1

Ships that founded Egypt: dec

Graham E. Hill 2015 amanda.blunsdon@btinternet.com

Introduction

This paper will examine images of boats on pots from the Petrie Museum, UCL, London and once made familar with the representations; in part 2 a bold assertion will be made, that brings the boat into practical focus. Part 3 will show how petroglyph boat images described by Hendrickx (et al.2014) with strange details he noticed will now be explained and confirm the unexpected interpretation of the Gerzean pot images. Finally in part 4, details of the Gerzean boats and other motifs on the pots on which they are found will give an idea of just how competent these early navigators were. 1.‘Sickle boats’ The most noticeable observation to be made about boat representations on

Naqada II vases is that they are unrealistic and in no sense sea-worthy due to their over-endowment of closely spaced oars and hull shape that suspends many of the oar blades in the air; a ‘sickle boat’ that threatens to snap in the middle. Beyond that, and almost as remarkable, however is the boats’ uniformity of depiction. • All have a shallow and uniform draft. •All have an arc-shaped side view of the hull. •All have a pair of identical cabins disposed about the mid-point of the hull. With further inspection, other identicalities become apparent: •There is always a gap between the two sets of oars. •The oar gap always coincides with the space between the deck cabins.

ABSTRACT-The boat depictions that adorn pre-dynastic Gerzean, Naqada II, D-ware pottery vases are often described as ‘sickle boats.’ This familarity barely hides the deep problem of their unrealistic portrayal. A recognition of the practicality and importance of these fourth millennium BC ships to the founding of Egypt and its extensive Mediterranean trade will only be brought into focus by deciphering these distorted images and in the process of inspection, other clues will be found as to the prowess of these early navigators. Compelling evidence to support a novel view of how these boats should be seen comes from peculiarities noted by documentors of ship petroglyphs north of Aswan, which the authors have stylistically dated to a similar era to the Gerzean pots. In proposing a solution this paper complements ‘The prehistoric navigation compass and seaworthy ships of the fifth to second millennium BC’ (Hill 2014) and will prepare the ground for papers about the founding of the Copper Age in Britain and Ireland in the third millennium BC and The Clodgy Moor Boat Slate whose prehistoric creator has directed this floruit of documents.

Ships that founded Egypt: a partial decipherment of Gerzean pots and North of Aswan petroglyphs

2

Fig. 1 is an example from Petrie Museum and appendix II contains many examples of similar and unfeasible boat depictions. Notice that fig.16(U.C.6306)

An exception to this stereotype is U.C.6306 (figs.1.1 and 16) from The Petrie Museum. This boat has proved unique despite Gerzean boat image searches.

Fig. 2 Below: A paper conjectural model of a Gerzean boat. How the boat depiction on the pot above transforms into a 3-dimensional view something like the one below will be explained in part 2.

Fig.1 Left: The stereotyped ‘sickle boat’ with a standard supporting an ‘N’ on top, which will be a mirror image seen from the other side. There is a double pennant and from the standard an unusual extended motif running around the pot to the bow frond.

Fig. 1.1 Above: Unique ‘sickle boat’; UC.6306. .

3

U.C.6306 discrepancies are: •A single cabin; not two •No gap in the oar bank •Very unusual cabin design •Unusual lack of a standard The first two points are unique, the third possibly so and the fourth an occasional apparent oversight (fig. 9) with less rarely the omission of the double pennant on the standard (see Appendix I, fig. 24) Pot U.C.6306 is therefore ‘aberrant’ and this is used as a rare clue as to what is encoded in the ‘sickle boat’ motif. 2.Autostereogram Taking pot UC. 6306 as a rare insight into the true nature of a typical Gerzean boat, namely one that has a single cabin with an unbroken row of oars, then the usual depictions are here suggested to be a partially resolved pair of images containing cues to prompt the observer to merge them into a 3-dimensional image. This is a novel idea but it resolves the bizarre features of the conventional view of the image and has parallels with the Aswan petroglyphs of ships, discussed later. The Autostereogram is explained by Dr. Christopher Tyler of The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute Here he is quoted in full (Scholarpedia, 2014): ‘Autostereogram refers to a single-image form of stereograms that can be free-viewed to achieve a stereo-scopic, three-dimensional (3D), depth effect without a stereoscope or any other artificial aids to binocular fu-sion [Figure 1]. The principle of the autostereogram is a horizontally re-

petitive image in which the repeated pattern is modulated in such a way that the image can be viewed with an abnormal convergence or divergence angle to generate the visual impres-sion of a stereoscopic depth image within the space of the pattern. When viewing with normal convergence of the eyes on the physical plane, the image appears only as a flat repeating pattern. When the eyes either con-verge or diverge at the distance of the pattern repeat, small differences between adjacent pattern cycles pro-vide binocular disparities that are in-terpreted by the viewer as differences in depth. The disparity structure may be designed to correspond to the depth map of any desired three-dimensional scene, which is per-ceived when the eyes are held at the appropriate convergence angle. In order to do so, however, the viewer must overcome the natural tendency of the eyes to focus at the conver-gence distance, and enable the eyes to refocus at the plane of the image.’ We might normally think of such transforms as those achieved in ‘Magic Eye’ books (magiceye.com) in which the stereo image is entirely hidden and those of us that are physically capable and minded to do so, can with concentration overcome the normal habit of focussing on the surface of the paper and so achieve a layered stereoscopic image, using both eyes and without any additional optical apparatus. The reader is invited to attempt this experiment with the stereotyped Gerzean Boat images. To improve the chances of success then it is suggested that a boat motif is boldley crayoned onto a curved surface. The narrator did so on a papier maché balloon so

4

that the surface was strongly convex in the horizontal direction and some-what also in the vertical. This curves the plane of the image away from the viewer and may have been intended to enhance and ease the problem of producing a stereoscopic image. The choice to depict these boats on vases and the common positioning on its girth and towards its narrower rim is therefore suggested to be in order to facilitate the stereo optical illusion. The observer will achieve an impression of a transformation of the viewpoint of the ship and of it inhabiting three dimensions by exercising the gaze to collapse the space between the cabins so that they appear as one . The boat shortens and as the halves of the image begin to overlap, one set of oars seems to go behind the image and the perspective of the viewer changes. We are nolonger looking from the same level as the boat but from below. We are seeing the boat through clear water with the oars on each side of the hull visible. We could swim up to catch the blades and be helped on board if we were so lucky. The number of oars is now managea-bly divided between both sides of the hull. The single cabin has a standard above you from which the two pennants fly. On its top against the sky is its symbol; likely as will be demon-strated, related to navigation and the star: Thuban. Towards it in crashing perspective the sail, which with unenlightened eyes seemed to be sagging to the deck is now actually full with the following wind and pointing to a common vanishing point with the standard in the night’s sky. Notice how the girth o the ship and the forward sail hide the view of the bow itself and

here; close and below the ship the stern post too is hidden in detail. The uniformly undeveloped bow and stern on the Naqada pots are in contrast to other petroglyph depic-tions and to the Dynastic papyrus and wooden, but papyrus shaped ships that followed (papyriform). There is one Gerzean pot example that de-parts from the formula and is what would be expected from papyriform tradition. Fig. 2a has what might be a realistic depiction of the bow and stern of a Gerzean ship. It takes the form of already traditional papyrus boats. Models from Petrie museum of Papy-rus or papyriform craft are shown in Fig 2b. Comparison with papyriform boat model in Fig. 2c shows that the depiction in Fig. 2a has the stern and bow ornament detail reversed ac-cording to the forward position of the sail.

Fig.2a:A rare and possibly unique Gerzian vase boat depiction with bow and stern or-naments after an mage sourced from 2008-2013 Карта сайта It is worth considering of what materials the Gerzean ships were

5

made. Khufu’s ship (Fig. 2d), is clearly wooden and dating from the 26th cen-tury BC (Dersin,1996, 146).

Fig. 2b Papyrus and papyriform boat models from Petrie Museum (Hill, 2013)

At Abydos a series of complete wooden boats have been uncovered from their placement in brick- built grave structures. They date from 2950-2650 BC (Eagan, 2007, 205) and like the Khufu example were made of carefully carved wooden planks stitched together on edge to form boat shells.

Fig. 2c. Model of Khufu’s solar barge at mu-seum at the base of the Great Pyramid. Source: (Wikipedia, 2009)

The autostereogram hypothesis implies that the norm for Gerzean boats was one main cabin. The evidence is only pictorial for real boats before the third millennium but Khufu’s boat and most of the tomb models where they have a cabin show one. Petroglyphs, tomb friezes and pottery paintings often have two cabins but the point will be made again that there are other details in the representations that are clues to a viewing as an autostereogram. Vinson (1994,13) without making the same

point agrees on the number of cabins, suggesting that the two cabin boats [on Gerzean pots] are ‘boats for the dead’ [whereas] ‘working boats prob-ably lacked the convention al com-plement of two cabins . He goes on to add that the palm frond often seen on the bow may have been functional as in experiments such a device can add a knot in to the speed of a small boat. As for the construction of such boats; it is at the beginning of the Gerzean/Naqada II period (Owen, 2007) in the mid to late fourth mil-lennium BC that the first evidence of woodworking is to be found, adequate to the task of building wooden ships (Vinson, 1987 and 1994, 12). Wooden planks are used as coffin parts and richer graves contain woodworking tools; axes, adzes and chisels. Sources for wood at that time may have been Egypt itself as drier conditions were only severely affecting the land from 3000 BC. Avner (2014) suggests that

Fig 2d Oblique view of the bow of Khufu’s boat. Compare to fig.3 Source: Bradipus, 2005

6

suitable trunks were available along the course of the upper Nile and that their use may have been part of a long tradition that may have been imported from Mesopotamia, if the foreign boat and symbolgy to be found on the Gebel el-Arak knife is to be so interpreted (Rohl, 1998, 281). Vinson (1994,15) suggests a local source for wood with acacia and sycamore available, but that for royal and sa-cred boats pine and cypress were imported from Syria-Palestine in the early historic period with some wood imported as early as the Am-ratian period (Early 4th millennium) although perhaps insufficient for boat building. The Abydos boat burials from the 1st and 2nd dynasties were claimed by Petrie to have been made from imported conifers and this has been confirmed as Levan-tine cedar and juniper (Meza, 2004, 1292) Interestingly, Avner (2014) suggests that on the Gerzean pot depictions that [the break be-tween two long banks of paddles] might not indicate an artistic conven-tion of depicting the paddles of two sides of the boat’. Avner’s doubling of the already large count of crew leads to the problem of the enormous numbers of paddles then involved as well as the great length to beam ratio and necessary sourcing of the tallest trees for the planks with a much reduced capability for venturing

out to sea beyond the Nile delta in such finely tapered craft. Fig. 2e from Petrie Museum shows a dish containing a birds-eye view of a boat. Its innovative perspective is worth noting. Its depiction of two cabins suggests that two cabin craft were to be found in a real setting. The number of paddles at eight per side seems entirely feasible and there is even a branch or palm frond at the bow. The length to beam ratio of about four or five is echoed in the companion boat shaped dish to its left and is much less finely proportioned than the sickle boats depicted on the Naqada II vases and closer to the proportions suggested by an autostereogram. 3.The Aswan petroglyphs Hans Winkler found rock carvings scratched and pecked through the rock varnish from a time when Egypt supported lush vegetation and animals such as giraffes at sites such as Gilf kebir (Serc, 2009). At Wadi Abu Wasil images of boats were found, some carrying dancing goddesses like some Gerzean pots and other boats being dragged by teams of men, as though being transported over land (Winkler, 1938). Tow-path rope pulling against the current or rapids is more likely. Vinson (1994) appears to disagree here with Avner (2014) as he counts

Below: fig. 2e. Two pottery boat-shaped dishes in the Petrie Museum. Left boat is UC10805 and Naqada II. Petrie places the right boat as Naqada I. It contains a bird’s-eye view of a boat within it. (Petrie Museum images unless otherwise stated ©Hill, 2013).

7

the number of men towing a boat in a petroglyph (Vinson, 1994, fig.6) as 30 and compares this to the number of oars portrayed on the boat as 32, hence the convention is to show the total number of rowing positions on the boat rather than just those on one side. As well as making the boats of manageable length and proportion it lends a little credibility to the ‘Au-tostereogram’ interpretation of the images; see fig. 2. Stan Hendrickx et al.(2012) images are featured in Figs. 3-5. The original photographs are in Antiquity 334. Note that the unrealis-tic shape of the boats in fig. 3 is somewhat mitigated if we see the boats as approaching us obliquely as though standing on the bank as they are about to pass us. Indeed they are similar to the view of Khufu’s boat see in fig. 2d. Hendrickx, Gatto, Darnell and Coleman were forced to hurry their recording of boat petroglyphs due to their recent damage by vandals pecking at them, attempts to remove whole panels and even just fading of the rock varnish by repeated rubbings. Below fig. 3 after Hendrickx,(2012 Figure 3 : Site 7, tableau 7a). ‘The “varnish square” on the hulls in combination with the gap be-tween the oars is indeed something we not-ed. I don’t have a decent explanation for it‘. Stan Hendrickx (Pers. comm. email reply to Hill on 29th Aug. 2013).

It was by reference to old photos and digital repair techniques that a visible image of Fig.3 was possible. Hendrickx noticed the square of unworked varnish between the pair of cabins at a place where there are no oars when looking at images figs. 3 to 5. This is in a similar style to the Gerzean pots. Hendrickx also relates these petroglyphs in date to the Gerzean period and to the very beginning of Dynastic Egypt, with Fig. 4 apparent-ly showing the first Pharaoh and his standard. Sickle shaped boats painted on a fresco in tomb 100 Hiera-konpolis also have a square of darker colour covering their hull to the water-line between two cabins (Vinson,1994,14).

Fig 4. after Hendrickx,(2012 Figure 6. Site 2, tableau 2a). Pharaoh ship with royal standard?

Repeating the conclusion of part 2; the idea of an autostereogram is invoked. It brings these boats to 3-dimensional life and in the case of fig. 4 gives us the correct perspective of The Pharaoh. We are now somewhat below him and in the water, at the mercy of his paddles. Figure 5. conventionally explained as the figures running behind (Hendickx, 2012); the boat makes more sense with the spectators running alongside to keep up when seen as an Autostereogram!

8

Fig 5 after Hendrickx, (2012 Figure 8. Site 1, tableau 1b). Following the boat or alongside?

4.Gerzean voyagers Any normal reading of the Gerzean boats will have them almost entirely riverine with the current taking the boat downstream towards the delta tributaries and the prevailing south wind helping the boat back against the current using a rudimentary palm frond or basket-work or papyrus sail placed at the bow (Casson, 1971, 19). Use of onshore labour with ropes helped to haul the craft when headway was difficult and then there is the matter of the Nile cataracts. These define the political structure of the civilization itself. Cataract four in particular is all but un-navigable even to the British when trying to put down the people of Sudan, according to the newspaper reporter Winston Churchill. One of the British gunboats under full steam was carried away despite the efforts of hundreds of local people pulling on ropes from the shore (Churchill, 1899).The cargo boats from ancient times must be un-loaded and their produce conveyed past the water obstruction. Beyond Upper Egypt which was defined as the land between the delta and the first cataract lies the kingdom of Kush, now Sudan and the source of invasion when the dynasties were at their weakest in the first millennium BC. Most of the Nile was navigable over the shallow rocks of the cataracts

during the flood season. It may be that the petroglyphs showing crews hauling boats by rope were recording the feats of will to overcome these obstacles. The voyages of the Nile from Gerzean times onwards are therefore well established and it is a deeper under-standing of the drying of the Sahara in consequence of subtle changes in the earth’s orbit and tilt of the axis of rotation (Claussen and Gayler, 1997) that likely forced the concentration of Neolithic settlement on the Nile out of a wider transhumant Africa and the political make-up of the civilisations on its course due to the uplifting geology that broke the smooth erosive flow of the Nile into a series of difficult cataracts. The degree of trade between the largely Upper Nile Gerzean civilisation and Mesopotamia is a live topic. Outside influence in mud-brick building and possibly the importation of a written script are possible. Lapis Lazuli was also imported at that time. Sea transport from the Levant to the Nile delta is being established by archaeology with similar Levantine pottery being found in Lower Egypt at Buto (Roy, 2011, 23). Recent excava-tions at the Old Kingdom (third mil-lennium BC) Egyptian port of Heit el-Ghurab confirm this with Levantine cedar charcoal (scraps from boat-building?) and Levantine combed pottery vessels found, that were in use for transporting olive oil from Byblos (Lehner, 2013). Evidence for the much more arduous journey from Sumer along the Persian Gulf and around the Arabian Peninsula to the Red Sea and Egypt is less discernible (Rowlands et al., 1987). A ripple flaked knife bought for the Louvre from antiquities dealers near

9

Gebel el-Arak is of Naqada II culture and has an ivory handle carrying carvings of Egyptian sickle-shaped ships and what appear to be Sumerian craft with high ends and people fighting in between (Vinson, 1994, 17). This outstanding example of possible pre-dynastic Egyptian and Sumerian maritime contact around the Arabian peninsula is not supported (yet) by cultural artifacts on the intervening coast. The stylistic connections between Gerzean and Sumerian ancestors are therefore only debating points and the black ship seen amongst the more familiar sickle shapes of the tomb 100 Hiera-konpolis fresco remains an enigma. Maritime archaeology, hampered by great cost and the fragility and vulner-ability of ancient boats makes this part of the human prehistoric story the most incomplete.(McGrail, 2003). However it is with the same optimism as Robert Ballard who found eight ancient wrecks far from the shore between Sicily and Sardinia that it is worth imagining that ancient people did more than hug the shore or content themselves with their rivers. “The ancient mariner was not afraid of going out to sea.” he claims and hopes to find Bronze Age wrecks from the Early Minoans and contemporary civilisations soon (Marchant, 2012, 428). Part 4 will offer some further clues that like the Cycladian and Western Megalithic peoples the Gerzeans were capable of some significant feats of navigation on the open seas (Hill, 2014). It is to the waters of the Mediterrane-an, beyond the Nile Delta that this passage of speculation wishes to illuminate, at a date in the fourth

millennium before written accounts or indeed any direct evidence of sea navigation in that region. Vinson (2009) reasons that Mediterranean sea travel in the Mesolithic is a fact (the wide-spread distribution of obsidian from the Greek island of Milos being an example) and that other cultures; were making journeys in the Neolithic that founded the civili-zations of Crete and Malta it is not unreasonable that the Predynastic Egyptians were also venturing to nearby coasts with craft that were already well developed from Nile journeys. The vast if somewhat stereotyped resource for this research is the collection of Gerzean red painted vases. The boats themselves have clues as to their capabilities and the objects and signs depicted with them offer further clues. 4.1 Sails on Gerzean pots Before dealing with the more lengthy matter of the standards found almost invariably on the rear cabin of the claimed boat autostereogram there are other motifs distributed over the pot surface. Infilled triangles are wide-ly considered to be hills or mountains. Flamingoes (figs. 11, 12 and 13) would today suggest contact with the Western fringes of Africa but Sudan and Egypt may have supported populations before the drying to desert conditions 5000 years ago. Kuddu (fig 14, middle pot) also suggest a savannah habitat. With the mountain ranges apparently also to be found on these pots then evocation of longer distance travel than the route of the Nile is implied. Other mo-tifs to be found may be interpreted as the forward view of a sail. The fur-

10

thest pot in fig. 14 shows a vertical pole with a rayed ball symbol at its top and below it ropes support a mat-like structure. The boat depicted above it has a tall and narrow sail on the bow, notwithstanding the distortion into collapse that has been previously ex-plained as necessary for the au-tostereogram. 4.2 ‘N’ motifs Very common on the Naqada II boat vases are strings of ‘N’ motifs or their mirror image. Indeed a square clay box in Aldred (1965, fig.13) shows ‘fish nibbling at food’ on one end and on the visible side a herd of Kuddu. They are surrounded by groups of ‘N’ mo-tifs. Having spent too much time with this Gerzean ware it would lead to the expectation of an accompanying boat and indeed ‘also shown on the box , but not in the illustration, is a characteristic Gerzean boat’. Taking this box as an example, the ‘N’ motif has a certain variability in its depiction. Seventeen are the ‘N’ image, if a little serpentine and four are their mirror images. Their distribution seems to imply a certain freedom or uncertainty for the pot decorator about the correct way round for the ‘N’ or of an indifference to any importance about the distinction. It will be explained with the use of the pots depicted in appendix I and the accompanying table (appendix VI) that this carefree approach is the norm for ‘N’ strings on Gerzean pots (fig. 5). Some of the ‘N’ symbols appear to have been over-worked or corrected so that a composite or ‘butterfly’ sym-bol is formed.

Fig. 5 Reversed ‘N’ motifs on the same pot. similar to an ‘hour-glass’ or butterfly (fig.6).

Fig. 6 Blocked out ‘N’ motifs could be ‘N’ mo-tifs, mirror-images or both.

Appendix I contains enough of these variations to make the point. Before attempting a plausible explana-tion for these symbols and their multi-ple manifestations, please note that the reversed ‘N’ motif appears on the standard attached to the cabin ( fig. 6).

11

One has already been seen on U.C.6331 in fig.1 and looking at appendix I there is another reversed ‘N’ standard symbol on U.C.6308 in fig. 15 and normal ‘N’ standard motifs on pots in figs. 8 and 10. The first part of the argument for meaning is that the ‘N’ and the reversed ‘N’ are real objects and are to be seen as sculptural objects atop the cabin standards of real Gerzean boats. Fig. 2 with further views in Appendix II show a notional paper model of a real Gerzean boat. The ‘N’ symbol is a real structure and appears this way round or its mirror image according to the view-point of the onlooker. It is suggested that the ‘N’ symbol has a real meaning to the master of the Gerzean boat and while it is possible and even likely that someone on the shore would know what the symbol meant it is at least possible that they do not or that they would in pre-literate times not be consistent about which way around it was scribed. Appendix VII is an attempt to find out the preponderance of writing ‘N’ motifs versus that of their mirror image as a modern ethnographic study. A standard question was designed to be neutral and supposedly invoke an ancient response! The Truro Archaeology Class of 2014 in this small sample wrote ‘N’ motifs both way round with a bias towards the normal ‘N’, perhaps influenced by the more common strokes in the English written language. An attempt to explain the use of ‘N’ motifs on Gerzean pottery in association with boats will require its representation as a star map to be used in navigation at sea.

Fig. 7 shows that 5000 years ago Thuban was conveniently sighted at the celestial north pole. The wobble in the earth’s axis of rotation or precession with a period of nearly

Fig. 7 (Dra) is Draco and the (+) is Thuban, close to the North Pole of the celestial axis in the Gerzean period. This map is slightly more recent at 2800 BC.(Rogers, 1998, fig.1)

26 000 years caused Thuban’s position to be at the centre of rotation of the northern hemisphere’s star field at that time. Later in classical and Roman times there was no pole star but to-day Polaris at the tip of Ursa Minor (UMI in fig. 7) is within a degree of true north and has been useful for in-dicating North at least since Medieval times (Hill, 2014). Incidentally, the importance of Thuban to Ancient Egyptian culture is such that the angled shaft in Khufu’s Pyr-amid of Cheops at Giza may have been angled from the chamber of the sarcophagos to point to Thuban for the Pharaoh’s soul or ‘Ka’ journey to the Netherworld (Dash, 2013 citing Petrie, 1883). 4.3 Egyptian ‘N’ Constellation

A potential flaw in reasoning is in assuming that the Egyptians were connecting stars to form an ‘N’

12

constellation that we now know as Draco. In principle, even given a near-ly, but not entirely similar firmament of star dispositions (slightly altered by proper motion or differential angular velocity of individual stars) then a tradition of imaginary dot to dot connections could be made. Hall K of the tomb of Seti I, dated to 1300 BC shows a mostly unfamiliar set of constellations, quite unlike the Babylonian and Greek tradition that we have today. The northern constel-lations are made up of a strange hy-brid animal of a Hippopotamus stand-ing on its hind legs with a lion’s head and a crocodile on its back. Thuban has been interpreted as placed at the hippo’s hand or breast and this fits with a long line of indicated stars on its mane that runs down its back. The head of the crocodile uses the same polygon of four stars that make the head of Draco. From the hand of the hippo (Thuban) a set of reins are painted on the tomb and as the last two stars of the tail of Draco they lead to the haunch and leg of a bull which we now call Ursa minor. This hind leg was an Egyptian constellation in its own right but by this time had incor-porated parts of Ursa Major to give the hind leg a fore-leg, a head and a set of horns. The reins from Draco now reach the bull constellation somewhere near its shoulders. The interpretation of the Egyptian con-stellations is just that; an interpreta-tion (fig. 7a) and the reader is tentatively invited to look at images from the tomb star map whilst comparing it to a modern star map reference. Lull and Belmonte (2009), naming the hippopotamus constella-tion Reret point out that Egyptian star maps vary with no crocodile in the

Million Year Temple of Ramses II and tomb of Pademope and that in the hands of Reret may be found a smaller

Fig. 7a Interpretation of Seti I tomb with an ‘N’ constellation to find Thuban. (Rogers, 1998, fig.1 modified)

crocodile and a pointed instrument of some kind. This is a fertile area for scholarly disagreement. What might be said however is that if the royal tomb constellations have a lineage as old as the Babylonian ‘N’ serpent Draco then it would appear that similar dot-to-dot connections have been made by the Egyptians and that they would have been looking for an ‘N’ in the night sky to find the celestial north pole as well. For now the assertion will be made that the string of ‘N’ motifs near the Gerzean boats is likely to represent a boast about the number of nights that the boat has been away from its home port and that the ‘N’ will be claimed to be a symbol for the ‘N’ shaped star constellation Draco. The claim of the master of the boat, interpreted through the potter’s decoration is that sometimes these boats spent many nights away from shore, nolonger in the Nile but in the Mediterranean or Red Sea. That all remains the most hyperbolic specula-tion, but with the partial decipher-ment of the symbols on the standards

13

to follow in 4.3 then this may become plausible. 4.4 The Gerzean boat standards It has been an unsatisfactory experience trying to unravel Egyptian constellations in the hope of discovering an ‘N’ constellation for the finding of Thuban. The clue in the correspondence between ‘N’ strings and Gerzean boats is there. The boat standards will also support these symbols and what I will interpret as symbols for Thuban and the cardinal points, adding up to the majority of Gerzean boat standard symbols. Flinders Petrie (1915) made the reasonable suggestion that the standards represented symbols for the home port of the boats (Appendix III). His short corpus of thirteen examples includes three with animals; an elephant, a bird and a fish. Later commentators have suggested that these standards evolved into the symbols for the individual ‘nomes’ or provinces that made up a united Egypt under the Pharaohs. Appendix IV illustrates how this idea could have developed. Most of the nome standards illustrated (there were 42 nomes in the New Kingdom and many changes to standards) carry an animal, beginning with the lapwings and jackals of Narmer and The Scorpion that ended the predynastic (Gerzean) period and continue to the Roman occupation. Vinson (1994, 13) qualifies this view: ‘Some of these standards have been plausibly linked to religious or provin-cial emblems known from historic Egypt, but many remain inexplicable’. Comparing the much larger corpus of boat standards in Appendix V to the nome standards of Appendix IV the

reason for this doubt becomes apparent. Very few of the boat standards carry symbols of animals. 5-10% is a likely figure given the sample illustrated here. The nomes clearly have a great major-ity of animals, not including body parts, such as legs and placentas. On the slate palette of Narmer, described by Aldred (1965, 44): ‘The king is proceeded by his priest and four standard-bearers carrying fetishes.’ White (1999) identifies them as associated with nomes and from left to right: ‘Kenes, the placenta of birth, Anepu the jackal of death and two divine hawks…’ Therefore, allowing that some of the Gerzean boat standards may relate to home ports in the same way that nome standards relate to specific provinces then there are many other non-animal standards that might have a different meaning. Before studying the corpus of Gerzean standards in Appendix V it is worth noting another feature… 4.5 Pennants: a Mediterranean tradition A theme retained from the boat standards and common though not universal on nome standards are the pair of streamers or pennants attached to the pole just below the fetish. The origins of this feature are unclear but there is a tradition leading back to the Gerzean boat depictions of Naqada II (c. 3500- 3200 BC) that can be found on Mediterranean ships and even ones reaching the British Isles over the next one and a half millennia. Travelling several hundred years and

14

five hundred miles from the Nile delta the pennant re-appears doubled or singly, hanging from the Cycladian longships depicted on the ceramic ‘fry-ing pans’ dating c.2800- 2300 BC (Coleman, 1985, ill.5). Contact with the maritme peoples of the Cyclades by the Gerzeans, may have introduced the Egyptians to the greatest resource of the mineral emery in the ancient world (Gorelick and Gwinnett, 1983; Serotta and Caro, 2014) from Naxos, Cyclades (Russell, 2008). This was needed to drill carnelian for beads and intaglios and carve the hardest granites and diorites for statuary and sarcophagi, an achievement unsurpassed after The Old Kingdom. In Britain and Ireland, broadly con-temporarily with The Egyptian Old Kingdom and the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean at 2800-2300 BC there was a first unification of aspects of culture in the British Isles as Grooved Ware Culture. Its most obvious feature was highly decorated and distinctive ce-ramic pots. In 2008 an engraved slate bearing the representation of an oared sailing ship was found on a Grooved Ware site at Clodgy Moor in Cornwall. Close inspection of the slate by the finder, (Hill 2013) reveals Grooved Ware and other third millen-nium BC dating evidence. Despite mainstream archaeologists ac-knowledging that the ‘graffiti slate’ has a date at least as old as ‘Medieval’ and is an important local find it has not been recorded by the British Museum (Portable Antiquities Scheme), to whom it was offered in 2008. Despite requests by Hill to rec-ord it, even at his own expense no paperwork was done beyond that needed to seize it and put it out of circulation.

The object has revealed as much about the Orwellian nature of British institutional archaeology as it has about the effect of metal-bearing Beaker contact on Stone Age British people.

Fig. 7a Beaker standard on a boat that visited Cornwall (Hill, DSC01157a, 2013)

In 2013 the slate was abused by an archaeologist who took a rubbing off it and it may now have been lost or destroyed to maintain ‘professional’ integrity . Image 7a shows a symbol above the deck of the ship on Clodgy Moor Boat Slate. The vertical carries a set of horizontal and diagonal scratches to the left, which Hill interprets as a Beaker symbol, being similar to the decoration of their pots. The standard interpretation is supported by the two curving downward cuts to the right, which look like the pennants of Cycladian and Gerzean style. Hill speculates that beyond their prac-tical use for sailing then the pennants were a religious acknowledgement of the wind and waves.

15

Returning to the Aegean, the Cretan mystery Phaistos disk (dated to 1700 BC) carries seven stamped symbols of ships that Hill (2014) explains are descended from the Cycladian frying pan boats and retain a pennant hanging from high up on the mast. It is logical that the Gerzeans, Cycladians and Beaker peoples, as they experimented with the new metal, copper would have made tools capable of improving the building of ships and that meetings or even sightings of other maritime civiliza-tions would have resulted in exchange of ideas regarding naval design as well as material goods and peoples. The outreach of the Gerzean seafarers will be demonstrated next, referring to the corpus of standards in appendix V. 4.6 Navigation standards The argument for many of the Naqada II motifs being pertaining to navigation ‘on the high seas’ begins with the example in fig. 8: Gerzean pot UC. 9544 in Appendix I has on its standard an ‘N’ motif with a rayed blob on the end of the final upwards stroke. Chapter 4 has been an attempt to establish that the Egyptians used the pole star Thuban in a constellation recognisable as Draco and leading to the interpretation of the motif on UC.9544 as such a diagram of Thuban, highlighted as a rayed blob in Draco. The ‘N’ motifs atop other standards such as on pot. UC.1076 in fig. 10 are therefore interpreted as symbols for Draco. The reversed ‘N’ seen on the standards of pots such as UC. 6331 in fig. 1 and on UC. 6308 and UC. 6341 in fig. 15 are also claimed to be symbols for the ‘N’ shaped constellation Draco, but seen by a potter; the standard has

been rendered from life and showing the other side. In appendix VIII eight normal ‘N’ and five reversed ‘N’ motifs together make up 13 out of the sample of 62 from appendix V or 21%. Having established (or not) a bridge-head of plausibility then the depiction of a star that points north is discerned symbolically on such pots as UC. 6340 in fig.11. This symbol is a pair of concentric circles but broken in the up or north direction, embodying the point light source and the directional information that it conveys. An allowed variation carries blobs on the breaks in the circles as seen on UC. 6340 which emphasizes the sight-line to north and adds a 4 dotted figure which reminds us again of the points of the compass. These motifs in appendix VII add up to 15; 24% of the sample in appendix V. The directional points of the compass theme is continued with the diagonal cross motifs attached to the tops of some of the standard poles. These make up 3 of the sample and just 5%. This motif is so simple that other meanings are possible. The double-ended arrow motifs on two of the standards might also be interpreted as directional; if only up and down the river Nile and in any case have not been included as navigation standards. The embellishment of the star Thuban itself is depicted on the standard of pot UC.10769 in fig. 12 and on UC. ?6555 in fig. 14. The seven unique symbols in appendix V share outward facing broken circle motifs, like the nested directional motifs of the north seeking Thuban motif (UC.6340) adding up to the four points of the compass. Linking them at the centre of the motif, where it attaches to the standard pole is a bar

16

or diagonal cross, again suggesting a directional message. To say this motif is the navigational star Thuban is only that but the linkage between this symbol and the others in the group is at least to be seen. The seven ‘Thuban’ motifs make up 11% of the total sample. In summary, as appendix VII pie chart makes clear: this study suggests that (8+5+15+3+7)/62 or 61% of the sample are accounted for by symbols related to navigation; specifically by the pole star Thuban. Other candidates include UC.6342, the right pot on fig. 14 which has a blob (Thuban?) on the top of the standard and a sickle shape (boat?) under-neath. It and a few others might be included, but add considerably to the diversity and difficulty of interpreta-tion. 5.0 Conclusion In the search for depictions of ancient ships to relate to that on ‘The Clodgy Moor Boat Slate’ the Gerzean boat depictions are the most numerous and as with the examples of the Cycladian boats of the next millennium, not obviously realistic to our pictorial sense. Taking one step at a time, an attempt has been made to resolve the impos-sible ships as rather practical 3– dimensional images when collapsed as an autostereogram. Our surprise at the possibility of this sophisticated op-tical trick is only an artefact of our progress view of our human develop-ment. We know that the Egyptians and their ancestors were achieving ‘wonderful things’; some of these such as the working of hard stones and the achievements of monumental ar-chitecture we do not how to repro-

duce. The 3-D visual trick of the Gerzean ships on pots and some of the apparently near contemporary ship petroglyphs is just one more and rather modest early achievement. The argument develops the idea that before the unification of Egypt these ships were sailing not just up and down the Nile but were contacting other Mediterranean civilizations. Imported goods at Nile Delta ports are in evidence and the Gerzean boats share features found on other early ships, notably the double pennants. In support of a maritime role, the tallies of ‘N’ symbols on the Gerzean pots are counted as nights at sea, each ‘N’ representing a sight of the constel-lation Draco , incorporating the then pole star Thuban, the most helpful star for navigation. The use of the imported Babylonian Draco ‘N’ shaped constellation is not a strong argument as for the northern sky the Egyptians later formed constellation shapes that are largely unrecognisable today. The importance of links between the ancient Babylonian civilization and the emerging Nile civilization is still a matter of debate, but may have brought some constellation shapes as well as mathematical and architectural traditions. A maritime tradition of using Draco, rather than the crocodile and Hippo constellations that might contain a pole star, found in later Egyptian tombs is therefore unprov-en. This problem is a frustration. However there is hope for a solution as the symbols on the standards carried by the Gerzean boats in the majority of cases form sets of motifs which relate to each other as though one major concept is being invoked. This concept is claimed to be navigation and the ‘N’ symbol is enmeshed in this symbology, perhaps

17

strengthening the case for the early use of the Babylonian constellation, Draco. At a time in the third millennium, be-fore tangible wooden plank boats are to be found in Egypt there will be an impression of Bronze Age technology in the evidence of new and effective tools maximising the potential for making seagoing stitched plank ships with the will to contact and enable trade with other peoples.

Navigation at night, away from the shore with its dangers of shipwreck and unwelcome human contact was made possible by the use of the Draco constellation that survives today, conveniently wrapped around the North sky like a serpent. Like Draco, only barely discernible today due to light pollution, the Gerzean pio-neers enabled the great cultural and technological achievements that made Egypt the ancient civilization that we celebrate today.

Appendix VIII: Above: See appendices and figures. The conclusion is that the majority of fetishes on the Naqada II boat standards are related to sea navigation, specifically Thuban in the constellation Draco.

18

Appendix I: Ship images from Petrie Museum on Naqada II vases

Top left Fig. 8: U.C.9544. Standard has an ‘N’ symbol and the star Thuban on top?

Top right Fig. 9: U.C.6069. Below the ship may be parts of it as isolated elements. The forward view of the sail, flanked by two cabins?

Left Fig. 10: U.C.1076 ‘N’ symbol on standard contrasts with string of mirror image ‘N’s.

19

Top Fig. 11: U.C. 6340. Standard carries a symbol interpreted as symbolizing North and found using a star: Thuban.

Left Fig.12: U.C.10769. Standard carries symbol interpreted as the North direction-finding star: Thuban.

20

Left Fig. 13: U.C. 6333. Symbol on standard interpreted as the star: Thuban and strings of ‘N’s as (nightly) sightings of Draco and hence long sea voyages.

Below Fig. 14: U.C.6342 has a sail below the ship?

21

Top Fig. 15: U.C.6308 and U.C.6341 carry Reversed ‘N’ symbols as the ‘N’ of Draco seen from the other side of the real standard?

Left Fig. 16: U.C.6306 The exceptional ship depiction that proves the rule. There is no gap in the oars (though faint) and only a single cabin.

22

Appendix II. The Naqada II ship in focus

Left Fig.17 Drowning man view of a Gerzean boat representation as seen through clear water.

Left Fig. 18 Stern view of a Gerzean boat with the tall narrow sail suspected from potential depictions on figs. 9 and 14. and seen on Egyptian depictions of 2400 B.C. and earlier (Casson, 1971, fig.18).

Left Fig. 19. Gerzean ship model from oblique bow view. Bow and stern details have not been indicated. Embellished and plain ones are both known.

23

Appendix III: Standards of Egyptian ships after Flinders Petrie

Appendix IV: Egyptian nome standards

24

Appendix v: Naqada standards

25

26

Appendix VI. Database of ‘N’ motifs on Petrie Museum Naqada II boats

Appendix VII. “Draw a zig-zag” small database

27

References Albred, C.1965. Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom, London, Thames & Hudson Avner, R. - The enigma of the long planks predynastic boats on the upper Nile Tropis IV :375-391 Available online @ http://www.learningace.com/doc/449384/3c15f97bba68627ff3c9d93de852b405/raban-avner-the-enigma-of-the-long-planks-predynastic-boats-on-the-upper-nile accessed on 14/12/14 Bradipus, 2005 "Barque Solaire2". Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barque_Solaire2.JPG#mediaviewer/File:Barque_Solaire2.JPG Accessed on 6/12/14 Bussmann, R. 2012. Scaling the State: Egypt in the Third Millennium BC. Archaeology intenational Available online @ http://www.ai-journal.com/article/view/ai.1708/391 Accessed on 28/12/14 Churchill, W.S. 1899. The River War: An account of the reconquest of Sudan. Claussen, M. and Gayler, V. 1997. The Greening of the Sahara in the mid-Holocene: results of an interactive biome model. Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 6, no. 5: 369- 377. Coleman, J. E. 1985. “Frying Pans” of the Early Bronze Age Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, no.2: 191- 219

Dash, G. 2013.How The Pyramid Builders may Have Found Their True North Aeragram Vol.14, no.1:8-14 available online @ https://www.academia.edu/4035001/How_the_Pyramid_Builders_May_Have_Found_Their_True_North accessed on 30/12/14 Dersin,D. 1996. What Life was like on the banks of the Nile. Time Life Books Eagan, B.M.2007. Discovery. London. Thames & Hudson

Egiptomaniacos. 2007. Available

online @

http://egiptomaniacos.top-forum.net/t8781-triada-de-micerinos accessed on 28/12/14 Fuller, M. 2008. Kom Ombo. Available online @ http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/komombo.html accessed on 28/12/14 Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A.J.1983. Ancient Egyptian Stone- drilling. Expedition Available online @ http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/pdfs/25-3/ancient.pdf accessed on 3/1/15 Hendrickx, S., Coleman, J., Darnell and Gatto, M.C. 2012. The earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: the rock drawings of Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan) Antiquity Issue 334, vol 86: 1068-1083 http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hendrick

x334/

Hill, G. E. 2013. Clodgy Moor Boat Slate: A Later Neolithic Sailing Ship.

28

Available online @ http://www.academia.edu/4074258/Clodgy_Moor_boat_slate_A_Later_Neolithic_sailing_ship Accessed on 10/02/15 Hill, G. E. 2014. The prehistoric navigation compass and seaworthy ships of the fifth to second millennium BC. Available online @ https://www.academia.edu/9118334/The_prehistoric_navigation_compass_and_seaworthy_ships_of_the_fifth_to_second_millennium_BC Accessed on 15/12/14 Карта сайта. 2008-2013. Подробнее

(Website) Available online @

http://kolizej.at.ua/photo/24

Accessed on 14/12/14

Lehner, M. 2013. The Heit el-Ghurab Site Reveals a New Face: The Lost Port City of The Pyramids. Aeragram. Vol. 14, no. 1: 2- 7 Available online @ https://www.academia.edu/8714264/AERAgram_Volume_14_No._1 Accessed on 30/12/14 Lull, J. and Belmonte, J. A.2009 The Constellations of Ancient Egypt 157-194 Available online @ http://www.iac.es/proyecto/arqueoastronomia/media/Belmonte_Shaltout_Chapter_6.pdf accessed on 31/12/14 magiceye.com Available online @ http://www.magiceye.com/enter.html Accessed on 12/1/15 Marchant, J. 2012. Hunt for the

Ancient Mariner. Nature vol. 481:426-

428.

McGrail, S.2003. The sea and

archaeology.Historical Research

vol.76, no.191:1-17

Meza, A.I. 2004. Neolithic boats: Ancient Egypt and the Maltese Islands, a Minoan Connection in Goyon, J. C.,Cardin, C.(eds.) Actes Du Neuvième Congrès International Des Égyptologues, Grenoble, International Congress of Egyptologists(9th) 1287-1297 Russell, D. E. 2008. The Emery Mines

of Naxos. Mindat.org. Available online

@

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/153/

The+Emery+Mines+of+Naxos

accessed on 3/1/15

Owen, B. 2007. The emergence of

civilization in Egypt: Naqada II and

Naqada III. Anthro 341: Class 15

Available online @

http://bruceowen.com/emciv/341-07f-

15-EgyptNaqadaIIandIII.pdf

Accessed on 14/12/14

Petrie, W. M. F. 1883.The Pyramids

and Temples of Gizah, London, Field

and Tuer

Petrie, W. M. F. 1915. Birth of

Civilization and the growth of the

Races. The rise of Civilization in

Egypt in The Book of History. Volume

I , New York, The Grolier Society, p.

56

http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/

The-Book-of-History/Volume-1/31-

THE-RISE-OF-CIVILISATION-IN-

EGYPT.html

Accessed on 28/12/14

Rogers, G. H.1998. Origins of the

constellations: II. The Mediterranean

traditions. Journal of the British

Astronomical Association. Vol. 108,

no. 2: 79- 89

29

Rohl, D. 1998. Legend: the genesis of

civilisation. London. Century.

Rowlands, M. J, Larsen, M. T,

Kristiansen, K.(eds.)1987. Centre and

Periphery in the Ancient World

Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press

Roy, J. 2011. The Politics of Trade:

Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th

Millennium BC, Leiden, Koninklijke

Brill NV

Serc. 2009. Carleton College

Available online @

http://serc.carleton.edu/serc/sponsors.h

tml

Accessed on 15/12/14

Serotta, A. and Caro, F. 2014.

Evidence for the use of corundum

abrasive in Egypt from the great Aten

Temple of Amarna. Horizon: the

Armarna Project and Armarna Trust

Newsletter Issue 14: 2-4

Available online @

http://www.amarnaproject.com/docum

ents/pdf/horizon-newsletter-14.pdf

accessed on 3/1/15

Tiradritti, F. 1998. The Cairo

Museum. Masterpieces of Egyptian

Art. Thames & Hudson

Tyler, C. (2014) Autostereogram

Scholarpedia

The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research

Institute

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/A

utostereogram

accessed on 5/12/14

Vinson, S. 1987.Boats of Egypt before

the Old Kingdom Graduate College of

Texas. Available online @

Available online @

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-

files/Vinson-MA1987.pdf Accessed

on 14/12/14

Vinson,S. 1994. Egyptian Boats and

Ships.Risborough, Shire Publications

Ltd.

Vinson. 2009. Seafaring. UCLA

Encyclopedia of Egyptology Available

online @

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9d938

85v#page-2

Accessed on 19/12/14

White, D. A. 2009. An Esoteric

Interpretation of the Narmer Palette

and the Narmer Mace Head

Available online @

http://www.dpedtech.com/Narmer_Pal

ette.pdf

accessed on 31/12/14

Wikipedia. 2009. Model of Khufu’s

solar barque

Available online @

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/

en/a/aa/Model_of_Khufu's_solar_barq

ue.jpg

accessed on 6/12/14

Winkler, H. A. 1938. Rock Drawings

of Southern Upper Egypt, 2 Volumes.

London.