Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-022-09330-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Fishing with Cast Nets in Ancient Egypt

María Teresa Soria‑Trastoy1

Accepted: 27 April 2022 / Published online: 30 June 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
The scarce publications on fishing in ancient Egypt cited in archaeological and Egypto-
logical research contain little reference to cast nets being used as a fish catching method
for catching fish, and the information that is available is contradictory. There are also no
systematic studies on fishing and, so far, no comprehensive typology adapted to the par-
ticularities of the Egyptian fishing tackle developed. We start from the hypothesis that cast
net was one of the fishing methods in ancient Egypt, at least from the 12th Dynasty of the
Middle Kingdom. We try to confirm that its origin can be traced back to the Epipalaeo-
lithic Period, as it has been suggested, as well as suggest the first classification of lead net
weights from archaeological sites in Egypt and, in addition, that it is possible to draw on
Egyptian iconography as a source to prove the use of this fishing gear. This article consid-
ers archaeological records, as well as documentary, literary, iconographic and ethnographic
sources to accomplish the objectives proposed. We conclude that the data allow us to con-
firm the existence of fishing with cast nets from the proposed date along with additional
evidence of its possible use from the Epipalaeolithic Period, identifying several fishing
scenes with cast nets in the iconography, showing the typology, the gear, and the fishing
activity.

Keywords Fishing in ancient Egypt · Fishing in antiquity · Cast net fishing · Cast nets ·
Casting nets

Introduction

A cast net is a circular-shaped net cast by hand from the riverbank, beach, or boat, spread-
ing itself and covering the fish when sinking. Then it is immediately drawn in again, as
opposed to one that is set up and left.
The aims in writing this article are the following: First, to set the hypothesis that the cast
net was one of the fish catching methods used in Egypt at least as early as the 12th Dynasty
(1939 + 16–17601) and probably dating back to the Epipalaeolithic Period. Second, to set
1
Absolute chronologies after (Hornung et al. 2006).

* María Teresa Soria‑Trastoy

teresa.soriatrastoy@mail.uca.es
1
History, Geography and Philosophy Department, Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
246 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

the hypothesis that cast nets form part of the Egyptian iconography. Third, to present a
picture, as closely as possible, of how fishing with cast nets developed, the possible mor-
phology of the net, the tackle used, the fishing techniques, the environmental frameworks
in which it would take place, and the ichthyological species targeted. Fourth, to present the
proposal for the first typological classification of lead net weights developed for ancient
Egypt. Fifth, to provide data that allow for development of Vim Van Neer’s suggestion of
the use of cast net since at least since the Epipalaeolithic Period.
Reading the history of Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology reveals the absence of
systematic studies of ancient fishing methods, techniques, and fishing gear. Traditional
Egyptology was engaged in explaining the wide appearance of fishing activities in funer-
ary and cultic iconography, their interpretation from a symbolic perspective, and the role
of fish and fishing in the mythical and religious spheres. There was no interest in explain-
ing the technology of fishing. The fundamental reasons are almost exclusively philologi-
cal, followed by Egyptology since the nineteenth century, a passion for monumentality,
the richness of the Egyptian iconography without parallels in the ancient world, and the
scant interest in faunal remains and material culture other than ceramics and epigraphs in
Egyptian archaeology until a few years ago. In this sense, beyond the most comprehen-
sive work of Gamer-Wallert in 1970, there are several publications from a philological and
iconographic perspective related to fishing (Westendorf 1967; Feucht 1992; Altenmüller
2005; El-Khadragy 2007; Ferguson 2012; Burns 2020), the identification and interpreta-
tion of fish species (Loret 1892; Montet 1914; Wassel 1991: 139–144; Anselin 1998: 5–58)
and fishing gear (Anselin 2007; Altenmüller 2008; Sjaastad 2018), as well as economic
and social organization issues, especially the analysis of documentary sources focused
on ostraca and papyri from Greek and Roman times (Besta 1921; Henne 1951; Dumont
1976–1977; Dumont 1977; Parássoglou 1987: 92; Chouliara-Raïos 2001: 249–251; Clar-
ysse et al. 2006). The use of ethnography in the study of fishing and fishing gear in Egypt
was present in Wilkinson (1878: 78–135) on hunting and fishing in ancient Egypt, in Bates
(1917) on fishing, in Pierre Lacau (1954: 137–163) when analyzing a limestone block
with a representation of fishing with baskets and in the study by François Daumas (1964:
67–85) on fishing with hook and line in the tombs of the Old Kingdom.
The picture changed considerably during the 1960s with the Nubian temples rescue
campaigns due to the construction of the new Aswan Dam, which brought anthropologi-
cally trained archaeologists to Egypt. The results of those archaeological works, which
comprised studies of the fauna, allowed for historical and technological questions about
fishing. The current interdisciplinary teams created by the need to understand the archaeo-
logical site as a whole and the change in archaeological methodology have resulted in a
developing interest in fishing tackle and, as we will show throughout this article, there are
already several publications that dedicate a section to the study of these materials.
The few typochronological studies of fishing tackle are reduced almost exclusively to
harpoons and hooks (Petrie 1899, 1920; Bates 1917: 240; Brewer and Friedman 1989:
21–22; Czarnowicz 2014: 38–50). References to net weights (Bates 1917: 259), net nee-
dles, and shuttles are rare (Bates 1917: 262, Kahlbacher and Zelenková 2011: 475). Typo-
logical and functional approaches have an essentially funerary iconographic basis, but
sometimes combined other sources as ethnography and documental ones (Bates 1917:
199–272; Brewer and Friedman 1989: 21–22; Wilkinson 1878: 78–135; Radcliff 1921:
307–319; Lacau 1954: 137–163; Alleem 1972: 339; Huyge et al. 1998: 97–113; Huyge
2005: 231–249; Huyge 2008: 281–296; Huyge and Vandenberghe 2011; Storemyr 2009:
129; Huyge 2009: 117). In the most recent publications, material culture is beginning
to take on greater importance (Chlodnicky and Makowiecki 2009; Odler 2016) with

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 247

publishing of such topics as pottery and stone net weights classification (Von Pilgrim 1996;
Jarmuzek 2010; Tsujimura 2012: 16), metalwork research (Odler et al. 2020, 2021), and
the consideration of fishing tackle as possible markers of social inequality (Anderson 1989:
44).
Only two monographic books on fishing in ancient Egypt have been published. The first
(Brewer and Friedman 1989) is essentially a synthesis of the work of Bates, Loat and Bou-
lenger. The second (Sahrhage 1988) is a compilation, between Gamer-Wallert and Brewer
and Friedman, with some new additions, such as the molluscs. The manual of Douglas J.
Brewer and Renée Friedman is the most cited in Egyptological literature related to fish and
fishing in ancient Egypt.
In short, without examples in nature, few specific publications and systematic studies,
the scenes of fishing from the tombs are the principal source for characterizing ancient
Egyptian fish catching methods and techniques. Consequently, given the fact that the cast
net does not appear, so far, in the funerary fishing scenes along with the lack of a tradition
of studying halieutic materials, this type of net is barely mentioned in the related publica-
tions and, if at all, it does so in a contradictory way without presenting any evidence.
In this way, John Gardner Wilkinson (1878: 117) did not include cast nets among the
two types he describes. William Radcliff (1921: 307–319) provided little more informa-
tion, so he did not mention cast nets. He considered that "if it were not for the existing
instruments and the representations of fishing scenes, their technical history could not be
reconstructed even partially" due to the documentary evidence being "so scarce and frag-
mentary". The difficulty of depicting the torsion that the body of a fisherman adopts at
the moment of casting the net and the whole character of the action is the reason why
Bates (1917: 257) understood that the ancient Egyptians preferred to illustrate the hauling
of seine nets to the casting of "small nets". Brewer and Friedman (1989: 41) concluded
that "it seems more likely that the cast net simply was not a popular means of catching fish
in ancient times”. Dietrich Sahrhage (1988: 112) stated that “in contrast to Mesopotamia,
where cast nets were probably in use for a very long time, such fishing gear seems to have
been introduced in Egypt only around Roman times”. Some years later, he affirmed that
“cast nets were also used” (Sahrhage 1992: 39) and subsequently states (Sahrhage 2008:
926, 2016: 1880) that “cast nets appear in the Late Period” (ca. 722–332), without men-
tioning the basis of his assertions.
On the other hand, Hélène Chouliara-Raïos (2001: 249–251) identified the cast net
(amphíblêstron—ἀμφίβληστρον) among the fishing gear used in Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Egypt, mentioned in the Greek papyri, despite their lacunae, laconic nature,
the chronological and topographical discontinuity of the documents and the disparity of
their information. The papyri confirm the use in Egypt of the two main types of fishing
described in classical literature.
Other professionals and scholars raised the possibility that the cast net was one of the
fishing methods in ancient Egypt. Oric Bates (1917: 255–258) claimed that “despite the
total lack of ancient representations of them, it is fairly sure that from at least the begin-
ning of the dynastic age, if not an even earlier period, they were employed by the ancient
Egyptian fisherman" considering "the widespread use of the circular cast net, and upon its
special prominence in modern fishing all over the Levant, on the Nile and on the Red Sea"
(Bates 1917: 257). Based on ethnographic comparisons, data obtained from the archaeo-
logical record and textual sources, Anwar Abdel Aleem suggested that "apparently vari-
ous types of cast nets were made with different mesh sizes in the Old Kingdom", and they
were used in lakes, the river, or coastal waters, either by a wading fisherman or from a
small boat. He did not provide any clear evidence in that article, as far as fishing tackle is

13
248 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

concerned, making it mainly a synopsis of the work of Bates. After the study of the fish
commonly found in prehistoric archaeological contexts, Wim Van Neer (1994: 23) points
out that, during the flood receding period, fishing with cast nets in the residual pools is
very effective, at least from the Epipaleolithic (10,000–8000 BP) onwards.
More recently, Tyler R. Yoder (2015: 246) referred to how "despite the rich artifactual,
visual, and literary vestiges of fishing techniques in Egypt, hardly a trace survives from
one of the most common fishing implements known from both biblical and Mesopotamian
sources". For the Greco-Roman period in the Red Sea and based on literary sources, icon-
ographic sources, faunal remains, material culture and ethnographic data, Ross Thomas
(2010: 101–121, 2011: 211–219, 2012: 169–199) concluded that the fragments of nets
recovered could probably be part of cast nets and estimates what species could be targeted.
The archaeological record leads to similar conclusions in other geographical areas, such as
Tell el-Ghaba (Kohen and Cione 2006: 137–148), located in northern Sinai on the edge of
the eastern side of a lagoon near the ancient Pelusiac branch of the Nile, or Tihna el-Gebel
(Tsujimura 2012: 16/Fig. 4.16–19), located about 230 km (km) south of Cairo and about
10 km from the city of Minya on the east bank of the Nile, to give just a few examples.
This article considers the archaeological record, documentary, literary, iconographic
and ethnographic sources used to accomplish the objectives proposed.
The archaeological record suffers from the issues outlined here. Egyptian materials
selected come from halieutic contexts, and others can be classified by analogy as fishing
tackle based on their morphology. There are complete fishing nets, fragments of them, and
certain types of weights along with similar sets that evidence the presence of cast nets.
It would be desirable to have archaeological contexts, but it has been impossible until
recently because of the methodology or its absence of such in the archaeological excava-
tions in Egypt. Many materials from excavations lack archaeological context and known
provenance. They are widely dispersed among numerous museums and many are lost,
unstudied, or unpublished. Their survival is also affected by the reuse of raw materials,
looting of archaeological sites and physicochemical factors, such as the "extreme salinity
of the soil as well as chemical weathering processes" at Tell el-Ghaba (Kohen et al. 2006:
141). Additionally, we face problems such as the lack of measurements of most of the pre-
served nets and the absence of a standardized method for measuring mesh openings, which
leads to confusing terms, such as "length of mesh" with "opening of mesh", or the lack
of archaeometric analysis. The lack of archaeological context and experience in the study
of halieutic materials of the Nile Valley leads to erroneous interpretations and identifica-
tions, with the exceptions already mentioned. In this article, we make a comparison with
the fishing tackle coming from a broad geographical and chronological context within the
Mediterranean, the Nile Basin, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and other comparable envi-
ronments in Africa that may have led to the implementation of similar fishing strategies
or were involved in the processes of production, distribution, interchange and consump-
tion. There is a need for dialogue with professionals experienced in halieutic research out-
side Egypt. In the Mediterranean and Atlantic framework, some researchers follow a spe-
cific line of research focused on fishing and fish catching methods and techniques, whose
conclusions enable comparisons in Egyptian fishing tackle. Egyptian lead net weights are
compared with those from Punic and Hispano-Roman archaeological sites in Spain. In the
eastern Mediterranean, the finding from a shipwreck in Turkey, dated its last sailing to the
Late Bronze Age and the end of the Amarna or Post-Amarna Period in Egypt, has yielded
many materials. Finds in Israel have led to recent developments of typological classifica-
tions of fishing weights. The Gaza Strip provides us with a Late Bronze II burial in which
these materials appear, such as having been found in tombs in Egypt. Finally, we note the

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 249

finds from some sites in Lebanon where fishing played an important role in the Hellenistic,
Roman, and early Byzantine periods.
The key to tracing the beginning of the use of cast nets in Egypt back to the Epipalaeo-
lithic Period is found in the archaeological records of some sites dating back to the Late
Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia during the Saruq-Facies, such as findings from the 5th
millennium BC site on the island of Dalma and the 3rd millennium BC settlement of Umm
an-Nar. Also, the material culture of the European Middle Neolithic II from some archae-
ological sites of the Cortaillod cultural period at Auvernier/Port, Twann, Montilier, and
Clarivaux support that hypothesis. Pebbles found several Egyptian sites (Vermeersch et al.
1989; Vermeersch 1978) that appear to have used weighting cast nets, and ichthyological
species recorded are consistent with cast net fishing.
Papyri of the Greco-Roman Period expressly mention the cast net as a method for catch-
ing and organizing fish. As far as literary sources are concerned, Egyptian literary materi-
als do not provide any information on cast net fishing or mention its use. However, classi-
cal literature does provide data to state the habitual use of cast nets in Egypt and the fishing
with these nets during the Roman Period.
Ethnography makes it possible to detect analogies to induce some of its features retro-
spectively through a combined study of archaeological evidence with traditional fishing
gear used throughout Egypt, Sudan, other locations in the Nile Basin, and similar environ-
ments from Africa or Arabia. They also provide us with data on the weights, target spe-
cies, and catch volume. Exhaustive studies in Spain and France help identify cast net fishing
techniques. Contemporary research allows for better identification around questions such
as mesh openings. It provides us with essential data for drawing historical and technologi-
cal conclusions, allowing us to reconstruct the different fishing methods and tackle, both in
terms of materials and techniques that may have been employed to capture various species.
A good illustration of the importance of ethnographic source is the case of the herring rake,
which had it not been for the ethnographic accounts, all information concerning this kind of
tackle would most likely have vanished, causing faunal analysts to be misled into believing
that any large quantity of herring bones was evidence in the use of nets (Morales Muñiz
2010: 49). We are also aware of the issues raised by these sources and technical matters such
as technological innovation in materials and the environmental contexts (Morales Muñiz
2010: 26), especially in a country like Egypt that has undergone dramatic transformations.
In terms of iconography, fishing scenes form part of the iconographic evidence of tombs
and temples. Scenes of marshy environments with fishing activities also appear on other
smaller objects, such as functional or ritual tableware. However, the profusion and detail of
the scenes contained in the tombs have relegated the tableware to the background. In con-
trast to architecture, painting, and sculpture, the tableware is classified as "minor arts"2 in
publications,3 museum collections, exhibitions,4 and educational programs,5 being almost

2
On the suitability of using the term "minor arts": (Thomason 2013).
3
Miniaci et al. (2018: 110) and Török (2011).
4
Metropolitan Museum (https://​www.​metmu​seum.​org/​press/​gener​al-​infor​mation/​2010/​egypt​ian-​art),
Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin: (https://​www.​museu​msins​el-​berlin.​de/​en/​colle​ctions/​
egypt​ian-​museum-​and-​papyr​us-​colle​ction/). Galeries nationales du Grand Palais (France), Metropolitan
Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), & Royal Ontario Museum. (1999). Egyptian art in the age of the pyra-
mids.
5
University of Maryland: ARTH—Art History & Archaeology Course. Undergraduate catalogue 2021–
2022. ARTH300 Egyptian Art and Archaeology (3 Credits) (https://​acade​micca​talog.​umd.​edu/​under​gradu​
ate/​appro​ved-​cours​es/​arth/). UCLA: "Study of architecture, sculpture, painting, and minor arts during

13
250 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

irrelevant in the eyes of the classical Egyptological community. This is in contrast to the
interest, for many years, by those in the field of Phoenician-Punic archaeology and, in gen-
eral, in Near Eastern archaeology. Even iconographic elements of some wooden models
imply that they depict a fishing activity connecting them with the fishing scenes of the
funerary structures. In this article, as in the rest of our research, we use iconography as
one of the archaeological sources without giving it preeminence and contrasting the results
with the archaeological record to infer valid results. I have mentioned elsewhere (Soria-
Trastoy 2020: 332) that, although the iconographic sources provide us with useful informa-
tion, it is necessary to be cautious. Since the funerary and cultic sources are in reference
to specific occurrences, they are full of symbolism and serve as a means of transmitting
the ideologies of the minority elite. Thus, they are subject to rules of decorum that include
favoritism that prevents the representation of certain truths that then never became part of
these accounts.
This article examines some fishing scenes decorating Egyptian tableware that may
represent various stages in fishing with a cast net. We have also documented a lamp of
Egyptian origin or manufacture with what is possibly a scene of fishing with a cast net.
In the absence of any detailed iconographic representation in any period of Egyptian his-
tory, a diachronic comparison is made with clear examples of cast nets depicted in mosa-
ics, reliefs, wall paintings, Roman lamps, and manuscript illustrations. This methodology
allows a better interpretation of the morphology of the net and the techniques used.
The geographical framework is, essentially, centered on the Mediterranean, but we also
refer to an illustrative relief from Cambodia. Web map showing the location of the main
archaeological sites, fishing grounds and places of interest mentioned in the text, is avail-
able at:https://​www.​arcgis.​com/​home/​item.​html?​id=​69767​541e8​53456​7a803​62ec8​aa056​
19. The main chronology spans from the 3rd to fourth centuries AD, adding three sig-
nificant examples dated in 1.400 BC and twelfth-thirteenth centuries. A relevant fact is
the detection of Darío Bernal Casasola in classical archaeology of the same problem that
Egyptology had with iconography as a source for studies in fishing in antiquity. There was
a general belief that the iconographic record of the Roman period, such as mosaics, was
enough of a source for an archaeological characterization of fishing tackle (Bernal Cas-
asola 2010: 84). Tonnes Bekker-Nielsen added that the iconography of Roman mosaics has
features to be considered when interpreting them. The artist "simplifies his subject in a way
that will permit it to be rendered effectively within the restricted area of the mosaic" so that
we can find as few as "two fishermen working a seine from their boat" (Bekker-Nielsen
2010: 190). Moreover, “mosaic is not an easy medium in which to render the fine lines

Footnote 5 (continued)
Predynastic period and Old Kingdom". Fall 2017: AN N EA CM101A—Art and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt, Predynastic Period to New Kingdom (https://​tinyu​rl.​com/​5n8z4​fcf), Catalogue 2021–2022: (https://​
catal​og.​regis​trar.​ucla.​edu/​course/​2021/​ANNEA​CM101B). The American university in Cairo: EGPT
361/3201—Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt I (3 cr.) "The course covers the period between the
Predynastic and the Middle Kingdom and includes: reliefs, statuary, architecture, and minor arts". 2020:
(https://​catal​og.​auceg​ypt.​edu/​previ​ew_​course_​nopop.​php?​catoid=​27&​coid=​60945).

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 251

Fig. 1  From left to right, types 1 to 5 of hand-cast nets. (Gabriel 2005: Fig. 22.18, 22.20)

and threads of a net” and “were not produced by local workshops but by specialists trav-
elling widely, bringing their pattern-books with them” (Bekker-Nielsen 2002: 218–219).
Similarly, Bustamante Álvarez (2010: 288) enumerated the problems that arise when using
the terra sigillata tableware was a source for fishing in Antiquity but considered it as "a
good avenue of exploration in the search for more information on ancient fishing”.
The following section is an answer to general questions on cast nets. We define the
cast net, its typology, the behavior of the target species concerning this gear, the influence
exerted by the fisherman, environmental impact, maintenance costs, and catch efficiency,
comprising references to some previous attempts to apply these economic issues to fishing
in the ancient world.

Cast Nets: A Contemporary Overview

Cast net fishing is a one-person method for catching fish. Operated from a boat, a com-
panion at the steer can facilitate the casting and hauling of the net. Fishing with a cast net
implies the following stages: First, inspecting the site. Second, checking for fish activity.
Third, preparing the cast net and setting it correctly. Fourth, casting the net and fifth, haul-
ing in the catch.
When the net is cast, it should fall flat like a circle upon the water’s surface, sinking in
evenly until reaching the bottom to cover the fish. The net closes by hauling the central
line held in the fisherman’s hand, and the fish remains between its folds, in its pockets or
entangled in its mesh. The central line can vary in length, reaching up to 20 m (m), as is
the case in the Bhoothathankettu areas of Periyar River in Central Kerala, India, where
casting the gear from the top of the bridge (Baiju 2005: 127). Once at the bottom, the net is
slowly pulled back and forth to fold over the edges, in an effort to contain the entire catch
inside, hauling it slowly along the ground until it finally rises. When the fisherman reaches
the point in which the central line joins the net, the mesh is tightened or twisted to avoid
the fish escaping, forming a loop, and picked up between the hands as if winding up a rope.
Finally, the cast net is raised.
Cast nets are classified as falling gear. It is an active fish catching method, so the fisher-
man influences its effectiveness. The success of the catch depends, to a large extent, on
their expertise, experience, perseverance and skill. It is necessary more skill when the net
is casting from a non-stable boat and to throw the extremely long African ones. The size of
the prey and the speed of the haul are critical to the effectiveness of the gear.

13
252 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 2  Collective cast net fishing a with four boats (Village 74: https://​youtu.​be/​tG8Ms​afP79w) b from the
shore and in-water, involving eight men al least in each row (Village 74: https://​youtu.​be/​ydn3s​xCpJNE)

There are five types of cast nets by their manufacture and elements (Fig. 1). Type 1
has a central retaining line and fixed pockets. Type 2 has a central line connected with
pockets. Type 3 is a central line without pockets. Type 4 is without a central line or
pockets, and type 5 is a bag-like cast net without a central line, but with a purse line
that passes through lead rings at the edge of the net, and without pockets (Gabriel 2005:
322–324/Fig. 22.18, 22.19, 22.20). It is possible to replace the mesh in the center of the
net with ropes in the same way as reported for some cast nets in Thailand (Frese 1964:
45).
The simplest model is type 4. As it does not have a retaining line, and once into the
water, it is impossible to retrieve it without the fisherman entering, at which point, either
by diving or with the help of his feet, he places the net correctly, checking that all fish are
inside before hauling the net. Types 3 and 4 do not have pockets, so the fish are entangled
in their mesh, as in a gillnet. Concerning the cast nets with pockets, the fixed pockets of
type 1, “erroneously called “Spanish type” (Gabriel 2005: 323/Fig. 22.18c), are fixed by
turning up the lower edge of the net and fastening it with short lengths of twine. In type 2,
each of these twines, or each string ending with three tie cords, is connected to the retain-
ing line “forming a ‘stringed’ cast net erroneously called “English type” (Gabriel 2005:
323/Fig. 22.18d), which passes through an opening in the apex of the net held by a short
tube or a ring; pockets are formed when hauling the net with the central line.
Since the catching principle is to completely cover the fish while the net is falling to the
bottom, fishing with a cast net is usually restricted to shallow and clear inland and marine
waters. According to Gabriel (2005: 322–323), cast nets without pockets are used in water
free of plants or obstacles, nets with fixed pockets are specially made for shallow water free
of obstacles, and the “stringed” cast nets are considered better for deep waters free of the
danger of the different lines entangling themselves around stones and other barriers. A bag-
like cast net does not need contact with the bottom, so it can be operated in deeper water
to catch fish in mid-water. Casting from a boat in the Black Sea is practiced in very deep
water, 150 m or more. Fishing takes place either at night or during the day.
The mesh opening ranges depending on the species and size of the fish, but in con-
temporary commercial and artisanal fisheries, it is essential to consider the restrictions
imposed by legislation that specifies their maximum opening. In terms of technical issues,
the smaller the mesh opening size, the longer it takes for the net to reach the bottom. The
selectivity of the cast nets in terms of size and species is good, therefore its environmen-
tal impact is low, although it is decreasing because of the new techniques applied, which
allows for catching undersized species more and more easily.

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 253

Although fishing with cast nets involves a single fisherman, and it is common to throw
them where fish density is relatively high, their effectiveness increases by the selective use
of bait, fish aggregation devices, and collective fishing. The latter quantitatively increases
the catch (Babatunde et al. 2008: 2081–2082) and, as Gabriel (2005: 322) states, the catch
by casting much gear at the same time is larger than if the cast nets are thrown one after the
other (Fig. 2).

The Ethnography of Fishing with Cast Net

Nowadays, hand-cast nets are widely used. It appears that casts nets were developed in
India, spread from there to the east, South Asia and the Near East and taken to the east
coast of Africa by Arabian merchants and tradesmen (Gabriel 2005: 322).

Fishing with Cast Nets in Egypt and Sudan Since the Late Nineteenth Century

In contemporary Egypt, cast net (torraha or shabaka), fishing is common practice in

all coastal lagoons (Lake Edku, Lake Burullus, Lake Mariut, Lake Manzala and Lake
Bardawil), usually operated in shallow waters up to 1 m deep for catching tilapia, cat-
fish, mullet, carps, and other fish (El-Sayed 2017a: 504). In Lake Nasser/Lake Nubia,
fishermen call it toraha, and their use is less frequent (El-Shabrawy 2009: 144, El-Sayed
2017b: 403). In Lake Qarun, this gear (el-torraha) catches mainly Tilapia species (Shal-
loof 2009: 21). “The crew of the artisanal frequent on fishing grounds within and adja-
cent to the Gulf of Suez, and land their catch in Ataka, and Salakhana (in Suez City),
Sakkala in Hurgada and El-Tor in South Sinai. Their main targets are reef-associated
fishes, and they use seines and cast nets to catch bait”.
Subsistence fisheries operate in the near-shore waters along the Egyptian coast,
including in South Sinai, targeting mainly fishes in shallow waters and coral reef areas
using cast nets, among other gears (Tesfamichael et al. 2012: 24). Sedentary Bedouin
fishermen, belonging to the Besharin and Ababda tribes, fish in small wooden boats
with veranda nets, cast nets and hook and line, particularly in Foul Bay. (Hariri et al.
2000: 47, Pramod et al. 2006: 13).
At the beginning of 1899, the Egyptian government called William Leonard Steven-
son Loat to conduct a scientific survey for organizing a collection of the fish that inhabit
the Nile. Loat went through the environments where fishing occurred, throughout Egypt
and Sudan, both in the White Nile and the Blue Nile (Boulenger 1907: xliii-li), finish-
ing his work in 1902. Among the fishing gear and fish catching methods recorded and
described (Boulenger 1907: xxi-xxii, xxv-xxvi, xxxiii/Fig. 1, 6/pl. A-B), there are the
three following types of "circular throwing net" or cast net: (1) with a central line and
fixed pockets, (2) with a central line connected with pockets, and (3) with a central line
without pockets. He defines three fish catching techniques: (1) hand-thrown cast nets,
(2) a kind of boat cast nets, and (3) dragging from shore and boat. Cast nets are operated
from shore, in water and from boats. The most commonly used fishing net in Egypt and
Sudan, as far as Omdurman and the one that primarily every fisherman uses, is the one
known as "torraha (ṭarrāḥa)" or simply "shabaka", the latter meaning "net" (Fig. 3).
The torraha net consists of netting of about 15 m in diameter on average and about
1.27 cm of mesh opening, although these measurements and the cost of the gear vary

13
254 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 3  Fishing with a cast net in Loat’s Egypt: a Setting the nets before casting (Boulenger
1907:pl.A) b Casting the nets from the shore (Boulenger 1907:pl.B) c The shabak-el-houn net (Boulenger
1907:Fig. 1) d The farrat method and fishing technique (Boulenger 1907:Fig. 6)

considerably, with the mesh opening ranging from 0.50 to 1.90 cm. A strong retain-
ing line is attached to the middle of the net. The weights fixed in the edge line are at
a distance of about 7.6 cm between each one. The edge line loops up to the inside of
the net at every 45 cm and at a height of 15 cm, forming a series of pockets. The fish
is caught by entanglement in the mesh or inside the pockets. The technique of casting
the net does not differ, in general terms, from the usual one described above. In terms
of effectiveness, shallow and muddy waters are preferable. When fishing in excessively
clear waters, casting the net at night offers better results. In Samannud, located on the
left bank of Damietta Nile’s branch, night-fishing was much in vogue.
The remaining two types of cast nets were mainly used on the Delta lakes. The more
complex net, known as shabak-el-houn (Fig. 3c), shabak or shabak bil mazarine, is gen-
erally set in Lake Burullus, Lake Edkou, Lake Mareotis, Rosetta, and the Blue Nile. It
could consist of netting of about 18 m in diameter and a mesh opening of about 2 cm. The
weights are fixed at a distance of 2.5 cm and sometimes 7 cm apart. In the center of the net
is a small wooden ring through which six ropes pass and are attached to the edge line at
equal distances from each other. These ropes are attached above a central ring to a thicker
rope of about 1 m. The total number of attachments is 54, strengthening the net in case of
catching larger fish. The net is cast in the same way as the torraha, but it is more difficult to
manipulate, as the cords can become entangled when hauled in. The simplest variant from
the Delta lakes is similar to the torraha but without a rope system or pockets, used to catch
species, such as Mugil cephalus, especially when they are leaving the lakes to spawn in the
sea. Near El Gemil, on Lake Manzala, Loat reports, at certain times of the year, men and
boys operating the cast net in shallow water, quietly approaching the prey, and reaching a
throw of between 3.5 and 4.5 m.

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 255

Fig. 4  Fishing with cast net in Sudan, mid twentieth century: a Dinka setting the net (Bloss 1945:pl
II-B) b Throwing the cast net at Al Mogran, Khartoum (Bloss 1945:pl I-B) c Tudj casting the net at Bahr el
Zeraf (Bernatzik 1936:Fig. 28)

The other two techniques involving the same cast nets described above imply a
change in the name of the fishing gear. The farrat (Fig. 3d) method was, occasionally,
set in some of the larger canals in the Delta and Cairo. It consists of two large cast nets,
each with a circumference of about 46 m, a mesh opening of about 2.5 cm, the same
lead weights on the edge line, and stronger retaining lines than those from the hand
casting. Nets are operated from two boats, placing them at each stern. When fisher-
men reach the chosen fishing ground, the edges of the two nets are joined in one point
through a peg. The peg is attached to a long line, to one end of which a large spherical
float is fastened, the other to a boat. Nets are gradually set out in the water while the
boats row away from each other. The float keeps the nets separated from the boats keep-
ing them afloat. With the nets fully extended, the peg is removed, causing the nets to
sink in a circular shape falling to the bottom, then finally hauled into each boat in the
same way as an ordinary cast net. The expected result is the same as collective fishing.
The third technique is a kind of dragging, similar to seine nets, occasionally used
in Upper Egypt. It implies a cast net known as a gabas, simultaneously operated from
shore and boat. A man walks along the shore in line with the boat. In his hands is a rope
fastened to the net and a float. The retaining line is tied to the boat. After a short dis-
tance rowing downstream and dragging, the peg that fasted the float is removed, allow-
ing the net to sink and allow it to finally be hauled in with the retaining line.
These techniques virtually allow the catching of all types of fish, with only larger
species escaping the net. In some cases, means are used to attract the fish. In Cairo, tor-
raha net fishermen sometimes throw in a large stone or strike the water with a stick. In
Samannud, one of the ground-baiting types consists of balls made of a thick paste mixed
with mud and flour. A series of holes are made to introduce more flour. The ball is then
sprinkled with the same material before being thrown into shallow water currents where

13
256 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

they melt and release the flour in about an hour or an hour and a half. According to Loat
(Boulenger 1907: xxxiii), the efficiency of the latter bait is good, often yielding a large
number of fish of good size.
Sudan provides more examples of fishing with a cast net (Fig. 4). Hugo Adolf Ber-
natzik (1936: 32 and photo 28) understands the cast net as foreign to Sudan, being of
Arab origin. His interpreter spends time fishing in the Nuer land of Bahr el Zeraf with
the "Arab casting net".
Bloss (1945: 256–281) classified and described various native fish catching methods
of Sudan and South Sudan from a fisherman’s perspective, collecting information in the
course of his medical service in the country. Methods of fishing were classified “into three
main groups: sea fishing, Nile fishing and fishing in smaller rivers and tributaries of the
Niles”. Concerning South Sudan, he seems to be one of the first to question whether new
fishing methods introduced here that increase the volume of catch, such as the “throwing
net”, will result in the overfishing of the rivers, although he believes they would not have a
negative impact (Bloss 1945: 280).
In contemporary Sudan, the cast net called tarraha is used in the River Nile State, Sen-
nar State and the Lake Nubia Fishing Camp with a mesh size between 2 and 10 cm (Anton
2017: 18–20 Tab.6/Fig. 20). In Jabel Awlia Dam Fishery (White Nile River, Khartoum
State), equal mesh size targets Tetraodon lineatus, Malapterurus electricus, Synodontis
schall, Tilapias and Labeo niloticus (Mohammed and Ali 2011).
On the Red Sea coast (Bloss 1945: 258), two types of cast nets were operated, depend-
ing on the catch and with different techniques. The first, mainly for catching grey mullet
and shoals of fish close to the shore, consists of a fairly coarse mesh net, made of very fine
twine, light and easy to cast. It has no retaining line and no pockets. This net can only be
used in shallow water, where there are no rocks or coral, and clear enough to improve the
visibility of the sunk fishing net. Once thrown, the cast net remains on the bottom with the
catch inside until the fisherman enters the water and, after examining his catch, “picks up”
the center of the net and carefully retrieves it. Bloss also reports catching a small sawfish
once that tore the net to pieces until it escaped.
The larger second type of cast net, mainly for catching sardines for ground bait when
fishing with hook and line, has a much smaller mesh opening and a slightly thicker line,
along with a ring connecting the retaining line with the weighted edge. Once thrown and
before reaching the bottom, the fisherman starts to haul in the cast net. Therefore, it is
an effective method, whether there is or is not much coral, to catch hundreds of sardines
(Bloss 1945: 258–259).
In the White Nile and the Blue Nile, the use of cast net is reported, although it differs
from that of the Red Sea. This cast net is fitted with pockets, about every 15 cm and with-
out connection to the retaining line. Bloss highlights the poor skill of the Nile fishermen,
the poor visibility of the Nile environment and the greater effectiveness of the Red Sea
casting technique. At Al Mogran, located at the junction of the Blue and White Nile, sev-
eral fishermen would stand in a line about 20 m apart, throwing their nets simultaneously,
so the fish that escaped in fright from the cast net of one would then be caught in the folds
of the other. The cast net is used all along the Nile, but at the lower part are many shallows
and sandbanks ideal for net throwing (Bloss 1945: 263–264 and pl. IB).
Fishing also occurs in the smaller rivers and tributaries of the Nile that cover the whole
of the southwest corner of Sudan south of the Bahr el Arab. Bloss divided the area into
three main sectors according to the features of the rivers and their environment, indicating
the tribes and ethnic groups that inhabit them. The methods for catching fish vary accord-
ing to the type of river rather than tribe, although the same fishing methods may vary in

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 257

their details from one tribe to another. The Dinka used “the ordinary Nile throwing net”
particularly at Nyamlell, Wau and Gogrial in large pools and along the riverbanks. In the
pool at the bend of the Lol River at Nyamlell, cast nets are operated from boats, especially
when the river is low and it is normal to see a dozen or more of them, each with its thrower.
Large catches were frequent, although the depth of the pool means that a greater number of
throws are required (Bloss 1945: 268–271 and pl. IIB). The Azande did not fish with cast
net because the streams are too narrow, and even where they are wide enough, there are too
many rocks. The Belanda fished with it “far more frequently”, as “the rivers in their area
[are] more suitable for this, and they have not been slow to appreciate its advantages”. The
Moru employed the cast net occasionally, and the Ferogei and Kreish, around Raga, used
“methods allied to those of both the Dinka and Azande”, including the cast net. (Bloss
1945: 274, 278, 279).
In 1949, J. M. Stubbs recorded the fish catching methods of the tribes inhabiting the
Jur, Loll and Bahr el Arab rivers with its tributaries and the Bahr el Ghazal as far as Lake
Ambadi and Jur River mouth lakes, in the Bahr el Ghazal Sub-basin. According to Stubbs,
the Dinka were by far the most proficient and energetic fishermen, but they only used a kind
of bagnet until the Egyptian cast net was first introduced into Aweil District “some fifteen
years ago and its abuse by the privileged few so depleted the food of the many that it had
to first be restricted and finally prohibited” (Stubbs 1949: 247). At the time of Stubbs’ writ-
ing, cast nets were used by few people in the countries of the Raik and Twij tribes and were
increasingly difficult to obtain due to the war (Stubbs 1949: 247). Of the Baghara tribes,
the Habbaniya of the west takes the most advantage of the vast supplies of fish taken from
the Bahr el Arab, with many professional fishermen supplying the Wau market and fish-
ing the waters of the Jur River city with a seine net, the Egyptian cast net, or rod and line
(Stubbs 1949: 246, 249). He concluded by suggesting that it is in the permanent marshes
that the fishing enterprise should be further developed because it is here where the main
supplies of fish exist, but natural conditions make it hard to use most conventional Euro-
pean fishing methods. What he proposes is “the use of the Egyptian casting net and seine
net in specially prepared areas, which have been previously ground baited, as kwara and
tilapia as well as many other species can be easily caught in this way” (Stubbs 1949: 250,
251). This last appreciation deserves to be dissected, for, as in the ancient world, firstly,
Stubbs describes a particular natural environment. Second, he notes that the biocenosis of
each region defines the fishery resources that are accessible and the need to apply different
fishing strategies. Third, the modification of a fish catching method to suit the biotope of
a given area. And fourth, because it shows that it is not the man who adapts to the natural
environment, but with acquired knowledge and accumulated experience, he can transform
it to appropriate its resources.
A year later, fishing with a cast net from a boat by a Dinka fisherman in one of the El
Grinti pools near Wau was again reported (Owen 1950: 5).

Fishing in Lake Manzala, Egypt, in Late 19th to the 21st Century

In 1894, James Clyde Mitchell conducted a mission, at the request of the Ministry of Pub-
lic Instruction, to collect specimens of the edible fish of Egypt, to study the methods for
catching them and the fish preserving methods practiced on Lake Manzala. He presented
the results in 1895 in his "Report on the Edible Fishes of Lake Menzaleh: Their Capture
and Preservation" where he describes the marine and freshwater fish found in Lake Man-
zala and the fishing gear for catching them.

13
258 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Mitchell reports that, of the marine species in the lagoon, the most important for capture
is the grey mullet. In Damietta, he finds Mugil cephalus, Mugil capito and Mugil sp. The
average size of Mugil cephalus was about 30 cm, and the largest known measured 50 cm.
The grey mullet moves about in large shoals. The knowledge of the whereabouts of a shoal
is essential to catch them. During the months of migration seaward, in the channels at some
distance from Fort Gameel fishing village, the Mugil cephalus move in compact shoals
and seek shallow water due to the presence of fishermen and other aquatic animals, so that
is the time to catch them with a kind of vertical net and then the escaped and stragglers
with the “circular casting net” (Mitchell 1895: 8–9). Of the freshwater fishes, some species
of the generically named Chromis niloticus by Mitchell, that inhabit the proximity of the
reeds, were caught in “circular casting nets” (Mitchell 1895: 13).
More recent research conducted by Nessim Henry Henein and published in "Pêche et
chasse au lac Manzala" describes in detail the fishing gear and techniques involved in arti-
sanal fishing in the largest lagoon of the Nile Delta and he dedicates a section to fishing
with cast nets (Henein 2010: 161–166/Fig. 78/Ph.30a-31).
Henein describes different cast nets in Egypt known generically as ġazl rameyya,
meaning “casting net” (Henein 2010: 161). They differ in size and place of casting, and
their names vary according to these circumstances. To the terminology recorded by Loat,
Henein adds kanaf or ṭarrāḥet el-ğeȳub, which refers to the larger one.
The cast net in Lake Manzala, the smallest of those mentioned, is known as ṭarrāḥa and
has a diameter of 4.80 to 5 m, which is the maximum size allowed. There is a ring fixed
in its center, which is the starting point for the main threads of the net where the retain-
ing line is tied. The edge line is weighted down with 4.5 cm long pieces of lead, spaced at
2.5 cm intervals, giving a total weight of 4 kg. Lead weights increase in proportion to the
size of the cast net, reaching a maximum length of 5.5 cm. The mesh opening ranges from
0.5 to 1.8 cm, depending on the species to catch and the size of the fish. Another cast net
with a smaller diameter, called ḥaddāfa, from the verb ḥadafa, which means "to throw",
is commonly cast in the openings of the lagoon to the sea, at the time of the migration of
the Mugil cephalus and Liza ramada.
The ṭarrāḥa is operated by poor fishermen who wish to work alone, in shallow areas
with the muddy ground and murky waters, from the shore or, because of its small diameter,
standing in water at about one meter deep and at some distance from the boat used to reach
the site. The distinguishing feature of the technique practiced at Lake Manzala is that the
cast net is not retrieved by hauling in the retaining line, but rather, when the cast net has
reached the bottom with the catch inside, the fisherman walks around the edge of the net to
push it into the mud to prevent the fish from escaping. He then runs his feet over the sur-
face of the net. As soon as the fisherman feels a fish, he wraps it in the folds of the net, still
using his feet. When all the fish is thus wrapped, he catches them one after the other, lifting
the net with one hand and sliding the other under the headline”. According to Henein, the
efficiency of the cast net is “proverbial”.
In the past, fishermen used the cast net to catch water birds, such as coots and ducks, to
hunt quail when they arrived from migration, and even a wolf.

Brief Notes on Environments and Mesh Opening in Fishing with Cast Nets in Africa

Gabriel (2005: 322–323) states that "in central Africa, they [cast nets] are not known or
used”, because “like hooks and lines, the cast net is not suitable for use in the waters of

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 259

virgin forests”, but in countries such as Cameroon, fishing with line and hook and cast nets
has been documented as contemporary fish catching methods in the Ntem River.
The Ntumu and Mvae people who live in the Ntem loop use cast nets to fish with regu-
lar frequency, casting on foot in shallow waters and by canoe in calm and deeper waters.
These methods have also been found to be efficient in rapids and areas with strong currents,
especially in January, in both daytime and night-time with variations in the abundance of
fish species caught. They fish, collectively and with rare frequency, by night from in water
and canoes. They use large cast nets to divert the schools of fish and push them into gillnets
in sizable deep water pools formed during the dry season in little branches of the river after
the recession of the waters. Small cast nets with smaller mesh openings and bait are used
during the daytime in spawning areas with rare frequency in the Ntem loop area by the
Ntumu people (Dounias et al. 2016: 12–14/Fig. 9).
Cast nets are also known in the rivers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, such as
in the Musolo River system, a small affluent tributary of the Congo River flowing into Pool
Malebo (Liyandja et al. 2019: Fig. 2b), and the same applies in other countries of central
Africa.
Regarding the mesh opening (size/spacing) of the fragments and fine-meshed nets, i.e.,
those with a mesh opening of 3 mm or less, are usually associated with cast nets. Larger
mesh openings are associated with larger fishing nets such as seines or drag nets. However,
fragments of fine-meshed nets could belong to other fishing gear, such as skimming nets
for catching shrimp, and coarser nets could have been part of a cast net. In this context,
the 3 mm mesh seine net used in Lake Kyoga, Uganda, to catch Mukene juveniles of larger
species, especially Lates niloticus and Oreochromis niloticus. Other fish like Tilapia zil-
lii, Clarias gariepinus, Barbus spp., or Mormyrids occur in rare numbers (Ogutu-Ohwayo
1999: 31). At the same time, it is worth noting that cast nets for catching salmonids gener-
ally have a diameter of 3–7 m, and their mesh size ranges from 8 to 30 mm or more (Edo
2007: 88). A study on fishing with cast net was developed in Lake Kainji (Nigeria) between
1970 and 1997 (Seisay 1998). The study concluded that “for major species in the cast net
fishery, both by number and weight, were maximal at 63.5 mm mesh”. From 1994 to 1997,
mesh sizes ranged from 12.7 to 152.4 mm, but the most commonly used cast nets were
those with mesh sizes of 50.8 and 63.5 mm. “The cast net fishery was largely dominated by
five species taxonomic groups: Citharinus spp., Tilapia, Alestes spp., Labeo spp., and Syn-
odontis spp.”, and also the Hydrocynus spp. but to a lesser extent. The best mesh size for all
species combined was 63.5 mm. The same mesh size worked best for catching Citharinus
spp., Labeo spp. and Tilapia. They observed fluctuations in Alestes spp. and Synodontis
spp., as a result of their biological and morphological features. The former are caught in
large numbers in nets with small meshes but can also be retained in large meshes, while the
spine of the latter makes them vulnerable to any mesh. Nigeria conducted a comprehensive
survey of species caught with cast nets in the Cross River in Afikpo. Gear length ranged
from 3.31 to 4.61 m and the mesh size from 3.25 to 3.85 cm, with an average of 3.5 cm.
Thirty-two finfish species were recorded with a relative predominance of Cichlidae and
Characidae, followed by Bagridae, Clariidae, Mochokidae, and others such as Mormyridae
at a much lower percentage (Okoh et al. 2007). In the northern part of Lake Victoria and
the upper Victoria Nile, the cast net has a length of between 3 and 6 m and, in its lower
panel, a mesh size ranging between 101.6 and 152.4 mm. Some fish species caught with
this cast net are Oreochromis niloticus, as the principal target, and Lates niloticus, Morm-
myrus kannume, Bagrus docmak, and Clarias gariepinus (Okwakol 2001).

13
260 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Treatises and Historical Fishing Dictionaries of the Eighteenth Century

In 1769, Henri-Louis Duhamel Du Monceau published the “Traité general des pêches”,
Volume V of the second edition of the Description des Arts et Métiers de l’Académie Roy-
ale des Sciences de Paris, a French national project, which he himself directed. The treatise
has three parts, of which the first, co-authored by M. de la Marre, records and describes the
fishing nets known in France, and the techniques in which they are operated, including the
cast net (Du Monceau and De la Marre 1769: 26–30 and pl. VII). Du Monceau described
the cast net as a conical or funnel-shaped net, generally composed of the same elements as
described above: netting, edge line with attached lead weights, and retaining line. The size
of its diameter and retaining line varies depending on the area where the fishing activity
will take place. The cast net that Du Monceau called "common" is the type that has the
central line connected with the pockets. It measures 20–22 m in circumference. Each lead
weighs about 28 gm, giving a total weight ranging between 1 and 1.5 kg. Drilled bales can
be used as weights by inserting them into the edge line like rosary beads. But the most
common method is to make them with lead sheets rolled or placed on the rope with a light
hammer blow. The mesh size depends on the size of the fish to be caught, although to
reduce labor, cost, and weight, it is always larger at the top of the net, usually about 5 cm,
tapering toward the edge line. The second type of cast nets are smaller, with a ring, without
pockets, and with connected lines, but are rarely used because of their complexity when
hauling in the net. Du Monceau documented a small cast net for fishing into salt ponds
without pockets and lead weights, commonly operated during the summer when the fish
come up from the sea into the ponds.
More than a century before the gabas net was documented in Egypt, Du Monceau and
De la Marre (1769, 27–28: pl. VII/Fig. 4) described the fishing with cast nets trawling in
narrow rivers or streams, in shallow waters with bottoms free of stones or rocks of consid-
erable size. These nets are larger and heavier than those thrown by hand. Two ropes are tied
to the edge line of the net, opening it to cover the width of the water flow. One man on each
bank walks downstream or upstream pulling each end of the cast net, keeping a part on the
surface while the rest falls to the bottom due to the lead weights, causing the mouth of the
net to adopt an oval shape. The retaining line is held out of the water by a man who follows
the fishermen. When the fish enter the net, its movement is transferred through the rope.
Once the catch is inside, the two fishermen release the lines, the cast net falls to the bottom,
and the one holding the retaining line proceeds to haul it in toward the shore. This method
is used on uneven and vegetated shores with the help of other men, who carry poles to
help guide the fish into the net. As seen in Egypt, a boat can replace one of the men on the
banks.
Fishing with cast nets (Fig. 5) was conducted in both marine and river environments,
except in some coastal areas, since the ebb and flow of the tides provide fewer painful
means of catching a quantity of fish in the sea. In the Mediterranean, cast nets served to
catch fish gathered between the rocks and ponds with access to the sea. In general, “fishing
with the cast net is not advantageous for catching fish that sink into the mud or sand, how-
ever, fish frightened by the lead weights occasionally attempt to escape and often, giving
into the net, they are caught”. To improve the catch there are different types of bait depend-
ing on the size of the target fish: for small fish it is fish guts and blood placed in a sling; for
large fish, earthworms are used. Low-cost bait was often made with bran, leaves of wild
mint, millet, and other germinated seeds. Regarding the species and the efficiency of the

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 261

Fig. 5  Fishing with cast nets in France during the eighteenth century (Du Monceau and De la Marre
1769:Sec. Chap. II pl. VII) a Casting the net from the shore b Casting the net from a boat c Hauling the net
from a boat d Trawling with a cast net e Types of cast net according to Du Monceau; to the left, cast net de
arillo

Fig. 6  Fishing with cast nets in France during the eighteenth century a Hauling in the cast net from the
shore (Sáñez Reguart 1792: Lam XV) b Cast net de arillo falling on a shoal (Sáñez Reguart 1792: Lam.
XIV)

nets, a small cast net in the river caught more than 30 shad. The cast net was thrown several

13
262 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

times on the same day (Du Monceau and De la Marre 1769: 29–30).
A few years later, between 1791 and 1795, Antonio Sáñez Reguart published his "Dic-
cionario Histórico de los Artes de la Pesca Nacional". Divided into five volumes and with
the fishing gear arranged alphabetically, the third one contains the entry "esparavel" (cast
net). In the definition of this fishing gear, like Du Monceau, he differentiates between
the "common" cast net (Sáñez Reguart 1792: 143–149 and Lam, X, XV) and the one
with a ring without pockets and the weights visible (Sáñez Reguart 1792: 149–155 and
Lam. XIII–XIV); the latter is what Monceau calls the common one. The author presents
the esparavel as a widespread and familiar fishing gear on the coast of the sea and the
banks of rivers, but "it can never be called fishing of great consideration because of its
tenuous product". It is frequently cast in rivers, operating from the shore (Fig. 6a) or a boat
(Sáñez Reguart 1792: 155–157 and Lam. XVI) in waters between 0.5 and 1 m deep, always
when there is good visibility.
He also established the standard size of cast nets between 1.1 and 1.6 m high (radius).
Mesh for sea fishing should measure approximately 25 mm and for river fishing, about
12 mm, but can change depending on the size of the fish to be caught and, mainly, on
the height of the water, since the smaller the mesh, the longer it takes for the net to reach
the bottom. Concerning lead weights, both quantity and weight vary according to the size
of the net. The largest reaches a weight of about 3.8 kg (Sáñez Reguart 1792: 143–145).
The cast net called “de arillo” (type 2 explained above) is more complex and resistant in
its weave, so it was useful on rocks and stones without fear of tearing. The best casts are
obtained in natural fish concentrations (Fig. 6b) or by use of bait, both in marine and river
environments. At sea and in rivers, the optimum maximum depth to ensure a catch is about
one meter, so a boat with a shallow draft is required. Hence, fishing with this net usually
occurs along the coastline and river banks. Often, fishing from a boat requires two men: the
one in charge of rowing stands at the stern and the one who will throw the net at the prow.
Sañez Reguart (1792: 157–169) cites the work of Du Monceau on cast nets, highlight-
ing the techniques used and the difference in dimensions of the French cast nets comparing
with the ones used in Spain. The author includes the translation of the complete description
made by Du Monceau, relating the trawling with cast nets (Sañez Reguart 1792: 161–165
and Lam. XVIII), noting that he had not seen a cast net used in this way in Spain and he
compares this technique to the “albéntola” (Sáñez Reguart 1971: 1–3/Fig. 1) or “buitrón”
(stow-net), an example of which can be seen in the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnum-
hotep at Saqqara where stakes are tied to each bank of the waterway (Soria-Trastoy 2020:
348–349/Fig. 17).

Traditional Fishing in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman

Traditional artisanal fishing methods and technology, which may date back “at least hun-
dreds of years, if not for even longer periods back into the past”, are still used around
much of the Gulf today. Among the methods of catching fish is the cast net, locally known
as Salieya, operated standing in water at times of the year when species such as Sardinella
longiceps and Mugil cephalus may be abundant in shallow inshore waters (Beech 2001:
79–83/Tab. 26).

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 263

Fig. 7  Complete Egyptian cast nets dated to the 18th Dynasty a From the Hathor shrine in Deir el Bahari
(Photo: MET Museum, accessed 21/06/2013) b Presumably from an undetermined Gebelein tomb. (Photo:
MET Museum, retrieved 21/06/2013)

Fishing Nets in the Archaeological Record

The archaeological record in Egypt provides direct and indirect evidence of fishing gear.
We find complete fishing nets, fragments, and impressions of them. Parallels to the lat-
ter come, for example, from Irak (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2012) or Taiwan (Chen 2007: 126/
Fig. 13). In addition, we find items associated with fishing tackle, such as weights, floats,
stakes, and even materials for net-making and repairing nets, such as mesh sticks and
needles.

Fishing Nets

Among the few complete fishing nets known to us, there are two secure cast nets: the first
is from Deir el Bahari (Hayes 1990: 214; Winlock 1922: 32/Fig. 26) and a second appears
to be from Gebelein (Hayes 1990: 214).
The cast net from Deir el Bahari (Fig. 7a), now in New York’s Metropolitan Museum
of Art, with register number 22.3.74 and dated to the 18th Dynasty (ca. 1539–1292 BC),
must have been originally deposited in the chapel of Hathor in the Temple of Mentuhotep
II, despite being found, rolled into a ball 26.03 cm in diameter, among the pile of debris
on the southern slope of the temple courtyard, near the south side doors through which the
votive candle offerings that had accumulated in the chapel had been thrown. We have no
further description of this net other than it is made of linen, the actual diameter of the basin
measures 26 cm, and that it is weighted with lead on its edge line. The second cast net, pre-
sumably from an undetermined Gebelein tomb (Fig. 7b), now also in New York’s Metro-
politan Museum of Art, recorded under the number 21.2.15 and dated to the 18th Dynasty,
was acquired in Qurna from Sayed Molattam in 1921. Its fine netting, with a diameter of
109.22 cm, is made of knotted linen, is weighted along its entire circumference with doz-
ens of small lead weights, with a braided cord fastened to its center.
In terms of net fragments (Table 1), the Royal Ontario Museum’s (ROM) fishing net of
unknown provenance recorded under the number 986X2.20 (Fig. 8) is truly remarkable.
The net may have come from one of the archaeological excavations in which Charles Trick
Currelly, the first Director of the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology, participated at
Abydos, Gurob, or Delta, Deir el Bahari, or it may have been purchased (Currelly 1956:
80, 129) somewhere in el-Fayum, Delta or Luxor from a dealer of antiquities (Currelly

13
 264

Table 1  Fragments of fish nets from marine and freshwater environments

13
Site Chronology No pieces String size (D.) mm Mesh “opening” (mm) Bibliography

Myos Hormos Late I BCE-I AD 1 3 54 Thomas (2009, pp. 343–344)

Early I AD 4 49.5–56 (av. 51.8)
Middle I AD-Middle II AD 4 0.1 – 5 (of 3; av. 2.8) 41–66 (av. 55.1)
II AD-Early 3 AD 3 3—4 (av. 3.6) 73–87.5 (av. 80.1)
Early I AD-Middle 2 AD 3 FNF 3 24–25
Middle I AD-Early 2 AD 1 FNT 1 27
Late I AD-Middle 2 AD 3 FNF 0.9 to 1 12.3–13 (av. 12)
Abu Sha’ar Late Roman/early IV-late IV 22 1.3–2.0 12.7–16.6 Wendrich et al. (1994, 184–185, Fig. 2–4)
Byzantine / late IV or early V 0.5–0.9 25.5–70.0
AD -late VII AD
Berenike V-VI AD 3 14.8–24.8 Veldmeijer (2004)
4 16.3–23.2
I AD 30 0.6 up to 2.3 7.8–36.2 (av. 22.7)
17 0.8 up to 1.3 sZ: 8.3–18.8 (av. 13.6)
18 0,8 up to 1.5 13.2–38.5 (av. 17.4)
3 1.2 up to 1.6 5.7–30.4 (av. 15.9)
Haraga Late Middle Kingdom ± 25 Engelbach and Gunn (1923, pp. 16–17)
Lahun Dyn. XII Squares: 7.5, 15, 18, 20, 22, PMEA
30, 35, 40, 45 (av. 25)
Gurob Dyn. XVIII Min. 5 ± 0.8 (mesh 6) ± 6–35 (av. ± 18) PMEA
Tihna el-Gebel End NK-beginning LP 1 22–24 Tsujimura (2012, 17, Fig. 5)
Tell el Farkha Early Dynastic 1 >1 Chłodnicki et al. (2009, p. 138, Fig. 2)
Qasr Ibrim – 1 > 50 Veldmeijer (2009, 2, Fig. 6 )

Av Average, FNF Fragment of “Fishing Net Fine”

Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 265

Fig. 8  Fish net with fixed pockets, probably a cast net. (Photo: Royal Ontario Museum)

1956: 58, 148, 186), from fellahin diggers (Currelly, 1956, 68) or in antiquities shops (Cur-
relly 1956: 197). Its dimensions are 42 × 43 cm, with a mesh opening of plus or minus
10–15 mm. The net is stretched and curved, and made of linen threads. The fishing net
retains one end where a thin cord runs through the edge of the mesh. As we have seen
above, the manufacture of the cast net is likely known as the "Spanish type", with pockets
fixed by turning up the lower edge of the net and fastening it by short lengths of twine, in
which the fish get caught when hauling the cast net.
In the marine environment, Myos Hormos has provided three fine-meshed nets with a
string diameter of about 1 mm and mesh spacing averaging 12 mm, interpreted as pos-
sibly casting nets for catching small species, such as sardines. More common are coarser
fragments, represented by 20 examples with string diameters of about 3.8 mm and mesh
spacing averaging 35 mm, thought to target larger fish species with other gears, such as
drag nets (Thomas 2010: 147). Twelve fishing nets outside the fine-meshed group can be
divided into four groups: 1. One dating to late first century BC—second century AD with
a mesh opening of 54 mm and 3 mm diameter for the ply; 2. four dating to early first cen-
tury AD ranging from 49.5 to 56 mm (average 51.8); 3. four dating to middle first century
AD—middle second century AD with a mesh opening ranging from 41 to 66 mm (aver-
age 55.1 mm) and an average of 2.8 mm for the ply; and 4. three dating to second century
AD—early third century AD with a mesh opening ranging from 73 to 87.5 mm (average
80.1 mm) and an average diameter of 3–4 mm for the ply (Thomas 2009: 343–344). Among
those from Myos Hormos, MH00C130 has dimensions of 1.2 × 0.20 m and 56.5 mm mesh
opening.
In Abu Sha’ar, twenty-two pieces of netting from the late Roman military occupation
(fourth century AD) have a mesh opening ranging from 12.7 to 16.6 mm with a string
diameter that varies between 1.3 and 2.0 mm. From the later occupation,6 the opening of
the mesh ranges from 25.5 to 70.0 mm, and the string is of a diameter ranging from 0.5 to
0.9 mm (Wendrich and Van Neer 1994: 184–185/Fig. 2–4).

6
Byzantine reocupation. “The northern half of the fort was reoccupied by a Christian community from the
late 4th or early fifth century AD to the late seventh century AD” (Wendrich and Van Neer 1994: 183).

13
266 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 9  Fragment of a net (Photo:

Pitt Rivers Museum, accessed
03/2020)

From Berenike comes 75 fragments "of fine net": Seven from 5th to sixth century AD
and the remaining from the first century AD. In the first case, the "diameter of the meshes"
ranges from 14.8 to 24.8 mm, with most being above 20 mm. In the second case, within 68
fragments, there are four groups: 1. 30 with a mesh opening ranging from 7.8 to 36.2 mm
(average of 22.7 mm) and 0.6 to 2.3 mm in diameter for the ply; 2. 17 ranging from 8.3 to
18.8 mm (average of 13.6 mm) and 0.8 to 1.3 mm of diameter for the ply; 3. 18 from 3.2
to 38.5 mm (average of 17.4 mm) and 0.8 to 1.5 mm for the ply, and 4. the last three frag-
ments of netting with mesh openings ranging from 5.7 to 30.4 mm (average of 15.9 mm)
and from 1.2 to 1.6 mm of diameter for the ply. None of them “show traces of a border
string/rope”, but one piece of netting has “reinforced edges” made with a double string
as were used in the modern fishing nets used by fishermen in the area (Veldmeijer 2004;
Thomas 2009: 324–325).
There are several fragments of nets outside the marine environment, but almost no
data on them. The geographical area of the greatest concentration of these remains is the
depression of el-Fayum and its entrance. From Lahun, Gurob and Haraga come consider-
able fragments of nets. Because of their manufacture, location, and associated materials,
they could be fishing nets, although many of them have been found in a secondary position.
House Ruin 530 at Haraga yielded a group of domestic objects that Reginald Engelbach
interpreted as a "fisherman’s kit". There were large quantities of fishing net remains "of
similar technique to those netted today", with a mesh size of about 2.5 cm, and dated to the
Late Middle Kingdom (1837-ca. 1659 BC) (Engelbach and Gunn 1923: 16–17; Kemp and
Merrillees 1980; Miniaci and Quirke 2009: 356; Soria-Trastoy 2020: 333–335).
Few fragments recovered from Lahun are measured. Those recorded as UC7512-iii and
UC7512[-iv] in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology (PMEA) show "squares" (sic)
ranging from 7.5 to 45 mm (average: 25 mm), in nets made of a single strand and fine
thread. Another, with a mesh size of plus or minus 20 mm, is made of a coarser thread and
double-strand. Five fragments from Gurob in the PMEA, recorded as UC27885i-iv, have
a mesh opening ranging from about 6 to 35 mm (average: ± 18). Again from Lahun, there

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 267

Fig. 10  Fishing net weights probably to be used with cast nets a Bark type weights from Twann (Wes-
selkamp 1980: Tafel 30) b Two techniques of packaging for net weights, Middle Neolithic II from Clair-
vaux (Pétrequin et al. 2015: Fig. 1)

are 2 fragments of the same net in the Manchester Museum, which measures 107.1. × 0.6 m
and shows a "large mesh".
A fragment of cone-shaped net made of flax was recovered in Tihna el-Gebel, dating
from the end of the New Kingdom to the beginning of the Late Period with a mesh opening
of 22–24 mm (Tsujimura 2012: 17/Fig. 5). A fishing net with a mesh opening of more than
50 mm is documented at Qasr Ibrim (Veldmeijer 2009: 2/Fig. 6). Coming from Tell el-
Farkha is a netting impression, dated to the Early Dynastic, with a mesh opening of more
than 10 mm (Chłodnicki and Makowiecki 2009: 138/Fig. 2). A fishing net from Lahun or
Gurob in Pitt Rivers Museum with number 1889.27.46 has a mesh size of about 40 mm, a
maximum length of 2 m and a maximum width of about 2.04 m (Fig. 9).
We lack similar data for other fishing nets, such as the one from Deir el Bahari (MET
Museum 25.3.225) dated to the Roman Period, possibly first century AD, Deir el-Medina
(Museo Egizio di Torino S. 7795/02), Akhmim (Budge 1893: 125 no. 442, The Fitzwilliam
Museum E.135.1891), Sedment (Petrie 1924: 26/pl.LXIII, LXXIX) and others from the el-
Fayum depression. According to Petrie (1890: 28), the string discovered in Lahun, wound
in balls of as much as 2 or 3 inches in diameter, was used mainly for netting. The mesh of
those fishing nets is about 12.7–19 mm, and the smallest is 3.1 mm measured in square
mesh.

Net Weights

Net weights are indirect evidence of the use of cast nets when organic material is not pre-
sent, but it is not easy to link these weights to a specific type of fishing gear.
Today, there is no doubt among scholars that cast nets were lead-weighted, mainly
with the bent, folded, or rolled plate type (Gabriel 2005: 322; Bernal 2010: 114, 119;
Galili et al. 2013). The raw material may differ according to socio-economic, spatial,
and chronological factors. We have documented examples in clay (Bekker-Nielsen
2005: 135; Cottica 2010: 363), stone (Chen 2007), bronze (Shalev and Sari 2006: 95)
and iron (Spencer 1993: 34/pl.32.63) as well as copper or copper alloy for the Per-
sian period at Tel Michal (Herzog et al. 1989: 281–282/Fig. 25.9). The archaeological
record of some sites dating back to the Late Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia, during
the Saruq-Facies suggests that the way of life of these hunter-gatherers also relied on
coastal fishing with cast nets (Uerpmann 1992: 96, 102). From the Arabian Gulf and

13
268 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 11  Typology of Egyptian fishing lead weights until Late Antiquity a PLI1 from Tell el-Retaba,
(Lehman 2018: Kat.Nr. 1584/Taf. 424) b PLI2 from Tell el-Retaba, (Lehman 2018:Kat.Nr. 1570/Taf. 424) c
PLI3 from the tomb 798 at Shunet el Zebib, Abydos, PMEA 43100a-c (Photo: PMEA) d PLII from Gurob,
PMEA UC7939 (Photo: PMEA) e PLIII1 from Amarna PMEA UC59084 (Photo: PMEA) f PLIII2 from
Amarna PMEA UC59084 (Photo: PMEA) g PLIII3 from Gurob, PMEA UC7937 (Photo: PMEA) h PLIII4
from Naukratis Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: RES.88.38, Eg.Inv.1312, M.1542 (Photo BM) i PLIV from
Tell el-Ghaba, inv. no. F0090A (Fuscaldo 2005:Fig. 58.15–0173) j A set of 53 PLI2 excavated in Gurob
(Photo: Manchester Museum)

Table 2  Our suggested typology for fishing lead weights from Egyptian archaeological sites until the Late
Antiquity
Type Line attachment Morphology Correspondence
Bernal (2010) Galili et al. (2002)

Lead weights
PLI1 Bent/folded plate Rectangular PLIX2 L 2.3
PLI2 Square PLIX1
PLI3 Cylindrical PLII2 L 1.2/L 2.2
PLII Rolled plate Cylindrical PLII3 L 3.1
PLIII1 Perforated Longitudinal hole Spherical/hemispheri- PLVII2
cal
PLIII2 Disc-shaped
PLIII3 Truncated cone PLIII3
PLIII4 Straight hole
PLIV Ring-shaped PLI L 1.3/L 2.1
PLV Tubular PLXIII

the Gulf of Oman evidence of pottery and stone weights in the form of perforated disks
can be found. Examples from the early 5th millennium BC site on the island of Dalma
and the 3rd millennium BC settlement of Umm an-Nar are considered possible weights
used in cast nets, taking as reference the current traditional artisanal fishing in the area
(Beech 2001: 103–104/Fig. 34–35, Beech 2003: 291).
In Europe, we have several pieces of evidence during the Neolithic (Fig. 10). In the
archaeological sites of the lacustrine environment of the Cortaillod cultural period at
Auvernier/Port, Twann and Montilier, Middle Neolithic II, elongated bark weights, with
a filling of small homometric pebbles, are interpreted as probable weights belonging to
a kind of cast net (Wesselkamp 1980: 37–39 no 217-217a and Tafel 30; Ramseyer and
Reinhard 2000). This technique of making net weights by packing small clay pebbles or
cylinders in birch bark also occurs in the Middle Neolithic II at Clairvaux (Pétrequin et al.
2015).

13
 Table 3  Inventory of fishing lead weights from Egyptian archaeological sites until the Late Antiquity
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 2 Abydos Cemetery D, * CM; AM E2712(1–2) D. 18th Randall-
NKC0001 New King- McIver et al.
dom, Tomb (1902:90,102/
D119. The pl.xlviii, Holland
grave goods 1902:45–46)
did not
include any
other objects
related to fish-
ing activities
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.2 1.1 PR, 1901.40.130 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0003 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.2 1.2 PR, 1901.40.131 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0004 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.5 1.4 PR, 1901.40.132 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0005 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.5 1.2 PR, 1901.40.133 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0006 McIver et al.
1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.5 1.4 PR, 1901.40.134 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0007 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.3 1.2 PR, 1901.40.135 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0008 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
269

13
 Table 3  (continued)
270

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 1.8 OIM, E5669 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0009 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 1.9 OIM, E5666 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0010 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.4 OIM, E5668 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0011 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY- PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 1.7 OIM, E5667 D. 18th Randall-
NKC0012 McIver et al.
(1902:90,102/
pl.xlviii)
FW-ABY-SZ001 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos Shunet el Zebib, 2.7 1.8 PMEA, UC43100A D. 12th
tomb 798
FW-ABY-SZ002 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.55 1.85 PMEA, UC43100B D. 12th
FW-ABY-SZ003 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos ibid 2.85 1.75 PMEA, UC43100C D. 12th
FW-ABY0003 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 4 Abydos Acquisition 2.3 MM, 1201.a-d D. 18th https://​tinyu​rl.​com/​
Egyptian 9f2rf​4ae
Research
Account.
(Donation,
1902)
FW-ABY0005 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Abydos 3.3 1.5 9 OIM, E5941/Acc.56 D. 18th https://​tinyu​rl.​com/​
39jkn​u6j
FW-AM-MC0001 PLV 1 Amarna Excavated in 1.9 1.1 21/214 D. 18th Peet (1923:21/
1921. N49.13. pl.XIII.4)
Area 14
FW-AM-MC0002 PLI1 / 1 Amarna Excavated in 1.8 21/199 D. 18th Amarna objects
PLI3 1921. N49.12 database
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-AM-MC0003 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Amarna Excavated in 4.1 1 24/869 D. 18th Amarna objects
1924. Q45.38 database
FW-AM-MC0004 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 3 Amarna Excavated in 4.2 1.1 BrM, H3315; Exc. D. 18th BrM. Amarna
1924. Q45.76. No. 24/907 objetc database
Given by the
Egypt Explo-
ration Society,
1924
FW-AM-NS0002 PLI1 1 Amarna Excavated in 1.7 1 PA, deacces,; Exc. D. 18th Amarna objects
1926. U36.4 No. 26/503 database
FW- AM- PLIII1 PLVII2 9 Amarna - PMEA, UC59084 D. 18th Petrie (1927:49/
UNK0001 pl.XLIII-2)
FW- AM- PLIII2 1 Amarna - PMEA, UC59084 D. 18th Petrie (1927:49/
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

UNK0002 pl.XLIII-2)
FW-BAL0001 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell Settlement 2.0 1.2 1.4 TIP Spencer
el-Bala- deposits (2009:66,65/
mun next to the Fig. 6–4)
southern
corner of the
temple; Third
Intermediate
Period occu-
pation level in
the southern
corner, with
pottery and
mud-brick
wall
FW-BE0004 1 Berenike 17-113-386 BE98-4101-D BC- Thomas (2009)
M1AD
FW-BE0005 1 Berenike 29-0-34 BE99-4814-D M-L1AD Thomas (2009)
FW-BE0006 1 Berenike 6-0-231 BE97-4922-D 4AD + Thomas (2009)
FW-BE0007 1 Berenike 21/04/2015 10 BE98-2835-D 4-5AD Thomas (2009)
271

13
 Table 3  (continued)
272

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-DA0001 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell Saite enclosure 1.6 1.2 BM, EA23861 Maybe SP Petrie (1888:77),
Dafana Lèclere and
Spencer
(2014:81)
FW-DA0002 1 Tell 1.8 1.50 1.3 BM, EA23862 Lèclere and Spen-
Dafana cer (2014:81)
FW-DAB0001 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area AII- k/ 11 *.a 0738b LP -RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1570, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0002 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AlI- h/9, L41 * 9421K1 LP—RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1579, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0003 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- AlI- h/9, L42 * 9421K2 LP—RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1571, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0004 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- A/II- h/9, L41 * 9421K3 LP—RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1581, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0005 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AlI- i/9, L 111 3.8 24.4 9423D LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1584, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0006 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AlI- i/9, M 14 * 9425N LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1572, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0007 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- AlI- h/9, L60 * 9425X LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1573, Taf. 424)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-DAB0008 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- AlI- i/10, * 9426C LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a L18 + 22 (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1574, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0009 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- AlI- i/10, L72 * 9426H LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1575, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0010 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AII- i/10 * 9428A LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1583, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0011 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AlI- i/9, L34 * 9429B LP-RP Lehman
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1576, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0012 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- AlI- h/10, L132 * 9429Q LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1580, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0013 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- A/II- h/9, L41 * 9436D LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1577, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0014 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- A/II- h/9, L42 * 9436Q LP-RP Lehman
Dab’a (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1582, Taf. 424)
FW-DAB0015 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- A/I- e/5, L 159, * 9550S Ptolemy 285-222 Lehman
Dab’a Building 10 II-III BC (2018:644/Tab.
261, Kat.Nr.
1578, Taf. 424)
FW-DBA0001 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Deir el Cemetery 1–200, 1.6 1.8 1.7 HMA, 6-6976 D. 18-19th https://​n2t.​net/​ark:/​
Ballas Tomb 174 21549/​hm210​
60006​976
273

13
 Table 3  (continued)
274

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-GH0008 PLIV 1 Tell el- Area II, L1001 2.7 F0090A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0009 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 1.0 1.3–0.9 1.1 F0176A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 001 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0010 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 2.4;1.8 1.6–1.1;0.9 1.6–1.1;0.6 F0188A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 001 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0011 1 Tell el- Area I, BB/43, 1.0 0.7 0.4 F0199A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba North section (2006: 144)
FW-GH0012 1 Tell el- Area I, L0182 2.2 F0203A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0013 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area II, L1095 1.9 1.8 1.8 F0303A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0014 1 Tell el- Area I, BC/43, 1.8 1.5 1.2 F0341A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L0233, Find (2006: 144)
No. 025
FW-GH0015 1 Tell el- Area III, BF/85, 1.8 1.5–1.2 1.2–0.8 F0432A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L2002, Find (2006: 144)
No. 019
FW-GH0016 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 2.6 1.8 1.3 F0466A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 010 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0017 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 1.8 2.6 1.1 F0467A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 019 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0018 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001 2.0 1.6 1.4 F0468A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0019 1 Tell el- Area I, L0113, 1.7 2.0 0.6 F0469A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 209 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0020 1 Tell el- Area I, BB/43, F0551A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba East section (2006: 144)
FW-GH0021 1 Tell el- Area I, L0266, 1.4 2.1 1.9 F0698A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 072 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0022 1 Tell el- Area I, L0174, 2.11 1.53 1.60 F0736A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 030 (2006: 144)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-GH0023 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 2.12 1.38 1.54 F0737A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 018 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0024 1 Tell el- Area I, Square 1.9 1.7 2 F0740A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L0339, Find (2006: 144)
No. 001
FW-GH0025 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001, 1.86 1.73 1.54 F0746A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 003 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0026 1 Tell el- Area I, L0174, 1.94 1.53 1.64 F0747A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 174 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0027 1 Tell el- Surface 1.84 1.36 1.20 F0750A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0028 1 Tell el- Area I, L0174, 1.29 1.15 1.10 F0757A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 040 (2006: 144)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

FW-GH0029 ? 1 Tell el- Area II, Opera- 1.1 0.4 2.0 F0758A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba tion 38 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0030 1 Tell el- Area I, BB/42, 1.7 1.3 1.42 F0789A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L0040, Find (2006: 144)
No. 044
FW-GH0031 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0371, 1.6 2.05 1.4 F0851A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 087 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0032 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Area I, L0371, 1.7 2.1 1.8 F0853A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 088 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0033 1 Tell el- Area I, L0001 F0859A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0034 1 Tell el- Area I, L0352 F0862A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 144)
FW-GH0035 1 Tell el- Area I, L0266, F0863A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 028 (2006: 144)
FW-GH0036 1 Tell el- Area I, L0349 4.2 2.5 2.5 F0868A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba Find No. 003 (2006: 145)
FW-GH0037 1 Tell el- Area I, L0057 0.4 2.2 0.8 F1007A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
275

13
 Table 3  (continued)
276

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-GH0038 1 Tell el- Area I, L0064 F1008A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GH0039 1 Tell el- Area I, L0008 1.5 1.5 1.4 F1010A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GH0040 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 Tell el- Area I, BC/42, 0.8 2 F1021A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L0001 (2006: 145)
FW-GH0041 1 Tell el- Area I, BC/41, 0.8 3 1.7 F1025A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba L0156 (2006: 145)
FW-GH0042 1 Tell el- Area I, L0060 F1036A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GH0043 1 Tell el- Area I, L0046 F1043A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GH0044 1 Tell el- Area I, L0101 F1044A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GH0045 1 Tell el- Area I, L0171 F1045A TIP-LP Kohen and Cione
Ghaba (2006: 145)
FW-GU0001 PLI2 PLIX1 3 Gurob City. Netting 2.0 1.5 PMEA, UC7938 D. 18th Petrie (1890:34/
needles, reels pl.XVIII.18)
for making
or repairing
nets, a shuttle
and nets were
also found in
the city
FW-GU0003 PLII PLII3 L 3.1 1 Gurob – 1 0.9 PMEA, UC7939 D. 18th -
FW-GU0004 PLI1/ PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Gurob – 7.7 PMEA, UC59081 NK Petrie (1927:49–
PLI3 11)
FW-GU0005 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Gurob – 7.7 PMEA, UC59082 NK Petrie (1927:49–
11)
FW-GU0006 PLI1/ PLIX2 L 2.3 3 Gurob – 7.7 PMEA, UC59083 NK Petrie (1927:49–
PLI3 11)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-GU0007 PLI2 PLIX1 10 Gurob The published 1.3 1 NMI, 1904:613 LP Smith and Quirke:
excava- Global Egyptian
tion report Museum
provides little
information,
but it appears
that they were
found next to
the burial of
a mummified
fish
FW-GU0009 PLIII3 PLIII3 1 Gurob – 1.5 PMEA, UC7937 D. 18th Petrie (1927:49)
FW-GU0010 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Gurob Excavated by 2.4 MM, 511 D. 18th Petrie (1890:pl.
Flinders -19th XVIII.18,) Grif-
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Petrie fith (1910:47)

FW-GU0012 PLI2 PLIX1 53 Gurob Ibid 1.5 MM,1453 D. 18th
FW-GU0013 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Gurob Excavated 2.7 2.4 PR, 1889.27.60 D. 18th Petrie (1890:pl.
by Petrie. XVIII.18)
Donated Octo-
ber 1889
FW-GU0014 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Gurob Ibid 2.2 2.0 PR, 1889.27.61 D. 18th Petrie (1890:pl.
XVIII.18)
277

13
 Table 3  (continued)
278

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-KF0008 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Kom Firin ED 2235. 2.1 1.7 0.3 (strip) F781 LNK -FLP Spencer (2014:44,
Ramesside 58, 458/pl.300)
enclosure,
western part of
the excavated
area. Moder-
ately compact
brown deposit
of silt, brick
fragments
and limestone
chippings.
Artifacts from
these deposits
correlate
well with the
range found in
more secure
contexts:
a ceramic
spindle-whorl
(F771 [pl.
184]).Phase
E-VIII
FW-LIS-N00016 1 Lisht Excavated by 2.8 2.2 MET, 11.151.153 D. 20th Lythgoe
North the Egyptian (1918:287)
Expedition
of the MET
Museum.
Acquired by
the Museum
in the
division of
finds. MMA
excavations,
1910–11
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-LIS-N00017 1 Lisht Ibid 5.2 2 MET, 11.151.152 D. 20th Lythgoe

North (1918:287)
FW-LIS-N00018 1 Lisht Ibid 2.8 2.2 MET, 11.151.155 D. 20th Lythgoe
North (1918:287)
FW-LIS-N00019 1 Lisht Ibid 1.8 1.2 MET, 11.151.157 D. 20th Lythgoe
North (1918:287)
FW-LIS-N00020 1 Lisht Ibid 2.6 2.1 MET, 11.151.154 D. 20th Lythgoe
North (1918:287)
FW-LIS-N00021 1 Lisht Ibid 2.2 1.7 MET, 11.151.157 D. 20th Lythgoe
North (1918:287)
FW-LIS-N00022 1 Lisht Ibid 4 MET, 11.151.150 D. 20th Lythgoe
North (1918:287)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

FW-LIS-N00023 1 Lisht Ibid 3.8 1.7 MET, 11.151.151 D. 20th Lythgoe

North (1918:287)
FW-MY0001 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 6D-4070: Trench MH01-M0072 Antonine L1-2 AD Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos 6D including
3/L 6D and L.
3.1 Deposit-
Domestic
refuse from
nearby struc-
tures
FW-MY0002 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 7A-10015: MH01-M0433 Augustan LBC- Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos Harbour. 1AD +
3/L Secondary
3.1 deposition
of domestic
refuse used in
construction
of amphora
surface
279

13
 Table 3  (continued)
280

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-MY0003 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 7A-10012: MH01-M0463 Augustan LBC- Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos Harbour. 1AD +
3/L Secondary
3.1 deposition
of domestic
refuse used in
construction
of amphora
surface
FW-MY0004 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 10A-3798: MH02-M0090 1AD Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos Southern area
3/L
3.1
FW-MY0005 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 7A-10013: MH01-M0057 BC-E1AD Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos Harbour.
3/L Secondary
3.1 deposition
of domestic
refuse used in
construction
of amphora
surface
FW-MY0006 PLII PLII3 L 3.1 1 Myos Hor- 7A-10003: MH00-M0045 1-M2AD Thomas (2009)
mos Harbour.
Secondary
deposition
of domestic
refuse used in
construction
of amphora
surface
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-MY0007 PLI3 PLII2 L 1.2/L 1 Myos Hor- 7A-10031: MH01-M0302A BC- Thomas (2009:/
2.2 mos Harbour. M1AD Fig. 4.9),
Secondary Thomas:
deposition (2010/147,Fig. 6)
of domestic
refuse used in
construction
of amphora
surface
FW-MY0008 PLII PLII3 L 3.1 1 Myos Hor- 9–7040: South- MH01-M0320 M1AD Thomas (2009)
mos ern area
FW-MY0009 1 Myos Hor- 15–15,017: MH03-M0353 1AD Thomas (2009)
mos Harbour.
Weight?
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

FW-MY0010 PLI PLIX1-2/ L 1 Myos Hor- 12–7374: MH02-M0317 M1-2AD Thomas (2009)
PLII2-3 2.2– mos Harbour.
3/L Weight?
3.1
FW-NAU0001 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis "Ptolemaic 7.9 2.4 1.2 (origi- PMEA, UC54639b LP 425BC- Villing et al.
chamber" next nally < 0.4) 300 (2013–
to the "cache BC 2015:TB.24
of bronzes".b (Phase 3)),
Masson (2015),
Masson-Berg-
hoff (2018:320)
FW-NAU0002 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis ibid 2.6 2.3 0.7 PMEA, UC54639c LP 425BC- Villing et al.
300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.33
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0003 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Naukratis ibid 1.7 1 BM, 2011,5009.25.a LP 425BC- Villing et al.
300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.25
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
281

13
 Table 3  (continued)
282

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-NAU0004 ? 1 Naukratis ibid 1.4 2.8 2.7 WoM, 9.9.86.82 LP 425BC- Villing et al.
300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.26
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0005 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis ibid 4.3 1.4 1.2 BOMAG, LP 425BC- Villing et al.
1886.31.77.a 300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.29
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0006 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis ibid 3.6 1.6 0.3 BOMAG, LP 425BC- Villing et al.
1886.31.77.c 300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.27
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0007 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis ibid 3.6 1.6 0.6 BOMAG, LP 425BC- Villing et al.
1886.31.77.b 300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.28
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0008 1 Naukratis ibid 7.4 3.3 MFA, 86.334 (NO) LP 425BC- Villing et al.
¿86.333? 300 (2013–
BC 2015:TB.30
(Phase 3) and
ibid)
FW-NAU0009 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Naukratis Cemetery, 2.1 1.5 MFA, 88.774/M.1543 PTP/LP 4–3 BC Gardner (1888:26–
Grave C 4?. 8), Villing et al.
Excavated (2013–
1885–1886 2015:TB.32
by Petrie (Phase 3))
for the EEF.
Accession
Date: April 1,
1888
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

FW-NAU0010 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Naukratis ibid 1.7 1.5 MFA, 88.775/M.1544 PTP/LP 4–3 BC Gardner(
1888:26–8), Vil-
ling et al. (2013–
2015:TB.31
(Phase 3))
FW-NAU0011 1 Naukratis Excavated MFA, AE? 4BC-6 Villing et al.
1884–1885 RES.86.38/M.1152 AD (2013–
2015:TB.37)
FW-NAU0012 1 Naukratis 1.3 11 0.6 RPM, 2476 620BC- Villing et al.
630 (2013–
2015:TB.36
(Phase 3))
FW-NAU0023 PLIII4 1 Naukratis Cemetery, Grave MFA, RES.88.38, PTP/LP 4-3BC britishmuseum.
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

C 4? Eg.Inv.1312, org/collection/
M.1542 object/X__717
FW-NAU0024 PLIII1 PLVII2 1 Naukratis 2.7 2.9/0.45 AM, AN1950.373 PTP 3BC-1BC
(?)
FW-RE0005 PLI2 PLIX1 3 Tell el- – * - – Petrie (1906:33:pl.
Retaba XXXVB)
FW-RE0012 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Área 2, 1.4 0.9 1.6 Inventory nº: S141 D. 21st— Rzepka
Retaba domestic.c 22nd (2009:258–260,
266/Fig. 28)
FW-RE0039 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tell el- Fortified town S1424 D. 20th Rzepka (2014:81–
Retaba of Ramesses 82, 84–86/
III (area 9). Fig. 77)
large building
[834/838].
Second occu-
pation phase
(later occupa-
tion phase
(Fig. 73):
Halieutic
context.d
283

13
 Table 3  (continued)
284

Cat no Type Bernal, Galili Qty Site Context L W H D W LOC/REG Rel. chron Abs. Bibliography
2010 et al., chron
2002

13
FW-TI0035 PLI1 PLIX2 L 2.3 1 Tihna el- South Area 1.1 2.0 TIP Tsujimura
Gebel (2012:15–17/
Table3-
Fig. 4.20)
FW-TI0036 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tihna el- ibid 1.7 2.0 TIP Tsujimura
Gebel (2012:15–17/
Table3-
Fig. 4.21)
FW-TI0037 PLI2 PLIX1 1 Tihna el- ibid 2.1 1.8 TIP Tsujimura
Gebel (2012:15–17/
Table3-
Fig. 4.22)
FW-TI0038 PLI3 PLII2 L 2.2 1 Tihna el- ibid 3.6 1.3 TIP Tsujimura
Gebel (2012:15–17/
Table3-
Fig. 4.23)
FW-UNKN0010 PLI2 PLIX1 2 ÄMP LP Bates (1917:259/
pl.XVII.160,
Wilkinson
1898:292–293/
Fig. 101)

In this table:
D Dynasty

AE Archaich Egypt
OK Old Kingdom
NK New Kingdom
LNK Late New Kingdom
TIP Third Intermediate Period
LP Late Period
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 3  (continued)
In this table:
D Dynasty

FLP Final Late Period

SP Saite Period
PTP Ptolemaic Period
RP Roman Period
Museum Location

Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung ÄMP Berlin, Germany

Ashmolean Museum AM Oxford, England
Bolton Museum and Art Gallery BOMAG Bolton, England
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Bristol Museum & Art Gallery BrM Bristol, England

British Museum BM London, England
Carnegie Museum CM Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Manchester Museum MM Manchester, England
Metropolitan Museum of Art MET New York, USA
Museum of Fine Arts MFA Boston, Massachusetts, USA
National Museum of Ireland NMI Dublin, Ireland
Oriental Institute Museum OIM Chicago, USA
Pasadena Art Institute/Pasadena M. of Modern Art / Norton Simon M. (deacces- PA Pasadena, Los Ángeles, USA
sioned)
Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology PMEA London, England
Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology HMA University of California, Berkeley, USA
Pitt Rivers Museum PR Oxford, England
Redpath Museum—McGill University RPM Montreal, Quebec, Canada
World Museum WoM Liverpool, England
285

13
 Table 3  (continued)
286

We have included in this table the data we consider most relevant for the purposes of this article. All measurements, context and chronologies are those provided by museums
or publications. We have tried to unify measurement criteria

13
*See scale in the bibliographic reference
a
“Almost all of [the 15 lead net weights from Tell el-Dab’a] have a very similar size between 1–2.5 cm height and 1–1.7 cm width. The weight in corroded condition usually
varies between 5 and 10 g." (Lehman 2018)
b
A number of fragments of net weights likely to have come from this deposit are known (Liverpool, World Museum 9,9,86,82; British Museum GR 2011,5009.25.a; Bolton
Museum 1886.31.77.a; 1886.31.77.b; 1886.31.77.c, possibly also Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 86.334; Petrie Museum UC54639b; UC54639c). There are also parallels
from other areas of Naukratis (Boston 88.775; 88.774), that do not have to have been made at the same time as this artifact was commonly made for a long period (Thomas
2010, 2011; Copeland 2011). “Two or three iron fish hooks in good state were found in one Ptolemaic chamber, when we were digging for bronzes; these explain a lot of lead
pieces [sketch of folded lead net weight] which are therefore probably net sinkers… In the Ptolemaic house by the bronze find we get a quantity of iron fish hooks, 13 perfect,
17 slightly broken, and many pieces beside three bronze ones. These show that the canal here must have been more important, and that they caught big fish”. This location is
described as “a chamber at the south end of the town, probably of the beginning of the Ptolemaic period” (Petrie 1888:39 and marked “Ptolemaic building” on pl.XLI, Petrie
MSS 1.4.151-200, Petrie Journal 1884-1885:165, 174)
c
Petrie found similar objects in Tell el-Retaba, identifying them as net sinkers, but giving no details of the context and making no attempt to date them. Also worth mention-
ing are faience amulets in the form of Bes (S120) and a seated goddess (S6081), a large number of faience beads, a fragment of a scaraboid (S123), fragments of faience rings
(S63, S139), and numerous pieces of worked stone
d
Fishbones were quite common in some of the floor layers and a range of small finds also testifies to the importance of fishing. Two corroded metal fishing hooks (Fig. 76)
were found in room VI.4 [1030], along with a lead net sinker, apparently also linked to fishing (Fig. 77). Beads of different raw materials were also found. It is noteworthy
that a set of small snail shells was found together with the beads; some but not all of these shells had threading holes. The owners of these items, who left them in room VI.4,
appear to have angled (using fishing hooks), fished (using fishnets with lead net sinkers) and collected shells to be used for personal adornment among others. Coming from
the same place was an earplug (Fig. 80) of a kind that became a fairly common form of personal adornment at the beginning of the New Kingdom. The Tell el-Retaba exam-
ple is made of rather cheap material (limestone) and lacks any ornamentation (Rzepka 2014:81–82, 84–86/Fig. 76, 77, 80)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 287

The cast nets found in Egypt with the weights still attached to them allow us to ascer-
tain that at least one of the lead types was used to weigh these nets. Lead is attested
in Egypt from the Naqada IIC (3450-3350BC)/EB IA cultural period with Ashmolean
Museum statuette no. 1895.137 (Dee et al. 2013; Hendrickx 2006: 92 and tab, II 1.8). It
has the advantage of its weight and resistance to corrosion in contact with water, mak-
ing it the perfect material for fishing. In Egypt, we found several lead objects that we
have identified, and others before us (Thomas 2009), as possible net weights, based on
their archaeological context or, failing that, based on morphological criteria. For the
study of the net weights, we have created a system (Fig. 11, and Table 2) that follows
Bernal’s proposal (2010: 104–117/Fig.1) but adapted to our inventory (Table 3). The
typology ranges from weights with longitudinal (PLIII1-3) or transversal (PLIII4) per-
foration to those made from a sheet of bent or folded (PLI1-3) or rolled (PLII) lead and
the ring-shaped ones (PLIV). We have added the tubular type (PLV), following Ber-
nal (2010: 116/Fig. 19d), to encompass objects such as the one excavated in 1921 at
Amarna (inv. no. N49.13, Area 14; Peet 1923: 21/pl.XIII-4) morphologically similar to
common finds at fishing grounds, such as in Villaricos, Spain. Type PLI2 is the most
frequent in the archaeological record, and concentrations between 10 (FW-GU0007) to
53 (FW-GU0012, without context) weights point to its use in cast nets.
Three weights (PLI3) from tomb 798 of Shunet el Zebib at Abydos could confirm the
use of cast nets at least from the 12th Dynasty (1939 + 16–1760 BC). In the New King-
dom (18th Dynasty), the earliest lead weights (PLI2) have been documented, attached
to cast nets, although they lack halieutic context. There are 12 lead weights of the type
PLI3, dated to the 18th Dynasty and excavated in the grave D119 of cemetery D, that,
given their measurements, could have belonged to the same net. This assemblage did not
contain any other fishing tackle. Four lead weights (PLI3) from an unknown site at Aby-
dos are in the Manchester Museum (1201.a-d) and another one in the Oriental Institute
Museum (E5941/Acc.56). A type PLI2 weight comes from Cemetery 1-200, Tomb 174
at Deir el Ballas. Of great interest is the amount of halieutic material from Gurob and
Lisht during the New Kingdom between the 18th and 20th Dynasties (ca. 1539–1077),
comprising lead weights of type PLII with a predominance of types PLI1 and PLI2.
Even so, most of them are found in a secondary position, scattered, with associated
materials nearby and without a clear and defined archaeological context, especially in
the case of Lisht (Soria-Trastoy 2020). The weights recovered from the Amarna sites
are of a wider typological range (PLI1, PLI1 or PLI3, PLIII1, PLIII2). They belong to
the significant assemblage of fishing tackle found mainly in the Northern Suburb, which
has led scholars to consider this settlement as a neighborhood inhabited by professional
fishermen (Pendlebury 1931: 234). Shaw (1995: 223–238; 2004: 12–24) agrees with the
quantitative significance of these finds and considers fishing in this sector to be a useful
activity, albeit secondary. For him, there is not enough material to support Pendlebury’s
conclusion.
In the 2­ 0th dynasty, the discovery of a lead weight in the second phase of occupation
of the great building of the fortified city of Ramses III at Tell el-Retaba (1190–1077 BC)
points to its use in fishing activities. Materials and faunal remains from this phase show
the importance of fishing at a bromatological level and as a source of raw material for
the manufacture of ornamental objects. From the Third Intermediate Period (ca. 1076–723
BC) in the south area of Tihna el-Gebel, we have documented at least four lead weights
(PLI1, PLI2 and PLI3) associated with fishing activity. This area has also yielded a sig-
nificant number of pottery weights. Sumiyo Tsujimura (2012: 16/Fig. 4.16–19) considers
the square-shaped Type C weights in his classification suitable for both seine and cast net.

13
288 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 12  Lead net weights from the Western area and the Eastern Mediterranean a Fish salting factory P-19,
Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz, Spain (Gutiérrez 2000: 25, Photo: Bernal 2010:Fig. 2A) b Traducta (Bernal
Casasola 2009:Fig. 11b) c Castrum Perti (De Vingo and Fossati 2001:Fig. 95,16) d Carmel Coast, Israel
(Galili et al. 2002:Fig. 5a-b) e Governor’s Tomb at Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie 1933:pl.IX-35) f Decoration on
folded weights (Galili et al. 2002:Fig. 9)

Ten lead weights (PLI2) come from a Late Period mummified fish burial. In Tell el-Ghaba,
thirty-eight lead weights were recovered from the domestic Area I from the topsoil, refill-
ing levels, and mostly from conflagration stratum L0001 (Level VI), except for two from
Area II and one from Area III. We could only see images of 12 weights and classified them
as PLI1 and PLI2. The catalog describes two other weights which fit with our PLIV type.
Ichthyological remains and fishing tackle appear in all occupational levels with greater or
lesser frequency. The finds date from the Third Intermediate Period (ca. 1076–723) to the
26th Dynasty (664–525 BC) of the Late Period (Lupo 2015: 7–9; Fuscaldo 2005; Kohen
et al. 2006: 140–141, 144–145).
As we shall see below, documentary sources confirm the use of the cast net in Egypt
with absolute certainty in the third century BC. Consequently, weights of type PLI1 and
PLI2 dated between the third and fourth century BC and those of the Late Period would
evidence the use of cast nets as a fish catching method.
At least 14 lead weights, predominantly of the PLI and PL2 types probably dating to the
Late Period or Early Ptolemaic Period (Villing et al. 2013–2015; Masson-Berghoff et al.
2018: 320), come from Naukratis. Several of them are decontextualized, and undated, oth-
ers were excavated and found together with many bronze hooks in the so-called Ptolemaic
chamber, next to the “cache of bronzes” located at the southern end of the city, and some
others probably found in the cemetery area, Grave C 4. A fragment of a fishing net (Bates
1917: 259 and pl. XVII, 160; Wilkinson 1878: 292–293/Fig. 101) with lead weights (PLI2)
attached to its edge may also date to the Late Period.
Between the Late and Greco-Roman periods, the cases of Berenike and Myos Hormos
in the Red Sea and Tell el-Dab’a in the Nile Delta are paradigmatic, more for their secure
halieutic contexts than for the amount of material provided. All the lead weights recorded
from Tell el-Dab’a are of the PLI1 and PLI2 types, while at Myos Hormos, the PLI type
seems to be the most common. In the early period of occupation at Abu Sha’ar, dating to
the late Roman phase (early fourth to late fourth century), there is only one lead weight
recovered (Wendrich and Van Neer 1994: 184).
Outside Egypt, parallels in broad chronological and geographical contexts appear
(Fig. 12). In the western area, weights have been well attested since the Punic period
(fourth century BC) (Fig. 12a) in the fish salting factories of the Bay of Cádiz. They are
the most common items of fishing equipment and account for more than 60% of the fishing
weights from Baelo Claudia. Rolled plate weights were the most common type in Spain,
although square and cylindrical ones are also in evidence (Bernal 2010: 104–105, 113–114;
Bernal Casasola 2009: 200–201/Fig. 11 b; Bernal et al. 2019: 489–491/Fig. 1–5). Another

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 289

rolled plate comes from Castrum Perti, S. Antonino di Perti, Finale Ligure, Savona, dated
to the sixth-seventh centuries AD. (De Vingo and Fossati 2001: 659/Fig. 95,16).
In the eastern Mediterranean, the predominant type is a rectangular, folded one. The
case of the Late Bronze Age Uluburun wreck off the southern coast of Turkey near Kaş is
significant for two reasons: first, because the number of lead weights associated with fish-
ing activity, and second, because its last navigation has been dated, using a combination
of 14C and dendrochronology, to ca. 1320 ± 15 BC (Manning et al. 2009), a date that
overlaps with the last years of Amarna or the immediate post-Amarna period (Manning
et al. 2013, 2020). One hundred and seven lead strip fishing net weights or sinkers were
recovered from the Uluburun. All strips are folded and crimped, with crimping impres-
sions. They were in three clusters: 35 came from the L-11 area, 21 from the M-10 area and
21 more inside the pithos KW 250. This dispersion suggests they belong to three different
nets ruling out spares or trade items. Most of the remaining pieces were downslope from
the first two concentrations (Pulak 1988).
In Israel, fishing weights have regularly come from coastal settlements, graves, har-
bors and shipwrecks. Lead is the most commonly employed metal from at least the twen-
tieth century BC. Ehud Galili (2013: 152/Fig. 6) has developed a classification accord-
ing to their raw material, shape, and manufacturing technique. He states that all classified
weights, even the numerous decorated rectangular, folded ones, allow the identification
of cast nets. In addition to the fishing weights, lead sheets and casting moulds have been
found at Kastra and Shiqmona next to the Carmel coast site near Jaffa, also in the Sea of
Galilee, and in the wreck of Yassi Ada, Turkey, the latter dating to Late Antiquity (Galili
et al. 2013: 151). At Tel Michal, a stone mould shows engraved decoration on its sides,
comprising one or more fish images and an anchor (Szulc-Kajak 2013: 336/Fig. 1). As for
the Yassi Ada wreck, Peter Ian Kuniholm (1982: 306–307) proposes that the rolled lead
weights would have pertained to cast nets. Lead line weights and 18 longitudinally folded
lead net weights were found clustered in Area P of the Bronze Age Cape Gelidonya ship-
wreck, Turkey. According to George F Bass (1967: 131–132/Fig. 139.L1), "the occurrence
of such weights, which are exactly like those used by modern fishermen in Greece, among
the personal objects on a Byzantine shipwreck indicates that they were not necessarily part
of the cargo", like those from Uluburun.
As in Egypt, clusters of weights appeared in burials (Petrie 1933; Sparks 2013). The
so-called "Governor’s Tomb" at Tell el-‘Ajjul in the Gaza Strip, dated to LB II (Gonen
1992: 82), yielded numerous lead net weights, “usual Egyptian, Dyn. xviii; 34 were at the
top of the wall, 17 at 10 down, 46 at 34 down, 134 more at 34, 17 at 36 inches down”. The
weights were grouped roughly in multiples of 17, so Petrie (1933: 6 and pl. IX.35) con-
cluded that 17 or 18 lead weights would be usual for weighting a “light net” cast by hand.
To give the last reference, the ancient settlement of Jiyeh (Porphyreon), located on the
Phoenician coast north of ancient Sidon in Lebanon, has provided enough of these materi-
als to show that fishing played the role of “considerable importance” in the economy of the
Hellenistic, Roman, and early Byzantine periods at this site. Among the fishing tackle were
“several dozens” of metal fishing weights. Most of them are made of lead, while the rectan-
gular folded ones cast in stone moulds stand out in number. An opening diameter of about
1 mm, indicates a possible use with cast nets, as Galili (2013: 153) stated on the coast of
Israel. Most of the lead weights come from secondary deposits formed during removals in
previous excavations. For these reasons, it is difficult to infer any similar conclusions about
fishing for periods other than those mentioned above (Gwiazda 2014: 37; Szulc-Kajak
2013: 334–338 and Table 1, Fig. 2).

13
290 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

The Archaeological Ichthyofauna

Archaeoichthyological studies increase our knowledge of techniques, tackle, and fish catch-
ing methods used in antiquity. Taxonomic identification and quantification using osteo-
morphological-osteometric comparison methods and biomolecular techniques provide key
data, such as age, size, biology, or life cycle of the fish, for characterizing in order to deter-
mine the proper fishing gear to catch a given fish. At the same time, several problems arise
in identifying the fishing gear that could have produced a given fish assemblage in archaeo-
logical contexts, such as those outlined in general terms by Morales Muñiz (2010), Luff
and Bailey (2000b) in Egypt or Potts (2012: 221–223) in the Ancient Near East.
These approaches are relatively recent in Egyptian archaeology. Van Neer is a pioneer
in determining capture methods, reconstructing habitats, and suggests associated fishing
tackle. He proposes that the Epipalaeolithic Period of the Nile Valley witnessed a phase of
technological innovation in fishing gear, which allowed the exploitation of the floodplain
and deep, open waters of the main Nile channel. Fishing must have taken place outside the
flood season, probably when the level of the main Nile was relatively low. The change in
the composition of the ichthyofauna was dramatic. Floodplain species typical of shallow
water (mostly Clariidae, Tilapiini and Cyprinids) were still present, but open water taxa
(mostly large Lates Niloticus, Synodontis and Bagrus spp.) significantly increased. The
cause was probably the use of fishing nets. Among those nets could be the cast nets, found
to be very effective in residual pools (Van Neer 1994: 23/Fig. 2; Van Neer 2004). The same
occurred in the eastern Mediterranean in inland and marine fisheries (Van Neer et al. 2005:
139, 146).
There are ichthyoarchaeological assemblages from the Epipalaeolithic Period in el-
Fayum at Site FS2 with a predominance of Tetraodon Lineatus (Wenke et al. 1988: 42
and Table 1), at Site 2 dominated by Clariidae (Brewer 1989: 69), and at E29H1 with a
predominance of Clariidae, Tilapiini, and Lates Niloticus (Holdaway and Wendrich 2017:
74–79). At Elkab, Clariidae is prominent (Greenwood 1978: 104) like in Sais Phase I (Lin-
seele 2014: 141–144; Wilson 2014: 299–304), although the latter comprises up to Late
Neolithic. Table 4 shows the composition of the assemblages, data on the environment,
and biology of these species (Nelson et al. 2016; Froese and Pauly 2021). We also rely on
the list of the main habitats of the African River plain systems for fish species (Welcomme
1979: 92–94, Tab. 3.1; Welcomme et al. 1988: 255/Tab. 1).

Cast Nets in Classical Literature

Most scholars agree that ἀμφίβληστρον (amphíblêstron) describes a cast net. The very ety-
mology of the term fits perfectly with the evolution of the net and the principal technique
for fishing with it.
Among the classical literature relating to Egypt are the Histories of Herodotus (fifth
century BC). His account about the customs and practices of the Egyptians (Herodo-
tus II.35–98) tells that the inhabitants of the marshlands commonly used the cast nets
(ἀμφίβληστρον) for fishing by day and protection from gnats at night: “Those living about
the marshes have a different device, instead of the towers. Every man of them has a net,
with which he catches fish by day, and for the night he sets it round the bed where he rests,
then creeps under it and so sleeps. If he sleep wrapped in a garment or cloth, the gnats bite
through it; but through the net they do not even try at all to bite” (Herodotus 2.95). Whether

13
 Table 4  Fish remains from Epipaleolithic archaeological sites in Egypt with data concerning the environment and biology of the species composition
Fish remains Open water Floodplain/shal- Migration Site
low water
PEL BEN-PEL DEM School/shoal FS2 S2 E29H1 EK SPI

Alestes sp/spp. X X P X X
Alestes/Brycinus X X P X X
Bagrus sp./spp. X X S P X X X
Barbus spp. X X P X
Cyprinidae X X P X X
Clariidae X X X P X X X
Clarias spp. X X X P X X X
Clarias gariepinus X X P X
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Chrysichthys auratus X X P X
Hydrocynus sp/spp. X X S/F P X X X
Hyperopisus sp/spp. X P X
Lates Niloticus X (A) X (J); S/F P X X X X X
Mormyridae X P X X
Mugilidae X C X X
Polypterus sp/spp. X X P X
Schilbe sp/spp. X P X X
Synodontis sp./spp. X SM P X X X X
Synodontis schall X SM P X X
Tetraodon Lineatus X P X X X X
Tilapia spp. X X P X X
Tilapiini X X P X X X X

A = Adults; BEN-PEL = Benthopelagic; C = Catadromous; DEM = Demersal; J = Juveniles; P = Potamodromous; PEL = Pelagic; S = Spawning; SM = Small; S/F = Spawning
and Feeding
291

13
292 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

or not Herodotus traveled to Egypt (Armayor 1978; Moyer 2002), this account still allows
deducing that cast nets, at least at that time and in marshes, must not have been expen-
sive fishing gear to manufacture or maintain. On the other hand, the reference to covering
the bodies of Egyptians would imply that these cast nets should be at least 1.54–1.70 m
in diameter, considering the suggested stature of the inhabitants of Egypt in a time span-
ning from the early Predynastic period to the end of the Amarna period (ca. 5000–1332
BC), considering adults of both genders and diverse socio-economic backgrounds (Zakrze-
wski 2003, 2006; Kemp et al. 2013). We do not exclude height data for women, as there
is some evidence of women fishermen throughout Egyptian history: There is one fishing
scene of women fishermen known to be depicted in the Tomb of Ukhhotep, son of Iam, at
Meir (Blackman and Apted 1953: 24/pl.XI), dated to the 12th Dynasty (Darlow 2018: 104/
Tab3.1). Moreover, the P. Sorb. inv. 331 (c. 232 BC) registered that the group of fishermen
of one unnamed Fayum village was composed of a ratio of five or six women to one or
two males among surviving names (Clarysse et al. 2006: 1: 147–227/Tab.1; 2:202). On the
other hand, being the cast net effective against mosquitoes, one might think that the mesh
opening would be slightly smaller.
The effectiveness of the cast net, now outside Egypt, is highlighted in Herodotus:
"he took a net and gathered in and drew out a great multitude of the fishes" (Herodotus
1.149–150) but only naming ἰχθύων (fish), without identifying species.
The term βόλος designates a small cast net. Herodotus uses βόλος for cast net and
δίκτῠον as generic for fishing net in one verse on tunny-fish fishing:
" Now hath the cast (βόλος) been thrown and the net (δίκτῠον) of
the fisher is outspread:
All in the moonlight clear shall the tunny-fish
come for the taking." (1,62)
Hesiod pointed to fishing with a cast net from the shore: "And on the shore sat a fisher-
man watching: in his hands he held a casting net for fish (ἰχθυάω ἀμφίβληστρον), and
seemed as if about to cast it forth (ἀπορρίψοντι ἐοικώς)" (Scutum 1214–215).
Arrian narrated (second century BC) the voyage of Nearco with the fleet of Alexander,
in 325 BC, along the coast of Makran, the land of the fish-eaters (ἰχθυοφάγοι) and the
location of Myos Hormos. According to Nearco, “when the sea recedes and exposes the
shore, the areas of shore left dry usually have no fish on them, but where there are hol-
lows some water remains with a great number of fish in it, mostly small, but some larger
fish too. They catch these by throwing their nets (δίκτυον) over them" (Ind, 29.11). The
description of the action implies that they fished with cast nets.
In the third book of the Halieutica, composed around 177–180 AD, Oppian gives a list
of different types of nets, among which is the amphíblêstron (ἀμφίβληστρον) (Opp. H.
3.80). In all cases, this net is cast from the shore or inside the shallow water, without men-
tioning a boat (Oppian 1928: xl–xlii; Bekker-Nielsen 2002: 216, 2005: 91). The sphairôn
(σφαιρών), a term referring to something round, spherical or globular, is mentioned by
Oppian (Opp. H. 3.83) together with the péza (πέζα). The latter is another type of fishing
net defined as "round fishing net" or δίκτυα στρογγύλα (LSJ, Oppian 1928: xlv) and has
been translated by Mair (Oppian 1928: 353) as "ball-net", within the category of "small
nets". Thomas (2010: 148 and Table 1, Fig. 7), following Bekker-Nielsen, refers to it as
"putative creel" or creel. For Alfaro Giner (2010: 60), amphíblêstron would mean a general
category of cast nets and sphairôn would refer to the hand-thrown cast net. Using Mair’s
translation, Bekker-Nielsen (2002: 216, 2005: 91) wonders whether the net was "spherical
when set in the water, when it was rolled up or was it suspended in the water from spheri-
cal floats" and finally describes it as "a spherical creel or trap made of flax mesh stretched

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 293

over a cane". The term péza is defined in the LSJ as "bottom" and possesses meanings such
as "edge (of the sea, strand, bank, coastline), border of a garment", and "round fishing net"
by Oppian. Mair (Oppian 1928: 353) translates this term as "ground-net". Bekker-Nielsen
classifies it as a "stationary net", i.e. a fishing net anchored to the bottom, which must have
been a type of passive gear like the sphairôn. According to this author, that would be the
reason why Oppian mentions the two nets together. The fact is that passive fishing gear is
not always stationary gear (Gabriel 2005: 5), and active gears can be used either as station-
ary or semi-stationary ones (Gabriel 2005: 324–325). In our opinion, considering the eth-
nographic section, it is probably that sphairôn and péza could refer to different fish catch-
ing techniques involving cast nets. The farrat, the gabas in Loat’s Egypt and the fishing
techniques described by Du Monceau and Sáñez Reguart implies there are different names
for the same fishing net.
On other occasions, the literature does not expressly mention the term ἀμφίβληστρον
but describes the morphology of the fishing net. That occurred in one of the dedicatory
epigrams ascribed to Julianus, prefect of Egypt, in The Greek Anthology (6, 28), in which
Baeto the fisherman, "having reached trembling old age", offers Hermes "his encompass-
ing circular net weighted with lead (λίνοιο περίπλεα κύκλα μολύβδῳ)" among other fish-
ing tackle. Here the term λίνον, which means anything made of flax, is used. Usually,
λίνον refers to nets in general and fishing lines in particular. In another epigram ascribed to
Macedonius the Consul (6.30), the old Amyntichus "bound his lead-weighted net (δίκτυον
ἀκρομόλιβδον) round his fishing spear (τριαίνῃ)". With a meaning of "net", δίκτυον can
refer to a fishing net or a hunting net. Beyond terminological questions, the offering of the
fisherman in this epigram sheds light on the functionality of the cast net deposited in the
chapel of Hathor in the Temple of Mentuhotep II in Egypt since Baetus, who has reached
old age, offers the fishing net that had served him to provide for his subsistence. Epigram
6.23 is even better in this respect since the offering consists of a "great seine worn by the
sea and scraped often by the rough beach". In the same context, epigram 6.4 says "Dio-
phantus the fisherman, as is fit, dedicates to the patron of his craft these relics of his old
calling". Among the epigrams, there are at least 33 featuring fishermen. Offerings of a fish-
ing nature in cultic spaces are well known in Antiquity, and their origins can be traced back
to Recent Prehistory, with fishing materials being used and others made ex professo for sale
and to serve as votive offerings (Vargas Girón, 2020).
Virgil in the Georgicon (1.141) uses the Latin term funda to refer to the cast net, while
Ovid uses iaculum in his Ars Amatoria (1.763). Both terms are interchangeable and are
widely attested.
As for the fisheries associated with the cast net, the Onomasticon (ca. 170 AD)
by Julius Pollux, a Greek scholar and lexicographer from Naukratis in Egypt, lists
ἀμφιβληστρευτική (7.139, 8–9) and ἀμφιβληστροειδής (αμφιβληστροειδει, 2.71, 3).

Written Sources in Egypt and Beyond

The mythical-religious corpora of ancient Egypt do not seem to contain references to the
cast nets. In these texts, the concepts of catching birds and fishing blurs the definitions of
the fowling clap-net and the fishing net, as we can observe in the iconography of the tem-
ples of Esna (Roman Emperor Commodus: 180–192 AD) and Edfu (Ptolemy IX: 116–107
BC, Ptolemy X: 107–88 BC). The “Formula for the net-iAd.t or net-jssy.t” in the Coffin
Texts (CT VI 3a) and the terms jnn.t (CT VI 4f) and HAm.t (CT IV 354a) describe authentic

13
294 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

seine nets (ca. 2025–1700 BC). They also expressly mention some of the parts of these
seine nets, such as their upper floats (DbA.w) that are in heaven and their lower weights
(Dns.w) at earth (CT VI 10c; Bidoli 1976: 54, 83–84; Carrier 2004: 854–855, 1142–1172;
Meeks 1978: 36, Nr. 78.0373; Hannig 2000: 899, Wb 3: 32.4, Wb 5: 469.10, 555.1–3).
Another seine net illustrates Chapter 153B of the “Going out in Daylight” manuscripts, for
example, in the mid-to-late 18th Dynasty Neferwebenef papyrus (Louvre N3092, Quirke
2013: 381–382).
Similarly, from literary compositions such as “The Pleasures of Fishing and Fowling”
dated to the late 12th Dynasty (Caminos 1956), the “Hymn in Praise of King Amenemhat
II” preserved on a late 18th Dynasty papyrus (Caminos 1956) and the 12th Dynasty papy-
rus conserved in the British Museum with number EA10274 and known as “The Discourse
of the Fowler” (Parkinson 2004), we cannot determine the use of the cast net for either fish-
ing or for catching birds.
Documentary sources have confirmed the presence of cast nets in Egypt with absolute
certainty since the third century BC. A papyrus (Fournet 2015) belonging to the archive
of Zenon (third century BC) from el-Fayum contains a letter-petition in which Psenobastis
requested Zeno to intercede with the basilicogrammateus Pauês so that he does not oppose
what he is doing with the cast net fishermen (ἀμφιβολεῖς):
5. μον αὐτὸν ἀξιῶμεν. Γίνωσκε δὲ
ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς ἀμφιβολεῖς {ἡμᾶς}
ἐγλαμβάνοντας τοὺς ἀπὸ χερὸς
ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἵνα μηθεὶς
ἕτερος ἐπιπορεύηται ἐπὶ τὰς
10. νήσους. Γράψον δὲ οὖν Παυῆι ἵνα μὴ
ἀντικόπτηι ἡμῖν.
“Sache que nous et les pêcheurs à l’épervier (ἀμφιβολεῖς) nous sommes en train de
louer les services (?) (ἐκλαμβάνειν) de ceux qui pêchent à la force des bras (?) (ἀπὸ χερός
ἀμφιβάλλοντας) afin que personne d’autre ne pénètre sur-les îles (ἀντικόπτηι). Écris donc
à Pauês de ne pas nous faire obstacle” (Fournet 2013, 2015: 87–88).
Fournet uses this article to "familiarise himself with the various fishing techniques
practised in Ptolemaic Egypt", limiting himself to "la pêche à l’hameçon (ἀγκιστρεία
ou ἄγκιστρον), à la seine (σαγήνη) ou à l’épervier (ἀμφίβληστρον), selon lesquelles
s’organisaient les pêcheurs" (Fournet 2013: 60–61). As for ἀμφιβολεῖς, Fournet (2015:
88–91) there is no doubt it describes cast net fishermen since, during these dates, fishermen
could be divided into the same three categories as in the Roman Period according to the
fishing gear operated, as we shall see in PSI VIII 901 II,13–14. As this author points out,
the term is hardly present in the papyri.7
The problem arises for Fournet in interpreting ἀπὸ χερός ἀμφιβάλλοντας. The latter
has the same root as ἀμφιβολεῖς and has an added complement (ἀπὸ χερός) which delim-
its its meaning and gives, in principle, the implication of another category of fishermen.
He points out possible parallelism with the expression ἁλιεῖς ἀπὸ ποδός, which appears
in several documents from el-Fayum8 (Fournet 2015: 87–88), pointing to the "fishermen

7
A search in the papyri.info database yields only the following results: PSI VIII 901, 13 (ἀμφιβολέουσι);
22 (ἀμφιβολέουσι); P.Corn. 46, 6 (ἀμφιβολεῖς); 7–8 (συναμφ[ιβολ- ῶ[ν]); P.Thmouis 1.115,22
(ἀμφιβολέ̣α̣ς); 116,3 (ἀμφιβολ(έων)); P. Sijp. 30, 40 (ἀμφιβολέ̣ω̣ν̣).
8
From Soknopaiou Nêsos: P. Louvre I.36,4 (190 AD); bgu.1.221, 5 (200 AD). Probably from Gynaikon
Nesos? (located near Soknopaiou Nêsos): bgu.1.220 (203 AD).

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 295

on foot" who fish along the banks or the canals of the Lake, as opposed to those who fish
in boats, or on flooded land where the water level allows for movement on foot. This paral-
lelism does not shed light on "what particular technique could denote ἀπὸ χειρός". The
analogy with the expression ἀπὸ χειρὸς εἰς χεῖρας ("from hand to hand"), sometimes
abbreviated to ἀπὸ χειρός, translates in the papyri to "manually", which could mean the
use of another fishing gear. But, since ἀμφιβολεῖς implies fishing with a net, Fournet finds
only two possible explanations: First, that ἀμφιβάλλοντας designates a subcategory of
cast net fishermen, but Fournet dismisses this possibility. Second, that ἀμφιβάλλοντας is
a general term for net fishermen. In the latter case, the fishermen would pull the nets with
the strength of their arms from the islands, and no one other than them had the right to
enter the islands. Extending the meaning of ἀμφιβάλλω and assimilating ἀπὸ χε(ι)ρός to
ἀπόχειρος, he raises the possibility that they were "occasional" or "wild" fishermen, i.e.
not officially registered in the corporation of the ἀμφιβολεῖς authorized to fish, although
he considers this unlikely. The last hypothesis put forward by Fournet is to see in ἀπὸ χε(ι)
ρός a synonym for ἐκ χειρός ("at hand, underhand, at disposal"), which would imply trans-
lating the expression as "cast net fishermen available,” but is not found in any papyrus. He
further notes that the silty nature of the mounds created by the floods of the Nile must have
attracted fish and made them privileged fishing grounds (Fournet 2015: 84–85). The peti-
tion evidences the control of the fishing grounds by the state.
To shed light on the ἀπὸ χερός ἀμφιβάλλοντας, we must bring up fishing with gabas,
that is, trawling with cast nets, as we explained in the ethnographic section. A third tech-
nique for operating with cast nets was occasionally used in the late nineteenth century
Upper Egypt and mid-eighteenth century France. These cast nets were larger and heavier
than those thrown by hand, so the force to be applied would be considerable. The gabas
were operated in shallow waters simultaneously from the shore and boat or on both banks
of narrow canals and rivers. Figure 5d shows a fishing ground that would not be so dif-
ferent from the islands formed by the Nile floods. It has also been pointed out that fish-
ing with cast nets in the residual pools is very effective. It is possible, therefore, that ἀπὸ
χερός ἀμφιβάλλοντας designates a subcategory of cast net fishermen, as Fournet pointed
out, although without identifying the technique. In this case, Psenobastis could be using the
services of trawling cast net fishermen who operated from the islands formed by the flood,
probably at a time of maximum abundance of fish to catch. The efficiency of these trawling
cast nets would be sufficient to meet the need of the moment; they could use beach seine
nets in shallow waters, but the area is limited, and any other fishermen in the same place
(e.g. those using seine nets) would hinder the proper development of trawling with cast
nets.
Another papyrus evidences the cast net fishermen. The statement contained in the so-
called Oath of Fishermen from the papyrus PSI VIII 901, dated 17 Apr 46 AD and origi-
nating from Tebtynis at el-Fayum, differentiates three groups of fourteen elder fishermen
who are part of a professional association:
"…that we have never been aware of, nor will ever be aware of fishing (ἁ[λ]ιέ̣ουσι) or
using a seine net (σαγηνηνευ̣ισι) or using a cast net (ἀμφιβολέουσι) to catch the images of
the gods, the Oxyrhynchus fish or the Lepidotos fish…" (PSI VIII 901 II, 13–14).
Probably, ἁλιεύς, a term that does not identify the method of fishing, in this case, refers
to fisherman with hook and line (Fournet 2015: 89), although some authors raise doubts
about this identification (Henne 1951, Kloppenborg 2020: 267, Chouliara-Raïos 2001).
What is of interest to this article is that, in the Roman period, fishermen were divided into
categories, including the "cast net fisherman".

13
296 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 13  a Tomb of Sobeknakht, Elkab (Bates 1917:pl.VIII-Fig. 67) b Tomb of Ti (Épron and Daumas
1939:pl.IX) Net-making and mending nets depicted in a triangular shape: c Tomb of Hetepherakhti, (Mohr
1943:Fig. 31) d Tomb of Seshemnefer Ifi (Barsanti 1900:Fig. 9) e Tomb of Paheri (Tylor et al. 1894:pl.IV)
f Ostracon from Deir el-Medina (Image: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) g Tomb of Ipuy (Image: Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art, 30.4.155)

Outside Egypt, The Real Lexicon of Assyriology and Near Eastern archaeology states
that fishermen also fished with cast nets, although they are not easily traceable. The ka-
tim-tu net may refer to the casting of a cast net, but the corresponding Sumerian term (gis.
sadul-la) refers more to camouflaging the fishing net, as modern marsh dwellers do, mak-
ing it invisible to fish with a dye that fits the color of the water at the fishing grounds. Piotr
Steinkeller (1985) identifies as cast net the Sumerian net sa-bar (Ur III) or sa-par (Old
Bab.) or sa-pär (Old Bab. and later), sapäru in Akkadian, a term derived from bar mean-
ing "to put outside, to cast outside". Robert Englund (1990) collected evidence of fisher-
men working with the sa-bar net, also used by fowlers, as can be discerned from descrip-
tions of its manner of operation, in which a person "spreads it out" (suparruru) and "lies
in wait" on the "steppe". Some contexts make sa-bar/par/pär = sapäru a general term to
denote a large net. The technique to operate the net was known as sü = sabäpu, meaning
"to cast down". It was cast "from heaven", that is, "from above" (Ebeling et al.1988–2001:
238).
Mikmar and mikmeret nouns designate a net, but only mikmeret appears in three fishing
contexts. The Akkadian verb kamāru, meaning "to pile up", complements mikmeret in Hab.
1:15–16, which, along with other evidence, points to a seine net. The noun rešet, a deriva-
tion of the verb yāraš, meaning "to take possession," is the most common biblical term
for "net," which could refer to a cast net but the description of its use for trapping fauna
found in the air, on the ground, and in the water is too ambiguous, according to Yoder,
for accurate identification. The rešet-net "spreads over" (pāraś) the quarry, as if it were on
the ground or the water. The mĕṣūdāh-net "surrounds (nāqap)" and "catches" the culprit,
who is "seized" (tāpaś) in its mesh. Riede states that the mĕṣūdāh-net was casting from an
upright position, just like the ἀμφίβληστρον, and that’s why it could be a cast net but also a
trammel net. Terms meaning cast net would be rešet and mĕṣū/ôdāh (Yoder 2015: 53–67).

Fishing with Nets in the Iconographic Record

In line with the mythical/religious corpora, there is no representation of cast nets within
the iconographic records of the tombs and cultic spaces known to date. The only possibil-
ity was raised by Bates (1917: 258/pl.VIII-Fig. 67) when he interpreted a scene from the
Second Intermediate Period (1759–ca. 1539 BC) tomb of Sobeknakht at Elkab as fishing

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 297

Fig. 14  Egyptian tableware: a Chalice IV (Tait 1963:Fig. 2) b Chalice V (Tait 1963: 107/pl.XV) c Chalice
XXXV (Tait 1963:pl. XXIIa-c, James 1963:Fig. 1)

with an elliptical or circular cast net. Bates mistook the floats of the headrope for lead
weights and underestimated the fact that the net is not covering the catch. In reality, the
scene depicts some fishermen dragging a seine net from two boats while the fish inside are
being speared (Fig. 13a).
The fishing nets most frequently depicted in Egyptian funerary iconography are the
seine nets, either beach or boat seines, operated by at least four people. Only fishing with
bagnets reveals an individual use of the gear. Other scenes that associate a single individual
with a net are the actions of net-making and mending nets.
Full length depicted beach and boat seines show all their parts and tackle necessary
to deploy their effectiveness. When the seine nets are laid out to dry, as in the tomb of Ti
at Saqqara (Épron and Daumas 1939: pl.IX1.), they are arranged horizontally on several
poles, which give them a sinusoidal shape. The net takes a triangular, or in some cases rec-
tangular, shape in the scenes of net-making and net mending (Fig. 13c–g) depicted in the
tombs of Hetepherakhti, Saqqara, Dynasty V (Mohr 1943: 606–1/Fig. 31), Seshemnefer
Ifi, Dynasty VI, (Barsanti 1900: 154–155/Fig. 9), Mehu, Saqqara, Dynasty VI (Altenmül-
ler 1998: 91/Taf.6), Neferherenptah, Saqqara, Dynasty V (Altenmüller 1982: 9/Taf.1),
Nefereshemptah Sheshi, Saqqara, Dynasty VI (Wreszinski 1936: 167/Taf. 80), Baket III,
Beni Hasan, Dynasty XII (Kahlbacher et al. 2011: 465–482, Newberry 1893: 41–50/pl.IV;
Shedid 1994: 25–26), Khety, Beni Hasan, XIIth Dynasty (Newberry 1893: 51–62/pl.XIII;
Shedid 1994: 32–36/Fig. 48), Paheri, Elkab, 18th Dynasty (Tylor and Griffith. 1894: 17/
pl.IV), Ipuy, Deir el-Medina, 19th Dynasty (Davies 1927: 62/pl.XXX-XXXIA, Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston: 30.4. 155), Amehotep TT73, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, 18th dynasty
(Säve-Söderbergh 1957: 9/pl. VIII, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 30.4.50), May, Amarna
(Davies 1906: 3/pl.V) and in an ostracon from Deir el-Medina (Musée du Louvre: E25310,
Vandier 1937: 15/pl.LXX.2553). Despite their triangular shape, similar to the ones seen
below, they are not cast nets.
Fishing nets also form part of the iconographic repertoire of Egyptian tableware.
Ceramics and metalwork are used to illustrate activities set in a marshy environment, such

13
298 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 15  Chalice XXI (Photo: British Museum). Fishermen at the very moment of casting the net: b Village
74: https://​youtu.​be/​efZ5y​ld0Xp4 c Daily Village Life: https://​youtu.​be/​q5wQK​eMIABc d Lake Manzala
(Henein:Ph.30a). Roman mosaics with cast net fishing scenes: e From Hadrumetum, Sousse, Tunisia, third
century AD, Hearts Castle in California, (Photo: Soria-Trastoy) f Erotes, Piazza Amerina (Photo: Colsu
https://​tinyu​rl.​com/​s428x​dwx). Tableware: g Bronze dish (Image: British Museum 1865,0610.1295)

as fishing scenes. These and other themes differ from traditional Egyptian patterns, are
reorganized and merge Egyptian tradition, adaptation, and reinterpretation of composi-
tions from the surrounding areas of influence and interaction, and also due to the presence
of foreigners in Egypt. Influence on iconography and style is reciprocal, especially in the
Syro-Levantine area and Mesopotamian. The connections between Egyptian chalices and
Levantine metal cups and ivory are paradigmatic (Bryan 2019: 545–549; Boschloos 2009:
285; Lilyquist 2012a, b).
The net in those marshy scenes, apart from the clap-net, is traditionally identified as a
"triangular" fishing or fowling net. Analyzing the composition of the scenes, the activities,
the attitude of the men involved, and the features of the net itself, that these are cast nets
becomes plausible.
The net in those marshy scenes, apart from the clap-net, is traditionally identified as a
"triangular" fishing or fowling net. Analyzing the composition of the scenes, the activities,
the attitude of the men involved, and the features of the net itself, the hypothesis of a repre-
sentation of a cast net becomes plausible. The most meaningful documents are several blue
lotus-shaped chalices of blue-green glazed composition and two bowls, one of them made
of repoussé silver (Fig. 14).
The first chalice (Fig. 14a) was acquired in Tuna el-Gebel in Middle Egypt, subse-
quently entering the Edmond de Rothschild collection (Sotheby 1922: 41-Lot.292-pl.Front;
Tait 1963: 105–107/Fig. 2-Chalice IV; Boschloos 2009: 291/Fig. 11) and dates to the Third

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 299

Intermediate Period, 22nd to 25th Dynasties (ca. 943–664 BC). It depicts a fisherman on
the prow of a papyrus raft, with one leg forward, at the very moment of throwing a cast net.
The mesh is well defined, and the thickness of the edge line indicates that it is weighted.
The man holds the upper end of the net with his right hand and one of the lower ends with
his left hand. At the stern is the one who steers the boat. Tait (1963: 106 and n.2) relates
the triangular-shaped fishing gear from the tomb of Djau at Deir el Gabrawi (Davies 1902:
pl. v) and that of Senbi at Meir (Blackman 1914: 27–28 and pl. III) to the nets represented
in this chalice and the "repoussé bowl", but those of Djau and Senbi are two skimming
nets.
Another almost identical representation (Fig. 14b) is found on a chalice fragment
E.256.1939 in the Fitzwilliam Museum, of unknown origin and dated to the Late Period,
26th Dynasty (664-525 BC). The net is complete and more detailed than the previous one.
The edge line shows its attached weights with no visible space between them. Because
of the iconographic and stylistic similarities, Tait (1963: 107/pl.XV-Chalice V) concluded
that the same hand made this chalice and the previous one.
In British Museum chalice fragments EA48004 (Fig. 15), of unknown origin and dated
to the New Kingdom (ca. 1539-1077 BC), a fisherman holds a net in his outstretched
arms: one arm along the top to the corner of the net and the other half-way down the net.
Although the net lacks the detail of the earlier ones, it appears to be similar in size and is
shown spread out with at least two fish underneath it. The fish could be part of the catch. A
second fisherman on the left walks to the right, holding one fish in his right hand and two
more in his left hand. According to Tait (1963: 120 and pl. XX.2 Chalice XXI), "perhaps
one fisherman is emptying his catch for the other to take," indicating the completion of
their fishing.
Given the posture of the fisherman and the shape of the fishing net, it is possible to
suggest a different reading. The position of the fisherman’s head reveals he is looking to
the right, that is, just to the opposite side of where Tait believed the action to occur. It has
been shown, in fishing scenes, that fishermen look in the direction of the action taking
place. There are numerous examples, such as when preventing one of the caught fish from
breaking the seine net, when fixing a float in a trap or when talking to a crewmate (Wild
1953: pl. XC [A,B], XCI [A], CXXIII, LXXVII [B] and CX). The scenes in which a fisher-
man empties the catch of a fish trap into the basket that another fisherman holds between
his hands on the ground, for example, in the mastaba of Ti (Wild 1953: pl. LXXXV [A],
CXVII, CXIX), are the ones that would fit the interpretation suggested by Tait. But the
body of the principal fisherman is orientated toward the one holding the basket. On the
other hand, retrieving the catch of a cast net is not possible in the same way as in a fish
trap, as it is necessary to spread the cast net on the ground and remove the entangled fish
with the hands.
Unlike Tait, we consider that the fisherman holding the net is at the very moment of
casting it, possibly for a second cast; thus, the fish depicted would be the result of a first
catch. This hypothesis finds support in present day fishing images and some Roman mosa-
ics, such as one from the catacombs of Hermes in Hadrumetum, Sousse, Tunisia, late sec-
ond century AD, Musée Archéologique de Sousse, inv. Sousse 57.204 (Blanchard-Lemée
and Mermet 1995: Figs. 85, 94), in the erotes of room 40 of the atrium of the Villa Romana
del Casale in Piazza Amerina, Sicily, fourth century AD (Carandini et al. 1982: 249–258/
Fig. 149–152,154–155/pl.XXXVII.79) and on a bronze dish with incised marine scenes
dating from the fourth century AD (British Museum 1865,0610.1295, Baratte: 1974/
Fig. 6).

13
300 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 16  a Bowl E 14372 (Photo: Musée du Louvre) b A current capture of a young man forming a loop,
as the fisherman in the bowl, by tightening the mesh while hauling the cast net. (Video: Daily Village Life
https://​youtu.​be/​q5wQK​eMIABc) c Bowl 07.228.20 (Photo: Met Museum)

A new stage of cast net fishing is in the scene on a British Museum chalice EA65786
(Fig. 14c) of unknown origin and dated to the Third Intermediate Period, 22nd Dynasty
(943-ca. 746 BC). A fisherman stands leaning over the prow of a boat after casting a coni-
cal net and begins to haul it in. The net is bulging with the catch inside, the weighted line
remains on the bottom, and the mesh is detailed (Tait 1963: 125 y pl. XXII Cáliz XXXV;
James 1963: 74–79/Fig. 1).
As for the bowls, the first (Fig. 16a) is one cataloged under number E 14372 in the
Louvre Museum (Caubet and Pierrat-Bonnefois 2005: 86, 89 and ill. p. 86 no. 243), of
unknown origin and attributed by stylistic criteria to the 19th-20th Dynasties (1292–1077
BC). A single man is hauling a conical fishing net submerged in about 2/3. Above the right
hand of the fisherman, there is a loop consequence of the net closing. Some authors have
considered the scene as a bird-catching one (Desroches-Noblecourt 1953: 6 and n.3), but
the net is the same as in the chalice fishing scenes, and as seen above, can also be used for
fowling (Heneim 2010: 161–166/Fig. 78/Ph.30a-31).
The second bowl (Fig. 16c) is cataloged with number 07.228.20 in the MET Museum
(Lythgoe 1907: 195–196; Simpson 1959: 29–45; Hayes 1959: 358–59/Fig. 224,226;
Lilyquist 2012a, b) and comes from Tell Basta (Bubastis). It has been dated based on its
iconography to the reign of Ramesses II, 19th Dynasty, (1292–1291 BC) and is known
as “repoussé bowl”. It is decorated with a fishing scene, easy to recognize since the sec-
ond register shows the fowling with a clap-net so they cannot be confused. The net has a

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 301

Fig.17  a Lamp 83.AQ.377.96 (Bussière and Wohl 2017:no. 180) b Lamp number 596, Bonn (Photo: Akad-
emisches Kunstmuseum) c Lamp British Museum 1814,0704.179 (Carretero 1991: 197-no.1.6, Photo: Brit-
ish Museum)

well-defined netting, and the weighted edge line is visible. The fisherman is holding the
net in his left hand at the lowest point of its upper end, probably before or after the fish-
ing activity occurs. He is walking toward a papyrus thicket, to which a man guides some
horses. Behind him, a man is carrying four fish on a pole. To the right of the horses, at
least five more fishermen are processing fish carried by two more who come from a boat
in which a man is standing on the prow, leaning toward the water as if hauling a cast net.
The scene is incomplete, so it is impossible to notice what he is doing in the water, but the
posture on the prow fits with the previous vessels.
Roman lamps (lucernae) also comprise fishing scenes with cast nets (Fig. 17). Of
Egyptian manufacture or origin is the lamp 83.AQ.377.96 in the J. Paul Getty Museum
(Fig. 17a), type Loeschcke IV-Bailey B group ii, marked with double planta pedis
CCLOD//CCLOD and dated to the first century AD. It shows a man fishing on a rock and
leaning into the water while hauling in a conical net. He holds the upper end of the net with
his left hand and the retaining line with his right hand (Bussière and Wohl 2017: 128 no.
180).
Outside Egypt, Late Roman tableware contains some examples of cast net fishing. A
fragment from a Late Roman Hispanic terra sigillata vase (fifth century AD) in a shape
very similar to Drag 37T from the archaeological site of Los Villares in Villanueva de Azo-
ague (Zamora, Spain) shows a scene with two fishermen: the one on the left is in an upright
position holding three strung fish in one hand. The fisherman on the right, slightly leaning
toward the water, with his legs genuflected, is pulling a cast net from the water contain-
ing the catch inside (Regueras Grande and Lopez Rodríguez 1987: 124, 128/Fig. 5.1). The
same motif appears at the same site on the frieze of a vase of the same material and dating
as the previous one (Regueras Grande and Lopez Rodríguez 1987: 124–125, 128/Fig. 5.2),
but it is so damaged that only the torso, head, and left arm of the fisherman remain.
There are also relevant parallels in Roman lamps. The disk lamps decorated with the
theme “fishermen in front of the harbour” organize the sea fishing scene in two planes.
In the foreground are two fishermen: on the left is one fishing with a conical net from
the rocks that make up the harbor pier, and on the right is one fishing with a rod from a
boat. In the background is a monumental architectural structure. In the African lamps, two

13
 Table 5  Roman lamps with scenes of cast net fishing
302

N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

13
UNK0001 Bailey Q Fishing *Purchased, 1872 *L: 15.24 cm Ashmolean Last 3rd Carretero *Data extracted
from ; D: 10.16 cm Museum 2nd- (1991, from the
pier. Oxford, middle 196, nº5, museum
Harbour AN1872.1324 3rd AD; Fig. 1.4)
scene *200 AD
UNK0002 Bailey Q Fishing *Possibly Rome or H: 150 mm.,W: Bologna, Last 3rd Carretero *arachne.uni-
from Ostia 104 mm., D: Museo Civico 2nd c.- (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. 35 mm Archeológico, middle 196, nº6, objekt/607291
Harbour 3.201/*6021 3rd AD Fig. 1.5)
scene
UNK0003 Deneauve Fishing *North Africa, Tunisia H: 123 mm., W: Berlín, Antiken- 150—225 Carretero *arachne.uni-
XA from 74 mm., D: sammlung; T. AD (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. 35 mm C. 879 199, nº22, objekt/607273
Harbour Fig. 2.1)
scene
UNK0004 Deneauve Fishing Napolitan forgery. Saint-Péters- Late Anto- Carretero The acabado
XA from S.XIX bourg, Musée nine and (1991, (finish) of
pier. de l’Ermitage Severian 199, nº24, Carreto’s fake
Harbour Period Fig. 2.2) lamps nos.
scene 24–28 cannot
be a criterion
for identify-
ing a forgery
(Bussière,
2017, 329)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 5  (continued)
N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

UNK0005 Fishing Napolitan forgery. Cambridge, Carretero The acabado

from S.XIX The Fitzwil- (1991, (finish) of
pier. liam Museum, 200, nº28, Carreto’s fake
Harbour GR.11.1978 Fig. 2.4) lamps nos.
scene 24–28 cannot
be a criterion
for identifying
a forgery. Said
to be a fake.
(Bussière,
2017, 329,
333)
UNK0006 Deneauve Fishing None given by donor, L: 12.2 cm; W: California, J. Paul 175–230 Bussière Previously
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

X A; from J.M. Eisenberg, 8.2 cm; H: Getty Museum, AD (2017, considered a

Bussière pier. 1975, but presum- 2.8 cm 75.AQ.21 331–332, fake, this lamp
form E Harbour ably Tunisia nº 466) is authentic;
I1 scene see Authen-
ticity of
cats. 464–67
discussion
UNK0007 Deneauve Fishing North Africa L: 13.7 cm; W: California, J. Paul 175–230 Bussière Previously
X A; from 9.6 cm; H: Getty Museum, AD (2017, considered a
Bussière pier. 3.5 cm 83.AQ.438.248 332–333, fake, this lamp
form E Harbour nº 467) is authentic;
I1 scene see Authen-
ticity of
cats. 464–67
discussion
303

13
 Table 5  (continued)
304

N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

13
UNK0008 Deneauve Fishing Maybe from Italy / *L: 0.09 cm Köln, Römisch- 150–225 Carretero *The NAVIS II
XA from *Tunisisa Germanisches AD (1991, project. http://​
pier. Museum, W O 199 nº21) 143.​93.​114.​
Harbour 1.800 232/​navis2/
scene
UNK0009 Deneauve Fishing *North Africa, Tunisia Brussels, Musées 150–225 Carretero, *arachne.uni-
XA from Royaux d´Art AD 1991, 199 koeln.de/item/
pier. et d´Histoire nº23 objekt/607275
Harbour (Musée du Cin-
scene quantenaire),
R679bis
UNK0010 Bailey Q Fishing Acquired in Rome D. 11 cm Bonn, Akademis- Last 3rd Carretero arachne.uni-
from ches Kunstmu- 2nd- (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. seum, 596 middle 196, nº3) objekt/607283
Harbour 3rd AD
scene
UNK0011 Fishing Donation, Henri Bar- H: 5,57; L: Musées de la ville 1st AD www.​alien​
from don, 6/10/2003 14,82; l: 9,08 de Poitiers et or.​org/​colle​
pier. de la Société ctions-​des-​
Harbour des Antiquaires musees/​fiche-​
scene de l’Ouest, objet-​58184-​
2003.8.8 lampe-a-​huile
ITA- Deneauve Fishing Viminal, probably Roma, Musei /*2nd Carretero arachne.uni-
ROM0001 XA from Roma/*Presummably MACELLI/*AVGENDI, Capitolini, AD— (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. Tunisia MAURICI, “M. Agelli 5.118 3rd AD 197, 202 objekt/607225
Harbour nº8)
scene
EGY0001 Loeschcke Fishing Egypt Double planta pedis L: 11.3 cm; W: California, J. Paul 40–70 AD Bussière
IV; from CCLOD//CCLOD 7.7 cm; H: Getty Museum, or even (2017,
Bailey B rocks (back to back) 2.7 cm 83.AQ.377.96 Flavian 128, nº
group ii 180)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 5  (continued)
N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

ESP- Fishing Napolitan forgery. *Ample *Valencia, Museu *2nd-3rd Carretero * Data extracted
VAL0001 from S.XIX. *Empúries 10.60 cm; Alt de Prehistòria AD (1991, from the
pier. (L’Escala, Girona) 15.20 cm de València, 200, nº26, museum
Harbour 141 Fig. 2,3) The acabado
scene (finish) of
Carreto’s fake
lamps nos.
24–28 cannot
be a criterion
for identify-
ing a forgery
(Bussière,
2017, 329)
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

TUN0001 Deneauve Fishing *Tunisia AVGENDI *L: 12.40 cm; London, British 150–225 Carretero *Data extracted
XA from W: 8.60 cm Museum, AD/*c. (1991, from the
pier. 1814,0704.179 175–250 197, nº10, museum
Harbour Fig. 1.6)
scene and Bai-
ley (1988,
189,
pl. 15,
Fig. 57,
Q1716)
TUN0002 Deneauve Fishing Tunisia Hannover, Kes- 2nd-3rd Mlasowsky The NAVIS II
XA from tner-Museum, AD 1993, project. http://​
pier. 1989,41 279, nº 143.​93.​114.​
Harbour 289 232/​navis2/
scene
305

13
 Table 5  (continued)
306

N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

13
TUN- Deneauve Fishing Carthage PVLLAENI L: Tunisia, Musée 150–225 Carretero
CAR0001 XA from 145 mm., W: national de AD (1991,
boat. 90 mm., H: Carthage, 4530 198, nº17,
Harbour 36 mm Fig. 1.8)
scene
TUN- Deneauve Fishing Carthage *D: 3,3 cm; Tunisia, Musée 150–225 Carretero arachne.uni-
CAR0002 XA from Diam.: 10,1 cm national de AD (1991, koeln.de/item/
boat. Carthage, 199, nº19, objekt/607279
Harbour 46.575 Fig. 1.9)
scene:
2nd vari-
ant
TUN- Deneauve Fishing Tunisia, Bulla Regia Tunisia, Musée 150–225 Carretero
BUL0001 XA from (Hammam-Derradji) national du AD (1991,
boat. Bardo (Museé 201, nº30,
Harbour Alaoui), inv. Fig. 2.6)
scene: pottery K 222
2nd vari-
ant
LYB- Late Loe- Fishing Sabratha, *Regio II, *W: 7,7 cm; H: Sabratha, Sabra- Late Anto- Carretero arachne.uni-
SAB0001 schcke from Casa di Leda 10,9 cm; D: tha Museum; nine to (1991, koeln.de/item/
VIII pier. 2,6 cm 170 Severian 201, nº31, objekt/607269
Harbour Fig. 2.7)
scene
LYB- Deneauve Fishing Sabratha, *Regio VI, H: 10,4 cm Sabratha, Sabra- 150–225 Carretero *arachne.uni-
SAB0002 XA from Insula I tha Museum; AD (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. 862 197, objekt/607231
Harbour nº11)
scene
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326
 Table 5  (continued)
N. CAT​ Typ Scene Manufacture/origin Potter signature Dimensions LOC-REG Chron Bibliog Notes

LYB- Deneauve Fishing Sabratha, *Regio VI, *W: 9,6 cm; H: Sabratha, Sabra- 150–225 Carretero *arachne.uni-
SAB0003 XA from Insula I 13,3 cm; D: tha Museum; AD (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. 3,5 cm 873 197, objekt/607232
Harbour nº12)
scene
LYB- Deneauve Fishing Sabratha/*Tunisia *W: 7,5 cm; H: Sabratha, Sabra- 150–225 Carretero, *arachne.uni-
SAB0004 XA from 11,7 cm; D: tha Museum; AD 1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. 3,5 cm 1243 197, nº13 objekt/607233
Harbour
scene
LYB- Deneauve Fishing Sabratha *W: 7,2 cm; H: Sabratha, Sabra- 150–225 Carretero *arachne.uni-
SAB0005 XA from 10,1 cm; D: tha Museum; AD (1991, koeln.de/item/
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

pier. 3,2 cm 334 /*344 198, objekt/607234

Harbour nº14)
scene
ITA- Bailey Q Fishing Ostia ANNISER (by Annius Ostia Antica, Severian Carretero arachne.uni-
OST0001 from Serapidorus) Il Museo (1991, koeln.de/item/
pier. Ostiense, 2.021 196, nº2) objekt/607282
Harbour
scene
307

13
308 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Fig. 18  Roman mosaics a Triumph of the Marine Venus from Thubursicu Numidarum (Ferdi 2001:Fig. 13)
b Musée du Bardo, Tunisia, fourth century AD (Photo: https://​tinyu​rl.​com/​2nrj8​hyv) c Room 40 of the Villa
Romana del Casale in Piazza Amerina (Photo: https://​www.​marine-​antiq​ue.​net/) d Mosaic of Ulysses from
the Musée d’Haidra (Baratte 1974:Fig. 17)

variants of this theme can be distinguished: In the first one, the scene consists of a circular
harbor with a lintelled portico interrupted at the bottom by two groups of rocks that serve
as piers at the entrance to the port, while in the basin two boats are depicted in fishing
scenes sailing in the harbor. In the second variant, the scene is arranged on two planes: in
the background, a monumental two-story building with porticoes and merlons and in the
foreground, two boats on the same level, with the one on the left showing a fisherman in
an upright position with his arms outstretched hauling in a net (Carretero 1991: 201–202).
Other authors (Vargas Girón 2017: 304–305) have also suggested that the fishing gear
featured in the two African variants can be identified as an atarraya or esparavel (cast net).
We have documented (Table 5) 24 Italic and African lamps within the general category.
Eleven of them are of unknown origin. The most interesting is the number 596, in the Aka-
demisches Kunstmuseum in Bonn, dated between the middle and last third century AD
(Carretero 1991: 196 no. 3), and classified as Bailey type Q. The fisherman hauls a bell-
shaped cast net with an abundant catch inside (Fig. 17b). Of the second African variant,
there are two lamps in which the net is barely visible, although they exemplify the fishing
with a cast net from a boat depicted in these objects. One of them is the number 46.575 in
the Musée national de Carthage (Carretero 1991: 199 no. 19/Fig. 1.9) and the other one
was found in Bulla Regia (Carretero 1991: 201 no. 30/Fig. 2.6), and cataloged as "pottery
K 222" in the Musée national du Bardo, Tunisia.

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 309

Fig. 19  a Mural painting from Vernopheto Cave (Faure 1969:Abb.14,15,197) b “Chinese in a river cruise”
fron the Bayon (Tyson 2002: figs.22,24) c Illustration of the Cantiga CLXXXIII from Santa María de El
Escorial (Casado Soto 2012/2013:fig.12)

The Roman mosaics (Fig. 18) supports our interpretation. In a scene from the Triumph
of the Sea Venus mosaic, a fisherman standing on the rocks is hauling a bell-shaped fishing
net (Fig. 18a). This mosaic, now in the Musée de Guelma, comes from Thubursicu Numi-
darum, Khamissa, Algeria and has been dated to the third-fourth centuries AD. The scene
shows in great detail the referenced loop (Ferdi 1998: 140–141, Ferdi 2001: Fig. 13). A
fisherman in a boat hauls a weighted net (Fig. 18b) in another mosaic from Carthage, now
in the Musée du Bardo, Tunis, fourth century AD (Fantar et al. 1994: 122). The mosaic
in room 40 of the Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Amerina, Sicily, fourth century AD,
comprises a fishing scene with a cast net from a boat (Fig. 18c) where an erotes leans
slightly into the water while hauling a conical net (Pekáry 1999: 206/I-P10). One of the
most representative is the mosaic of Ulysses, from underneath the Basilica I of Melleus
in Haïdra, Tunisia, in the Haidra Museum (Fig. 18d). In its northwest corner, despite its
deterioration, we can see the details of the quadrangular lead weights (Baratte 1974: 26/
Fig. 17).
The same is the case with mural painting. An exceptional example of fishing with cast
nets from boats is in the paintings from Vernopheto Cave, Kato Pervolakia, Sitias (Faure
1973: 195/Abb.14,15,197), dating from the Bronze Age, about 1,400 BC. The paintings
detail casting the net to cover different species, the weights attached to the edge line, the
bell-shaped net with the catch inside and the fisherman on one prow hauling in the net
(Fig. 19a).

13
310 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Of a later date, but great interest, are the cast net fishing scenes in the 12th-century
Bayon bas-reliefs in Cambodia. On the lower panel of the east wing of the south gallery,
near the main scene, there is a deteriorated vignette of a boat decorated with Mayadevi
Queen of Shambara, and a fisherman called Indra throwing a cast net. Another scene is
known as "Chinese in a river cruise" shows two fishermen depicted on a large scale in the
act of retrieving cast nets from boats. (Fig. 19b). The fisherman is standing at one boat
prow leaning toward the water with his legs open showing the effort needed to haul in the
net due to the weight of the catch. In the second scene, the fisherman is in a genuflected
position drawing in a bell-shaped net. Both fishing nets show the mesh and lead weights
attached to the lines in considerable detail, but no retaining line is visible. Of all scenes
described above, these are possibly the ones that best show the twisting technique of the
netting when the net is hauled in (Roberts 2002: 159–171/figs.22–25).
Finally, we should refer to the illustrations of fishing in the Sea of Galilee contained in
the Gospels of the New Testament and those derived from them, such as the mosaic show-
ing the Call of Peter and Andrew (sixth century) in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo
in Ravenna, Italy. But more exemplary is the illustration of the Cantiga CLXXXIII from
Santa María de El Escorial (Casado Soto 2012/2013: Fig. 12), the second half of the thir-
teenth century (Fig. 19 c), which helps us to understand better the Chalice XXI (1963: 120
and pl. XX.2). In this case, spherical weights hang from the edge line.

Efficiency of Cast Nets, Environmental Impact, and Economic

Inferences

Cast nets were a costly resource. However, the introduction of new materials, such as
nylon, and mass production in China, has meant that cast nets have spread during the twen-
tieth century to remote places, especially in Asia and Africa, and can be a resource for
fishermen. The durability of the nets, which depends on the preservation and conditions of
the fishing grounds, ranges from 3 months to 3 years (Babatunde et al. 2008: 2088–2089).
In ancient Egypt, large fishing nets were costly to make and maintain. Nevertheless,
Herodotus ascertained that every man in the marshes had a cast net for fishing during the
day. Probably, small cast nets would be used for self-consumption and did not involve
excessive investment. Subsistence farming of flax could perhaps provide this resource at a
low cost.
Egyptian fishermen manufactured their fishing nets in general, cast nets in particu-
lar, with flax. This resource, used since ca. 4000 BC, is not native to Egypt and was
possibly imported from the Levant. Linum bienne Mill. is known from the Predynastic
period, Linum usitatissimus, and was the principal source in ancient Egypt attested in the
Neolithic (6466–6354 BP) sites in el-Fayum (Nicholson et al. 2000: 269, Caton-Thompson
and Gardner 1934: 46), and Linum humile is known from Amarna. (Kemp and Vogelsang-
Eastwood 2001: 25). There is no evidence of hemp in Egypt until Roman times (Jones
2001; Friedman 2004; Jørgensen 2018).
Pliny the Elder (first century AD), in his Historia Naturalis affirmed that the Egyptian
flax was "not at all strong, but it sells at a very good price". According to Pliny, there were
four kinds of flax in the country, “Tanitic, Pelusiac, Butic and Tentyritic, named from the
districts where they grow” (19, 13–14). Tentyris is the modern Dendera in south Egypt and
evidence of flax cultivation has also been found within Hierakonpolis and Aphrodite in the
Nile Valley.

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 311

Flax was planted on the wettest land, with grain crops taking up about half of the avail-
able fields (Manning 2003: 30). Well-irrigated areas such as palustrine, lacustrine, and
lagoonal environments are perfect for flax, as in the Delta (Blouin 2012), el-Fayum, and
even the floodplain, but it requires moderate climatic conditions for the production of a
good yield (Attia et al. 2018: 82–83). Moreover, at least in Late Antique Egypt, flax was
cultivated on small plots in subsistence farming, together with wheat, not only in the Delta
but in the Valley (Marthot-Santaniello 2020). It took about three months to mature, so it
could be a raw material easy to obtain. The linen becomes more robust when wet and dries
quickly, holds a high tensile strength, is durable under light and photo conditions, and,
if treated carefully during production phases, linen yarn does not lose any of its qualities
(Uusivuori 2019: 30), so it is ideal for fishing nets.
In the Roman world, according to Bekker-Nielsen, a cast net would be efficient for com-
mercial fishing in general and especially for the smaller species, as it is a "simple technol-
ogy that provides significant catches with a minimum of resource input" (Bekker-Nielsen
2010: 11). It is not easy to successfully make a generalized estimation, as the fishing sce-
nario is not uniform across Egyptian regions and periods. The strong bureaucratization of
the Ptolemaic state, with a possible monopoly or heavy regulation of any activity likely to
provide public revenue through taxes, including fisheries (Dumont 1977; Muhs 2005; Clar-
ysse et al. 2006), affects the cost of the activity, but will not have the same effect on occa-
sional and subsistence fishing as on a professional one, nor in regions such as the Fayum or
the Delta in comparison to southern Egypt. During the Roman period, the regulation and
control of natural resources by the state continued (Adams 2013: 275–278), leases of fish-
ing rights were registered (Parássoglou 1987), and private land ownership, which already
existed in the Ptolemaic period, and was especially widespread in the south of the country,
increases quantitatively (Manning 2003, 2007; Monson 2012; Muhs 2016: 211–252). At
this time, there is insufficient data to state that cast nets were involved in the large-scale
industry in Egypt.
As said, the selectivity of the cast nets in terms of size and species is good. Selectiv-
ity is the requirements of the fishing gear to catch only a given size of fish or species. The
effectiveness of the selectivity of fishing gear is positive if that objective is achieved. We
are not aware of studies on the environmental impact that fishing gear might have caused in
Egypt, unlike some research based on the faunal remains of Synodontis schall at Amarna
that conclude with the evidence that the schall of the Late Roman period grew more slowly
and were subject to more intensive levels of fishing pressure than those of the "Pharaonic"
and modern periods (Luff and Bailey 2000a; b). Despite the peculiarities of iconography in
general and Egyptian iconography in particular, as well as a reduced surface area for draw-
ing motifs on tableware, it is possible to compare the catches of the typical mural fishing
scenes depicting seine nets with the schematic ones of chalices and bowls. In the former,
the catch is composed of a wide range of fish species, while in the latter, most of the few
species represented consist of species of the family Cichlidae, without being able to dif-
ferentiate the genus: Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, or Tilapia. Those catches are consistent
with the selectivity of each of the fishing gears. The selectivity of the seine net is practi-
cally null in terms of size and species, so the variation in catch is immense, and the eco-
logical impact is high. In contrast, the selectivity of cast nets is positive, so, if the objective
is to catch tilapia, the majority of the catch will be tilapia. In addition, the effectiveness of
cast nets for fishing Tilapia and Oreochromis niloticus has been proven.
Regarding the Fishing Effort, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) defines it as “the amount of fishing gear of a specific type used on fish-
ing grounds over a given unit of time”, e.g., the number of throws of a cast net per day. In

13
312 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

modern commercial fisheries, assessing and managing fish stocks implies deciding upon
the amount of fishing effort to apply to the stock for obtaining a certain amount of catch
that is sustainable over time. The most common contemporary method for estimating the
relative abundance of an exploited fish stock is the catch per unit effort (CPUE), conceived
as an index of abundance (Jul-Larsen et al. 2003) proportional to fishing mortality and the
cost of fishing.
In 1985, Thomas W. Gallant (1985) published a monograph in which he sought to shed
light on the potential productivity of fishing in the ancient world. To this end, along with
other sources, he refers statistical data from modern fisheries on the amount of catch and
CPUE, concluding that the role of fisheries on the diet and economy of antiquity have been
overestimated and misunderstood, mainly as a source of sustenance during food shortages
as a consequence of the reduced crop yields.
Several authors have highlighted errors in Gallant’s data collection and view of ecosys-
tems as a constant factor, as well as what he considered the low CPUE of the ancient and
primitive fishing gear to sustain a large-scale fishery, especially for pelagic species, that
avoid large-scale processing and long-distance trade (Purcell 1995: 149, Jacobsen 2005:
97–104, Bekker-Nielsen 2005: 84–85). Anne Lif Lund Jacobsen (2005: 100–101), among
others, explains that "while a large fishing effort today only results in a modest catch due
to heavy exploitation of the stocks, a low fishing effort in antiquity could have given a
considerable catch". In the same line and as far as cast nets are concerned, Tønnes Bekker-
Nielsen (2010: 191) argues that "for commercial fishing in general and especially for the
smaller species, a casting net was more efficient, because it is a simple technology that
provides significant catches with a minimum of resource input".
Bekker-Nielsen (2005: 85–86/Fig. 2) illustrated the possibility of obtaining a catch
of 15–20 kg in a single cast by referring to the result of one throw of the cast net from
the shore of the Persian Gulf in 2002. One only has to access different YouTube channels
focused on traditional non-sport cast net fishing to realize that large fish can also be caught
and even in considerable quantities with a single cast.
Although the materials have changed, except in some traditional fisheries for domes-
tic consumption, the technology is similar to that used in antiquity, so it is reasonable to
consider the raw data published in specific studies on the efficiency and effectiveness of
cast nets, especially those conducted in the Nile Basin, while remembering the ecological
changes that have taken place.

Discussion and Conclusions

Three objectives of this article were to set the hypothesis that the cast net was one of the
fish catching methods used in Egypt at least as early as the 12th Dynasty of the Middle
Kingdom, that this fishing gear probably dates back to the Epipalaeolithic Period, and that
it is possible to use the Egyptian iconography as a source to detect the use of that fishing
gear.
The contemporary overview of the cast nets and the ethnographic section evidence the
existence of at least five types of cast nets based on a standard basic model. The morphol-
ogy of the cast nets changes according to the different environments where fishing takes
place, the individual preferences and skill of the fisherman, economic factors, and the cho-
sen fish to catch. These changes affect their diameter, the composition of the upper part
of the netting, the distance between the weights and their shape and raw materials and,

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 313

especially, the mesh opening. The standard basic model consists of a circular net with the
edge line weighted with lead or other materials, such as copper, bronze, iron, stone, or pot-
tery of various morphology in its final manufacture. A rope may be attached to the center
of the net to help haul the cast net.
Given the method, which is to cover the fish by throwing the net in a circular and flat
shape parallel to the water surface, cast nets should only be operated in shallow and clear,
inland and marine waters. On the other hand, throwing the net in too clear waters can
frighten and scare the fish away, which is the proper technique when this fishing gear is an
auxiliary to the gillnets and the reason for fishing at sunset.
The fact is that fishing can be performed on free or obstructed bottoms, in forest waters,
on vegetated and relatively rocky or coral bottoms, and even without touching bottom at
depths of up to more than 150 m. It is possible to transform fishing grounds to optimize
cast net fishing and protect the net itself from damage. Practically, cast nets can capture any
fish species, even those inhabitants of muddy bottoms, with the proper technique. Catches
differ in quantity and species depending on whether fishing occurs during the day or by
night, while collective fishing and artificial aggregation of fish enhance the effectiveness of
this gear.
Regarding the efficiency, environmental impact, and economics, cast nets were manu-
factured of flax and weighted primarily with lead, being ideal properties for fishing nets.
Flax was widely cultivated in Egypt, from north to south, on a large scale, but also a sub-
sistence farming basis, so it could be a raw material easy to obtain at a low cost for fisher-
men not involved in industrial or commercial fisheries. Well-irrigated areas and palustrine,
lacustrine and lagoonal environments are perfect for flax, but it requires moderate climatic
conditions for a good yield. The effectiveness of the cast net is positive, allowing for a
catch of only a given size of fish or species, provided that the net has a proper mesh open-
ing. Fishermen in Egyptian fishing scenes with cast nets seem to catch mostly Cichlidae,
which fits with ethnographic data. On the other hand, it is possible to obtain a great catch
with only a thrown cast net, so little effort, in antiquity, could have yielded a considerable
catch.
Analysis of the archaeological record, even with its mentioned issues, has provided
direct evidence of cast nets for the possible existence of this fishing gear.
Complete cast nets, and fragments of considerable size, have been documented. One of
the entire fishing nets dated to the 18th Dynasty New Kingdom keeps the retaining line,
and its perimeter remains weighted with lead. The features of these fishing nets leave little
doubt that they are perfectly functional cast nets. Functionality aside, these examples are
evidence of cast nets during the New Kingdom. The fragment in the ROM Museum pre-
serves its pockets, and the mesh opening is about 10–15 mm. This cast net evidence shows
more than one type of cast net and that some cast nets would have a mesh opening of plus
or minus 10–15 mm.
It is not easy to identify the corresponding net having only fragments, except for the one
with the leads already attached, and we only have the measurements of the cast net from
the ROM Museum to compare. The mesh opening size and the species captured are keys to
helping in that challenge.
The mesh opening (size/space) in the Nile Valley, Delta, and Fayum, that is, riverine,
palustrine, and lacustrine environments, of the measured nets, ranges from 6 to 45 mm and
averages around 2.2 mm in Haraga, Lahun, and Gurob; 22 to 24 mm in Tihna el-Gebel;
50 mm in Qasr Ibrim and 50 mm in Tell el-Farkha. Within the marine environment,
Myos Hormos has provided three fine-meshed nets with mesh spacing averaging 12 mm
and 20 examples averaging 35 mm and increasing in size with those dated later reaching

13
314 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

an average of 62.3 mm. In Abu Sha’ar, twenty-two pieces of netting range from 12.7 to
16.6 mm and increase their size as in Myos Hormos in a later phase with a range from 25
to 70 mm. In Berenike, the average ranges from 17.4 mm and from 14.8 to 24.8 mm, with
most being above 20 mm, also increasing the size by date. A significant change over time
in the mesh size of the fishing nets could indicate a transformation of the strategy, a change
in the fishing gear used, a consequence of the overexploitation of the resources, or biotope
transformations affecting fish behavior.
Going through the data collected, Sañez Reguart established, in the eighteenth century
in Spain, that mesh for sea fishing with cast nets should measure approximately 25 mm
and for river fishing close to 12 mm, but changes according to the factors explained above.
The ROM Museum cast net is within the range, and so are many of the rest. Fine-meshed
nets, i.e., those with a mesh opening of 3 mm or less, are usually associated with cast nets
and larger mesh openings with large fishing nets, such as seine or drag nets. But it has been
shown that the mesh size of the cast nets in some African lakes can go up to 152.4 mm, so
fragments with mesh sizes greater than 3 mm must be considered when trying to identify
cast nets. On the other hand, it should be noted that the smaller the mesh size, the longer it
takes for the cast net to sink and the greater the chance of fish escaping.
In late 19th and early twentieth century Egypt, the mesh opening generally ranged
from 0.50 to 1.90 cm, with an average of 1.27 cm. In Cairo, the mesh opening of the
nets is about 2.5 cm. The simpler typologies used to be operated in the Delta lagoons to
catch Mugil cephalus, although the techniques allow catching almost any type of fish. On
the Red Sea coast, the two types of cast nets were mainly for catching grey mullet, shoals
of fish close to the shore and sardines, the latter decreasing in mesh opening. In Lake Man-
zala, during the nineteenth century, the catch of Mugil cephalus, Mugil capito, Mugil sp.
and Oreochromis niloticus are reported. Subsequently and until 2010, the mesh opening of
the ṭarrāḥa net ranges from 0.5 to 1.8 cm, and the smaller ḥaddāfa is for catching Mugil
cephalus and Liza ramada. In eighteenth century France, the mesh size of the common
type cast net is always larger at the top of the gear to reduce labor, cost, and weight, usu-
ally about 5 cm. Something similar was found in Thailand, where a given number of ropes
replaced part of the netting. The catch in France varied according to the geographical area
and the season when fishing took place of carp, barbel, pike, shad, surmulets, mullet, or
sardines. In contemporary Sudan, the cast net called tarraha used in the River Nile state,
the Sennar state, and the Lake Nubia Fishing Camp has a mesh size between 2 and 10 cm.
In Jabel Awlia Dam Fishery, equal mesh size targets Tetraodon lineatus, Malapterurus
electricus, Synodontis schall, Tilapias and Labeo niloticus. In Lake Kainji (Nigeria), the
catch of major species in the cast net fishery was maximal at 63.5 mm mesh. From 1994 to
1997, mesh sizes ranged from 12.7 to 152.4 mm, with a prevalence of 50.8 and 63.5 mm.
Cast net fishery was dominated by five species taxonomic groups: Citharinus spp., Tila-
pia, Alestes spp., Labeo spp., and Synodontis spp., and the Hydrocynus spp. also but to a
lesser extent. The best mesh size for all species combined was 63.5 mm. In Nigeria, in the
Cross River in Afikpo, mesh size from 3.25 to 3.85 cm, with an average of 3.5 cm cap-
tured thirty-two finfish species, with a relative predominance of Cichlidae and Characidae,
followed by Bagridae, Clariidae, Mochokidae and others such as Mormyridae at a much
lower percentage. In the northern part of Lake Victoria and the upper Victoria Nile, mesh
sizes ranging between 101.6 and 152.4 mm caught Oreochromis niloticus as the princi-
pal target, along with Lates niloticus, Mormmyrus kannume, Bagrus docmak and Clarias
gariepinus. Ethnographic data from Myos Hormos on species caught in the Red Sea and
Persian Gulf with cast nets pointed to Parrotfish, Trigger, Surgeon, and Unicorn, Goatfish,

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 315

Mullet, Barracuda, Squirrel and Grunt. Mesh sizes in Myos Hormos range from 12 to
87.5 mm (Thomas 2010: 154/Tab. 2).
These data allow for the following conclusions: First, any net fragments from the
archaeological record documented in this article could have been part of a cast net. Second,
it is essential to register every feature of the fishing net fragments but, when context is not
possible, we can only speculate. Thirdly, given that the mesh size varies according to the
species to be caught, it is crucial to have an ichthyoarchaeological record to study the age,
size, biology, and life cycle of the fish assemblage.
In addition to fishing nets, weights documented in the archaeological record are indirect
evidence of fishing activity with cast nets in ancient Egypt. Lead is attested in Egypt since
Naqada IIC/EBIA. It has the advantage of its weight and resistance to corrosion in contact
with water, making it the perfect material for fishing.
Another aim of this paper was to present the proposal for the first typological classifica-
tion of lead net weights developed for Egypt. Inventorying and cataloging 117 lead weights
excavated in a range of archaeological sites in Egypt allowed us to elaborate a typology
that will help identify these fishing tackles and standardize terminology in research. It is an
open classification, ready to be updated at any time with new evidence. The criteria used to
develop it includes the morphology of the tackle and how the weight would be attached to
the edge line. The proposed typology corresponds with the most current ones developed in
the Atlantic-Mediterranean area. Lead net weights come from settlements in domestic and
funerary contexts, ritual spaces, administrative, and commercial areas.
The lead weights still found attached to an edge line confirm the use of at least the
PLI1 and PLI2 types for weighting cast nets. Comparing fishing weights from different
archaeological sites in Egypt to other similar geographical areas, within halieutic contexts,
demonstrates that the cast net was already a fish catching method in 12th Dynasty Egypt.
From the Middle Kingdom onwards, the range of typologies grows, but PLI1 and PLI2 are
prevalent. There are lead net weights dated to the Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, Third
Intermediate Period, Late Period, Ptolemaic, and Roman Periods. The typology is identical
for fishing in inland, coastal, and marine waters. The weights found in relatively large con-
centrations have almost exact morphological features, which would indicate they belong to
a single cast net.
Beyond lead net weights is a need to consider the pottery, stone, other metal weights,
and even the numerous pebbles that appear in archaeological sites as their use with weight-
ing cast nets has been attested.
Once the cast nets have been characterized and knowing what to search for, turning to
iconography can confirm the use of this fishing gear. There are no scenes of cast net fishing
on the walls of temples and tombs known to date in Egypt, but they appear in three chal-
ices and two bowls. The scenes show a marshy environment with the fishermen holding a
cast net before or after fishing, setting up the cast net, throwing and hauling it. The gear is
operated from the shore and boats, is triangular-shaped before casting, bell-shaped with the
catch inside, and open when setting up. Scenes reveal, to a certain degree, the detail of the
netting, the perimeter weights, and the loop formed hauling and carrying the net. Table-
ware dates from the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and Late Period.
Given that there are no other examples in Egyptian iconography, comparing some media
known to depict cast nets or others where their presence has been suggested, coming from
a wide geographical and chronological span, shed light. Attitudes of the fishermen, the
actions, and the morphology of the cast net in the mosaics, illustrations, paintings, mural
reliefs, and Roman lamps and tableware, confirm the interpretation of the Egyptian scenes.

13
316 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Egyptian documentary sources reveal fishing with cast nets in Egypt with certainty in
the third century BC. El-Fayum has provided relevant information to characterize fishing
in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. Zeno archive is evidence that, already in the Ptole-
maic period, there were different categories according to the type of fishing gear used.
Among them were the cast net fishermen (ἀμφιβολεῖς) and, possibly, a subcategory of
these (ἀμφιβάλλοντας) who would use the same type of fishing net but trawling from
shore. Cast nets were operated from boats and on foot at the islands formed by the flood,
probably at a time when maximum abundance of fish was available. Fishing was heavily
regulated, so a license was required to access the fishing grounds. Papyri from the Roman
period corroborate the division of fishermen into at least three categories: those who fished
with hook and line (ἀγκιστρεία or ἄγκιστρον), with seine nets (σαγήνη) or with cast nets
(ἀμφίβληστρον). Fishermen were organized into professional associations. Elders and
women were part of them, as was depicted in the funerary fishing scenes. Fishing meant
certain formalities to be complied with, such as an oath not to catch sacred fish.
In contrast, the mythical-religious corpora and literary compositions do not seem to
contain references to cast nets, unlike in the Ancient Near East. There, the existence of dif-
ferent terms for cast nets seems to be confirmed, with rešet and mĕṣū/ôdāh being the prob-
able ones for cast nets.
Classical literature leaves no doubt that cast nets were an expected fishing gear. It is
possible to address historical, social, and technological issues. Herodotus, who highlighted
the effectiveness of the cast net, refers to these fishing nets as being typical for the inhabit-
ants of the Egyptian marshes, allowing us to deduce that cast nets, at least at that time and
location, must not have been expensive fishing gear. Those cast nets would be at least 1.54
to 1.70 m in diameter and have a slightly small mesh opening to also cover and protect
Egyptians at night against insects. Hesiod pointed to fishing with a cast net from the shore,
and Arrian narrated how the fish-eaters fished with cast nets in coastal pools when the tide
went out.
The terms for cast net were Βόλος, ἀμφίβληστρον, funda, iaculum, and probably the
sphairôn and péza of Oppian. On other occasions, the literature describes the morphol-
ogy of the fishing net, referring to the circular shape and the lead weights, but without
giving it a specific name. Fishermen made offerings to the gods of used fishing materials,
and others specifically created for that purpose. Fisheries associated with cast nets were
ἀμφιβληστροειδής and ἀμφιβληστρευτική.
Evidence supports the suggestion of Van Neer about the possibility of fishing with cast
nets already in the Epipalaeolithic Period. The archaeological record confirms pebbles as
probable cast net weights in other spatial contexts out of Egypt during the Late Stone Age
and Neolithic. The ichthyoarchaeological assemblages from the Epipalaeolithic Period in
Egypt indicate species likely to capture with this fishing gear.
In short, it is possible to say that cast nets were a fish catching method in Egypt from at
least the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom (1939 + 16-1760 BC). Probably, the first use
of a cast net in Egypt dates from a much earlier time, going back as far as the Epipalaeo-
lithic Period (10000-8000 BC). We have provided an overview of the environment where
fishing would have taken place with this method, the techniques applied, and the species
caught. We have described the morphology of the cast net, its effectiveness, and the needed
skill and experience of the fisherman to achieve the catch. At the same time, we proposed
the first classification of lead net weights for ancient Egypt and, for the first time, identified
fishing scenes with cast nets in Egyptian iconography.
Finally, we would like to point out some essential questions for research. First, Martin
Odler (2021) has already pointed out the need for a structured presentation of material

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 317

culture data coming from the archaeological work in Egypt. In general, the data are pub-
lished in the form of a catalog, and the inventories are rarely accessible. Published data do
not follow a structure that is legible for analytical work. As a consequence, considerable
time and effort have to be invested in digging through thousands of publications to format
the extracted data (Odler 2021: 26). The first step is parsing the information into the small-
est possible units, as recommended by Odler (2021: 42) Inventories are as necessary as
catalogs, so they must not only be published but follow a presentation in a data format that
can be easily read, identified, recognized and extracted by a computer. Machine-readable
data must be structured data, presented in file formats like CSV, JSON, or XML. Tabular
presentation is also valid, provided the resulting table is fixed and regular. Second, material
culture must be studied in an interdisciplinary context. The strictly archaeological analysis
allows typologies to be formulated, as well as inferring historical and technological ques-
tions, but these are limited to the morphology of the materials and macroscopic observa-
tions. To adequately characterize the fishing tackle, archaeometric analysis is essential to
elucidate questions such as functional identifications, manufacturing processes, identifica-
tion of the origin of raw materials, or technological changes undergone.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Royal Ontario Museum for the photographs and information,
as well as Pr. Dr. Wim Van Neer for providing me with his publication on Abu Sha’ar.

Funding The author received no funding for the work on this article.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Availability of data All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the present article.

References

Primary sources

Arrian (2013) Anabasis Alexandri. Indica, trans. M Hammond. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hesiod (1982) Scutum, Trans. HG Evelyn-White. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Herodotus (1975) Trans. ED Godley. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Oppian (1928) Halieutica, Trans. AW Mair. Harvard University Press, Cambridge; trans. F Fajen. 1999.
Teubner Stuttgart und Leipzig
Ovid (1957) Ars Amatoria, trans. J. H. Mozley. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Pliny the Elder (1961) Historia Naturalis, trans. H. Rackham, 10 vol., Books 17–19. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
Pollux. Onomasticon, ed. E Bethe, 2 vol., Lib. 1–6. 1900–1931. Leipzig
Virgil (1918) Georgicon, trans. HR Fairclough. William Heinemann, London

Modern authors

Adams C (2013) Natural resources in Roman Egypt. Extraction, transport, and administration. Bull Am Soc
Papyrol 50:265–281
Alfaro Giner C (2010) Fishing nets in the ancient world: the historical and archaeological evidence. In: Bek-
ker-Nielsen T, Bernal Casasola D (eds) Ancient nets and fishing gear. Proceedings of the international
workshop on nets and fishing gear in classical antiquity: a first approach, Cádiz, November 15–17,
2007. Monographs of the SAGENA Project, 2, Cádiz, pp 55–81.
Altenmüller H (1982) Arbeiten am Grab des Neferherenptah in Saqqara (1970–1975). MDAIK 38:1–16

13
318 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Altenmüller H (1998) Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. Ph. von Zabern,
Mainz-am-Rhein
Altenmüller H (2005) Fisch und Vogel für den Grabherrn. In: Daoud K, Bedier S y Abd el-Fatah S (eds)
Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan (SASAE 34/1), Le Caire, pp 69–78
Altenmüller H (2008) Der König als Vogelfänger und Fischer (nbty wHa) - Zu frühen Belegen eines
traditionellen Motivs. In: Engel EM, Müller V and Hartung U (eds.). Zeichen aus dem Sand. Strei-
flichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer, Menes 5, pp 1–18
Anderson WRM (1989) Badarian burials: possible indicators of social inequality in Middle Egypt during
the fifth millennium B.C. Master’s Thesis, McGill University
Anselin A (1998) Le Scribe et le Poisson. Discussions in Egyptology 40. Oxford, pp 5–58
Anselin A (2007) Aegyptio-Graphica VII. Le Harpon Et La Barque. Des Powerfacts Aux Hiéroglyphes.
Revista De La Sociedad Uruguaya De Egiptologia 24:32–37
Anton P, Curtis L (2017) Livelihoods of small-scale fishers along the Nile River in Sudan, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Regional Office for Near East and North
Africa, Cairo
Armayor OK (1978) Did herodotus ever go to Egypt. J Am Res Center Egypt. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​
40000​131
Attia EA, Marinova E, Fahmy AG, Baba M (2018) Archaeobotanical studies from Hierakonpolis: evi-
dence for food processing during the predynastic period in Egypt. In: Mercuri AM, D’Andrea AC,
Fornaciari R, Höhn A (eds) Plants and people in the African past progress in African archaeo-
botany. Springer, Cham, pp 76–89
Babatunde EE, Chukwu LO, Azeez LO (2008) Cast net design characteristics, catch composition and
selectivity in tropical open lagoon. Afr J Biotech. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​AJB20​08.​000-​5056
Baiju M (2005) Studies on Riverine fishing gears of Central Kerala. Dissertation, Cochin University of
Science and Technology
Bailey DM (1988) A catalogue of the lamps in British Museum. British Museum Press, London
Baratte F (1974) Recherches archéologiques à Haïdra. Miscellanea 1. Les mosaïques trouvées sous la
basilique I. Mosaïque d’Ulysse - Mosaïque fleurie. École Française de Rome, Rome
Bass G, Throckmorton P, Taylor JDP, Hennessy J, Shulman A, Buchholz H (1967) Cape gelidonya: a
Bronze age shipwreck. Trans Am Philos Soc 57(8):1–177
Bass GF (1967) Cape gelidonya: a Bronze age shipwreck. Trans Am Philos Soc 57(8):1–177
Bates O (1917) Ancient Egyptian fishing. In: Bates O (ed) Harvard African studies 1. Varia Africana I,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 199–272
Beech MJ (2001) In the land of the ichthyophagi: modelling fish exploitation in the Arabian Gulf and
Gulf of Oman from the 5th millennium BC to the Late Islamic period. Dissertation, University of
York
Beech M (2003) The Development of Fishing in the U.A.E.: a zooarchaeological perspective. In: Potts
DT, Naboodah, H, Hellyer, P (eds), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: proceedings of
the first international conference on the archaeology of the UAE. Trident Press Ltd., London, pp
289–308
Bekker-Nielsen T (2002) Nets, Boats and fishing in the roman World. Classica et Mediaevalia 215–233
Bekker-Nielsen T (2005) The technology and productivity of ancient sea fishing. In: Bekker-Nielsen T
(ed) Ancient fishing and fish processing in the black sea region. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus,
pp 83–95
Bekker-Nielsen T (2010) Fishing in the Roman World. In: Bekker-Nielsen T, Bernal Casasola D (eds)
Ancient nets and fishing gear, proceedings of the international workshop on nets and fishing gear
in classical antiquity: a first approach, Cádiz, november 15–17, 2007. Universidad de Cádiz, Ser-
vicios de Publicaciones, Cádiz, pp 187–204
Bernal Casasola D (2009) Arqueología de las redes de pesca. Un tema crucial de la economía marítima
hispanorromana. Mainake XXX, pp 181–215
Bernal D (2010) Fishing tackle in Hispania; reflections, proposals and first results. In: Bekker-Nielsen T,
Bernal Casasola D (eds) Ancient nets and fishing gear, proceedings of the international workshop
on nets and fishing gear in classical antiquity: a first approach, Cádiz, november 15–17, 2007. Uni-
versidad de Cádiz, Servicios de Publicaciones, Cádiz, pp 83–138
Bernal D, Vargas, JM, Lara M (2019): Arqueologíade las artes de pesca en Traducta. Anzuelos, pesas,
agujas ylanzaderas. Primeras reflexiones. In: Bernal D, Jiménez-Camino R (eds.) Las cetariae de
Iulia Traducta. Resultadosde las excavaciones arqueológicas en la calle San Nicolásde Algeciras
(2001–2006). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz y Ayuntamiento de Algeciras,
Cádiz, pp 473–496
Bernatzik HA (1936) Gari-gari: the call of the African wilderness. Constable and Company Ltd., London

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 319

Besta MC (1921) Pesca e Pescatori Nell’egitto Greco-Romano. Aegyptus 2:67–74

Bidoli D (1976) Die Sprüche der Fangnetze in den altägyptischen Sargtexten. ADAIK 9, Glückstadt
Blackman AM (1914) The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part I. The tomb-chapel of Ukh-hotp’s son Senbi, London
Blackman AM, Apted MR (1953). The rock tombs of Meir: Part VI. London, pp. 24/pl.XI
Blanchard-Lemée M, Mermet G (1995) Sols de l’Afrique romaine: Mosaïques de Tunisie. Imprimerie
nationale, Paris
Bloss JFE (1945) The Sudanese angler. Sudan Notes And Records 26(2): 257–281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​
41716​483
Blouin K (2012) Minimum firmitatis, plurimum lucri: le cas du ‘lin mendésien.’ In: Schubert P (ed)
Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie, Genève, 16–21 août 2010. Librairie Droz,
Geneva, pp 83–89
Boschloos V (2009) L’iconographie des calices en relief égyptiens par rapport aux adaptations phé-
niciennes. In: Cecchini SM, Mazzoni S, Scigliuzzo E (eds) Syrian and Phoenician Ivories of the
Early First Millennium BCE: Chronology, regional Styles and Iconographic repertories, Patterns
of Inter-Regional Distribution. Acts of the International Workshop, Pisa, December 9th–11th
2004. Ricerche di archeologia del Vicino Oriente 3. Edizioni ETS, Pisa, pp 285–305
Boulenger GA (1907) The fishes of the Nile. Hugh Rees Ltd, London
Brewer DJ, Friedman RF (1989a) Fish and fishing in ancient Egypt. Aris & Phillips, Warminster
Brewer D (1989b) Fishermen, Hunters and Herders: Zooarchaeology in the Fayum, Egypt (ca. 8200-
5000 bp). B.A.R., Oxford
Bryan B (2019) Egypt and the Reception of the Near East. In: Gunter AC (ed) A companion to ancient
near eastern art. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 545–549. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97811​18336​779
Budge EAW (1893) Catalogue of the Egyptian collection in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Burns J (2020) Climate change, fishing and the nile: changes in fishing techniques and technologies at
the end of the old kingdom. In: Bárta M, Janák J (ed) Profane landscapes, sacred spaces. Equinox
eBooks Publishing, Sheffield, Bristol
Bussière J, Wohl BL (2017) Ancient Lamps in the J. Getty Publications, Los Angeles, Paul Getty
Museum
Bustamante Álvarez M (2010) Terra Sigillata as a Source for Fishing Gear in the Early Imperial Period. In:
T B-N, D BC (eds) Ancient nets and fishing gear, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Nets
and Fishing Gear in Classical Antiquity: a first approach, Cádiz, November 15–17, 2007. Universidad
de Cádiz, Servicios de Publicaciones, Cádiz. pp. 287–298
Caminos RA (1956) Literary fragments in the hieratic script. Griffith Institute, Oxford
Carandini A, Ricci A, Vos M, Medri M (1982) Filosofiana, la villa di Piazza Armerina: Immagine di un
aristocratico romano al tempo di Costantino. Flaccovio, Palermo
Carretero Vaquero S (1991) Lucernas romanas con paisaje de influencia alejandrina: temas maritimos.
BSAA 57:193–214
Carrier C (2004) Textes des sarcophages du Moyen Empire égyptien. Rocher, Monaco
Casado Soto JL (2013) Panorama tipológico de los barcos ibéricos en la época de las Cantigas de Santa
María, Alcanate: Revista de estudios Alfonsíes VIII: 191–219
Caton-Thompson G, Gardner EW (1934) The desert Fayum. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Brit-
ain and Ireland, London
Caubet A, Pierrat-Bonnefois G (2005) Faience from Antiquity. From Egypt to Iran. [Exhibition, Paris,
Musée du Louvre, June 10 - September 12, 2005]. Musée du Louvre, Paris
Clarysse W, Thompson DJ, Luft U (2006) Counting the people in Hellenistic Egypt (Vols. 1–2). Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge
Currelly CT (1956) I brought the ages home. Ryerson Press, Toronto
Chen Y (2007) Grooved Stone Sinker and Cast Net of Prehistorical Taiwan. J Archaeol Anthropol
67:117–155
Chłodnicki M, Makowiecki D (2009) The archaeology and archaeoichthyology of fish and fishing at
Tell el Farkha, Egypt-Predynastic and Early Dynastic times. In: Makowiecki D, Hamilton-Dyer
S, Riddler I, Trzaska-Nartowski N, Makohonienko N (eds) Fishes-culture-environment. Through
archaeoichthyology, EThNOGRAPHY and history, the 15th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains
Working Group (FRWG), September 3–9, 2009 in Poznan & Torun, Poland. Środowisko I Kultura
(Environment and Culture) vol. 7, Poznan, pp 135–140
Chouliara-Raïos H (2001) Modes et engins de pêche en Egypte d’après les papyrus grecs, Dodoni: Phi-
lology 30, pp 249–251
Czarnowicz M (2014) Examples of copper harpoons of Naqada culture in the Eastern Nile Delta area
(3300–2890 BC). Иcтopия Opyжия 10:38–50

13
320 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Darlow S (2018) A chronological investigation of the Middle Kingdom tombs at Meir. Dissertation,
Macquarie University
Daumas F (1964) Quelques remarques sur les représentations de pêche à la ligne sous l’ancien empire.
BIFAO 62:67–85
Davies NG (1902) The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi, Volume II. London
Davies NG (1906) The Rock Tombs of el Amarna, Part IV: Tombs of Penthu, Mahu, and Others. London
Davies NG (1927) Two Ramesside tombs at Thebes, New York
Desroches-Noblecourt C (1953) Un «Lac de Turquoise». Godets à onguents et destinées d’outre-tombe
dans l’Égypte ancienne. Monuments Et Mémoires De La Fondation Eugène Piot 47:1–34
Dee M, Wengrow D, Shortland A, Stevenson A, Brock F, Girdland FL, Bronk RC (2013) An absolute
chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Proc R
Soc A. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rspa.​2013.​0395
Dounias E, Cogels S, Mvé Mbida S, Carrière S (2016) The safety net role of inland fishing in the sub-
sistence strategy of multi-active forest dwellers in southern Cameroon. Revue D’ethnoécologie.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4000/​ethno​ecolo​gie.​2844
Dumont J (1976–1977) La pêche du thon à Byzance a l’époque hellénistique. REA, LXXVIII-LXXIX:
96–119
Dumont J (1977) La pèche dans le Fayoum hellénistique: traditions et nouveautés d’après le Papyrus Tebt-
ynis 701. CE 52: 125–42
Ebeling E, Weidner EF (1998–2001) Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Nab-
Nuzi. De Gruyter, Berlin
Edo K (2007) Cast nets. In: Johnson DH, American Fisheries Society, State of the Salmon (Program) (eds)
Salmonid field protocols handbook: techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout
populations. American Fisheries Society in association with State of the Salmon, Bethesda
Elshafaey AEA, Marinova E, Fahmy AG, Baba M (2018) Archaeobotanical studies from Hierakonpolis:
EVIDENCE for food processing during the Predynastic period in Egypt. In: Mercuri AM, D’Andrea
AC, Fornaciari R, Höhn A (eds) Plants and people in the African past. Progress in African archaeo-
botany, Berlin, pp 76–89
Englund RK (1990) Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur‐III‐ Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen
Orient 10. D. Reimer, Berlin
Épron L, Daumas L (1939) Le Tombeau de Ti. Fasc. I. Les approches de la chapelle. IFAO, Le Caire
Erman A, Grapow H (1926–1963) Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig
Engelbach R, Gunn BG (1923) Harageh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London
Fantar MH, Jaber S, Veyne P (1994) La Mosaique en Tunisie. CNRS, Paris
Faure P (1973) La vie quotidienne en Crete au temps de Minos (1500 avant Jesus-Christ). Hachette, Paris
Ferdi S (1998) Mosaïques des eaux en Algérie: un langage mythologique des pierres. RSM, Alger.
Ferdi S (2001) État inégal de conservation des mosaïques d’Algérie. Comptes Rendus Des Séances De
L’académie Des Inscriptions Et Belles-Lettres 1:517–528
Ferguson E (2012) Time and meaning: the use of the fishing and fowling scene through time in ancient
Egyptian non-royal tombs. M.A. thesis, University of Memphis
Feucht E (1992) Fishing and Fowling with the spear and the throwing stick reconsidered. In: Luft V (ed)
The intellectual heritage of Egypt: Studies presented to László Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on
the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Budapest, pp 157–169
Fournet JL (2013) Papyrologie grecque: 145e année (2012–2013). Annuaire EPHE, SHP 104–106:47–48.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4000/​ashp.​1462
Fournet JL (2015) Deux papyrus inédits des archives de Zénon. Ancient Society 45:83–96
Frese HH (1964) The fisherman: an overview. The ecology of man in the tropical environment =:
L’Ecologie de l’homme dans le milieu tropical: proceedings and papers [of the] 9th Technical Meet-
ing, held at Nairobi from 17 to 20 Sept. 1963 in conjunction with the Union’s 8th general Assembly.
IUCN, Morges
Friedman RF (2004) Elephants at Hierakonpolis. In: Hendrickx S, Friedman RF, Cialowicz KM, Chlodnicki
M (eds) Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Peeters, Leuven, pp 131–168
Froese R, Pauly D, (eds) (2021) FishBase. https://​fishb​ase.​org, version (06/2021)
Fuscaldo P (ed) (2005) Tell el-Ghaba I, A Saite Settlement in North Sinai, Egypt (Argentine Archaeological
Mission, 1995–2004). CONICET, Buenos Aires
Gabriel O, Lange K, Dahm E, Wendt T (2005) Fish catching methods of the world, 4th edn. Blackwell,
Oxford
Galili E, Rosen B, Sharvit J (2002) Fishing-gear sinkers recovered from an underwater wreckage site, off the
Carmel coast Israel. IJNA 31(2):182–201

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 321

Galili E, Zemmer A, Rosen B (2013) Ancient fishing gear and associated artifacts from underwater explora-
tions in Israel—a comparative study. Archaeofauna 22:145–166
Gamer-Wallert I (1970) Fische und Fischkulte im Alten Ägypten, Wiesbaden
Gardner EA (1888) Naukratis: Part 2, London
Griffith AS (1910) Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities of the XII and XVIII dynasties from Kahun, Illahun
and Gurob. Sherratt & Hughes, Manchester
Gonen R (1992) Burial patterns and cultural diversity in Late Bronze age Canaan. Eisenbrauns, Winona
Lake
Greenwood PH (1978) Poissons. In: Vermeersch PM (ed) Elkab II. L’Elkabien, Epipaleolithique de la
Vallde du Nil Egyptien. Univ. Pers. Leuven, Leuven, pp 104
Gutiérrez López JM, Giles F (2004) Agujas y pesas de red de la factoría de salazones P-19. In: Arévalo
A, Bernal B, Torremocha A (eds.) Garum y salazones en el Círculo del Estrecho, Ediciones Osuna,
Algeciras, pp 138
Gwiazda M (2014) Economy of Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Settlement in Jiyeh (Porphyreon),
Lebanon. Archeologia 62–63:31–44
Hannig R (2000) Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch–Ägyptisch (2800–950 v.
Chr.). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz
Hariri KI, Nichols P, Krupp F, Mishrigi S, Barrania A, Ali FA, Kedidi SM (2000) Status of the living
marine resources in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden region and their management. The World Bank,
Washington
Hayes William C (1990) Scepter of Egypt II: a background for the study of the Egyptian antiquities in the
metropolitan museum of art: the hyksos period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080 B.C.). Abrams,
New York, pp 358–59
Hendrickx S (2006) Predynastic-early dynastic chronology. In: Hornung E, Krauss R, Warburton DA (eds)
Ancient Egyptian chronology. Brill, Leiden, pp 92
Henein N (2010) Pêche et chasse au lac Manzala. IFAO, Cairo
Henne H (1951) PSI. 901 et la police de la pêche dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine dans ses rapports avec la
religion. Aegyptus 31:184–191
Herzog Z, Rapp G, Negbi O (eds) Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. University of Minnesota Press and Tel
Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, Minneapolis
Holdaway SJ, Phillipps R, Koopman A, Linseele V, Wendrich W (2017) The L Basin archaeological record.
In: Holdaway SJ, Wendrich W (eds) The Desert Fayum Reinvestigated: The Early to Mid-Holocene
Landscape Archaeology of the Fayum North Shore, Egypt. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
Press, Los Angeles, pp 51–97
Holland WJ (1902) Annual report of the director for the year ending March 31, 1902. Pittsburgh
Hornung E, Krauss R, Warbuton DA (2006) Chronological table for the dynastic period. In: Hornung E,
Krauss R, Warburton DA (eds) Ancient Egyptian chronology. Brill, Leiden, pp 490–45
Huyge D (2005) The fish hunters of El-Hosh: Rock art research and archaeological investigations in
Upper Egypt (1998–2004). Bulletin Des Séances De L’academie Royale Des Sciences D’outre-Mer
51:231–249
Huyge D (2008) Lascaux along the Nile’: The Palaeolithic rock art of Qurta (Upper Egypt). Bulletin Des
Séances De L’academie Royale Des Sciences D’outre-Mer 54:281–296
Huyge D, De Dapper M, Depraetere D, Ismail M, Marchi E, Mommaerts R, Regulski I, Watchman A (1998)
Hilltops, silts, and petroglyphs: the fish hunters of El-Hosh (Upper Egypt). Bulletin Des Musées
Royaux D’art Et D’histoire 69:97–113
Huyge D, Ikram, S (2009) Animal representations in the Late Palaeolithic rock art of Qurta (Upper Egypt).
In: Riemer H, Förster F, Herb M, Pöllath N (eds) Desert Animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status,
Economic Significance and Cultural Reflection in Antiquity (Colloquium Africanum 4), Köln, pp
157–174
Huyge D, Vandenberghe DAG (2011) Confirming the Pleistocene age of the Qurta rock art. Egyptian
Archaeology 39:21–24
Jacobsen ALL (2005) The reliability of fishing statistics as a source for catches and fish stocks in antiquity.
In: Bekker-Nielsen T (ed) Ancient Fishing and Fish processing in the Black Sea Region. Aarhus Uni-
versity Press, Aarhus
James T (1963) Egyptian composition vessels with relief decoration. Br Mus Q 27(3/4):74–79
Jones J (2001) Textiles from the Pan Grave cemetery. Sudan and Nubia 5:38–39
Jørgensen LB (2018) Textiles from Mons Claudianus, ‘Abu Sha’ar and other Roman Sites in the Eastern
Desert. In: Brun J, Faucher T, Redon B, Sidebotham S (eds) The Eastern Desert of Egypt during
the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. Collège de France, Paris. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4000/​
books.​cdf.​5234

13
322 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Jul-Larsen E, Kolding J, Overå R, Nielsen JR, Van Zwieten P (2003) Management, co-management or no
management? Major dilemmas in southern African freshwater fisheries. Vol. 1: Synthesis report
Vol.2: Case studies. FAO fisheries technical paper no. 426/1–2, Rome
Kahlbacher A, Zelenková L (2011) The MeKeTRE project and an example of a theme type in the old and
middle kingdom: manufacture of nets. In: Bárta M, Coppens F, Krejčí J (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in
the Year 2010, II. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, pp 465–482
Kawanishi H (1995) Technologial studies of baskets and other fiber works. In: Kodaigaku K (ed) Akoris.
Report of the Excavations at Akoris in Middle Egypt 1981–1992. Koyo Shobo, Kyoto, pp 294–297
Kemp BJ, Merrillees RS (1980) Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt. P. von Zabern, Mainz am
Rhein
Kemp BJ, Vogelsang-Eastwood G (2001) The ancient textile industry at Amarna. Egypt Exploration Soci-
ety, London
Kemp B, Stevens A, Dabbs G, Zabecki M, Rose J (2013) Life, death and beyond in Akhenaten’s Egypt:
excavating the South Tombs Cemetery at Amarna. Antiquity. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0003​598X0​
00486​26
El-Khadragy M (2007) Fishing, fowling and animal-handling in the Tomb of Djefaihapi I at Asyut. In:
Binder S (ed) The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology, 18. Sidney
Jarmuzek L (2010) Loom-weights or net-weights? Göttinger Miszellen 226:17–24
Kohen CI, Cione AL (2006) Fishing Techniques at Tell el-Ghaba. In: Fuscaldo P (ed) Tell el-Ghaba II. A
Saite Settlement in North Sinai, Egypt (Argentine Archaeological Mission, 1995–2004). CONICET,
Buenos Aires, pp 137–148
Kloppenborg J (2020) Ptolemaic and early Roman Egypt. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston
Kuniholm PI (1982) The Fishing Gear. In: Bass GF, Van Doornink F (eds) Yassi Ada I, A Seventh Century
Byzantine Shipwreck. College Station, Texas, pp 296–310
Lacau P (1954) Le Panier De Pêche Égyptien BIFAO 54:137–163
Leclère F, Spencer AJ (2014) Tell Dafana reconsidered: the archaeology of an Egyptian frontier town. Brit-
ish Museum Publ, London
Lehmann M (2018) Die materielle Kultur der Spät- und Ptolemäerzeit im Delta Ägyptens am Beispiel von
Tell el-Dab’a. Dissertation, Berlin Freie Universität
Lilyquist C (2012a) Remarks on Internationalism: The Non-Text Data. In: Aruz J, Graff S, Rakic Y (eds)
Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York
Lilyquist C (2012b) Treasures from Tell Basta: goddesses, officials, and artists in an international age.
Metrop Mus J 47:9–72
Linseele V (2014) Fish remains from Neolithic contexts. In: P W, G G, G T (eds) Sais II The Prehistoric
period. Egypt Exploration Society, London. pp. 141–148
Liyandja TLD, Zamba AI, Sefu CA, Dianzuangani DL, Konda RK, Iyaba RJCM, Mbimbi JJMN (2019)
Environmental Influences on Fish Species Distribution in the Musolo River System, Congo River
Basin (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central Africa). ESJ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​19044/​esj.​2019.​
v15n3​3p192
Loret L (1892) Notes sur la faune pharaonique, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache, 30, Leipzig, pp 24–30
LUFF RM, BAILEY G (2000a) Analysis of incremental growth structures and size changes in African cat-
fish Synodontis schall (schall) from Tell el Amarna, Middle Egypt. J Archaeol Sci 821–835
Luff R, Bailey G (2000b) The aquatic basis of ancient civilisations: the case of Synodontis schall and the
Nile Valley. In: Bailey G, Charles R, Winder N (eds) Human ecodynamics. Symposia of the associa-
tion for environmental archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 100–113
Lupo S (ed) (2015) Tell el-Ghaba III. A Third Intermediate-Early Saite Period Site in the Egyptian Eastern
Delta. Excavations 1995–1999 and 2010 in areas I, II, VI and VIII. Archaeopress, Oxford
Lythgoe AM (1907) Recent Egyptian acquisitions. Metrop Museum Art Bull 2(12):195–196
Lythgoe A (1918) An exhibit illustrating the daily life of the ancient Egyptians. Metrop Museum Art Bull
13(12):283–288
Manning J (2003) Land and power in ptolemaic Egypt: The structure of land tenure. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​80511​482847
Manning J (2007) Hellenistic Egypt. In: Scheidel W, Morris I, Saller R (eds) The Cambridge economic his-
tory of the greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 434–459. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1017/​CHOL9​78052​17805​37.​017
Manning S, Pulak C, Kromer B, Talamo S, Ramsey CB, Dee MW (2009) Absolute age of the Uluburun
shipwreck: a key Late Bronze Age time-capsule for the East Mediterranean. In: Manning SW, Bruce
MJ (eds) Tree-rings, kings and old world archaeology and environment: papers presented in Honor of
Peter Ian Kuniholm. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 163–187

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 323

Manning SW, Wacker L, Büntgen U, Ramsey CB, Dee MW, Kromer B, Lorentzen B, Tegel W (2013)
Radiocarbon calibration in the mid to later 14th century BC and radiocarbon dating Tell el-Amarna,
Egypt. In: Shortland AJ, Ramsey CB (eds) Radiocarbon and the chronologies of ancient Egypt.
Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 121–145
Manning SW, Wacker L, Büntgen U, Ramsey BC, Dee MW, Kromer B, Lorentzen B, Tegel W (2020) Radi-
ocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera
(Santorini). Sci Rep. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​020-​69287-2
Marthot-Santaniello I (2020) Flax growing in late antique Egypt: evidence from the Aphrodito papyri. In
Mossakowska-Gaubert M (ed) Egyptian Textiles and Their Production: ‘Word’ and ‘Object’ (Hellen-
istic, Roman and Byzantine Periods). Lincoln. https://​doi.​org/​10.​32873/​unl.​dc.​zea.​1087
Masson-Berghoff A, Pernicka E, Hook D, Meek A (2018) (Re)sources: Origins of metals in Late Period
Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21: 318–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jasrep.​
2018.​07.​010
Meeks D (1978) Année Lexicographique: Égypte Ancienne. Tome 2, Cybèle, Paris
Miniaci G, Quirke S (2009) Reconceiving the Tomb in the Late Middle Kingdom. The Burial of the
accountant of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu al-Naga. BIFAO 109:339–383
Miniaci G, Moreno García JC, Quirke S, Stauder A (2018) The arts of making in ancient Egypt: voices,
images, and objects of material producers 2000–1550 BC. Sidestone Press, Leiden
Mitchell JC (1895) Report on the edible fishes of Lake Menzaleh: Their capture and preservation. National
Printing Office, Cairo
Mohammed MO, Ali ME (2011) Diversity of selective and non-selective fishing gear and their impact on
the White Nile River, Khartoum State. Sudan Afr J Environ Sci Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​
AJEST​10.​028
Mohr HT (1943): The Mastaba of Hetep-her-akhti. Study on an Egyptian Tomb Chapel in the Museum of
Antiquities, Leiden
Monson A (2012) From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Economic Change in Egypt. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​81139​028196
Montet P (1914) Les poissons employés dans l’écriture hiéroglyphique. BIFAO 11, Cairo, pp 39–48
Morales Muñiz A (2010) Inferences about prehistoric fishing gear based on archaeological fish assemblages.
In: Bekker-Nielsen T, Bernal Casasola D (eds) Ancient nets and fishing gear, proceedings of the inter-
national workshop on nets and fishing gear in classical antiquity: a first approach, Cádiz, november
15–17, 2007. Universidad de Cádiz, Servicios de Publicaciones, Cádiz, pp 25–53
Mlasowsky A (1993) Die antiken Tonlampen im Kestner-Museum Hannover. Kestner-Museum, Hannover
Du Monceau HLD, De la Marre M (1769) Traité général des pesches, et histoire des poissons qu’elles four-
nissent, tant pour la subsistance des hommes, que pour plusieurs autres usages qui ont rapport aux
arts et au commerce. Paris
Moyer I (2002) Herodotus and an Egyptian mirage: The genealogies of the Theban priests. J Hellenic Stud.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​32462​05
Muhs BP (2005) Tax receipts, taxpayers, and taxes in early Ptolemaic Thebes. -Demotic and Greek Ostraca
from the Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago. The Oriental Institute, Chicago
Muhs B (2016) The ancient Egyptian economy: 3000–30 BCE. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​81316​286364
Nelson JS, Grande TC, Wilson MVH (2016) Fishes of the World, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Newberry PE (1893) Beni Hasan II, London
Nicholson PT, Shaw I (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Nieuwenhuyse O, Berghuijs K, Mühl S (2012) A Late Neolithic “fishing net” from Kurdistan, Northern
Iraq? Paléorient 38(1–2):141–147
Odler M (2016) Old Kingdom Copper Tools and Model Tools. With contributions by Jiˇrí Kmoˇsek, J´an
Dupej, Katarína Arias Kytnarov´a, Lucie Jir´askov´a, Veronika Dulíkov´a, Tereza Jamborov´a,
ˇS´arka Msallamov´a, Kateˇrina ˇS´alkov´a and Martina Kmoníˇckov´a. Archaeopress, Oxford
Odler M (2021) Egyptian Archaeology in Need of a Data Turn, In: A Kilian, M Zöller-Engelhardt (eds)
Excavating the extra-ordinary. Challenges and merits of working with small finds. Heidelberg, Propy-
laeum, pp 25–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11588/​propy​laeum.​676
Odler M, Kmoˇsek J (2020) Invisible Connections: an Archaeometallurgical Analysis of the Bronze age
metalwork from the Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig. With chapters by Katarína Arias,
Veronika Dulíkov´a, Lucie Jir´askov´a, Archaeopress Egyptology. Archaeopress, Oxford
Odler M, Kmošek J, Fikrle M, Erban Kochergina YV (2021) Arsenical copper tools of Old Kingdom Giza
craftsmen: first data. J Archaeol Sci Rep 36:102868. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jasrep.​2021.​102868

13
324 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Ogutu-Ohwayo R (1999) The impact of Nile Perch harvesting on fishes and fisheries in Uganda. In: Envi-
ronmental impacts of trade liberalization and policies for the sustainable management of natural
resources: a case study of Uganda’s Fisheries Sector. UNEP/Earthprint, pp 35–36
Okoh F, Eyo AJE, Ezenwaji HMG (2007) Species composition and abundance of cast net fishery of a tropi-
cal lotic freshwater ecosystem. Bio-Research 5(1):201–206
Okwakol M (2001) Cast-net fishery on northern portion of Lake Victoria and upper Victoria Nile. Diploma
Project, Fisheries Training Institute
Owen TRH (1950) Fishing at Wau. Sudan Wild Life and Sport 1(3): 5–7
Parássoglou GM (1987) A lease of fishing rights. Aegyptus 67(1–2):89–93
Parkinson R (2004) The discourse of the fowler: Papyrus Butler Verso (P. BM EA 10274). JEA 90:81–111
Peet TH (1923) The city of Akhenaten, Part 1, Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at el-’Amarneh, London
Pekáry I (1999) Repertorium der Hellenistischen und Römischen Schiffsdarstellungen. Archäologisches
Seminar der Universität, Münster
Pendlebury JDS (1931) Preliminary report of excavations at Tell el Amarnah, 1930–31. London
Pétrequin AM, Pétrequin P, Bontemps C (2015) Les poids de filet: deux techniques différentes. In: Pétrequin
P, Pétrequin AM (dir) Clairvaux et le «Néolithique Moyen Bourguignon». Tome 2. Presses Universi-
taires de Franche-Comté, Besançon, pp 1121–1125
Petrie WMF (1888) Tanis. Part II. Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanhes). London
Petrie WMF (1890) Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, London.
Petrie WMF (1899) Sequences in prehistoric remains. J Anthropol Inst Great Br Ireland 29:259–301
Petrie WMF (1920) Prehistoric Egypt illustrated by over 1,000 Objects in University College, London
Petrie WMF (1924) Sedment II, London
Petrie WMF (1927) Objects of daily use, with over 1800 figures from University College, London
Potts DT (2012) Fish and fishing. In: Potts DT (ed) A companion to the archaeology of the ancient near east.
Wiley-Blackwell, Malden
Petrie WMF (1933) Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjūl. British school of archaeology in Egypt, London
Pramod G, Pitcher TJ (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Egypt with Article 7 (Fisher-
ies Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. In: Pitcher TJ, Kaliko-
ski D, Pramod G (eds) Evaluations of compliance with the FAO (UN) code of conduct for responsible
fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol 14, No. 2, pp 1192
Pulak C (1988) The Bronze age shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign. AJA 92(1):1–37
Purcell N (1995) Eating fish: the paradoxes of seafood, in food in antiquity. In: Wilkins J, Harvey D, Dobson
M (eds) Food in antiquity. University of Exeter Press, Exeter, pp 132–149
Quirke S (2013) Going out in daylight: Prt m hrw—the ancient egyptian book of the dead: translations,
sources, meanings. Golden House Publications, London
Radcliff W (1921) Egyptian fishing, Fishing from the earliest times, London
Ramseyer D, Reinhard J (2000) Les objets en écorce. In: Ramseyer D (ed) Muntelier/Fischergässli. Un habi-
tat néolithique au bord du lac de Morat (3895 à 3820 av. J.-C.). Ed. Univ. Fribourg, Fribourg, pp
206–219
Randall-Maciver MA, Mace AC (1902): El Amrah and Abydos, London
Regueras Grande F, López Rodríguez JR (1987) Cerámicas tardorromanas de Villanueva de Azoague
(Zamora). Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología 53: 115–166
Roberts TR (2002) Fish scenes, symbolism, and kingship in the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat and the Bayon.
NHBSS 2:135–193
Rzepka S, Hudec J, Wodzińska A, Jarmużek Ł, Hulková L, Dubcová V, Piorun M, Šefčáková A (2014)
Tell el-Retaba from the Second Intermediate Period till the Late Period. Results of the Polish-Slovak
Archaeological Mission, seasons 2011–2012. Ägypten Und Levante 24:39–120
Sahrhage D (1988) Fischfang und Fischkult im Alten Ägypten. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz
Sahrhage D, Lundbeck J (1992) A history of fishing. Springer, Berlin
Sahrhage D (2008) Fishing in ancient Egypt. In: Selin H (ed) Encyclopaedia of the history of science, tech-
nology, and medicine in non-western cultures, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 922–927
Sáñez Reguart A (1792) Diccionario histórico de los artes de la pesca nacional, III. En la Imprenta de la
Viuda de Don Ioaquin Ibarra, Madrid
Säve-Söderbergh T (1957) Four eighteenth dynasty tombs. Griffith Instiute, Oxford
Shedid AG (1994): Die Felsengräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten. Ph. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein
Steinkeller P (1985) A Note on sa-bar = sa-par4/pàr “Casting Net”. ZA. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​zava.​1985.​
75.1.​39
El-Sayed AFM (2017a) Fish and fisheries in the Nile Delta. In: Negm A (ed) The Nile delta. Springer, pp
495–516. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​698_​2016_​54

13
Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326 325

El-Sayed AFM (2017b) Fish and fisheries in the Nile Basin. In: Negm A (ed) The Nile River. Springer, pp
387–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​698_​2016_​98
Seisay MDB (1998) The cast net fishery, Kainji Lake, Nigeria 1970–1997. Nigerian-German (GTZ) Kainji
Lake Fisheries Promotion Project, New Bussa, Nigeria
El-Shabrawy GM (2009) Lake Nasser-Nubia. In: Dummont J (ed) The Nile. Origin, environments, limnol-
ogy and human use. Springer, pp 125–155
Shalev S, Sari K (2006) The 1996 excavations along the Northern Hill at Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal) -Persian-
Period Metal Finds from Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal). ’Atiqot 52:93–107
Shalloof KA (2009) Some observations on fisheries biology of Tilapia zillii (Gervais, 1848) and Solea vul-
garis (Quensel, 1806) in Lake Qarun. Egypt World J Fish Mar Sci 1(1):20–28
Simpson W (1959) The vessels with engraved designs and the repoussé bowl from the tell basta treasure.
AJA 63(1):29–45
Sjaastad, E (2018) The Egyptian Reel. SAK 47, 2018, pp 223–237
Soria-Trastoy MT (2020) Las estacas de madera de Haraga y la pesca en el-Fayum durante el Reino Medio.
TdE 11:331–367
Sotheby, WH (1922). Catalogue of the MacGregor collection of Egyptian antiquities: [auction, London,
Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge, Monday, the 26th of June, 1922, and four following days, and Monday,
the 3rd of July 1922, and three following days]. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge, London
Sparks RT (2013) Fishing for meaning: Net weights, fishhooks and netting needles in mortuary contexts at
Tell el-‘Ajjul. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 5(2): 33–47. https://www.doi.org/https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2458/​azu_​jaei_​v05i2_​sparks
Spencer AJ (1993) Excavations at el-Ashmunein. III: the Town. British Museum Expedition to Middle
Egypt. British Museum Press, London
Spencer AJ (2009) Excavations at Tell el-Balamun 2003–2008
Spencer N (2014) Kom Firin II: The Urban Fabric and Landscape. The British Museum, London
Storemyr P (2009) A prehistoric geometric rock art landscape by the first Nile cataract. Archéo-Nil
19:121–150
Stubbs JM (1949) Fresh water fisheries in the Northern Bahr El Ghazal Waters. Sudan Notes Rec
30(2):245–251
Szulc-Kajak A (2013) Fishing gear from jiyeh (porphyreon): preliminary report. PAM 22:334–340
Tait GAD (1963) The Egyptian relief chalice. JEA 49:93–139
Tesfamichael D, Mehanna SF (2012) Reconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Egypt: heavy investment and
fisheries. Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950–2010).
Fisher Centre Res Rep 20(1):23–50
Török L (2011) Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300 B.C.-AD 250 and its Egyptian Models. Leiden,
Brill. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1163/​ej.​97890​04211​285.i-​484
Thomas R (2009) Maritime Cultures of the Erythraean Sea. Dissertation, University of Southampton.
Thomas R (2010) Fishing equipment from Myos Hormos and fishing techniques on the Red Sea in the
Roman period. In: Bekker-Nielsen T, Bernal Casasola D (eds) Ancient nets and fishing gear,
Proceedings of the international workshop on nets and fishing gear in classical antiquity: a first
approach, Cádiz, november 15–17, 2007. Universidad de Cádiz, Servicios de Publicaciones,
Cádiz, pp 139–159
Thomas RI (2011) Fishing activity. In: Peacock DPS, Blue L (eds) Myos Hormos-Quseir al-Qadim:
Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea, 2. Finds from the excavations 1999–2003. Archaeopress,
Oxford, pp 211–219
Thomas RI (2012) Port communities and the Erythraean Sea trade. BMSAES 18:169–199
Thomason AK (2013) The Impact of the “portable”: Integrating “minor arts” into the ancient near east-
ern Canon. In: Brown BA, Feldman MH (eds) Critical approaches to ancient near eastern art. De
Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, pp 133–158
Tsujimura S (2012) Fishing in Akoris. In: Kawanishi H, Tsujimura S, Hanasaka T (eds) Preliminary
report Akoris 2011. University of Tsukuba, Institute of History and Anthropology, Tsukuba, pp
14–18
Tylor JJ, Griffith FL (1894) The tomb of Paheri at El Kab. London
Uerpmann M (1992) Structuring the late stone age of Southeastern Arabia. Arab Archaeol Epigr. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1600-​0471.​1992.​tb000​32.x
Uusivuori E (2019) The economics of linen nets: a solution to the microplastic waste problem in waters,
Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki
Vandier AJ, Gasse A (1937) Catalogue des ostraca figurés de Deir el-Médineh. Fasc. 2: II.2 N° 2256-
2722, IFAO, Le Caire
Van Neer W (1994) La pêche dans le Nil égyptien durant la préhistoire. Archéo-Nil 4:17–25

13
326 Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2022) 17:245–326

Van Neer W (2004) Evolution of prehistoric fishing in the Nile Valley. J Afr Archaeol 2:251–269
Van Neer W, Zohar I, Lernau O (2005) The emergence of fishing communities in the eastern mediter-
ranean region: a survey of evidence from pre- and protohistoric periods. Paleobiology 31:131–157
Vargas JM (2017) El instrumental de pesca en Hispania. Origen, desarrollo y contextualización atlán-
tico-mediterránea. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Cádiz. https://​www.​educa​cion.​gob.​es/​teseo/​
impri​mirFi​chero​Tesis.​do PDF file: 486174_893108.pdf
Vargas Girón JM (2020) Ofrendas de carácter pesquero en santuarios litorales: el caso de La Algaida
(Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Cádiz). Spal. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12795/​spal.​2020.​i29.​25
Villing A, Bergeron M, Bourogiannis G, Johnston A, Leclère F, Masson A et al (2013–2015) Naukratis:
Greeks in Egypt. British Museum Online Research Catalogue
De Vingo P, Fossati A (2001) Gli utensili da pesca. In: Mannoni T, Murialdo G (eds) S. Antonino: Un
insediamento fortificato nella Ligura bizantina, Bordiguera, pp 657–660
Vermeersch P (1978) Elkab II: Epipaléolithique de la vallée du Nil égyptien. Leuven
Vermeersch P, Paulissen E, Van Neer W (1989) The Paleolithic Makhadma sites. In: Przyzaniak L, Kob-
usiewicz M (eds) Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara. Poznan, pp 87–114
Von Pilgrim C (1996) Elephantine Grabung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo in Zusammenar-
beit mit dem Schweizerischen Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde Kairo 18
Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Mainz von Zabern
Wassell BA (1991) Ancient Egyptian fauna: a lexicographical study. Dissertation, Durham University
Welcomme RL (1979) Fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman, London
Welcomme RL, De Mérona B (1988) Fish communities of rivers. In: Lévêque C, Bruton MN Ssentongo
GW (ed) Biology and ecology of african freshwater fishes. ORSTOM, Paris, pp 251–276
Wilkinson JG (1878) The manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, London
Veldmeijer AJ (2004) Fishing nets from Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast). TdE 3:99–110
Veldmeijer AJ (2009) Cordage Production, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1(1). nelc_uee_7923.
Retrieved from: http://​www.​escho​larsh​ip.​org/​uc/​item/​1w90v​76c
Wendrich WZ, Van Neer W (1994) Preliminary notes on fishing gear and fish at the late Roman fort at
‘Abu Sha’ar (Egyptian Red Sea coast)”. In: Van Neer W (ed) Fish exploitation in the past: pro-
ceedings of the 7th meeting of the ICAZ fish remains working group, Tervuren, pp 183–189
Wesselkamp G (1980) Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Band 5. Die organischen Reste der
Cortaillod-Schichten. Holzartefakte, Textilien, mit Birkenrinde umwickelte Steine. Staatlicher Lehr-
mittelverlag, Bern
Westendorf W (1967) Bemerkungen zur "Kammer der Weidergeburt” im Tutankhamungrab, ZÄS, 94, 2,
Leipzig, pp 139–150
Wild H (1953) Le Tombeau de Ti. Fasc. II [1]. La chapelle, IFAO, Le Caire
Wilson p (2014) The Prehistoric Sequence at Sais: Temporal and Regional Connections. In: Maczynska A
(ed) The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant
in the 4th millennium BC. Studies in African archaeology 13. Poznań Archaeological Museum,
Poznan. pp. 299–318
Wreszinski W (1936) Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil 3. Gräber des alten Reiches. J.C. Hin-
richs, Leipzig
Yoder T (2015) Fishing for Fish and fishing for men: fishing imagery in the Hebrew bible and the ancient
near east. Dissertation, Ohio State University
Zakrzewski SR (2003) Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions. Am J Phys Anthropol.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ajpa.​10223
Zakrzewski S (2006) Human skeletal diversity in the Egyptian Nile valley. In: Chlodnicki M, Kobusiewicz
M, Kroeper K (eds) Archaeology of early Northeastem Africa. Poznan Archaeological Museum,
Poznan, pp 893–907

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13