Michael Allen Stephens

Monash University

In 2012, I proposed an expansion of the accepted range of hull types utilized by the Egyptians during the Old and Middle Kingdoms, a range based initially on the models and surviving hulls published by Reisner.1Stephens 2012.This series expansion ceased at Type V, as Type VI were “Solar” and VII “Divine” vessels, while Type VIII was known only from the New Kingdom. Type V, identifiable as the Manedjet (mand.t), the Day Boat, was included in this expansion due to the discovery and re-assembly of the Old Kingdom vessel of this type, found buried alongside the Great Pyramid, suggestive of its having been a functioning craft, and not mythological. For the hull types Reisner had not categorized, being known only from iconographic depictions, I allocated temporary typological labels – ETH, an abbreviation for “Expedient Type Hull,” with a category and/or a sub category number or suffix. For both the Reisner and the ETH forms, sub categories were developed, utilizing variations of such features as bow and stern finials or variations in hull shape, within the context of their category.

In this paper, I seek to clarify the accuracy of the last three categories proposed by Reisner, but not dealt with in my earlier work. Although used as a categorization tool since 1913, the system contains flaws, brought about by its intended purpose – to categorise models and hulls in the Cairo Museum. Now, with additional categorization systems coming into existence, it is timely to complete the examination of the accuracy of the Reisner system, which has served as a bench mark for these latter systems.

My approach is to accept that what the Egyptian artisan depicted, either in model or iconographic form, were the vessels that they saw about them. The plausibility of the accuracy of such depictions is indicated by the re-assembled Khufu vessel, which can be recognized as being of the form of the Manedjet (mand.t), the Day Boat, of the Egyptian afterlife.

I propose that Reisner’s Type VI (Private Sun Barques) and Type VII (Divine Barques), which he attempted to link, are, broadly speaking, incorrect categorisations.2Reisner 1913, XXVII.Additionally, the Type VIII watercraft, classed under the general term of “New Kingdom vessels,” could scarcely be covered by in any depth by Reisner, due to the paucity of material available to him. This shortage could, however, have been greatly augmented by iconographical sources, which Reisner did not employ, as such was outside of the purpose of the creation of his eight categories, although he allowed for such a lack when categorising his Type III craft, the papyrus rafts, of which there were none in the collection at the time. The models among the Tutankhamen assemblage have expanded the range of New Kingdom hull types, and greatly expanded the number of surviving models of Type VIII craft.3I propose the term “assemblage” is preferable than to refer to these models as a fleet, as there can be no certainty that the model watercraft in the Tutankhamun burial were representative of the types and numbers required for a royal burial, or a more ad hoc collection of models.

Jones proposed a system to categorize the model watercraft from the tomb of Tutankhamen; Types A–F, of which some had equivalents in the Reisner series, such as Jones’s Type B, which equates to Reisner’s Type VIII, one of the types dealt with in this paper.4Jones 1990, 16, 28–37, pls. 16–22, compared to Reisner 1913, 96–98, figs. 348–349 and 354.Tooley, incidentally, proposed a class of model, based on its construction characteristics, to be known as Type VIII, despite this number already existing under Reisner’s system.5Tooley 1991, 68. The classification was to indicate a small, hollowed out craft as a Type VIII, with the numerical suffix in upper case. Other forms of model that were hollow were to be indicated by the same suffix, but in lower case; the letter (a) indicated partially hollow models.Although Reisner proposed eight categories, he omitted the Type VIII in one list, but spoke of it further into his text.6Reisner 1913, III, as opposed to XXVIII, where he discusses the Type VIII class.G?ttlicher and Werner did not list Type VIII, but did add canoes to their proposed list of categorisations.7G?ttlicher and Werner 1971.Jones identified his Type E with a single example in Reisner’s Type VII group (Reisner’s 4929), and his Type F to Reisner’s Type V. Merriman, utilizing models, created a categorization system detailing hull shapes and their fittings, or absence thereof, but restricted her range by not utilizing iconographis depictions.8Merriman 2011.

A difficulty, however, is seen with Jones’ Type C, which, having no existing category to place it against, he tentatively proposed may have derived from Reisner’s Type IV. His hull Type A, with sub-categories 1–3, with a distinctive split stern, Jones does not align to any existing class. I have allocated this hull type to one I have tentatively categorized as the ETH 14 class. This class has been developed from both the Tutankhamen models and numerous iconographic depictions. I propose that it evolved from a form I have termed the ETH V hull, of the Middle Kingdom.9Stephens 2012, 36.Although being, as Jones observes, the only extant complete model assemblage to have survived,10Jones 1990, 3.a comparison of the Tutankhamen assemblage with the watercraft remains from the tombs of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II could be a beneficial project as the remnants of some of the model watercraft from those tombs suggest that different hull types than those of the Tutankhamun assemblage were present. Until another complete or substantially complete eighteenth dynasty royal model fleet is discovered, it cannot be concluded that the Tutankhamun models are an accurate representation of what was placed into a royal burial of the period.

Type VI: Private Sun-Barks

When classifying this hull type Reisner appears to have been in error in not equating this class to the Mesektet (msk.t.t), the Night Boat of the Egyptian afterlife (as opposed to the Manedjet (mand.t), the Day Boat, which can be recognized as his Type V, typified by the Khufu vessel, but unknown to Reisner. He listed two major features he considered identified the Type VI class of vessel – recurved uprights at the stern and a beaded curtain pendant at the bow.11Reisner 1913, XXV.He did not discuss the distinctive bow rail, supported by uprights (fig. 4). Reisner includes model 4860 (fig. 5), a hull with an upright at one end (which he considers to be the bow) but with no fittings at the hypothetical stern. Hassan records (fig. 1) paired instances in texts where the scribes have utilized the Manedjet profile for the Mesektet.12Hassan 1943.Each pair is found in the same line of text, indicating a freedom or lack of compositional rigidity on the part of the artists/sculptors. Why this is so is unknown – I speculate it is perhaps an indication of a flexibility in art, or that the religious concept of the Day and Night Boats had not solidified in the cannon of theocratic orthodoxy.

Analysing “divine barques” (Reisner’s Type VII vessels), Reisner proposed that there had been two forms of this vessel, which divided in very early times; one with a recurved bow and stern, and the second with a curtained bow.13Reisner 1913, XXV.He considered that the former gave rise to the funeral barque (Type V) and the latter form became the sun barque.14Ibid., XXII.He did not advance any reasons for his having considered the examples of his Type VI hulls in the collection to be representative of private devotional craft, or of their being suitable for this purpose, other than their having come from private tombs.

Reisner allocated three models to his Type VI hull, of which two – model 4949 (fig. 2) and model 4953 (fig. 3) – are immediately recognizable as being variants of the Mesektet. The third, model 4860 (fig. 5), has undergone considerable, and possibly incorrect restoration. Although lacking the fittings that characterize the Mesektet, the hull profile of 4860 is within the boundaries of the hulls of the other two examples. Reisner dated all three examples to Dynasty XII.

The first two do not, however, indicate that they carried the hanging beaded curtain of the Mesektet, but many of the other aspects that appear aboard various representations of this hull class do, such as the rail at the bow and various fetishes on deck. 4860, if the bow post is correct, has a row of holes along the edges, which contain the remains of string; Reisner considered that these may be the remnants of a beaded curtain.15Ibid., XXV and 44.I consider that the hull has been reversed in restoration as generally the stern of an ancient Egyptian watercraft is higher than the bow. Reisner’s drawing of 4860 appears to show the bow and stern as level, but closer examination shows that the craft is angled at some 5°.

Hassan provides an iconographic representation of a vessel with a similarly shaped bow post (fig. 6) from the Middle Kingdom although the drawing shows the hull restored.16Hassan 1946, 147–149, fig. 66.He links its similarity to 4860. Another example, Reisner’s 4924, a stone model in pink granite (fig. 7), which is incorrectly listed as 2924 in his text, also belongs to this hull type, as does example Reisner 4930 (fig. 8), a large limestone boat – both evidently from a temple and both allocated by Reisner to the Type VII class. Although 4924 and 4930 are damaged, especially 4930, it can be seen the hanging curtains at the bows of these two examples place them into the class of the Mesektet craft. 4930 carries the remains of a chapel on deck, which does not negate her as being a Mesektet as this class is known from texts as having carried such chapels. For details of the rail and curtain, and the appearance of the Mesektet, see figures 4, 9 and 10.

Type VII Divine Barks – or Nesmet Barque

Reisner grouped eight examples into his Type VII category – seven of stone (he stated that there were five but listed seven)17Reisner 1913.and one of timber. He considered they had been utilized in temple service, but as with the Type VI craft does not advance any reason for this opinion. As stated previously, two of these, models 4924 and 4930, can be immediately moved to the group that he labelled Type VI. Of the five remaining stone models Reisner designated as Type VII vessels – 4919, 4922, 4923, 4974 and 4975 – only 4919 and 4922 have enough features to identify them as a type. 4919 (fig. 11) has rising, truncated and partially inwards facing bow and stern finials and appears to be of a papyriform hull. I suggest that model 4923 (fig. 12) was also fashioned as a papyriform craft. 4923 has a hippopotamus onboard; I can offer no reason for the presence of this creature. 4922 (fig. 13), with its rising bow and rudder passed through/across the stern displays features akin to the Type II hulls of the Middle Kingdom; Reisner does not allocate a date or provenance. 4974 (fig. 14) appears, before losing the upper extremities of its finials, to have also been a papyriform vessel with at least one end originally ending in an inwards and upwards curving stern, possibly a Reisner Type V. Finally, 4975 (fig. 15), is of an indeterminate type and as a single example or shape, has not been allocated to a hull type. The final example placed by Reisner amongst his Type VII craft is 4929 (fig. 16), a timber model of a New Kingdom papyriform vessel.18Reisner 1913, 88–91, fig. 328, pl. 19.Two models of this hull form were amongst the Tutankhamun assemblage.19Jones 1990, items 308 and 312. Jones labelled them pilgrimage boats.

As aboard 4919, 4922 and 4975, model 4929 has a shrine or chapel on deck. 4929 has ropes from the forward and aft faces of this structure; these have been described as hogging trusses. I consider this to be incorrect, as the structure of the shrine, judging from its construction, indicates that it would have been too weak to absorb the stresses placed upon it if the intended purpose of these ropes was to serve as trusses. Additionally, the ropes run to the deck well inwards of the hull extremities and would have given little if any hull support, unlike depictions where the trusses run from bow to stern, supported by uprights along the deck. I propose that these fastenings would be considered as guy ropes, intended to steady the chapel, by preventing fore and aft movement. A similar configuration is seen (fig. 17) aboard a craft, of a different shape to 4929, depicted in a graffito at Thebes; this has also been described as a vessel with a hogging truss. I reject this description for the same reasons as with Reisner’s 4929.20Jacquet-Gordon 2003, no. 258 and pl. 98.4929 may also be usefully compared to an example (fig. 18) depicted on a votive cloth from Deir el Bahari.21Naville 1913. For another example of this hull type, see also the Tomb of Samet-KyKy: http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/kyky/e_kyky_03.htm (20.03.2018).The cloth itself has been dated to Dynasty Eighteen.

As this category is, in effect, disproved as a definite class, it must be either discarded, or the classification title applied to another watercraft type, namely the Nesmet Barque – the Barque of Osirus; Lavier (figs. 19 and 20) has listed a range of depictions of this hull form across the Middle and New Kingdoms, which equate to the shapes of figures 11, 16 and 18.22Lavier 1989.

Type VIII: New Empire Model Boats

Reisner had three examples (fig. 21) that he considered as representative of this hull form, all from the tomb of Amunhotep II, and he is correct in stating that they were New Kingdom vessels. It is to be remembered that, as with Types VI and VII, this classification was a broad-spectrum term, merely for vessels of this period, and does not attempt to cover the other forms of hull, known either from iconographic representations, or, in some instances, from the Tutankhamun assemblage.

As Reisner placed these in the one class, there is a need to clarify the contenders for inclusion in this category. His first two, numbered in his catalogue as 4944 and 4945, remain extant as Type VIII craft. Reisner’s 4946, however, which has inward facing papyrus umbels, would see it as suitable to be allotted to his Type VII class, if it were not for the strong possibility that this example, which has undergone restoration, should be reconsidered as a Type VIII hull, to which unassociated finials have been fitted. Another model Type VIII hull was present in the tomb, but, as it was not (then) removed from the site, possibly due to the presence of a mummy adhering to the hull, it did not find a place in Reisner’s Catalogue. Merriman records that the boat (fig. 22) was removed at an unknown date and is now in the Egyptian Museum.23Merriman 2011, 51, fig. 2.148.

Tapering projections extending outwards from the bow and stern constitute the most distinguishing feature of the Type VIII class, as other New Kingdom hulls displayed the same characteristics of canoe shaped bow and/or stern, seen as forming the hull of Type VIII. The upper edge of the projections is continuous with the sheer line of the bulwarks; the lower surface curved under the bow and stern and merged into the lower reaches of the hull.

The presence, if not the purpose, of these projections needs to be appreciated, as other Egyptian hull forms also display similar features, although with variations in shape and size. Jones refers to them as finials,24Jones 1990, 28.but this must stem from the appearance of 4946. I am reluctant to accept this premise of finials. The intended purpose of the Type VIII hull projections is open to debate; they certainly cannot be accepted as indicating the presence of a keel. The projections were of considerable size, constituting some 25% of the overall length of the hull if they are included in the measurements. As kiosks or lookout positions are frequently placed at the extreme ends of the deck, the projections may have served as a combined work platform, extending from these positions and as protection for the bow and stern. Alternatively, I suggest they may have been a form of beak head, allowing the crew to work closer to the shore.

A feature commonly seen aboard Type VIII craft, inwards from the outer extremities of the bow and stern projections, is a shallow slot or recess, cut into their undersides. The purpose of these recesses is unknown; a tenable hypothesis is that they would prevent ropes from slipping down along the underside of the bow or stern. Although a recognizable feature of this hull category, at least two of the Tutankhamun Type VIII examples – 597 and 309 – do not have them; this is probably an oversight by the modeler(s).25Ibid., pl. 18.Occasionally, flags are hung from these recesses, as seen at figure 23.

Some Type VIII craft appear with the stern projection and slot, but with the bow apparently devoid of such, giving the impression that the hull tapers into a truncated bow. The presence of flags under the bow and stern, however, convinces me that this is an artistic error, and that Type VIII hulls are represented, such as seen aboard figures 24 and 25.26Dorman 1994, pl. 28, and Nelson 1936, pl. 84.

Aboard the craft shown at figure 25, partaking in the Opet Festival, the Type VIII craft have been depicted with an extremely curved form, but the hull type is still recognizable, and, despite damage, the delineation of the forward projection can be made out.

Jones states that the Type VIII did not move under sail which is incorrect, as there are numerous examples these craft moving under sail.27Jones 1990, 16 and 29. Occasionally, both sail and rowers are shown employed at the same time.He may, however, mean just the eight Type VIII craft from the Tutankhamun assemblage, which are devoid of masts or rowing benches. The absence of any form of propulsion suggests the Tutankhamun examples were towed during ceremonial occasions. Type VIII craft also appear in association with religious festivals and activities, including towing other vessels, as seen in the tomb of Puyemre (fig. 26) and at Deir el Bahari (fig. 27). It has been suggested, due to the themes of the bow and stern decoration of these vessels, that Type VIII vessels were the “Falcon Ships” of Amenhotep II.28Werner 1986, 107–123.

Artistic styles can lead to the hulls of vessels being depicted in an unrealistic manner, depictions that may be found in both models and iconographic representations and the Type VIII is no exception as has been seen. Jones’s type B craft from the Tutankhamun assemblage display similarly accentuated hulls. His drawing of this hull type is subdued, but his accompanying photographs of the hulls of this class display heavily curved hulls, at variance with his typology drawing.29Jones 1990 16, pls. 16–20.

Conclusions

Due to the vagaries that a re-examination of the accuracy of classification of the Reisner hull types VI and VII reveals, I propose these class categorisations need to be discarded or, if retained, be identified by a different classification title. They are, or in most instances can be, identified as watercraft representative of other hull types, but allocated to Types VI and VII due to their discovery in religious locums. Type VI could remain extant, but be re-titled, especially as there are many versions, depictive styles and forms of this hull type, from the Early Dynastic to the Late Periods. This could be utilized as a start point for a complete examination of the forms and sub categories of this hull type. Type VII, however, must be considered as a collection of divergent hull forms, identified by Reisner by usage, not as a definitive hull type.

The Type VIII vessels on the other hand are demonstrably a distinct category and the type remains clearly identifiable as a hull class. Even in instances of radical distortion in depiction, the Type VIII can be identified despite the vagaries of artistic style. The difficulty here is how to consider its numeration; if the Type VII craft are discarded, Type VIII could be considered to have taken their place, but this clash in the accepted numeration systems would led to confusion. Ultimately, the way ahead appears to me to be the compilation of a categorisation series that covers the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms, with allowance for Pre-Dynastic and Late Period watercraft.

Bibliography

Daressy, G. 1902.

Fouilles de la Vallée des Rois 1898–1899. Cairo: L’Institut Fran?aise d’Archaeologie Oriental.

Davies, N. de Garis. 1923.

The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes. vol. 2: The Chapels of Hope. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dorman, D. 1994.

The Festival Procession of Opet. Oriental Institute Publications 1. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

G?ttlicher, A. and Werner, W. 1971.

Schiffsmodelle im alten ?gypten. Wiesbaden: Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffbau e.V.

Hassan, S. 1946.

Excavations at Giza. vol. VI, part I: 1934–1935. Cairo: Government Press.

Jacquet-Gordon, H. 2003.

The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak. A Manifestation of Personal Piety. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 123. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Jones, D. 1990.

Model Boats from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Landstrom. B. 1970.

Ships of the Pharaohs. New York: Doubleday and Company.

Lavier, M. 1989.

“Les formes d’écriture de la bargue N?MT.” Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie, Genève 13: 89–101.

Merriman, A. 2011.

Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods. British Archaeological Reports 2263. Oxford: Archaeopress.

MMA. 2018.

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/DT8200.jpg (01.05.2018).

Naville, E. 1913.

The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir El-Bahari. part 3. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Nelson, H. H. 1936.

Ramses III’s Temple within the Great Inclosure of Amon. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Orsenigo, C. 2010.

“IV. Turning Points in Egyptian Archaeology 1850–1950.” In: P. Piacentini (ed.), Egypt and the Pharaos. From the Sand to the Library Pharaonic Egypt in the Archives and Libraries of the Università degli Studi di Milano. Milan:Università degli Studi di Milano, 117–147, accessed under: http://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/191888/2/Orsenigo-turning_points.pdf (30.12.2017).

Osirisnet. 2017.

http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/kyky/e_kyky_03.htm (11.03.2017).

Patch, C. 1995.

“A ‘Lower Egyptian’ Costume: Its Origin, Development, and Meaning.” Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 32: 93–116.

Reisner, G. 1913.

Models of Ships and Boats. Cairo:Musée du Caire.

Stephens, M. A. 2012.

A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdom. British Archaeological Reports 2358. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Tooley, A. 1991.

“Boat Deck Plans and Hollow Hulled Models.” Zeitschrift für ?gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 118: 68–75.

Werner, E. K. 1986.

“Montu and the ‘Falcon Ships’ of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 107–123.

Figures