Part 2

[Sidenote: II 18 etc.]

Under the ancient Empire, the mast was 10 metres long and the yard was 6 metres. Under the middle Empire, these lengths were, respectively, 5 and 6 metres, and under the new Empire they were 5 and 10 metres.

As the result of this constant increase of the width of the sail, the rigging became more complicated and a top was placed at the head of the mast in order to handle the lines from there.

[Sidenote: II 4]

The scarceness of wood in Egypt was the cause, from the most distant times, of recourse being had to other materials for the construction of vessels. Papyrus answered this purpose very well. This aquatic plant when cut, dried and made up in bundles, formed the material of which the boats were made.

[Sidenote: II 5]

The papyri were laid side by side and a whole was made of them by ties placed at close intervals. (~Ermann~, p. 593; ~Nicolas Witsen~, p. 6; _Archéologie navale_, by ~A. Jal~, Vol. I, p. 91.)

Several drawings found on old monuments show us the Egyptians engaged in this work.

The papyrus barks formed a sort of rafts of reeds, judging by these drawings which represent the oarsmen standing upright on the boats.

These latter were small; attempts made later to build them of larger size appear to have failed. As a general rule, the wood intended for the construction of the larger vessels had to be imported.

The many pictures on monuments and the large number of models found, enable a very fair idea of the shape of the ancient Egyptian ship to be formed, and it can be seen at the same time that these shapes were little changed.

Before describing these models, it will be rather interesting to note that, as a general rule, the oldest ones are not reproduced in accordance with the proportions adopted in practice; they are too high and too broad for the length. Taken by themselves, the stem and the sternpost are well shown, but the intermediate body is too short. The cause of this must be sought in the fact that these models are made from nature and not by taking the dimensions of the boats from carefully prepared drawings. Proceeding in this way, it is very difficult to give exactly the relative dimensions of the boats, especially in the relations between length and breadth. This is why the vessels are drawn so often with too little length. So, many old models must be accepted with the necessary reserves.

The vessels shown in mural paintings are generally much better proportioned than those represented by models. In the mural paintings, when the boat is shown in profile, there was no reason to consider the beam; all the same, the figures are often too large.

According to ~Belger~ (_“Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde”_, XXXIII, p. 24), the models which have been found should be placed in two classes:

_a_) solid models made from a massive piece of wood, and

_b_) hollow models which are, evidently, a more faithful reproduction of the ship.

Belger also shows that, in group _a_, the parts painted _white_ must be considered as not existing, while those painted _brown_ really do exist.

It appears, generally, from the examination of these models that the Egyptian boats were not of deep draught; they had, necessarily, to draw but little water on account of the small depth and the frequent changes in the navigable portions of the river. The mural paintings, on their side, show that the bottom length was one-third of the total length. (~Ermann~, p. 637; ~Belger~, p. 25, XXXIII-1895, et id. p. 26.)

[Sidenote: II 8]

The boats were flat-bottomed with very low sides, so that, in order to prevent the water from coming in, movable upper sides were often used. The outside planking was smooth (all the models are worked in this way) and the boats were finished with neither stem nor sternpost. The keel, in like manner, was not shown on the models, but this would not allow us to say, however, that it never really existed.

How then could the vessel have sufficient strength under these conditions?

[Sidenote: II 10]

This explanation is given by the representation of an ancient boat, exhumed about eleven years ago, shown in “Wassersport” of January 4, 1906, (No 1). The form of this boat shows that there were neither frames nor keel; but, on the other hand, the planking is very thick (36 millimetres) and is formed of joists close laid and dovetailed together; the middle joist which takes the place of the keel is, besides, thicker than the others but it does not project below the hull of the boat. The latter is therefore perfectly smooth on the outside. The keelson forms a whole with the floor and follows up to the very ends of the bow and stern.

The benches for the rowers served as braces for the sides of the vessel; and when this was quite large, the sides, by reason of their greater length, were supported near the middle by a timber laid in the longitudinal axis of the vessel.

At the point where the mast was put up, this timber was made double and embraced the foot of the mast to which it gave the required support. In smaller boats, where this beam is not met with, the support for the mast was formed by a special arrangement which is found in the models.

The bow and stern are always shown to be solid (painted brown), which allows it to be supposed that there were decks at the two ends.

The benches for the rowers passed through the planking and gave greater stiffness to the boats; these benches are indicated on most of the reliefs by small squares on the sides of the vessel. The steering oar was supported, on the other hand, by a beam which passed across the boat and which is shown by a small rectangle.

It has been sometimes believed, but wrongly, in my opinion, that these rectangles were windows in the cabin. (See Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 22.)

A very nearly identical method of proceeding can be noted in the barks formerly used by the Arabs of the Black Sea, and reproduced in ~Paris~’s work, Vol. I, No 59 (see also the models from the Dutch East Indies which appear in the collection of the Technical University at Delft).

This wholly original mode of construction, which was never in use in the North of Europe, bears witness to the fact that the art of shipbuilding in Egypt was more closely related to that of Asia (India and China) than to that of Northern Europe. But this should not be a matter of astonishment.

[Sidenote: II 11]

The proof that these little rectangles, just mentioned, do not represent windows is given by a figure, found in the temple of Dês-el-Bahari (_Ancient and Modern Ships_, ~Holmes~, p. 20), which reproduces a boat carrying an obelisk. In the side of this vessel, there are not one, but three superposed rows of these little rectangles. This ship was made exceptionally strong, in proportion to the loads which it had to carry. It would be hard to admit that the side would have been pierced by three superposed rows of windows. An endeavor rather has been made to put in a suitable cross bracing. In the boat which tows the larger vessel, furthermore, there is but one row of rectangles, and these are placed below the gunwale, at the points where the rowers sit. Here it has been considered enough to let the benches of the oarsmen pass through.

_Boats intended for carrying freight_ were a little shorter and more round than the others and were towed, as a rule. They had generally a towing bitt at the top of the bow and sometimes even a second one at the top of the stern. A few had sails and rigging, but generally they could also be propelled by oars. The free space on deck was occupied ordinarily by a cabin (made of laths and covered with cloth). Rather flat at the bow, these boats rose sensibly toward the stern.

[Sidenote: II 20]

As has been said already, it is not known whether the Egyptians had any vessels built exclusively for military purposes. It would seem not, if it be remembered that most of the actions between vessels had no other scene than the river. Furthermore, only one single representation of a naval fight at sea is found, it having taken place under Ramses III (B. C. 1180-1150). Here is another proof that the Egyptians were not a race of seamen, and this is all the more marked as the war ships seen are not of pure Egyptian type. The subject will be taken up again.

~Jal~ gives in his celebrated work, _Archéologie navale_, p. 68, a few figures about the size of Egyptian boats. According to this author, the largest boats were not more than 39.00 m. long nor more than 5.19 m., or say 5.20 m. wide. The width was to the length, therefore, as 1 to 7.5, a proportion which was maintained for vessels with oars up to the middle ages.

In the matter of the speed of ships, the same author puts it at about 9 kilometres an hour (p. 110). In order to reduce the speed at the rapids of the rivers, there was attached to the boat a rope of which the free end was made fast to a block of stone. This stone slid along the bed of the river and offered a sufficient resistance; although the anchor was not known to the Egyptians, they were, as a matter of fact, its inventors. (~Jal~, _Archéologie navale_, p. 103.)

Before ending this chapter, a few more remarks will be made which are applicable to nearly all Egyptian vessels.

The benches for the oarsmen were always perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boat, this being necessary in view of the special construction of the vessels.

Under the Middle Empire, small extra elevations supplied with a hand rail were erected on the forecastle and poop decks. They were, respectively, the posts of the captain and helmsman.

[Sidenote: II 20]

[Sidenote: II 20]

The mast, erected near the middle of the ship, was movable on all vessels. The double mast under the Old Empire rested in two shoes set on either side of the longitudinal axis. The single mast (under the Middle and New Empires) went down to the bottom of the hold and rested against the beams which held up the rowers’ benches; it was also fixed by ropes (this appears clearly on several reliefs), either directly or by means of a step, as is shown on the model at Berlin. (See ~Belger~, pp. 27-29.) In this latter case, the mast was fastened to the step itself, a manner of consolidating which is still applied even now. In this respect, a relief coming from a mortuary chamber and now at the museum of Gizeh offers a great deal of interest. This relief shows a mast being let down, and Belger, the author already quoted, calls attention, in this connection, to the fact that the sculptor let the extreme part of the mast fall behind the coat of the man who is occupied with the task, probably because he did not know what to do with it. Then too only two of the five oarsmen of this style of boat appear in this reproduction, whereas, if the drawing were well made, it would follow therefrom that the brackets shown on sundry models abaft of the benches of the rowers, were only to serve as a support to the backs of these last. The great length of the boats and their relatively small immersed length, required special precautions against the hogging of the ship. A rope was stretched from bow to stern along the longitudinal axis of the vessel. This rope was supported on forks and was fastened bow and stern to a cable which ran around the boat. (Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 32.)

[Sidenote: II 12]

The operation of putting up some of these forks is seen in a number of the pictures. Ermann calls attention to the fact, but wrongly in my opinion, that in one of these figures, the crew is occupied in stretching the rope in order to give to the boat the desired curve. (~Ermann~, p. 604.) That this is not so comes out clearly, for me, first from the fact that the boat is already shored and hence has already received its final shape. In the second place, the shores would not be kept in position if the form of the ship were being modified; hence, they would not have been drawn. Finally, it is hard to admit that some of the hands should continue to work quietly on the ship, as shown in the picture, while others are, so to speak, in the act of strengthening its curve; because the sides must have spread, necessarily, during this latter operation. Consequently the men are employed merely in setting up the fork which is to carry the rope. It is easy to understand, besides, that this should be done before the shores are removed because after they are taken away the rope would have become properly taut at the least bending of the ship.

[Sidenote: II 17]

[Sidenote: II 19]

It follows, from what precedes, that the Egyptian boat was not a sea craft. Even the boats which went as far as Phœnicia, situated on the Red Sea, and must have been real sea vessels, are represented in the figures in absolutely the same way as are the ordinary river craft.

When King Necho (B. C. 612 to 596), who encouraged commerce, felt the need for possessing a fleet, he applied to some Greeks for the construction of sea-going ships, and Phœnicians, not Egyptians, were employed for great maritime expeditions. (~Ermann~, p. 646; ~Holmes~, p. 26; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~ p. 39; ~G. Masporo~, _Histoire Ancienne des Peuples d’Orient_, 1893, pp. 536 and 537.) _It was the Phœnicians, and not the Egyptians, who thus became the pioneers of shipbuilding in the Mediterranean._

It is a general phenomenon to see nations, who enter into reciprocal relations, copy very quickly, from each other whatever pertains to the art of shipbuilding. And, could it be otherwise? The struggle for life produces this phenomenon in a perfectly natural way both in military and commercial affairs. When a fleet was not able to stand up against that of the enemy, vessels similar to those of the adversary or even stronger were built. So it was formerly, so it is to-day. But the special features which in the past characterized the ships of the different peoples have passed away, and at the present time the nationality of vessels can no longer be recognized save by the flags which they fly. It is not surprising, therefore, that the different nations, which used to dwell on the shores of the Mediterranean and which reached their prime almost simultaneously, or shortly after one other, did not each have a type of boat belonging especially to its own country.

Alas! little remains of the vessels of antiquity and most of the pictures which have been found, are much less clear than are those of the Egyptians. The sculptors devoted their attention more to the beautiful lines of the ship than to the necessity of giving an exact idea of its construction. Writers, on the other hand are distinguished by exaggeration and emphasis when it is a question of the size of vessels.

There is nothing certain known in regard to dimensions, to the form of ships or to the number of oars. It is not likely that ships of extraordinary dimensions existed. ~Jal~ expresses this so well, when he says in his work already mentioned the “_Archéologie navale_”: “I do not believe any more in the ‹_quadraginta ordinum_› galley, 143.43 m. long, 15.27 m. wide and 23.38 m. high above the water than I believe in the long horse which carried the four sons of Aymon” (p. 117.) (See also _Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, part 36, p. 24; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 62; ~Jal~, _Archéologie Navale_, 1840, Vol. I, p. 110.)

The art of shipbuilding was developed in the beginning among the Phœnicians and allied peoples, but it is not possible to say exactly which of these nations was its true promoter. The most primitive forms were found at that time side by side with more perfect models. So it is that Herodotus tells us that the peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians) came down the river toward Babylon in small boats having a hull made of linden branches covered with skins. (See ~Witsen~, pp. 9 and 16; _Livre d’Hérodote_, I, 194; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 27; ~A. Jal~, p. 88.) Straw was laid on the bottom of the boat and one or two asses were carried in addition to the cargo. Arrived at Babylon, the boatmen sold their cargo, as well as the straw and the timbers of their boat, and, with the skins loaded on the backs of the asses, made their way back home. The current of the river was too strong to allow taking the boats up stream.

[Sidenote: II 21]

At this same time more perfect boats were navigating the Mediterranean. The oldest picture of boats of a certain tonnage dates from B. C. 1150 and shows the sea fight between the Egyptians and the Barbarians to which allusion has already been made. (See, ~Rossellini~; ~Jal~, _Archéologie navale_, 1845, Vol. I, p. 65; _Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts_, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 44.) So far as the shape of the boats is concerned, this picture tells little. It merely lets us see that the vessels of the belligerents differed from each other. Moreover, it is seen at once that the Egyptian ships were propelled by oars and that the others were not. Certain authors have deduced from this fact that the vessels of the Barbarians were sailing ships, which, from my view, is not evident. The Egyptians are, in fact, armed with bows and arrows, and the Barbarians with swords. If the former sought their might in quick movements, the latter could only do battle by boarding; under these conditions, the oarsmen could only have been in the way and this explains their absence, or else they also swung the sword; whereas, among the Egyptians, the vanquished had, probably to act as oarsmen and remained at their oars. (See ~Jal~, _Archéologie navale_, Vol. I, pp. 52 et seq.) It is probable that the sculptor wished to show that the Egyptians fought differently from the other nations. Finally, the Egyptian vessels in question differed sensibly from those described at the beginning of this work. It is more than likely that these vessels were not Egyptian ships of war, but ships built by more northern nations like the Phœnicians or copied from their models. The rigging is not Egyptian; the sail has but one yard.

Let it be mentioned here that there is in the British Museum at London an amphora coming from the Polledrara (the tomb of Vulci), which Munay (Journal of Hell. Stud., 1889, p. 247) causes to date from the second half of the VIIth century B. C., and on which is a drawing of a Greek ship with Egyptian rigging; the sail is fastened to two yards, a custom which is characteristic of Egypt. (_Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeologischen Instituts_, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 42.)

The Phœnicians had several kinds of boats and appear to have had more pronounced ships of war. These latter were long and narrow for quick movements; the others, on the contrary, were short and broad for large cargo capacity. (Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann-Holmes~, p. 26.)

[Sidenote: II 23]

There are few data about the primitive Phœnician ships. The oldest reproduction is the one given in Layard’s work. It is a drawing made from a bas-relief preserved in the palace of Sennacherib (about B. C. 700). But this drawing is rudimentary and the dimensions are out of proportion, the drawing is exaggerated. It also contains some apocryphal additions. Consequently, but little importance can be attached to it.

This reproduction is remarkable under only two respects: in the first place, because it represents biremes, although it may be doubted whether the two banks of oars were used at the same time; secondly, the ships have rams. This peculiarity differentiates the Phœnician ships sensibly from those of the Egyptians. (_Dictionnaire des Antiquité grecques et romaines_, p. 25; Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 30.) _It is the oldest reproduction known of boats having rams._

The Phœnicians, by their expeditions along the shores of the Mediterranean, toward Greece, Italy, Africa and even as far as England, according to some authors, while others take them even to the Baltic Sea, exerted a great influence on the art of shipbuilding as it was practised on the Mediterranean. This influence must have made itself felt in the colonies which they founded, and among which Carthage was the most important. There is no doubt that the naval architecture of the Phœnicians differed little from that of the Greeks and from that of the Romans. Let it be remembered, in this connection, that the old models of ships in the Netherlands, for example, remained unchanged for many centuries and that the same fact has been found everywhere else. It is permissible, then, to assume that the types of boats which existed in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages do not depart greatly from those which date from the time of the Romans.

If the progressive development of the ship through the ages be considered, it is unlikely that the ancients built ships of fabulous dimensions; on the contrary, their vessels must have been rather small.

The first important changes effected in ships were the consequence of the invention of gunpowder, and are not directly related to the evolution of nations. The new direction given to the art of shipbuilding does not coincide therefore with the end of Ancient History and the beginning of the History of the Middle Ages. It seems, then, inexact, under these conditions, to speak of the art of the ancients as of something which forms an isolated whole.

If, judging by the models exhumed, the Egyptian ship had already reached a high degree of perfection, the Egyptians were still having recourse to the lights of the Phœnicians, it is evident that the Phœnician ship must have been the better. Therefore, all the old reproductions, without distinction, leave much to be desired, the result, doubtless, of the incapacity of the sculptor or the painter, which still happens very often in our own time.

Layard’s reproduction shows that biremes have existed since the earliest times. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, to invite attention to the Greek “Dipylon” vases on which two banks of superposed oarsmen are shown. These reproductions are, however, so primitive that it seems to me hazardous to deduce any conclusions from them. As a matter of fact, it may be assumed up to a certain point that the upper bank of oarsmen represents the after bank and that, instead of being superposed, one set of oarsmen followed after the other.

The oars of the upper bank are not drawn in full, which shows that the rowers followed one another and were not placed the ones above the others. It is deduced from this that all these drawings should be accepted with the greatest circumspection.

In the Middle Ages, there were several oarsmen to an oar; more reliance was placed on a more rapid movement of the oars than on the increase of their numbers, to obtain a greater speed.

It cannot be said exactly when the transition was brought about. _But the oldest method of propulsion is, in any case, the one in which each oar was worked by a single man for a single oar_; it was taken, so it would seem, from the boats using paddles, each paddle being handled by one man.

The relative positions, which might be taken by the rowers who worked superposed banks of oars, have given rise to many suppositions which it is superfluous to examine in detail.

Nothing more will be done than to recall the trials of propulsion by oars, undertaken on the initiative of the Emperor Napoleon III, on a galley built especially for these experiments. It was shown that the trireme was a possible thing but, that a boat of this sort was so encumbered by rowers that no space was left for the cargo. (See the work _Le Musée du Louvre_, “Constructions navales dans l’Antiquité.”)

The result of the researches made may be stated as follows: