that an extra thick beam forward of the cabin was meant to support a mast, although none was found in the pit. The deck planking has been laid in sections of varied size.

(b). Remains of a vessel, the bow lost and the SATH unclear. The looms of twin rudders survive. A series of interlacing upright lines can be seen forward, and to their right is the outline of the foot of the sail.184 This is higher than the deck. (c). Remains of a papyriform (?) vessel. Bow totally lost, SATH 20° (approx). Two helmsmen had been depicted; no details of their rudders survive. A single band, indicative of bindings, survives beneath the remains of the second helmsman. Forward of the helmsmen are interlacing lines. Unlike [ELH 17] (b), these are lineal, and must be accepted as graining, indicative of the presence of timber, possibly a coffin or naos.

[G 02] Date: Dyn. IV Dunham and Simpson. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III G 7530-7540. Wall scene. figs 4 and 5. Main room, east wall, north of the entrance.

[ELH 18]

(a). Papyrus (?) vessel, facing right.187 BATH and SATH 25°. Slight damage, with the tip of the bow lost. A single

There is a thin central platform for the main occupant, who is spear fishing. There is no evidence of graining to indicate the platform was of timber. The position of the crewman in the stern suggests that he must have been drawn on his own register line. The front foot of the main occupant of the craft rests on the toes of the figure in the bow. 183 A crew member stands on top of the frame, apparently handling the braces of the yard, as the angle of the rudder loom places him too far astern to be the helmsman. 184 The lines, therefore, represent the mast tensioning ropes, and not the graining of a timber structure or item, indicating that the vessel carried a bipod mast.

185 This example has revealed evidence of hull construction utilising mortice and tenon joints to position the hull timbers, the tenons being loose- i.e.; not cut as a piece with one of the timbers to be joined, but as a separate item. The retention of hull integrity is achieved by the combination of mortice and tenon joints and rope lashings. [G 01] also shows that the deck is strengthened by a central stringer beneath the deck beams, supported by stanchions, which carry the load down to riders, positioned across the bottom timbers of the hull. 186 This rest appears to be a replacement timber. 187 Probably papyrus, although there are no bindings or water weed present to clarify the constructional material.

182

151

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

crewman in the stern propels the vessel. A slightly raised line beneath all persons aboard may represent a central platform.

(a). Papyrus craft, facing left. BATH 25° SATH 30° (approx). Most of the stern is lost. There are no bindings seen along the hull.

(b). Four papyrus (?) craft. Two face left, (BATH 35° SATH 50°), the first being poled, the second being poled and paddled. The crews of the third and fourth vessels, (BATH 20° SATH 55°, BATH 30° SATH 55°), are engaging in the “boatman’s game”.188

(b). Sailing vessel, with truncated bow and stern and raised central bulwark. BATH 20° SATH 25°, facing left. A bipod mast, without strengthening cross beams is fitted; aft of the mast are the remains of a square cabin. Two hand held rudders are in use. Forestay, 55°, backstay, 24°. HL/ MH, 1×55/1, HL/WL, 2×43/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

[G 03]

(c). As above, stern lost. BATH 25°. The base of a bipod mast survives. Oars are out along the bulwark, but these are not in use.

Date: Dyn. IV Dunham and Simpson. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III G 7530-7540. Wall scene. Four craft, of different shapes. East wall, south of the entrance. fig 5, pl. V. The vessels face left.

[G 05] Date: Dyn. V

(a). Vessel with a low bulwark and truncated stern, under oars. BATH and SATH 30°. Badly damaged, with most of the hull forward of midships lost. Two hand held rudders without tillers are in use. No canopy or awning is depicted.

Kanawati. ACE 18. pls. 54 and 15. Wall scene. Four vessels being paddled or rowed.192 Mastaba of Nesut - Nefer. (a). Vessel with truncated bow and stern, being rowed. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The line of the deck is continuous, but it seems that the main deck must have been lower than the line of the hull.193 Two hand held rudders are in use. Aft of midships is a rectangular cabin; on the roof aft is a “U” shaped protrusion. There are no awnings or rigging. HL/ WL, 2×21/1.

(b). Papyriform vessel with low bulwark, being paddled. BATH 20° SATH 40°. The paddlers are kneeling. A single hand held rudder is in use. No awning or canopy is depicted. HL/WL, 2×98/1. (c). Vessel with cabin and awning, under oars. There is no indication of mast or rigging. BATH 22° SATH 35°. Moderate damage to the midships area. The rectangular cabin is extended fore and aft by awnings. The awning upright aft is topped with a papyrus bud. Three hand held rudders, without tillers, are in use.189 A raised bulwark runs from the forward upright of the awning to the aft end of the cabin. HL/WL, 2×21/1.

(b). Papyriform boat, being paddled. BATH 18° SATH 23°. Steered by a hand held rudder. Rounded battens may be present over the replicated lashings at bow and stern. (c). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead, being paddled. BATH 23°.194 Cabin and deck, as per [G 05] (a), but with a “U” shaped protrusion at either end. No mast, awnings or rigging are present.

(d). Vessel with inwards facing animal figurehead, under oars. No mast or rigging. BATH 20° SATH 25°. Slight damage to the cabin aft of midships. Cabin, awning configuration and bulwark; as above. Two hand held rudders are in use.190 HL/WL, 2× 83/1.

(d). As above. BATH and SATH 25°. Steering, as per (b). HL/WL, 2×09/1. [G 06]

[G 04]

Date: Dyn. VI

Date: Dyn. V

Kanawati. Tombs at Giza. vol. I. Wall scene. Six vessels; one papyrus, two cargo vessels, being rowed, and three sailing craft. pls. 31 and 37.195 Mastaba of Kaiemankh. (G4561). The cargo craft face left, the others right, and are listed from right to left. Some severe damage.

Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. I. The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II. Chapel, north wall. Wall scene. Papyrus craft and sailing vessels .191 pl. 47. Mastaba of Khafkhufu II. (G 7150). Moderate to severe damage.

Also; Junker, Giza III, fig. 29. East wall, facing right. The rowers place one foot against the hull, but their other leg is hidden. 194 A raised bulwark runs from the bow, but the stern area is damaged and the run of the bulwark cannot be discerned. 195 This publication being the most recent, it has been used here. See, however, Junker IV, pl. VI., Vandier, fig. 303 and Vandier, fig. 316, also Junker. Giza IV. pl. IX. D. Jones. pl. 31. Although these craft are often depicted as being in good condition, the recent work by Kanawati has shown that this is now not correct.

This could also be said of the two craft ahead of them, as the occupant of the stern of the first faces astern and has his arms raised. Since, however, he holds nothing more threatening than lotus flowers, and the central figure aboard the second craft appears to be a female, holding a calf, it is probable that this was not so. 189 The rudder closest to the stern has a larger blade than the other two. 190 A figure forward of the cabin stands beside the awning, not under it. 191 Although at least four papyrus craft were originally present, only one has survived substantially intact. 188

192 193

152

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Junker. Giza V. Wall scene. Ship with hedgehog figurehead, with the crew making sail. fig. 14.199 BATH and SATH 25 °. A pole mast, with a forestay and four backstays is fitted.200 The head of the mast is lost; the yard bends downward, the boom is at deck level, aft of the mast. Rudder, as above. Forestay, 75°, backstays, 73°. HL/MH, 1×91/1 (approx), HL/WL, 2×09/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

(a). Papyrus craft. BATH 22° SATH 33°. A central platform is fitted. (b). Cargo vessel. BATH 20° SATH 40°. There are no railings or bulwarks depicted. Two crew men are rowing in the bow. A rectangular deckhouse, whose roof line follows that of the hull, occupies the central deck area, and is extended aft by a triangular annex. This appears to be made of horizontal poles, upon which stands a helmsman. At either end of the cabin is a tall Y shaped mast rest, to stow the bipod mast.196 The mast legs taper, and are joined together by a mast cap. The feet of the mast are rounded, and cross braces are present. HL/MH, 1×28/1, HL/WL, 1×79/1, MS/HL, ×38/1.

[G 09] Date: Dyn.V Junker. Giza VI. Wall scene. Mastaba of Nefer. Three vessels rigged with bipod masts; under sail. fig. 16. East bulkhead. Facing right.

(c). Cargo vessel. BATH 20° SATH 30 °. Hull, crew and cabin details, as above. The mast hangs from the uprights.197 HL/MH, 1×33/1, HL/WL, 1×9/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

(a). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark stops short of the bow and stern. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders; behind them a crew member handles the (now lost) braces to the yard. A rectangular cabin stands aft of midships, with the owner sitting in, or beside, it. Cross beams are present between the legs of the mast; there is no boom for the sail. HL/MH, 1×8/1, HL/WL, 2×3/1, MS/HL, ×28/1.

(d). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH 30°. A central raised bulwark is present, and a matting covered cabin stands aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning. A bipod mast carries a tall, narrow sail, spread by a balance beam yard and a straight boom, which lies on deck, aft of the mast, against the legs. Both yard and boom are bound. A pair of halyards descends vertically to the deck, between the mast legs. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, without tillers. Forestay, 63°, main backstay, 33°, secondaries, 45° - 48°. HL/MH, 1×5/1, HL/WL, 2×25/1, HL/MS, ×36/1.

(b). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead. BATH 25° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark is present. A similar cabin to (a) is fitted, but the owner stands on deck before it. The yard has been lost. HL/MH, 1× 43/1, HL/WL, 1× 92/1, MS/HL, × 32/1.

(e). Vessel with square cut bow and tapering stern.198 BATH 18° SATH 38°. HL/MH, ×63/1, HL/WL, 2×04/1, HL/MS, ×35/1.

(c). Vessel, hull details as per (a). Three hand held rudders are in use. Forestay, 55°. HL/MH, 1× 97/1, HL/WL, 2× 23/1, MS/HL, × 35/1.

(f). Papyriform vessel. Angles; as above, rigging; as per [S 06] (d). In place of the cabin, the owner sits under an awning, supported by papyrus bud tipped poles. HL/MH, 1×83/1, HL/WL, 2×63/1, HL/MS, ×33/1.

[G 10] Date: Dyn. VI Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. 2. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. Wall scene. Papyriform vessel, under tow. fig. 24.201 Mastaba of Qar. (G7101). BATH and SATH 30°. A cavetto cornice naos, extended at the forward edge by another roof of similar form, stands upon a central platform.202 Two hand held rudders, with tillers, are in use. The rudder looms are widest at their tops. HL/WL, 2×8/1.

[G 07] Date: Dyn.VI Junker. Giza V. Wall scene. Papyriform vessel, being paddled. fig 14.a. Mastaba of Seneb. Slight damage. BATH 28° SATH 30°. A hand held rudder with securing rope is in use. The looms of the paddles are widest at their top. HL/ WL, 2×62/1.

[G 11] Date: Dyn. VI

[G 08]

Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. 2. The Mastabas of Qar and

Date: Dyn. V

The loose end of the halyard is seen, curling behind the right foot of the man hoisting the yard. 200 This example is considered to be the earliest known instance of a pole mast from dynastic times. 201 Consider as such due to the absence of bindings or plants in the water. 202 This could be considered as an attempt to show an oblique view of the front of the shrine, as an attendant sits under it, but as the extension is lower than the main roof and the tip of the pole protrudes through its leading edge, I am of the opinion that it is an extension only. 199

This is shown, hanging downward, but the arms of the uprights do not pass through the mast legs. 197 The forks of the forward upright spring from below the top of the post, leaving a central peg. 198 This example is now almost lost, aft of the mast. The proportions illustrated by the earlier reports have been accepted here, as they have been for [S 06] (e). 196

153

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. 4. Mastabas of the Western Cemetary. part. 1. Wall scene. Papyrus vessel. Mastaba of Iasen. (G2196). fig. 30. North wall. Facing right. Slight damage. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A short, low, central platform is fitted. The craft is being poled.

Idu. Fragment of a vessel being rowed. fig. 19 (c).203 The remains of two forked uprights are seen, through which are passed a pole mast, and a straight boom and yard; the latter has upturned tips, and a yoke. [G 12]

[G 15]

Date: Dyn. VI

Date: Dyn. V

Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. 2. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. Wall scenes. Five papyrus vessels. figs. 35 and 37. North wall, facing left. Mastaba of Idu. (G. 7102).

Simpson 4. Giza Mastabas. vol. 4. Mastabas of the Western Cemetary. part. 1. Wall scene. Remains of a sailing craft. fig. 42. False door of Tjetu II (G 2341/5511). The hull is lost, but a pole mast, with a square sail carried on a straight yard, survives.

(a). Papyrus vessel, fitted with a cavetto cornice naos, with three poles aside; the aft post protrudes through the roof. BATH 20° SATH 35°. A single hand held rudder, with a tiller, is in use. 204

[G 16]

(b). Four papyrus vessels (one almost lost).205

Date: Dyn. V

(1). BATH 10° SATH 30°. The stern curves inwards. A continuous band from bow to stern may represent a rope edge. The lashings are irregular in number, but pairs predominate, with multiples at either end.

Simpson. Stele. Giza Mastabas. vol. 4. Mastabas of the Western Cemetery. part. 1. Two sailing vessels, one under oars. pl. LV, fig 42. See also pl. LIV, b and c. Chapel. Mastaba of Djaty. (G2337X).

(2). BATH 30° SATH 25°. The stern turns inwards, but less so than b. (1). The bow curves upwards. Rope (?) edge, as above; the lashings are paired, with multiple lashings at the stern.

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform, under oars, facing right. BATH 10° SATH 20°. A raised bulwark extends out from the stern to form the platform.206 Two uprights with forked tops support a dismounted pole mast and yard. A single hand held rudder is in use. HL/MH, 1×08/1, HL/WL, 2×37/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

(3). BATH 20° SATH 30°. As above, although the stern is less incurved. The bow has been damaged.

[G 13]

(b). Vessel under sail, facing left. BATH 15° SATH 25°. The ends of the bow and stern are lost. A raised bulwark is present and a pole mast is in use. There are no details of rigging.207

Date: Dyn. V

[G 17]

Simpson. Giza Mastabas. vol. 4. Mastabas of the Western Cemetary. part. 1. Wall scene. Three papyrus vessels. fig. 4. East wall. Facing right. Mastaba of Sekhemka. (G1029). Little damage.

Date: Dyn. V

(4).

Hull almost lost. SATH 40° (approx).

Lepsius. Denkmaler, II. 76e. Wall scene. Vessel with square cut bow and stern, carrying sarcophagi (?). Tomb of Senedjem -ib. BATH and SATH 20°. A blade shaped upright stands at the bow and stern, and a band of rope bindings runs the length of the hull along the line of the deck. Twin hand held rudders are in use.

(a). BATH 25° SATH 30°. Bindings are present along the hull. (b). (1). BATH 25° SATH 30°. Pairs of bindings are evenly spaced along the hull. (2).

[G 18] Date: Dyn. V

BATH 20° SATH 30°. Details, as above.

Kanawati. ACE 16. Wall scene. Chapel, east wall. Two vessels with bipod masts, under sail. pl. 44. Facing right.208 Tomb of Seshemnefer. (G4940).

[G 14] Date: Dyn. V

A vertical line adjacent to the last rower aft indicates that the aft third of the bulwark was jointed to the forward section. 207 The presence of a line of text to the right of the mast and the depiction of the mast as vertical militates against this being a bipod mast. 208 See also Junker, Giza III. 206

Original positioning unknown, but considered by Simpson to have possibly come from the stairway. Simpson. p. 3. 204 The surviving bindings are in the central area of the hull. 205 East wall, south end, facing right. 203

154

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(a). Vessel with square cut bow. BATH 17°. Masthead and yard lost, the boom is shown passing behind the legs. Two (?) ropes are attached to the port side leech of the sail, at mid point. These appear to be intended to control the leeward edge of the sail.209

(f).

BATH 20° SATH 30°. Lashings, as per (a).

(b). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead. BATH 18° SATH 27°. Three hand held rudders are in use and a rectangular cabin with U shaped uprights stands aft of midships. There are no awnings. The leech of the sail is controlled, as above, while a third may be secured from the leech to the bow.210

Petrie. “Ancient Egypt”, September/December, 1933. Wall scene. Hedgehog headed craft, under sail. p. 68, fig. 65. BATH and SATH 17°. A bipod mast carries a tall, narrow sail, which has three lines attached to the port edge. Two of these run forward to the deck aft of the figurehead, the third is held by a crew member aft of the mast. The yard is positioned centrally on the mast, but the boom appears to be slewed across towards the port side. HL/MH, 1×56/1, HL/WL, 3×34/1, MS/HL, ×3/1.

[G 21] Date: N.D.

[G 19] Date: Dyn. V

[G 22]

Weeks. Giza Mastabas. vol. 5. Mastabas of Cemetery 6000. part. 1. Entrance to first chamber. Wall scene. Remains of two vessels with square cut bows, under sail.211 fig. 25. Mastaba of Iymery. (G 6020).

Date: Dyn. IV – V Badawy. Wall scene.213 Mastaba of Iteti. Vessel with truncated bow and stern. fig. 17. Chapel, east wall. Facing right. BATH 22° SATH 20°. Two hand held rudders are in use. HL/WL, 1×68/1.

(a). BATH 17°, the stern is lost. The remains of a raised bulwark can be seen. A bipod mast carries a tall, narrow sail on a tapering yard. The halyards descend vertically to the deck between the mast legs. There appears to have been a double forestay. Forestay, 68°, backstay, 40°, secondaries, 50° - 55°.

[G 23] Date: Dyn. IV

(b). BATH 18°. There is only a single forestay. Forestay, 65°, backstay, 40°, secondaries, 40° - 55°.

Vandier. Manuel d’Archaeologie Egyptianne V, fig. 292. The vessels face right. Wall scene. Two vessels, one under sail, the other being paddled. Mastaba of Merib. Slight to moderate damage.

[G 20] Date: Dyn. V

(a). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead. BATH 15° SATH 20°. There is no raised bulwark. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, without tillers. A rectangular cabin stands aft of midships; U shaped uprights are seen at either end. A bipod mast, without crossbeams or securing ropes, carries a tall, tapering sail on a straight yard. There is no boom. Backstays, 40°, HL/MH, 2·38/1, HL/WL, 2·61/1, MS/HL, ·28/1.

Weeks. Giza Mastabas. vol. 5. Mastabas of Cemetery 6000. part. 1. North wall, eastern section. Two papyrus vessels; under construction, and four in use. fig. 40. The stern of one craft is lost. Mastaba of Iymery. (a). BATH 20° SATH 30°. The outer end of the bow is almost horizontal. Pairs of lashings are seen along the hull, although towards the bow and stern they are quadruple. Tall narrow props support both bow and stern.212

(b). Vessel with square cut bow; the underside of the stern is lost.214 BATH 10° SATH 25° (approx). Rudders, bulwark and cabin, as above.

(b). BATH 20° SATH 30°. Most of the stern is lost. The lashings are quadruple. Props, as above.

12.17 Helwan

(c). Short sterned craft, being paddled. BATH 23° SATH 30°.

[H 01]

(d).

BATH 20° SATH 30°. Lashings, as per (a).

Date: Dyn. I – II

(e).

BATH 18° SATH 30°. The lashings are unclear.

Saad. The excavations at Helwan. Forward half of a pottery model boat. p. 183. pl. 104. The model has a raised fore deck and an open main deck with a central longitudinal beam, across which run three deck beams. Rising from the

For a comparison of this configuration, see [L 13]. This cannot be the forestay, as the angle is too shallow and, if the alignment is extended, it does not reach the masthead. 211 The first is on the north wall, the second; the south. 212 For rope making, see also Vandier, pl. XXX, figs. 209 and 210, 1 and 210, 2. 209

210

213 214

155

Ink drawing only; the scene was never finished. Boreaux cites this example from Lepsius but assigns it to Sahure.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

third beam is a round socket for a pole mast. Extending forward over the bow is a bow roller.215

(a). The oars are passed through loops along the bulwark; and are fitted with preventer ropes.217

[H 02]

(b). BATH 22° SATH 30°. The craft has a raised central bulwark; the bow finial turns vertically, that aft bends forward. There are no rudders.

Date: Dyn. I – II Saad. The excavations at Helwan. Fragment of papyrus craft. pl. 103. Bow section? BATH not offered. The fragment shows evenly spaced pairs of vertical lashings.

[L 05]

12.18 Lisht

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment, as above. Stern section, with the remains of six oars and two rowers. fig. 51. Facing left. SATH 20°. Twin lobate protrusions at the top of the blades indicate where preventer ropes were secured.218

Date: ND

[L 01] Date: M.K. (?)

[L 06]

Arnold. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. Hull frame, of three pieces. pl. 115c. p. 106. Indicative of the use of heavy framing in working craft, at least in the Middle Kingdom.

Date. ND

Arnold. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. Hull timbers. Considered as remnants of working boats, the timbers had been utilised to strengthen construction roads.

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment of wall scene. Probably the bow of a vessel, with a baldachin on the deck. fig. 52. The end of a raised bulwark is seen; the remains of a flat-topped baldachin, with two surviving uprights are present, forward of the bulwark. The uprights are devoid of papyrus bud finials, and the baldachin, (if such it is), follows the angle of the deck. There is no platform to compensate for the slope.

[L 03]

[L 07]

Date: Dyn V.

Date: Dyn. IV

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment of sculpted scene. Ship being rowed. fig. 49. Recovered from the core of the Pyramid of Amenemhat I. Re-used block, possibly from funerary temple of Unas, Facing left. Five rowers stand, with the left foot resting on a low rail, supported by uprights. As the oars are passed through grommets along the bulwark, and are worked over the rail, the rail must be inboard of the bulwark. Backing the grommets are angled brackets, through which the loops pass.216 Securing ropes retain the oars.

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment of wall scene. Stern of a boat, being paddled. fig. 53. Possibly from the funerary temple of Khufu. SATH 18°. The paddlers are standing, their legs from mid thigh concealed by the bulwark. A helmsman operates a hand held rudder, which passes through a grommet at deck level - the blade is lost.219

[L 02] Date: M.K. (?)

[L 08] Date: ND

[L 04]

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht . Fragment of wall scene. Forward section of ship fitted with a bipod mast. fig. 56. BATH 13°. There are no securing ropes for the mast; the excavator has concluded that the mast was left permanently stepped.220 The boom,

Date: Dyn.V Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Traces of two vessels. fig. 50.

See Goedicke. fn. 228, considers that the oars, before the stroke, were held by each rower before the face of the crew member ahead of him. Despite his argument and evidence, I cannot accept that such a stroke was employed. 218 The securing ropes themselves have been lost. 219 The leg of another figure is to be seen astern. This may have indicate the presence of another helmsman, but if so, only the leg survives. 220 This lack of ropes is not uncommon, and to leave the mast permanently in place would have been diametrically opposed to the ship handling practices of the Egyptians. 217

This example appears to represents a form of vessel considered to have been unknown until the Middle Kingdom. (Reiseners Type II.). The site is, however, very disturbed, and the date allocated must be viewed with caution. See Wards comments on this example, p. 42, note 17. 216 This is the earliest example known to me of any device utilised to facilitate rowing, other than simple grommets. 215

156

Appendix 1 – The Examples

which is bound, lies on the deck, apparently forward of the mast legs. A single rope descends between the legs of the mast; this would be the halyard. Below the register is the tip of a yard, showing how the brace was secured.

in conjunction with lines taken to the sail leeches (more properly called bowlines) I interpret as indicative of the means by which the Egyptians overcame the difficulty of utilising a square sail with a yard and boom in conjunction with a bipod mast.

[L 09]

[L 12]

Date: O.K.

Date: Dyn. IV or V

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment, as above. Upper section of a bipod mast. fig. 58. Cross beams span the mast legs, and the method of securing the ropes of the secondary backstays to the mast legs can be seen. The angle of separation between the mast legs is slight, and would result in a mast with only a narrow straddle. The halyard descends vertically to the deck; the secondary backstays are at 55°.

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment, as above. fig. 63. Bipod masts of ships under sail. Considered from right to left. (a). Only the masthead and two sections of a balance beam yard survive, with details of rigging. The secondary backstays are secured to the mast as seen aboard [L. 09] and [L 11]. The masthead curves forward over the yard. Although damaged, the head clearly has a longitudinal groove, through which the halyard passes. Backstays, 42°, secondaries, 45°.

[L 10] Date: Dyn IV or V Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragmented wall scene, re-assembled. Ship with bipod mast, under sail. fig. 61. BATH 18°. The hull appears to have had a straight deck line and slightly concave bow. The oars are passed through grommets along the line of the deck. Securing ropes, from the junction of the blade and loom, are tied at their upper end to the grommets. These are fitted into angled brackets, as per [L. 03].

(b). Most of the mast survives, but the masthead is lost. Cross beams and rigging, as above, plus a large cross beam at the base. The halyard is present, but this does not descend vertically. A forked pole is inserted into a loop in the port leech of the sail, as per [L 11]. Main backstay 50°, secondaries, 54°.

The mast-securing ropes are clearly depicted, with a stick passed through them, which served to enable the ropes to be tightened by twisting.221 Forestay, 65°, secondaries, 55°.

Date: Dyn. IV or V

[L 13]

[L 11]

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment of wall scene. fig. 58. Aft rigging of a ship under sail. Main and secondary backstays, 32°.

Date: Dyn. IV or V

[L 14]

Goedicke. Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. Fragment of wall scene. Ship with bipod mast, under sail, facing right. fig. 62. The oars and the mast are secured, as aboard [L 10].222 At the bow are the remains of three blade like uprights. Positioned in a row, they are possibly to be interpreted as being side by side across the bow. The details of the upper reaches of the mast; as per [L. 09]. Four ropes run from the starboard leg of the mast to the deck; they are attached to the leg at the same point as four of the secondary backstays. Two loops are shown on the port leech of the sail; to the lower is secured a rope, upon which a crew member pulls. A forked pole is inserted into the other loop; the pole also has a light rope attached.223 This,

Date: ND Arnold. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. Timber model of a masthead. pl. 89, item no. 196. A tapering shaft is flanked by two opposing rectangular flanges, pierced with four vertically spaced holes. 12.19 Meir [M 01] Date: Dyn. VI Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol V. Wall scene, covering two registers. Burial of Pepi - Ankh. pl. XXIII. Tomb chapel A, No. 2. Room B, South wall, Eastern section. The upper register has four vessels, (three under

Goedicke’s drawing shows the stick as passing through the centre of the rope, but a comparison with the photo indicates that this is not correct, and that, instead, it was passed through an uneven number of strands. 222 The tensioning stick is passed through an even number of strands. 223 This, in conjunction with lines taken to the sail leeches (more properly called bowlines) I interpret as indicative of the means by which the Egyptians overcame the difficulty of utilising a square sail with a yard and boom in conjunction with a bipod mast. 221

157

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

oars or punting and one being towed), the lower three under sail. All are connected by towropes.224

and awning, as above.230 A bipod mast, with a bulbous, top passes through the roof of the awning. The yard and the lower edge of the sail are curved upwards, but there is no boom. As with [M 01] (d), three rudders are depicted. All have blades; one, through the stern, is missing the upper section of its loom, the other two pass along the starboard side. These both have tillers, but only one is in use and there are no rudder posts. A taut towrope passes from the tip of the bow to the starboard quarter of (f). HL/MH, 1×31/1, HL/WL, 2×05/1, MS/HL, ×4/1.

(a). Cargo vessel. BATH 20° SATH 35°. There is no bulwark. A rounded wicker annex is present in the stern. There are two deckhouses, one forward; the other abuts the stern cabin.225 Three forked uprights amidships support a rope (truss?).226 A bipod mast lies across the two deckhouses; however the craft seems to have been intended to receive a pole mast, which stands as an extension of the forward forked upright. The boom is longer than the hull, and the yard, which has a yoke, curves sharply upwards at the outer ends.227 A single rudder is in use, with a long tiller. HL/MH, 1×2/1, HL/WL, 2×06/1, MS/HL, ×41/1 (measured from the site of the “pole mast”).

(f). Ship under sail.231 A pole mast, secured by two bands of lashings is in use, (no knees are depicted). Sail and yard, as above. Three lifts support the left half of the yard, which, from the depiction, may be of double thickness.232 There may have been three lifts for the right hand section of yard, as there are three lines from the mast, but one of these would have been the forestay. A single rudder with a tiller is in use. Forestay, 50° (?). HL/MH, 1×72/1, HL/WL, 1×63/1, MS/HL, ×46/1.

(b). Ship with rising, rounded bow and stern, being rowed. BATH 20° SATH 35°. A rectangular structure stands in the stern; forward of this is a mast rest, with a second, lower, structure forward. Another mast rest stands amidships; a pole mast with yard and boom lies between the two rests. A pole mast also stands against the forward rest, to which it is lashed. Yard, boom, bulwark and rudder, as above. HL/ MH, 1×26/1, HL/WL, 2×21/1, MS/HL, ×4/1.

(g). Ship with tapering bow and rounded stern, under sail. BATH 25° SATH 30°. A bipod mast is fitted; the legs drawn very close together. Yard and sail, as per [M 01] (e). Deckhouses as per [M 01] (b) and (c), mast rest and rudder post as per [M 01] (c), although here they are lashed together. There are two rudder shafts present; one reaches the deck of the craft astern, the other, now mainly lost, would have passed through the stern platform. The tiller is held in both hands.233 Forestay, 65°, backstays, 35°. HL/ MH, 1×31/1, HL/WL, 1×81/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

(c). Ship with tapered bow and stern platform, being rowed.228 BATH 18° SATH 20°. The raised bulwark extends over the stern as part of the platform. Deckhouses, as above. Variegated panels of matting cover the stern deckhouse. Mast, rigging and rudder, as above, although two sections of a standing pole mast can also be seen. Above the sternwards mast rest can be seen the top of a rudder post. The rudder passes through the platform. HL/MH, ×86/1, HL/WL 2×26/1, MS/HL, ×4/1.

[M 02] Date: Dyn. VI

(d). Vessel with misshapen bow and rounded stern; bulwark and platform, as above.229 The deck is occupied by a deckhouse as far as the forward edge of the bulwark, and extended by an attached awning. SATH 30°. The roofline of the deckhouse matches the run of the bulwark, is covered in variegated panels of matting. A single rudder post is fitted, but three rudder shafts, two tillers and one rudder blade are depicted. HL/WL, 1×93/1.

Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol V. Wall scene. Two vessels. pl. XXIV. Room A, West section . Good condition.234 (a). Timber vessel, with angled stern and tapered bow. BATH 20° SATH 30°. There are no means of propulsion or steering seen.

(e). Ship with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform, under sail. BATH 20° SATH 23°. Deckhouse

(b). Papyrus craft, facing left, fitted with a central platform. BATH 15° SATH 25°. Weed is present at both bow and stern. Bindings are evenly spaced along the hull and the extremities end in fluted umbels.

Poorly drafted, these examples show signs of having been revised during layout. The three vessels being rowed were apparently originally intended to be shown under sail, as raised masts and backstays can be seen, although their lowered and stowed masts and rigging are present. 225 The configuration of the forward edges of the two deckhouses may be an attempt to show the forward walls of these structures. 226 As depicted, the supposed truss could not have been very effective, as it barely spans the midships section of the vessel. 227 It can also be seen that when the mast and sail were lowered, the sail was left attached to the yard and boom 228 The lower line of the stern is incomplete in the published drawing, but pl. LVIII (2) shows the hull as complete. 229 The bow has been distorted, to prevent it obstructing the rudder of [M 01] (c). 224

Unlike (d), the awning does not touch the deckhouse, and has been braced from the roofline to the deck, forward. The deckhouse does not quite reach the outermost end of the stern platform. 231 The hull shape of this vessel has been so distorted by the artist that no angles are given. 232 If so, it is the only instance of which I am aware. Three short vertical lines appear across the two hypothetical layers of timber constituting the yard, to the left of the mast. These can be considered as bindings, but since they are in alignment with three vertical lines between the boom and the deck, I consider them to be remnants of the depiction of lifts. 233 The tiller is unusual, consisting of a forked stick. The towrope, passing from midships port side to [M 01] (f), hangs limply in the water. 234 The rudder of [M 01] (d) protrudes into this scene. 230

158

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[M 03]

(c). Papyriform craft, details and angles, as per (a).241 Two towropes are depicted, but only one team of men. HL/ WL, 2×82/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. V. Wall scene. Two craft, as above. pl. XVIII. Room B, West wall, north scene. Good condition.

[M 05]

(a).

Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. V. Wall scene. Two papyriform vessels, facing opposite directions. pl. XLIII. West wall. Apparently undamaged.

Date: Dyn. VI

BATH 20° SATH 30°.

(b). BATH 15° SATH 25°. Bindings and other details, as above.

(a). Papyriform vessel. BATH 15° SATH 30°. A low bulwark occupies the central area of the hull. Twin rudders with tillers and twin rudder posts are fitted. The looms are long and narrow. The owner is seen boarding, via a gangplank. A tall narrow naos with curved roof and papyrus bud tipped poles stands amidships. HL/WL, 2×87/1.

[M 04] Date: Dyn. VI Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. V. Wall scene. Three vessels, two being towed, the other rowed. pl. XLII. Room F. East wall, facing right.235 Minimal damage to the surviving craft.236

(b). As above, but without rudder posts, however both rudders have preventer ropes. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The craft is being towed. Only a single towrope is shown. A naos stands amidships, lower and wider than above. HL/ WL, 2×89/1.

(a). Papyriform vessel, being towed. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The extremities end in fluted papyrus umbels. A raised bulwark is present along the central area of the hull and a canopy with an arched roof stands amidships. Twin rudder posts and rudders with tillers are fitted.237 Two towropes pass over the side, well aft of the beginning of the bulwark.238 HL/WL, 1×67/1.

[M 06] Date: Dyn. VI Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. V. Wall scene. Three papyrus and one timber (?) craft. pl. XXX.

(b). Ship with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform, being rowed.239 BATH 15° SATH 30°. An open awning frame is positioned in the stern. An unstepped pole mast is stowed across two heavy mast rests. One of these is positioned in the mast step, and secured to the knee by lashings; the other mast rest stands adjacent to the rudder post. Forward of this is a small rectangular deckhouse. The yard has a yoke and very upward curved tips; the boom is longer than the hull. The secondary backstays are seen at the head of the mast, while at its midpoint are seen the slings for the boom.240 The masthead hangs down at the side of the awning frame. The single rudder, operated by a tiller, passes over the rigging and through the platform. The rudder has two preventer ropes. HL/MH, 1×21/1, HL/ WL, 1×86/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

(a). Papyrus craft. BATH 30° SATH 50°. The bow is vertical; the stern turns inwards.242 Equally spaced bindings are seen along the vessel. (b). Vessel with angled bow and rounded stern. BATH 20° SATH 40°. (c). Papyrus vessel. BATH 23° SATH 30°. A paddle is being used to steer. (d). As above. BATH 20° SATH 30°. [M 07] Date: Dyn. XII

A fourth, probably being rowed, has been almost totally lost. Between [M 04] (a) and (b) can be seen the tips of a yard and boom and the tip of a bow. 237 Aft of the helmsman stands an individual on a horizontal platform, to counter the curvature of the deck. There is some confusion with the steerage equipment. The loom of the port side rudder appears to pass across both of the rudder posts, and the tiller of the starboard rudder is shown passing behind one rudder post and the loom of the port side rudder loom. 238 The anchor point of the starboard towrope is assumed here to be the same as the port side. 239 The raised bulwark extends over the stern, creating the sides of the platform. The aft quarter of the bulwark is lashed to the forward section. 240 In Section 4 it has been proposed that, in this class of ship and some of the Type II vessels, the aft mast rest was not on the centre line of the hull, and that it actually stood off centre. 235

Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. VI. Wall scene. pl. XI. Tomb chapel C, No. 1. Room B. South wall. Remains of three papyrus vessels. Moderate to extreme damage.

236

(a). Bow only, angle indeterminate. The bindings are evenly spaced. As with [M 04] (a), the work is unfinished. The loom of the port side rudder appears to pass on the starboard side of the starboard rudder post. Again, the reason would seem to be due to the unfinished state of the work. 242 The inwards turn and the higher angle are the factors that lead me to the conclusion that this is the stern, as there is no steering gear. 241

159

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(b).

BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bindings, as above.

(c).

BATH 18° SATH 25°. As above.

from the damaged area of the stern. Forestay 63°, backstays, 40°. (c). Ship with bow and stern, extended by a platform, under oars. BATH 15° SATH 25°. A pole mast, lowered and stowed, lies across two crook-topped mast rests. The yard, which has a yoke, is depicted.246 A raised bulwark extends over the stern to form the platform. Two hand held rudders are present, and the rowers are standing.247 HL/ MH, 1×12/1, HL/WL, 2×32/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

[M 08] Date: Dyn. XII Blackman. Meir. Vol. VI. Wall scene. Two papyrus vessels, facing inward. pl. XIII.

(d). As per (c). BATH 20° SATH 25°. The rowers kneel on deck. HL/MH, 1×22/1, HL/WL, 2×36/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

The forward half of (b) is lost. (a). BATH and SATH 20°. The hull extremities end as lotus flowers. Pairs of lashings are spaced equally along the hull. A central platform is fitted; this is lower amidships, leaving a horizontal step at either end. (b).

[M 10] Date: Dyn. VI Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. IV. Wall scenes. pls. VII and XVII. Main room, east wall.

SATH 20°, bindings and central platform, as above.

[M 09]

Three papyrus vessels are present. Moderate damage.

Date: Dyn. VI

(a). North end, facing right. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The lashings are in pairs, and the centre of the vessel has been fitted with a platform.

Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. IV. Wall scene. Four vessels, two being rowed, two under sail. pl. XV. East wall. Tomb chapel of Pepi - Ankh. (D, No. 2). Those being rowed are above each other; (c) has its own register. The sailing vessels face right, (a) – (b), (right to left); the rowed examples face left, (c) - (d), top to bottom. Some moderate damage.

(b). Vessel over entrance, facing left. Angles, as above. Triple bindings are seen along the main section of hull; those of the bow are double. Most of the stern has been lost. (c). South end, facing left. BATH 25° SATH 25°. A platform is fitted. The bindings are in pairs.

(a). Ship with cabin, under sail. BATH and SATH 20°.243 There is a hedgehog head at both bow and stern.244 The mast is a bipod, but with no space discernible between the legs. The head of the mast is damaged. A straight boom hangs in slings, taken to the damaged area of the mast and there may be two halyards for the yard, which has upturned tips. The panels of fabric of the sail are laid horizontally. A single hand held rudder is in use. A raised bulwark is present, and the top two thirds of the cabin are covered with matting. Forestay - 68°, backstays - 50° - 52°. HL/MH, 1×9/1, HL/ WL, 3×67/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

[M 11] Dyn: Dyn. XII Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. II. Wall scene. Papyrus vessels, being constructed, poled or used for fishing. pls. IV, XXVI and XXVII. North wall, East end. Chapel of Ukh - Hotep. (B, No. 2). Moderate to severe damage.248

(b). Ship with rounded bow, under sail. BATH and SATH 28°. The tip of the stern is lost. Mast as per [M 09] (a), ends of yard lost, but the boom has curved ends. A damaged deckhouse and awning are seen; a papyrus bud tipped pole supports the forward end of the awning. The sail panels are as aboard (a).245 There are two slings per side for the boom, and loops protrude from the mast. Twin rudders protrude

(a). Forward section of a papyrus craft, with a short, incurved bow, the apex of which faces fully inboard, terminating in a narrow tuft. BATH 37°. Only two sets of bindings are undamaged, one paired, one triple, with the remains of another paired set to their left. There is no central platform. (b). Vessel being constructed; the midships area is lost. BATH 30° SATH 20°. Triple bindings are evenly spaced along the hull, the raised ends of the knots lying along the

It can be seen from the plate that Blackman has queried the line of the hull at the stern. 244 This configuration could be viewed as an error by the tomb artist(s), reversing the orientation of the hull, however, considering the possibility of a similar configuration having existed aboard. 245 Of considerable interest here is the depiction of loops or rings on the mast, through which the slings are passed, before being directed down to the deck. This very important feature would enable the boom to be raised. 243

The dark areas at the bow and stern may be an attempt by the artist to indicate the rounding of the hull. 247 Although the mast rests would have mitigated against the fitting of an awning, the helmsmen have been depicted as being so covered, with the mast supported by a post standing inboard of the tip of the stern 248 Some of the scene may never have been completed, eg. Craft (a). 246

160

Appendix 1 – The Examples

deck. Another rope runs along the most of the upper surface of the hull; the lashings pass over it. It may be possible that the purpose of this rope was to prevent the lashings from cutting into the vessel. The rope stops short of the extremities of the vessel. No supporting props are in use beneath the craft.249

beam in the stern gave the helmsman a place to stand. HL/ MH, 2×21/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

(c). Vessel facing right, hull undamaged. BATH 28° SATH 35°. Details, as above, although the knots are not seen.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model, with tapering bow and stern. Item 4799. pp. 4 - 5. pl. I. BATH 15° SATH 26°. Main deck area, as above. Thwarts give seating for thirty rowers.253 A pole mast stood on the centre line, supported by a flat, U shaped, mast shoe.254 HL/WL, 2×41/1.

[M14] Date: M.K.

(d). As above. BATH 20° SATH 30°.250 (e). Vessel with short bow and square cut stern; the occupant is fishing. BATH and SATH 35°. The construction details are the same as 11 (c) and (d).

[M 15] Date: M.K.

[M 12]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat. Item 4801. pp 5 -7. pl. II. Hull angles and modelling technique, as above but with nineteen thwarts.255 The stern is tipped with a block. A mast rest with a shaped U top is fitted, but its originality is unsure. The loom of the rudder has been joined, utilising a long overlap. Against the ends of the thwarts, on the outside of the hull, are rectangular marks, possibly indicating that the thwarts passed through the sides of the hull. HL/WL, 3×19/1. MS/HL, ×46/1.

Dyn: Dyn. XII Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. III. Wall scene. Two papyrus vessels, used for fishing. pls. VI and VII. Chapel of Akhet - Hotep. (B. no. 4). Badly damaged. (a). BATH 20° SATH 22°. A central platform is fitted, and water weed is present at the stern. Equally spaced pairs of bindings are seen along the hull, although triple bindings are seen toward the bow and stern. The double bindings appear to be tied to the lower two of three ropes (?) that run the length of the craft.251

[M 16] Date: M.K.

(b). BATH 18° SATH 30°. The bow and stern are tapered and rounded.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. As above, but with an incurved stern. Item 4802. pp 7-8. pl. II. DP. BATH 25° SATH 33°. The bow is damaged. The main deck area is hollowed out, leaving a flat deck and raised bulwarks. A short pole mast and a tall rudder post are fitted. HL/MH, 2×4/1, HL/WL, 3×71/1, MS/HL, ×47/1.

[M 13] Date: M.K.

[M 17]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern. Item 4798. pp. 1-3. pl. I. The underside is badly decayed. BATH 25° SATH 32°. The hull is hollowed out, leaving a raised ridge, representing the central stringer, from the rise of the decks in the bow and stern; a narrow strip of the deck, which is usually to be seen in this type of vessel, is present along both sides of the stringer. Slots in the upper surface accommodate the deck beams, which serve as thwarts for the rowers to sit on. The decks at the bow and stern are flush with the bulwark. A pole mast, with five pairs of eyelets, stood in a recess on the “beam”, and a rudder post stood in the stern, along the hulls centre line. There is no rudder.252 A bow roller is present; a

Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat. Item 4803. pp. 8-9. pl. III. BATH and SATH 30°. DP. The hull is partially hollowed out, resulting in a cambered deck, with a squat cylindrical protrusion at bow and stern. A short pole mast is fitted, with twin rudder posts.256 There is no rudder bar fitted across the deck to support the (now lost) rudders.

Originally there were to be forty rowers, and the stringer had to be re-cut, with the repairs being carried out with plaster or wood. This would seem to indicate that it was intended to depict a specific vessel, whose size or class was of importance. 254 Reisner. fig 18. p. 5. 255 Forty rowers, from different models, have been fitted at the museum. (Reisner p.6, fn. 4). The restorers have positioned the rowers so that they face the bow. 256 The Reisner’s pl. III omits the mast, and it may not belong. See also Reisner p. 8, fn. 1. 253

Papyrus is being gathered to the left of this craft, but the bundles are being carried away from the construction area. 250 The shape and angles agree with (b), and one is tempted to see this craft, completed, in use. The punting pole of one crewman has a lotus flower shaped tip, instead of the usual forked tip. A crocodile lurks between the two vessels. 251 See, especially, pl. VII. 252 Reisner illustrates this example as having a tall rudder post (fig 1), but this does not appear in his photograph. As displayed, the mast lies on deck. 249

161

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Forward of the posts are holes in the deck for a canopy.257 HL/MH, 2 ×24/1, HL/WL, 3×25/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

and is flat. A bow roller is fitted, as is a thick rudder post. HL/WL, 5×46/1. MS/HL, ×45/1.

[M18]

[M 22]

Date: M.K.

Date: M.K.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars. Item 4805. pp. 11-12. pl. IV. BATH 30° SATH 40°. The deck is partially hollowed out, leaving a cambered main deck. The decks at bow and stern are flat. There is provision for a pole mast and a single rudder post. The rowers sit on low stools or benches. HL/WL, 2×85/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model, as above. Item 4846. pl. IX. BATH 20° SATH 30°. DP. Rudder post, as above. HL/WL, 4×75/1.

[M 19]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of funerary vessel. Item 4847. pl. IX. BATH 35° SATH 30°. DP. The bow sits higher than the stern. The central area of the hull is partially hollowed out, with a flat deck and low bulwarks, which are flush with the run of the hull. The stern finial bends forward and upward, while that of the bow cants sharply aft. Two rudder posts are fitted, topped with aft facing Horus heads. A flat roofed canopy supported by four poles with papyrus bud tips stands amidships.260 A flat rudder support bar is positioned across the deck. HL/WL, ×5/1, MS/HL, ×47/1.

[M 23] Date: M.K.

Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars and sail. Item 4841. pp. 28-30. pl. VII. BATH 30° SATH 25°. DP. A single rudder post is fitted; immediately before this stands a canopy. Two poles with papyrus bud finials support the front of the canopy; the rear bulkhead is solid. A pole mast carries a rectangular sail, spread by a yard and boom.258 The mast tapers towards the head, where there are rope loops for the running rigging. Both yard and boom are straight, but narrow towards their ends; the sail is laced on. Rowers are present on deck, facing forward, holding oars. A loose bow roller lies on deck forward. HL/MH, 1×55/1, HL/WL, 4×82/1, MS/HL, ×46/1.

[M 24] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of funerary vessel. Item 4851. pl. X. DP. BATH 26° SATH 30°. The hull is slightly hollowed out, and the finials are lost, as is the tip of the stern and rudder rest across the deck.261 Two rudder posts with Horus heads are present. HL/WL, 5×06/1.

[M 20] Date: M.K.

[M 25]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern, under oars. Item 4844, pp. 31-32. pls. VIII, XXV. BATH 25° SATH 28°. DP. Good condition. A rudder post stands in the place of the mast. The rowers sit on block seats; oars are tied back along the side. The craft has a bow roller. A rudder is associated with this example.259 The loom is widest in the centre.

Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and rounded stern. Item 4859. pp. 42 – 43. figs. 149 – 151. pl. X. BATH 25° SATH 35°. DP. Poor condition. The hull is partially hollowed out, resulting in a flat deck and low bulwarks. A forked projection is present at the stern, intended to support the rudder, and a rectangular hole on the deck seems to have been intended to receive a rudder post.

[M 21] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing vessel, as above, being rowed. Item 4845. pl. VIII. BATH 30° SATH 40°. DP. The main deck is slightly hollowed out,

[M 26] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a sailing craft, with tapering bow and incurved stern. Item 4861. p. 45.

Reisner has classified this example as a Type II (see Chap 1 for his categories), but as the hull is painted green, I am of the opinion that this example is a poor attempt to depict a papyrus vessel. 258 Fig. 116 shows the yard forward of the mast. However, it can seen from Reisner pl. VII that the yard is aft of the mast, while the boom is forward. This configuration appears to be original. 259 pl. XXV confirms that the tip of the blade is rounded; whereas fig. 123 indicates a more pointed form. 257

Reisner considers that the posts and canopy are not original to this vessel. Reisner. Ships and Boats. fns. 1 and 2. p. 35. See also [P 53]. 261 Reisner also considers that the four-posted canopy, with papyrus bud tips, which stands aft of midships, is non-original. fn 1, p. 39. 260

162

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model boat of a sailing vessel with truncated ends. Item 4882. pp. 53 - 54. figs. 190 – 194. pl. XIII. Tomb of Ni - Ank - Pepi - Khem. Solid block model, hollowed out. BATH 16° SATH 23°, with the deepest point of the hull aft of midships. Lozenge shaped timber sections protrude aft at either side of the stern. Three arched thwarts span the hull, with a bipod mast stepped through the first and two rudder posts passed through the third. 264 The posts flare at the top, with a recess cut along the upper face. HL/MH. 1×47/1, MS/WL, ×31/1.

fig. 158. pl. XI. BATH and SATH 20°. DP. The central deck area is hollowed out and a bow roller is present; this is widest at the outboard end. A single rudder post is fitted and oars are tied along the side. MS/HL,×48/1. [M 27] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4869, pls. XI, XXVIII and XXX. 262 BATH 25° SATH 40°. DP. The rowers sit on blocks. Oars, as above. A mast rest, consisting of a backboard and a short forked upright, is positioned against the rise of the foredeck. Bow roller, as above. The mast tapers; five pairs of eyelets protrude from the upper reaches, with a hole through the top. A welter of ropes for the yard and boom pass through the eyelets, but damage and the bundled sail prevent a clear analysis of the rigging arrangement. MS/HL,×53/1.

[M 32] Date: Dyn VI Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat. Item 4883.265 pp. 54 – 55. pl. XXVII. Details as above. HL/MS, ×28/1. [M 33]

[M 28]

Date: Dyn VI

Date: M.K.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of boat. Item 4884.266 p. 55. Details, as above. HL/WL, 1×8/1, MS/HL, ×26/1.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a ship. Item 4872. p. 49. figs. 173 – 174. pl. XII. BATH 25° SATH 35°. DP. A bow roller and a single rudder post are fitted. Rowers and oars, as above.263 HL/WL, 4×74/1, MS/HL, ×47/1.

[M 34]

[M 29]

Date: Dyn VI

Date: M.K.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a boat, with truncated bow and rounded stern. Item 4886. pp. 56-57. pl. XIV. BATH 16° SATH 24°. The hull is hollowed out, with a flat deck, and is widest at the bow. Cut in one piece with the hull, but stepped outwards, is a raised bulwark, which rises in height sternwards and extends over the stern as a platform.267 The canopy consists of longitudinal rails, poles and arched cross pieces. There are no rudders or rudder posts.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a papyriform vessel, being paddled. Item 4880. pp. 51 – 52. figs. 179 – 185. pl. XII. BATH 15° SATH 35°. The deck is flat; the bow and stern end as umbels. A raised bulwark is present; against the aft end is positioned a rudder support which lies across the deck; its ends turn upward. Although two rudders are fitted, there are no rudder posts. A naos with four papyrus bud topped posts stands aft of midships. HL/ WL, 3×64/1.

[M 35]

[M 30]

Date: Dyn. VI

Date: M.K.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of sailing vessel with tapering bow and raised stern. Item 4887.268 fig. 204. pl. XIV. BATH 8° SATH 20°. Solid block, hollowed out aft

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a papyriform vessel, being paddled. Item 4881. p. 53. pl. XIII. BATH 10° SATH 16°.

The orientation of the mast is conjectural. On one face of the masthead is a protruding block. Reisner’s line drawing (fig. 190) shows this as facing forward, but his plate (XIII) shows it facing aft. The possible role of this block is considered in Chap 6. 265 See also Poujade, pl. V. Reisner illustrates the mast of this example separately at pl. XXVII. The mast legs taper downwards to blunt points. Reisner, at p. 55, states that he is not sure which model the mast originally belonged to. 266 Poujade gives an estimated waterline, resulting in a BATH of 16 ° and a SATH of 30°. The HL/WL is gauged from this estimation. 267 This is Reisner’s description of this example, but the complexities of producing such a model suggest to me that the sections of bulwark at the stern were fashioned separately. 268 See also; Poujade, pl. VII. 264

[M 31] Date: Dyn VI

A pole mast, with a straight yard and boom, is associated with this model, but Reisner does not refer to it. It is, however, shown on pl. XXVII. 263 The rowers sit on blocks, but the blocks are not original. Reisner. Ships and Boats. p. 50. 262

163

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a pole mast. Item 4894. pl. XXIX. The mast tapers towards the top; the foot is square cut, with rounded edges. Four holes pass through the upper reaches.

of the beginning of the bulwark, leaving a foredeck. The profile and cross-sections of the hull are rounded, as are the bow and stern. The protruding bulwarks at the stern, braced by a bracket and two cross-rails, suggest that the rudder was passed through this platform/frame area. Three arched thwarts are fitted, with a pole mast stepped through the first and a post of rectangular profile, topped with a flat disc, pierced by a hole, through the third. The bases of mast and post sit in recesses on the hull bottom. HL/MH, 1×31/1, (measured to the top of the thwart), MS/HL, ×42/1.

[M 42] Date: M.K. Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a boat, with tapered bow and incurved stern, fitted with a mast. British Museum Model 25360. pp. 16 – 19. fig. 16. pl. IIIc. BATH 30° SATH 35°. DP. The main deck area is hollowed out and cambered: the resulting low bulwarks merge with the flush decks fore and aft. A bow roller, with horizontal markings, projects over the bow, and a similar item lies along the deck inboard at the stern.270 A tapering pole mast is fitted, without any supporting knees. There are no details of fittings. Although shown with yard, boom and sail, these are not original. HL/ MH, 1×8/1, HL/WL, 3×14/1, MS/HL, ×47/1.

[M 36] Date: Dyn. VI Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of boat. Item 4888. pp. 58 – 59. figs. 209 – 210. pl. XV. Details, as above, but lacking the bulwarks and the projecting stern platform. The foredeck area is slightly lower. Mast and post, as above. [M 37]

[M 43]

Date: ND.

Date: M.K.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a yard or boom, tapering towards the tips, with remnant of a sail. Item 4890. pl. XXVIII. The edge of the sail is rolled and bound, then laced on by a continuous spiralling line.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a yard. Item 4891. pl. XXVIII. The yard is curved and tapers towards the ends. There is a half round projection in the centre, pierced for the securing of the halyard.

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a boat, with tapered bow and incurved stern, being rowed. British Museum Model 25361.271 pp. 20 – 22. fig. 19. pl. IVa. BATH 15° SATH 22°. Decks and bow rollers, as above. A single rudder is fitted, with a Horus head. A mast of moderate height is fitted, with the upper third decorated with horizontal bands of colour, possibly indicating strengthening rings. Two protrusions, perhaps better described as bulges, are seen towards the masthead, each pierced with two holes. Oars are secured along the sides of the vessel; the rowers sit on stools or blocks. HL/MH, 2×29/1, HL/WL, 3×8/1, MS/HL, ×46/1.

[M 39]

[M 44]

Date: ND.

Date: Dyn. XII

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a yard. Item 4892. pl. XXVIII . The yard is bound by string, representing rope.269

Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. I. Wall scene. Four papyrus craft. pls. II, III and IV. North wall.272 Tomb chapel of Senbi. (B, No.1). Dyn. XII. Slight damage.

[M 38] Date: ND.

[M 40]

(a). Facing right. The bow and stern are rounded, of equal proportions and face inward and downwards. BATH and SATH 30°. Sets of triple lashings are spaced equidistantly along the side.

Date: ND. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a yard. Item 4893. Central projection, as per [M 38].

(b).

[M 41] Date: ND.

Facing left. BATH and SATH 22°. Bindings, as per

The rudder post is much too short, therefore the angle of the rudder meant that the rudder blade would not have allowed it to reach the water line. Another rudder is present in the bow, but the validity of this configuration is suspect. 271 See also Breasted. pl. 73a. The rudder may not be original 272 Considered from right to left, ie, pls. IV - II pls. IV and III for a complete scene. See also pls. XVI, XVII, XX and XXX. 270

Reisner considered that this was the cordage by which the sail was secured in place, however a comparison to his fig. 212, as opposed to pl. XXVIII, convinces me that this was a means of strengthening the yard, by binding. 269

164

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(a), although the number of turns of rope per binding has not survived.

Dyn: Ist Int. Vandier. Mo’alla. Tomb of Ankhtifi. Wall scene. Three vessels, being paddled. pl. XLI. Some severe damage.273

(c). The bow and stern are round and turn inwards, but not downwards, and are flared. The bindings are evenly spaced. A crewman in the stern holds a punting pole with a forked base.

(a). Most of stern lost. BATH 15° SATH 30°. The paddlers are kneeling. A short bow roller juts out from the bow.

(d). As above. The surviving lashings are triple.

(b). Tip of stern lost. BATH 30° (approx) SATH 35°. Paddlers and bow roller, as above. A single helmsman squats ungainly in the stern; he holds a rudder, but this is too short to reach the waterline.

[M 45] Date: Dyn. XII. Blackman. The Rock Tombs of Meir. vol. III. Wall scene. Fishing from papyrus vessels. pls. VI and VII. Tomb Chapel of Akhet - Hotep. Badly damaged.

(c).

Papyrus craft. Bow lost. SATH 45°

(a). Papyrus vessel. BATH and SATH 20°. There is water weed at the stern, and the occupants stand on a central platform. There are no means of propulsion indicated.

[QEA 01]

(b). Papyrus vessel. BATH 20° SATH 40°. As above; the bow and stern of this craft are rounded.

El-Khouli and Kanawati. Queseir El-Amarna. Papyrus vessel. Tomb of Khewen - Wekh. Chapel, west wall. Facing right. BATH 25° SATH 30°.274 There is no central platform, nor means of propulsion. Bindings are seen only at the bow and stern, suggesting that this craft is of timber, but water weed under the stern indicates that this is a papyrus vessel.

12.21 Quseir el - Amarna

Date: Dyn VI

[M 46] Date: Dyn. XII.

12.22 Rizagat

Hayes. The Sceptre of Egypt. Timber model of a funerary craft, under sail. fig. 179. Burial of Wekh -Hotpe. BATH 30° SATH 35°. The central deck area is slightly hollowed out. The bow finial is vertical, the stern finial curves sharply forward and up. Twin rudders and rudder posts are fitted; the rudder looms rest against a bar across the stern. All have Horus heads. Four papyrus tipped poles support a canopy, the roof of which is flat at the base, but arched on the upper surface. A pole mast, without a mast shoe, carries a rectangular sail, spread by a straight yard and boom, which are bound. The sail is edged and laced on. Leech lines are secured to the sail, at mid point, but are taken to the rudder posts. HL/MH, 1×5/1, HL/WL, 2×73/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

[RI 01] Date: N.D. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Unbaked mud model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and stern, the stern being slightly upturned. Item 4817. pp. 21- 22. pl. VI. BATH 30° SATH 40°. There is a small deck forward, and a larger area aft, which has a square hole along the centre line of the hull, to receive a rudder post. A raised band (a thwart?) across the hull forward of midships served to step a pole mast. HL/ WL, 2×4/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

[M 47]

12.23 Saqqara

Date: O.K.

[S 01]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of papyriform boat. Item 4808. pp. 14 -16. figs. 60 – 65. pl. IV. BATH 22° SATH 30 °. A bipod mast is carried; the legs each fit into a single knee, the backs of which are hollowed out. Twin rudder posts are present, as is a rectangular beam across deck, notched to support the rudders. HL/MH, 2×4/1, HL/ WL, 4×46/1, HL/MS, ×39/1.

Date: Dyn. I * Emery. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III. Timber boat burial. Tapering bow, inwards curved stern. Tomb 3506. pls. 44, 66 and 67. Shape and hull angles hypothetical,

12.20 Mo’Alla The actions and depictions are not arranged along register lines, nor is water depicted below the craft. 274 Although bindings are present only at the bow and stern areas, water weed is seen at the stern, confirming that this is a papyrus vessel. 273

[MOA 01]

165

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

as the hull was not preserved. pl. 44 indicates BATH 8° SATH 10°.275

II. Wall scene. Two sailing vessels and a papyrus craft, facing left. pl. 56. The Tomb of Hesi. Moderate damage.

[S 02]

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, with platform. BATH 30° SATH 32°. A raised bulwark is present, extending over the stern as a platform.276 A cabin stands aft of midships, with awnings fore and aft. The mast is a bipod; although the masthead, yard and boom are lost, it can be seen that two pairs of slings supported the boom.277 Two hand held rudders are in use; their looms are obscured by the bow of (b).278 Forestay - 70°, backstay - 53°. HL/MH, 1× 25/1, HL/WL, 1× 92/1, MS/HL, ×37/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati and Hassan. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. II. Wall scenes. Four papyrus craft are seen; two are positioned at either end of a cattle fording scene. pl. 37. East wall. Room 1. (a) and (b), Pl. 71, fragment TNE95:F145 (c) and (d ). Tomb of Ankhmahor.

(b). Hull, mast and rigging, as above. BATH 25° SATH 35°. The bulwark is lower, and commences well forward, clearly marked by a line, perpendicular to the run of the bulwark.279 The sail reaches the deck; there is no boom. The legs are set further apart, with no cross beams between them, nor any mast fixation ropes. Forward of the mast, under the awning, stands a column, with a trefoil top (or a lotus flower?). Rudders, as per [S 04] (a), but these obscure the bow of (c). The rudder looms of (b), rather than passing behind (c) pass on the side facing the viewer. Forestay - 70°, other angles, unclear. HL/MH, 1×33/1 (approx). HL/WL, 2×18/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

(a). Stern lost. BATH 30°. No rope lashings are seen, however its bow is identical to that of (b) ahead of it, and must be considered as a papyrus craft. The three surviving crew members hold sticks, but have no means of propelling their vessel. (b). BATH and SATH 30°. Lashings are present along the hull. The bow and stern of this example are the same height. No weed or other herbage is depicted beneath either of these examples. This may be compared to a fragment from this tomb (Plate 71, TNE95:F145), which forms example (c). (1). Stern half of a papyrus craft. SATH 30°. The stern protrusion widens slightly. No lashings are present.

(c). Papyrus vessel, being poled. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Double bands of lashings hold the craft together.

(c). (2). Section of bow (?) of a papyrus vessel. The majority of this craft is lost, the shape of the surviving section is similar to the bow of (b). Again, no bindings are seen. Beneath both craft are abundant clumps of lotus flowers.

[S 05] Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati and Hassan. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. II. Four papyrus craft, used for fishing and fowling. pls. 53 and 54. The owners images have been obliterated; otherwise, good condition.

[S 03] Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati and Hassan. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol. II. Cargo vessel, with truncated bow; facing right. The tip of the stern is lost. pl. 57. Room VI. South wall, west of doorway. BATH 20° SATH 25°. The bow is short, and has no railings. A long central deckhouse is present, its roof line conforming to that of the deck. There are no doors indicated, and the remains of a stern cabin can be discerned. The mast is lowered, its weight being supported by the forward ends of the deckhouse and stern cabin. Although the mast has been damaged, it is probable that it was a bipod, with the yards lashed to it.

(a). Craft, fitted with a central platform. Facing right. BATH 22° SATH 32°. A thin pad lies between the platform and the upper surface of the craft. Evenly spaced pairs of lashings appear along the hull.

[S 04]

276

(b). As above, facing left. BATH 15° SATH 25°. (c). The stern curves forward. BATH 17° SATH 25° (d).

BATH 23° SATH 30°.

The rise of the bulwark is obscured by the sounding pole, held by the crew member in the bow, but can be traced along the run of the deck. Where the platform extends astern, it is only half the thickness of the bulwark. 277 Projecting the line of the fore and backstays indicates that the slings were attached to the mast at approximately two thirds of its height. The legs of the mast are depicted so close together that they could be mistaken for a pole mast, however the two legs can be seen. 278 The rudder looms pass behind the bows of (b), which commence below at a point below the beginning of the stern platform of (a). 279 The artist has been amiss with the layout of this vessel. The bulwark merges into the hull line, resulting in the projecting stern platform being placed on top of the bulwark, rather than as an extension.

Date: Dyn. VI Kanawati and Hassan. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara . vol.

This vessel is included, despite its’ being classed by the excavator as a pre- Old Kingdom craft, due to the influence it has on the dating of Reisner’s Type II hull. 275

166

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[S 06]

Timber model of a boat, as above. fig. II. Cairo Museum Model 56 395. No rudder survives with this example.

Date: Dyn. VI.

[S 10]

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Two timber models of funerary boats. figs. 3 and 18. pls. I and XXXIII. Cairo Museum Models 56 386 and 56 387.

Date: Dyn. VI. Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Two timber models of cargo boats, with angled bow and stern. pl. IV. Cairo Museum Models 56 392 and 56 393.282

(a). BATH 20° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark occupies the centre of the hull, which is flat decked. The bow finials are almost vertical; the stern finials bend forward, with a modest upwards turn. A beam with a semi circular cross section across the deck, astern of the bulwark, serves as a rudder rest. No rudder posts were fitted to these examples, although pairs of rudders, operated by tillers, are. Battens are positioned across the deck, inboard of the bow and stern. The rudder looms are broadest at their tops. HL/WL, 4×66/1.

(a). BATH 15° SATH 30°. Two deckhouses, joined by a panelled, open topped storage area, occupy most of the deck. The forward deckhouses are rectangular; those aft are rounded. Two rudder posts, with V cross sectioned grooves cut in their tops are fitted, and upwards facing projections at the stern quarters provided secondary points against which to work the rudders. Twin rudders, operated by tillers, are fitted.

(b). Angles and details, as above.

(b).

[S 07]

As above.

[S 11]

Date: Dyn. VI.

Date: Dyn. VI.

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Two timber models of papyriform boats. fig. 5, Cairo Museum Models 56 388 and 56 389.

[S 08]

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Timber model of a boat with canopy. pl. II.283 Cairo Museum Model 56 390. BATH 10° SATH 25°. Jequier - BATH 6° SATH 30°. fig. 20.284 The bow and stern curve upwards; although the decks are flat, they follow the rise of the hull. A raised bulwark runs from inboard of the bow and extends out over the stern, as a platform.285 A canopy, consisting of three sections, runs from aft of the leading edge of the bulwark to the outboard edge of the stern platform. There is no evidence for the fitting of rudders or mast.

Date: Dyn. VI.

[S 12]

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Timber model of a boat, with round profiled bow and stern. fig. II. pl. III. Cairo Museum Model 56 394.280 BATH 8° SATH 25°. The deck is square cut at the bow and stern.281 A raised bulwark, commencing short of the bow, continues out over the stern as an open platform, through which passes a single rudder. No rudder posts or fittings for a mast are present.

Date: Dyn. VI.

(a). BATH 15° SATH 30°. The hull and details, as per [S 05], but without the rising finials. Both of these examples are fitted with twin rudders, with tillers. (b). As above.

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Timber model of a boat with canopy. Cairo Museum Model 56 391. Hull, as above, but without the “cabin” built into the stern. Unlike the previous example the canopy of this example is divided into four short bays and one long bay, although with only three sections of roof. The long bay is

[S 09] Date: Dyn. VI.

Jequier. Neit et Apouit. pl. XXXV. Also Jequier. Neit et Apouit. figs. 9, 10 and 20. 284 The low angle of the bow is attributable to the long flat profile of the hull bottom. 285 As illustrated by Jequier, the hull is too short in relationship to the height of the stern. Built over the deck and extending onto the stern platform are the walls and floor of an enclosed area, covered by the canopy. The forward ends of the bulkheads are curved, with a flat decked area between them. An occupant could see out to the sides, in relative privacy, or look forward along the main deck. An aisle is left on either side of this structure, probably for the convenience of the crew. The stern area of the cabin is barred with vertical timbers. 282 283

Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. Also Jequier. Neit et Apouit. pl. XXXIV. The bottom profile of the hull forward of midships causes this example to sit with a bows down trim, with the stern highly canted. Such a hull shape, however, in use would have floated with the stern at a lower angle, due to the weight of the stern. Because of this, no ratios are offered for these examples. 280 281

167

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

the most forward.286 The sternmost end of the canopy is higher than aboard the previous example.287

bulwarks bulge outwards: there are three holes through the bulwarks per side. HL/WL, 3×48/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

[S 13]

(h). Vessel with truncated bow and stern. fig. 24 (No. 6). BATH and SATH 13°. The central deck area is hollowed out; instead of raised bulwarks, the sides protrude outwards. The profile of this example shows that the run of the upper line of the hull is flat; the underside is a continuous curve. MS/HL ×42/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Poujade. Trois flotilles de la VIieme dynastie des pharons. 11 timber models of various craft. Mastaba of Kaemsenu. Poujade, unless otherwise stated. Individual plate and catalogue numbers (if known) are listed at each example. Apart from (a), all have a pin protrudes from either side of the stern, probably serving as rudder rests. Good condition, but mediocre workmanship.

(i). As above, but with raised central bulwarks. BATH 17° SATH 27°. HL/WL, 3×47/1. ( j ). Papyriform vessel, with bipod mast. BATH 17° SATH 24°. HL/MH1×97/1, HL/WL 3×94/1, MS/ML ×36/1/

(a). Maritime craft.288 fig. 57. BATH and SATH 20°. The deck is flat, with a continuous run from bow to stern, with raised central bulwarks. Rising at either extremity of the hull is an upright, slightly concave on the outboard edge, but curved on the inboard. HL/WL, 3×18/1.

(k). As above. BATH 30° SATH 25°. HL/MH, 2×66/1, HL/ WL, 5×33/1, MS/HL, ×36/1. [S 14]

(b). Sailing vessel, with truncated bow and stern.289 BATH 28° SATH 35°. The plan shows the extremities to be square cut; the hull is widest at the stern; the deck is roughly flat. Low central bulwarks are present, carved as one with the hull. There are three holes per side, possibly for ropes to secure oars. A short bipod mast is fitted. HL/MH 2×37/1, HL/WL, 3×53/1, MS/HL, ×39/1

Date: Dyn V. Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne. Wall scene. Vessel with hedgehog figurehead, under oars. fig. 306. Facing left. Now in the Louvre. Mastaba of Akhout - Hotep. BATH 16° SATH 25°. An awning, divided into two unequal parts, occupies the centre of the vessel,293 and along this is stowed a bipod mast. The legs of the mast broaden towards their base. Twin rudders, with preventer ropes but no tillers, are positioned against the forward edge of semi circular profiled cross beams on the deck. The oars pass through loops along the edge of the bulwark. HL/MH, 2×5/1, HL/ WL, 2×12/1.

(c). As above.290 BATH 16° SATH 22°. There are four holes per side. Mast; as above. HL/MH, 1×69/1, HL/WL, 2×71/1, MS/HL, ×4/1. (d). Papyriform vessel.291 BATH and SATH 17°. A raised bulwark occupies the centre of the hull, and the deck is flat. Three pairs of bindings are represented at either end, with the knots that finished the bindings lying along the central axis of the hull. HL/WL, 3×75/1.

[S 15] Date: Dyn V.

(e). As above.292 BATH and SATH 20°. No hull bindings are represented. HL/WL, 3×73/1.

Pirenne. Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypte Ancienne. pl. II. Wall scene. Vessel with truncated bow and tapering stern, being rowed.294 BATH 15° SATH 30°. A rectangular cabin stands aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning.295 A bulwark extends from the forward end of the awning to the tip of the stern. Three helmsmen operate hand held rudders. These are passed through grommets at the bottom of the bulwark; securing ropes from the top of the blade to the bulwark prevents their being lost. Oars; as above. HL/WL, 2×33/1.

(f). Vessel with tapering, truncated, bow and stern; the extremities square cut, as per [S 13] (b). fig. 24. (No. 2.) BATH 22° SATH 20°. Bulwark and holes: as per [S 13] (a). HL/WL, 3×31/1 (g). As above. This craft has holes in the deck, intended for a bipod mast. fig. 24 (No. 4). BATH 13° SATH 23°. The

[S 16] If a mast were to be erected, this section of canopy could have been removed, leaving the rest of the deck aft covered. 287 The drawing of 56 391 by Poujade is incorrect, as it omits the projecting stern platform, resulting in the bulwarks and canopy ceasing at the line of the stern. 288 Also Landstrom. Ships. fig. 194 and 195. Cairo Museum Model 63 184. 289 Landstrom. Ships. pl. X. Cairo Museum Model 63 186. 290 Landstrom. Ships. pl. IX. Cairo Museum Model 63 191. 291 Landstrom. Ships. fig. 21. Cairo Museum Model 63 192. 292 Landstrom. Ships. pl. VIII. Cairo Museum Model 63 193. 286

There are no indications of matting or other covering material that might have been used to cover a cabin, and the three uprights are equally plain, and so I prefer to consider this as an awning. 294 Vandier. fig. 277. 295 The cabin is devoid of any markings to show the covering material. The thickness of the cabin uprights, as compared to the slender posts at either end of the awning – (that at the forward end is topped with a papyrus bud) - as well as the difference in thickness of the awning cover, as opposed to the cabin roofline, clearly shows that this is a cabin/awning combination. 293

168

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Date: Dyn. V

loop in the bow.301 Forestay, 60°, backstays, 28° - 34°. HL/ MH, 1×26/1, HL/WL, 1×88/1, HL/MS, ×35/1.

Pirenne. Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypte Ancienne. Wall scene. Two sailing vessels, setting sail. pl. III.296 Chapel. (a) - (b), right to left.

(b). Hull as per [S 18 ] (a), with a mast rest in the place of the mast.302 BATH 20° SATH 30°. The yard is bound along its entire length and has a yoke; the boom is slightly longer than hull. The rudder passes through stern, as does a towrope. There are lashings around the mast rest, at the same angle as the tow.303 Loops are present on the upper reaches of the mast. HL/MH, 1×24/1, HL/WL, 1×47/1, MS/ HL, ×38/1.

(a). Vessel with truncated bow and narrowing stern, extended by a platform. BATH 15° SATH 25°. A low central bulwark is present, and a rectangular cabin stands aft of midships.297 Triple hand held rudders are in use. A bipod mast, with cross beams, carries a balance beam yard and a tall sail; the boom lies on deck. Amidships, the exertion required to raise the sail is evident from the posture of the crew. Forestay, 58°, main backstay, 40°, secondaries, 60° - 65°. HL/MH, 1× 67/1, HL/WL, 2× 11/1, MS/HL, × 43/1.

(c). Hull and angles, as above, but the additional section of the bulwark is as per 18 (a). The deck is covered by a deckhouse from the stern to the forward end of the bulwark, extended forward by a flat roofed canopy. A rudder passes by the side of the deckhouse and through the stern platform, and a short bipod mast lies on the deckhouse roof, along with the yard and boom. These are much shorter than the hull. HL/MH, 1×3/1, HL/WL, 1×93/1.

(b). Hull and fittings, as above, with a truncated stern. BATH 18° SATH 20°. Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders. Forestay, 60°, main backstay, 48°, secondaries, 55° - 60°. HL/MH, 1× 48/1, HL/WL, 2×46/1, MS/HL, ×39/1. [S 17]

(d). Cargo vessel, with square cut bow and stern. BATH 24° SATH 36°. There is an upward curved projection at the tip of stern; from its base, a rope runs forward along the line of the deck. In the stern is a rounded annex, extended forward by a rectangular cabin or storage area. A short bipod with the yard and boom lies along the top of the deckhouses. The vessel is steered by a single rudder, turned by a tiller, and supported by a rudder post with a V cut into its top. The vessel is being punted. HL/MH, 1×6/1, HL/ WL, 2×55/1.

Date: Dyn. V Pirenne. Histoire de la Civilisation de L’Egypte Ancienne. Wall scene. Vessel with hedgehog figurehead and rounded stern, under sail. pl. 16. Facing right. (There is a very short stern platform). Some damage. BATH 18° SATH 20°. A low central bulwark is present. Two hand held rudders are in use. Forestay 65°, main backstay 30°, secondaries 45°. HL/MH, 1×85/1, HL/WL, 2×12/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

[S 19]

[S 18]

Date: Dyn. VI.

Date: Dyn. V

Duell. The Mastaba of Mereruka. Wall scene. Five ships under sail. pls. 140 – 145. West wall. Facing left.304 Slight damage. A sixth vessel, (f), faces right and is under oars.

Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne. Wall scene. Four vessels, one under sail, one punting, and towing a third, and one cargo craft. fig. 301298 Mastaba of Ipi. Cairo Museum. Good condition.

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform. BATH 15° SATH 20°. A cabin, covered with matting, reaches forward to the mast and is extended aft by an awning. A bipod mast is secured to two knees by two bands of lashings; the yard and boom are on same side of the mast. A mast cap unites the upper ends of the legs. The tips of the yard curve upward; the straight boom

(a). Ship with rounded bow and stern, extended by a stern platform, under sail. BATH 15° SATH 25°. The bulwark is very thin forward, but broadens aft. The bulwark is topped with an additional strip, from the forward end to aft of the mast rest. A rectangular cabin stands aft of midships; an awning frame is fitted in the stern.299 Between them stand a rudder post and a round-topped, pierced, mast rest.300 A single rudder with tiller passes over the port quarter. The craft is fitted with a pole mast, lashed to a single knee, and carries a curved yard and boom. The forestay is secured to a

The rig of this example is very advanced, and shows developments in the effectiveness of the lifts and slings, enabling the crew to raise and lower the yard and boom, and at the same time providing additional strength to the rig. This is assisted by the provision of pairs of lobate rings positioned on the mast, easing the friction placed upon the ropes when being worked. The halyard consists of a very thick rope. This example also shows the sheets, used to control the boom. Rigging is considered in Sections 6 and 7. 302 The additional strip on top of bulwark in this instance is shown as rope. 303 In this instance, the tow is taken to the mast rest/rudder post combination. As [S 18] (b) is only being punted, the pressure exerted on the tow by [S 18] (c) may be such that a stronger point of securement is not necessary. 304 The craft have raised bulwarks, which extend to form stern platforms, and all surviving depictions of rudders in this scene have tillers. 301

Also Vandier. figs. 322 and 323. Facing right. Now in the Louvre. There are no awnings, which confirms that this is a cabin. It is, however, devoid of any indications of matting or covering material. 298 Also, Landstrom. Ships. figs. 143 and 144. 299 The vertical poles are seen, but the horizontal poles are not depicted. A suggestion of the roof line is to be seen. 300 The mast rest is lashed to the rudder post. 296

297

169

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

is supported by three pairs of slings, taken to a bracket, positioned at two thirds the height of the mast. Two rudders, without rudder posts, are fitted; these pass over the side of the vessel. Oars are shown along the side, but as all the crew face forward, the oars cannot be considered as manned. Main backstay, 30°, secondaries, 25°. HL/MH, 1×79/1, HL/ WL, 1×92/1, MS/HL, ×33/1,

(a). Section of stern. A helmsman stands on top of a curved annex, which is extended forward by a lower roofline. He operates a hand held rudder, with a tiller. Secondary backstays, 45 - 48° (b).

Section of bow. Forestay, 60°

[S 21]

(b). As above, with the crew setting sail. BATH 20° SATH 25°.305 No knees are shown for the mast, but two bands of lashing appear around each leg, as with (a). There are two slings for the (unseen) boom, but there is no bracket for them on the mast. Two rudders, with tillers but no rudder posts, pass through the platform. Cabin and oars, as above. There is no forestay; other rigging angles, as above. HL/ MH, 1×49/1, HL/WL, 1×57/1, MS/HL, ×37/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Wilson. “Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom”, in JNEA, (Chicago, October 1944). Vol. III, No. 4.308 p. 206. Wall scene. Three vessels under oars, towing a papyriform craft.309 The towing craft have rounded bows and sterns; the sterns are extended by platforms. Some severe damage.

(c). As per [S 19] (a). BATH 18° SATH 25°. A bipod mast, secured to two knees, carries a yard and boom, on same side of mast. A bracket as per [S 19] (a) secures two slings from the boom, which is thicker at its ends than in the centre. The cabin runs the length of the deck from the mast. Rudders, as above. The secondary backstays are secured into loops that appear to have hooks at their tops. Forestay, 60°, main backstay, 35°, secondaries, 30° - 35°. HL/MH, 1×73/1, HL/ WL, 1×83/1, MS/HL, ×37/1.

(a). Papyriform craft. The bow is mostly lost. BATH 25° (?) SATH 20°. Bindings are present along the stern. Two rudder blades are seen, as are three figures in the water beneath the stern.310 (b). BATH 20° SATH 25°. The stern is damaged. A raised bulwark extends over the stern as a platform. The rowers are standing. A single rudder is in use. HL/WL, 2×05/1. (c). As above. The loom of the rudder may pass through the stern platform. HL/WL, 1×9/1.

(d). As above, no cabin or canopy. BATH 15° SATH 25°. A pole mast is secured to two knees, by two bands of lashings. A single halyard supports the yard, which is straight, with upturned tips; the boom is straight, and supported by two pairs of slings. A single hand held rudder with a tiller is fitted. There is no cabin or awning. Rigging angles; as above. HL/MH, 1×44/1, HL/WL, 2×09/1, MS/ HL, ×37/1.

(d). As above. BATH 18° SATH 20°. The rudder passes through the platform.311 HL/WL, 2×21/1. [S 22] Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

(e). As per [S 19] (a). BATH 17° SATH 27°. Mast, knees and rudder, as above. Single halyard for yard, boom supported by two slings. No bracket is seen on the mast, but the scene is damaged at this point. Rigging angles, as above. HL/MH, 1×5/1, HL/WL, 1×93/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Wall scene. figs. 4 and 5, pls. 5 and 6. South wall. Slight damage. Two papyrus vessels, facing inwards.312 (a). BATH 20° SATH 30°. A low central platform is fitted, supported by padding. There are no bindings along the hull.

(f). Ship with cabin, being rowed.306 BATH and SATH 20°. Aft of midships is a rectangular cabin, covered with matting. A pole mast, yard and boom are stowed in twin crook topped mast rests. A yoke is attached to the yard by four bands of lashing.

(b). As above. The central platform is higher. There appears to be no padding beneath the platform. [S 23]

[S 20]

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

Date: Dyn. VI.

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und

Duell. The Mastaba of Mereruka. Fragment of wall scene. Partial depiction of two cargo vessels, under sail. pl. 134. Displayed on the South wall, facing left.307

See also hhttp://osirisnet.net/mastabas/mererouka/photo/mrruka_a13_ sw_02_cm.jpg 309 See also Vandier fig. 294. 310 They appear to have been pushing the craft off from the shore. 311 Having reached the shore, the rowers are standing, holding their oars with only one hand. The towrope rises from an elliptical loop in the bow. 312 The occupants are (a) fishing and (b) fowling. It is usual for the owner of a tomb to carry out both actions. Here they are divided between the two owners. 308

The yard has not yet reached the head of the mast; the bow has got in amongst the rudders of (a) and a crew member pushes the craft away. 306 pl. 145. The end of the stern is lost. 307 The original location of this fragment is unknown. 305

170

Appendix 1 – The Examples

Chnumhotep. Wall scene. Four craft, being rowed or towed. pls. 8 and 9. East wall. Facing right.

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas). Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Wall scene. Papyriform vessel, under construction. fig. 8, pl. 21. Badly damaged. BATH 25° SATH 30°. Broad props support the bow and stern. No replicate bindings are seen.316

(a). Papyriform vessel, being paddled. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A central bulwark is seen, and the craft has a central platform, upon which stands a naos with an arched roof, supported by poles with papyrus bud finials.313 The replicate bindings at bow and stern are in pairs.314 A single hand held rudder is in use.

[S 26]

(b). Hull, bulwark, platform, naos and rudder, as above. BATH 20° SATH 33°. A towrope passes to a team ashore; another is passed over (c) to (d). Both tows rise from the deck at the forward end of the bulwark. The replicate bindings are as above, but the area of the hull against which the rudder rests has eight.

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas). Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Vessel with square cut bow and stern, extended by a short platform, under sail. fig. 9, pl. 22. North wall, facing left. Moderate damage. BATH 20° SATH 25°. A low bulwark occupies the central area of the hull, and a rectangular cabin stands on deck, extended aft to the tip of the platform by an awning, covering the helmsmen.317 Twin hand held rudders are in use. The bipod mast has cross beams, but no securing ropes. A tall, narrow sail is carried on a balance beam yard. The boom sits on deck, aft of the mast; it has no slings. Forestay 63°, main backstay 27°, secondaries 42° - 52°. HL/MH, 1×58/1, HL/WL, 2×73/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

(c). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 22° SATH 37°. A single hand held rudder is in use and the crew row over the raised bulwark. A standing figure helps with the tow. (d). Craft with rounded stern and hedgehog figurehead. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Rudder, bulwark and rowers; as above. The towrope passes to the deck area, well aft of the forward end of the bulwark.

[S 27]

[S 24]

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Two vessels, under sail. fig. 10, pl. 25. Moderate damage.

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Wall scene. Four vessels. pls. 12 and 13. Facing left. This scene is a reversed image of [S 22], with minor variations. Moderate damage.

(a). Hull with rounded bow and stern; the bulwark extends to form a short platform. BATH 20° SATH 32°. Rudders, cabin and awning, as above, but here an awning extends forward to the mast, with the forward edge overlapping a mast leg. Diagonal bands between the mast legs beneath the lower cross bar indicate the securing ropes. Sail, yard and boom, as above. Forestay, 68°, main backstay, 27°, secondaries, 42° - 52°. HL/MH, 1×34/1, HL/WL, 2×33/1, MS/HL, ×29/1.

(a). Papyriform vessel, being paddled. BATH 23° SATH 30°. Details, as per [S 23] (a), however, the poles of the naos, instead of being inserted into a base plate, are fitted into the runners of a sledge. No bindings are seen. (b). As above. BATH 20° SATH 36°. Double bindings are seen at bow and stern. Other details, as per [S 23] (b).315

(b). BATH 20° SATH 26°. The tip of the bow is square cut, the stern tapers and has a platform. The bulwark is higher than aboard [S 27] (a). Rigging, steering gear and deck structures, as above, but the forward edge of the awning does not extend past the mast leg. Forestay 63°, main backstay 25°, secondaries 43° - 50°. HL/MH, 1×5/1, HL/WL, 2×24/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

(c). Vessel with rounded stern and hedgehog figurehead, being rowed. BATH 25° SATH 32°. A single hand held rudder is in use; the crew row over a raised bulwark. (d). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH 36°. Rowers and rudder, as above. [S 25]

[S 28] Teams of men carry beams toward the vessel from the left, and to the right of the craft are seen examples of wood working techniques, including timber sawing and shaping. 317 It is possible that the awning also extended forward. If so, it ran along the junction between this block and that above, and the details are unclear. There are no indications of a supporting post forward, but see the next example.

The poles are not let into the platform, as can be seen by a raised area along the platform between the poles. This could be interpreted as being a base plate, however, see example (a), of the next wall scene. 314 The water beneath the craft undulates, apparently causing instability, resulting in one of the standing persons aboard to grip the forward upright. 315 The towrope to the shore rises from aft of the forward end of the platform. The lay of both ropes is clearly seen.

316

313

171

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Two vessels, being rowed. fig. 11, pl. 30. East wall. Facing left. Slight damage.

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. fig. 14. pl. 41. Wall scene, west wall of magazine. Six vessels, with stern embellishments and/or figureheads.319 All have raised central bulwarks, and carry a rectangular structure consisting of four poles and a roof, the lower edge of which slopes forward. None have steering gear. Slight to moderate damage.

(a). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead and rounded stern, extended by a platform. BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bulwark, cabin and awning, as above, but here the forward awning is supported by a wide upright. Rudders, as above. The rowers stand, with left knee bent, as if the left foot is resting against a bench or thwart. The depth of the oar blades varies, coinciding with the run of the bulwark. HL/WL, 1×97/1.

(a). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead.320 BATH 24° SATH 30°. HL/WL, 2×17/1. (b). Vessel with a lotus flower at bow and stern. BATH 30° SATH 27°.

(b). Papyriform vessel. BATH 20° SATH 28°. Forward, it appears that timber battens have been secured across the imitation lashings, although not at the stern. Bulwark, cabin and awning, as above, but the stern area is not covered. HL/ WL, 2×15/1.

(c). As above. BATH and SATH 31°. (d). Vessel with hare figurehead. BATH 25° SATH 32°. The stern may be fashioned in the shape of a tail

[S 29]

(e). Vessel with cow figurehead. BATH and stern, as above. The midships area and part of the stern are lost

Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas). Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Wall scene. Four papyrus craft, used for fishing or fowling. fig. 12. pl. 31. Moderate damage.

(f). As per (d). BATH and SATH 30°. The forward section of the bow is lost, but the tip of hairs ear can be seen. [S 32]

(a). Short sterned papyrus vessel. The stern is cut off at 45°. BATH 25° SATH 23°. The lashings are single, and a lone angler sits on deck with a curved back rest for support.

Date: Dyn. V Moussa and Junge. Two Tombs of Craftsmen. Wall scene. pl. 8. Two Tombs of Craftsmen. East wall, northern section. Six vessels are seen; a and b face right, c - f, left.321 The scene is badly damaged.322

(b). Papyrus vessel; the stern appears to turn sharply upward.318 BATH 20° SATH 25°. Single lashings are seen. (c). As above. BATH 25° SATH 35°.

(a). Sailing vessel, with truncated bow and tapering stern, under sail. BATH 15° SATH 25°. A raised bulwark occupies the central section of the vessel. Despite damage, it can be seen that the mast was a bipod. The cabin has been almost totally lost, but an awning extends to the stern. Two hand held rudders are in use. Backstays, 60°.

(d). As above. BATH 15° SATH 25°. [S 30] Date: Dyn. VI. (Unas).

(a).

Bow lost, SATH 30°.

(b).

BATH 28° SATH 25°.

(b). Cargo vessel, with rounded bow, under sail. BATH 20° SATH 30°. (Most of the stern has been lost). A bipod mast carries a straight yard. A low bulwark is present; from its forward edge to the tip of the bow is a rail, curved at either end. A rectangular deckhouse, with a door in its side, occupies the deck from the beginning of the bulwark.323 Forestay, 72°, main backstay, 60°, secondaries, 60° - 65°.

(c).

BATH 25° SATH 25°.

(c). Cargo vessel, with truncated stern and lowered bipod

(d).

BATH 30° SATH 25°.

319

Moussa and Altenmuller. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Wall scene. Four papyriform vessels. fig. 13, pl. 34. South wall. Facing left. Some severe damage.

Only the hull proportions of (a) are given. Although this craft has the figurehead of a hedgehog, the stern does not have the canoe stern shape, and so I conclude that it is papyriform, and not an ETH 7. 321 These four are discussed from right to left. 322 The outline of the hulls of some of these examples also appear below the water line. 323 The forward section may be an awning, but the details are unclear. It could also be a separate deckhouse, linked to the central section. 320

[S 31]

318

The sterns of all three remaining craft in this scene are damaged.

172

Appendix 1 – The Examples

mast. The bow is lost. SATH 20° (approx). Bulwark, as above. A long cabin occupies most of the deck; it has a door in its side. A half round annex occupies the stern area. Two hand held rudders are in use.

Goyon. “Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussee Monumentale d’Ounas”, in BIFAO 69. Two rock cut pits, shaped like papyriform boats; lined with white limestone. pl. 11. Pyramid of Unas, south side of the causeway. BATH and SATH 20°. The pits are rectangular in cross section, although they contract towards the extremities. In plan and elevation, the bow and stern of the “boat” are square cut. The bows and sterns are indistinguishable.327

(d). Vessel with tapering rounded bow and stern, moving under oars. BATH 15° SATH 22°. A raised bulwark is topped by an awning.324 Two rudders are in use, but the helmsmen are lost.

[S 36]

(e). Vessel, bow lost, hull, as above. SATH 25°. A rectangular cabin, aft of midships, is extended fore and aft by an awning, which reaches the stern.

Date: Dyn. V Steindorff. Das Grab des Ti. pls. 21 - 22.328 Four vessels, rigged for rowing, but without rowers are depicted; above them are the remains of six cargo craft, spread over two registers.329 Wall scene. West wall. Facing left.

(f). Vessel with truncated bow and stern. BATH 10° SATH 20°. Cabin and awning, as above. [S 33]

(a). Vessel with truncated bow and rounded stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark occupies the central area of the hull. An awning extends from aft of the rise of the bulwark to forward of the tip of the stern, with nine posts per side.330 Two rudders, without tillers, are fitted; that furthest aft is passed through a grommet at deck level. HL/ WL, 2×07/1.

Date: ND. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a funerary vessel. Item 4915. pp. 70 – 72. figs. 259 – 267. pl. XVII. BATH 25 ° SATH 22 °. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out but the bulwarks are flush with the run of the hull; the bow finial has a short, sternwards rise, before turning forward; that at the stern is also short. It leans forward at approximately 45° and tapers in the centre. A rectangular rudder rest is positioned across the deck aft; it has recesses in the aft edge to secure the looms. A four posted naos stands aft of midships. There are two rudder posts. HL/WL, 3×77/1.

(b). Vessel with tapered bow and stern; fitted with a projecting stern platform. BATH 25° SATH 40°. Bulwark and rudders, as above, but there are no grommets for the rudders. An awning, of a more complex form than (a) is fitted.331 A thick post stands on the tip of the stern platform; between it and the “cabin” is another supporting post, with a papyrus bud tip. HL/WL, 2×07/1.

[S 34]

(c). Vessel with tapered bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 35°. Bulwark, rudders, and awning, as above, but with fewer poles and no thicker posts to suggest a “cabin”. The bracing ropes are on the inside of the poles. Awning over the helm, as per [S 36] (a). HL/WL, 2×2/1.

Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a funerary craft. Item 4917.325 pp. 73 – 74. figs. 273 – 276. pl. XVIV. Poor condition. BATH and SATH 15°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out, but the resulting bulwarks are flush with the run of the hull. The forward finial bends aft, then turns forward at approx 45° and then turns again, vertically. That of the stern leans aft, turns 90° forward and then turns upward at approx 45°.326 A rectangular profiled rudder rest lies across the deck aft and two rudder posts are present. A crudely constructed naos stands aft of midships. There are no rudders.

(d). Vessel with a hedgehog figurehead and rounded stern. BATH 28° SATH 36°. The central hull area has a raised bulwark, and the stern has a platform. Rudders, as per [S 36] (b). HL/WL, 1×81/1. (e). Cargo vessels. The majority of these examples are badly damaged.

[S 35]

With allowances for the difference in constructional medium, the hull can be recognised as parallels to papyriform craft. 328 Due to the number of vessels seen in this mastaba, the examples have been divided into three groups, influenced by orientation and the means of propulsion (if any) employed. 329 These examples are discussed from left to right, bottom to top. 330 Except at the stern, all the posts have papyrus (?) bud finials. There is a long gap aft, between the eighth and ninth post. 331 It is possible that the awning covered a cabin standing centrally on deck, as the supports in this area are thinner and closer together than the posts in the bow area. These thin posts are framed at either end of the hypothetical cabin by thick posts, without papyrus bud tips, braced by two ropes, placed obliquely, lashed together where they cross. The ropes are on the outside of the posts. 327

Date: Dyn. VI

Moussa and Junge consider that this is a cabin, but I cannot detect any indications of this, and must conclude that it is an awning. 325 Large amounts of plaster have fallen away under the hull. It can be seen that the stern finial has been added on during construction as, probably, that of the bow. 326 Damage has obscured the original shape of this finial, and it is possible that it is not an original part of the model. 324

173

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(1). Almost totally lost, this vessel had a main cargo storage area, indicated by vertical lines, and an annex in the stern, indicated by horizontal lines, which tapered down to the tip of the stern. Twin rudders were fitted.

(c). Vessel with tapering, rounded, bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH 25°. Stern platform, bulwark, cabin and awning, as per [S 37] (a), oars and rudders, as above. HL/WL, 1×96/1. (d). Vessel with rounded stern and hedgehog figurehead, under oars. Slight damage. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The oars are passed over the bulwark, but neither they nor the twin rudders have securing ropes.335 The stern has a protruding platform. Cabin and awning, as per [S 37] (a). The aft section of awning does not reach the end of the stern; its post stands inboard of the rise of the stern. The central post forward is secured to the awning by a rope loop. HL/WL, 1×82/1.

(2). As above. The stern is truncated, and the butts of three oars survive in the bow area. The roof of the storage cabin appears to have a double length of rope bound along its edge. (3). The stern and its cabin have survived. SATH 38°. The stern is truncated, with a projecting platform. The rudders pass through grommets, and are also fitted with preventer ropes tied to the loom at the top of the blade. A low door can be seen in the side of the main storage area.

(e). Papyriform vessel, being paddled. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Replicate bindings and umbels are present at bow and stern. A low bulwark is present, with an awning that extends the length of the bulwark, divided into four bays. The papyrus bud tipped posts are secured to the awning by rope loops. Rudders, as per (b). HL/WL, 2×27/1.

(4). As above, with truncated bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 36°. A rail is present at the bow, from the forward end of the storage area to the bow. Four oars are secured to it. HL/WL, 1×56/1.

(f). Vessel being rowed, hull, as per [S 37] (b), BATH 15° SATH 25°. Bulwark, cabin and awning, as per (a), oars and rudders, as per [S 37] (b). HL/WL, 1×92/1.

(5). Stern and cabin, stern, as above. SATH 30°. Rudders, as per (3).

[S 38]

(6). Fittings and equipment, as per (4). BATH 25° SATH 32°. A door is present in the centre of the side of the main cabin. HL/WL, 1×35/1.

Date: Dyn. V

[S 37]

Steindorff. Das Grab des Ti. Wall scene. Five vessels with bipod masts, under sail. pls. 77-81. Corridor II. West wall. These are considered from left to right.

Date: Dyn. V

(a). Vessel with truncated bow and tapered stern, with platform. BATH 18° SATH 28°. A raised bulwark occupies the central area of the hull. Aft of midships stands a rectangular cabin, extended fore and aft by awnings. The forward posts flare at the top, and have an angular bracket or tie to the awning. Five hand held rudders are in use, passed through grommets. The sail is spread on a balance beam yard; the straight boom lies on deck, aft of the mast; the crew appear to be sitting on it. Above them are crossed mast-securing ropes. The oars are arrayed along the hull. Main backstay, 45°, secondaries, 50° - 54°. HL/MH, 1×34/1, HL/WL, 2×15/1, MS/HL, ×3/1.

Steindorff. Das Grab des Ti. Six vessels, under oars or paddles. pls. 74 - 76.332 Corridor II, West wall. Facing right (a). Vessel with truncated bow and tapered stern, fitted with a short stern platform, under oars. BATH 15° SATH 20°. The central hull area has a raised bulwark. A rectangular cabin, covered with matting, stands on deck, aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning. There are two bays forward, supported by lotus (?) bud tipped posts, and one bay aft. Three hand held rudders are in use, secured by rope to the forward edge of what appear to be half - round sectioned beams across the deck.333 HL/WL, 2×51/1.

(b). Vessel with truncated bow and stern, fitted with a platform. BATH 15° SATH 22°. Some moderate damage. There are no securing ropes on the mast; other details, as above, with only four rudders. The rudders have preventer ropes from the top of the blade to the supporting grommet. Forestay, 72°, backstays as above. HL/MH, 1×29/1, HL/ WL, 2×57/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

(b). Vessel with square cut bow and stern. BATH 16° SATH 23°. Cabin, awning and bulwark, as above, but there is no stern platform.334 The oars pass through grommets along the top of the bulwark. Twin rudders without tillers are in use; secured as above. A thick post standing on the tip of the stern supports the aft end of the awning. HL/WL, 2× 08/1.

(c). Vessel with rounded bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH

pl. 74 shows the same vessel twice, ie, the craft at the top of the plate is the same as the craft below it. . 333 The possible significant of this configuration is discussed in Chapter 4. 334 The covering material of the cabin cannot be discerned. 332

335

174

The bulwark is higher than fitted to the other ships in this scene.

Appendix 1 – The Examples

30°. Slight damage.336 No mast -securing ropes are present; other details, as per 38 (a), but there are no grommets for the rudders. Forestay, as above, backstays, as per 38 (a). There is no main backstay. HL/MH, 1×3/1, HL/WL, 2×19/1. MS/HL, ×3/1.

(a). Stub sterned craft. BATH 27° SATH 15°. The occupant sits in a wicker chair; he faces away from the activities around him. Double bands of lashings appear along the hull. (b). BATH 18° SATH 30°. The stern is higher than the bow. Lashings; as above. Ti stands on a low central platform.

(d). Papyriform vessel, tip of stern lost. SATH 15° BATH 30°. Cabin, as per [S 38] (a), but extended forward only, by a long awning, of only one bay. The post is secured by a tie.337 The bulwark stops just aft of the cabin and there is no additional stern platform. Three rudders are in use. Forestay, 60°, main backstay, 40°, secondaries, 50° - 54°.

(c). BATH 22° SATH 30°. Lashings: as per [S 40] (a). There is no central platform. [S 41]

(e). Vessel, hull, as per [S 38] (b). BATH 15° SATH 25°. Cabin and rudders, as above, with the awning divided into two bays. Three hand held rudders are in use, without securing ropes. Forestay, 70°, main backstay, 50°, secondaries, 52° - 57°. HL/MH, 1×32/1, HL/WL, 2×53/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

Date: Dyn. VI

[S 39]

(a). Stern lost, BATH 15°. The strakes of the hull are shown as continuous, but taper towards the bow, the front of which leans aft at 5°. Eight blade like uprights stand on the fore deck. Sledges laden with columns are positioned on deck, flanked by what Goyon considers to be railings.338 A mast, possibly a tripod, lies across uprights, together with the yard and boom. Protruding from the bow are two pincer like objects.339

Goyon. Les Navires de Transport de la Chaussée Monumentale d’Ounas. Remnants of wall scene. Transport barges, carrying stone columns. pls. III - V. Funerary temple of Unas. Facing right. Badly damaged.

Date: Dyn V Steindorff. Das Grab des Ti. pl. 119. Jenkins. The Boat. pl. 102. Wall scene. Five timber vessels under construction. Moderate to extreme damage. (a). Papyriform vessel. BATH 15° SATH 20°. Badly damaged, with much of the bow lost. A low bulwark is present. A worker on deck is shaping a fork-topped upright. Broad timber props support the extremities, and the hull sits on a short skid plate.

(b). Only the stern survives. SATH 18°. Four rudders pass obliquely across the stern quarter. The stern is extended by a platform, upon which is positioned a round object.340 A cabin (?) with a curved roof appears to stand on the stern deck.

(b). As above. BATH and SATH as above. Severely damaged. A skid plate may be present.

(c). As per (a). BATH 15°. The fore foot of the bow slopes forward at 8°. The details of the tripod mast are clearer, and the yard is seen to be straight, with up curved tips.

(c). Vessel with truncated bow and tapered stern. BATH and SATH 20°. Bulwark and skid plate, as per [S 39] (a), with only one prop forward.

(d). The bow is indiscernible. Stern, as per [S 41] (b). SATH 15°. Eight blade like projections stand on the stern. Mast and rigging, as above.

(d). Vessel with rounded bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. Bulwark and prop, as above.

[S 42]

(e). Vessel with truncated bow and stern. BATH 10° SATH 20°. A central bulwark is being positioned, beaten down over protruding tenons. There are two props under the bow, one under the stern. To the right of this hull are seen shipwrights, cutting planks and mortises.

Date: Dyn. V Bietak. ‘Zur Marine Des Alten Reiches’ in Pyramid Studies, EES. pl. 9. pp. 35 - 40. Fragment of wall scene. Two sailing vessels, possibly seagoing, with oars rigged but not in use. Causeway of Unas. Moderate damage.

[S 40] Date: Dyn V

(a). Vessel with rounded bow, stern lost. BATH 20°. A blade shaped upright stands on the tip of the bow. A (rope?) loop projects forward. Two lines of strakes run parallel to

Steindorff. Das Grab des Ti. Three papyrus craft. Scene 99.

The railings, if such they are, are not continuous, and are only present adjacent to the sledges. 339 Possibly for the securing of mooring anchors (Goyon, p. 25). Similar items are seen aboard the Sahure vessels. 340 Goyon considers this to be an anchor. 338

It can be seen that the platform did not extend past the tip of the stern and that the aft upright for the awning stood here. 337 This is the clearest of these ties present in the mastaba, the others having been blurred through damage. 336

175

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

the deck line. The base of what appears to be a tripod mast is seen to the left, with a cross brace which protrudes on either side of the mast at the head height of the crew. Two twisted ropes, rising from loops at deck level, pass over the cross brace and around the outer legs of the mast. There are no securing knees. A rope truss passes under the bow and runs aft. Forestay, 55°.

level; two halyards pass down to the deck between the mast legs; the yard is thickest in the centre, and has upturned tips. The secondary backstays are secured to small eyelets protruding from the sides of the mast. Forestay, 60°, main backstay 40°, secondaries, 45° - 50°. HL/MH, 1×58/1, HL/ WL, 2×46/1, MS/HL, ×37/1. [S 44]

(b). Vessel with rounded stern, bow lost. SATH 25°. The stern has a blade shaped upright, as well as guard railings, intended to protect the helmsmen. The railings protrude aft of the stern, but there does not seem to be a platform. The upper of the two strakes, as present above, ends just forward of the first upright post of the railing and must be considered as a bulwark. The truss, also as above, passes through the resultant gap and under the stern. A low upright with a forked supports it top, aft of the mast. Three rudders trail over the side; there are no tillers or rudder posts. The vessel is fitted with a gantry. Mast and looped ropes, as above, but here the right hand rope has tensioning sticks passed through it. Backstays, 50° - 60°.

Date: Dyn. VI Macramallah. Le Mastaba D’Idout. Wall scenes. Remnants of five papyrus vessels. Mastaba of I’dout. pl. V. Room A, south wall. (a). Two craft, facing left. (1). BATH 20° SATH 30°. The tip of the bow and half the stern are lost. The bindings are evenly spaced in pairs, with a rope along the length of the upper edge of the vessel. Above this, along the central area, is a low strip (a bulwark?), and the craft is fitted with a high central platform.

[S 43] Date: Dyn.V

(2). BATH 22° SATH 30°. The stern is very high. Bindings and rope, as above.

Petrie. Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels. Wall scene. Sailing vessels, with truncated bow and stern. pl. XVII. Moderate damage.

(b). Three craft, of which two face right.342 (1). BATH and SATH 20°. Tip of stern lost, other details, as above.

(a). South wall, facing left, under oars. BATH 18° SATH 30°. The crew ply their oars over a high central bulwark; with the right hand over the loom, but the left, which is the higher, under the loom.341 Their oars are secured to the bulwark by grommets. Three hand held rudders, without tillers, are in use. A preventer rope survives around the loom of the first rudder. Standing aft of midships, and extended fore and aft by an awning, is a rectangular cabin, the entire structure reaching from just aft of the forward end of the bulwark to the tip of the stern. The supports at either end are broad; between the forward support and the cabin are three roughly equally spaced poles, topped with (papyrus?) buds. Along the top of the cabin and awning lies a bipod mast, shown on its side. The legs are joined at the top by a mast cap, pierced with a hole. Five cross beams strengthen the mast, the lowest, and thickest, being on the opposite side than the others. The mast legs taper, being thickest at their base. No sail or rigging is depicted. HL/MH, 1×48/1, HL/WL, 2×12/1.

(2). BATH and SATH 25°. Details as per 44 (a) (1) and (2). (3). BATH 22° SATH 25°. [S 45] Date: Dyn. VI Macramallah. Le Mastaba D’Idout. Wall scene. Fifteen papyrus craft. pl. VII. West wall. Overall, the damage to the vessels is slight.343 Section 1. (a). Vessel being constructed.344 BATH 25° SATH 33°. A rectangular prop supports the bow, and lashings are being tightened. To the right are the remains of men carrying papyrus to the builders.

(b). Vessel, as above, moving under sail, but with oars ready. BATH and SATH as above. Smaller than [S 43] (a), but with the same high bulwark and rectangular cabin. The support of the awning aft is lost; forward of the cabin it reaches only to the mast, where a crook-topped pole supports it. The bipod mast has lost its peak. Securing ropes are seen around the legs of the mast, passed over the top of the lower cross brace. The boom is shown at deck 341

Room A, north wall. The upper reaches of (2) are lost, but despite damage, feet can be seen aboard (3). Between them are the remains of the ‘wall of water’, towards which a person spear fishing is often depicted facing. 343 Due to the number of vessels present, the scene is divided into two sections. In the first, all the craft, except the first, face right; those in the second face left. One example (12) from section 1 extends into section 2. 344 Although there are no bindings indicated along the hull, the actions of the builders and the presence of papyrus gatherers indicates that this is a papyrus vessel. 342

This would seem to indicate that they were standing, not sitting.

176

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(b).

Four craft, facing right.

(2). Stern damaged. BATH 22° SATH 20°. The bow curves downward, enabling it to fit under the stern of (3). No bindings.

scene. Vessel with rounded bow and stern; a raised bulwark extends over the stern as a platform. pl. VIII. East wall, room B.347 BATH 15° SATH 25°. Two forked uprights stand along the deck. Rising from inboard of the bow and lying along the uprights is a towrope, which passes astern. Another passes from the bow and over the stern ahead. A hand held rudder with tiller is in use.348 HL/WL, 2×14/1, MS/HL, ×29/1.

(3). Tip of bow lost. BATH 22° SATH 30°. No bindings.

[S 47]

(4). Tip of stern lost. BATH and SATH 23°. Pairs of bindings are present along the forward half of the craft.

Date: Dyn. VI

(1). Stern lost, bow damaged. BATH 25°. No bindings are seen.

(c).

Macramallah. Le Mastaba D’Idout. Wall scene. Four papyrus craft. pl. XI. Facing left. The scene is badly damaged.349

Four craft, as above. (1). BATH 25° SATH 20°. The stern curves upwards. No bindings.

(a). BATH 20° SATH 30°. Tip of the stern lost. Bindings are present along the hull.

(2). BATH 20° SATH 25°. The tip of the bow of (1) slightly overlaps the stern of (2). No bindings.

(b).

BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bindings, as above.

(c).

BATH 25° SATH 30°. No bindings.

(d).

BATH 20°. The stern is lost. No bindings.350

(3). BATH and SATH 20°. Stern, as per (1), no bindings. (4). BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bindings, as per (b) (4). (d).

[S 48]

Four craft, facing right.

Date: Dyn. VI

(1). BATH 20° SATH 30°. The crew are paddling; the owner sits on a seat with a curved, raised back. (2). BATH 25° SATH 35°.

Macramallah. Le Mastaba D’Idout. Wall scene. Papyrus craft, being poled. pl. XIII. South wall of room D. Facing left.351 BATH 18° SATH 25°.

(3). BATH 32°.345 This example has no stern.

[S 49]

(4). BATH 25°. Some bindings are present at the bow. The stern is square cut, and touches the underside of the bow of (3).

Dyn VI. (Teti). Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Wall scene. Papyriform craft. pl. 9. North wall. Facing right. Minimal damage. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The craft has a central platform. Pairs of bindings are present; there are twice as many bindings aft. A line beneath the platform and the upper surface of the craft may indicate the presence of a padding, to prevent damage to the craft.

Section 2. (e). BATH 20° SATH 30°. Facing left. Bulwark and platform; as per 44, (a) (1). A few sets of bindings are present. (f). Astern of (e) is a craft with a square cut stern. BATH 20°.346 Pairs of bindings are present along the hull. The occupant sits in a seat, as per (d) (1).

The remains of two other craft are present; the tip of a papyriform craft astern and the stern of craft, of the same shape and angle as this example, ahead. The right hand vessel was also towed from shore. Persons handle a second towrope ashore, walking along a register line above the towing boats. This tow cuts across the text in the boats register as well a vase stand in the register accommodated by the towers. 348 The top of the loom of the craft ahead has been lost, but the pose of the helmsman and the lack of a rudder post suggest that he was equipped with the same rudder as his colleague aboard [S 45]. The loom of the rudder passes through the platform, at the port quarter; damage to this area aboard [S 45] prevents clarification of this point. 349 The remains of two other craft are seen in a damaged register above. These have not been discussed. 350 The surviving central section of this example is longer than the other craft in this scene. 351 There are no bindings to indicate that this is a papyrus vessel, but the shape is commensurate with the vessel under construction in pl. VII. 347

[S 46] Date: Dyn. VI Macramallah. Le Mastaba D’Idout. Fragment of wall The stern area may have been masked by the bow of (2), or the vertical line marking the end of the registers above may have continued downwards to create a stern as seen on (4), below. 346 The stern is not shown in pl.VII, but can be seen in pl.VI. 345

177

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

[S 50]

Cabin, awning and rudders, as per [S 52] (a). A lowered pole mast and spars lies along two crook -topped uprights. The arms of the crooks pass over the edge of the cabin/ awning and the aft most rower pushes against the aft upright to gain leverage.356 The lower line of the awning astern of the aft upright runs over the upper edge of the cabin roof. HL/MH, 1×44/1, HL/WL, 1×99/1, MS/HL, ×33/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Wall scene. Papyriform craft. pl. 11. East wall, facing right. Slight damage. BATH 20° SATH 35°. Central platform, as above.

(d). As above, but without the forward platform. BATH and SATH 25°. Mast stowage, as above, but the details are clearer, showing that the yard was straight, with a yoke and upturned tips. The rigging is loosely spiralled around the mast and spars; the masthead is lost. The rowers stand outside the bulwark, on the line of the deck. HL/WL, 2×21/1, MS/HL, ×39/1.

[S 51] Date: Dyn. VI Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Papyriform craft, as above. pl. 13. West wall, facing left. Slight damage. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The central platform is twice as thick as aboard [S 49] and [S 50].

(e). Cargo vessel, with truncated bow and stern, being rowed. Facing left. BATH 25° SATH 30°. An upward turning bracket protrudes from the stern, against which pivots a single rudder, with tiller. The helmsman stands on a triangular annex in the stern. Forward of the annex is a rectangular structure, with a low door in its centre. A dismounted bipod mast with numerous cross beams lies across the cabins. There are no railings at the bow. HL/MH, 1×56/1, HL/WL, 1×58/1.

[S 52] Date: Dyn. VI Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Seven vessels, being sailed or rowed. pls. 19 - 22. South wall, facing right. Moderate to severe damage.

(f). As above. The feet of the mast are lost. HL/WL, 2×6/1.

(a). Vessel with rounded bow and stern, extended by a platform, facing right. BATH 20° SATH 25°. A raised bulwark extends over the stern, forming sides of the platform, and a rectangular cabin stands aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning. A pole mast carries a rectangular sail, spread by a straight yard with semicircular protrusions on the upper surface of the tips.352 A pair of slings on the starboard side of the mast, taken to a protruding ring or loop approximately two thirds the height of the mast, support the (unseen) boom. Twin hand held rudders, without tillers, are in use. The crew are making sail.353 Forestay, 65°, backstays, 31° - 33°. HL/MH, 1×55/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

(g). As above, but under sail. Facing right. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The yard is straight, with up curved tips. There are no slings for the boom, which may not have been depicted.357 There are no mast securing ropes or stays, however two ropes descend from either side of the masthead. To port, these are together, to starboard, they are well apart. As the sail is braced to port, i.e., taking the wind from starboard; this may indicate an alternative means of supporting the mast other than with a multitude of stays. The foot of the sail on the starboard side touches the starboard leg of the mast. HL/MH, 2/1, MS/HL, ×34/1. [S 53]

(b). As above. BATH 25° SATH indeterminable.354 The forward awning reaches the mast. A pair of slings from either side of the mast supports the boom, as above, which is carried higher than deck level.355 Forestay, 60°, backstays, 26° - 28°. HL/MH, 1×92/1, MS/HL, ×3/1.

Date: Dyn. VI Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Two papyrus vessels, being poled or paddled. pl. 32. Corridor, north wall. Facing right . Slight to moderate damage.

(c). Vessel with rounded bow and stern; both are extended by a platform, formed by a continuation of the bulwark; that at the bow may possibly be analogous to a bowsprit, but as the craft is not under sail, this is difficult to assess. As there are persons standing upon this feature, it is most probably a platform. Facing left. BATH and SATH 30°. The head of the mast and its attendant rigging protrudes into the line of text above this vessel 353 Two halyards are seen, with a third crew member in the posture of hauling on a third halyard, although such is not present. 354 Most of the vessel aft of midships is lost. 355 It appears that the boom has been re - drawn during the setting out of the tomb. 352

This seems to me to indicate that the crooks, at least in this instance, stand to the side of the cabin/awning. 357 This area of the deck has been lost, as has the central area of the cabin. One must conjecture that part of the forward cabin could be removed for the mast to be positioned. Despite damage, it can be seen that there is a break in the roofline of the forward cabin, at the port mast leg. 356

178

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(a). BATH 50° SATH 55°.358 Ten crew members are on deck, poling. Pairs of bindings are spaced along the hull.

BATH and SATH 30°. The lower half of the bow finial has less curvature than the previous example and only one rudder post has survived. Other details, as above. HL/WL, 3×98/1.

(b). As above. BATH and SATH 30°. A single paddle is being used for propulsion and steering.

[S 57]

[S 54]

Date: Dyn VI

Date: Dyn. VI

Davies and El-Khouli, Lloyd and Spencer. Saqqara Tombs I. The Mastabas of Mereri and Wernu. Fragments of wall scenes showing papyrus vessels. pls. 5 and 25.

Altenmüller. Die Wanddarstellung im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Six papyrus vessels, being poled or paddled. pls. 33, 35 and 39. Corridor, north wall. Moderate to severe damage.

(1). Mereri, Room 1, South wall, facing left. BATH 25° SATH 35°. The tip of the bow is lost. The occupant stands on a thick central platform, devoid of markings or graining. Single bindings are seen along the hull, except at the stern, where there are multiples.

(a). Severely damaged, with most of the midships and bow lost. BATH 18° (approx), SATH 40°. (b). Badly damaged; the midships is lost. BATH 30° SATH 40°. (c).

Undamaged. BATH 20° SATH 36°.

(d).

BATH and SATH 30°. 359

(e).

BATH and SATH 20°. Badly eroded

(2). Forward of [S 57] (1) and facing it, is the stern of another craft (SATH 40°), being poled. Wernu, East wall of interior, facing right. Four small craft, with the remains of a larger fifth above. This is considered first. (1). BATH 25° SATH 30°. (Most of the bow is lost). The occupant stood on a central platform, devoid of markings; a pad seems to be present beneath the platform.360

(f). BATH and SATH 30°. Undamaged, facing right towards (g). Pairs of lashings are evenly spaced along the hull. (g).

BATH 20 SATH 30°. Facing left.

(2). BATH 30° SATH 45°. Evenly spaced but irregularly marked lashings appear along the hull.361 Those at the bow appear to be multiple. There is no steering gear or central platform.

[S 55] Date: ND.

(3). SATH 43° (the bow is lost). The lashings are unclear, other details, as above, although a crew member is poling the craft.362

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Item 4913. pl. XVII. Timber model of a sailing vessel, with tapering bow and incurved stern, being rowed. DP. BATH and SATH 20°. DP. A single rudder post stands on the centre line of the hull, and a pole mast lies on deck; a mast shoe is positioned on deck amidships. A flange protrudes from either side of the masthead; each is pierced with a hole. A bow roller is present, and the rowers sit on blocks. HL/MH, 2/1, HL/WL, 5×25/1, MS/HL, ×51/1.

(4). BATH 20° SATH 40°. The details and lashings are as per (a), although the lashings are closer together; the lashings are multiples. (5). BATH 20° SATH 37°. The lashings are more widely spaced. A crew member poles, as per [S 57] (3), but his rear leg is positioned aboard the bow of [S 57] (4).

[S 56] Date: ND.

[S 58]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. As above. Item. 4916. pl. XVII.

Date: Late Dyn. V

The decision as to the decision on the orientation has been taken based on the direction the owner and the majority of the crew are facing, as well as the slighter angle. In the hypothetical bow, two crew members appear to be poling in the opposite direction. As a single crew member is the stern is facing aft and poling, the combined actions may represent a means of steering this very long craft, perhaps in a narrow space. 359 Forward of this example is a badly eroded craft, which has not been considered here. 358

Moussa and Altenmuller. Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. pls. Centrally, the lashings alternate – first 2 then 1; towards the stern they are in pairs. The pattern at the bow cannot be discerned. 361 i.e. Single and pairs of lashings. 362 His sternmost foot is atop the tip of the stern. See also the positioning of the helmsman of [S 58] (4). 360

179

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

16 and 17. Chapel, East wall, facing right Wall scene. Ships under or setting sail.

Date: Late Dyn. V Moussa and Altenmuller. Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. Wall scene. Papyrus vessel under construction. pl. 5. Slight damage. BATH 25° SATH 35°. Single bindings are evenly spaced along the craft. There are no props, the bow is held up while another builder works on it.

(a). Vessel with truncated bow and tapering stern, setting sail. BATH 10° SATH 30°. A sail, spread by a balance beam yard, is being hoisted on a bipod mast.363 The mast has cross braces and a mast cap. A rectangular cabin, covered with matting, stands aft of midships, extended fore and aft by an awning. Two hand held rudders are in use. A raised bulwark is present. Forestay, 60°, main backstay, 40°, secondaries, 45°. ML/MH, 1×8/1, HL/WL, 2×98/1, MS/ HL, ×32/1.

[S 62] Date: Dyn. V Hayes. The Sceptre of Egypt. Wall scene. Four vessels, being rowed or paddled. fig. 64. South wall, facing right. Mastaba of Re’- Em-Kuy. Moderate damage.

(b). Sailing vessel, with rounded stern and animal figurehead. BATH 15° SATH 20°. The stern platform protrudes slightly, other details, as above.364 Forestay, 65°, main backstay, 33°, secondaries, 45°. HL/MH, 1×87/1, HL/ WL, 2×61/1, MS/HL, ×34/1.

(a). Vessel with truncated bow and stern. BATH 20° SATH 30°. A raised bulwark occupies the central area of the hull, but there is no stern platform. A rectangular cabin on deck is extended forward to the end of the bulwark by an awning, divided into two bays, and aft to the tip of the stern by a single bay. Two hand held rudders are in use.

[S 59] Date: Late Dyn. V Moussa and Altenmuller. Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. Wall scene. Vessel with rounded stern and hedgehog figurehead, under construction. pl. 19. BATH 10° SATH 15°. The bow and stern are shown as a darker colour than the rest of the hull; between them stretches a rope, looped a number of times around the hull, inboard of the bow and stern.365 Another rope is attached to the hull, aft of midships, and is being pulled by persons to the left. Props are seen beneath the hull, one of which is being removed (?), and workers are still busy in the bow.366 HL/WL (register line/ hull bottom) 3×16/1.

(b). Vessel with truncated bow and tapered stern, with a stern platform. BATH 18° SATH 35° (approx - the stern is badly damaged). Bulwark, rudders and cabin, as above, but with three bays forward. (c). Vessel with animal head at bow, being paddled. BATH 25° SATH 30°. Rudders and bulwark, as per [S 62] (a). An awning, divided into five bays, runs the length of the bulwark. (d). Papyriform vessel. BATH 20° SATH 30° (approx stern mainly lost). Bulwark and awning configuration, as above, but the aft section is lost. Replicate bindings are present at the bow, these include, laying fore and aft on the upper edge of the bow, tied ends of the lashings.

[S 60] Date: Late Dyn. V Moussa and Altenmuller. Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay. Timber model of a papyriform vessel. pl. 41a. BATH and SATH not offered. The deck is flat, with low bulwarks; the outer extremities of the hull at bow and stern are cylindrical, with carved imitations papyrus craft bindings. Abutting the bulwarks aft is a round profiled beam across the deck, to support the rudders. A rectangular flat roofed cabin stands amidships; forward of it is a bipod mast.

[S 63]

[S 61]

(a). (1). BATH 20° SATH 30°. The stern is high, and supported by a long prop. The surviving bindings are in pairs. A coil of rope lies on the deck forward.

Date: Dyn. VI. Davies. The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh. Wall scene. Two papyrus vessels being constructed, a third used for fishing. pls. XIII and XV. East wall, left half. Chapel of Akhethetep.

The exertion required of the crew is clearly depicted, and includes a crew member who appears to be controlling the leeward leech of the sail with a pole. 364 Although the sail is set, a crew member still pushes the sail with a pole. 365 It can be hypothesised that the rope is continuous, as there are four lays of rope at the stern, three at the bow. The point at which it ends, however, cannot be discerned. The rope is supported amidships by a forked upright. The rope spans are bound together by bands of lashings; a stick passed through them is being used to tighten the assemblage. 366 Moussa and Altenmuller consider that this shows a seagoing hull being bent into shape. It is more likely that the scene depicts several phases of shipbuilding, with the hull ready for launching. 363

(2). BATH 20° SATH 40°. The bindings vary, with the remains of single, double and triples being seen. (b). BATH and SATH 38°. Evenly spaced double lashings are present along the craft. The end of the stern is lost, and the occupant occupies a round backed seat.

180

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[S 64]

supported by three pairs of uprights, stands immediately forward of the rudder post; the aft section is enclosed. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out; the fore and stern decks are flush with the run of the hull. Consequently, there are no bulwarks. A crook topped mast rest and a long, narrow gangplank, with a square recess at the top and a square base lie on deck. A tapering pole mast and yard and a straight boom are associated with this example. Two copper eyelets protrude from either side of the masthead; another pair is fitted one third (approx) down the mast, and another pair midpoint between the masthead and the lower pair. HL/ WL 3×38/1, MS/HL ×41/1.

Date: Dyn: VI Davies. The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep. Wall scene. pls. XIV and XVI. Four papyrus craft, their crews engaged in the boatmen’s game, with a fifth used for dip net fishing. Moderate damage. (a). (1). BATH 30° SATH 35°. No bindings are seen. (2). BATH 20° SATH 30°. As above.

[S 68]

(3). BATH 25° SATH 35°. The stern is damaged. Pairs of lashings are equally spaced along the craft.

Date: Dyn. XI.

(4). BATH 22° SATH 35°. Double lashings are seen at the bow, with a scattering of singles along the stern. (b).

Quibell. Excavations at Saqqara. Timber model of a papyriform craft. pls. XXVI and XXIX. BATH 20° SATH 40°. Mast and mast rest, as above, but with only one pair of eyelets present, at the masthead. Gangplank, as above, but with a rounded base. A cavetto cornice naos, supported by four papyrus bud tipped posts, is present in the stern. The single helmsman holds an oar over the starboard side; it is possible that this is original.370 HL/WL 5×21/1, MS/ HL ×32/1.

BATH 25° SATH 40°. No bindings are seen.

[S 65] Date: Dyn. X/XI Tooley. ZAS 118 (1991). Timber model of a boat with rising, square cut bow and rounded stern, extended by a forked protrusion. fig. 3.367 BATH and SATH 10°. The hull is hollowed out, with an oval section of timber inserted to form a deck. An arched thwart in the stern has a rectangular hole in its centre for a rudder post; the forked rudder support is similar in shape to a bow roller. A deckhouse, consisting of a tunnel like roof and four plain poles, stands aft of midships.368

[S 69] Date: Dyn. VI Firth and Gunn. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Wall scene. Three cargo craft, with square cut bows and sterns. pl. 53. Mastaba of Kagemni. Slight damage. (a). BATH 25° SATH 35°. The bow is overlapped by the craft ahead. A rounded annex stands in the stern; a rectangular structure extends forward. Its roof is lower than the stern cabin. A low rail is present at the bow.

[S 66] Date: Dyn. V Stevenson-Smith. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Five fragments of a wall scene. Funerary temple of Userkaf. Timber vessel, being paddled. p. 71, fig. 32.369 Extremely damaged. No angles discernible. The crew are paddling over a high bulwark.

(b). BATH 25° SATH 32°. An upward curved projection is seen at the stern. Deckhouses, as above, but the roof of the forward structure commences at the same height aft as the roof of the annex. A bipod mast, curved yard and straight boom lie along the cabin roofs. The masthead has a square lug protruding from its face. The rigging is spiralled loosely around the mast. A tall door is seen in the centre of the main cabin. Bow rail, as above. HL/WL, 1×74/1.

[S 67] Date: Dyn. XI.

(c). BATH 20° SATH 30°. Deckhouses, as per (a). A narrow door is seen in the annex and a low door in the centre of the main structure. Upward curved projection, as per [S 69] (b). A forked upright stands on the starboard quarter, supporting a rudder, which has a tiller. Bow rail, as above. HL/WL, 2×24/1.

Quibell. Excavations at Saqqara. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and stern, topped by a block. pp. 9 -11. pls. XXVII and XXVIII. Burial of Karenen. Good condition. BATH 30° SATH 40°. A tunnel roofed deckhouse, Berlin State Museum, no. 1232. The fittings have been excluded from the Tooley illustration; for these details see Landstrom, line drawing 205, p. 71. 369 Also Landstrom, fig. 171, Vinson, fig. 61. Instead of a combined action, each man appears to raise his paddle overhead and commences his stroke after the man ahead has commenced his, resulting in a ripple effect along the hull. 367 368

[S 70] The shaft is too short to reach either the water line or the helmsman’s raised left hand.

370

181

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Date: Dyn. VI.

(b). Angles, as above. Evenly spaced lashings are seen along the length of the hull.

Firth and Gunn. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Wall scene. 3 papyrus craft under construction. pl. 9. Moderate damage.

[S 73]

(a).

BATH 25° SATH 28°.

Date: Dyn. VI.

(b).

BATH 22° SATH 35°

(c).

BATH and SATH 28°.

[S 71]

Lehner. The Complete Pyramids. Fragment of a wall scene. Stern of a papyrus craft. p. 162. Funerary temple of Pepi II. Most of the scene is lost. Angles not offered. The remains of the craft consist of a flat platform, with the stern cut off square.

Date: Dyn. VI.

[S 74]

Firth and Gunn. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Wall scene. Three papyrus and one papyriform craft being utilised for cattle fording, fishing or hunting. pl. 7.371 Orientation not offered. Moderate to badly damaged.

Date: Dyn. V – VI McFarlane. ACE, Vol. 10. Wall scene. Tomb of Iarew - Ka – Ptah (Irukaptah). Eight vessels; six move right, two left, and four papyrus craft.377 The oars of (a) – (c) are rigged ready for use, but are unmanned. Some severe damage.

(a). BATH 20° SATH 43°.372 No central platform, but a thin mat lies on the deck area. (b).

(a). Craft with truncated bow and tapering stern, under sail. BATH 20° SATH 35°. Aft of midships is a rectangular cabin, covered in chequered matting, extended forward to the mast and aft to the tip of the stern by an awning. Two hand held rudders are in use. The mast is a bipod; the sail is spread on a straight yard.378 The boom is not seen. Forestay, 40°, backstays, 38°. HL/MH, 2×48/1, HL/WL, 2×58/1, MS/ HL, ×35/1.

BATH and SATH 32°. Mat, as above.

(c). Papyriform boat. BATH 25° SATH 32°.373 The crew are engaged in a hippopotamus hunt in a papyrus thicket or marsh.374 (d). BATH 20° SATH 35°. There is no mat, but the central occupant squats on a seat with a low, rounded, back.375

(b). Papyriform vessel. BATH 25° SATH 35°. Replicate bindings are present at the bow and stern. Other fittings; as above. Forestay, 49°, main backstay, 32°, secondaries, 39°. HL/MH, 2×46/1, HL/WL, 2×19/1, MS/HL, ×32/1.

(e). Stern of papyrus craft. SATH 32°. The helmsman has one foot on top of the outer face of the stern. [S 72]

(c). As per (a); some of the oars trail in the water. BATH 18° SATH 30°. HL/MH, 2×76/1, HL/WL, 2×16/1, MS/HL ×35/1.

Date: Dyn. V. Boreux. Etudes de Nautique. Wall scene. Two papyrus vessels, being poled. Chapel of Ptahhotep. p. 225, fig. 68. Undamaged.

(d). Vessel with square cut bow and stern, fittings, as per (a), BATH 25° SATH 30°. Forestay, 57°, backstays, 42°. HL/MH, 2×39/1, HL/WL, 3×0/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

(a). BATH 25° SATH not offered.376 Bindings are seen only at the bow and stern. A rope runs the length of the hull at deck level.

(e). Vessel with hedgehog figurehead. BATH 30° SATH 32°. Cabin and awnings, as above. Oars are in use. HL/ WL, 1× 44/1.

See also World Art Treasures. http://www.bergerfoundation.ch/wat4/ picture 372 Interestingly, the crew man drawing the calf towards him is wearing a horse - shoe shaped papyrus bundle, with evenly spaced lashings. This bundle passes over his right shoulder and under his left – a form of life preserver? 373 This craft has either lost any indications of papyrus lashings or never had them. All papyrus craft at this site have definite, and very distinctive, papyrus lashings, and it is unlikely that only one craft would have lost all signs indicative of a papyrus vessel. The conclusion, therefore, is that it is papyriform. 374 Two men each hold four ropes, which appear to have been used to snare their victims, in one hand, while they brandish a single barbed harpoon in the either. Between these two stands the third hunter, who holds aloft a heavy club, which he grips with both hands. 375 The seat appears to be of papyrus. 376 The stern is curved upwards, forming an arc of almost 90° 371

Rachewiltz. pl. VI, XIV, XV and XVII, A. McFarlane, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports, vol. 10, 1999, pl. 11 and fig 4 and The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports vol. 1, 2000, pl 46 - 48. The two cargo craft on the lowest register have been badly damaged, as noted by the excavator. (Rachewiltz, p. 15). His publication omitted some details of the craft in question, namely the bow of (c), the stern of (e) and the marsh scene. Mcfarlane rectifies these omissions, and also shows the four papyrus craft, which were only sketched onto the walls and never finished. The details of the two damaged cargo craft are taken from McFarlane’s’ work. Chapel, East wall. 378 The masts in this tomb are short, which may have been the result of having to fit the vessels into narrow registers. 377

182

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(f). Hull and fittings; as per (a), under oars. BATH, 20° SATH, 32°. HL/WL, 2× 86/1.

BATH 20° SATH 25°. Rudder, as above. Another tow passes from the bow of (d) to (e). HL/WL, 2×05/1

(g). Cargo craft; tip of bow lost, the stern curves inward. BATH 23° SATH 30°. A rectangular deckhouse stands amidships. At the stern is a triangular annex. Two hand held rudders are in use.379

(e).

[S 76] Date: Dyn. XII.

(h). As above. Both bow and stern turn inward. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The helmsmen sit on top of the stern shelter. HL/WL 2 . 5/1

Holwerda and Boeser. Chapel of Achet - Hetep – Her. Wall scene. First corridor, north wall.382 Vessel with tapered, square cut bow and stern, towing a papyriform craft. pl. IX .383 Good condition.

(i). Papyrus craft, with a central platform. BATH 15°, SATH 24°. It can be seen that the artist intended to show a pad between the platform and the upper surface of the craft. Unusually, the surface of the platform is not horizontal; it slopes forward at 8°, and the craft has a noticeable “bows down” attitude.380 ( j ).

Stern of papyrus craft. SATH 34°.

( k ).

Papyrus craft. BATH 34° SATH 30°.

( l ).

As above. BATH 20° SATH 27°.

(a). BATH 25° SATH 32°. A low central raised bulwark is topped with a railing, supported by uprights; these lean perpendicular to the angle of the run of the deck. Three standing crew men are rowing; a fourth holds the towrope to the craft astern, with the loose end over his shoulders. A helmsman operates a hand held rudder. HL/WL, 2×83/1. (b). BATH 25° SATH 30°. Bulwark, as above, but without a rail. Three sets of bindings are present at the bow and stern. A tall, narrow, flat roofed naos or booth stands on a sledge amidships. Steering, as above. HL/WL, 2×62/1

[S 75]

[S 77]

Date: Dyn. V

Date: Dyn. XII

Wilson. “Funeral Services”, JNEA, 1944. pp. 201-218. pl. XIII. Wall scene. Two papyriform vessels are being towed by a combination of boats and men ashore.

Holwerder and Boeser. Chapel of Achet - Hetep – Her. Fragment of a wall scene. Seven papyrus craft, one of which is under construction. Wall K. pl. XIV.384 All face right, except (e). Moderate damage. The crews of (a) – (c) are engaged in the boatman’s game.

(a). BATH 23° SATH 28°. No bindings or water weed shown, and so I conclude that this is a papyriform vessel. A central platform is fitted and a single hand held rudder with tiller is in use. The rudder is held almost vertically. The tow passes from inboard from the bow to the shore, and an individual in a small skiff (b) pulls another. HL/ WL, 2×85/1.

(a). Craft, with tapering bow and rising stern. BATH 20° SATH 40°. (b). As above. BATH 20° SATH 30°.

(b). Papyrus craft. BATH and SATH 24°. This example has the profile of a papyriform hull, and no bindings or weed are present.

(c). As above. (d). Craft under construction. Angles, as per [S 77] (b). Bindings are evenly spaced along the hull. There is a broad prop under the stern.

(c). BATH 20° SATH 26°. Details as per [S 75] (a) although the rudder is at a shallower angle. Two ropes spring from the outboard tip of the bow.381 One is taken to a team ashore, the other to a towing craft ahead, whose crew pull (c) towards them. HL/WL, 2×59/1 (d).

SATH 25°. Most of the hull is lost.

(e). Vessel with tapering bow and rising stern.385 BATH 30° SATH 20°. The hull shape is unclear, but seems to equate to the others in this scene.

Vessel with tapered bow and stern, being rowed. See also Herta Therese Mohr. The Mastaba of Hetep - Her - Akhti. Leiden. E.J. Brill. 1943. fig. 2. Boreaux. Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 156. fig. 38. 383 Mohr. The Mastaba of Hetep - Her - Akhti. 384 Mohr. The Mastaba of Hetep - Her – Akhti. figs. 26, 27, 33 and 34. 385 This example could be considered as a being a timber craft, as there are no bindings along the hull, or water weed at the stern. The lack of weed is, however, a feature common to the examples in this mastaba. Due to shape of the craft, the use of paddles and its setting in a cattle fording scene, it has been considered here as a papyrus craft. 382

The aft helmsman appears to be standing next to this shelter, indicating that it did not reach from bulwark to bulwark, but left a space between the hull sides and the shelter. Unfortunately, the lower body of the forward helmsman has been lost. 380 This may be accounted for by the positioning of the persons aboard. Not only is the tomb owner stepping forward, but before him stand two other figures, one of whom is almost on the tip of the bow. 381 This style of depicting the attachment of the towropes is otherwise unknown to me. 379

183

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

(f).

Reports 12, vol. IV. Burial 94/10.388 Timber model boat, with tapering bow and rising stern, topped with a low block. pp. 52-53. pl. 11. Moderate condition. BATH 20° SATH 28°. Central deck hollowed out, but there are no raised bulwarks. A single rudder post is fitted, but there is no rudder; immediately forward of the post is a canopy. Four pairs of rowers kneel on deck, facing aft. The stump of a pole mast stands in a mast shoe. HL/WL 4×1/1, MS/ HL ×23/1.

BATH 20° SATH 30°. A central platform is fitted.

(g). Craft with tapering bow and stub stern. BATH 28° SATH 25° [S 78] Date: Dyn. XII Holwerder and Boeser. Chapel of Achet - Hetep – Her. Three vessels, under oars. pl. XX. Wall N. Facing right.386 Overall; good condition.

[S 80] Date: M.K.

(a). Vessel with square cut bow, the tip of the stern lost. BATH 20° (approx - the underside of the bow is damaged) SATH 40°. A central bulwark extends aft into the stern; two helmsmen operate hand held rudders. To counter the rocker of the deck, they stand on a short, horizontal platform. An upright with a forked top stands forward, just aft of the forward edge of the bulwark. This supports one end of a beam, which curves in conformation to the rocker of the hull.387 Two thirds of the beam is covered, apparently by fabric, which creates a shelter. The forward end is partially obscured by the fourth rower. No aft support is shown, but the shelter ends at the helmsmen’s platform.

Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. vol VI. (The Tomb of Nikauisesi). 11 papyrus craft. pls. 47 and 50.389 Slight damage. (a). BATH 22° SATH 24°. Double pairs of lashings are evenly spaced along the craft. A narrow pad, upon which the occupants stand, runs the length of the vessel. (b). BATH 22° SATH 24°. Details, as above, but without the line of padding. (c)

(b). Papyriform vessel. BATH 25° SATH 35°. A central bulwark is topped and extended forward by a straight railing. Two forked uprights stand on deck, with a straight pole between them. Three rowers sit on the rail to row; as the middle rower is behind the forward upright, as is another person aft, it must be concluded that the uprights stood close to the side of the hull, and that these represent one side of a rectangular cover, without sides. The oars have preventer ropes. A helmsman sits on a platform in the stern. HL/WL, 2×5/1.

BATH 26° SATH 36°. As per [S 80] (a).

(d). BATH 21° SATH 35°. As per [S 80] (b). The upper surface of the craft is delineated by a length of rope, which runs the length of the vessel. (e).

BATH 20° SATH 32°. Details, as per [S 80] (c).

(f).

BATH 25° SATH 33°. As above.

(g).

BATH 28° SATH 30°. As per [S 80] (c).

(c). Cargo craft, with tapering bow and stern. The upper edge of the bow rounds downward. BATH 20° SATH 30°. In the stern is an arched annex, which tapers down to the tip of the stern; a straight rail is present the bow. Between them runs a low raised bulwark, beneath which are laced cables to strengthen the cargo area, which is delineated by an enclosed area from stern cabin to rail. This consists of two runs of narrow vertical timber strips, topped by a low arched roof. There are no doors. A single hand held rudder with preventer rope is in use, turned by a tiller. There is a short projection aft at the stern. HL/WL, 1×96/1.

(h). BATH 20° SATH 30°. A central platform is present, beneath which can be seen a narrow pad. Other details, as per [S 80] (d).

[S 79]

(a). Vessel with tapering, square cut bow; the aft half of the hull is lost. BATH 15°. The remains of a sail can be seen. A central bulwark is present.

[S 81] Date: Dyn. VI. Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne. Eight cargo craft, either under sail or being rowed. fig 296. Mastaba of Ptah Hotep. Moderate damage.

Date: M.K. Kanawati and Aber-Raziq. The Teti Cemetery, ACE,

(b). Vessel with tapering, square cut bow and stern, extended by upward curved projections. BATH 15° SATH

Mohr. The Mastaba of Hetep - Her - Akhti. figs 16 – 18. Boreaux. Etudes de nautique egyptienne. p. 157. fig. 39. 387 As the body of the rower closest to the bow partially obscures the upright, it can be conjectured that it stood on the central line of the hull

388

Also Kanawati, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports, vol. 6, 1995, Pl. 7. 389 Above (a) and (b) are three craft, but they are poorly preserved and not considered here.

386

184

Appendix 1 – The Examples

20°. A convex annex stands in the stern, extended forward by a low, rectangular structure, with a domed roof, which is partially obscured by a bipod mast and sail. The legs of the mast are parallel; the boom lies aft of the mast and the head of the mast is lost. A single hand held rudder is in use. Forestay, 75°, main backstay (?) 60°. HL/WL, 2×4/1, MS/ HL, ×39/1.

of the main structure is not domed. There is a low rail at the bow; the oars appear to pass beneath it. Two hand held rudders are in use. HL/WL 2×89/1.

(c). Hull, steering and deckhouses, as above, but with a railing at the bow. BATH and SATH 20°. The forward end of the rail curves down to the bow. The vessel is being rowed. Steering, as above. HL/WL, 1×83/1.

Date: Dyn. V

(d). As above, but the roof of the forward cabin is flat. BATH 15° SATH 22°. The rudder is fitted with a tiller. HL/ WL, 1×22/1.

(a). Vessel with tapering, rounded, bow and stern. BATH 18° SATH 20°. A central bulwark is present which may have extended over the stern as a platform.391 HL/WL 2/1.

(e). As per (c). There is a door in the forward end of the stern cabin. BATH 20° SATH 30°. HL/WL, 1×91/1.

(b). Bow of vessel and forward end of bulwark, as above. BATH 22°.

(f). As above, but without the door. BATH 28° SATH 20°. HL/WL, 2×18/1.

(c). Vessel with tapering bow and stern, being rowed.392 The stern is extended by a short platform.393 BATH 13° SATH 19°. Bulwark, as per (a), but extended forward by a railing. The aft end of the rail abuts an upright that apparently formed part of a canopy. A second upright stands further aft and a broad upright is present inboard of the stern. Two hand held rudders are in use.

(e). As above. BATH 15° SATH 22°. HL/WL 2×35/1. [S 83]

Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne. fig. 298, 2 – 3. Ten craft, facing left. One craft is badly damaged.

(g). As above. BATH 22° SATH 28°. The rudder, which has a tiller, is supported by an ovoid loop-topped rudder post, positioned on the side of the hull, slightly aft of the forward end of the annex. HL/WL, 2×35/1. (h). As above. BATH and SATH 15°. The rudder post is Y topped. HL/WL, 2×06/1.

(d). Cargo vessel with tapering bow and stern, being rowed. BATH 20° SATH 15°. A rounded annex stands in the stern. The line of the deck extends out and upward at the stern. A rail with a curved forward end is positioned in the bows; between the cabin and the inboard end of this rail stand two forked uprights.394 These support a short dismounted bipod mast, plus a curved yard and boom. The yard has a yoke in its centre, with a second smaller of these fittings inboard of either end. A hand held rudder with tiller is in use. HL/MH, 1×32/1, HL/WL, 2×08/1.

[S 82] Date: Dyn. VI. Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne. Wall scene. Five cargo craft; two being rowed, three at rest. fig 298, 1. Facing right. (a) and (b) are badly damaged.

(e). Hull, fittings and rigging, as above. BATH 19° SATH 21°. The annex extends further aft of the tip of the stern. HL/MH, 1×48/1 HL/WL, 1×75/1.

(a). Bow forward of midships lost, as is much of the stern. SATH 18°. The strakes of the hull appear to be continuous.390 A rectangular deckhouse with a slightly domed roof stands amidships; there is a low central door. A convex annex stands in the stern.

(f). As above, however the forward upright appears to stand adjacent to the aft end of the rail; the second rower has put his foot against it to give him support. BATH and SATH 19°. HL/MH, 1×48/1, HL/WL, 2/1.

(b). Hull aft of midships lost. BATH 20°. The bow is square cut and has a railing supported by vertical uprights. Aft of the rail can be seen the forward end of a raised bulwark.

(g). Vessel with tapering, rounded bow and stern, a low bulwark extends over the stern creating a short platform. BATH 15° SATH 20°. There are neither bow rails nor a stern cabin. The mast and spars are stowed as per (a).395 A

(c). Vessel with tapering stern; the extremity of the bow has a slight downward curve. BATH 17° SATH 30°. Oars, as above, but there is no bow rail, bulwark or rowers. Deckhouses, as per [S 82] (a). The blades of two rudders can be seen. HL/WL 1×94/1.

This area is lost, but see examples (g) – ( j ) of this section. For some reason, the third rower from the bow faces towards the bow; his colleagues face aft. 393 The tip of the bow is lost. 394 The rowers sit on the rail with one leg inboard and the other resting on the rail. As the forward upright is inboard again of the rowers’ legs, it cannot be positioned upon the bulwark. 395 Unlike the previous examples in this scene, the form of mast is unclear; it may be a pole but this cannot be clearly defined. 391 392

(d). Vessel with tapering, square cut bow and stern. BATH 13° SATH 23°. Deckhouses, as per [S 82] (a), but the roof 390

All the hulls in this scene appear to have continuous strakes.

185

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

hand held rudder, without a tiller, is in use. HL/MH, 1×11/1, HL/WL 1×79/1.

simple shelter with an arched roof, supported by four poles, stands forward of the steering gear. HL/MH, 1×47/1, HL/ WL, 3×5/1, MS/HL, ×41/1

(h). As above. BATH and SATH 16°. Steering, mast, yard and boom, as above. HL/MH, 1×05/1, HL/WL, 1×94/1.

[SE 04]

(i). Hull, mast and spars, as above. BATH 16° SATH 18°. The single hand held rudder has a tiller. HL/MH, 1×07/1, HL/WL, 2×06/1.

Date: Dyn. IX Petrie and Brunton. Sedment I. Two timber models of sailing vessels with tapering bows and sterns, one under oars. pl. XX.398 Tomb of Uazet – Hetep. (Tomb 2106). The latter has suffered moderate damage to the lower area of the bow.

(j). As above. BATH 15° SATH 18°. HL/MH, 1×28/1, HL/ WL, 2×21/1. 12.24 Sedment

(a). BATH and SATH 30°. The central deck area is hollowed out and the deck at the bow and stern are flush with the resultant bulwarks. A mast rest stands adjacent to the most forward rower and a rudder post is positioned forward of the helmsman. The mast rest and the rudder post support the mast and attendant yard, boom and sail. They are secured to the post by a rope loop, passed obliquely, with the ropes for the rigging coiled at the head of the mast rest. Inboard of the stern are seen two uprights, half the height of the rudder post. There is no rudder. HL/MH, 1×64/1, HL/WL, 3×81/1, MS/HL, ×36/1.

[SE 01] Date: IX - X Dyn Petrie and Brunton. Sedment I. Timber model boat. pl. XXVI. BATH 28° SATH 38°. The hull is fully hollowed out, with five thwarts, a low bow and a rising stern.396 The vessel is fitted with a single rudder post and has a dismounted pole mast. HL/MH, ×82/1, HL/WL, 2×71/1, MS/HL, ×47/1.

(b). Under sail. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The rudder post and the additional posts are as above. The loom of the rudder passes between the additional posts; the rudder loom is broadest at its top. It may be inferred, then, that the purpose of the two uprights was to retain the loom in position.399 A pole mast carries a square sail, spread by a straight yard and boom; the sail is laced into place. Forestay, 60°. HL/MH, 1×29/1, HL/WL, 4×12/1, MS/HL, ×35/1.

[SE 02] Date: VII - XI Dyn Petrie and Brunton. Sedment I. Timber model boat. pl. XVII. As above. BATH and SATH 30°. Flat decked, with raised bow and after decks. DP. The stern carries a single rudder with a short rudder post. A very short pole mast stands amidships. There are no other details of rigging. HL/ MH, 2×6/1, HL/WL, 2×07/1, MS/HL, ×44/1.

[SE 05]

[SE 03]

Date: First Intermediate Period.

Date: Dyn. IX

Petrie and Brunton. Sedment I. Timber model of boat, with tapering bow and stern, topped by a block, under oars. pl. XX. Tomb of Khenty - Khety. BATH 20° SATH 40°. Deck area slightly hollowed out. Two pairs of rowers aft sit on raised blocks; one pair sits on the edge of the fore - deck. There is a single rudder and rudder post. HL/WL, 2×25/1.

Breasted. Servant Statues. Two timber models of sailing vessels, with tapering bow and stern. pls. 71 (b) and 74 (b). (Tomb No. 2105). Slight damage. (a). BATH 15° SATH 18°. The main deck area is hollowed out. A single rudder post and rudder are fitted; a spear case rests against the rudder post. A mast rest stands on deck forward; the mast and attendant rigging are lowered and stowed across this and the rudder post. HL/WL, 3×33/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

12.25 Sheikh Said [SKS 01] Date: Dyn. V Davies. The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said (ASE 10). Four vessels being rowed, paddled or sailed. pl. V. West wall, north half. Facing left. Tomb of Serf-Ka.400 Badly damaged.

(b). BATH 22° SATH 20°. Hull, as above. A pole mast carries a square sail, spread on a straight yard and boom; the sail is laced on. Steering, as above; aft of the rudder post is a tall post, whose presence I cannot account for.397 A

See also Breasted. Servant Statues. pls. 71(a) and 74 (a). Their height may also have assisted the crew when they positioned the rudder. 400 The text originally stated that this was the tomb of Urarna 1, but the author has corrected this is in the errata section of the publication. 398 399

There is a recess in the top of the stern, although the illustration shows the rudder passing adjacent to the recess, on the starboard side of the hull. 397 It could possibly be a spear case, as carried by the previous example. 396

186

Appendix 1 – The Examples

(a). Vessel being rowed, the ends of the bow and stern are lost. SATH 30°. A single helmsman operates a hand held rudder; a raised bulwark commences immediately in front of him. The rowers place one foot against the bulwark to give them added leverage.

apparently handling the braces. Two (?) posts, topped with rings or loops, stand before him.405 12.26 Tell Ibrahim Awad [TIA 01]

(b). Vessel under sail, the bow is lost. BATH 30° SATH 35°. The starboard leg of a bipod mast can be seen forward, and a rectangular cabin (?) stands aft of the mast. A short awning stretches forward of this to cover the owner, but the helmsmen are not so favoured. Three helmsmen operate hand held rudders. Astern of them is a man handling the braces.

Date: O.K. Haarlem. A remarkable ‘hedgehog ship’ from Tell Ibrahim Awad’, JEA, vol 82. Ceramic model of ship with hedgehog figurehead, facing inwards. BATH 10°. The stern is missing. pp. 197 – 198. pl. XX 1 and 2. The hull is hollow, aft of the fore deck, with the head occupying the full width of the bow. The fore deck is flush with the sides of the hull. Two deck beams survive further aft, although there is no central beam. The deck beam closest to the bow has a vertical hole, perhaps for a pole mast.

(c). Vessel with square cut ends, being paddled. BATH 25° SATH 30°. The paddlers are divided into two pairs, one forward and one aft of the figure of the owner. There is a raised bulwark from the helmsman to the forward paddler. The rudder is hand held. Aft of (c) are the remains of the bow of a ship, but no clear evidence is to be gained from it. HL/WL, 2×41/1

12.27 Thebes [TH 01]

[SKS 02]

Date: Dyn. VI

Date: Dyn. V

Saleh. Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Wall scene. Ship under sail. pl. 19. West wall. Facing left. Tomb of Ihy. Moderate damage. BATH 15° SATH 40°.406 A raised bulwark, which increases in height as it runs aft, extends out from the stern as a platform. It also passes forward of the bow, where it apparently forms a second platform. A rudder post and a mast rest are fitted; the rudder appears to pass through the platform.407 A pole mast carries a sail, spread by a tapering yard with up curved ends. The halyard is secured to a loop, which rises above the line of the bulwark; the fabric panels of the sail are horizontal, indicated by vertical zigzag lines, separated by bands. The boom has been lost. Forestay, 72°. HL/MH, × 97/1, HL/WL, 1× 88/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

Davies. The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said (ASE 10). Papyrus vessel, being rowed. pl. XI. Tomb of Urarna. BATH and SATH 30°. Slight damage. Pairs of bindings are equally spaced along the hull, and a central platform is fitted.401 [SKS 03] Date: Dyn. V Davies. The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said (ASE 10). Four papyrus craft under construction. pl. XII. BATH and SATH 40°. The bows all have a downward curve.402 [SKS 04]

[TH 02]

Date: Late Dyn. II. (?)403

Date: Late Dyn. V - Early VI

Davies. The Rock Tombs of Sheik Said (ASE 10). Tomb of Uau. Ship with stern platform, under sail. pl. XXIV. BATH and SATH 30°.404 A short bipod mast supports a yard; the starboard tip is lost; the port tip is upturned. An awning, divided into three bays aft, extends a rectangular cabin with a chequered cover. A crewman sits on deck in the stern,

Saleh. Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes. Wall scene, with three vessels. pl. A, fig. 10. Tomb of Unas – Ankh. The scene is severely damage. (a). Vessel with truncated stern; the tip of the bow is lost. Facing right. BATH 18° SATH 20°. There is a projection from the stern, which could either be a platform or a means of preventing lateral movement of the rudder. Filling the deck forward of the rudder are the remains of a deckhouse,

The heads and shoulders of nine persons can be seen along the edge of the platform. The helmsman and main occupant have been lost, as a recess has been cut through the scene, but the blade and lower end of the loom of the rudder survive. 402 Papyrus is being gathered in the register above. 403 Brunner, in the publication held in the Macquarie University Library, has annotated the text to indicate this date. It may be hypothesised that this may be due to the references to ‘Anubis on his hill’ is the texts, which is commonly found in earlier tombs. There are no clear reasons given, however. 404 The plate illustrates fragments only, and this example is badly damaged. The stern angle is an approximation, derived by projecting the surviving outline of the stern towards the register line. 401

At least one of these posts was probably a rudder post. This example also has a protrusion at the bow, somewhat akin to a bowsprit. 407 Rectangular markings are seen at the bow, stern and aft of midships, which I consider to indicate bindings. 405

406

187

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

covered with matting, with a doorway aft. The sternmost end of this structure is angled towards the deck.408

Date: Dyn. XII Davies. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. Wall scene. Funerary vessel. pl. XVII. Slight damage to the stern. BATH and SATH 20°. The bow finial bends slightly inward, the stern finial turns inward then up. The centre of the upward section of the finial narrows. A naos, with a flat base and an arched roof is supported by papyrus bud tipped poles. Twin rudders and rudder posts, topped with Horus heads, are fitted. No water weed is depicted. Although the hull is of timber, it has still been fitted with a central platform, upon which the poles for the naos and one of the rudder posts stand. HL/WL 3×4/1.

(b). Sailing vessel, with tapering bow and stern, under oars. BATH 20° SATH 40°. A pole mast, yard and boom lie across two mast rests.409 Both yard and boom are curved, and are longer than the hull. A single rudder with rudder post is fitted; the top of the post broadens into a large circle. (c). Bow and stern almost totally lost. Rudder, as above; the remains of a tiller can be seen. A pole mast is fitted; its rigging shows considerable sophistication. The masthead consists of a cap, with a protrusion at the top, through which the fore and main backstays pass. There are two main backstays. Between the cap and the upward curved yard is a collar, through which the lifts for the yard pass. There are two pairs of slings for the boom, which pass through projecting collars mid point on the mast. The sail is depicted as per [TH 01. Forestay, 65°, main and secondary backstays, 30°.

[TH 06] Date: Dyn. XII Davies. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. Fragments of wall scenes. Aft section of a funerary craft and the tip of a pole mast. pl. XX .

[TH 03]

(a). SATH 30°. Fittings, as above. The side of the naos is covered in chequered mating.

Date: OK Sharawi and Harpur. JEA 74. Three fragments of wall scene.410 Sailing vessel, with crew setting sail. fig. I. BATH 20°. Tensioned ropes secure a bipod mast.411 The boom lies forward of the mast. To the left of the fragment can be seen the lacings that bound the matting cover of the deckhouse to its frame. Forestay, 55°.

(b). Masthead. A rope passes through a hole at the top. A pair of eyelets are positioned close beneath; through each passes a rope, probably the halyards. [TH 07] Date: Dyn. XII

[TH 04]

Davies. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. Wall scene. Vessel with incurved stern and tapering bow, being rowed, led by three papyrus craft. pl. XVIII. South wall, facing right 412 Slight damage.

Date: Dyn. XII Davies. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. Wall scene. Remains of two papyrus craft, with raised bows and incurved sterns. pl. IV.

(a). BATH 20° SATH 25°. A lowered pole mast is stowed upon two mast rests; one of these, placed in the bow, is very short. No yard or boom is shown. A very thin lotus topped post stands aft of amidships. A horizontal line from here and stretching aft to the rudder post indicates the presence of an awning or cabin. The crew are standing; their oars apparently secured to curved brackets. A single rudder, with rudder post, is operated with a tiller; the helmsman stands on a horizontal platform. A semi circular projection is present at the top of the post. HL/MH, 1×54/1, HL/WL, 3×92/1, MS/HL, ×46/1.

(a). BATH 40° SATH 30°. Both extremities flare into the shape of a papyrus umbel. Bands of lashings are evenly spaced along the craft. There is no central platform. (b). Bow area of vessel mainly lost. BATH and SATH 30°. Other details, as above. [TH 05]

(b). Papyrus vessel, with tapering, upwards pointing extremities. BATH 20° SATH 22°. The bow and stern are of equal height. Broad bands of lashings are present along the hull; those in the centre are wider.

The shape of this deckhouse indicates that this is a cargo vessel. Saleh considers that this is a depiction of a cargo of grain, but the shape of the deckhouses clearly shows, despite the damage to the scene, that this not so. 409 Described by Saleh as having an unfurled sail, (p. 15) but this is an error. 410 First section from Brooklyn (35.640), the second section from Cairo (JE 40049). (A proposed joining). 411 Where these pass around the legs of the mast, the lay of the ropes is seen, but the twisted areas are thicker, and devoid of any markings to characterise them as rope. This depiction may possibly indicate that the tensioned ropes could be protected by the provision of a fabric cover. 408

(c). As above. BATH 30° SATH 23° (d). 412

188

As above, but with an additional band of lashings.

There is no water weed beneath the papyrus craft.

Appendix 1 – The Examples

BATH 25° SATH 30°. The occupants are supporting what appears to be a coffin on a bier with an animal head and legs. See, also [TH 08] below.

awning extends aft, ceasing forward of the helmsmen.416 The craft carries a bipod mast, which is being lowered, supported on the backs of two crewmen; the peak of the masthead curves forward and the forestay is being used to control the process.417 The vessel is moving under oars, and two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, with tillers.418 HL/MH, 1×45/1. HL/WL, 2×43/1.

[TH 08] Date: Dyn. XII Davies. The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of His Wife, Senet. Wall scene. Papyrus craft, on a sledge, being towed. pl. XIX. South wall. Facing right. BATH and SATH 25°. Shape; as above. Broad bands of lashings are seen along the side. The number of lashings and the coffin/ bier combination suggest that this is the same craft as [TH 07] (d).

(b). Angles, as above. There is no mast or other means of propulsion. The helmsmen stand outside the bulwark. The awning extends to the tip of the stern.419 HL/WL, 2×5/1.

[TH 09]

Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. X. Timber model of a papyriform craft.420 BATH and SATH 18°. There is no indication of steering gear or rigging.

[TH 11] Date: Dyn. XII

Date: Dyn. V

[TH 12]

Schurmann. Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-Nefret. Fragment of wall scene. pls. 6 and 7a, figs. 6 and 7b. Three vessels are present. Moderate damage.

Date: ND. Davies. Five Theban Tombs. Wall scene. Remains of four vessels. pl. XXXVI. Very badly damaged. Tomb of Daga.421

(a). Ship with hedgehog figurehead, under oars. BATH 25° SATH 38°. Facing right. Tip of stern and one helmsman lost.413 Two helmsmen operate hand held rudders, without tillers.

(a). Vessel with pointed bow and incurved stern. The upper reach of the rudder shaft is secured by a lashing, which passes through a cows horn shaped bracket.

(b). Papyrus vessel. BATH 20° SATH 35°. The midships area has been lost. The bow turns upwards; the stern turns inwards.

(b) and (c). No pertinent details. (d). A pole mast carries a sail spread by a straight yard and boom. Forestay, 65°.

(c). Papyrus vessel, facing left, being punted.414 BATH 25° SATH 38°. Five crew members are pushing on poles, which reach the bottom of the register.415

12.28 Examples without provenance; or whose provenance is unclear.

[TH 10]

[P 01]

Date: Dyn. IV

Date: M.K.

Vandier. Manuel d’Archaeologie Egyptianne V. Wall scene. Mastaba of Sabou. pl. fig. 292. Two ships with tapering bows and sterns, extended by stern platforms. Considered from top to bottom.

Boeser. Beschreibung Der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Leiden catalogue no. S 48, No. 10. Timber model boat. Vessel with The forward upright appears to be topped with a papyrus bud. This scene has been described both as a raising or a lowering of the mast. As the crew members are facing away from the base of the mast, with the crew member in the bows positioned in a stance which suggests that he is paying out the rope, I believe that they are lowering the mast. 418 The rowers and helmsmen are placed outboard of the bulwark. 419 Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. X. There are no crew members seen under the forward section of the awning, which could indicate that this area was a cabin. This would, however, place the cabin forward of midships, a very unusual location. Since the width of the uprights and the roofline are the same, I consider this to be an awning. 420 Gottlicher and Werner consider this model to be a papyrus boat; however, as the lashings are only seen at the bow and stern, this identification must be considered as incorrect. The ‘mast’ which stands amidships is unlike any other I have seen, and is most probably a canopy post originally intended for a larger scale model 421 Viewed from right to left. Due to damage, the bow and stern angles are not offered. 416

(a). BATH 22° SATH 18°. A bulwark runs from aft of the bows and extends outwards into the stern platform. A long

417

The register base line, depicting the water, is higher than the hull water line at the rear, and the vessel appears to float in, and not on, the register. The highest edge of the depiction of the water is utilised as a base line for a second, smaller, vessel to the right. 414 The presence of water weed and plants show that this is a papyrus vessel. 415 Their lower ends are slightly flared, as if they were oars that had lost their blades. As, however, the upper edge of the scene below can be seen undamaged, it must be concluded that punting poles were flared at the base. This would militate against their becoming caught in the mud on the river bottom. The owner sits in a seat with a curved back. 413

189

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

pointed bow and rising stern. BATH 25° SATH 40°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out. A post with a Horus head stands where the mast should be; astern of this are two rowers, sitting on blocks. A tunnel shaped cabin stands in the stern, against which stands a single rudder post. A band of painted stitching over the cabin divides it into two equal sections. There is no rudder. HL/WL, 2×47/1, MS/HL, ×4/1.

bulwarks. A timber across the deck at the stern, coupled with two pairs of holes fore and aft of it, indicates that the model may have been fitted with twin rudders.

[P 02]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and squared stern. British Museum Model 66220. p. 8. fig. 7. pl. IIa. BATH 30° SATH 35°. A rudder support block tops the stern, although there is no evidence of a rudder post. A rounded cabin stands aft of midships. Two pairs of holes amidships may indicate that two knees stood here to support a bipod mast. No mast or rigging is associated with this example. HL/WL, 4×03/1

[P 06] Date: Dyn. VI or First Intermediate Period.*

Date: M.K. Boeser. Beschreibung Der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Timber model of a funerary vessel. Leiden, catalogue no. S. 48, No. 11. BATH 22° SATH 30°. The bow finial leans away from the hull at 55°, the stern finial slopes inwards. The central deck area is slightly hollowed out resulting in a low bulwark; the bow and stern decks are flush with the hull line. Twin rudder posts are fitted, but only one rudder is present.422 A rounded deckhouse stands forward of the rudder posts. The actions of the crew indicate that they had been making sail. A seven stepped gangplank lies amidships. HL/WL, 3×71/1, MS/HL, ×43/1.

[P 07] Date: Dyn. XII* Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a funerary vessel. British Museum Model 9524. pp. 11 – 13. fig. 10. pl. IIIa. BATH 30° SATH 30°. DP. The hull is partially hollowed out, with bulwarks that are raised aft, but merge into the foredeck. The bow fares into the hull both in plan and elevation, but the stern area aft of the bulwarks is both lower and narrower than the bow; it can be seen from the plan that the sides of the hull are left unsupported.424 Bow and stern are topped with bent finials. Abutting the bulwark aft is a cross beam decorated with upright falcon heads, which supports the twin rudders, and forward of this is a pair of rudder posts.425 The rudders and posts are also topped with falcon heads. Midships is a cavetto cornice naos, supported by four tapering columns, topped by lotus buds. There is no mast or rigging. HL/WL, 4×8/1

[P 03] Date: MK. Boeser. Beschreibung Der Aegyptischen Sammlung. Timber model boat, with pointed bow and rising stern. Leiden catalogue S 48, no 12. BATH 28° SATH 35°. Deck, cabin and steering gear, as per 1, above, although the cabin is divided by paint into three sections. HL/WL, 4×04/1. [P 04] Date: Dyn. VI or First Intermediate Period.*

[P 08]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a papyriform vessel. British Museum Model 9509. p. 9. fig. 3. pl. Ib. BATH 15° SATH 20°. The deck is flush, although slightly cambered, and with low bulwarks. A broad, rectangular recess is cut across the deck at the bow and stern, between the bulwarks and the beginnings of the finials. The outline of a deckhouse, open towards the bows, is present in the stern. Two holes in the deck indicate the possible presence of a bipod mast. HL/WL, 4×67/1.

Date: Dyn. XII.* Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a funerary vessel. British Museum Model 9525. pp. 13 – 16. fig. 13. pl. IIIb. BATH 20° SATH 17°. DP. The hull is hollowed out, but the bulwarks merge without a break into the bow and stern. These are fitted with finials; that of the stern bends inwards and then up. The rudder posts are against the bulwark, but the wider stern deck and rudder support would allow the rudder looms to be positioned against the outer side of the posts with the rudders lying along the axis of the hull, allowing unimpeded steering. The posts, rudders and support bar are capped with falcon heads. A cavetto cornice

[P 05] Date: Dyn. VI or First Intermediate Period.* Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a papyriform boat. British Museum Model 9510.423 pp. 4 – 8. fig. 4. pp. Ic. BATH 10° SATH 25° (approx). Flat decked, with low

Although the hull is described as being carved from a single piece, this section of the hull was possibly originally intended for a smaller model, but utilised on a larger work. The bow is higher than the stern, but, again, this may be due to the stern being intended for a smaller model. 425 The posts are located very close to the bulwarks and the looms of the rudders are positioned on the outwards side of the posts. Such a position would have jammed the looms against the side of the hull, hampering manoeuvring. 424

A pin through the stern appears to have assisted to retain the rudders as there is no cross beam at the stern to support the rudders 423 A fragment of a canopy accompanies this example, but it may not be original, and is not considered here. The model is of block form; the workmanship is poor. 422

190

Appendix 1 – The Examples

naos stands amidships, supported by four columns, with open papyrus bud capitals. HL/WL, 4×19/1.

square; the upward curved stern ends in two projections.429 HL/WL, 3×5/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

[P 09]

[P 13]

Date: M.K. *

Date: Dyn. XII*

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern. British Museum Model 34273. pp. 38 – 40. fig. 37. pl. VIIb. pp. 41 – 43. fig. 40. pl. VIIIa. BATH 18° SATH 15°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out, with low bulwarks. The aft and main decks are cambered; the fore deck is flat with a bow roller. A single rudder post and rudder are fitted. There is no provision for a mast. The rowers sit on blocks. HL/WL, 3×58/1. [P 10]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat. British Museum Model 35292. pp. 49 – 51. fig. 51. pl. IXb. BATH and SATH 40°. DP. A short, deep hull, with pointed bow and incurved stern, notched for the loom of the rudder. The hull is hollowed out and slightly cambered, with high bulwarks. The main and after deck are continuous; the fore deck is raised and has a bow roller. A single rudder post is fitted; its top has two fore and aft grooves.430 A very tall, tapering mast is fitted, but there is no other rigging. HL/MH, 1×04/1, HL/WL, 3×32/1, MS/HL, ×42/1.

Date: M.K.*

[P 14]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat, on a plinth. British Museum Model 34274. pp. 41 – 43. fig. 40. pl. VIIIa. BATH 16° SATH 20°. The hull has a pointed bow; the stern curves upwards, ending in two projections. The model is partially hollowed out; the decks are flat, but the stern deck is continuous with the main deck. The foredeck is raised, but flush with the hull. A bow roller, flaring into a notch, projects over the bow. A rudder is fitted at the bow.426 The rowers are standing. HL/MH, 1×85/1, MS/HL, ×5/1.

Date: M.K.* Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat. British Museum Model 35293. pp. 52 – 55. fig. 54. pl. Xa. BATH 30° SATH 18°. DP. The tip of the bow is lost; the stern curves inward. The details of the deck plan are unclear due to the fading of the paint. The deck is hollowed out and heavily cambered, rising above the bulwarks, and merging into the fore and after decks, which are flat. A rudder post stands against the break of the stern deck. A second post stands forward, in place of the mast. Midships stands a post on a base, against which lean two hide covered shields.431 HL/WL, 2×6/1 (approx), MS/HL, ×46/1.

[P 11] Date: M.K.*

[P 15]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model of a funerary vessel, on a plinth. British Museum Model 35204. pp. 43 – 46. fig. 43. pl. VIIIb. BATH 13° SATH 12°. DP. The deck is hollowed out, with low bulwarks and a slightly cambered deck.427 The modeller has reversed the bow and stern finials. A mast is carried, although it is not original. Figures are present on deck, holding assorted ropes for the rigging; these all pass through a single loop, protruding from the forward edge of the mast. The edges of the sail are bound and laced to the straight yard and boom. Twin rudders and rudder posts are fitted.428 HL/MH, 1×41/1, MS/HL, ×4/1.

Date: M.K.* Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat. British Museum Model 36422. pp. 55 – 58. fig. 57. pl. Xb. BATH 20° SATH 25°. DP. The hull is badly decayed and the tips of the bow and stern are lost. The main deck is hollowed out, with low bulwarks. The remains of the fore and after decks show that they were raised; all the decks are flat. Two curved side braces strengthen the stern section of the longitudinal beam. Aft of midships is an arched cabin, consisting of three equally spaced panels; a bulkhead closes the aft end of the cabin. Adjacent to this bulkhead is a large forked mast rest, of rectangular section. This stands where a rudder post

[P 12] Date: Dyn. XII. *

As shown in the catalogue, there are two poles (?) lying on deck. These appear to be a rudder post and a rudder (?). As displayed today, a crew member in the bow holds a pole with a projecting arm (possibly a damaged rudder), and a rudder post (?) stands in the stern. The oars have also been re-distributed. 430 Although the text refers to a peg protruding from the top to take the lashing for the rudder, it is not illustrated. Glanville considers that the presence of two grooves on the rudder post indicates the presence of two rudders, and that their presence here is an error, as this type of vessel was only to be fitted with one rudder. 431 Squatting crewmen, facing forward, adjacent to the bulwarks, indicate that the craft was being paddled, although their arms are in the posture of rowers.

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat. British Museum Model 35291. pp. 46 – 49. fig. 47. pl. IXa. BATH 17° SATH 20°. Main deck slightly hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks; the fore and after decks are slightly raised above the bulwark line. All decks are flat. The bow is cut off

429

It would appear that this rudder is not original. The finials of this example have been reversed. That at the ‘bow’ is straight, the other curves forward and then up. At their upper reaches the modeller has carved the bindings that held the papyrus bundles together. 428 The rudders and rudder posts are restorations. 426

427

191

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

would usually be expected. There are no holes for a separate rudder post, and the mast rest may have been employed in this instance to perform both functions. There is no rudder. HL/MH, 1×41/1, HL/WL, 4×9/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

bulwarks. The bow finial turns almost vertically upward, the stern finial bends forward and then up. Both have replicated bindings. Twin rudder posts are fitted, topped with Horus heads, as is the single surviving rudder.433 A rectangular profiled bar across the deck aft supported the rudder looms. Immediately forward of the rudder posts is a naos, with a slightly arched roof, supported by four papyrus bud tipped posts. HL/WL, 3×9/1.

[P 16] Date: MK.*

[P 20]

Glanville. Catalogue. Timber model boat with pointed bow and incurved stern. British Museum Model 59011. pp. 58 – 60. fig. 60. pl. Xc. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The main deck hollowed out, with a raised central section running longitudinally and short fore and after decks. Cross beams serve as thwarts for the crew. A single rudder post is positioned upon the break of the after deck; there is no mast or rigging. Amidships stands a rounded cabin, but this does not conform to the run of the hull, and cannot be original. HL/WL, 2×94/1.

Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a papyriform vessel, with deckhouse and rowers. Item 4911. pl. XVI. Purchased at Luxor.434 BATH 20° SATH 25°. Bulwarks run from the rudder posts to the most forward pair of rowers. The remains of the deckhouse consist of a solid aft bulkhead; papyrus bud topped posts, one of which survives, supported the forward end. A rudder support lies across the stern, with angled recesses to receive the looms, and on either side are holes, through which cordage was passed to secure the rudders. The looms are tied against the inboard sides of the rudder posts. HL/WL, 5×49/1.

[P 17] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a papyriform boat. Item 4804. pp. 9-10. pl. III. Akhmim. (?) The deck is slightly hollowed out amidships, leaving a cambered deck.432 A short pole mast is fitted. There is a hole in the deck astern, and it seems that this example was fitted with only a single rudder. There are holes in the deck for a shelter with four posts. HL/MH, 4×17/1.

[P 21] Date: MK.* Landstrom. Ships. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern.435 BATH 20° SATH 15°. DP. The central deck area is hollowed out, resulting in a low bulwark, which is flush with the decks at the bow and stern. On the centre line of the stern is a single rudder post, but no rudder. A bow roller is present. A deckhouse, consisting of three sections, extended forward by a baldachin with a domed roof, occupies the midships area. Papyrus topped columns support the forward edge. HL/WL, 4×58/1.*

[P 18] Date: M.K. Reisner. Ships and Boats. As above, with rowers. Item 4807. pp. 12 - 13. pl. IV. Purchased at Luxor. BATH 20° SATH 30°. The deck is flat, with a low central bulwark. The bow and stern end in umbels, with the remains of painted bands inboard of the hull ends. Two rudders are fitted, resting upon a cross bar, placed across the deck, and a single, roughly rounded rudder post survives. Four papyrus bud topped poles support a flat roofed naos, aft of midships. The hull is extremely narrow. HL/WL, 4×23/1.

[P 22] Date: ND. Vandier. Manuel d’ Archaeologie Egyptianne V. Fragment of wall scene. Papyriform vessel, being both paddled and towed. fig. 284.436 BATH 20° SATH 28°. The hull appears to be flush decked, although a line runs parallel along the length of the hull, beneath the deck level. Twin hand held rudders are in use. The tow is secured to inboard of the starboard side of the bow, and commences at the lower edge of the parallel line, passing ashore from aft of the starboard bow.437 HL/WL, 2×94/1.

[P 19] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Timber model of a funerary vessel, with upturned bow and stern. Item 4811. pp. 17-18. pl. V. BATH 34° SATH 35°. DP, but no position for a mast is depicted. The hull is partially hollowed out, leaving low

The blade as shown in pl. V is as described here, but Reisner’s fig. 84 shows a much wider, shorter blade. 434 See also Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. X. 435 Landstrom, figs. 247 and 248. 436 Now displayed in Munich. 437 It runs to below the bulwark, and appears to pass through it. 433

The bow and stern finials have been added to the hull, and a comparison of the published drawing (fig. 37, p. 9. of Reisner), when compared to pl. III, reveals inconsistencies, particularly in the shape and angle of the bow. fig. 37 shows the bow rising at 30°, and then turning horizontally forward. pl. III, however, reveals that it rises at 20°, and that if the model had not been damaged, would continue onward without any sharp deviation. 432

192

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[P 23]

Line drawing of the stern of a timber vessel. pl. XXXIV. fig. 5. Single rudder and rudder post; in addition, two shorter posts stand closer to the stern. The loom of the rudder passes through them.

Date: ND Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. pl. XVI.438 Timber model of a papyriform vessel. Copenhagen Ny Carlsberg Glypotek AE. I. N. 1629. BATH 25° SATH 43°. The central deck is slightly hollowed out, but there are no raised bulwarks. A four posted naos stands in the stern. Forward, a mast rest with a recessed top supports one end of a pole mast; the other end rests on the forward edge of the naos. The rigging is bundled around the mast. The helmsman holds a paddle, but this is too short for the purpose.439

[P 27] Date: Dyn. XII.*

[P 24]

Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. Timber model boat. pl. XV. Archaeology Museum, Marseille. No. 469. This example is hollowed out, leaving a cross beam inboard of the bow, to which it is linked by a longitudinal beam. Across the stern quarter is a thwart, pierced centrally with a hole. The bow and stern are rounded, with the stern marked by a broad, shallow recess.

Date: Dyn. XII

[P 28]

Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. Timber model boat, with tapering bow and incurved stern. pl. XVI.440 BATH 30° SATH 35°. DP. The main deck is slightly hollowed out, leaving low bulwarks. A bow roller is fitted. The rowers sit on blocks or stools, pulling oars that are passed through grommets along the bulwark.441 A single rudder post and rudder are fitted. Forward of the rudder post is an arched cabin; a thick mast rest stands amidships. A pole mast lies across both this and the cabin roof; the foot is shaped as a blunt tip. HL/MH, 1×55/1, HL/WL, 3×33/1, MS/HL, ×5/1.

Date: ND

[P 25]

Martin – Pardey. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Stern section of a ceramic model boat. pls. 6, 62 and 62a. SATH 40°. The stern rises and is slightly recessed. The bottom is flat and serves also as a plinth. A fork-topped rudder post is fitted, which receives the (now broken) loom of the rudder. The helmsman sits to the side, facing the rudder and post. The remains of a tiller are present.444 Against the post stands a tunnel shaped shelter, open at either end.

Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. Timber model boat with tapering bow and rising stern. pl. XV. DP. BATH 15° SATH 30°. An arched shelter, with frames only at the ends, stands in the stern. The covering is plain and the lower levels are not covered.443 [P 29] Date: MK. (?)*

Date: MK. Gottleicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. Timber model, as above. Grave of Mentuhotep. pl. XII.442 BATH 24° SATH 30°. Details, as above. The mast foot sits in the mast rest; the head lies over the bows. The foot is shaped as a blunt tip. HL/MH, 1×53/1, HL/WL, 4 ×5/1, MS/HL, ×49/1.

[P 30]

[P 26]

Date: Dyn XI/XII.

Date: ND.

Martin – Pardey. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Timber model of a boat, with rising bow and stern, which is topped with a block. pls. 6/91, 6,91a and 6/92. pls. 6, 89, 6, 90. BATH 20° SATH 32°. The main deck area is slightly hollowed out. A pole mast is fitted, supported by a flat mast shoe, laid on the deck. Oars are tied back along the bulwark. HL/MH, 1×28/1, HL/WL, 3×72/1, MS/HL, ×38/1.

Gottlicher and Werner. Schiffsmodelle im alten Agypten. This example, from examination, appears to be the model from the Mastaba of Gemni, Firth and Gunn, vol 2, pl. 29. I have treated it here as its’ being so. In Firth and Gunn’s plate, the craft faces left. An additional figure stands in the bow, most of the rowers still have their paddles/oars and the mast is shown in full. Aboard EIN 1629, the mast stops just aft of the helmsman’s head. 439 The squatting posture of this individual is more akin to a paddler than a helmsman. 440 Manchester Museum. No. 4741. 441 The forward pair sits on the rise of the fore deck. Their oars are much longer than those of their fellows. 442 Displayed in Berlin. See also http://www.egyptian-museum-berlin. com/bild.php?bildname=s_ruderboot_12.jpg&PHPSESSID=39527b08f 9f9594fc771ebc494c499d6 438

[P 31] A similar shelter is shown by Gottlicher and Werner, Schiffmodelle im alten Agypten pl. XL. no.4 (Limoges E 965) with a chequered cover. 444 A prop runs from the loom to the post. This was probably intended to strengthen the modelled rudder loom against breakage, and not a feature to be expected aboard a real vessel. 443

193

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Date: Dyn. XII/XIII (?).

remnant of sail. Item 4936. p. 94. fig. 344.448 The sail edge is stitched; attached, at regular intervals, is a two-strand rope. Through this and around the timber element passes a lace line.

Breasted. Servant Statues. Timber model of a papyriform boat. pl. 69 b. BATH 15° SATH 28° (approx). The bow and stern are very long, and end in papyrus umbels.445 The deck is flat, with low bulwarks along the central area. Four poles support a slightly arched roof, forming a deckhouse, aft of midships. No steering gear is present. The postures of four of the crew suggest that they were paddling.

[P 37] Date: ND

[P 32]

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a rudder, probably from a funerary craft. Item 4826.

Date: Dyn. XII.

The underside is hollowed out at mid point.449

Breasted. Servant Statues. Timber model of a boat, being rowed. pl. 72a, Paris, Louvre, N. 1616. BATH 28° SATH 40°. A tunnel shaped deckhouse, consisting of vertical and horizontal poles and a fabric roof, stands aft of midships. HL/WL, 2×95/1.

[P 38] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a cabin. Item 4920, fig. 302, pl. XXXI. The cabin is rectangular, with a curved roof. The sides are divided into three areas by vertical stripes. A vestibule extends the cabin at one end; the bulkhead to which it is attached is painted to show a framework and has a single door on the right hand side. The left side of the vestibule does not have a bulkhead.

[P 33] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a pole mast. Item 4831. p. 26. pl. XXVII. Both the upper and lower ends are roughly tapered and cut off flat.

[P 39]

[P 34]

Date: ND

Date: ND

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a cabin, as above, but without a vestibule. Item 4921, fig. 303, pl. XXXI. There is a door at one end, but not at the other.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a bow roller. Item 4835. pl. XXX.446 The outer end is broadest, and recessed to allow the cable to run freely, without slipping sideways.

[P 40]

[P 35]

Date: M.K. (Dyn. XII – XIII).

Date: ND

North Carolina Museum of Art. Timber model of a funerary vessel, being rowed, although a pole mast stands on deck.450 Very good condition. BATH 20° SATH 18°. The bow finial rises vertically, that of the stern bends forward at 23° and then rises from mid point at 63°. The central area is slightly hollowed out, but there are no raised bulwarks; the run of the hull is continuous. The oars of the two rowers are passed through grommets.451 The rigging is interesting, with the halyards, braces and backstay (s) secured to a post that stands before the helmsman. There are two rudders with tillers, controlled by a single helmsman. The rudders are supported by a cross beam; preventer ropes run from the top of the blades to the post on deck. Backstay 60°. HL/ MH, 1×39/1, HL/WL, 4×1/1, MS/HL, ×41/1.

Reisner. Ships and Boats. Model of a pole mast and boom. Item 4839. p. 29. pl. XXIX.447 Mast, as per [P 33], but thinner. At the peak, horizontal bands of bindings, with vertical lines under them, create rope loops to receive the running rigging. The boom (?) is straight, with the tips slightly tapered. [P 36] Date: ND Reisner. Ships and Boats. Section of model spar, with Compare this example to [P 17]. Reisner refers to such items as ‘bow sticks’, and Winlock considers that they served to strengthen the bow, but they can have had no other true purpose than as bow rollers. 447 Reisner calls this a spar, and considers that the three surviving bindings along one half of it are the remnants of the lashings that secured the sail. They could, also, be the remnants of the slings that supported the boom. His text (p. 28), indicates that the two elements were secured with modern string, but illustrates them separated. 445

446

As the spar tapers, this is most probably a model of a yard, not a boom. Reisner suggests that this was the point where the loom would have rested against a rudder rest. 450 A yard and boom are present, but no sail. The model sits on a block shaped plinth, but this is a modern addition for display purposes. 451 Unlike most depictions or examples, the rowers hold an oar in either hand. 448

449

194

Appendix 1 – The Examples

[P 41]

Date: MK.

Date: M.K.

Timber model of a funerary vessel. Agyptisches Museum (Berlin). fig. 41. Poor condition.457 SATH 10°. The central deck is slightly hollowed out, but the resultant bulwarks are flush with the hull; the extremities finish in short (originally) upright papyrus umbels. A beam is fitted across the stern and supports the two rudders; each is secured at their upper reaches to a rudder post. The beam, rudders and posts all have Horus heads; each rudder has an individual tiller, operated by the helmsman who squats on deck, aft of the rudder posts. A canopy, consisting of four poles per aside and supporting an almost flat roof, stands between the steerage and midships. The sides of the canopy are partially enclosed by a row of eight bluntly pointed uprights. Two pairs of rowers (?) squat on deck, facing forward.458

Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum. Inv. No. 3923. Timber model of a funerary vessel, with upright finials.452 Also Merriman. Fig. B.145. p. 448. Acquired 1877 – 1878. Good condition.453 BATH 17° SATH 13°. The central deck area is slightly hollowed out, but there are no raised bulwarks. A cavetto cornice shelter or naos, supported by four, square sectioned posts, stands amidships. Low, sloping panels enclose the lower third of the sides. There is no steerage equipment present. HL/WL 3×85/1. Merriman notes that the authenticity of this is questioned on the museum record card. [P 42]

[P 45]

Date: Ist Int Period.

Date: MK.

Royal Museum of Scotland. Timber model of a boat, under sail.454 Tomb of Mertetes. Good condition, although the work is unimpressive. DP. BATH and SATH 20°. There are no bulwarks, as the central area of the hull is not hollowed out. A single rudder is positioned in a notch in the stern and is supported by a rudder post.455 A tunnel shaped cabin, decorated with shields, and supported on four uprights, stands forward of the rudder post(s). HL/MH 1×7/1, HL/ WL 4×13/1, MS/HL ×46/1.

Macquarie University, Museum Of Ancient Cultures. Said to be from Beni Hasan. MU 2187. Timber model of a funerary craft, the finials topped with inward facing animal heads.459 Fair condition.460 BATH and SATH 10°. The central deck area is hollowed out and flat, but there are no raised bulwarks, and the run of the hull is flush. On deck is a flat roofed naos, supported by four posts; the lower ends of the posts touch the bulwarks. A single “rudder post” is present, mounted along the centreline of the hull, and there are two rudders.461 There is no rudder support bar, nor any indication of one having ever been fitted. HL/WL 1×25/1.

[P 43] Date: Dyn. XI.

[P 46]

Michael C. Carlos Museum. On loan from the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, at the time of writing. Item L 1999.25.2. Timber model of a boat. BATH 24° SATH 30°. Good condition, although the workmanship is poor. A tunnel shaped cabin stands aft midships; the upper half is covered and decorated with three shields aside. The horizontal rails of the cabin are on the outside of the uprights. No mast, oars or steering gear are present, although a single rudder post stands close to the centre line, abutting the aft end of the cabin.456 HL/WL 2×36/1, MS/HL ×36/1.

Date: OK. Fragment of wall scene. Bow of sailing vessel. University College London. UC. 14315.462 BATH 19°. A blade shaped object stands on the bow; a post tipped with a pincer (?) extends forward over the bow. Forestay, 43°. [P 47] Date: Dyn. IX.

[P 44]

Fragment of timber model boat. University College London.

http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page2185.html 453 There are several figures standing about the deck, both forward of the shelter and aft. From their orientation and posture, some appear to be servants, while others possibly represent rowers. Acquired 1877 – 1878, by Ernst von Bergman. 454 http://www.akhet.co.uk/mertetes.htm As displayed, the sail is wrapped around the yard, with the sail and yard secured vertically along the mast. 455 There may have originally been two rudder posts, as, on the starboard side of the rudder loom is a large upright, painted with a broad spiral pattern, which may have been introduced to complete a two rudder post configuration. The matter is unclear. 456 The rudder post is off - set to starboard, although it is positioned into the main deck beam that delineates the stern deck area. As is discussed in Chapter 4, a centrally sited rudder post and single rudder would cause the steerage of a craft so fitted to be constantly biased to on side or the other, depending upon which side of the post the rudder was passed. This example may indicate an attempt to overcome this bias. 452

The underside of the hull forward of the rudder posts is decayed and, from a point starting beneath the forward pair of rowers, the bow has sagged. 458 One pair is forward of the canopy, the other aft. Their orientation and appearance suggests to me that they may not be correct. They face forward, as if paddling, but the posture of their arms indicates that they are rowers. 459 The hull would appear to be original, with some or all fittings having been added to improve the display qualities of the exhibit. 460 The lower hull is painted green, the upper section white. Between them is a broad band of black, which may represent the water line, and has been considered as such here. 461 The forward edge of the post is cut into a saw tooth shape and let into the top is a wheel, giving the appearance of a pulley. These features indicate to me that the post is not original. 462 www.accessingvirtualegypt.ucl.ac.uk/search/object_drill/result2.php? 457

195

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

UC 31848.463 Centre of the craft is hollowed out, leaving a broad longitudinal beam and a cross beam, slightly curved towards the (now lost) bow. The greater part of this model has been destroyed through burning. Displayed as the bow of a boat, it is more probable that this is actually a stern section, due to the curved recess at the undamaged end of the example. A small hole is present on either side of the recess (for rudder preventer ropes?) and a larger hole forward, at the beginning of the main deck area. I interpret this hole as having intended to receive a rudder post.

on the port side of the stern, and a thick rudder post stands on the centre line of the hull.465 HL/WL 5×33/1.

[P 48]

(a). 81 cm high. Goedicke states that he believes that the side brackets appear to have been added to the cap as secondary items. There is an inscription, which suggests that it had been the property of a maritime, as opposed to a riverine, sailor.

[P 49] Date: M.K. (?).Two bronze mastheads, with twin side loops and a half loop at the top. National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Items 1939 and 1940. Goedick. ‘An Ancient Naval Finial of The Middle Kingdom’ in Egypt and the Levant. Wien. 2000. pp. 77 – 81.

Date: MK. Rosicrucian Egan Museum, San Jose, California. Timber model of a funerary craft.464 BATH 28° SATH 45°. The central deck area is slightly hollowed out, but the run of the hull is flush. The bow finial leans sharply inward; the stern finial is lost. A single rudder is present

(b). Item 1940 is 93.5 cm high. The top and side brackets are larger than those of [P. 49] (a).

www.accessingvirtualegypt.ucl.ac.uk/details/index. php?objectid+UC_31848_-9k464 http://www.egyptianmuseum.org/collection/detail/rc0480-boatmodel. html 463

The rudder post may not be original, as it is much too thick for the scale of the craft, appears to be in a better state of preservation and is of a form not usually associated with funerary vessels. 465

196

Glossary of Technical Terms

Abaft. Towards the stern. After deck. A short raised deck or platform built into the stern. Amidships. In the middle of the vessel. BATH. Bow Angle To Horizontal. The angle between the waterline and the rise of the bow. When the underside of the bow is curved, the angle is measured as that between the junction of the bow and waterline and the tip of the bow, along a straight line. Backstay. A rope used to support the mast against the forward thrust of the mast under the pressure of the wind. See also Secondary backstays. Beam. The greatest width of a vessel. Bend. To a sail to the yard and boom, ready for hoisting. Bipod mast. Consists of two timber elements, converging at the apex, or masthead. Often strengthened with cross bars. Boom. A spar, to which the lower edge of the sail is secured. Depending on the rigging configuration, the Egyptians either left the boom loose or secured it to the mast by a cross lashing. Bow(s). The forward end of the vessel. Bowline(s). A rope taken forward from the edges of the sails to the bow, holding the edge of the sail flat. BowRoller. In modern nautical terminology, a bow roller can best be described as two forward facing arms, attached to a plate along their length. The aft end of the plate affixes it to the deck; the forward ends of the arms retain the rope or cable, passed over the bows and either attached to the anchor or to the mooring rope, preventing the rope or cable from slipping to the side of the bows. Braces. Ropes attached to the extremities of the yard, used to trim the sail at the desired angle to the wind. Break. A sudden rise or fall in the run of the deck. Bulkhead. Proper title for a vertical wall placed across a hull, either below or above decks. Bulwark. Raised area along the sides of the vessel, above the deck. Butt. The upper; the handle end, of a rowing oar or steering oar. Caulk(ing). To insert material, such as fabric or rope yarns between the planking of the hull or deck of a vessel to make the planking watertight. Central timber platform. A platform of timber, positioned upon a papyrus raft, to give the occupant(s) a better footing.

Cleat. A wooden fitting, shaped like a short shanked “T” to which a rope is secured. Cross bars. Timber elements positioned across the uprights of a bipod mast, intended to strengthen the mast. Deck. A covering of planking, supported by the deck beams, extending across all or part of the hull. Finials. Wooden extensions fitted to the bow and stern of a timber vessel to imitate a papyrus craft. Also – shaped extensions to such fittings as rudder posts or canopy poles. Floor timber. A transverse timber which crosses the floor of a vessel. Such timbers are often called ribs, however, although a generalised term, this is incorrect. Fore deck. A short raised deck or platform in the bows of the vessel. Forestay. A rope from the masthead, secured to the bow to support the mast. Garboard. The Garboard strake is the first strake or run of timbers, positioned against the keel during construction, constituting the first timbers of the hull. Grommet. A loop of rope, with various uses. When secured to the hull, these served to limit the movement of the looms of hand held rudders; when secured to thole pins, they retained the oars whilst rowing. Bulwark. The upper edge of the bulwark. (See also Raised bulwark). Halyard. A rope used to raise or lower the yard and sail. Hogging truss. A heavy rope under tension secured to the hull at bow and stern and supported on one or more stanchions above deck level. This gave additional longitudinal rigidity to the hull, preventing the bow and stern from sagging (hogging) when the vessel was raised by a wave and supported amidships, but the ends were unsupported. Keel. The lowest and main timber element of a hull, to which the ribs or floor timbers of the hull are attached. The Egyptian did not utilise this method of ship construction. Keel plank. An expression to describe the lowest strake(s) of the Egyptian hull. Leeches. The edges of the sail. Lifts. Ropes taken to the outer areas of the yard, to support the weight. Longitudinal beam. A heavy timber, positioned along the centre line of the hull, at or just below the deck level. It does not run the full length of the hull. Loom. The shaft of an oar, between the butt and the blade.

197

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

Mast shoe. A device to receive the foot of the mast. Located either on the bottom of the hull, or on deck. (See also Tabernacle). Mast step. The point at which the mast stands, which may be either on deck or on the bottom of the hull. Pole mast. A mast consisting of a single timber element. Port. The left side of the craft, facing forward. Preventer rope. A rope attached to the steering or rowing oars and secured to grommets or inboard of the craft to loss. Also used to set the oars to the desired distance when rowing. Quarter(s). The side(s) of the hull at the stern. Rowlock. A U shaped uprights, to receive the loom of the oar whilst rowing. Rudder post(s). A tall post (or posts) fitted in the stern of the vessel to support the steering oar(s). SATH. Stern Angle To Horizontal. As for the BATH, but for the stern. Secondary Backstays. This term refers to the ropes utilised to give additional support to the mast, additional to the Backstay, spreading the force of any forward motion of the mast across the greatest possible area of the hull. Scarf. A bevelled, wedge shaped joint between two timbers of equal section. The Egyptians often incorporated a hook or rolled protrusion to these joints, to prevent the timbers from pulling apart.

Sheer. The curve of the hull form bow to stern. Sometimes referred to as the “rocker” Sheets. Ropes attached to the boom, with the same function as the braces. Shrouds. Ropes from the mast to the deck, adjacent to the mast, to prevent lateral movement of the mast. Standing rigging. Fixed rigging intended to support the mast, including forestays, backstays and secondary backstays. Starboard. The right hand side of the vessel, looking forward. Steering oar(s). Oars of various sizes, mounted either upon posts and support bars of varying complexity, or simply hand held. Stern. The rear or aft end of the vessel. Tabernacle. A more correct term for a mast shoe, when it is placed at deck level. Thole pin. A timber upright, along the bulwark or bulwark, to which the oar is secured by a loop or strap. Tiller. A timber shaft set into the loom of the rudder to give the helmsman a better mechanical advantage. Tripod Mast. A mast consisting of three elements. This form of mast is very stable. Yard. A spar slung centrally before the mast, and which serves to carry the sail.

198

Angle of Forestay

Main Backstay Angle

25

1

3.21

0.38

70

60

  Deir el Gebrawi 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 24 25 1.64   0.61 55    

Deir el Gebrawi 7 (b)

Dyn. VI   35 Mid. Dyn. 20 26 1.33 3.3 0.41   El - Hawawish 2 (a) W.S. V   El - Hawawish 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30    

Meir 1 (d) Meir 34

46

W.S.

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

30

 

Model

Dyn. VI

16

 

40

.

 

35

65

 

35

60

 

28 34

30

1.93

  Meir 1 (g) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30 1.31 1.81 0.39  

Secondary Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

20

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Hull Length/Water Line

Date Dyn. VI

Hull Length/Mast Height

W.S.

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Deir el Gebrawi 5 (a)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

T I H (a)

Example Type

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

Appendix 2 Reisner Tabulated Data

24

  Saqqara 8 Model Dyn. VI 8 25   Saqqara 9 Model Dyn. VI 8 25   Saqqara 11 Model Dyn. VI 10 25   Saqqara 12 Model Dyn. VI 10 25   Saqqara 18 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 15 25 1.26

1.88

0.35

 

1.27

0.38

Saqqara 18 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. V

20

30

1.24

  Saqqara 18 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30 1.3 1.93   Thebes 1 W.S. Dyn. VI 15 40 0.97 1.88 0.41

72

 

T I H (b)

Deir el Gebrawi 1 (a)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

1.26

2.13

0.38

65

 

30

 

Deir el Gebrawi 1 (d)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

1.67

1.74

0.32

73

 

45

 

Deir el Gebrawi 1 (f)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

0.95

1.4

0.31

77

 

35

Deir el Gebrawi 7 (d)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

 

40

 

.

  Meir 1 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 20 0.86 2.26 0.4   Meir 1 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 23 1.31 2.05 0.4   Meir 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 30 1.21 1.86 0.44   Meir 35 Model Dyn. VI 8 20 1.31   0.42   Sheik Said 4 W.S. Dyn. II (?) 30 30   T I H (c)

Meir 31

Model

Dyn. VI

16

23

1.47

 

0.31

Meir 32 Model Dyn. VI 16 23   0.28     Meir 33 Model Dyn. VI 16 30   1.8 0.26   T II H (?)

Helwan 1

Model

Dyn. II

T II H (a)

Asasif 1 (a)

W.S.

Dyn. XI

  16

15

 

2.27

  Asasif 1 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 15   2.09   Asasif 1 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 16 15   Beni Hasan 9 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 40  

1.92

Beni Hasan 9 (g) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 3.13 2.08 0.42     Beni Hasan 9 (h) W.S. Dyn. XI 40 40 2.22 2.11 0.33 Beni Hasan 20 Model Dyn. XI 10 15   0.47    

199

2.47

0.4

Secondary Backstay Angle

 

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

40

Main Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

25

Angle of Forestay

Hull Length/Water Line

M.K.

Hull Length/Mast Height

Date

Example Type Model

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Provenance Unclear 1

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

T II H (a)

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

  Provenance Unclear 3 Model M.K. 28 35   4.04   Provenance Unclear 15 Model M.K. 20 25 1.41 4.9 0.41   Provenance Unclear 28 Model N/D 15 30   Provenance Unclear 32 Model # Dyn. XII 28 40  

2.95

  Provenance Unclear 42 Model 1st Int 20 20 1.7 4.13 0.46   Provenance Unclear 43 Model Dyn. XI 24 30   2.36 0.36 Dyn. VII30 30 2.6 2.07 0.44     Sedment 2 Model XI T II H (b) Assiut 3 Model Dyn. IX-X 10 37   2.2 0.38   Assiut 7 Model Dyn. XI 35 50 1.51 2.95 0.41   Assiut 8 Model Dyn. XII 18 22   3.29 0.32   Beni Hasan 12 (a) Model Dyn XII 30 35 1.53 3.01 0.4   Beni Hasan 12 (b) Model Dyn XII 30 35   2.63 0.34   Beni Hasan 13 (a) Model Dyn XII   Beni Hasan 13 (b) Model Dyn XII   Beni Hasan 9 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 20

30

 

2.2

  Beni Hasan 9 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 40   El Bersheh 11 (a) Model M.K. 40 32  

2.83

  El Bersheh 11 (b) Model M.K. 20 35   3   El Bersheh 11 (c) Model M.K. 22 40 1.33 2.76 0.46   El Bersheh 11 (d) Model M.K. 25 35   3.09   El Bersheh 11 (e) Model M.K. 21 43   2.38   El Bersheh 7 Model M.K. 25 30 1.43 3.73 0.45 Dyn. XI   El Bersheh 8 (a) Model XII   El Bersheh 8 (b) Model Dyn. XI-XII 35 36 Dyn. XI 25 35   2.43   El Bersheh 8 (c) Model XII El Bersheh 9 Model Dyn. XII 16 35 1.68 2.66     Deir el Bahari 2 Model M.K. 25 35   3.75 0.45   Deir el Bahari 3 Model M.K. 25 35   4.09 0.39   Deir el Bahari 5 Model Dyn. XII 20 25   Provenance Unclear 16 W.S. M.K. 20 30  

2.94

  Provenance Unclear 29 Model # M.K. *   40 Dyn. XI 20 32 1.28 3.72 0.38   Provenance Unclear 30 Model # XII Provenance Unclear 6 W.S. Dyn. VI * 30 35   4.03     Saqqara 1 Hull Dyn. I 8 10   Saqqara 61 W.S. Dyn. V. 25 35   Sedment 5 Model 1st Int. (?) 20 40  

200

2.25

 

32

1.3

2.67

Secondary Backstay Angle

Hull Length/Water Line

20

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Hull Length/Mast Height

Main Backstay Angle

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Dyn. XII-XIII

Mast Step/Hull Length

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Stele

Date

Abydos 1 (c)

Example Type

70

T II H (c)

Catalogue Example

  Abydos 2 Stele Dyn. XII-XIII 50 30 1.28 1.58 0.56 48

Hull Type

Angle of Forestay

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

  Abydos 1 (d) Stele Dyn. XII-XIII 25 22 1.56 2.5 0.44   Abydos 4 (a) Stele Dyn. XII-XIII 20 30 2.21   0.45   Abydos 4 (b) Stele Dyn. XII-XIII 20 30 1.03 2.82   Beni Hasan 9 (e) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 3.1 2.84 0.31   Beni Hasan 9 (f) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 40   2.1 0.39   Asasif 2 W.S. Dyn. XI 25 30   2.19 0.44   Asasif 3 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 35   Asasif 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 42  

1.81

  Beni Hasan 1 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 20   3   Beni Hasan 14 (a) Model Dyn XII 20 30   2.96   Beni Hasan 14 (b) Model Dyn XII 30 40 2.2 2.44 0.36

.

  Beni Hasan 16 (a) Model M.K. 20 30   4.22   Beni Hasan 16 (b) Model M.K. 20 30   5.12   Beni Hasan 17 Model Dyn. XII (?) 30 40 1.93 3.48 0.38   Beni Hasan 18 (a) Model M.K. 25 40   2.7   Beni Hasan 18 (b) Model M.K. 30 45   2.25   Beni Hasan 2 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 1.54 3 0.42

53

43

 

30

 

53

43

 

35

  Beni Hasan 5 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 2.1 2.7 0.48   25 Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 27 32 1.5 3.06 0.44 .   G2 (a) Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 32   2.72 0.39   G2 (b) Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 28 34   2.97 0.42   G2 (c) Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 24 28 1.5 3.22 0.42   G2 (d) Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 32 35   3.2 0.38   G2 (e) Deir el Bahari 16 Model Dyn. XI-XII 28 38   2.52 0.39   G2 (f)   El Bersheh 4 Model M.K. 30 40   4.63 0.36

 

25

 

Beni Hasan 2 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. XI

30

30

1.62

2.71

Beni Hasan 3 (a)

W.S.

Dyn. XI

30

30

1.38

2.89

0.42

  Beni Hasan 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 1.71 2.5 0.43   Beni Hasan 3 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 38   3.35   Beni Hasan 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 25 35   3.33   Beni Hasan 4 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 25 35   3.2

  El Bersheh 5 Model M.K. 20 35   3.5 0.47   El Bersheh 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 15   2.46   El Bersheh 6 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 20 1.6 2.33 0.45   El Bersheh 6 (c ) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 28 1.23 2.6 0.36   El Bersheh 6 (d) W.S. Dyn. XII 24 30 1.4 I.6 0.5   El Bersheh 6 (e) W.S. Dyn. XII 24 24   2.45 0.27  

201

Secondary Backstay Angle

0.44

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

 

Main Backstay Angle

2.21

Angle of Forestay

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date Dyn. XII

Mast Step/Hull Length

W.S.

Hull Length/Water Line

El Bersheh 6 (f)

Hull Length/Mast Height

 T II H (c)

Example Type

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

28

  El Bersheh 6 (g) W.S. Dyn. XII 26   Meir 13 Model M.K. 25 32

  Meir 16 Model M.K. 25 33 2.4 3.71 0.47   Meir 18 Model M.K. 30 40   2.85 0.44   Meir 19 Model M.K. 30 25 1.55 4.82 0.46 .   Meir 20 Model M.K. 25 28   Meir 21 Model M.K. 30 40  

5.46

0.45

  Meir 22 Model M.K. 20 30   4.75   Meir 26 Model M.K. 20 20   0.48   Meir 27 Model M.K. 25 40   0.53   Meir 28 Model M.K. 25 35   4.74 0.47   Meir 42 Model M.K. 30 35 1.81 3.14 0.47   Meir 43 Model M.K. 15 22 2.29 3.8 0.46 Provenance Unclear Model Dyn. XII 40 40 1.04 3.36 0.42   13 Provenance Unclear Model M.K. 30 18   2.6 0.46   14 Provenance Unclear Model M.K. * 20 15   4.58   21 Provenance Unclear Model Dyn. XII 30 35 1.55 3.33 0.5   24 Provenance Unclear Model M.K. 24 30 1.53 4.5 0.49   25   Provenance Unclear 9 Model M.K. * 18 15   3.58   Saqqara 55 Model M.K. 20 20 2 5.25 0.51   Thebes 12 (a) W.S.   Thebes 12 (c) W.S.   Thebes 7 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII T II H (d)

Assiut 2

20

25

1.54

3.92

0.46

 

Model

Dyn. IX-X 25 50 1.5 2.5 0.33 M.K. (XII 30 55 1.58 2.05 0.37 . Beni Hasan 15 (a) Model   ?) M.K. (XII 25 45   3.32   .   Beni Hasan 15 (b) Model ?) M.K. (XII 25 45   3.6   Beni Hasan 15 (c) Model ?)   Beni Hasan 18 (c) Model M.K. 40 55   2.18 0.29   Beni Hasan 18 (d) Model M.K. 25 40   2.89

  Saqqara 67 Model Dyn. XI 30 40   3.38 0.41 Provenance Unclear Drawing N/D T II H (e) 26 #   Sedment 3 (a) Model Dyn. IX 15 18   3.33 0.42

.

 

  Sedment 3 (b) Model Dyn. IX 22 20 1.47 3.5 0.41   Sedment 4 (a) Model Dyn. IX 30 30 1.64 3.8 0.36   Sedment 4 (b) Model Dyn. IX 20 30 1.29 4.12 0.35 60

202

 

1.98

0.41

Secondary Backstay Angle

1.92

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

35

Main Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

30

Angle of Forestay

Hull Length/Water Line

Date M.K. (XII ?)

Hull Length/Mast Height

Model

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Beni Hasan 15 (d)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

T II H (f)

Example Type

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

  Beni Hasan 18 (e) Model M.K. 20 35   Meir 14 Model M.K. 15 26  

2.41

  Meir 15 Model M.K. 15 26   3.19 0.46

   

T II H (g)

Deir el Bahari 17

Model

Dyn. XI-XII

25

T III H (?)

Helwan 2

Model

Dyn. II

 

30

 

2.7

0.36

T III H (a)

Abydos 1 (a)

Stele

Dyn. XII-XIII

20

30

  Abydos 1 (b) Stele Dyn. XII-XIII 20 30   Beni Hasan 6 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 40   Beni Hasan 6 (d) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30   Beni Hasan 8 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30   Beni Hasan 8 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30   Beni Hasan 10 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 15 20   Beni Hasan 10 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 22 22   Beni Hasan 10 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI   20   Beni Hasan 10 (d) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 18   Beni Hasan 10 (e) W.S. Dyn. XI   22   Beni Hasan 10 (f) W.S. Dyn. XI 15 15   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (a) W.S. Dyn VI 18 25   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 22   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 19   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 23   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 16 23   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (g) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 28   Deir el Gebrawi 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 28   Deir el Gebrawi 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 27   Deir el Gebrawi 5 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30  

Deir el Gebrawi 6 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

18

1.38

5.33

0.28

70

 

45

25

Dyn. VI 30 38   Deir el Gebrawi 7 (a) W.S.   Deir el Gebrawi 7 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 35   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 20   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 18   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 18   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30  

203

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

 T III H (a) Deir el Gebrawi 8 (g) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (k) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (l) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (m) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deshasha 3 (a) W.S. O.K. 22 20   Deshasha 3 (b) W.S. O.K.   25   Deshasha 4 (a) W.S. O.K. 25 30   El - Hawawish 1 W.S. Late Dyn. VI 20 27   El - Hawawish 4 W.S. Late Dyn. VI 30 35   El - Hawawish 7 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 35 30   El - Hawawish 7 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 23   El - Hawawish 10 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 22 20   El - Hawawish 11 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   El - Hawawish 11 (b) W.S. # Dyn. V   Giza 12 (b) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 25   Giza 12 (b) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Giza 13 (b) (1) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   Giza 13 (b) (2) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Meir 7 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 25   Meir 8 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 20   Meir 8 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII   20   Provenance Unclear 22 W.S. N/D 20 28   2.94   Provenance Unclear 23 Model N/D 25 43   Quesir El - Amarna 1 W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   Saqqara 2 (a) W.S. Dyn. X 30   Saqqara 2 (b) W.S. Dyn. X 30 30   Saqqara 2 (c) (1) W.S. Dyn. X   30   Saqqara 29 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   Saqqara 40 W.S. Dyn V 22 30   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (b) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 25   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (b) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 20   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (b) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 23   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (c) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 20   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (c) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (c) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (d) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (d) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 35  

204

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

T III H (a) Saqqara 53 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   Saqqara 54 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   Saqqara 54 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 20   Saqqara 54 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   Saqqara 54 (g) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 57 (b) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   Saqqara 75 (b) Drawing Dyn. VI 24 24   Saqqara 80 (a) W.S. M.K. 22 24   Saqqara 80 (b) W.S. M.K. 22 24   T III H (b) Beni Hasan 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 35   Beni Hasan 6 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 40   Beni Hasan 7 W.S. Dyn. XI 20 35   Beni Hasan 8 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 28   Beni Hasan 8 (d) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30   Beni Hasan 8 (e) W.S. Dyn. XI 30 30 Dyn V 20 25   Dahshur 2 (a) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 20 30   Dahshur 6 (a) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 20 30   Dahshur 6 (b) W.S. (V-VI)   Deir el Gebrawi 3 (h) W.S. Dyn. VI 17 25   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (o) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 35   Deshasha 2 (a) W.S. O.K. 25 30   Deshasha 2 (b) W.S. O.K. 30 40   El - Hawawish 5 (e) W.S. Late Dyn. VI 25 33   El - Hawawish 11 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 30   El - Hawawish 11 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   El - Hawawish 12 W.S. Dyn. V   45   .   El - Hawawish 13 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35   Giza 2 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV 25 25   Giza 2 (b) W.S. Dyn. IV 35 50   Giza 2 (c) W.S. Dyn. IV 35 50   Giza 2 (d) W.S. Dyn. IV 20 55   Giza 2 (e) W.S. Dyn. IV 30 55   Giza 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   Giza 5 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 10 20   Giza 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 22 32   Giza 12 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35   Giza 12 (b) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 10 30   Giza 14 W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Giza 20 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30 Giza 20 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30    

205

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

T III H (b) Giza 20 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Giza 20 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 18 30   Giza 20 (f) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Meir 2 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25   Meir 3 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Meir 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25   Meir 7 (c) W.S. Dyn. XII 18 25   Meir 10 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Meir 10 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Meir 10 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25   Meir 11 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 30 20   Meir 11 (c) W.S. Dyn. XII 28 35   Meir 12 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 22 22   Meir 45 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 20   Saqqara 4 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 5 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 32   Saqqara 5 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25   Saqqara 5 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 30   Saqqara 22 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 22 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 23 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 23 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 33   Saqqara 25 W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   Saqqara 29 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 35   Saqqara 40 (b) W.S. Dyn V 18 30   Saqqara 44 (a) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 44 (b) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 20   Saqqara 44 (b) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25   Saqqara 44 (b) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 25   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 33   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (b) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 30   Saqqara 45 Section 2 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 47 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   Saqqara 47 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 49 W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   Saqqara 50 W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35   Saqqara 51 W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 54 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 40   Saqqara 54 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 40   Saqqara 54 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 36  

206

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

T III H (b) Saqqara 57 (a) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 35   Saqqara 63 (a) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 63 (a) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 40   Saqqara 63 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 38 38   Saqqara 64 (a) (1) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 35   Saqqara 64 (a) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 64 (a) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 35   Saqqara 64 (a) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 35   Saqqara 64 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 40   Saqqara 80 (c) W.S. M.K. 26 36   Saqqara 80 (d) W.S. M.K. 21 35   Saqqara 80 (e) W.S. M.K. 20 32   Saqqara 80 (f) W.S. M.K. 25 33   Saqqara 80 (g) W.S. M.K. 28 30   Saqqara 80 (h) W.S. M.K. 20 30   Sheik Said 2 W.S. Dyn. V 30 30   Sheik Said 3 (a - d) W.S. Dyn. V 40 40   Thebes 9 (c) W.S. Dyn. V (?) 25 38   T III H (c) Beni Hasan 1 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 20   Deir el Bahari 16 G3 (a) Model Dyn. XI-XII 25 25   Deir el Bahari 16 G3 (b) Model Dyn. XI-XII 25 25   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (n) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 35   Meir 11 (d) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 30   Saqqara 2 (c) (2) W.S. # Dyn. X   Saqqara 5 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 17 25   Saqqara 29 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25   Saqqara 44 (a) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 30   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (c) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 20   Saqqara 57 (b) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 45   Saqqara 57 (b) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI   43   Saqqara 57 (b) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 40   Saqqara 57 (b) (5) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 37   Saqqara 72 (a) W.S. Dyn V 25   Saqqara 72 (b) W.S. Dyn V 25   Thebes 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 40 30   Thebes 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 30 30   Thebes 9 (b) W.S. Dyn. V (?) 20 35  

207

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

T III H (d) Meir 11 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 37   Meir 44 (c + d) W.S. Dyn. XII   Meir 44 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII 30 30   Meir 44 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 22 22   T III H (e) Dahshur 2 (b) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 20 30   El - Hawawish 10 (b) W.S. # Dyn. V   Meir 11 (e) W.S. Dyn. XII 35 35   Saqqara 29 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 23   Saqqara 40 (a) W.S. Dyn V 27 15   T III H (f) Beni Hasan 10 (g) W.S. Dyn. XI   Dahshur 6 (c) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 25   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI   28   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (h) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (i) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deir el Gebrawi 8 (p) W.S. Dyn. VI   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (d) (3) W.S. Dyn. VI 32   Saqqara 45 Section 1 (d) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI 25   Saqqara 45 Section 2 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 20   Saqqara 77 (g) W.S. Dyn. V 28 25   Saqqara 73 W.S. # Dyn. VI   T III H (g) El - Hawawish 3 (a - c) W.S. Late Dyn. VI   El - Hawawish 5 (a+b, c+d) W.S. Late Dyn. VI   Meir 12 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 18 30   Meir 45 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 40   Thebes 7 (b) W.S. Dyn. XII 20 22   Thebes 7 (c) W.S. Dyn. XII 30 23   Thebes 7 (d) W.S. Dyn. XII 25 30   Thebes 8 W.S. Dyn. XII 25 25   T IV H (a) Assiut 5 Model Dyn. XI-XII 15 15   Aswan 1 Model Dyn. XI 25 30   Beni Hasan 19 Model Dyn. XII 17 28   3.92 0.41   Dahshur 2 (e) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 20 20   Dahshur 7 W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   Deir el Bahari 18 Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 30 1.45 3.54 0.39   Deir el Gebrawi 1 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deir el Gebrawi 1 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI   Deshasha 1 W.S. O.K.   25 1.34 2.41 0.31 60

208

55

 

60 - 65

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

T IV H (a) Deshasha 4 (b) W.S. O.K. 28 28   El - Hagarsa 2 W.S. Dyn. VIII 25 30   Meir 47 Model O.K. 22 30 2.4 4.46 0.39   Provenance Unclear 17 W.S. M.K. 20   4.17   Saqqara 13 (d) Model Dyn. VI 17 17   3.75   Saqqara 13 (e) Model Dyn. VI 20 20   3.73   Saqqara 30 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI   30   Saqqara 30 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 28 25   Saqqara 30 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25   Saqqara 30 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 25   Saqqara 31 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 24 30   2.17   Saqqara 31 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 27   Saqqara 31 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 31 31   Saqqara 31 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 32   Saqqara 31 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 25   Saqqara 31 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   Saqqara 68 Model Dyn. XI 20 40   5.21 0.32   Saqqara 74 (b) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 25 35 2.46 2.19 0.32 49 32   39   Saqqara 75 (a) Drawing Dyn. VI 23 28   2.85   Saqqara 76 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   2.62   T IV H (b) Deshasha 5 (a) P.T. Slab O.K. 25 28   4.2   Deshasha 5 (b) P.T. Slab O.K. 18 35 1.9 5.4 0.5   50   50   El - Hammamaya 3 (d) W.S. Mid. Dyn. V 15 30   3.04   El - Hammamiya 3 (a) W.S. Mid. Dyn. V   35   Giza 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. IV 20 40   2.98   Giza 6 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 38 1.83 2.63 0.33 63   Giza 7 W.S. Dyn. V 28 30   2.62   Giza 10 W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30   2.8   Meir 29 Model M.K. 15 35   3.64 M.K. 10 16   Meir 30 Model   Meir 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   1.67   Meir 4 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   2.82   Meir 5 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 30   2.87   Meir 5 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   2.89   Provenance Unclear 20 W.S. M.K. 20 25   5.49 Provenance Unclear 4 W.S. Dyn. VI * 15 20   4.67     Provenance Unclear 5 W.S. Dyn. VI * 10 25  

209

Main Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Secondary Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

30

Hull Length/Mast Height

15

Angle of Forestay

Dyn. VI

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Model

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

T IV H (b)

Date

Example Type

Saqqara 7 (a)

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

60

40

 

50 - 54

  Saqqara 7 (b) Model Dyn. VI 15 30   Saqqara 21 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 20   Saqqara 24 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 30   Saqqara 24 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 36   Saqqara 28 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 28  

2.15

  Saqqara 37 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   2.27   Saqqara 38 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 15 30   T IV H (b)

Saqqara 39 (a)

W.S.

Dyn. V

15

20

  Saqqara 39 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 15 20   Saqqara 48 W.S. Dyn. VI 18 25   Saqqara 75 (c) Drawing Dyn. VI 20 26  

2.59

  Saqqara 77 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 40   Saqqara 77 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 77 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 77 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 77 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 30 20   Saqqara 77 (f) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 78 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 25 35  

2.5

T IV H (c)

Meir 17

Model

M.K.

30

30

2.24

3.25

T IV H (d)

Assiut 4

Model

Dyn. X-XI

14

15

 

3.18

  0.39

 

  Assiut 9 (a) Model Dyn. XI-XII   Assiut 9 (b) Model Dyn. XI-XII   El - Hawawish 2 (c) W.S. Late Dyn. VI  

29

  El - Hawawish 6 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 26  

3.49

  Provenance Unclear 18 W.S. M.K. 20 30   4.23   Provenance Unclear 31 Model # Dyn. XII - XIII 15 28   Saqqara 35 (a + b) Rock Pits Dyn. VI 20 20   Saqqara 60 Model Dyn. V.   T IV H (e)

Provenance Unclear 41

Model

M.K.

17

13

 

3.85

  Thebes 11 Model Dyn. XII 18 18   4.19   T V H (a)

Abusir 4

W.S.

Dyn. V

14

 

62

  Abusir 5 W.S. Dyn. V   30   Abusir 6 W.S. Dyn. V 20 Abusir 7 W.S. Dyn. V   30     Abusir 8 W.S. Dyn. V   28   Abusir 9 W.S. Dyn. V Abusir 10 W.S. Dyn. V 18  

210

 

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

T V H (a) Dahshur 1 (a) Hull M.K.   20   Dahshur 1 (b) Hull M.K.   Dahshur 1 (c) Hull M.K. 15 30   Dahshur 1 (d) Hull M.K.   Deir el Bahari 7 W.S. Dyn. XI 30 40   Deir el Bahari 16 G1 (a) Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 36 1.54 3.91 0.37 .   Deir el Bahari 16 G1 (b) Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 38   3.46 0.38   Deir el Bahari 16 G1 (c) Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 30   3.49 0.34   Deir el Bahari 16 G1 (d) Model Dyn. XI-XII 30 34   3.54 0.34   El Bersheh 2 Model M.K. 15 20 2.1   Giza 1 Hull Dyn. IV 12 16   Lisht 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 22 30   Meir 46 Model Dyn. XII 30 35 1.5 2.73 0.44 .   T V H (a) Provenance Unclear 2 W.S. M.K. 22 30   3.7 0.43   Provenance Unclear 11 W.S. M.K. * 13 12 1.4   0.4 .   Provenance Unclear 19 W.S. M.K. 34 35   3.9 Dyn. XII   Provenance Unclear 40 Model XIII 20 18 1.39 4.1 0.41   60   Saqqara 6 (a) Model Dyn. VI 20 30   4.66   Saqqara 6 (b) Model Dyn. VI 20 30   4.66   Thebes 5 W.S. Dyn. XII 20 20   3.4   Thebes 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. XII   30   T V H (b) Saqqara 33 Model M.K. 25 22   3.77   Saqqara 56 Model M.K. 30 30   3.98   T V H (c) Saqqara 34 Model M.K. 15 15   T V H (d) Assiut 1 (a) Model Dyn. X-XII 20 30   Assiut 1 (b) Model Dyn. X-XII 25 35 1.47 2.59 0.4   Beni Hasan 2 (c) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 25   3.5   Beni Hasan 5 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI 20 30   Deir el Bahari 4 (a) Model Dyn. XII 20 35   Deir el Bahari 4 (b) Model Dyn. XII 20 28   Meir 23 Model M.K. 35 30   0.5 0.47   Provenance Unclear 8 W.S. Dyn. XII * 20 17   4.19   Provenance Unclear 49 Model M.K. 28 45   5.33   T V H (e) Deir el Bahari 8 Model Dyn. XI 20 23   2.83   Provenance Unclear 7 W.S. Dyn. XII 30 30   4.8  

211

0.18

Secondary Backstay Angle

2

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

1.22

Main Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

30

Dyn. XII-XIII 30

Angle of Forestay

Hull Length/Water Line

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Stele

Hull Length/Mast Height

Abydos 3

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Unclear

Example Type

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

 

45 - 50

  Asasif 4 W.S. Dyn. XI   Beni Hasan 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI 25

30

  Beni Hasan 9 (d) W.S. Dyn. XI 40  

2.05

  Deir el Bahari 1 Model Dyn. XI 8 25   Deir el Bahari 6 Model   Deir el Bahari 9 (a) W.S. Dyn. XI   Deir el Bahari 9 (b) W.S. Dyn. XI   Deir el Bahari 10 W.S. Dyn. XI   Deir el Bahari 11 W.S.   Deir el Bahari 12 W.S.   Deir el Bahari 13 Model Dyn. XI   Deir el Bahari 14 Model   Deir el Bahari 15 Model   Deir el Gebrawi 2 W.S. Dyn. VI

17

22

  Deir el Gebrawi 9 W.S. Dyn. VI   El Bersheh 10 Model M.K. 25

20

 

3.02

  El Bersheh 12 Model #   El Bersheh 13 Model #   Elephantine 1 Model Dyn. IV 30   El - Hammamiya 1 W.S. Mid. Dyn. V 20 30   El - Hawawish 7 (a + b) W.S. Dyn. VI   El - Hawawish 8 Model Dyn. VI 55

45

  El - Hawawish 9 W.S. Dyn. VI   30   El - Hawawish 11 (e) W.S. # Dyn. V    

El - Hawawish 13 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

 

40

35

  El - Hawawish 14 W.S. # Dyn. VI   El - Hawawish 15 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20   El - Hawawish 15 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 35 Dyn. VI 40   El - Hawawish 16 W.S.   El - Hawawish 17 (a + b) W.S. # Dyn. VI   El - Hawawish 17 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20   El - Hawawish 18 W.S. # Dyn. VI   El - Hawawish 19 W.S. Dyn. VI 30

40

  Giza 3 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV 30 30   Giza 11 W.S. Dyn. VI   Giza 12 (b) (4) W.S. Dyn. VI  

40

  Giza 13 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   Giza 15 W.S. # Dyn. V  

212

2.37

0.39

Secondary Backstay Angle

1.08

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

20

Main Backstay Angle

Mast Step/Hull Length

10

Angle of Forestay

Hull Length/Water Line

Date Dyn. V

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stela

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Giza 16 (a)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Unclear

Example Type

Hull Type

Catalogue Example

Appendix 2 - Reisner Tabulated Data

 

50 - 55

 

40 - 55

  Giza 16 (b) Stela Dyn. V 15 25   Giza 18 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 17  

.

  Giza 19 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 17   68 40  

Giza 19 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. V

18

 

 

Giza 20 (c)

W.S.

Dyn. V

23

30

65

40

  Lisht 1 Frame Dyn. XII   Lisht 2 Timbers Dyn. XII   Lisht 3 W.S. # Dyn. V   Lisht 4 (a) W.S. # Dyn. V   Lisht 5 W.S. N/D 20   Lisht 6 W.S. N/D   Lisht 7 W.S. Dyn. IV  

18

  Lisht 8 W.S. O.K. 13   Lisht 9 W.S. Dyn. IV  

55

  Lisht 12 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV-V   42  

45

 

Lisht 12 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. IV-V

 

50

 

54

 

Lisht 13

W.S.

Dyn. IV-V

 

32

 

32

 

Lisht 14

W.S.

Dyn. XII

  Meir 6 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 30

50

  Meir 6 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 40   Meir 6 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 23 30   Meir 6 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Meir 7 (a) W.S. # Dyn. XII   Meir 24 Model M.K. 26

30

 

5.06

  Meir 37 Model # N/D   Meir 38 Model # N/D   Meir 39 Model # N/D   Meir 40 Model # N/D   Meir 41 Model # N/D   Mo’alla 1 (a) W.S. 1st Int. 15

30

  Mo’alla 1 (b) W.S. 1st Int. 30 35   Mo’alla 1 (c) W.S. 1st Int.   45   Provenance Unclear 33 Model # Dyn. XII   Provenance Unclear 34 Model # Dyn. XII   Provenance Unclear 35 - 39 Model # Dyn. XII   Provenance Unclear 48 Model # Dyn. IX  

213

Unclear Saqqara 13 (j) Model Dyn. VI 17 24 1.97 3.94 0.36   Saqqara 13 (k) Model Dyn. VI 30 25 2.66 5.33 0.36   Saqqara 20 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI     Saqqara 20 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI   60   Saqqara 47 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 47 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20   Saqqara 53 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 50 55   Saqqara 57 (a) (2) W.S. Dyn. VI   40   Saqqara 62 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 66 W.S. # Dyn. V   Saqqara 70 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 28   Saqqara 70 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 35   Saqqara 70 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 28 28   Saqqara 71 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 43   Saqqara 71 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 32 32   Saqqara 71 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 32   Saqqara 71 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35   Saqqara 71 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI   32   Saqqara 74 (i) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 15 24   Saqqara 74 (j) W.S. Dyn. V - VI   34   Saqqara 74 (k) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 34 30   Saqqara 74 (l) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 20 27   Saqqara 78 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 40   Saqqara 79 Model M.K. 20 28   4.1 0.23   Saqqara 82 (a) Drawing # Dyn. VI   18   Saqqara 82 (b) Drawing # Dyn. VI 20   Sheik Said 1 (a) W.S. Dyn. V   30   Sheik Said 1 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 30 35   Thebes 2 (c) W.S. Dyn. V - VI   65 30     Thebes 3 W.S. O.K. 20   55   Thebes 6 (b) W.S. # Dyn. XII   Thebes 12 (b) W.S.

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

45 - 48

30

  Thebes 12 (d) W.S.  

214

ETH 1 Dahshur 2 (c) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 25 30   2.14   Dahshur 2 (d) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 20 20   2.48   Dahshur 3 (a) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 20 25 1.88 2.49 0.36 .   Dahshur 3 (b) W.S. Dyn V (V-VI) 20 20 1.74 2.32 0.35 . El - Hawawish W.S. Late Dyn. VI 20 34 1.23 3.06 0.35 76   2 (b) El - Hawawish W.S. Dyn. VI 25 40 1.55 1.82 0.32   6 (b)   Meir 9 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 28 28   63   40   Meir 9 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25 1.12 2.32 0.35   Meir 9 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25 1.22 2.36 0.33 .   Saqqara 4 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 32 1.25 1.92 0.37 70 53   Saqqara 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25 1.33 2.18 0.34 70   Saqqara 19 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 15 20 1.79 1.92 0.33   30 25   Saqqara 19 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25 1.49 1.57 0.37   30 25  

Saqqara 19 (c)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

18

25

1.73

1.83

0.37

60

35

32.5

 

Saqqara 19 (d)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

15

25

1.44

2.09

0.37

60

35

32.5

68

27

47

.

45

52

72

 

52

  Saqqara 52 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25 1.55   0.32 65

 

32

 

27

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 3 ETH Tabulated Data

40

25 25 30 35 30 35

  Saqqara 19 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 17 27 1.5 1.93 0.35   Saqqara 19 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 20   Saqqara 21 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   2.05   Saqqara 21 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   1.9   Saqqara 21 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 20   2.21   Saqqara 27 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 32 1.34 2.33 0.29

42 52

  Saqqara 32 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 15 22   Saqqara 32 (e) W.S. Dyn. V   25   Saqqara 36 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 20 35   2.21   Saqqara 37 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 18 25   1.96   Saqqara 38 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 18 28 1.34 2.15 0.3  

Saqqara 38 (c)

W.S.

Dyn. V

18

30

1.3

  Saqqara 39 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 46 W.S. Dyn. VI 15 25  

 

Saqqara 52 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

25

 

1.92

2.19

0.3

2.14

0.29

 

0.3

60

50 54 50 54

31 33 26 28

  Saqqara 52 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30 1.44 1.99 0.33 .   Saqqara 52 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 25 2.21   0.39   Saqqara 83 (a) Drawing # Dyn. VI 18 20   2   Saqqara 83 (b) Drawing # Dyn. VI 22   Saqqara 83 (c) Drawing # Dyn. VI 13 19  

215

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

ETH 1 Saqqara 83 (g) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 20 1.11 1.79   Saqqara 83 (h) Drawing # Dyn. VI 16 16 1.05 1.94   Saqqara 83 (j) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 18 1.28 2.21   Saqqara 83 (l) Drawing # Dyn. VI 16 18 1.07 2.06   Thebes 10 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV 22 18 1.45 2.43   Thebes 10 (b) W.S. Dyn. IV 22 18   2.5   ETH 2 Deshasha 2 (c) W.S. O.K. 20 30   3.25   Deshasha 3 (c) W.S. O.K. 15 30   1.89 El - Hammamiya W.S. Mid. Dyn. V 8 25 2.18 2.78 0.36 50 35   45   2 El - Hammamiya W.S. Mid. Dyn. V 12 30 1.24 3.78 0.35   3 (c)   Giza 3 (c) W.S. Dyn. IV 22 35   2.21   Giza 6 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 38 1.63 2.04 0.35 63   Meir 1 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35 1.26 2.21 0.4   Meir 1 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI   1.72 1.63 0.46 50   Saqqara 15 W.S. Dyn. V 15 30   2.33   Saqqara 16 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 15 25 1.67 2.11 0.43

58

40

 

 

63

25

 

Saqqara 27 (b)

W.S.

Dyn. VI

20

26

1.5

2.24

0.33

  Saqqara 32 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 15 25     Saqqara 36 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 25 40   2.07   Saqqara 37 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 15 20   2.51   Saqqara 38 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 15 25 1.32 2.53 0.32

70

50

 

60 65 43 50 60

52 57

  Saqqara 39 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 20 20   Saqqara 58 (a) W.S. Dyn. V. 10 30 1.8 2.98 0.32 60 40   45   Saqqara 74 (a) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 20 35 2.48 2.58 0.35 40   38   Saqqara 74 (c) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 18 30 2.76 2.16 0.32   Saqqara 74 (f) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 20 32   2.86   Saqqara 75 (d) Drawing Dyn. VI 20 25   2.05   Saqqara 75 (e) Drawing Dyn. VI   25   ETH 3 Giza 22 W.S. Dyn. IV - V 22 20   1.68   Giza 23 (b) W.S. Dyn. IV 10 25   Giza 4 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 20 25 1.55 2.43 0.41

55

24

  Giza 6 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 30 1.5 2.25 0.36 63 33    

45 48

Giza 9 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV 20 30 1.8 2.3 0.28   Giza 9 (c) W.S. Dyn. IV 20 30 1.97 2.23 0.35   Saqqara 13 (b) Model Dyn. VI 28 35 2.27 3.53 0.39   Saqqara 13 (c) Model Dyn. VI 16 22 1.69 2.71 0.4   Saqqara 13 (f) Model Dyn. VI 22 20   3.31   Saqqara 13 (g) Model Dyn. VI 13 23   3.48 0.33   Saqqara 13 (f) Model Dyn. VI 22 20   3.31  

216

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Secondary Backstay Angle

Main Backstay Angle 48

 

55 60

63

27

 

42 52

72

 

50 54

60

40

45 50

Angle of Forestay 60

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 3

ETH 3 Saqqara 13 (g) Model Dyn. VI 13 23   3.48 0.33   Saqqara 13 (h) Model Dyn. VI 13 13   0.42   Saqqara 13 (I) Model Dyn. VI 17 27   3.47   Saqqara 16 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 18 20 1.48 2.46 0.39   Saqqara 23 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 22 37   Saqqara 24 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 18 36   Saqqara 26 W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25 1.58

2.73

0.33

  Saqqara 32 (f) W.S. Dyn. V 10 20   Saqqara 37 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 16 23   2.08   Saqqara 37 (f) W.S. Dyn. V 15 25   1.92   Saqqara 38 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 15 22 1.29 2.57 0.35   Saqqara 39 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 10 20   Saqqara 43 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 18 30 1.48 2.12   Saqqara 43 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 18 30 1.58 2.46 0.37

 

  Saqqara 62 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   Saqqara 74 (d) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 25 30 2.39 3 0.42 57   42   Saqqara 76 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 25 32   2.83   Sheik Said 1 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   2.41   Dyn V 20 25 ETH 4 Dahshur 5 (a) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 15 23   2.52   Dahshur 5 (b) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 15 23   2.42   Dahshur 5 (c) W.S. (V-VI)   Giza 4 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 25   Saqqara 36 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   2.07   Saqqara 62 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 18 35   ETH 5 Assiut 6 (a) Model Dyn. XI-XII 22 17   6.82 0.35   Assiut 6 (b) Model Dyn. XI-XII 20 20   4.23 0.34   Beni Hasan 11 Model M.K. 17 18   0.42   El Bersheh 1 Model M.K. 20 20   El Bersheh 3 Model M.K. 20 30 1.99 3.89 0.53   Giza 5 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   2.21   Meir 25 Model M.K. 25 35 Provenance W.S. M.K. * 16 20 1.85   0.5   Unclear 10 Provenance W.S. Dyn. XII 17 20   3.5 0.42   Unclear 12   Saqqara 65 Model Dyn. IX/X 10 10   ETH 6 Abusir 2 (a) W.S. Dyn. V   Abusir 2 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 20   Abusir 2 (c) W.S. Dyn. V   18   Abusir 2 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20   Abusir 3 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 18 18 1.52 1.73 0.32  

217

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

ETH 6 Abusir 3 (b) W.S. Dyn. V   1.46 1.73 0.31   Abusir 3 (c) W.S. Dyn. V   Abusir 3 (d) W.S. Dyn. V   Abusir 3 (e) W.S. Dyn. V 18 18 1.46 1.73 0.32   Abusir 3 (f) W.S. Dyn. V   Abusir 3 (g) W.S. Dyn. V   Abusir 3 (h) W.S. Dyn. V   Giza 17 W.S. Dyn. V 20 20 Provenance W.S. O.K. 19   43   Unclear 47   Saqqara 13 (a) Model Dyn. VI 20 20   3.18   Saqqara 42 (a) W.S. Dyn. V 20   55   Saqqara 42 (b) W.S. Dyn. V   25   Mid. Dyn. El - Hammamiya 20 30   2.13 W.S. V 3 (b)   Giza 3 (d) W.S. Dyn. IV 20 25   2.83   Giza 5 (c) W.S. # Dyn. V 23   Giza 5 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 30 30   2.09   Giza 8 W.S. Dyn. V 25 25 1.91 2.09 0.34 75     Giza 9 (b) W.S. Dyn. IV 25 30 1.43 1.92 0.32   Giza 18 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 18 27   Giza 21 Drawing N/D 17 17 1.56 3.34 0.3   Giza 23 (a) W.S. Dyn. IV 15 20 2.38 2.61 0.28     Saqqara 14 W.S. Dyn. V 16 25 2.5 2.12   Saqqara 17 W.S. Dyn. V 18 20 1.85 2.12 0.32 65 30     Saqqara 23 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   Saqqara 24 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 32   Saqqara 28 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 25   1.97   Saqqara 36 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 28 36   1.81   Saqqara 37 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   1.82   Saqqara 58 (b) W.S. Dyn. V. 15 20 1.87 2.61 0.34 65 33  

50 60

ETH 7

73

40 45

45   Saqqara 59 W.S. Dyn. V. 10 15   3.16   Saqqara 62 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 25 30   Saqqara 74 (e) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 30 35   1.44   Tell Ibrahim Awad Model O.K. 10   Thebes 9 (a) W.S. Dyn. V (?) 25 38   Mid. Dyn. 20 30   1.51 ETH 8 (a) Abusir 1 (a) W.S. V Mid. Dyn. 18 25   1.6   Abusir 1 (b) W.S. V Mid. Dyn. 18 25   Abusir 1 (c) W.S. V Mid. Dyn.   25   Abusir 1 (d) W.S. V Mid. Dyn. 20 25     Abusir 1 (e) W.S. V

218

50

Secondary Backstay Angle

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

 

Mast Step/Hull Length

30

Hull Length/Water Line

 

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Mid. Dyn. V

Hull Length/Mast Height

Date

Example Type W.S.

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Abusir 1 (f)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

ETH 8 (a)

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

Appendix 3

 

50

Deir el Gebrawi W.S. Dyn. VI   1.09 1.61 0.34 70   48 1 (g)   Meir 1 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 35 1.2 2.06 0.41   Saqqara 3 W.S. Dyn. X 20 25   Saqqara 10 (a) Model Dyn. VI 15 30   Saqqara 10 (b) Model Dyn. VI 15 30   Saqqara 18 (d) W.S. Dyn. V 24 36 1.6 2.55   Saqqara 36 (e) (1) W.S. # Dyn. V   Saqqara 36 (e) (2) W.S. # Dyn. V   Saqqara 36 (e) (3) W.S. Dyn. V   38   Saqqara 36 (e) (4) W.S. Dyn. V 20 36   1.56   Saqqara 36 (e) (5) W.S. Dyn. V   30   Saqqara 36 (e) (6) W.S. Dyn. V 25 32   1.35   Saqqara 82 (d) Drawing # Dyn. VI 13 23   2.89   Saqqara 82 (e) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 22   2.35   Dyn V 18 20   2.06 ETH 8 (b) Dahshur 4 (a) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 10 20   1.73   Dahshur 4 (b) W.S. (V-VI) Dyn V 20 20   2   Dahshur 4 (c) W.S. (V-VI) 60   Saqqara 32 (b) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   72 60   65   Saqqara 52 (e) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30 1.56 1.58   Saqqara 52 (f) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 30   2.6   Saqqara 52 (g) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30 2   0.34   Saqqara 69 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 35   Saqqara 69 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 25 32   1.74   .   Saqqara 69 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30   2.24   Saqqara 81 (a) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15   Saqqara 81 (b) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 20   2.41 0.39 75 60   Saqqara 81 (c) Drawing # Dyn. VI 20 20   1.83   Saqqara 81 (d) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 22   1.22  

  Saqqara 81 (e) Drawing # Dyn. VI 20 30   1.91   Saqqara 81 (f) Drawing # Dyn. VI 28 20   2.18   Saqqara 81 (g) Drawing # Dyn. VI 22 28   2.35   Saqqara 81 (h) Drawing # Dyn. VI 15 15   2.06   Saqqara 83 (d) Drawing # Dyn. VI 20 15 1.32 2.08   Saqqara 83 (e) Drawing # Dyn. VI 19 21 1.48 1.75   Saqqara 83 (f) Drawing # Dyn. VI 19 19 1.48 2 Dyn. 18 20     Thebes 2 (a) W.S. V - VI

219

Secondary Backstay Angle

Secondary Backstay Angle (Average)

Main Backstay Angle

Angle of Forestay

Mast Step/Hull Length

Hull Length/Water Line

Hull Length/Mast Height

Stern Angle to Horizontal (SATH)

Bow Angle to Horizontal (BATH)

Date

Example Type

Catalogue Example

Hull Type

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats

ETH 8 (c) Giza 6 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 40 1.28 1.79 0.38   Giza 6 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 30 30 1.33 1.9 0.33   Lisht 10 W.S. Dyn. IV-V 18   65   55   Saqqara 32 (c) W.S. Dyn. V   20   Saqqara 74 (g) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 23 30   Saqqara 74 (h) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 25 29   Saqqara 78 (c) W.S. Dyn. V 20 30   1.96 Drawing Dyn. VI 17 30   1.94     Saqqara 82 (c) # Deir el Gebrawi W.S. Dyn. VI   1.05 2.31 0.33 73   43 ETH 9 1 (e)   Meir 36 Model Dyn. VI 8 20 1.31   0.42   ETH 10 Lisht 11 W.S. Dyn. IV-V   70 50   Saqqara 41 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 15   Saqqara 41 (b) W.S. Dyn. VI   18   Saqqara 41 (c) W.S. Dyn. VI 15   Saqqara 41 (d) W.S. Dyn. VI   15   ETH 11 El - Hagarsa 1 W.S. Dyn. VIII 33 37   El - Hagarsa 3 W.S. Dyn. VIII 20 30   Meir 2 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 30 Provenance Model # Dyn. XII *   Unclear 27   Rizagat 1 Model M.K. 30 40   2.4 0.36   Sedment 1 Model Dyn. IX - X 28 38 0.82 2.71 0.47   Thebes 2 (b) W.S. Dyn. V - VI 20 40   .   ETH 12 Deir el Bahari 11 W.S. Dyn. XI     Meir 9 (a) W.S. Dyn. VI 20 20 1.9 3.67 0.36 68   50-52 Provenance Model M.K. 10 10   1.25     Unclear 45

220