DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0357
0. Bates
270
mentioned only in connection with Egyptian fishing, and as I do not propose to stray
too far from that subject, what has been said must suffice. It is, however, my duty to
warn the general reader that the theory just advanced is still to be regarded as an untried
one.
A word may be said, by way of conclusion, as to the ethnographic position of Egyp-
tian fishing as a whole. The material just surveyed, when compared with that of Bronze
Age Europe, at once appears to be so different in character as to be clearly independent
of it: even at a late period, for example, the Egyptians appear to have remained ignorant
of the trident and of the double fish hook. Neither does the hollow socketed harpoon ever
appear to have been common—though it was apparently known — in the Nile Valley
— absences comparable to that of the useful and easily traded bronze fibulae of Europe
and the northern Mediterranean, objects which, though not unknown in Egypt, are none
the less there of rare occurrence. Yet more noticeable than these discrepancies is the
extremely simple character of the Egyptian fishhook at all periods — a simplicity which
contrasts strikingly with the varieties of eyes, corrugations, etc. employed for stops in
the hooks of Europe, where we also find the hamus catenatus and other specialized rigs.
If we turn to the fishing gear employed today on the lakes and rivers of Africa the
parallelism is at first glance closer, but there too the modern primitives are found employ-
ing numerous devices unknown in ancient Egypt. This is true not only of such seemingly
local weapons as the bow-shaped harpoon of the Upper Nile, but of others, like the gaff,
the use of which is widespread throughout the Nile Basin.240 The absence in Egypt of
the custom of drugging fish, so common in the Bantu area, is easily to be explained by the
lack of proper poisons, but the absence of many forms of large hand nets, of the gaff,
and of several other devices, is remarkable.
These differences cannot on the whole be said to be much greater, however, than
those which obtain between ancient and modern Egyptian contrivances for taking fish,
and I would therefore characterize Egyptian fishing as an art very largely of Nilotic growth.
The early origin of fishing implements, and the very moderate development of all of them
except nets at a later period, is paralleled by the history of other Egyptian artefacts — e. g.,
of celts and other copper tools, which, having reached a tolerable degree of perfection at a
remote period, were for centuries copied with practically no change. The fisher folk
themselves were less exposed to outside influences than many other elements in the country,
and whereas the introduction of the copper hook was unheralded by the use of curved bone
or shell prototypes, and the XII Dynasty saw some advances in Egyptian fishing gear, I
believe that in the present state of our knowledge we must regard the art we have examined
240 Schweinfurth, Artes Africanae, pl. 2, fig. 16 (Dyur); pl. 5, fig. 11 (Bongo); Werner, op. cit., p. 192.
270
mentioned only in connection with Egyptian fishing, and as I do not propose to stray
too far from that subject, what has been said must suffice. It is, however, my duty to
warn the general reader that the theory just advanced is still to be regarded as an untried
one.
A word may be said, by way of conclusion, as to the ethnographic position of Egyp-
tian fishing as a whole. The material just surveyed, when compared with that of Bronze
Age Europe, at once appears to be so different in character as to be clearly independent
of it: even at a late period, for example, the Egyptians appear to have remained ignorant
of the trident and of the double fish hook. Neither does the hollow socketed harpoon ever
appear to have been common—though it was apparently known — in the Nile Valley
— absences comparable to that of the useful and easily traded bronze fibulae of Europe
and the northern Mediterranean, objects which, though not unknown in Egypt, are none
the less there of rare occurrence. Yet more noticeable than these discrepancies is the
extremely simple character of the Egyptian fishhook at all periods — a simplicity which
contrasts strikingly with the varieties of eyes, corrugations, etc. employed for stops in
the hooks of Europe, where we also find the hamus catenatus and other specialized rigs.
If we turn to the fishing gear employed today on the lakes and rivers of Africa the
parallelism is at first glance closer, but there too the modern primitives are found employ-
ing numerous devices unknown in ancient Egypt. This is true not only of such seemingly
local weapons as the bow-shaped harpoon of the Upper Nile, but of others, like the gaff,
the use of which is widespread throughout the Nile Basin.240 The absence in Egypt of
the custom of drugging fish, so common in the Bantu area, is easily to be explained by the
lack of proper poisons, but the absence of many forms of large hand nets, of the gaff,
and of several other devices, is remarkable.
These differences cannot on the whole be said to be much greater, however, than
those which obtain between ancient and modern Egyptian contrivances for taking fish,
and I would therefore characterize Egyptian fishing as an art very largely of Nilotic growth.
The early origin of fishing implements, and the very moderate development of all of them
except nets at a later period, is paralleled by the history of other Egyptian artefacts — e. g.,
of celts and other copper tools, which, having reached a tolerable degree of perfection at a
remote period, were for centuries copied with practically no change. The fisher folk
themselves were less exposed to outside influences than many other elements in the country,
and whereas the introduction of the copper hook was unheralded by the use of curved bone
or shell prototypes, and the XII Dynasty saw some advances in Egyptian fishing gear, I
believe that in the present state of our knowledge we must regard the art we have examined
240 Schweinfurth, Artes Africanae, pl. 2, fig. 16 (Dyur); pl. 5, fig. 11 (Bongo); Werner, op. cit., p. 192.