Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper presents the debate over the presence or absence of keels in the construction of Egyptian ships of the dynastic period.
It contains an analysis of ship representations and models dating to the 18th20th dynasties of the New Kingdom (c.15391077
BC) that provide evidence for the introduction of keels in Egyptian shipbuilding, and new archaeological material from
excavations at Thonis-Heracleion that sheds more light on the question.
2014 The Author
Key words: Ancient Egyptian shipbuilding, ancient naval architecture, proto-keel, Mediterranean underwater archaeology.
R
epresentations of Ancient Egyptian watercraft constructional element as a . . . more conventional
prior to the New Kingdom give no hint of the keel, rather than just a centre plank (Partridge, 1996:
presence of keels in their construction. Like- 54). At the same time, many scholars deny that the
wise, ship-finds show no evidence of the use of a keel: ships of Hatshepsut had a keel at all. Some, such as
the planking of the Old Kingdom Khufu-I boat (c.2566 Casson (1959: 1415) and Lloyd (1972b: 271, note 3),
BC) was built around three bottom strakes, while the believe that a hogging truss was applied to reinforce
Middle Kingdom Dahshur boats (c.18781841 BC) the longitudinal structure of these ships precisely
had a single central strake only slightly thicker than the because they lacked a keel. Vinson (1994: 38) also
rest of the planking (Ward, 2000: 85, 97, 102). The Late considers them as traditional boats without keels,
Period Mataria boat (c.450 BC) was also constructed particularly on the grounds of the presence of a
with a keel-plank. The latter is notably a characteristic hogging truss.
feature of the traditional boats of the Upper Nile called Three models from the tomb of Amenhotep II
nuggars (Clarke, 1920: 49; Hornell, 1943: 28). All of the (14251400 BC), representing ships of a bik type,
above-mentioned boats are river boats and the absence possess equally imposing stem and stern posts, in direct
of a keel is unsurprising as the advantages of a flat- continuation of keel-like structures, which end in high
bottomed craft with shallow draft are undeniable in a finials. However, no keel is visible in the middle part of
river environment. However, the ancient Egyptians the hull. The models are decorated with the depictions
also built seagoing vessels without keels, as evidenced of Montu (Mntw)the Egyptian god of warand are
by the ships from the temple of Sahure (24282416 BC) thus probably meant to represent royal war ships
(Assmann, 1913: 13366; Landstrm, 1970: 637). (Landstrm, 1970: 1078, fig. 338, 339; Werner, 1986:
Internal girders, hogging trusses and thick planking 123). It seems that keels can be seen in the numerous
were specifically Egyptian means of increasing models of travelling ships from the tomb of Tutankha-
the structural strength of their crescent-shaped hulls in mun (?1324 BC).
the absence of the keel. Jones (1995: 54) remarks that the presence of elon-
Iconographic and epigraphic material dating to the gated finials does not prove the existence of a keel. He
New Kingdom (c.15391077 BC) may point to the cites the example of the Khufu-I ship, where the finials
appearance of a keel, or its analogue, in the construc- are fastened to short planks at the extremities called
tion of Egyptian ships. The representations of the sea- backing timbers. On these grounds, Jones denies that
going ships of the Punt expedition of Queen Egyptian ships of the 18th dynasty included a keel in
Hatshepsut (14791458 BC) from Deir el-Bahari are their construction. However, this argument is incon-
probably the oldest images that can be included in the clusive, as data from a papyriform royal bark (prob-
discussion. Landstrm believes that the keel played ably unfinished, see Mark, 2009: 148150; Mark, 2011:
an important role in the structure of these ships and 27) can hardly be extrapolated to travelling ships and
suggests that it ran along the entire length of the hull warships. In addition, the sheer view of the Khufu-I
(Landstrm, 1970: 1227). Partridge describes this ship is quite different to that of the above-cited models
2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
A. BELOV: DID ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SHIPS HAVE KEELS?
2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society 75
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 44.1
concerning the presence of a keel in the construction of Like the models of Amenhotep II and
these ships but he also proposes that it protrudes inside Tutankhamun mentioned above, the end posts of the
the hull. It is interesting to note that the centre plank ships of Ramses III are direct prolongations of their
of the recent replica of the ships in question called Min keels (Landstrm, 1969: 23; Landstrm, 1970: 107).
of the Desert is also a kind of proto-keel that slightly Stems are crowned with a carved lion head holding an
protrudes inside the hull (Ward and Couser, 2012: Asiatic-featured human head in its mouth. Marx inter-
fig. 16). prets this composition as a ram (Marx, 1946: 24251;
Representations of Egyptian warships depicted on Marx, 1948: 11819), a hypothesis supported by
the wall of the temple of Ramses III (11871157 BC) in Landstrm (1970: 112) and Roug (1975: 91). Accord-
Medinet Habu (Breasted, 1930: 104: pl.37) reveal inno- ing to Roug: Being positioned well above the water-
vations in construction details, and these have been line, it is not a [conventional] ships ram [un peron in
claimed to be of foreign origin (Landstrm, 1970, 111 the original], but rather a sort of [battering] ram [un
12) (Fig. 2). The rowers are protected by a parapet and, blier in the original] destined not to sink the ship of the
in addition to the soldiers on deck, there are also adversary but to capsize it. One of the ships of the Sea
archers in the crows nest. The mast has a downward- Peoples on the relief has actually capsized, perhaps as a
curving yard that supports a loose-footed sail consequence of an attack with such a ram (see also
(Emanuel, 2012: 2). At the same time, other features, Sleeswyk, 1996: 42949). Other scholars, on the con-
such as the crescent-shaped hull, the through-beams trary, see this detail merely as a decoration of the prow
and probably an axial rudder, recall the traditional (Lloyd, 1972b: 271; Jones, 1995: 59). According to
Egyptian boat type (Landstrm, 1970: 11214, Bradbury, the evidence for the existence of a keel in the
fig. 349). The difference between these and the hulls of construction of large Egyptian ships in the period
the Sea Peoples ships (Wachsmann, 1981: 1915) with between c.1430 and 990 BC is supported by Marxs
their vertical stems, alien to the Egyptian boatbuilding interpretation (Bradbury, 1996: 52), as a ram of this
tradition, is quite unambiguous (Landstrm, 1970: type must necessarily have rested on a keel.
139; Basch, 1978: 11518).
Ship 17
The excavation of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion was
carried out by the Institut Europen dArchologie
Sous-Marine (IEASM) directed by F. Goddio in 2009
2011 (Belov, 2014b: 314, fig. 1). The ship is dated to the
early 5thmid 4th century BC and is identified as a
specimen of Herodotus baris (History, 2.96) (Belov,
forthcoming; Belov, 2014b). Ship 17 was a Nilotic
freighter built entirely of acacia. The preserved length
of its central longitudinal member, which we will tem-
porarily call a keel, is composed of 12 segments and is
24.2 m long (Table 1). The bow and the stern segments
are probably not preserved completely (Fig. 3). The
segments are made of squared logs of acacia (Acacia
nilotica, A. raddiana). The length of the segments varies
between 1.62 and 3.05 m. The longest segment K1 at
the stern contains two shafts for an axial rudder
(Belov, 2014a: 39). In the middle of the central
Figure 2. Fighting ships of Ramses III (11871157 BC) and segment K6 there is a mortise destined to receive the
of the Sea Peoples, from the temple in Medinet Habu. spur of the mast. The width of the segments (sided) is
(Drawing after Landstrm, 1970: 112, fig. 3457) greatest at the stern and smallest at the bow, while the
Length m 3.050 2.098 2.129 2.008 1.977 2.588 1.938 1.681 1.675 1.827 1.692 1.629 2.024
Sided_East m 0.560 0.446 0.378 0.367 0.367 0.357 0.351 0.351 0.347 0.347 0.347 0.235 0.371
Sided_West m 0.456 0.379 0.367 0.364 0.361 0.361 0.337 0.337 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.214 0.323
Sided_ 0.514 0.413 0.373 0.366 0.364 0.359 0.344 0.344 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.225 0.348
Average m
Moulded m 0.175 0.160 0.220 0.198 0.2120.265 0.229 0.1190.149 0.1700.173 0.191
76 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society
A. BELOV: DID ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SHIPS HAVE KEELS?
Figure 3. Plan of the keel of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion. (Drawing by Patrice Sandrin/Alexander Belov IEASM)
Discussion
The reconstruction of Ship 17 suggests a crescent-
Figure 4. Width of the keel against the average width of the shaped, flat-bottomed craft about 28 m long. The
planking in cm. Horizontal axis indicates the distance from short segments of the keel would have facilitated
the bow preserved extremity. (Drawing by the author) achieving a crescent-shaped hull, the more so as the
joints between the segments of the keel are not deep
central part of the hull is characterized by a constant and are rather flexible. It should be underlined that a
width. The keel is considerably wider than the strakes different type of joint (half-lap splice) was used for
along the entire length of the hull (Fig. 4). The keel is the longitudinal joints between the planks, and that
mostly rectangular in section (Fig. 5), and reaches its planks and keel was assembled using long tenon-ribs.
maximum thickness in the middle of the hull where it is There is no doubt that the longitudinal strength of
almost square. the keel depended on its assemblage with its neigh-
The lower surface of the keel is flush with the outer bouring strakes and that there is no change of angle
planking and the keel projects inside the hull. This between them. Thus, it may appear that the term
elevation is minimal at the preserved extremities of the keel-plank is more appropriate in this case.
ship (20 mm) and reaches 130 mm at the middle of the However, at the centre of the ship, at the middle
hull (Fig. 6). Tongue-and-groove joints were used to beam, the keel of Ship 17 is almost twice as thick as
assemble the segments of the keel. In the majority of the planking, with this ratio gradually diminishing
cases, the joint is situated in the lower third of the towards the extremities of the hull (Fig. 8). This sug-
thickness of the keel but sometimes it can be found in gests that the concept of a spine has been introduced
its middle. The tongues are usually slightly trapezoidal in this ships construction and that this element
in section (Belov, 2014b: 317, fig. 6). It has been pos- should rather be classified as a proto-keel.
sible to study five joints between segments of the keel. The proto-keel of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion,
On average, the grooves are 55 mm wide and 61 mm dated to the 5thmid 4th century BC, is the first find of
deep, while the tongues are 43 mm wide and 54 mm this kind from Egypt and it is necessary to go back
long (Table 2). Unlike other joints studied, the joint many centuries to find possible parallels. The represen-
between the segments K11 and K12, in the region of tations of the 18th dynasty that were cited in the first
the bow, is vertical and reinforced by a key (Fig. 7). part of the article hint at the appearance of a proto-keel
The planking is attached to the keel by long tenon- that projected inside the hull. This hypothesis seems to
ribs passing through the keel and through four to five be supported by the proto-keel of Ship 17 that is not
strakes of each board (Belov, 2014b: 316320, 323, visible in sheer view.
2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society 77
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 44.1
Figure 5. Form and dimensions (in cm) of the keel along the hull of Ship 17. (Drawing by the author)
78 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society
A. BELOV: DID ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SHIPS HAVE KEELS?
Table 2. Dimensions of the mortises and tenons of joints between segments of the keel
Joint Groove, width (mm) Tongue, width (mm) Groove, depth (mm) Tongue, depth (mm) Position
K1/K2 51 40 56 51 horizontal
K2/K3 62 59 71 41 horizontal
K5/K6 47 47 65 70 horizontal
K6/K7 72 33 61 58 horizontal
K11/K12 44 37 54 52 vertical
Average 55 43 61 54
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Franck Goddio, director of Institut Europen dArchologie Sous-Marine, for his kind permission to use
the excavation data from Ship 17 of Heracleion. I am very grateful to Dr Sabine Laemmel for proofreading this article.
References
Assmann, E., 1913, Die schiffsbilder, in L. Borchardt (ed.), Das Grabbenkmal des Knigs Sahu-re, 13366. Leipzig.
Basch, L., 1969, Phoenician oared ships. Mariners Mirroir 55, 142.
Basch, L., 1977, Trires grecques, phniciennes et gyptiennes. Journal of Hellenic Studies 97, 110.
Basch, L., 1978, Les navires mn et autres notes de voyage en Egypte. Mariners Mirroir 64, 11518.
Basch, L., 1980, M. le Professeur Lloyd et les trires: quelques remarques. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1989.
Bass, G. F., 1986, A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun (Kas): 1984 Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 90, 269
96.
Belov, A., 2014a, New evidence for the steering system of the Egyptian baris (Herodotus 2.96). IJNA 43.1, 39.
Belov, A., 2014b, New type of construction evidenced by Ship 17 of Heracleion-Thonis. IJNA 43.2, 31429.
Belov, A., forthcoming, Archaeological Evidence for the Egyptian baris (Herodotus, II.96), in Robinson, D. (ed.) Proceedings
of the International Symposium Heracleion in context: The maritime economy of the Egyptian Late Period, 1517 March 2013,
Oxford. Oxford.
Bradbury, L., 1996, Kpn-boats, Punt Trade, and a Lost Emporium. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 33, 3760.
Breasted, J. H. (ed.) 1930, Earlier historical records of Ramses III, Medinet Habu. Chicago.
Casson, L., 1959, The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times. New York.
Clarke, S., 1920, Nile boats and other matters. Ancient Egypt: 29, 4051.
Cowley, A., 1923, Aramaic papyri of the Vth century BC. Oxford.
Darnell, J. C., 1992, The Kbn.wt vessels of the Late Period, in J. H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from
Cambyses to Constantine and beyond, 6789. Chicago.
Davies, N. D. G., Faulkner, R. O., 1947, A Syrian trading venture to Egypt. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33, 406.
2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society 79
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 44.1
Edgerton, W., 1931, Egyptian Seagoing (?) Ships of One Hundred Cubits. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 47, 501.
Emanuel, J. P., 2012, Egypt, the Sea Peoples, and the Brailed Sail: Technological Transference in the Early Ramesside Period?
Unpublished paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting Chicago, 2012. https://
www.academia.edu/2069291
Glanville, S. R. K., 1932, Records of a Royal Dockyard of the time of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056. Part II.
Zeitschriff fur Agyptische Sprache 66, 741.
Goedicke, H., 1975, The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore, London.
Hocker, F., 1998, Did Hatshepsuts Punt ships have keels?, in S. Wachsmann (ed.), Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze
Age Levant, 24546. London.
Hornell, J., 1943, The sailing ship in Ancient Egypt. Antiquity 17, 2741.
Jones, D., 1988, A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms. London & New York.
Jones, D., 1990, Model Boats from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford.
Jones, D., 1995, Egyptian bookshelf: Boats. London.
Kster, A., 1923, Zur Seefahrt der alten gypten. Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 58, 12532.
Landstrm, B., 1969, Sailing Ships in Words and Pictures from Papyrus Boats to Full-Riggers. London.
Landstrm, B., 1970, Ships of Pharaohs: 4000 Years of Egyptian Shipbuilding. London.
Lloyd, A. B., 1972a, The so-called galleys of Necho. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, 3078.
Lloyd, A. B., 1972b, Triremes and the Saite Navy. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, 26879.
Lloyd, A. B., 1975, Were Nechos Triremes Phoenician? Journal of Hellenic Studies 95, 55.
Lloyd, A. B., 1980a, M. Basch on Triremes: Some Observations. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1958.
Lloyd, A. B., 1980b, The Trireme Controversy. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1958.
Mark, S., 2009, The construction of the Khufu I vessel (c.2566 BC): a re-evaluation. IJNA 38.1, 13352.
Mark, S., 2011, New data on Egyptian construction methods in the Khufu I vessel (c.2566 BC) from the Paul Lipke collection.
IJNA 40.1, 1838.
Marx, E., 1946, The First Recorded Sea Battle. Mariners Mirror 32, 24251.
Marx, E., 1948, The Origin of the Ram. Mariners Mirror 34, 11819.
Negueruela, I., 1996, Excavaciones arqueolgicas subacuatics realizadas por el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Arque-
olgicas Submarinas en el yacimiento de la Playa de la Isla (Mazarrn): Memoria de la campaa de 1995. Memorias de
arqueologia 10, 16280.
Negueruela, I., 2004, Hacia la coprensin de la construccin naval fenicia segn el barco Mazarrn 2 de siglo VII a.C., in V.
Pea (ed.), La navigacin fenicia: Tecnologa naval y dirroteros; Encuentros entre marinos, arquelogos e historiadores, 22778.
Madrid.
Partridge, R., 1996, Transport in Ancient Egypt. London.
Pomey, P., forthcoming, La batellerie nilotique grco-romaine daprs la mosaque de Palestrina, in Pomey, P. (ed.) La batellerie
gyptienne. Archologie, Histoire, Ethnographie. Actes du Colloque International du Centre dEtudes Alexandrines, 2527 juin
2010, Alexandrie.
Pulak, C., 1987, A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: Preliminary Analysis (19841985 Excavation Campaigns). MA
Thesis, Texas A&M University, http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1987-THESIS-P981
Pulak, C., 2002, The Uluburun hull remains, in Tzalas, H. (ed.) TROPIS VII7th International Symposium on Ship Construc-
tion in Antiquity, Pylos, 615636. Athens.
Pulak, C., 2008, The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade, in J. Aruz (ed.), Beyond Babylon. Art, trade and
Diplomacy in the Second Millenium BC, 289385. New Haven.
Rieth, E., 2008, Gomtrie des formes de carne et construction sur membrure premire (Ve-XIIe sicles). Une autre approche
de lhistoire de larchitecture navale mditerranenne au Moyen Age? Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea 5, 4568.
Robinson, D, forthcoming, Ship 43 and the formation of the ship graveyard in the central basin at Thonis-Heracleion, in
Robinson, D. (ed.) Heracleion in context: The maritime economy of the Egyptian Late Period. Oxford Centre for Maritime
Archaeology Monograph Vol. 8, Oxford.
Roug, J., 1975, La marine dans lAntiquit. Vendome.
Save-Soderbergh, T., 1946, The Navy of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. Uppsala & Leipzig.
Sleeswyk, A. W., 1996, Ramming trim of Ships, in H. Tzalas (ed.), TROPIS IV, 4th International Symposium on Ship
Construction in Antiquity: Proceedings, 42949. Athens.
Vinson, S., 1994, Egyptian Boats and Ships. Buckinghamshire.
Wachsmann, S., 1981, The ships of the Sea Peoples. IJNA 10.3: 187220.
Ward, C., 2000, Sacred and secular: Ancient Egyptian ships and boats. Boston.
Ward, C. and Couser, P., 2012, Reconstruction and sailing performance of an ancient Egyptian ship, in Gunsenin, N. (ed.)
Between Continents: proceedings of the twelfth symposium on boat and ship archaeology, Istanbul 2009, 28793. Istanbul.
Werner, E. K., 1986, Montu and the Falcon Ships of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
23, 10723.
80 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society