Egyptian Postmarks

The study of Egyptian Postal markings and Cancellations was first undertaken by R. Seymour Blomfield as Study VI of the ESC. His first report was published in L'OP 30 in October 1936. His initial studies involved the postmarks up to 1880 (known as the Classic Period) and these fell relatively easily into categories determined by the words and frame ornaments used.

To these he gave type and numbers irrespective of the place of use. So handstamps of Type V could have been made for use in Cairo, Benha, Luxor and so on. As more data appeared these types were given sub-types (such as V-1, V-2 etc). Then later these themselves were given sub-types (V-2.1 V-2.2 etc) as made necessary by the discovery of small design differences, such as the way the date-slug was made up or some slight change in CDS-ornament..

This method of classification makes eminent sense if a unified design for handstamps is maintained, and if one was studying current British postmarks the current interlocking double wavy rings can no doubt be ascribed pattern to hundreds if not thousands of post offices. While this worked reasonably well in the beginning for Egypt, for later postmarks the complexity of different uses, shapes and sheer variety meant that types were distinguished that followed no logical pattern, especially as those who succeeded Blomfield named types and sub types perhaps without any clear understanding of the original system.

Complicating matters further, after the turn of the century and the First World War Egyptian hand-cancels often failed to follow nicely categorised styles with many (perhaps locally produced?) being unique in design.

As well as his unified designs, Blomfield had also categorised some markings by usage, ie, Air Mail, Arrival, Registration, TPO etc. This itself can be problematical since more then one service indicator may occur within the same handstamp, ie, registered parcels: should this be entered under Registered or Parcels? Or both? This lack of clarity resulted in one or more cancels ending up with different type numbers in different sections of the study.

Later researchers have tended to concentrate on postmarks for a particular use, such as Hotels or TPOs etc. In doing so they have tended to implement their own typing methods more suited to the particular style of postmark under study. Those postmarks hived off as separate studies remain referred to by their original numbers or in some cases are not given any typing at all. The special-purpose handstamps are often found misused, probably from carelessness or lax approach by the post office employee or because the appropriate canceller had been mislaid. No particular meaning need be attributed to this apparent misuse. Without doubt, though, Egyptian postal historians owe Blomfield an enormous dept of gratitude as he left a legacy of over 400 drawings of postmarks which, although never published as such, were circulated to members of the ESC. Those up to 1880 are all available in Peter Feltus's extensive update of Study VI and some of the rest, with a few additions, in Peter Smith's Egypt, Stamps and Postal History book albeit scattered throughout the book according to subject. Chichini's book tarikh el barid contains all of Blomfield's drawings with a few additions.

Air Mail markings extending way beyond those of Blomfield are to be found in John Sears's Airmail book. while Peter Smith classified his TPOs according to the Blomfield pattern, But the Hotel postmarks have been reported in several philatelic journals, with the latest update in the QC, and a few other specific-usage postmark studies and reports (Stations, Paquebots, Palaces and so on) have also appeared in the QC, so over the years in total the recorded number of postmarks must be well over the 1,000 mark.

Other areas of study for specific-use types have been suggested, but perhaps the most glaring omission is that of the general purpose type all in Arabic. Most of those who have been recording Egyptian postmarks have had no or little understanding of Arabic, so the native language has tended to be given second place behind the more easily read European-language (first Italian, the French or English) section of the handstamp. In a few cases the Arabic in the drawn cancels included in the study has been traced "as seen", in such a way that it is incoherent or even meaningless. Undoubtedly to gain full enjoyment from studying Egyptian postmark some time spent getting to grips with the Arabic script can pay huge dividends.

The following table gives the fundamental types as outlined by Blomfield with some modifications as found in Egypt, Stamps and Postal History. It is the merest hint of the depth of the study of Egyptian postmarks, about which there is still much to discover.