DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0340
Ancient Egyptian Fishing
253
Thus, the French “nasse”, which was anciently used all over the Mediterranean,196 is
still locally found there today, and fish pots are regularly employed on the Red Sea coast,197
as they were two thousand years ago at at least one point on the African shores of the
Indian Ocean.198
Of the Egyptian weels only the smaller could have been manipulated profitably in
salt water, for the larger traps could not long have withstood the roughness of the seas.
In this connection it may be said that the small Egyptian weel, because of the convexity
of its sides, to some extent more closely resembles the ancient Mediterranean type than
it does the conical Nilotic and other African traps of today. This does not, however,
justify the hypothesis that the ancient Mediterranean and small Egyptian trap owed their
origin one to the other, or to a common source, for the superficial resemblance due to the
convex sides is more than outweighed by the structural difference seen in the way they are
closed at their ends, and — as has just been intimated — devices so primitive ought not
to be related except on the strongest grounds.
Long as the use of the weel has persisted in many now civilized parts of the world,
it is curious to find that north of the Second Cataract it is now only known locally in the
Nile Valley. At what time its use declined it is not possible to say, but if the frequency
with which it figures in Old Kingdom scenes may be fairly contrasted with its non-appear-
ance in representations of a later period, one would be inclined to believe that its use ceased
to be general after the close of the Old Kingdom.
I may close this section with the remark that there are frequently represented on the
Old Kingdom and later monuments small objects of rush or wicker which are usually
interpreted as baskets, but which may possibly be minnow traps. As a hieroglyph the
object in question is the word-sign and determinative for g^w, “bag.” In appearance,
these articles are cigar-shaped affairs o'f small size (perhaps about 50 cm. long), having
funnel shaped ends, and a string tied to the constricted “neckings”, or to either side of
one end, by way of handle. According to the manner in which the string is affixed, the
object is carried horizontally 199 or vertically.200 The uncertainty I feel as to the real
nature of these curious receptacles has led me to refrain from figuring them. I have
196 Cf. the Sus mosaic, where a fisherman is seen standing in the bows of a boat over-hauling a long rope to which,
at intervals, small nassae of sugar-loaf form, without a long necking, are attached by cords; P. Gauckler et al.,
Musees de Sousse, Paris, 1902, pl. 6, fig. 2.
197 C. B. Klunzinger, Upper Egypt; its people and its products, E. T., London, 1878, p. 307.
198 Cf. the Periplus Maris Erythraei, §15 ad fin., ed. C. Muller, Geographi Graeci Minores, Paris, 1855, vol. 1,
p. 270 — 3e ravTXi ry ifiu [scfZ. Menouthias = Pemba?] Kai yvpyadois avras I8lws \tvevav<rtv, avrl olktvwv Kafhevres
avrovs irepl to. crropara tu>v irpoppaywr.
199 Steindorff, op. cit., pl. 101.
200 Davies, Ptahhetep, pt. 2, pl. 16, 27, 32.
253
Thus, the French “nasse”, which was anciently used all over the Mediterranean,196 is
still locally found there today, and fish pots are regularly employed on the Red Sea coast,197
as they were two thousand years ago at at least one point on the African shores of the
Indian Ocean.198
Of the Egyptian weels only the smaller could have been manipulated profitably in
salt water, for the larger traps could not long have withstood the roughness of the seas.
In this connection it may be said that the small Egyptian weel, because of the convexity
of its sides, to some extent more closely resembles the ancient Mediterranean type than
it does the conical Nilotic and other African traps of today. This does not, however,
justify the hypothesis that the ancient Mediterranean and small Egyptian trap owed their
origin one to the other, or to a common source, for the superficial resemblance due to the
convex sides is more than outweighed by the structural difference seen in the way they are
closed at their ends, and — as has just been intimated — devices so primitive ought not
to be related except on the strongest grounds.
Long as the use of the weel has persisted in many now civilized parts of the world,
it is curious to find that north of the Second Cataract it is now only known locally in the
Nile Valley. At what time its use declined it is not possible to say, but if the frequency
with which it figures in Old Kingdom scenes may be fairly contrasted with its non-appear-
ance in representations of a later period, one would be inclined to believe that its use ceased
to be general after the close of the Old Kingdom.
I may close this section with the remark that there are frequently represented on the
Old Kingdom and later monuments small objects of rush or wicker which are usually
interpreted as baskets, but which may possibly be minnow traps. As a hieroglyph the
object in question is the word-sign and determinative for g^w, “bag.” In appearance,
these articles are cigar-shaped affairs o'f small size (perhaps about 50 cm. long), having
funnel shaped ends, and a string tied to the constricted “neckings”, or to either side of
one end, by way of handle. According to the manner in which the string is affixed, the
object is carried horizontally 199 or vertically.200 The uncertainty I feel as to the real
nature of these curious receptacles has led me to refrain from figuring them. I have
196 Cf. the Sus mosaic, where a fisherman is seen standing in the bows of a boat over-hauling a long rope to which,
at intervals, small nassae of sugar-loaf form, without a long necking, are attached by cords; P. Gauckler et al.,
Musees de Sousse, Paris, 1902, pl. 6, fig. 2.
197 C. B. Klunzinger, Upper Egypt; its people and its products, E. T., London, 1878, p. 307.
198 Cf. the Periplus Maris Erythraei, §15 ad fin., ed. C. Muller, Geographi Graeci Minores, Paris, 1855, vol. 1,
p. 270 — 3e ravTXi ry ifiu [scfZ. Menouthias = Pemba?] Kai yvpyadois avras I8lws \tvevav<rtv, avrl olktvwv Kafhevres
avrovs irepl to. crropara tu>v irpoppaywr.
199 Steindorff, op. cit., pl. 101.
200 Davies, Ptahhetep, pt. 2, pl. 16, 27, 32.