THE OBELISK LIGHTER OF QUEEN HATSHEPSUT
Introduction
The Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (c. 1490 - 1439 BC) had the transport of two obelisks by
water depicted in her funerary temple at Deir el-Bahari. The obelisks were presumably identical
to the two that she had had erected in the temple of Amon-ra at Karnak, between the
fourth and the fifth pylons. The two temples face each other across the river Nile. One of the
obelisks still stands in situ: it is a monolith of granite, 28.5 metres long, weighing 374 metric
tons. Its provenance is the ancient quarry at Aswan, just below the first cataract, 200 kilometres
upstream from Karnak.
Sflver' presented a thorough technological interpretation of the depiction of the barge carrying
the two obelisks. This work, which incorporated results of earlier studies by Ballard2 and
KosteP is still the one currently accepted by such nautical researchers as Landstrom4. It is
based on a well-known relief picture in the temple at Deir elSahari, and on considerations of
shipbuilding and river navigation. In the present communication some corrections to blver's
work are suggested.
The painted relief at Deir el-Bahari showing the obelisk barge (Fig. 1) was published by
Navilles. It has been somewhat damaged but the portions now missing are supplemented
without much trouble. The most important of these conjectural supplementary details concerns
the five thick ropes arching over the obelisks. They are restored partly on the basis of other
representations of water craft reinforced in this manner, and partly on the basis of mechanical
considerations.
The artist depicted not only the barge, but also the oared "tugs" towing her. The barge merely
functioned as a lighter, and so we refer to her under that name. The obelisks are shown lying
on sledges on top of the lighter and pointing in opposite directions. If the two obelisks were
identical to those erected by Hatshepsut in the temple of Amon-ra, and if the picture were true
to scale, the barge would have been 93 to 95 metres long. To nautical experts it is at once
clear that a wooden vessel of such great length would have lacked sufficient longitudinal stiffness.
Ballards rightly invoked the experience of builders of wooden ships of the 19th century.
As these ships became progressively longer, from 70 to over 100 metres, iron braces had to
be increasingly to be relied upon to maintain sufficient longitudinal rigidity. This method of
construction was, of course, not available to the Egyptians of the 15th century BC.
The hieroglyphic text above the relief explicitly mentions that the two obelisks were carried
at the same time by the lighter. Sglver assumed that they were transported lying side by side
on a barge of 63 metres length with a beam of 21 metres. These dimensions are those of a
similar vessel mentioned in a document of Inene, the senior state official and architect, during
the reign of Tuthmosis I, c. 1500 BC, and they probably represent the maximum size that could
be attained in building a wooden ship with the technology of the time.
Antiparallel
In view of the fact that this interpretation is widely accepted by nautical research workers,
it is disturbing that it appears to be ignored by Egyptologists. In their recent work on the builders
of Karnak, Golvin and Goyon7 accept, in fact, that the length of the lighter did not exceed 70
metres, but in addition they assume that the two obelisks were placed as shown in the relief
picture. They are evidently aware of the objections against interpreting the picture as if it were
an engineering diagram. Of course it is entirely possible to design a barge of this length carrying
two obelisks one behind the other. The difficulty is that such a vessel could not be made
to resemble the one depicted in Deir el-Bahari. Golvin and Goyon in fact disregard implicitly,
but no doubt unwittingly, this item of primary iconographic evidence.
The question must be asked why these two well-known Egyptologists appear to deliberately
ignore Solver's work. Can it be that they do so because Sglver made one obvious error in his
interpretation? He thought not only that the two obelisks were lying side by side, but also that
they pointed in the same direction. He claimed that the manner they were shown in the picture
was because "the primary object of an Egyptian artist was to be understood and what he wanted
to do in this case was to show that there were two obelisks. If he had drawn what I believe
to be the truth, the two obelisks lying side by side, only one of them would have been visible.
Such treatment is common in Egyptian art and must be allowed for in studying the pictures".
The error in this reasoning resides in the fact that an Egyptian artist would simply have
repeated the outline of the after parallel obelisk above and to the side of foremost one in the
case supposed by Solver. In the adjoining diagram (Fig. 2) the result is schematically indicated.
Heinrich Schafer's handbook on the "Principles of Egyptian Artn8 leaves no doubt that such
a "layered" representation would have been chosen as a matter of course.
If the picture represented obelisks lying side by side, these were doubtlessly lying antiparallel,
i.e. pointing in opposite directions. In that case a sideways projection of the obelisks would
have resulted in a pictorial riddle, something which an Egyptian artist endeavoured to avoid.
Putting one obelisk behind the other in the representation would have solved the problem in
a manner which is entirely compatible with Egyptian stylistic convention. In what follows, we
assume that the obelisks were in fact lying antiparallel, as a correction on S0lver's conclusions.
Another problem of interpretation concerns the five ropes which run fore and aft the length
of the lighter. If the representation were taken literally, the two obelisks would have been caged
in by the stanchions and ropes which would have had to be removed before loading and
unloading. As we shall see, one of the purposes of the ropes was to strengthen the hull precisely
when embarking or disembarking the obelisks, so once again the literal interpretation of the
picture must be rejected. The one interpretation which seems most probable is that the artist
wished to represent both obelisks in the same manner vis 11 vis the ropes and struts in order
to avoid raising questions in the mind of the spectator. If the ropes and struts were aligned
parallel and close to the midship line; flanked by the obelisks, one of these would have been
in front of the struts, the other behind them. Placing them in a position in-between may have
appeared a reasonable compromise to the artist. Accordingly, it is assumed here that obelisks
were lying outside the struts and ropes, one to port, the other to starboard.
The question arises whether there was an overriding reason for the obelisks lying antiparallel.
If there was not, why did the artist bother representing them in this manner? As we saw, he
was not above taking liberties with what we would regard as an exact representation.
In order to answer the question, we may begin by noting that the runners of the sledges
were turned up only on the end where the apex of the obelisk was located. Apparently, the
sledges were meant to be pulled only in that direction. If the sledges were standing near the
sides, as assumed here, that would have been entirely feasible; the sledges were pulled in opposite
directions which were the same during both embarkation and disembarkation.
The load of the lighter consisting of two obelisks instead of one possessed the disadvantage
of a double load, but it also brought an important advantage. When embarking the first
obelisk which weighed 374 tons it would have been extremely difficult to prevent the lighter's
capsizing. The lighter's unladen displacement was estimated by Ballard and Spllver at 600 to
700 tons.
If there were two obelisks, and if the hull of the lighter was shaped more or less symmetrically
fore and aft - the picture at Deir el-Bahari does not contradict that assumption - the danger
of capsizing could be avoided entirely by pulling the sledges on board simultaneously at the
same distance from the centre of buoyancy. The application of this simple principle during
embarkation and disembarkation is illustrated in the diagram (Fig. 3) in which the positions
of the obelisks during the voyage downstream are also given.
During loading and unloading it would have been necessary to keep the level of the deck
beams carrying the sledges approximately level with the top of the "quay". Before embarkation
the lighter had to be ballasted, probably with sand, to an amount displacing at least the
same as the obelisks and sledges combined. When the obelisks had been pulled on board partly,
the lighter would begin to bear part of their weight. Consequently, she would settle somewhat
deeper in the water and the deck beams would sink relative to the top of the quay. That could
be counteracted by unloading some of the ballast until they were level again. The sledges could
now be pulled on board somewhat further, and so on. In this way the two obelisks were embarked
carefully, step-by-step. When loading had been completed, they could be pulled to the
positions for the voyage downstream, where they were secured to the deckbeams close to the
centre of buoyancy. The inverse sequence was followed when unloading. The gradual loss of
the weight of the obelisks carried by the lighter was compensated by ballasting.
The diagram shows that during embarkation and disembarkation it was necessary to moor
the lighter diagonally in berths of a certain width, but their provision cannot have presented
much of a problem. The whole operation must have been thought out carefully in advance,
and its execution required close cooperation of all parties concerned. These are the same requirements
posed by other technological feats of Egyptian Antiquity. Evidently, the ancient Egyp
tians were fully capable of meeting them.
Вход
Регистрация
FAQ
Поиск
