Did Ancient Egyptian Ships have Keels? The evidence of Thonis-Heracleion Ship 17

bs_bs_banner The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2015) 44.1: 74–80 doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12078 Did Ancient Egyptian Ships have Keels? The evidence of Thonis-Heracleion Ship 17 Alexander Belov Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 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 18th–20th dynasties of the New Kingdom (c.1539–1077 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 prior to the New Kingdom give no hint of the presence of keels in their construction. Likewise, ship-finds show no evidence of the use of a keel: the planking of the Old Kingdom Khufu-I boat (c.2566 BC) was built around three bottom strakes, while the Middle Kingdom Dahshur boats (c.1878–1841 BC) had a single central strake only slightly thicker than the rest of the planking (Ward, 2000: 85, 97, 102). The Late Period Mataria boat (c.450 BC) was also constructed with a keel-plank. The latter is notably a characteristic feature of the traditional boats of the Upper Nile called nuggars (Clarke, 1920: 49; Hornell, 1943: 28). All of the above-mentioned boats are river boats and the absence of a keel is unsurprising as the advantages of a flatbottomed craft with shallow draft are undeniable in a river environment. However, the ancient Egyptians also built seagoing vessels without keels, as evidenced by the ships from the temple of Sahure (2428–2416 BC) (Assmann, 1913: 133–66; Landström, 1970: 63–7). Internal girders, hogging trusses and thick planking were specifically Egyptian means of increasing the structural strength of their crescent-shaped hulls in the absence of the keel. Iconographic and epigraphic material dating to the New Kingdom (c.1539–1077 BC) may point to the appearance of a keel, or its analogue, in the construction of Egyptian ships. The representations of the seagoing ships of the Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut (1479–1458 BC) from Deir el-Bahari are probably the oldest images that can be included in the discussion. Landström believes that the keel played an important role in the structure of these ships and suggests that it ran along the entire length of the hull (Landström, 1970: 122–7). Partridge describes this constructional element as a ‘. . . more conventional keel, rather than just a centre plank’ (Partridge, 1996: 54). At the same time, many scholars deny that the ships of Hatshepsut had a keel at all. Some, such as Casson (1959: 14–15) and Lloyd (1972b: 271, note 3), believe that a hogging truss was applied to reinforce the longitudinal structure of these ships precisely because they lacked a keel. Vinson (1994: 38) also considers them as traditional boats without keels, particularly on the grounds of the presence of a hogging truss. Three models from the tomb of Amenhotep II (1425–1400 BC), representing ships of a bik type, possess equally imposing stem and stern posts, in direct continuation of keel-like structures, which end in high finials. However, no keel is visible in the middle part of the hull. The models are decorated with the depictions of Montu (Mntw)—the Egyptian god of war—and are thus probably¯ meant to represent royal war ships (Landström, 1970: 107–8, fig. 338, 339; Werner, 1986: 123). It seems that keels can be seen in the numerous models of travelling ships from the tomb of Tutankhamun (?–1324 BC). Jones (1995: 54) remarks that the presence of ‘elongated finials’ does not prove the existence of a keel. He cites the example of the Khufu-I ship, where the finials are fastened to short planks at the extremities called ‘backing timbers’. On these grounds, Jones denies that Egyptian ships of the 18th dynasty included a keel in their construction. However, this argument is inconclusive, as data from a papyriform royal bark (probably unfinished, see Mark, 2009: 148–150; Mark, 2011: 27) can hardly be extrapolated to travelling ships and warships. In addition, the sheer view of the Khufu-I 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? that show two distinct curves: one corresponding to the line of the keel and the other to the line of the planking. Bradbury (1996: 50) concludes that ‘These models imply that they [Egyptians] had incorporated the single timber keel in some of their travelling ships, and certainly those sailing on a high sea. It was about this time too they adopted the Levantine seagoing Mnš-ships which did possess a keel’. This opinion agrees with Landström’s suggestion that the concept of a keel was brought to Egypt by Palestinian or Syrian shipbuilders (Landström, 1970: 107). Syrians were employed in the shipyard and at the main Egyptian port of Prw-nfr in Memphis (Pap.Ermitage 1116 B, verso 15) in the reign of Thutmose III (1479–1425 BC) and, probably, of Amenhotep II (1425–1400 BC). The gods Baal and Astarte were venerated at Prw-nfr proving that Phoenicians were firmly installed in this area (Pap. British Museum 10056: column 4, line 3; column 9, line 12, commented in Glanville, 1932: 25–6, 29; see also Save-Soderbergh, 1946: 37). While it is debatable whether the Egyptian term of pipit referred to a keel (Jones, 1988: 164), it is more certain in the case of tp-h.t, which is attested for the first time in the Prw-nfr ˘ shipyard’s wood register (Pap. British Museum 10056, column 6, line 12; see Bradbury, 1996: 51, note 69). One can hardly fail to see the parallel with the term tpy-h.t found in the ‘Story of Wenamun’ (Glanville, ˘ 27, note 82; Goedicke, 1975: 142–143, note 156). 1932: This story, probably composed during the 22nd dynasty (943–c.746 BC), unfolds in the reign of Pharaoh Ramses XI (c.1106–1077 BC) of the 20th dynasty. Wenamun, a priest of Amun at Karnak, was sent to Lebanon to buy the cedar necessary to build the divine bark Amun Userhet. The text alludes to the construction of an earlier bark in the time of Ramses III (1187–1157 BC) and mentions that the keel of this ship measured 130 cubits in length (about 68 m) (Goedicke, 1975: 142–3, note 156). Bradbury judiciously remarks that the keel of this river-going vessel must have been composed of several segments scarfed together (Bradbury, 1996: 51, note 69). During the reign of Thutmose III (1479–1425 BC), or that of Amenhotep II (1425–1400 BC), a new type of ship called a menesh (mnš) was introduced in Egypt. The term itself is attested in the reign of Amenhotep III (1390–1353 BC) but iconographic documents have allowed an earlier date for the appearance of these ships in Egypt to be proposed (Basch, 1978: 115–18). The construction of Syrian ships depicted in the tomb of Nebamun (reign of Amenhotep II) and Kenamun (reign of Amenhotep III) has been extensively discussed in the literature (Köster, 1923; Edgerton, 1931; Save-Soderbergh, 1946: 56–7; Davies and Faulkner, 1947; Landström, 1970: 139; Basch, 1978; Bradbury, 1996). Among some typically Egyptian features, these ships also show obvious elements of foreign origin, such as the vertical endposts of the hull, the fence-like gunwale, a foreign rigging arrangement and a large Canaanite amphora for storing drinking water. The Figure 1. Section of the proto-keel of the Uluburun shipwreck (c.1300 BC). (After Pulak, 2002: 636, fig. 4) absence of a hogging truss is also contrary to the construction customs of contemporary Egyptian seagoing ships. Basch concludes that the menesh ship belongs to a Levantine type, adopted and reproduced by the Egyptians (Basch, 1978). During the Ramesside period (1292–c.1077 BC), Egypt had its own trade fleet of menesh ships 100 cubits in length (about 52 m) (Edgerton, 1931: 50–1) and they too are mentioned in the ‘Story of Wenamun’. Ramses III built a navy consisting of menesh ships on the Mediterranean and Red Seas (P. Harris IV, 211, 328. See Bradbury, 1996: 50, note 67). Representations of the Syrian ships from the tombs of Nebamun and Kenamun serve in their turn as iconographic models for the Uluburun shipwreck (c.1300 BC) (Bass, 1986: 293; Pulak, 1987: 136–7; Pulak, 2008: 300–3). The home port of this ship, which was partially laden with Egyptian goods, was located somewhere on the Levantine coast (Pulak, 2008: 299). The length of the boat has been estimated at 15 m with a beam of 5 m and a tonnage of about 20 tonnes. It is noteworthy that the width of the proto-keel of the ship exceeded its height and that it projected inside the hull (Fig. 1), while only a few centimetres of the proto-keel descended below the outer surface of the planking. The proto-keel of this ship could not offer much lateral resistance but it contributed to the longitudinal strength of the hull and protected the planking from wear during beaching (Pulak, 2008: 302). The two Mazzarón shipwrecks from Spain (early 7th century BC), which betray a strong Phoenician influence, include a proto-keel of approximately the same proportions as that of the Uluburun shipwreck (Negueruela, 1996: 167; Negueruela, 2004: 237). However, in this case the proto-keel does not project inside the hull. Returning to Egypt, Hocker (1998: 246) wrote on the Punt ships of Queen Hatshepsut (1479–1458 BC): ‘It would be hard to deny that the Punt ships have some sort of backbone structure that includes a centerline member of substantial depth, at least at the ends. I suspect that this timber is also quite robust amidships but that it projects inboard, like the upper portion of the Uluburun keel and the keel-like timber seen in the Byblos model.’ Hocker not only adheres to the opinion of Landström (1970: 122–27) and Partridge (1996: 54) © 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 these ships but he also proposes that it protrudes inside the hull. It is interesting to note that the centre plank of the recent replica of the ships in question called Min of the Desert is also a kind of proto-keel that slightly protrudes inside the hull (Ward and Couser, 2012: fig. 16). Representations of Egyptian warships depicted on the wall of the temple of Ramses III (1187–1157 BC) in Medinet Habu (Breasted, 1930: 104: pl.37) reveal innovations in construction details, and these have been claimed to be of foreign origin (Landström, 1970, 111– 12) (Fig. 2). The rowers are protected by a parapet and, in addition to the soldiers on deck, there are also archers in the crow’s nest. The mast has a downwardcurving yard that supports a loose-footed sail (Emanuel, 2012: 2). At the same time, other features, such as the crescent-shaped hull, the through-beams and probably an axial rudder, recall the traditional Egyptian boat type (Landström, 1970: 112–14, fig. 349). The difference between these and the hulls of the Sea Peoples’ ships (Wachsmann, 1981: 191–5) with their vertical stems, alien to the Egyptian boatbuilding tradition, is quite unambiguous (Landström, 1970: 139; Basch, 1978: 115–18). Like the models of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamun mentioned above, the end posts of the ships of Ramses III are direct prolongations of their keels (Landström, 1969: 23; Landström, 1970: 107). Stems are crowned with a carved lion head holding an Asiatic-featured human head in its mouth. Marx interprets this composition as a ram (Marx, 1946: 242–51; Marx, 1948: 118–19), a hypothesis supported by Landström (1970: 112) and Rougé (1975: 91). According to Rougé: ‘Being positioned well above the waterline, it is not a [conventional] ship’s ram [un éperon in the original], but rather a sort of [battering] ram [un bélier in the original] destined not to sink the ship of the adversary but to capsize it.’ One of the ships of the Sea Peoples on the relief has actually capsized, perhaps as a consequence of an attack with such a ram (see also Sleeswyk, 1996: 429–49). Other scholars, on the contrary, see this detail merely as a decoration of the prow (Lloyd, 1972b: 271; Jones, 1995: 59). According to Bradbury, the evidence for the existence of a keel in the construction of large Egyptian ships in the period between c.1430 and 990 BC is supported by Marx’s interpretation (Bradbury, 1996: 52), as a ram of this type must necessarily have rested on a keel. Ship 17 Figure 2. Fighting ships of Ramses III (1187–1157 BC) and of the Sea Peoples, from the temple in Medinet Habu. (Drawing after Landström, 1970: 112, fig. 345–7) The excavation of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion was carried out by the Institut Européen d’Archéologie Sous-Marine (IEASM) directed by F. Goddio in 2009– 2011 (Belov, 2014b: 314, fig. 1). The ship is dated to the early 5th–mid 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 temporarily 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: 3–9). In the middle of the central segment K6 there is a mortise destined to receive the spur of the mast. The width of the segments (sided) is greatest at the stern and smallest at the bow, while the Table 1. Main dimensions of the segments of the keel of Ship 17 Segment Length m Sided_East m Sided_West m Sided_ Average m Moulded m 76 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 Average 3.050 0.560 0.456 0.514 2.098 0.446 0.379 0.413 2.129 0.378 0.367 0.373 2.008 0.367 0.364 0.366 1.977 0.367 0.361 0.364 2.588 0.357 0.361 0.359 1.938 0.351 0.337 0.344 1.681 0.351 0.337 0.344 1.675 0.347 0.233 0.290 1.827 0.347 0.233 0.290 1.692 0.347 0.233 0.290 1.629 0.235 0.214 0.225 2.024 0.371 0.323 0.348 — — — 0.175 0.160 0.220 — 0.198 0.212–0.265 0.229 0.119–0.149 0.170–0.173 0.191 © 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) fig. 16). The distribution of planking joints follows a principle of ‘non-alignment’ producing a brick-like pattern as described by Herodotus in relation to shipbuilding (History, 2.96). In sheer view, the hull of Ship 17 is characterized by the traditional Egyptian shape of a crescent (or a sickle), where stem and sternpost continue as direct prolongations of the keel. Discussion Figure 4. Width of the keel against the average width of the planking in cm. Horizontal axis indicates the distance from the bow preserved extremity. (Drawing by the author) central part of the hull is characterized by a constant width. The keel is considerably wider than the strakes along the entire length of the hull (Fig. 4). The keel is mostly rectangular in section (Fig. 5), and reaches its maximum thickness in the middle of the hull where it is almost square. The lower surface of the keel is flush with the outer planking and the keel projects inside the hull. This elevation is minimal at the preserved extremities of the ship (20 mm) and reaches 130 mm at the middle of the hull (Fig. 6). Tongue-and-groove joints were used to assemble the segments of the keel. In the majority of cases, the joint is situated in the lower third of the thickness of the keel but sometimes it can be found in its middle. The tongues are usually slightly trapezoidal in section (Belov, 2014b: 317, fig. 6). It has been possible to study five joints between segments of the keel. On average, the grooves are 55 mm wide and 61 mm deep, while the tongues are 43 mm wide and 54 mm long (Table 2). Unlike other joints studied, the joint between the segments K11 and K12, in the region of the bow, is vertical and reinforced by a key (Fig. 7). The planking is attached to the keel by long tenonribs passing through the keel and through four to five strakes of each board (Belov, 2014b: 316–320, 323, The reconstruction of Ship 17 suggests a crescentshaped, flat-bottomed craft about 28 m long. The short segments of the keel would have facilitated achieving a crescent-shaped hull, the more so as the joints between the segments of the keel are not deep and are rather flexible. It should be underlined that a different type of joint (half-lap splice) was used for the longitudinal joints between the planks, and that planks and keel was assembled using long tenon-ribs. There is no doubt that the longitudinal strength of the keel depended on its assemblage with its neighbouring strakes and that there is no change of angle between them. Thus, it may appear that the term ‘keel-plank’ is more appropriate in this case. However, at the centre of the ship, at the middle beam, the keel of Ship 17 is almost twice as thick as the planking, with this ratio gradually diminishing towards the extremities of the hull (Fig. 8). This suggests that the concept of a ‘spine’ has been introduced in this ship’s construction and that this element should rather be classified as a ‘proto-keel’. The proto-keel of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion, dated to the 5th–mid 4th century BC, is the first find of this kind from Egypt and it is necessary to go back many centuries to find possible parallels. The representations of the 18th dynasty that were cited in the first part of the article hint at the appearance of a proto-keel that projected inside the hull. This hypothesis seems to be supported by the proto-keel of Ship 17 that is not 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) Figure 6. Central segment K6 of the keel in situ. Note a mortise destined for the bracing timber F6. (Photo by Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) The proto-keel of Ship 17 resembles that from the Uluburun shipwreck, although there are major differences between these ships. Namely, the first is a rivergoing freighter, built of acacia in a largely Egyptian tradition, dated to c.500–350 BC with a tonnage of about 112 tonnes. The second is a seagoing trading ship, built of cedar in the Phoenician tradition, dated to c.1300 BC with a deadweight of about 20 tonnes only (Pulak, 2008: 302). However, one may note that the tenons of the Uluburun shipwreck have the same structural function as internal ribs, as the tenon-ribs of Ship 17. The proportions of the proto-keels of the two ships are very similar and, most importantly, the keel of the Uluburun shipwreck projects inside the hull in the same way as that of Ship 17. Without doubt there are important differences between the two keels. The proto-keel of Uluburun also protrudes several centimetres below the outer surface of the planking, while the keel of Ship 17 does not. Moreover, there is a change of angle between the proto-keel and the garboard of Uluburun. Despite the fact that only a 1.73 m-long section of the proto-keel of Uluburun was preserved, it is presumed to have been initially much longer than the 2 m-long sections of the Egyptian ship. Conclusions Egyptian representations dating to the beginning of the New Kingdom may bear witness to the presence of keels 78 in the construction of Egyptian ships. Some of them, such as the ships of the Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut (1479–1458 BC) were seagoing ships; others, such as those represented by the models of King Tutankhamun’s tomb (?–1324 BC), were destined to sail on the Nile. The construction of the Uluburun shipwreck (c.1300 BC) includes a proto-keel that projects inside the hull. The Uluburun wreck has parallels in the representations of the seagoing menesh ships in Egyptian tombs dating to the reigns of Amenhotep II and of Amenhotep III (1390–1353 BC). Menesh ships in their turn were probably built by the Egyptians following Phoenician styles. Dated to approximately one millennium later, a proto-keel has been found in the construction of the Nilotic freighter recently excavated in Thonis-Heracleion. The construction of Ship 17 provides evidence of the choice of local woods, of a traditional form of hull, and of some particularly Egyptian construction features, such as thick planking and through-beams. The origin of the long tenons joining the planking, pegged at the extremities, is more debatable, although this technology may prove to have a rather long history in Egypt (Belov, forthcoming). It is worth noting that it is again the Uluburun shipwreck that provides the most ancient evidence for pegged tenons. However, it seems that proto-keels were used only for the construction of the larger river-going ships at Thonis-Heracleion. Thus, Ship 43, c.23 m long, dating to the Late Period and showing many common features with Ship 17, has a keel-plank (Robinson, forthcoming). Ships belonging to foreign boatbuilding traditions were apparently not only visiting Egypt in the Late Period (722–332 BC) but were often stationed there. While the question of whether the triremes of Necho II (610–595 BC) were of Greek or Phoenician origin is not yet completely solved (Lloyd, 1972a; Lloyd, 1972b; Lloyd, 1975; Lloyd, 1980a and Lloyd, 1980b contra Basch, 1969; Basch, 1977 and Basch, 1980; Darnell, 1992), it is possible that they were reproduced in Egypt (Lloyd, 1972b: 276). Interesting evidence is found in papyrus Cowley A.P. 26 (Cowley, 1923: 88–97) dating to the Persian period (412 BC). This document contains an inventory of the ship parts from a boat of the byr type, built of cedar. It is the great quantity of nails that attracts attention and indicates an alien type of construction. Nails were probably used for the © 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 51 62 47 72 44 55 40 59 47 33 37 43 56 71 65 61 54 61 51 41 70 58 52 54 horizontal horizontal horizontal horizontal vertical K1/K2 K2/K3 K5/K6 K6/K7 K11/K12 Average Figure 8. Schematic section of the keel and of the starboard planking of Ship 17 at middle beam (14 m from aft preserved extremity). (Drawing by the author) Figure 7. Schema of the joint between segments K11 and K12 reinforced by a horizontal key. (Drawing by the author) assemblage of frames to the planking, following a well-known Greco-Roman boatbuilding tradition. This is the case of some of the other ships found at ThonisHeracleion, such as Ship 61 (calibrated date 234–40 BC) and Ship 11 (conventional date 165 ± 50 BC). However, taking into consideration the high degree of conservatism of boatbuilding in general and of this trait in Ancient Egypt in particular (Jones, 1990: 55; Ward, 2000: 133–34; Rieth, 2008: 67; Pomey, forthcoming), I believe that much time must have passed between the introduction of the concept of the protokeel and it being widely put into practice. The hypothesis that the keel was adopted from the menesh ships of Levantine origin at the beginning of the New Kingdom and subsequently distributed on the Nile seems very tempting. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Franck Goddio, director of Institut Européen d’Archéologie 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 Königs Sahu-re, 133–66. Leipzig. Basch, L., 1969, Phoenician oared ships. Mariners Mirroir 55, 142. Basch, L., 1977, Triéres grecques, phéniciennes et égyptiennes. Journal of Hellenic Studies 97, 1–10. Basch, L., 1978, Les navires mnš et autres notes de voyage en Egypte. Mariners Mirroir 64, 115–18. Basch, L., 1980, M. le Professeur Lloyd et les trières: quelques remarques. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 198–9. 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, 3–9. Belov, A., 2014b, New type of construction evidenced by Ship 17 of Heracleion-Thonis. IJNA 43.2, 314–29. 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, 15–17 March 2013, Oxford. Oxford. Bradbury, L., 1996, Kpn-boats, Punt Trade, and a Lost Emporium. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 33, 37–60. 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: 2–9, 40–51. 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, 67–89. Chicago. Davies, N. D. G., Faulkner, R. O., 1947, A Syrian trading venture to Egypt. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33, 40–6. © 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, 50–1. 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, 7–41. Goedicke, H., 1975, The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore, London. Hocker, F., 1998, Did Hatshepsut’s Punt ships have keels?, in S. Wachsmann (ed.), Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, 245–46. London. Hornell, J., 1943, The sailing ship in Ancient Egypt. Antiquity 17, 27–41. 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. Köster, A., 1923, Zur Seefahrt der alten Ägypten. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 58, 125–32. Landström, B., 1969, Sailing Ships in Words and Pictures from Papyrus Boats to Full-Riggers. London. Landström, 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, 307–8. Lloyd, A. B., 1972b, Triremes and the Saite Navy. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, 268–79. Lloyd, A. B., 1975, Were Necho’s Triremes Phoenician? Journal of Hellenic Studies 95, 55. Lloyd, A. B., 1980a, M. Basch on Triremes: Some Observations. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 195–8. Lloyd, A. B., 1980b, The Trireme Controversy. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 195–8. Mark, S., 2009, The construction of the Khufu I vessel (c.2566 BC): a re-evaluation. IJNA 38.1, 133–52. 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, 18–38. Marx, E., 1946, The First Recorded Sea Battle. Mariner’s Mirror 32, 242–51. Marx, E., 1948, The Origin of the Ram. Mariner’s Mirror 34, 118–19. Negueruela, I., 1996, Excavaciones arqueológicas subacuaticás realizadas por el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Submarinas en el yacimiento de la Playa de la Isla (Mazarrón): Memoria de la campaña de 1995. Memorias de arqueologia 10, 162–80. Negueruela, I., 2004, Hacia la coprensión de la construcción naval fenicia según el barco ‘Mazarrón 2’ de siglo VII a.C., in V. Peña (ed.), La navigación fenicia: Tecnología naval y dirroteros; Encuentros entre marinos, arqueólogos e historiadores, 227–78. Madrid. Partridge, R., 1996, Transport in Ancient Egypt. London. Pomey, P., forthcoming, La batellerie nilotique gréco-romaine d’après la mosaïque de Palestrina, in Pomey, P. (ed.) La batellerie égyptienne. Archéologie, Histoire, Ethnographie. Actes du Colloque International du Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines, 25–27 juin 2010, Alexandrie. Pulak, C., 1987, A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: Preliminary Analysis (1984–1985 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 VII—7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Pylos, 615–636. 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, 289–385. New Haven. Rieth, E., 2008, Géométrie des formes de carène et construction “sur membrure première” (Ve-XIIe siècles). Une autre approche de l’histoire de l’architecture navale méditerranéenne au Moyen Age? Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea 5, 45–68. 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. Rougé, J., 1975, La marine dans l’Antiquité. 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, 429–49. Athens. Vinson, S., 1994, Egyptian Boats and Ships. Buckinghamshire. Wachsmann, S., 1981, The ships of the Sea Peoples. IJNA 10.3: 187–220. 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, 287–93. Istanbul. Werner, E. K., 1986, Montu and the ‘Falcon Ships’ of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23, 107–23. 80 © 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society