journal of archaeological science -...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1050e1061

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Basketry accessories: footwear, bags and fans in ancient Egypt

N.M.N. El Hadidi a,*, R. Hamdy b

aConservation Department, Faculty of Archaeology, Cairo University, Giza, Egyptb The Herbarium, Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 August 2010Received in revised form26 November 2010Accepted 30 November 2010

Keywords:SandalsShoesBagsFansPlant materialsNew KingdomAncient EgyptBindingPlaitingSewing techniques

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.M.N. E

com (R. Hamdy).

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.026

a b s t r a c t

Ancient Egyptians had dby the New Kingdomd developed many basket making and matting tech-niques. These techniques were not only used for making all types and sizes of baskets and mats, but werealso adopted for making other accessories such as bags, fans and different types of footwear, that seem tohave been heavily used. Materials and techniques of nine objects consisting of 2 sandals, 2 shoes, 2 bags,2 fans and a model of a mat at the Agricultural Museum in Giza were carefully studied.

In some cases the object was made of one plant, but in other cases more than one plant were iden-tified. The materials used for making the different objects were identified using light microscope. Fourplant materials were identified in the studied objects; Hyphaene thebaica Mart., Phoenix dactylifera L.,Cyperus papyrus L. and Desmostachya bipinnata (L.) Stapf., in addition to a gypsum layer in one of thesandals. Five different techniques were used in making the different objects; both bags were made usingthe twining technique. The soles of the sandals were made using either a plaiting or sewing technique.Cordage was used in the manufacture in some of the objects. The fans were made using the binding andsewing technique.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Plant materials have foundmany uses in ancient Egypt, and theyare often linked to basketry objects that were either used in everyday life and/or placed in the tombs of the deceased. The techniques,materials, sizes and uses of the basketry objects varied according touser/owner and purpose of use. The term basketry does not onlyrefer to baskets, plates and mats, even though they were the mostcommon items found in tombs. Basketry objects also include eithercheap or luxurious accessories such as sandals, shoes, bags andfans. It may be difficult to imagine that highly sophisticated luxu-rious, yet fragile objects were intended for everyday use, butevidence of wear and tear is clear in many cases.

In the last two decades a growing interest of basketrymaterials orobjects made of plant materials has been noticed. A lot of researchhas been published in the field of footwear, but it is obvious thatthere is still a lot of work to be done. In Veldmeijer’s research(Veldmeijer, 2006e2010), which is part of the Ancient EgyptianFootwear project, a lot of collected data has been discussed and

l Hadidi), rimhamdy@yahoo.

All rights reserved.

analyzed. The technology and terminology in this research followsVeldmeijer’s research in footwear and Ryan and Hansen, 1987.

Not a lot of research has studied in depth either the deteriora-tion of basketry objects that were found in dry burial conditions orthe applicable conservation and treatment methods of basketryobjects. Therefore the aim of this study is to examine and deter-mine the plant species used in the manufacturing techniqueadopted in chosen objects exhibited at the Agricultural Museum inGiza, Egypt, as a preliminary step towards finding a method fortreating such fragile material.

Nine objects, which consisted of two sandals nos. 2317 and 2601,two shoes nos. 2595 and 2596, two fans nos. 648 and 4367, onemodel of a mat no. 1954 and two bags nos. 396 and 1475 werechosen for this study.

The only problemwith most of the objects found at the Agricul-turalmuseum is that the registers do not have sufficient informationon the history of the excavation sites, from which the objects camefrom. That is due to the fact that some of the objects were boughtfrom bazaars orwere given as presents from excavations in the yearsbetween 1933 and 1935.We cannot blame themuseum registers forlack of information, because as mentioned by Ryan and Hansen(1987: 2) “different times or eras had certain archaeological philos-ophies”. Thatof coursemakes it verydifficult to estimatewhether theobjectswere found in funerary, domestic or garbage context. It is alsodifficult to confirm that the objects dated in the registers as “New

mailto:[email protected]



www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.026



Fig. 1. Identified plants in objects. T.S (x 32) in: a) H. thebaica lamina (no. 2601); b) H. thebaica petiole (no. 648); c) H. thebaica petiole showing peltate hairs (no. 1475); d)P. dactylifera lamina (no. 1475); e) Cyperus papyrus culm (no. 2317); f) D. bipinnata leaf in very fragile state (Ancient, no. 396); g) D. bipinnata leaf (Modern for comparison).

N.M.N. El Hadidi, R. Hamdy / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1050e1061 1051

Kingdom”were actually found in the New Kingdom deposits of DeirEl Medineh or were found in deposits that date back to later periods,but this is beyond the scope of this research.

2. Materials and methods

All nine objects are in a very fragile state, and even though theirarchaeological and historic details are unknown andmay remain so

for a long time, the materials and techniques needed for makingthem are of major importance as part of their documentation priorto their treatment and conservation in the near future.

For plant identification samples were either taken from detachedparts from the chosen objects or from crumbling materials lyingaround the object. Thin sections (30e50 mm) of each specimen,which had been prepared at the Botany Department labs in AinShams University, were examined by light microscopy for details of

Table 1Summarizes the specimen number, locality, period, material used and registration date.

Object number Locality Period Material Length(cm)

Width(cm)

Acquisitiondate

Notes

Sandals2317 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Cyperus papyrus (bundle) &

Hyphaene thebaica (wrapping strip)32.7 9.2e12 1933 Excavations of IFAO

2601 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Hyphaene thebaica (leaflet for plaitingstrips and petioles in the bundlesforming the edges)

29.5 9.0e12 1933 Bought at Cairo

Shoes2595 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Cyperus papyrus (plaiting strips and insole)

& Phoenix dactylifera (straps and reinforcement stitches)

30.8 8.6e10.4 1933 Excavations of IFAO

2596 Uncertain New Kingdom? Cyperus papyrus (plaiting stripsand insole) & Hyphaene thebaica(straps and sewn edges)

29.2 8.5e11.2 1933 Bought at Cairo

Fans648 Uncertain New Kingdom? Hyphaene thebaica 26 1935 No data available4367 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Hyphaene thebaica 18 1933 Excavations of IFAO

Model of a mat1954 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Hyphaene thebaica 24 20 1933 Excavations of IFAOBags396 Gebelein e Desmostachya bipinnata (rope) 9 14 1935 Found in 1886, registered by the

Antiquity service no. (22/4/27/43),and then given to the museum

1475 Deir el Medineh New Kingdom Phoenixdactylifera (bundle) & Hyphaenethebaica (strips) Desmostachya bipinnata (rope)

42 23 1933 No data available

N.M.N. El Hadidi, R. Hamdy / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1050e10611052

internal structure and compared with the reference collection keptat the Archaeobotany Laboratory of Cairo University Herbarium. Theprocedures of preparing materials followed those of Greiss (1956 &1957), Ryan and Hansen (1987) and Gale and Culter (2000). Theanatomical descriptions followed Greiss (1957), Metcalfe (1960 &1971), Tomlinson (1961) and Gale and Cutler (2000).

The anatomical features had been used in previous studies forthe identification of archaeobotanical plant materials among whichare Greiss (1949, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1961), Ryan and Hansen(1987), Waly (1999), Wendrich (1999), Montembault (2000) andVeldmeijer (2009b).

Some difficulty arose while preparing the fragile specimens forexamination, because most of their cells were disintegrated (Fig. 1).For comparative study and verification of identification the use ofmodern material was necessary. Four monocotyledonous plantspecies native to Egypt were identified; Hyphaene thebaica Mart.(Doum palm), Phoenix dactylifera L. (Date palm), Cyperus papyrusL.(Papyrus) and Desmostachya bipinnata (L.) Stapf. (Halfa grass). Insome cases all the elements in the object were made of the sameplant species, in other cases 2 or 3 plant species were used in oneobject.

External structure, colored layers and decorative elements werestudied under the microscope. The technique of each object wascarefully identified following the description of Wendrich (1999),Veldmeijer (2009a, 2009b). The white thick layer found in one ofthe sandals was identified using X-Ray powder diffraction XRD(Philips X-Ray Diffractometer) and Fourier Transform InfraredSpectroscopy (FTIR Jasco 6100-Japan).

3. Results

Specimens taken from the crumbling parts of the chosen objectswere examined using morphological and anatomical features toidentify plant species (Table 1). The techniques that had beenapplied in the nine objects varied, and in some cases more than onetechnique was applied. The “sewing technique”, which is definedaccording to Veldmeijer (2006/2007 and 2009a) as “a horizontal

bundle of material fastened by another bundle by wrapping witha strip of material” was used in sandal no. 2317. The “plaitingtechnique”, where three or more bands interlace, was seen in thesecond sandal; no. 2601 and two shoes; nos. 2595 and 2596. The“binding technique”, where “passive elements are bound togetherwith rope or thread”, was found in one the fans. The “twiningtechnique”, where “an active systemwhich consists of two strandstwisted alternately behind and in front of the passive strands” hadbeen used in the small bag. The twining technique with flexiblematerials and a three system technique had been used in the largerbag. Last but not least, the rope or cord making technique wasapplied in most of the objects.

3.1. Anatomical description of identified plants

- H. thebaica Mart. (Doum palm)

In T.S of the lamina (Fig. 1a), the upper and lower epidermis arelined internally by 2e3 layers of parenchymatous hypodermis, themesophyll is not differentiated into palisade and spongy tissues.The vascular bundles are connected to the upper and lower hypo-dermis by patches of sclerenchyma forming girders.

In the T.S of the petiole (Fig. 1b), the ground tissue is formed ofnumerous scattered vascular bundles with enlarged sclerenchymacap at phloem pole, surrounded by thin walled parenchyma. Thevascular bundles and fibrous patches are quite close to each otherin the peripheral region; note the presence of peltate hairs (Fig. 1c).Found in examined specimens: 2317- 2601-2596- 648- 4367-1954- 1475 (strips).

- P. dactylifera L. (Date palm)

In T.S of the lamina (Fig. 1d), the epidermis of the upper andlower surfaces forms a slightly undulating layer. The mesophyll isnot differentiated into palisade and spongy layers. The hypodermisis composed of one layer of polygonal thick-walled lignified cells,interrupted at intervals bymasses of lignified cells. Patches of thick-

Fig. 2. a) Sandal 2317 Dorsal surface showing slightly worn out parts and missing straps, b) Sandal 2601 Dorsal surface showing slightly worn out parts and new straps, in additionto a hole in the heel area due to wear. c) Shoe 2595 Dorsal surface showing worn out sides of the shoe. d) Shoe 2596 Dorsal surface showing insole and sides in a relatively goodcondition.


walled lignified fibers and reduced vascular bundles are embeddedbetween large oval-shaped collateral vascular bundles; each isenclosed with a cap-like sheath of thick-walled fibers. Found inexamined specimens: 2595- 1475 (bundle).

- C. papyrus L. (Papyrus)

In T.S of the culm (Fig. 1e), the epidermis is formed of theordinary thick-walled epiderminal cell. Below are found patchesof chlorenchyma tissue alternating with rounded patches offibers. The ground tissue is differentiated into a narrow peripheralzone; formed of several layers of radially elongated chlorenchymacells and small reduced vascular bundles and a large inner onemade up of highly lacunate aerenchyma with 3-armed cells andcollateral vascular bundle surrounded by a sheath of 2e3 thick-walled lignified cells. Found in examined specimens: 2317- 2595-2596.

- D. bipinnata (L.) Stapf. (Halfa grass)

T.S of the lower region of the leaf (Fig. 1f) is lined by an undu-lating epidermis composed of roundish cells and elongated silicacells. Themargin is occupied by a triangular sub-epidermal patch ofthick-walled lignified fibers. There is no differentiation betweenpalisade and spongy tissue. Vascular bundles do not occupy theentire space between the upper and lower epidermis.

Found in examined specimens: 396 (the entirebag) - 1475 (rope).

3.2. Footwear

In Pharaonic Egypt footwear made of plant materials was morefrequently used than leather. It is thought that sandals may nothave been appropriate footwear in death, but by the New Kingdomtheywerewidely worn in life (Driel-Murray, 2000). The two chosensandals nos. 2317 and 2601 and one shoe no. 2595 (one of a pair) alldate back, according to the museum registers, to the New Kingdom

and were found in Deir El Medineh. It is easy to distinguish thatthree of the 4 footwear (Fig. 2) were right feet and one was left. Thetechnique and design or model differed in each case. The 2 sandalsand 2 shoes were made of plant fiber, but only sandal no. 2317 hadan additional layer of gesso.

3.3. Sandals

The shape of sandal no. 2317 (Fig. 2a) from Deir El Medineh(New Kingdom) is longitudinally almost symmetrical and straightwith a slightly constricted waist and towards the front the edgediverges outwards and terminates in a rounded toe. The straps aremissing and it was therefore important to determine whether itwas a right or left foot by looking at both surfaces and comparingthe worn parts, which are always found at the ventral. The sewnedge near the big toe, the area of the ball of the foot (Fig. 3 a and b)and the edge of the heel that had been covered with a gesso layerwere worn out (Fig. 3e), which confirm that it was a right footsandal. The sandal was made using the sewing technique in bothsole and the edges of the sandal. The passive bundles were made ofpapyrus rind and the wrapping strand was made of doum palmleaflet. The edges which can be seen all around the sole were usedto secure the ends of the horizontal sewn bundles which form thesole of the sandal. The gesso layer, which seemed uncommon,covered a coarsely woven material made of cord that had beenadded on both dorsal and ventral surfaces of the sole in the heelarea (Fig. 3def). It was identified using XRD and FTIR as gypsum(Figs. 4 and 5; Table 2). It is not certain whether the gypsum layerwas added in the past while the sandal was still in use, or if it wasadded for restoration purposes during or after excavations, but dueto lack of information on the history of excavation in the museumregisters it is difficult to interpret the reason for the presence ofgypsum in this sandal. The wear on the outer right side of the heelmay be an indication that the sandal had been used after theaddition of the gypsum layer, but so far that assumption has notbeen confirmed.

Fig. 3. Sandal 2317; a) Dorsal surface showing slightly worn out parts and missing straps, b) Ventral surface showing heavily worn out parts in the treadsole (ball of the foot) andedges. c) Detail of sewn strips of doum palm leaflet. d) Dorsal surface of heel area covered with gypsum layer showing slightly worn out parts. e) Ventral surface showing worn outparts in the gypsum heel and parts of the wrapping strips. f) Detail of reinforcement string immersed in the gypsum layer.


Sandal 2601 (Fig. 2b), which is a “fiber sewn-edge plaited sandal”,is a left foot sandalmadeusing theplaiting technique(\1/1\\1pattern)and to secure the edges three rowswere sewnall around. The plaitingstraps were made of doum palm leaflets (Fig. 6b) and the passivebundles surrounding the edge of the sandal were made of thinly cutdoum petioles. The shape of the sandal is longitudinally almostsymmetrical and straight; towards the front the edge divergesoutwards and terminates in a pointed toe. Reinforcement stitches ofthe sewnedges canbeseen in theventral surface,which ismorewornout than the dorsal. Severewear of the heel is evident, causing a holein the areawhere the foot heelmust have been in continuous contactwith the sandal fiber. The edges of the worn through part on theventral surface of the heel are coveredwith accumulated dirt (Fig. 6aand d), whereas on the dorsal surface the wear of the doum leaflet isclearly noticed (Fig. 6c). The straps are missing, and a new braidedrope was added during conservation years ago (but the exact date ofrestoration is not mentioned in the registers).

FTIR of white gesso lay

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

2400290034003900wavenu

Tra

ns

mitta

nc

e

Fig. 4. FTIR spectrum of white gesso layer in Sandal 2317 showing th

3.4. Shoes

2595 and2596 are “full upperopen shoes” (Fig. 2c andd). In thesetwo right footed sandals the relatively low upper runs along theentire sandal’s edge. Their shape is longitudinally almost symmet-rical and straight, but towards the front the edge diverges outwardsand terminates in a rounded toe, fromwhich thewidth at both sidesdoes not increase towards the front in shoe 2595 and slightlyincreases in shoe 2596. There is no constricted waist in both shoes.The sole in both shoes consisted of two layers, where the ventralsurface was made using the plaiting technique made of papyrusstrands and the dorsal surface consisted of horizontal papyrusstrands forming an insole that was secured at the edges only. Theupright upper was made of vertically placed strips. Reinforcementstitches evident only in the ventral of both shoeswere used along theperimeter of the treadsole and lengthwise down the centre to securebraided cord made of the light beige inner fibers of papyrus. The

er in heel of Sandal 2317

40090014001900mber cm

-1

e functional groups that form the gypsum (RRUFF ID R040029).

Fig. 5. XRD spectrum of white gesso layer in Sandal 2317 showing the peaks of gypsum(RRUFF ID R040029).


braided cord and reinforcement stitchesmay have been used for thereinforcement of the treadsole or for better resistance against wear.

The front strap in both shoes is the original strap (“T” bindingtechnique), that consists of simple s-spun cord, that was insertedslightly off centre in the front. The back straps are attached to thesole, but outside the upper. To attach the front strap to the backstrap the end of the front strap was looped andwrapped around theback strap almost half way along its length. In both sandals thethree ends of the straps (one from the front strap and two fromthe back strap) were inserted in the sole, passing through all thelayers of the sole in the case of the front strap (Fig. 7c), whereas theback strap was knotted in the ventral surface only (Fig. 8a).

It is interesting to note the differences in the two shoes. There isa big similarity in the main idea, design andmaterials of both shoes,but the plaiting of shoe 2595 is finer than 2596, although the makerused the difference in color of the outer and inner surface of papyrusculm artistically to give the chequered design in the ventral. Shoe2595 had only one row of braided papyrus fibers cord fastenedlongitudinally in the centre of the treadsole (Fig. 7a), whereas as theother shoe had three rows of braided papyrus fibers cord (Fig. 8a).The reinforcement stitches in shoe 2595 were wide lazy stitchessewn randomly, but in shoe 2596 the reinforcement stitches wereneatly sewn along the braided cord surrounding the edge.

The low upper in shoe 2595 shows clear evidence of its use andsevere wear, because the vertical strips are disorganized andbroken especially in the heel and toe area, giving an impression thatit may have been a bit small on its owner’s foot (Fig. 7b and c).

3.5. Fans

Egyptian fans were of different sizes and materials. They had inmanycasesa semicircular shape, andweremainlymadewith feathers

Table 2Characteristic FTIR bands indicating the presence of SO4 in the sample.

Wavelength cm�1 Group

3546; 3406 Antisymmetric and symmetric O-H stretching bands1131 Asymmetric SO4

�2 stretching band669; 602 (w620) SO4

�2 bending band

and with long handles. Their function was double: blowing air andscaring away insects.

From Egypt, the oldest known representation can be seen in thehead of a ceremonial hammer at the AshmoleanMuseum of Oxford.It belonged to “Narmer”, around 3000 B.C., which shows a group ofroyal servants, two of them are slaves carrying fans.

Information about fans made of plant materials is rarelymentioned in references, and Wendrich (2000: 261) mentions that“continuous plaiting was widely used in the GraecoeRoman periodfor making decorative small containers, fans and mats”.

Phillips (2000: 332) uses the fan found in the tomb of Tut AnkhAmun to point out the use of ostrich feathers for making fans, andGale et al. (2000: 337) mention that the handle of a fan from thesame tomb was made of silver birch wood. In Carters hand notesthe fans from the Tut Ankh Amun tomb are described in detailand the materials that were used were documented. Only thehandles of some of the fans were made of plant materials such aswood or bark, but materials used in basketry objects were notmentioned.

The two fans at the Agricultural Museum at Giza were ofdifferent shape and design. They are extremely fragile and needspecial handling.

Fan 648 resembles the bat-shaped Matraha, which is small insize, very fragile and light inweight (Fig. 9). The round shaped partconsists of three passive elements, where the first and third layersare laid in the same direction parallel to each other and the secondlayer is perpendicular to them and sandwiched between them. Allthree layers are bound together by a twining technique using twoactive threads (unidentified due to difficulty of obtaininga sample). To secure the edges a strip of plant material was sewnaround a fine core and attached all around the fan perimeterholding all three layers together. The handle was made of doumpalm petiole.

Fan 4367 has a semicircular shape, which could not bemistaken for a very simple fan made of one doum palm leaflet,which is naturally fan shaped and its midrib was used as a handle(Fig. 10). To support the fan a neatly braided frame was sewn tothe edge of the leaflet which formed the semicircular shape ofthe fan.

Fig. 6. Sandal 2601; a) Ventral surface showing heavily worn out parts in the treadsole and edges. b) Detail of plaited strips of doum palm leaflet. c) Detail of worn out doum leafletfibers from dorsal surface. d) Detail of worn out doum leaflet fibers from ventral surface covered with foreign materials in the heel area.


3.6. Rectangular shaped model of a mat

The manufacturing technique in this model of a mat is a mergebetween the techniques that were applied in the previous two fans.The rectangular shaped part consists of three passive elements,where the first and third layers of H. thebaica are laid in the samedirection horizontally and the second layer is perpendicular tothem and sandwiched between them. All three layers are boundtogether by a twining technique using two active threads(unidentified due to scarcity of sample). To secure the edges a stripof plant material was sewn around a fine core and attached allaround the outer rectangular perimeter. An additional plaitedframe around a corewas sewn to three of the four sides of the upperface of the object. The strips used for sewing the edges and theplaited frame were colored in red and yellow, forming a colorfulframe (Fig. 11).

3.7. Bags

According to Wendrich (2000) there were three types of bags:twined, knotless netting and knotted papyrus carrier nets. The bestknown bags are the open twined “seed-bag”, which was made ofgrass cord, with widely spaced rows of twining, which could beeither fine or coarse. Bag 396 belongs to the category small opentwined bags made of 2 ply halfa grass cord, z-spun, S-plied “zS2”(Fig. 12). It is noticeable that the sides of the bag were formed byplaiting the edges of both faces of the bag. The handle, which wasmade of the same cord, was tied to the sides of the bag by a big knot.The bag contained a wheat seed and fragments of a sycamore leaf.

The second bag 1475, which represents an example of twiningtechnique with flexible materials, is made of three plant materials(Fig. 13). Date palm leaflets, which formed the passive bundles,were laid horizontally and passive doum palm leaflets were laidperpendicularly to the previous bundles below and above the datepalm leaflets, covering them from both sides, (Fig. 13a). In the baseof the bag two rows of twined doum palm leaflets were used to

bind the three passive layers (Fig. 13c). The twining was alwaysparallel to the horizontal passive bundle. The base was made up oftwo rows of twining and the sides were made up of one row oftwining all around the bag. The cord forming the handle andrunning vertically around the bag sides, base and rim was made ofhalfa grass (2 ply cord, z-spun, S-plied “zS2”).

4. Discussion

The four identified plant species; H. thebaica Mart., P. dactyliferaL., C. papyrus L. and D. bipinnata (L.) Stapf., were native to Egyptduring the Pharaonic eras, among which three are still used todayin the manufacture of baskets, bags and ropes. According to Greiss(1957), the fourth plant species, namely C. papyrus is no longerfound in the wild state. Even though it has reappeared in the lastfew decades again in different parts of Egypt, it does not undertakeits role again in manufacturing either basketry objects or rope.

The plant identification of Egyptian basketry artifacts andcordage depended in the past mainly on the observation of thegeneral appearance of the material (Ryan and Hansen, 1987: 4).That is the case in most of the published research dealing withbasketry or fiber artifacts from ancient Egypt. Lucas (1948: 130)mentioned the plants used in basketry objects by referring to whathad been recorded in older literature written by archaeologists. Inthe revised edition (Lucas and Harris, 1962: 128e133) theanatomical studies by Greiss published in 1949, 1955 and 1957were incorporated. The study of Greiss (1957) followed by Ryan andHansen (1987) are a valuable survey of the internal anatomy ofplant species used in ancient Egyptian basketry and cordageartifacts.

Wendrich (2000: 254e255) confirms that “few excavators havemade an effort to identify the materials used”, but “did not refrainfrom publishing ill-found specifications”. In Veldmeijer‘s publishedresearch on the footwear project (2006e2009) materials werementioned or discussed according to previously published litera-ture without dealing with the anatomical description or

Fig. 7. Shoe 2595; a) Ventral of shoe showing a chequered treadsole and braided papyrus rope. b) Detail of worn out and broken vertical strips in the toe area (dorsal). c) Detail ofattachment area of front strap in the sole (arrow) and worn out side strips. d) Detail of plaited ’over one, under one’ of two colors by using the outer papyrus rind and inner surfaceof papyrus culm in the treadsole. e) Detail of s-spun fiber from strap. f) Detail of braided papyrus cord and reinforcement stitches in the ventral of shoe (arrow).

Fig. 8. Shoe 2596; a) Ventral surface showing a chequered treadsole and 3 rows of braided papyrus rope neatly attached lengthways along the centre of the sole and the two knotsused to attach the straps (arrows). b) Detail of strips sewn around the edges of the upper side of the shoe. c) Detail of s-spun fiber forming the T-technique strap.


Fig. 9. Fan 648; a) The bat-shaped fan, b) Detail of a detached part (left upper side) showing the three layers that were bound together to form the main part of the fan. c) Detail ofthe sewn edge (right lower near the handle) that runs around the outer perimeter of the fan.


identification of artifacts. An anatomical study on the materialsused in the coiled basketry at the Agricultural Museum has beenrecently done by El Hadidi and Hamdy (2010), Hamdy and El Hadidi(in press).

Footwear, fans and bags made of basketry materials in AncientEgypt were made of different materials, techniques and designs.The studies done by Veldmeijer (2006e2010) cover a very widerange of footwear made of different materials including thosemade of plant materials. The techniques mentioned in previousresearch were easily justified in the two sandals and two shoesfrom the collection of the Agricultural Museum. There was onlyone obvious feature that has not been mentioned in any previous

Fig. 10. Fan 4367; a) The doum leaf fan. b) Detail of the neatly braided sewn

research dealing with footwear made of monocotyledonous plants;namely the plastered heel in sandal 2317. The reason for addingthis layer is not really clear, and it is a point that needs furtherresearch. It is difficult to ascertain whether the gypsum layer datesback to when the sandal had been in use, or if it is old restoration.In the collection at the Agricultural Museum some of the sandalshave certainly been restored in the past using either cardboard,animal glue or molten wax. The registers of the museum do notinclude any information of previous restoration materials and thatmakes it very difficult to verify the authenticity of any added layersto the objects. The presence of stucco in footwear was recorded inthe case of one pair of marquetry sandal from the collection of

edge forming a frame that runs around the outer perimeter of the fan.

Fig. 11. Model of mat 1954; a) Showing a deteriorated edge covered with accumulations of dirt and glue. b) Detail of additional plaited frame around a core that was sewn to three ofthe four sides of the upper face of the object c) Detail of accumulated dirt and resinous material in the colored frame. d) Detail of red and yellow colored strips that formed theframe. e) Detail of the red colored external surface of the leaf which was used for making the sewn edges and plaited frame. f) The innermost surface of leaf showing the red colorwhich had penetrated through the cells.


Tutankh Amun’s footwear. Sandal no. 397 in that collection wasdescribed by Howard Carter in his hand notes as follows: “Ofwood; covered with a marquetry veneer of bark, green leather, andgold foil; upon a stucco ground. The soles of white stucco.” It isclear from Carter’s hand notes that the stucco was used as a groundlayer for the decorative layers, but that is not the case in sandal no.2317, because there are no traces of gold or any other materials inany part of the sandal. In another case a pair of sandals and anisolated left sandal were found in the tomb of Yuya and Tjuiu, buttheir soles consisted of rawhide of which the dorsal and ventralsurfaces were covered with a gesso layer, which served to adherethe gold to the sandal (Veldmeijer, 2009c: 559e560). These threecases may prove that the gypsum layer in sandal no. 2317 isoriginal.

Fig. 12. Bag 396; a) One of the bag’s faces showing the 2-ply cord that wer

In regard to the plaited sandal and two shoes, two of which dateback to the New Kingdom and one is uncertain, it is noticeable thatthe workmanship is much finer than the sandals from Qasr Ibrimthat were studied by Veldmeijer (2008/2009a,b: 128). The stripsare almost of the same width on the contrary to what was found inQasr Ibrim, where the variation of width is verified partially due tothe tapering shape of the split palm leaflet strips. That was not thecase of sandal 2601, in which the plaits were made of doum palmleaflet that could be cut in the same width. The other two shoeswere made of plaited papyrus strips, which are usually of a stablewidth, and therefore do not show the problem of changing stripwidth.

Veldmeijer (2008/2009b: 132) is surprised that “plaited sandalswere never worn before the Christian period”, and in his work on

e bound together. b) Detail of plaited side of bag, c) Detail of the cord.

Fig. 13. Bag 1475: a) Side of bag showing one row of twining, which was used to bind the three passive layers, b) Handle of bag made of halfa grass cord. c) Base of bag with tworows of twining. Parts of the doum palm strips are missing, and the bundles of date palm can be clearly seen.


fiber shoes (Veldmeijer 2009b), which have plaited soles, only twoout of 36 are presumed to date back to the New Kingdom. Also thedate of the shoes or sandals in Montembault’s catalogue(Montembault, 2000), that have plaited soles, are uncertain, but thetwo sandals and shoe from the Agricultural Museum are registeredas footwear that dates back to the New Kingdom, which contradictsVeldmeijer’s remark about when the plaited sandals were used, butstill further research is needed to confirm that they date back to theNew Kingdom.

In regard to the materials identified in the sandals and shoes,they agree in general with Montembault (2000: 242) findings thatthe main three materials used in making footwear were date palmleaflet, doum palm leaflet and papyrus culm. The difference isnoticed in the plaiting strips which in 3 out of 4 cases at the Agri-cultural Museumwere made of papyrus, whereas in most literatureit is usually referred to as palm leaflets (Montembault, 2000: 37e38and Veldmeijer, 2009a,b,c: 104e105). In Carter’s hand notes thematerials used in Tut Ankh Amun’s fiber footwear were identifiedas either sandals made of rush and papyrus or basket-work sandals,but the exact plant identification was not done. It is obvious thatduring the excavations a lot of effort was done to identify plantmaterials in situ, and corrections in identification can be seen forexample in “Carter no.: 094a card”, where the sandal was firstidentified as papyrus sandal, but that was changed by striking-outthe word “papyrus” (the initial identification), and writing justabove it the new identification “reed”.

Generally speaking the materials chosen for making the sandalsand the owner of the sandal may certainly play a part in theprecision or finesse of technique. That is evident in the sewn sandalcollection of Tutankh Amun, where fine workmanship is noticeablein the sandals described as sandals made of papyrus and reed.

It is interesting to note though that the technique used institching the two layers of fibers in the two shoes is similar to thetechnique mentioned by Veldmeijer (2008/2009a: 109) in thestring sewn sandals found in Qasr Ibrim dating back to Christianand Ottoman periods. The difference is noted though in that thetwo shoes from Deir El Medineh had braided papyrus fibers forreinforcement purposes in addition to the string used for stitchingthe layers together.

In the case of fans it is difficult to compare technique andmaterials used in Ancient Egypt, due to the scarcity of the publisheddata on fans made of plant materials, but the identification of fanno. 648 agrees with the data published by Greiss (1949). Wendrich

(1999: 326) mentions briefly the technique used for making plaitfans of narrow strips of date palm leaflet, but that technique wasnot applied in the studied fans and the model of mat.

The techniques used inmaking bags was explained byWendrich(1999: 258e259), while referring to the uses of bags in trans-portation and carrying. The twined bags had many versions anduses, but their sizes were not mentioned, although they must havebeen much bigger than bag 396, which was only 9 cm long and14 cm wide (more similar to a purse than a bag) and constitutedonly of one plant material. Bag 1475 which dates back to the NewKingdom fromDeir el Medinehwas alsomade using this technique,but three plant materials were used for making it.

Further research is needed to try and find a link betweenmaterials used, techniques applied and finesse of accessories suchas footwear, fans and bags. It may not be always possible to identifythe owner of these objects, but whenever that information isavailable it would certainly givemoreweight to the study of ancientEgyptian basketry objects.

Acknowledgements

Wewish to thankMr. Mohammed El Hossainy El Akaad (GeneralSupervisor of the Agricultural Museum and Exhibitions) and Mr.Hassan Abd El- Rahman Khattab (former General Director of theAgricultural Museum) for giving us the chance to study andphotograph all the studied specimens.

References

Carter’s Handwritten Object Cards, http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/carter/html.Driel-Murray, C. van, 2000. Leatherwork and skin products. In: Nicholson, P.T.,

Shaw, I. (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 299e319.

El Hadidi, N.M.N., Hamdy, R. 2010. Coiled Baskets from Deir El Medinah. In: Dawson,J., Rozeik, C. & Wright, M.M. (Eds.). Decorated Surfaces on Ancient Egyptianobjects. Technology, Deterioration and Conservation, Archetype Publications(poster abstract).

Gale, R., Gasson, P., Hepper, N., Killen, G., 2000. Wood. In: Nicholson, P.T., Shaw, I.(Eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 334e371.

Gale, R., Cutler, D., 2000. Plants in Archaeology: Identification Manual of VegetativePlant Materials Used in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean to C. 1500.Westbury & Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, West Yorkshire.

Greiss, E.A.M., 1949. Anatomical identification of plant material from ancient Egypt.Bulletin de l’Institut d’ Égypte 31, 249e277.

Greiss, E.A.M., 1955. Anatomical identification of plant remains and other materialsfrom: 1. El Omari excavations at Helwan from Neolithic period; 2. The

http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/carter/html


excavations at Helwan from the first Dynasty. Bulletin de l’Institut d’ Égypte 36,227e235.

Greiss, E.A.M., 1957. Anatomical identification of some ancient Egyptian plantmaterial. Mémoires de l’Institut d’ Égypte 55, 1e165.

Greiss, E.A.M., Naguib, K.,1956. Anatomical study of some ‘Sedges’ in relation to plantremains of Ancient Egypt. Bulletin de l’Institut d’ Égypte 37 (2), 235e257.

Greiss, E.A.M., 1961. Identification Anatomique des restes de végétaux trouvés aumonastere de Phoebammon dans la Thébaide. Publications de la Sociète copte3, 41e50.

Hamdy, R., El Hadidi N.M.N. Anatomical Study of the Ancient Egyptian BasketryCollection at the AgriculturalMuseum (Giza-Egypt). Proceedings of the 6thInternational Workshop of African Archaeobotany (IWAA 2009). HelwanUniversity, Egypt, in press.

Lucas, A., 1948. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, third ed. Edward Arnold.Lucas, A., Harris, J.R., 1962. rev. In: Harris, J.R. (Ed.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and

Industries, fourth ed. Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, pp. 128e140.Metcalfe, C.R., 1960. In: Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. Gramineae, vol. 1.

OxfordUniversity Press, London.Metcalfe, C.R., 1971. In: Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. Cyperaceae, vol. 5. Clar-

endon Press, Oxford.Montembault, V., 2000. Catalogue des chaussures de l’antiquité Égyptienne. Réunion

des Musée Nationaux, Paris.Phillips, J., 2000. Ostrich eggs. In: Nicholson, P.T., Shaw, I. (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian

Materials and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 332e333.RRUFF Database: Raman; X-ray; Infrared and Chemistry; http://rruff.info.Ryan, D.P., Hansen, D.H., 1987. A Study of Ancient Egyptian Cordage in the Brit-

ishMuseum. Occasional Paper, vol. 62. British Museum, London.Tomlinson, P.B., 1961. In: Metcalfe, C.R. (Ed.), Anatomy of the Monocotyledons.

Palmae, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, London.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2006/2007. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technologicalaspects. PartI. Cordage sandals from Qasr Ibrim. ’Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux’ 40,61e75.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2008/2009a. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technologicalaspects. Part III. Leather e or string-Reinforced plaited sandals from Qasr Ibrim.’Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux’ 41, 105e125.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2008/2009b. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technologicalaspects. Part IV. Plain plaited sandals from Qasr Ibrim. ’Jaarbericht Ex OrienteLux’ 41, 127e150.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2009a. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technological aspects.Part VII. Coiled sewn sandals. ’British Museum Stud. Ancient Egypt. Sudan’ 14,85e96.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2009b. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technological aspects.Part XII. Fibre shoes. ’British Museum Stud. Ancient Egypt. Sudan’ 14, 97e129.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2009c. Studies of ancient Egyptian footwear. Technological aspects.Part VI. Sewn sandals. In: Ikram, S., Dodson, A. (Eds.), Beyond the Horizon 9:Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honor of Barry J. Kemp.Supreme Council of Antiquities, Cairo, pp. 554e580.

Veldmeijer, A.J., 2010. Tutankhamun’s Footwear; Studies of Ancient EgyptianFootwear. Drukware.

Waly, N.M.,1999. The selection of plantfibres andwood in themanufacture of organichousehold items from the El- Gabalein area. In: Veen van der, M. (Ed.), Theexploitation of plant resources in Ancient Africa. Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-national Workshop on Archaeobotany in North Africa. Leicester. Kulweracademic, Plenum publishers, New York.

Wendrich, W.Z., 1999. The World According to Basketry. Research School of Asian,African and Amerindian Studies, vol. 83. Leiden University, Netherlands.

Wendrich, W.Z., 2000. Basketry. In: Nicholson, P.T., Shaw, I. (Eds.), Ancient EgyptianMaterials and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254e267.

http://rruff.info

journal of archaeological science -...

Documents