Chapter 1 (headpiece)
Chapter 1 (headpiece)
Drop cap, T
THE Egyptians were not a nation of mariners. Their navigation, at the beginning, was limited to the Nile alone; it was only later that they ventured out to sea, preceded and assisted by the Phœnicians. Their vessels were and continued to be river boats. The question of knowing whether the Egyptians borrowed the art of building them from the Babylonians, or whether their art was developed independently of any other is of little importance here and, furthermore, it cannot be solved by the nautical knowledge which we possess. (ERMANN, p. 679.—Dr. MORITZRÜHLMANN, pp. 25-33.)
II 1
That which is certain is that the Babylonians and the Egyptians had their vessels already in the most remote antiquity; this follows (L’Anthropologie, 1899, Vol. X, p. 517, and HOLMES, 1900, p. 9) from the decorations on ancient vases which are supposed to date from 6000 to 4000 years B. C.
II 2
Doubts have arisen at times—but wrongly in my opinion—as to the question of knowing whether the decorations in question really do represent vessels. Although the drawings are too primitive to furnish any data relating to the form of the boats, it can surely be said, however, that only vessels propelled by oars are there shown and that sailing vessels were probably still unknown at this time. The lines at the bottom of the boats, considered sometimes, but wrongly, as indicating fishing apparatus (Recherches sur les Origines de l’Égypte, DEMORGAN, pp. 91 and 92), represent the propelling oars, and the long strokes at the stern of the boat, the steering oars. The boats were not moved forward by oars but by paddles, which is the oldest mode of the propulsion used, as can still be seen by the interrupted line of rowers found again, still later, among the Egyptians.
The reasons for the almost exclusive use of the oar or the paddle for propelling boats are to be sought in the mobility of the bottom and hence in variations of the navigable passages of the Nile. To these should also be added the great changes in the height of the water and the sudden dead calms. Sails were used later, it is true, but rowing and towing still continued to be employed along with the sails.
The shape of the vessel depended upon the use for which it was intended, so that there can be distinguished among the Egyptians: boats for transportation, boats for towing and boats for fishing. It is not known whether they had any war vessels. Pleasure boats and boats used for travelling by persons of rank formed a large flotilla. (Dr. MORITZRÜHLMANN, p. 25, andAegyptenby ADOLPHEERMANN, p. 639.)
The Egyptian boats were flat, as a rule, with the bow and stern rising with a slight slope above the water, the stern generally higher than the bow in order, so it seems, to give the steersmen a better purchase. (Aegypten, ADOLPHEERMANN, p. 637.)
II 2II 3II 4II 5II 13
Under the ancient Empire, about 5000 to 3200 B. C., boats were moved by paddles, the boatmen facing the bow. Still, even in these distant times, oars were already employed and, toward the end of this period, they were in general use. This is shown clearly by figures on the monuments of this age, where the rowers no longer face the bow but are turned toward the stern. (HOLMES, p. 13; ERMANN, p. 640;Ancient Shipsby CECILTOR, 1894.) Paddling was kept in use only for boats made of papyrus. When the boats were driven by oars, the latter passed through the side of the vessel or through rings arranged for this purpose. Each oar was worked by a single oarsman. The boat was steered by means of oars, rather larger than the others, and handled also each by a single man. The number of steering oars, as well as the number of steersmen, depended on the number of oarsmen (ERMANN, p. 641.) For example: for eight oarsmen there were at least two steersmen; for fourteen there were three steersmen, and four for twenty-one oarsmen, etc.
II 13II 14
Already, under the ancient Empire, the sail is shown alongsideof the oar. The mast, placed in the middle of the boat, was composed of two posts placed crossways and fastened together at the top; this form of procedure is characteristic of the time of the old Empire.
The rigging, set in the longitudinal axis of the vessel, was composed of a heavy rope leading forward and of several lighter ones, generally from six to twelve, leading aft.
The sail, which was rectangular in shape, was always attached between two yards, one of which held the head, the other the foot of the sail, a system followed exclusively in Egypt. Two ropes led aft from the upper yard, which was fastened to the top of the mast, so as to give the means to turn the sail to the wind.
Here are a few figures which will give some idea of the dimensions which were in use.
A relatively large boat, 16 metres long, had ordinary oars 3 metres long, steering oars of 6 metres, a mast 10 metres high with a yard of 6 metres. The area of the sail was about 60 to 70 square metres, hence it was higher than it was wide. (ERMANN, p. 639.) In calm weather, which was not infrequent, the vessel was driven by oars or else was towed. The mast was then lowered and wrapped in the sail.
In order to attach the rope which connected the vessel with the towing boat, there was used generally a piece of wood set either in the bow alone, or in the bow and the stern: this was the arrangement especially for freight boats. These latter had no rigging, as a rule; they could scarcely make room for a few oarsmen, because the greater part of the boat was occupied by the cabin.
As a general rule, small rowboats were used for towing.
The art of shipbuilding made a great advance under the middle Empire (B. C. 3200-2100). Except for the small papyrus boat, vessels were all propelled by oars and no longer by paddles. The steering oars, which were difficult to handle, were replaced by a single large rudder which could be worked by one man.
The rigging was also changed. The upper yard no longer restedonthe mast; it was attached thereto in such a way that it could be removed. The sail was less high, its width was increased and the mast became relatively shorter; finally, the double mast, which was so characteristic of the ancient Empire, was replaced by a single mast.
II 8
Under the new Empire, (inclusive of the interregnum of the Hyksos B. C. 2100 to 1600) B. C. 1600 to 730, the art of shipbuilding made no advance. Luxury only increased, especially for the cabins which had already appeared during the time of the middle Empire.
The special feature of this period was the increasing width of the sail. This width was so great that the yards had to be made of two pieces joined near the mast. The following figures give an idea of this constant increase of the sail. (ERMANN, pp. 643 et suiv.)
II 18etc.
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.
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.
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; NICOLASWITSEN, 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 inaccordance 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 groupa, the parts paintedwhitemust be considered as not existing, while those paintedbrownreally 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.)
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?
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. MORITZRÜHLMANN, 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 inuse 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.
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 freightwere 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.
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.
JALgives 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.
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 theirrelatively 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. MORITZRÜHLMANN, p. 32.)
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.
II 17II 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. MORITZRÜHLMANNp. 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. JALexpresses 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 alsoDictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, part 36, p. 24; Dr. MORITZRÜHLMANN, 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 ofAsia 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. MORITZRÜHLMANN, 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.
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. MORITZRÜHLMANN-HOLMES, p. 26.)
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. MORITZRÜHLMANN, 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 thesame 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 workLe Musée du Louvre, “Constructions navales dans l’Antiquité.”)
The result of the researches made may be stated as follows:
All the ideas put forth in regard to the number of banks of oars and to the respective places occupied by the oarsmen rest only on hypotheses. There have been more than one bank of rowers, but it is probable, however, that it was exceptional when there were more than two. Each oar at the beginning was handled by a single man. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th Edition, p. 806; HOLMES, p. 44; TORR, p. 18; WITSEN, p. 13.)
As a general rule, vessels moved by oars underwent little change after the invention of gunpowder. The propelling force could not be developed because it was not possible to increase the number of oars without trouble (Archéologie Navale, A. JAL, Vol. I, p. 50;Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, p. 40; idem p. 30).
So, JAL, in the “Archéologie Navale”, refuses to admit that there were ships as large as the “Great Eastern” in the times of the Greeks and Romans.
According to the monument of Prora of Samothrace, thole pins may already have been known to the ancients. Dr. ASSMANNgives much information on this point (Baumeister Denkmälen Seewesen, p. 1632, fig. 1693).
II 24
The habit, not yet wholly given up, of painting an eye at the bow, on each side of the stem, proves how long old customs maylast. It was already a habit of the Phœnicians, the Greeks and the Romans, and it is still found on a few Italian and Portuguese vessels (See:Das Seewesen, der Griechen und Römerby Dr. EMILLÜBECK, 1890, p. 43; ASSMANN,Seewesen, p. 1597;Jahrbuch des Deutsch.Archeol. Instituts, 1889, p. 99;Archéologie Navale, JAL, p. 105;Ancient Shipsby TORR, p. 69).
These eyes were a symbol: they were intended to show that the ship was seeking its own path, they have been considered sometimes, but wrongly, to be hawse holes.
Old forms have also been long preserved, and among these the ram is the most remarkable.
II 54II 59
In this order of ideas, theSperonaraof Malta, which appears in Paris’s work, Vol. IV, no203 (no164, etc.) is the most interesting example of the Mediterranean. The stem of this boat rises vertically from the water and is provided with a ram; even the eyes too are there.
Maltese boats without a ram are to be seen in the same figure, but these vessels differ little from theSperonara.
By bringing Layard’s drawing above mentioned close to this one, there will be seen in each some boats having a ram and a mast while others have none, but have stems which rise vertically above the water.
It can be concluded from this that, as far back as the times of the Phœnicians, ships already presented these same differences.
Hence there is no doubt that theSperonararepresents a Phœnician type of boat, in which the steering oar is replaced by a rudder.
There is no entire agreement as to the place occupied by the ram. Some persons place it above, others below the load-water line. Be this as it may, it is found on all the ancient models and, in most cases, the bottom line of the ship is prolonged in a straight or a slightly curved line as far as the ram.
The constant presence of this latter element in the reproductions, allows the conclusion that it was placed notbelowbutabovethe water. If thecontraryhad been the case, the ram could not have made so great an impression on the painters and sculptors. As for the rest, all the ancient types, on which traces of a ram are found, carry this element above the water line.
The fact that the bottom line ended in the ram, does not prove that this latter was below the water, for this line was invisible, and the draughtsmen, who were uninitiated in the art of shipbuilding, not knowing any other means for representing it, cut the ship off at the water line; but as the drawing then appeared rather strange, they added a curved line joining the ram to the sternpost.
If several of the old pictures be considered from this standpoint and if the curious bottom lines drawn by the draughtsmen be covered by better lines borrowed from theSperonaraor from ancient galleys, these reproductions acquire a wholly different meaning.
If little be known about the ancient Phœnician boat, a more thorough knowledge of the Greek or Roman ship has been reached, through researches, especially in the matter of dimensions.
It is settled that the Ancients had dock yards containing sheds for the shelter of vessels from which the running rigging had been removed while the standing parts were left. (See:Das Seewezen der Gr. und R.by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, 1890, p. 2.) These sheds give an idea of the sizes of their ships.
The excavations made by Lieutenant von Alten (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., p. 5), attached to the Imperial German Archeological Institute (1876-1877), have shown that the figures given by Graser are inaccurate. The dimensions of eight docks could be measured at Munichia, and these structures were 6.25 m. wide by 21.20 m. long.
Later excavations brought to light at Zoa some docks 5.50 m. wide and about 40 metres long, measured along the bank. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., idem p. 6.)
The dimensions of the ships must, therefore, have been relatively small.
It is generally granted that the beam of the Greek ship propelled by oars is less than that of the galleys of the Middle Ages.
According to JAL(Archéologie Navale), the ratio of the beam to the length, in the middle ages, was for war vessels: 1 : 8; for merchant ships it was 1 : 7. Graser found that among the Greeksthis ratio was 1 : 8¼, and according to SERRE(La Marine de guerre de l’Antiquité, p. 33) and LEMAÎTRE(Revue archéologique1833, Vol. 8, pp. 149et seq.) its value was 1 : 9.
Hence the vessels were narrow as compared with their length, which increased their degree of mobility.
Besides, the depth of the docks discovered shows that the boats drew but little and, consequently, that the ships slid along in a way, on the water.
In this respect too, the ancient boats did not differ much from those of the Middle Ages. Neglecting this detail, among others, Graser reaches a type of ship having far too great a draught.
Alongside of the war vessels,naves longæ, there were the merchant vessels,naves onerariæ. It was natural that great mobility should be sought for the former; it is this which explains the lengthened shape of these boats, whereas the merchant ships were shorter and had more beam.
Later, but still several centuries B. C., when the power of Rome was developed, when its population increased and when the importation of wheat and other provisions became more and more important and had to be made more and more quickly, the ship with oars was used as a merchant vessel in addition to the short, wide boat.
The Roman freight galleys seem, further on, to have been made broader, like those of the Middle Ages, with a view to increasing their capacity. But nonewtype followed from this; it was merely a new application of existing types.
It can be certified that no new type of boat was created later all at once, and that this change was due not to the shifting of lines of trade or to the construction of new ports. This latter condition could, at most, have modified the accepted dimensions.
The different types of antiquity remained in use for centuries and are still to be found to a great extent.
Nothing more will be done than to attract attention to certain ancient pictures where are seen ships having rounded stems. A short time ago, this peculiarity was still to be found in “la Muleta” a boat of the Tagus, now disappeared. (Compare PARIS, Vol. V, fig. 268; andJahrbuch der Deutsch. Archeol. Inst., 1889, p. 91.)
The size of boats changed little. In order to develope more force, the number of rowers was increased and, as the length of the ship was reduced, the rowers had forcedly to be placed in banks, one above another.
JALconsiders that a triple bank of oars must have been an exception, and that the lowest bank must have been separated from the other two by a deck. The celebrated trireme, built at Asnières in 1860, under orders from Napoleon III, was carried out in accordance with this conception; but, as has been said, the experiment tried with this boat did not give satisfactory results. (See,Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. LÜBECK, p. 49.)
If, however, the experiment did not solve the question of the position of the rowers, it showed sufficiently that, in the trireme, the ship was filled up with rowers.
The ancient vessel had little space for provisions. Care was taken consequently so to arrange matters as to be able to land every evening, and it can be understood from this that most naval battles were fought close to the shore.
But, in order to land everywhere, a small draught of water was necessary. This, according to Assmann and Lemaître, must have been about one metre. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EMILLÜBECK, p. 10, note 5.)
The disposable space on board was so restricted that, when it was not possible to go ashore at night, the oarsmen could only sleep in gangs. While the boat was in motion they had, in order not to interfere with each other, to make their movements absolutely together, and even when coming on board a certain order of succession had to be observed. (Das Seewesen, idem p. 10.)
It is not known exactly when the old method of propulsion, each oar handled by a single man, gave place to the new in which heavy oars were worked by several men. It appears however that the Liburnians already had heavy oars of which the use seems to have been a consequence of the battle of Actium, fought B. C. 31. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 21.)
As has been seen, there were, alongside of the ships of war ornaves longæ, merchant ships or freight vessels,naves onerariæ. The dimensions of these latter were also rather small; as can be judged by their capacity. Their cargo, as shown by ancientdocuments, was stated in Greek talents or in Roman amphora (1 amphora = 26.50 m.), and later also in midimnes of Attica (1 midimne = 42.50 m.). (Das Seewesen der Gr. mid R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 22.)
According to an arrangement regulating the size of merchant vessels, made in the year B. C. 218, the boats which brought goods from the senatorial possessions in Sicily and Sardinia to Rome, had a cargo space of only 786 cubic feet. It is true that descriptions of much larger vessels are found. These ships, from calculations made by Assmann and other authors, must have had a capacity of 26,000 to 200,000 cubic feet. Graser even goes so far as to say, from the quantity of freight carried, that the ship “Alexandreia” belonging to Hiero of Syracuse must have had a capacity of 240,000 cubic feet. Mention is even made of one ship having a length of 120 ells, while for another a depth of 29 ells is given.
All these dimensions are not to be despised even now, but, considering the small size of the ports and navigable highways of those days as well as their lack of depth, they must have been an impossibility. Furthermore, all these numerical data rest only on hypotheses, and cannot be exact.
The short, bluff merchant ship of the Ancients was certainly not longer than the vessel with oars and its average size does not seem to have exceeded that of a “tialque”.
The progress of shipbuilding was gradual throughout Western Europe, and as the same may be said of the Mediterranean, since the Middle Ages, what reason is there, then, for supposing that the vessels of Antiquity were of extraordinary dimensions?
In this order of ideas, theProra of Samothrace, discovered in 1863 and dating from B. C. 306, gives an exact idea of the war ship of the Ancients and proves that this vessel differed little in shape and size from the ships of the Middle Ages.
The bottom was slightly curved near the middle and the hull was made slender toward the ends. The mean draught of water was one metre, while that of the largest vessels scarcely exceeded 1.50 m. (ASSMANN,Seewesen, p. 1597, etc.) The stem and the sternpost were ornamented with signs which are unimportant for this study.
Ships with oars of which the stern was rounded at the level of the water line, carried at the bow a ram, which was used to sink the enemy’s ships and to smash their oars. A heavy block of wood, ornamented with the head of a ram, prevented the ram from penetrating too far into the side of the ship which it attacked.
The arrangements of the ram varied a good deal as is shown by the figures, but the form of the vessel itself was not influenced thereby. This element was the emblem of power and was meant to inspire terror. There is nothing astonishing then that, in most of the old drawings, the draughtsman should have dwelt rather on this detail than on the ship itself, thus causing the shape of this latter to become an accessory.
The ram, which was already in use among the Phœnicians, did not appear among the Greeks until B. C. 536. (Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 13.) Whence it follows, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the art of shipbuilding had reached a higher degree of perfection with the Phœnicians than among the Greeks and that the former exercised a preponderating influence over the peoples dwelling along the shores of the Mediterranean.
Hence, the thesis of uniformity of the boats of the Mediterranean could be sustained, but this would not imply that each people had known but one type of vessel. Boats of sundry types existed at the same time; there were the short bluff merchant ships side by side with the long vessels driven by oars, and perfected types were crowded against the primitive.
History tells us, that Cæsar put to sea with a fleet thirty days after the cutting of the wood to be used in its construction. (NICOLASWITSEN, p. 12, col. 1.) It would be hard to grant that the boats which composed this fleet were well finished ships moved by oars. They were, doubtless flat bottomed vessels, of the type which is still found in the Adriatic and which is so well reproduced in the “Rascona”. (PARIS, Vol. II, andDas Seewesen der Gr. und R.by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 39.)
The rapid construction of the fleet in question furnishes one proof more in favor of the point raised regarding the small size of ships.
In order to show more clearly what is meant by uniformity in the shape of vessels, attention will be called to the “tialque” type of the Netherlands, which is found, with slight changes and underother names, from Denmark to Belgium. All the boats of this type have a common fundamental character; but with the tialque are met still other types which are also found elsewhere.
So, from Denmark to Belgium, there is a series of well defined fundamental types and hence we can speak of common forms.
This remark applies also to the Mediterranean (Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, 36th part, p. 24;Navis), where these fundamentals have been preserved for centuries: the old types of wooden vessels to be met with at the present time still give an exact idea of them, save in what relates to the rudder and rig.
Sundry types have evidently been set aside or have undergone changes demanded by local conditions, so that, in order to find among them the fundamental characters belonging to a given country, it is often necessary to seek elsewhere.
So, for example, there are found in Holland, at ’s Gravenmoer (North Brabant), an old Rhenish type; in Portugal, small fishing boats which resemble greatly the ancient Egyptian vessels and, in the Arabian Sea, a ship which, aside from the rudder and rigging, resembles, to an astonishing degree, the primitive Roman vessel. And the Arabs claim that they have the oldest and best ships (compare PARIS, Vol. III, no135, with the relief of the “port of the Tiber” which appears in BAUMEISTER,Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums, fig. 1688).
If vessels moved by oars underwent no changes as the result of the invention of gunpowder, the cause must be sought in the slenderness of their construction required by the small motive power which they could put forth. The number of oarsmen was limited and very soon a maximum was reached which could not be exceeded.
In view of the fact that a practical vessel having more than three banks of rowers could not be constructed, and that the old reproductions which are known never show more than three, it seems permissible to conclude that the ancient writers who speak of four banks of oars and more, have allowed their imaginations to run away with them or, which appears more exact, that they had a way of counting other than the one adopted in our time? Doubtless, it was desired to designate the number of oars which passed in banks through the side of the ship.
Huys’s drawing, according to Breugel (dating from the middle of the XVIth century), shows oars grouped thus in sets of threes, and the same process is found in other old pictures; if these pictures show triremes, the question would be simple to explain.
A reproduction of the trireme, often referred to, is that of the bas-relief of the Acropolis at Athens. (Baumeister Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, fig. 1689.) Copies of it are found in all the works, but they do not always agree and hence can offer nothing certain. (Dr. MORITZRÜHLMANN, p. 62.)
Let a few more words be said now about merchantmen.