CHAPTER 10

Ship Construction

The single most important aspect of seafaring is the ability to build vessels capable of withstanding the rigors of sea travel, with its waves, storms, and other dangers. The little we know about the actual construction of Bronze Age seagoing ships comes from the meager remains of fragmentary seagoing hulls—little more than bits and pieces of timber—found on the Mediterranean’s seabed as well as on land in Egypt.

There is, however, much ancillary information: Nile ships found interred in various forms of burial, or reuse of their dismembered timbers; documents dealing with the construction and repair of ships and records of dockyards; and wall reliefs depicting scenes of ship construction.

Although this information is valuable, it is important to emphasize that most of it comes from Egypt and relates primarily to craft that plied the quiet waters of the Nile rather than to seagoing ships. Thus, the data can teach us about local Egyptian traditions but are of lesser value in interpreting deep-water vessels.

Primary Materials

Hull Remains of Seagoing Ships

WADI GAWASIS. Several wood fragments with mortise scars were found at the Middle Kingdom Red Sea port of Wadi Gawasis.1 One of the timbers is cedar (Cedrus sp.) and has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 1975 B.C.² These fragments may be remnants of a ship-assembly operation that were subsequently used as firewood since some pieces are charred. The largest fragment is 38 centimeters long, 14 centimeters wide, and 12 centimeters thick. It has three rectangular mortises along one edge that measure 6 centimeters long, 2.5 centimeters wide, and 4 centimeters deep (Fig. 10.1).

Assuming the plank edge has not been abraded, these mortises are exceptionally shallow for ships built using the Egyptian unpegged mortise-and-tenon technique. The normal depth of mortises on the Dashur boats, for example, is 12–13 centimeters.³ Tenons of the Cheops ship were 10 centimeters long by 7 centimeters wide and 1.5 centimeters thick.⁴ This suggests a mortise depth of 5–6 centimeters. Therefore, the mortises in these fragments were probably used to seat planks in lashed construction, as in Cheops I and the Lisht timbers. The manner in which the three mortises on the Wadi Gawasis timber fragment are staggered finds its closest parallels in the Lisht timbers.5

Figure 10.1. Mortised block of cedarwood, apparently a leftover from ship construction at Mersa Gawasis (Twelfth Dynasty) (from Sayed 1980: 157 fig. 3)

ULUBURUN. The Uluburun shipwreck is the only Late Bronze Age wreck found in the Mediterranean that has supplied definite information on hull construction.6 A section of the ship’s hull discovered beneath a large stone anchor included portions of the keel-plank, the garboards, and fragments of additional strakes (Fig. 10.2)⁷ During the 1986 campaign, additional unidentified timbers were found beneath the rows of copper ingots north of the rock outcrop.⁸ The 1990 campaign revealed that planking on the ship’s port side is well-preserved as it continues beneath the oxhide ingot pile but is poorly preserved on the starboard side.⁹ The keel-plank is 28 centimeters sided (wide); the garboard is 17 centimeters wide, while the second strake is 26 centimeters wide and 6 centimeters thick. The strakes are connected with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery, with tenons placed at 21-centimeter intervals. One collapsed mortise measures 7 centimeters wide by 17 centimeters deep. The pegs locking the mortise-and-tenon joints are about 2.2 centimeters in diameter on the hull’s inner surface.

Figure 10.2. Hull remains from Uluburun (late fourteenth century B.C.) (from Pulak 1987: 130 ill. 73)

The hull section in Grid Squares M15–O15 and M16–O16 was documented during the 1993 season (Fig. 14.1). Probe excavations in this area had indicated the existence of a keel-plank, as well as the port side of the garboard strake, a second strake, and fragments of a third. A section about 1.8 meters along the line of the keel-plank and 1 meter in width was well-preserved. No frames were found here, or in the other surviving sections of hull. C. M. Pulak suggests that the preserved portion was too limited to contain frames, particularly if they had not been attached to the keel.¹⁰

The keel is larger in its sided dimension (28 centimeters) than in its molded dimension (22 centimeters), making it a keel-plank, or a rudimentary keel, rather than a true keel. Of particular interest is the discovery that the keel-plank protruded only slightly beneath the outer surface of the hull planking. This is analogous to the evidence derived from contemporaneous ship models, as well as from Hatshepsut’s Punt ships depicted at Deir el Bahri.

A starboard section of the hull was also preserved beneath the third and fourth rows of ingots in Grid Squares N17–O17 and N18–O18. This part had been badly damaged by the crushing weight of the cargo as it settled on the steep seabed, making interpretation difficult. Despite the damage, Pulak was able to identify a planking scarf as either a flat scarf or a drop strake. The scarf still bore one well-preserved mortise-and-tenon joint, and remnants of a second. As a result of the poor state of preservation, not all mortise-and-tenon joint peg pairs could be located; however, spacing between pegs was, on average, 23 centimeters. In this area, the garboard narrows towards the bow (downslope), a detail particularly noticeable at the lower extremity.

The forward-most section of hull had been preserved beneath the fourth row of ingots in Grid Squares N18–O18. This portion, which is about 1 square meter in area, includes part of the keel-plank, as well as portions of the first six strakes on the ship’s starboard side. These planks had a pattern of varying width similar to the more centrally located section found in Grid Squares M15–O15, with alternating narrow (15–16 centimeter) and wide (25 centimeter) planking. As this feature is exhibited on all three sections found, Pulak concludes that it is probably a typical feature of the hull.

This section of the keel-plank is not in alignment with the one higher up the slope. This is probably a result of this hull section sliding southward as it settled against a rock outcrop on the sea-floor. Pulak notes that the third through sixth strakes here seem to conform roughly to four of the surviving five strakes that had been preserved under the third row of copper ingots. Determining the exact relationship is, however, difficult due to the fragmentary preservation of the hull in this area.

The wood of the keel-plank, and possibly that of the second strake, is identified as cedar (Cedrus sp.); the tenons and pegs are thought to be oak (Quereus sp.). At present, this is the earliest known example of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery used in the construction of a watercraft.11 Pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery seems to have been a requirement for seagoing ships. Already at Uluburun the joinery appears well developed, and we must assume, therefore, a considerable period of evolution leading up to it.

Several large timbers have framelike shapes. At first these were considered to be part of the ship’s structure, but they are now thought to have been spare parts for repairs.¹² The purpose of one adjacent timber and others found nearby, on which the knobs of branches or roots are still visible, remains unverified but thought to be firewood. These timbers also have been identified as cedar. Fragments of wood, at least some of which belong to the vessel’s hull, were found in several areas of the site. Additional information on the ship’s hull is derived from careful recording of sectional profiles of all ingot rows and by plotting the tips of each oxhide ingot.¹³ This will allow the excavators to determine the hull’s curvature in areas where the hull itself has long since disappeared.

Beneath one stone anchor, the excavators uncovered a row of five rounded stakes.¹⁴ The longest of these is 1.7 meters long. One (lower?) extremity of each stake has been shaped to a point by means of several blows of an adze or ax. Between the stakes excavators found closely spaced withies, more or less perpendicular to the stakes. The withies seem to have formed matting independent of the stakes. Pulak notes the similarity in form this construction has with the fencing depicted on the Syro-Canaanite ships painted in the tombs of Kenamun, Nebamun, and the mnš-ship determinative (Figs. 3.2–10). The upper end of the longest stake is worked and, therefore, reminiscent in this respect to those in the Kenamun tomb.

The excavators believe the ship was about fifteen meters long.¹⁵ Interestingly, this approximates the proposed calculated length for the ship type of eighteen oars postulated from the Ugaritic evidence.¹⁶ It will take considerable additional research to determine whether the Uluburun ship had been strictly a sailing vessel or whether it might have been a merchant galley. The latter possibility should not be ruled out at this stage, however. In the lower part of the wreck, where the ship’s bow was confined by huge rocks, it will be possible to reconstruct this area of the ship based on the manner in which the oxhide ingots came to rest.¹⁷

CAPE GELIDONYA. The wood recovered from the shipwreck at Cape Gelidonya was in such fragmentary condition that doubt remains as to whether any of the pieces actually belonged to the ship’s hull (Fig. 10.3).¹⁸ Some of the published wood pieces appear to be pegs. Other wooden fragments have holes, perhaps for wooden pegs.¹⁹ Fragment Wd 2 may be a broken tenon fragment. This suggests that the Cape Gelidonya ship, like the Uluburun vessel, was built of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. The worked timbers were identified as cypress (Cupressus sp.) and oak (Quercus sp.). No metal fasteners were found at either Uluburun or Cape Gelidonya.

In summary, at present there is evidence for at least two separate traditions of construction used in seagoing ships in the Bronze Age: pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery (Uluburun and probably Cape Gelidonya) and some form of internal lashed construction in which unpegged mortise-and-tenon joints were used to seat the planking (Wadi Gawasis).

Ancillary Materials

Hull Remains of Nile Ships

Numerous remains of Nile craft have been found in Egyptian excavations. Although it is imperative to emphasize that seagoing vessels may have differed radically from ships that plied the Nile, these vessels nevertheless do shed valuable light on the types of ship construction that existed contemporaneously in ancient Egypt. For this reason, a short review of this evidence is in order here.

Figure 10.3. Wood (hull?) remains from Cape Gelidonya (late thirteenth century B.C.) (from CG 1967: 50 fig. 51)

In antiquity the Egyptians were notorious for doing things differently from other peoples. This was certainly true of the techniques they used in shipbuilding.20 While many cultures built “sewn” or “lashed” ships with their planks held together with ligatures, only the Egyptians used transverse lashings that did not penetrate the hull. Furthermore, while the shipwrights of other nations were careful to create straight planking seams, the ancient Egyptian shipwrights intentionally “joggled” their planking edges into jigsaw-like patterns that prevented longitudinal sliding. These features, together with a liberal use of unpegged mortise-and-tenon joints, endowed Egyptian hulls with considerable structural strength.

Egyptian shipbuilders seem to have taken pains to avoid piercing the exterior of their hulls in any manner.²¹ Indeed, C. W. Haldane suggests that this may explain why pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery, which had been used in Egyptian carpentry from early times, was utterly foreign to all of the forms of indigenous Egyptian shipbuilding known to date. That pharaonic shipwrights did at times pierce the hull is evident from the iconographic record, however. Sahure’s ships have ligatures that clearly pass through holes in the hull (Fig. 2.3).

ABYDOS. In 1991 twelve planked boats dating to the end of the Predynastic period or the beginning of the Dynastic period were discovered at the Northern Cemetery at Abydos.²² The boats are about fifteen to eighteen meters long. They were buried in mud-brick coffins and contained pottery offerings. Following their interment, the vessels were entombed under a layer of mud-brick and plaster. The future excavation of this “fleet” will contribute considerably to our understanding of ship construction in early Egypt.

THE TARKHAN PLANKS. W. M. F. Petrie uncovered a group of planks at Tarkhan in tombs dated to the First Dynasty.²³ The timbers bear V-shaped and L-shaped lashing mortises as well as mortise-and-tenon joinery; both of these elements exist on the later Cheops ship and the Lisht timbers. Petrie interprets these timbers as having been parts of wooden buildings: he believes that the timbers had been assembled to form a “niched wall.” He sees this wooden construction as a prototype of the niched brick architecture common in the Early Dynastic period. H. Frankfort opposes this view, suggesting that the timbers had actually come from Nile watercraft.²⁴

S. M. Vinson concludes that although evidence is lacking to definitively prove that the Tarkhan planks are derived from ships, it would be curious if they did not because of the similarities they share with other hull remains known from Egypt.²⁵ More recently, however, Haldane expresses reservations as to whether these timbers had been used in shipbuilding.26

FIRST DYNASTY BOAT GRAVES. Some twenty-five boat graves dating to the First Dynasty are known from Lower Egypt. Nineteen of these were uncovered at Helwan by Z. Y. Saad.²⁷ Others were excavated by W. Emery at Saqqara.²⁸ All of these originally contained boats. Because of a combination of lack of remains and the inadequate manner of publication of those remnants that did survive, it is difficult (if not impossible) to learn anything about the construction of the vessels originally interred in these tombs.²⁹

CHEOPS I AND II. There are six known royal ship graves around the Great Pyramid of Cheops at Giza.³⁰ In 1952, during the removal of sand from the southern side of the pyramid, two additional boat pits were discovered. The ship in one of the pits, Cheops I, was excavated in 1955.³¹ The vessel was found disassembled, rather like a model kit, with all the parts in place. After many trials and five reconstructions, the ship was restored by Ahmed Youssef Moustafa and is now exhibited in a museum constructed over the pit from whence it came.³²

Figure 10.4. The internal structure of the Cheops ship: (A) unpegged mortise-and-tenon joint; (B) V-shaped mortise for transverse lashing; (C) batten; (D) floor timber; (E) beam; (F) carling; (G) stanchion; (H) stringer; (I) stringer hold-down (from Lipke 1984: 75 fig. 48)

Cheops I is one of the most outstandingly elegant and aesthetically beautiful artifacts to have reached us from the past.33 The ship is built of Lebanese cedar; her tenons are made of sycamore and sidder.³⁴ The vessel is 43.4 meters long and has a beam of 5.9 meters. The planks are 13 to 14 centimeters thick. They are edge-joined with mortise-and-tenon joints serving to seat the planks, which are held together with lashings woven through V-shaped mortises in the planks (Fig. 10.4: A–B). The rope used in the lashing, which was also deposited in the pit, was made of half a grass.35 The lashings are placed over wooden battens (Fig. 10.4: C). The ship is constructed of twelve bottom planks; twenty-two planks make up her sides, with an additional eight timbers finishing off her ends (Fig. 10.5). For structural strength, the hull has both floor timbers and beams (Fig. 10.4: D–E). The beams are supported on a thick central carling that rests on stanchions supported by frames (Fig. 10.4: F–G). Two stringers lie over the beams, and each is attached to them by being bound to a narrow stringer hold-down that passes beneath each beam (Fig. 10.4: H–I).

Figure 10.5. Rough planking diagram of the Cheops ship showing lashing holes and scarfs (from Lipke 1984: 66 fig. 42)

In 1987 a hole was drilled through one of the cover stones over the second boat pit, and the interred hull of the remains was studied using a specially designed camera.36 Various elements of structure identified inside the tomb suggest that this boat was built in the same manner as the first one. Cheops II has not been excavated.

THE LISHT TIMBERS. Timbers derived from one or more ships found at Lisht represent an otherwise unknown third type of Egyptian naval construction.³⁷ About ninety dislocated timbers were found in the immediate vicinity of the pyramid of Sesostris I and are thus contemporaneous to Papyrus Reisner II, discussed below. These timbers are of particular interest since they are derived from functional, rather than cultic, craft. Haldane emphasizes that the shipbuilding techniques exhibited by the Lisht timbers to combat the strains of heavy cargoes may have been similar to technologies used to solve similar stresses on seagoing vessels. The purpose for the timbers’ deposition at the site is unclear: a few other pyramids are also known to have had emplacements of timber. These have been described as “quarry roads” or “construction ramps.”

Similar to the Cheops ship, lashing is used; but, as at Dashur, deep mortise-and-tenon joinery is the principal form of fastening. The thickness of the planks suggests that the vessel (or vessels) from which they came must have been substantial. The thick timbers have fastenings on three of their surfaces. The timbers used, either Acacia sp. or Tamarix sp., are both native to Egypt. Joggled edges, used to maintain hull integrity, are a common feature of the Lisht planking.³⁸

Mortise-and-tenon joints are visible on the timbers: they are 9 to 9.5 centimeters wide and 12 centimeters deep. The tenons are elongated polygons and have been further strengthened by the insertion of wooden slips at either side of the tenon.³⁹

In addition to this, a form of lashing, at present known only from these timbers at Lisht, was also used to fasten the timbers together. The lashing-holes were L-shaped and contained webbing or straps of fibrous material that has been tentatively identified as half a grass. Most timbers had no less than four webbing fastenings consisting of two mortises, each about 6.5 to 9.5 centimeters wide, 5 centimeters deep, and slightly over 1 centimeter thick.⁴⁰ The mortises met at right angles, but, as in the Cheops ship, these never passed through to the exterior of the hull.⁴¹

On one plank, a trapezoidal peg was driven from inside the hull into a mortise-and-tenon joint to strengthen it.⁴² The tenon did not penetrate the plank’s exterior. This is the only known case of a pegged mortise-and-tenon joint in Egyptian Bronze Age ship construction.

An unusual tripartite frame, excavated at the beginning of the century, is of particular interest (Fig. 10.6).⁴³ It consists of a curved floor having two timbers connected with mortise-and-tenon joints and webbing to its upper extremities. The inner edges of the two upper timbers are separated by a cavity of about fifty centimeters: this coincides with a notch one centimeter deep on the upper side of the floor timber. Twelve triangular notches are cut into its bottom surface.

Into these are cut three circular openings that might have facilitated seating the frame inside the hull on small pegs that did not penetrate it. The manner in which the frame is constructed suggests that it was meant to support some structural element in its center. Furthermore, mortise-and-tenon scars are visible on its side surface, indicating that it was attached to another, adjacent, frame, which would have created a massive support system. Haldane believes that the timber’s upper surface was prepared to receive a longitudinal strengthening timber or carling, a type of construction that she favorably compares to several Eleventh Dynasty boat models from Meir.⁴⁴

In addition to ships’ timbers, two large models were discovered at Lisht near the mastaba of Imhotep.⁴⁵ The smaller of these is the only ancient Egyptian model yet known that was built out of planks. This model, 1.95 meters long, is constructed with mortise-and-tenon joinery and has a planking pattern similar to that of the Dashur boats. Because of the thin planking used—no timber is thicker than one centimeter—the model was so damaged when found that it was reburied.

DASHUR BOATS. Five or six interred boats were uncovered by J. de Morgan at Dashur in 1894–95.⁴⁶ Of these, two are now in the Cairo Museum, one is in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, and a fourth is in the Carnegie Museum (Figs. 10.7–8). Two other boats have disappeared from the historical record.

Figure 10.6. Three-piece boat frame found at Lisht (Sesostris I) (A from an Egyptian Expedition photo, courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; B from Haldane 1992A: pl. 132; Lisht frame © C. Haldane, after a Metropolitan Museum of Art drawing)

The boats were buried to the southwest of Senusret III’s pyramid complex and, therefore, are generally believed to have been interred with that pharaoh. B. Landström notes, however, that at least the two in the Cairo Museum were built largely of reused wood and that their construction lacks the finesse of the Cheops ship.47 This being the case, he questions whether such poor craft would be suitable for interment with the greatest king of the Twelfth Dynasty and suggests that the boats may have belonged to the burial of a person of lesser rank. Haldane remarks, however, that although all four of the curated Dashur boats underwent repairs after they were discovered, only one hull shows evidence of ancient repairs.⁴⁸ The hulls are about ten meters long; their planks are attached to each other primarily with deep mortise-and-tenon joints. Dovetail joints found on these hulls appear to be later additions, cut into existing lashing mortises and made after the boats were discovered in the nineteenth century.⁴⁹

The Dashur boats have no frames: they are supported by beams that pierce the hull and are fastened to it by a single peg driven through each beam into the strake beneath it. Some of the deck beams on the Carnegie boat exhibit V-shaped lashings, like those found on the Cheops ship. Haldane hypothesizes that these may have served to attach deck furniture or are perhaps the remnants of reuse of these timbers: she notes that at least one through-beam was in secondary use, reused from an earlier hull.⁵⁰

No keel is present. In its place is a tripartite, thick central keel plank, comparable to that on the Cheops ship and the Lisht planked model. The similarity of planking patterns on these various vessels argues for a strong shipbuilding tradition that continued through the First Intermediate Period.⁵¹ Furthermore, the fact that the Dashur boats and the Lisht model were built to the same specifications suggests that Egyptians may have had distinct requirements for the manner in which certain ships and boats were to be constructed.

THE MATARIA WRECK. In 1987 a Nile working boat was uncovered in Mataria, a suburb of Cairo located on the ancient site of Heliopolis.⁵² It dates to the Late Graeco-Roman period and has been radiocarbon dated to about 2450 ± 50 B.P. It is 11 meters long, 4 meters in breadth, and 1.2 meters deep. The planks were made of sycamore (Ficus sycomorus). They are short, thick, and edge-joined with mortise-and-tenon joints. Some of these were secured with wooden pegs.⁵³ The tenons are a minimum of 17 centimeters in length by 10 centimeters wide and 2 centimeters thick. Peg heads measure 2 centimeters in diameter. This is the only known hull from Egypt constructed with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. No frames were found in the hull. These were apparently removed in antiquity, since impressions of frames are still visible. Haldane notes how closely the construction of this hull resembles the description of Egyptian shipbuilding given by Herodotus, with which the Mataria hull was roughly contemporaneous.

Figure 10.7. The Carnegie Dashur boat, sheer view (Sesostris III) (from Patch and Haldane 1990: 2 fig. 1 [Accession 1842–1]; photo by M. O. McNaugher, used by permission)

Figure 10.8. The Carnegie Dashur boat, view from the bow (Sesostris III) (from Patch and Haldane 1990: 33 fig. 18 [Accession 1842–1]; photo by M. O. McNaugher, used by permission)

The Textual Evidence

The following documents pertain to the construction and repair of ships. They present numerous problems in interpretation, particularly in the many technical terms, the exact meaning of which continues to elude us.

Egypt

PAPYRUS REISNER II. This papyrus, which dates to a period of three and a half years during the reign of Sesostris I, deals mainly with details of carpentry and the recasting of metal tools for use in the royal dockyard of This.54

B.M. 10056. Timber issued to several superintendent craftsmen over a period of eight months in the royal dockyard of Prw nfr is recorded in this document.⁵⁵ Prw nfr was apparently the chief port and naval shipyard under Thutmose III.⁵⁶ S. R. K. Glanville suggests that Prw nfr was located near Memphis or at el Badreshein. It may have owed its origins to the urgent need for sea transports for Thutmose’s many Syro-Canaanite campaigns.⁵⁷ The text refers to timber being delivered “from a lake near the magazine.”⁵⁸ C. D. Jarrett-Bell notes that this passage may mean that the Egyptians kept their logs in water to season until they were required.⁵⁹ The text often records the purposes for which the timber is issued.

In his conclusions, Glanville turns to G. S. Laird Clowes to make sense of the various entries in the text vis-à-vis their contribution to our understanding of ancient shipbuilding.⁶⁰ Clowes gathers all references to one particular ship, an ỉmu, named Payeh. He includes all entries referring to timber supplied to Tity, the workman who is building the boat, as well as to “the boat of Tity.” Clowes notes:

It seems to me that the only items on which we can build with security are the three big issues:

12 pieces of wnḫ of 161 cubits run and 13.5 cubits average length, before the 13th day of the first month of Inundation.

12 pieces of ḥst.t of 258 cubits run and 21.5 cubits average length, on the 13th day of the first month of Inundation.

60 pieces of ỉswt of 848 1/2 cubits run and about 14 cubits average length on the 17th day of the first month of winter, i.e. more than 4 months later.

Considering the large quantities of ỉswt issued and the late date of this issue it seems highly probable that ỉswt represents the outer skin planking of the vessel which is of necessity put on last and which involves great superficies.⁶¹

Clowes concludes that the twelve pieces of wnḫ were deck beams; the ḥst.t was used to build the two “gunwales” and the “keel or central bottom member.” In other words, Clowes, writing in the early 1930s, assumes that the ship was being constructed “skeleton-first.”62 We now know, however, that ships were built “shell-first” in the Late Bronze Age and for at least two millennia later.⁶³ Perhaps the wnḫ planks had been used for the hull’s bottom planking and backing timbers. It is interesting to note in this regard that the bottom planking and backing timbers of the Cheops ship consist of twelve timbers (Fig. 10.5).

The word wnḫ derives from the common root for “clothe” but may also mean “bind” (as a fillet of hair). Another substantive of this word is “dislocation,” particularly of the vertebrae. Glanville suggests that these were the outer planking that “clothed” the hull.⁶⁴ Clowes considers them beams.⁶⁵ The planks were used over the whole length of the ship in the first stage of construction/renovation. This word is known also in the fuller form of Ḫt-n-wnḫ, literally” wood of clothing.”⁶⁶ A similar term appears at Ugarit. When Byblos sold ships to Ugarit, the Ibs.anyt (literally, “garment of the ships”) was sold separately.⁶⁷ Virolleaud considers this “couverture, revêtement (du navire)” or perhaps derived from a ship class termed mašku la-bi-šu.⁶⁸

PAPYRUS ANASTASI IV. Another text discussing the refitting of a ship appears in the Ramesside period Papyrus Anastasi IV. It contains a description of the inspection of an old Nile ship and the steps required for its repair:

The scribe of the treasury Kageb speaks to the scribe Inena and the shipwright Amennakhte. Further, as regards the cast-off skty-baik of acacia wood which has not been in the water for many years, the fact is they failed to put onto it high gunnels; those things which were put onto it as gunnel(s) were (but) a few thole-boards of acacia wood which failed to uphold the s’s of the boat, and it went to pieces very rapidly before it had been in the water many days. It is that a few high gunnel-pieces of acacia wood were not put onto it, nor a few high gunnel-pieces of (even) ỉm-wood were put onto it either so that they might grip the boat. When my letter reaches you you shall go in one party and shall look at the deal planks which happened to be left over from the bark of the gods which is there in the store-house at Resynu, and you shall choose from amongst them four planks very high, very good and very broad, and you shall use them for gunnels of the skty-bark of acacia wood which you have at the ship-yard, two of those planks on (either) side, and you shall see whether there is there any good lining-wood left over, and you shall distribute (it) from bow to stern. F.⁶⁹

The use of planks “left over from the bark of the gods” may refer to surplus timber from previous construction or the salvaging of usable materials from older craft.⁷⁰ The repeated use of ships’ timbers is hardly surprising considering Egypt’s difficulties in acquiring foreign timber suitable for shipbuilding.⁷¹ The guesswork involved in interpreting the many technical terms again hampers our understanding of this and the following text.

HERODOTUS ON EGYPTIAN SHIP CONSTRUCTION. Herodotus, writing in the fifth century B.C., describes a traditional form of ship construction in Egyptian ships: “From this acacia tree they cut planks 3 feet long, which they put together like courses of brick, building up the hull as follows: they join these 3-foot lengths together with long, close-set dowels; when they have built up a hull in this fashion [out of the planks], they stretch crossbeams over them. They use no ribs, and they caulk seams from the inside, using papyrus fibers.”⁷² Herodotus is referring here to the use of short timbers of acacia wood held together with unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery: this bricklike construction is portrayed in several Egyptian illustrations (Figs. 6.70; 10.22).⁷³

It has been suggested that Herodotus is not referring to caulking the seams but is actually describing the internal transverse lashing of a hull built in the same manner as the Cheops ship.⁷⁴ A review of the uses of πακτόω, the word Herodotus uses to describe this action, indicates that he seems to mean caulking and not lashing.⁷⁵ On the other hand, there is no evidence to date for the use of caulking in any of the ancient hulls uncovered in Egypt.

ELEPHANTINE PAPYRUS COWLEY NO. 26. This fascinating letter, written in Aramaic, dates to 412 B.C. It is addressed to Waḥpremakhi, an Egyptian bureaucrat, by Anani, who served as the chancellor and scribe to Arsames, the Persian satrap of Egypt.⁷⁶ The letter meticulously catalogs all the furnishings needed for the repairs of a Nile boat—down to the last nail. Indeed, in comparing this document to those discussed above, note that for the first time metal nails are required for the repairs. This suggests that this boat was built (or at least was going to be repaired) in a manner other than the traditional Egyptian ones. The text reads:⁷⁷

RECTO

From Arsames to Waḥpremakhi.

And now, . . . [ . . . ] to us, saying: Mithradates the boatholder thus says: Psamsinei[t . . . and PN . . . all (told) two, the boatholders of] the Carians, thus said: “The boat which we hold-in-hereditary-lease—time has come its NEEDS to d[o].”

[ . . . ] let it be drawn up onto the dry land and let (word) be sent to the accountants of the treasury. Let them with [the] foreme[n . . . that boat] see and its RECKONING make. And let (word) be sent to whomever was (in charge). The MATERIAL, its COATING and other (things) which [ . . . ] let them give and immediately let its NEEDS be done, and other (things) about which from me (word) is sent to them.

About this they sent (word) and [said] thus: “[ . . . on] the sand which is in front of the fortress [ . . . ]. Mithradates the boatholder showed us the boat (that) we may see (it. The boat) which is in the hands of Psamsineit and PN, all (told) two, the boatholders of the Carians, is drawn up on the dry land and we showed (it) to Shamashshillech and his colleagues the foremen (and) Shamou so[n] of Konufe, chief of the carpenters, WHITENER, and thus they said: “Time has come its NEED[S] to do. This is the MATERIAL which is necessary its NEEDS to do:

And let them add onto the wood which will be given:

onto ṭp in the length, to each, three handbreadths OVERCUT and onto the width and the thickness two fingerbreadths;

and onto šym in the length, to each, three handbreadths OVERCUT and onto the width two fingerbreadths;

and onto šp and the ḥnn in the length, to each, one handbreadth;

and onto s^cbl, the wood for the DECK, (and the) PANEL SECTIONS, in the length, to each (of these), three handbreadths OVERCUT and onto the width one fingerbreadth.

The linen CLOTH, the PLATING, the arsenic, the sulphur—in Persian weight are to be given/

Let (word) be sent, saying: ‘This MATERIAL is to be given into the hand of Shamou son of Konufe, chief of the carpenters, WHITENER, before our eyes (to do the) NEEDS on that boat and immediately let him do (them) as order has been issued.’”

Now, Arsames thus says: “You, do according to this which the accountants say, as order has been issued.” Anani the Scribe is Chancellor. Nabuakab wrote.

Waḥpremakhi . . . to be given . . . according to it . . . as order has been issued [ . . . ] wrote. (DEMOTIC:) Sasobek wrote.

(DEMOTIC) The boat [ . . . ]

From (sealing) Arsames who is in Eg[ypt to Waḥpremakhi].

Nabuakab the scribe. On the 13th [of] Tebeth, year 12 of Dari[us the king].

The most striking difference between the Anastasi IV and the Elephantine papyri is the requisition of bronze and iron nails: in the latter, a total of 825 nails of various types is ordered. Wood is referred to as “new” or “broken.” Perhaps both fresh and used timber was to be utilized in the boat’s repairs. Alternatively, this might refer to unseasoned and seasoned wood.

GRAECO-ROMAN SHIPBUILDING IN EGYPT. Papyrus Flor. I 69 records the salaries of shipwrights and sawyers for a period of three weeks in the mid-third century A.D.79 The vessel referred to must have been a fair-sized craft, for it required scaffolding. The number of shipwrights working on it varied from four to eleven along with a pair of sawyers. L. Casson notes that this ship must have been built “shell-first,” based on the order in which the timbers were prepared. First the planks, made of persea wood, were cut and then frames were prepared from acacia wood.

The Syro-Canaanite Coast

SYROCANAANITE SHIPBUILDING. At present, very little is known about Syro-Canaanite ship construction. This situation could change dramatically, however, if the Uluburun shipwreck proves to be of Syro-Canaanite origin.⁸⁰ Byblos and Tyre were centers for shipbuilding on the Syro-Canaanite coast: Ugarit purchased ships from Byblos, although it also had its own shipbuilders.⁸¹ Ezekiel refers to expert shipbuilders from Byblos, and Diodorus Siculus mentions a dockyard (ta neõria) at Tyre.⁸²

Later writers repeatedly relate traditions connecting the introduction of shipbuilding to the Phoenician (Syro-Canaanite) coast. Eusebius, in quoting Philo of Byblos’s claim that Tyre invented the science of ship construction, seems to be describing a monoxylon: “Then Usoos (Οὂσωος = Ushu) took a trunk of a tree, stripped it of its branches and was the first man to dare sail in it on the sea.”⁸³ Pliny ascribes to Hippus of Tyre the invention of the cargo ship and to the Phoenicians the invention of the skiff.⁸⁴

Interestingly, in the description of the manner in which the Children of Israel were to build the Holy Tabernacle, its planks were to be made of acacia wood: each of the boards was to have two tenons (yadot), which were to fit into forty sockets made of silver.85 These are unpegged mortise-and-tenon joints.⁸⁶

The excavation of the Marsala wreck has shown that the Phoenician word wâw means “nail.”⁸⁷ This raises the likelihood that the Hebrew cognate, which appears in Exodus thirteen times in the plural form concerning the tabernacle, refers also to “nails” instead of “hooks.”

EZEKIEL. The prophet’s famous lament for Tyre contains information on the kinds of timber considered ideal for various ship’s parts.⁸⁸ Strakes (?) (luḥotaim) were made of brosim from Snir. Doubt remains as to identity of this wood, but it is generally considered juniper.⁸⁹ The mast was made of Lebanese cedar, the oars of oak. The deck planking (?) (kerašim) was built of bat-ašurim—usually identified as cypress—from the “Isles of the Kittim” (i.e., Kition = Cyprus).⁹⁰

In likening Tyre to a merchant ship, Ezekiel writes, “The elders of Byblos and her skilled men were in you, “caulking your seams” (mahazikai bidkeh).”⁹¹ There is another possible translation for this term, however: mahazikai derives from the Hebrew root ḥizek, which means “to gird,” “to strengthen,” “to make fast,” or “to tie”;⁹² bidkeḥ comes from bedek, which means “breach,” “gap,” “rent,” “repair,” or “overhaul.”⁹³ Thus, the prophet may be describing shipwrights with expertise in lashed-ship construction, or he may be communicating the same action described by Herodotus in his portrayal of Egyptian Nile shipbuilding.

The Aegean

LINEAR B TEXTS. The term “shipbuilders” (na-u-do-mo) appears in several Linear B texts.⁹⁴ This term heads PY Vn 865, which contains a list of twelve male names. In Na 568, a group of shipbuilders is exempted from contributing fifty units of flax. This is the most generous release from payment in the entire series and may indicate a pressing need for ships experienced by the palace at Pylos. The term appears a third time on a fragmentary tablet from Knossos (KN U 736) in connection with 181 “oar straps” and ninety-three units of another item, the name of which is lost.⁹⁵

PY Vn 46 and Vn 879 contain lists of construction materials in specific quantities. These were originally interpreted as timbers for use in the building of a Mycenaean structure.⁹⁶ H. Van Effenterre suggests that these materials were actually destined for the construction of a ship.⁹⁷ The V series of texts from Pylos lack determinatives that would allow definition of their contents and, thus, are open to multiple interpretations. Van Effenterre’s point of departure is the word ka-pi-ni-ja, which he relates to the later Greek σkάφοϛ/σkάφοϛ, meaning ship. He suggests that the word refers to a ship, or part of the ship, such as the hull (coque).⁹⁸ He then studies the numbers of each type of timber listed and tries to make sense of them in comparison to elements of ship construction.

More recently, T. G. Palaima, together with ship reconstructors J. R. Steffy and F. M. Hocker, restudied these texts and concluded that van Effenterre’s interpretation is viable, although by no means proven.⁹⁹ They assume that the text refers to an average Mycenaean ship from the end of the Late Helladic IIIB period and approximate its length to be in the ten-to-fifteen-meter range.

HOMER. The poet refers to oak, poplar, pine, and fir used in ship construction; masts and oars were made of fir.¹⁰⁰ The boat Odysseus built when he left Calypso was constructed with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery.¹⁰¹ In classical times, the Greek ships that amassed for the attack on Troy were believed to have been made of lashed construction.¹⁰²

In relating Odysseus’s blinding of Polyphémus, Homer gives this figurative description of the drilling of holes in a ship’s hull: “They took the stake of olive-wood, sharp at the point, and thrust it into his eye, while I, throwing my weight upon it from above, whirled it round, as when a man bores a ship’s timber with a drill, while those below keep it spinning with the thong, which they lay hold of by either end, and the drill runs around unceasingly.”¹⁰³

The Iconographic Evidence

In 1923 H. Lallemand dealt with the technical sense of the Egyptian word mnḫ in carpentry. Using P. Lacau’s study of New Kingdom wooden sarcophagi, Lallemand brings examples of the various methods employed by the ancient Egyptians to connect pieces of wood:¹⁰⁴ lashing, pegs used to retain a carved tenon to a mortise, a freestanding wooden tenon used to connect two mortised pieces of wood and then held with pegs, and the assembly of small pieces of wood by means of pegs. He notes the use of mortise-and-tenon joints on the Dashur boats and recognizes the same methods in the ship construction scene in the tomb of Tí.

The determinative of the word mnḫ is a mortising chisel:¹⁰⁵

This tool, together with a wooden mallet, is repeatedly put in the hands of workers cutting mortises in shipbuilding scenes with the word mnḫ appearing next to them (Figs. 10.11, 13, 15–20, 22–23). Because the cutting of mortises was one of the main tasks in ships built with mortise-and-tenon joinery, it is hardly surprising that this is the most popular motif in scenes of shipbuilding in Egyptian art. Other tools are also depicted: adze, ax, ferule and lead, one- and two-handed saws, and a stick used to tighten lashings. Although men dubbing with adzes are more commonly depicted than sawing, recorded hull timbers indicate that the saw was a principal tool for Egyptian shipbuilders.¹⁰⁶

Vessels constructed of wood joinery appear to have survived into this century in Africa. W. F. Edgerton quotes J. H. Breasted’s description of descending the rapids at the Fourth Cataract in 1907 in a vessel that was built entirely with “wooden pegs.”¹⁰⁷ The boat’s hull contained no metal at all.¹⁰⁸

Two forms of planked-ship construction are commonly illustrated in Egyptian iconography: internal lashing and unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. A single scene depicts a third type of construction: either pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery or, alternatively, the use of hull-penetrating treenails. The vast majority of ship construction scenes illustrates unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. A few of the most significant of these scenes are discussed below.¹⁰⁹

Lashed Construction

TOMB OF NEFER. The most complete scene of a planked ship being lashed appears in the tomb of Nefer (probably Fifth Dynasty) (Fig. 10.9).¹¹⁰ A hogging truss is used to keep the hull’s planks at the proper tension while the ship is being launched.¹¹¹ One worker is shown tightening a rope in a manner familiar from scenes of papyrus raft-lashed construction (Fig. 10.10). Next to him, another pounds with a maul inside the hull. A similar action is depicted in a scene from the Fifth Dynasty tomb of Ptahhotep at Saqqara (Fig. 10.32).¹¹² These men are apparently pounding on a rope batten in order to compress it as they tighten the transverse lashings that go over it. This is evident when their actions are compared to T. Severin’s description of the lashing of the Sohar, the ship he built to replicate the voyages of Sinbad.

Having connected the garboards to the keel, a thick rope batten (Severin calls it a “python”) fabricated of coconut husks wrapped with string was inserted at the chine between the two timbers. Thick coir was then strung across the batten, and pairs of workers—one standing inside the hull, the other outside of it—lashed the hull: “Each pair worked at passing a strand of the finest-quality coir cord out through a hole in the plank, back through the opposite hole in the keel, round the python, and out again. There the outside man took a turn of the cord around his lever of stout wood, put his feet against the hull, leaned back and hauled the string as tight as he could. On the inside, his partner tapped on the string to help it tighten, and pounded on the python with a mallet to compress the coconut fibers.”¹¹³

Figure 10.9. A hogging truss is employed in a scene depicting the launching of a lashed-ship. In the stern, one worker tightens a lashing while a second man apparently pounds on a rope batten. From the tomb of Nefer at Saqqara. Probably Fifth Dynasty (from Moussa and Altenmüller 1971: pl. 19. ©by the German Institute of Archaeology)

There are differences between the methods of lashing used in ancient Egypt and those employed in the building of the Sohar. The latter used ligatures that penetrated the hull and followed the planking seams, a form of lashing unknown at present from ancient Egypt. The Cheops ship also had wooden battens in place of Sohar’s coir “python” (Fig. 10.4: C). Nefer’s scene must mean, however, that rope battens were employed in ancient Egypt. This scene reappears in another Old Kingdom tomb at Zawiet el Meitin.¹¹⁴

Figure 10.10. Construction of papyrus rafts in the mastaba of Achethetep at Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty) (detail from Davies 1901: 13)

CHAMBER OF RAHOTEP. A planked ship in the shape of a papyrus raft is being lashed in the Fourth Dynasty chamber of Rahotep at Medum (Fig. 10.11).¹¹⁵ To the right, a worker is chiseling mortises. In his left hand he holds a mortising chisel: his raised right hand is missing in a lacuna but presumably held a mallet. Next to him appears the term mnḫ. At left a worker dubs the hull with an adze. In the center of the craft two men lash the hull. The head and raised arm of the worker on the right are missing in the lacuna. Presumably, as in Nefer’s scene, he was holding a maul or mallet and banging on a rope batten.

CHAMBER OF ATET. An almost identical, although badly mutilated, scene appears in the nearby chamber of Atet at Medum (Fig. 10.12).¹¹⁶ In this wall painting, two ships are under construction. All that remains of the upper ship is the left part of the hull. A worker at left with a raised mallet in one hand is presumably intent on chiseling mortises. A laborer amidships holds a rope, while to his right a man’s raised hand holding a mallet is all that is left of his coworker. Since the direction of the action is the rope lashing, presumably he is pounding the rope batten during the lashing process.

The bottom vessel is entirely obliterated. There remains only one worker dubbing the left extremity of the hull with his adze and the raised hand of a second worker holding coils of rope—identical to those held by the man lashing the ship in Rahotep’s chamber.

Unpegged Mortise-and-Tenon Construction

TOMB OF TÍ. The Fifth Dynasty mastaba of Tí at Saqqara contains a painted relief that is the most detailed extant depiction of unpegged mortise-and-tenon ship construction from antiquity (Fig. 10.13).¹¹⁷ Five ships are being built in three registers. In the following discussion, the hulls are referred to in this order:

Three additional phases of ship construction appear in the lowest register; three types of hulls are portrayed. J. Hornell believes the craft were expanded dugouts because they are being dubbed with adzes.118 Landström, more reasonably, considers them planked ships.¹¹⁹ The sequence of ship construction is from the bottom register up. All the hulls are supported on blocks.

Figure 10.11. Scene of lashed-ship construction from the chamber of Rahotep at Medum (Fourth Dynasty) (detail from Petrie 1892: pl. 11; courtesy of the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Society)

Figure 10.12. Scene of lashed-ship construction from the chamber of Atet at Medum (Fourth Dynasty) (detail from Petrie 1892: pl. 25; courtesy of the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Society)

Dressing a log (Register III, left). A log is being dressed by two workers wielding axes; a third shipwright works the log with an adze (Fig. 10.14). Three bases of branches are visible.

Sawing a log or plank (Register III, right). A worker saws a log or plank in a vise (Fig. 10.15).¹²⁰ The height of the timber may have been shortened to fit it vertically into the register.

Mortising a plank (Register III, far right). Two workers, using mallets and mortising chisels, cut mortises into the top surface of a plank supported on two Y-shaped crutches (Fig. 10.15).¹²¹ The mortises appear as small rectangles on the plank’s upper side. Above the workers is the term mrḫ.

Figure 10.13. Ship construction scene from the tomb of Tí Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty) (from Steindorff 1913: Taf. 119)

Hulls 1 and 2 show stages in the actual laying of a strake onto the hull:

Hull 1 (Register III, center). At center, a new strake is being installed onto the hull (Figs. 10.16–17). The workers are carefully aligning the mortise-and-tenon joints as a first step in attaching the plank. Under the orders of a (master?) shipwright, two men hammer the strake down with small cylindrical (stone?) weights. Two other men align the plank using a stick and a short length of rope. Four other workers are dubbing the hull with adzes. Tenons are visible in the space between the hull and the freshly laid plank.

Hull 2 (Register II, right). Having aligned the strake and made the necessary adjustments, two workers vigorously pound it into place with large, two-handled, biconical (wooden?) mauls (Fig. 10.18). A third figure standing outside the hull aligns the fit with a mortising chisel. Diagonals visible on this hull apparently represent scarfs.

Ferule and lead (Register II, center). These tools are held by a figure facing Hull 3 (Fig. 10.18). In a construction scene from the tomb of Mereruka, these are being used in the boat’s construction process.¹²²

Hull 3 (Register II, left). At left, two men with adzes dub the upper edge of the top strake while three men cut mortises in the upper planking (Fig. 10.19). Other workers dub the outside of the hull with adzes.

Hulls 4 and 5 are shown in the same stage in ship construction:

Hull 4 (Register I, left). This hull is papyriform (Fig. 10.20). Three workers cut mortises on the upper surface of the hull while another works on a strake with an adze. Two laborers prepare poles: one cuts a straight pole with a saw while the other dubs a long bifurcated stanchion (?) with an adze. Beneath the hull, one worker uses a handsaw on the hull while two other men dub the hull with adzes.¹²³

Figure 10.14. Dressing a log in the ship construction scene from the tomb of Tí at Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty) (detail from Wilde 1953: pl. 129, © IFAO)

Figure 10.15. Sawing a log or plank and mortising a plank (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 129, © IFAO)

Hull 5 (Register I, right). The upper left and central parts of the ship have been destroyed (Fig. 10.21). Two men cut mortises in the planking. Two men dub the outside of the hull with adzes.

TOMB OF KHNUMHOTEP. The short timbers of a ship under construction in the Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hassan match the “brick-like” manner of Egyptian shipbuilding described by Herodotus (Fig. 10.22).¹²⁴ This craft has been interpreted as being lashed because of the worker who is holding two ends of a rope.¹²⁵ This vessel too, however, is being built of wood joinery. Khnumhotep’s worker is not lashing the ship: he is carrying out the same task as the man holding a rope in Tí’ Hull 1, steadying a plank as it is laid onto the hull (Figs. 10.16–17). Note that the postures of men tying papyrus rafts are quite different (Fig. 10.10).

Figure 10.16. Hull 1: beginning the installation of a plank on the hull (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 129, © IFAO)

Figure 10.17. Hull 1: detail (from Steindorff 1913: Taf. 120)

TOMBS OF ABBA (Deir el Gebrawi and Thebes). Perhaps the most unusual shipbuilding scene is one in the tomb of Abba, “Royal Chancellor” to Psammetichus I. This worthy decorated his tomb at Thebes with scenes that he had copied directly from the tomb of an earlier official, also named Abba, at Deir el Gebrawi.126 The earlier tomb dates to the Sixth Dynasty, the later to the seventh century B.C.; thus, the two tombs are separated by a span of almost two millennia. The inscriptions above the later scene are also derived from the earlier tomb with minor differences of wording and spelling.

Figure 10.18. Hull 2: final phase of installing a plank on the hull (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 129, © IFAO)

Figure 10.19. Hull 3 (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 129, © IFAO)

Figure 10.20. Hull 4 (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 128, © IFAO)

Figure 10.21. Hull 5 (detail from Wild 1953: pl. 128, © IFAO)

Figure 10.22. Ship-construction scene from the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hassan (Twelfth Dynasty) (after Newberry 1893: pl. 29)

Figure 10.23. Register depicting shipbuilding in the tomb of Abba at Deir el Gebrawi (Sixth Dynasty) (from Davies 1902 (I): pls. 15–16)

Figure 10.24. Workshop scene from the tomb of Abba (T. 36) at Thebes (Psammetichus I) (from Davies 1902 (I): pl. 24)

In the earlier scene, from Deir el Gebrawi, two ships are under construction (Fig. 10.23). Six workers cut mortises with mallets and chisels, while two others work on the hulls with axes. Between the two hulls, four workers carry a log supported by ropes looped around a pole that they shoulder. At right, three shipwrights wield axes. The worker at left seems to be fashioning a curving frame; the central worker may be forming a knee from a tree trunk with a basal branch; the man at right works on a straight timber.

The later scene, from Thebes, is abbreviated (Fig. 10.24). On the left side of the fourth register, four workmen carry a log to a construction site.¹²⁷ At right, a ship is being worked by three shipwrights, all of whom are cutting mortises into the upper planking with mallets and mortising chisels. Additional workers may have been situated in the now missing central portion of the vessel.

Pegged Mortise-and-Tenon or Treenail Construction?

TOMB OF QAHA. The Late Period Mataria wreck is the first—and, for the present, the only—hull found in Egypt in which the hull was edge-joined with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. When was this variety of joinery first used on Egyptian hulls? Perhaps the answer is to be found in a wall painting depicting a shipbuilding scene from the tomb of Qaha (T. 360; Ramses II) at Deir el Medinah that contains three details of ship construction that are at present unique to it (Fig. 10.25):¹²⁸ amidships two men are using a bow-drill, to the left another man works with a two-handed mallet, and thirteen dots pock the hull. As noted above, the Egyptians seem to have avoided penetrating the hull in their normative forms of construction, both lashing and unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. Therefore, Qaha’s scene must represent something quite foreign to usual Egyptian shipbuilding tradition.

The men drilling the holes and driving in the pegs are represented above the ship. With respect to Egyptian art conventions, they are to be understood as drilling the holes and driving the pegs from inside the hull. The drill is represented vertically. Again, this may be only an artistic convention. It is similar, however, to the manner in which bowyers are depicted sawing the sides of ibex horns attached to primitive vises when in fact they are cutting the lateral and dorsal surfaces of the horn and would have stood at a ninety-degree angle to it.¹²⁹ Thus, the workmen may actually be drilling holes horizontally into the strakes.

The novel juxtaposition in the Qaha scene of a bow-drill, together with the two-handed mallet and the dots on the hull’s exterior, suggests a new process or activity not previously connected in Egypt with ship construction (or at least not recorded graphically as such). But what sort of construction has the artist depicted for us?

One way to cut a mortise is to drill holes at either side and then chip away the intervening wood with a chisel and mallet. This explanation for the appearance of the bow-drill here seems unlikely, however, for the act of mortising was always shown in Egyptian shipbuilding scenes as being accomplished with only a mortising chisel and a mallet—never with a bow-drill (Figs. 10.11–13, 15–24).

There are two other possible explanations, though. The bow-drill could have been used to bore holes for treenails, which were then used to fasten the frames to the planking.¹³⁰ If this is what the artist is depicting, then the two-handled mallet is being used to drive in the treenails, the heads of which are represented by the dots. Alternatively, the men may be drilling holes for pegs that are being hammered into place with the mallet, locking the mortise-and-tenon joints into place. In this case, the dots portray the heads of pegs.

Figure 10.25. Ship-construction scene from the tomb of Qaha at Deir el Medinah (Ramses II) (after Bruyère 1933: pl. 26, © IFAO, all rights reserved)

The dots are not aligned in opposing pairs across strake seams as one would expect of pegs used to lock mortise-and-tenon joinery, but neither do they conform to a pattern of framing treenails. The artist seems to be depicting the “impression” of multiple small heads piercing the hull, without aiming for accuracy. Thus, both interpretations are possible, although the fact that a two-handed mallet is better suited for hammering treenails than pegs favors the former interpretation.131 Qaha’s scene of pegged joinery is unique and appears late in the Pharaonic period. It strongly suggests that the technique depicted there was foreign and only introduced into Egypt late in Pharaonic times.

Figure 10.26. (A) Preparing the funerary accoutrements in the tomb of Ipy (T. 217) at Thebes (Ramses II); (B) detail of Ipy’s funerary boat under construction (A from Wreszinski I: 369; B from Davies 1927: pl. 34; ©, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

Figure 10.27. Ipy’s funerary ship under construction (detail from Wreszinski I: 369)

Undefined Construction

TOMB OF IPY. Ipy’s funerary boat, resting on its sled, receives its finishing touches from four workmen (T. 217, Ramses II) (Figs. 10.26–27).¹³² It is possible that these are artisans instead of shipwrights and that Ipy’s funerary boat was actually a large model, like those found at Lisht. The workman at left is pounding the papyrus umbel into place on top of the sternpost with a wide-headed mallet held upside down. The hands of the man at center are missing in a lacuna. A third workman pounds a staple into the front of the sled with a wide-headed mallet, again held upside down. A fourth artisan saws the lower part of the papyrus umbel with a handsaw. One-handed saws are uncommon in ship construction scenes (Fig. 10.20).

Discussion

Lashed Construction and the Transportation of Ships Overland

The ships used by the Egyptians on the Punt and Sinai runs were almost certainly of lashed construction, even in New Kingdom times. The Egyptian Red Sea coast is an extremely harsh, treeless area. R. O. Faulkner assumes that the ships on the Punt run in the New Kingdom were built at Thebes and then reached the Red Sea via a canal that was excavated in Wadi Tumilat.¹³³ P. E. Newberry, noting that there is no evidence for such a canal, was the first to suggest that ships on the Punt run were lashed.¹³⁴ As they were termed Kbn ships, he thought that they were built at Byblos and transported in sections overland to the Red Sea port where they were rebuilt. However, the Wadi Gawasis inscriptions indicate that the vessels were constructed on the Nile.¹³⁵

On Antefoker’s stele at Wadi Gawasis, the ships he had built for the Punt run were termed “ships of (?) the dockyards of Koptos”; concerning their construction, however, Antefoker notes: “Lo, the herald Ameni son of Menthotpe was on the shore of the Great Green building these ships.”¹³⁶ This must mean that the ships had been built originally on the Nile before being hauled overland and reassembled on the shores of the Red Sea.¹³⁷ Several other Egyptian sources refer to the overland route from Koptos through the Wadi Hammamat to the Red Sea, over which all nautical voyages to Punt or southern Sinai had to pass.¹³⁸ Presumably, these were also transversely lashed ships that could be taken apart for transport across the Eastern Desert.

Henu, an official who served Mentuhotep Sankhekere (Eleventh Dynasty), describes the building of a ship destined for Punt on the shore of the Red Sea:¹³⁹

[My lord, life, prosperity], health! sent me to dispatch a ship to Punt to bring for him fresh myrrh from the sheiks over the Red Land, by reason of the fear of him in the highlands. Then I went forth from Koptos upon the road, which his majesty commanded me. . . .

I went forth with an army of 3,000 men. I made the road a river, and the Red Land (desert) a stretch of field, for I gave a leathern bottle, a carrying pole (sṯs), 2 jars of water and 20 loaves to each one among them every day. The asses were laden with sandals ┌__ __ __ __┐.

Now I made 12 wells in the bush, and two wells in Idehet (Ydᵓht), 20 ^┌square^┐ cubits in one, and 31 ^┌square^┐ cubits in the other. I made another in Iheteb (Yᵓhtb), 20 by 20 cubits on each side ^┌__ __ __ __^┐.

Then I reached the (Red) Sea; then I made this ship, and I dispatched it with everything, when I had made for it a great oblation of cattle, bulls and ibexes.¹⁴⁰

Now, after my return from the (Red) Sea, I executed the command of his majesty, and I brought for him all the gifts, which I had found in the regions of God’s-Land. I returned through the ^┌valley^┐ of Hammamat, I brought for him august blocks for statues belonging to the temple. Never was brought down the like thereof for the king’s court; never was done the like of this by any king’s-confidant sent out since the time of the god.

Henu’s three-thousand–man expedition can only be explained if they were needed as porters to transport the ship’s precut timbers from Koptos to the Red Sea shore.

Khenty-khety-wer, an official under Amenemhet II, raised a stele in Wadi Gasus, in commemoration of a nautical expedition to Punt. The stele depicts Amenemhet II drinking to Min of Koptos, while below Khenty-khety-wer raises his arms in worship. An accompanying inscription states:

Giving divine praise and laudation to Horus ^┌________^┐, to Min of Coptos, by the hereditary prince, count, wearer of the royal seal, the master of the judgement-hall Khentkhetwer (Ḫnt-ẖt-wr) after his arrival in safety from Punt; his army being with him, prosperous and healthy; and his ships having landed at Sewew (Śᵓww). Year 28.¹⁴¹

Ramses III also describes a nautical expedition to Punt:142

I hewed great galleys with barges before them, manned with numerous crews, and attendants in great number; their captains of marines were with them, with inspectors and petty officers, to command them. They were laden with the products of Egypt without number, being in every number like ten-thousands. They were sent forth into the great sea of the inverted water,¹⁴³ they arrived at the countries of Punt, no mishap overtook them, safe and bearing terror. The galleys and the barges were laden with the products of God’s-Land, consisting of all the strange marvels of their country: plentiful myrrh of Punt, laden by ten-thousands, without number. Their chief’s children of God’s-Land went before their tribute advancing to Egypt. They arrived in safety at the highland of Coptos; they landed in safety, bearing the things which they brought. They were loaded, on the land-journey, upon asses and upon men; and loaded into vessels upon the Nile, (at) the haven of Coptos. They were sent forward down-stream and arrived amid festivity, and brought (some) of the tribute into the (royal) presence like marvels.

There are a number of references in antiquity to ships being taken apart for transport overland.¹⁴⁴ Diodorus Siculus reports that Semiramis sent for shipwrights from Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus, and other places and ordered them to “build vessels that might be taken asunder and conveyed from place to place wherever she pleased.” Alexander’s ships on the Euphrates were brought in sections from the Mediterranean and rebuilt on that river.

Thutmose III’s Barkal Stele records entire boats being carried overland. During his eighth campaign (thirty-third year), Thutmose transported vessels to enable him to ford the Euphrates to engage Naharin: “When my majesty crossed over to the marshes of Asia, I had many ships of cedar built on the mountains of God’s Land near the Lady of Byblos. They were placed on chariots, with cattle drawing (them). They journeyed in [front of] my majesty, in order to cross that great river which lies between this foreign country and Naharin.”¹⁴⁵

Craft constructed of unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery could conceivably have been taken apart, although with great difficulty. It is unlikely, however, that the Egyptians ever used ships built in this manner for open-sea voyaging. With nothing to hold the tenons securely in place, the incessant movement of waves and storms would soon have loosened the joinery, opening the ship’s seams.¹⁴⁶

This leaves open the possibility of using “slips” inserted into the mortise on either side of the tenon (as in the Lisht timbers) for a ship that was meant to be taken apart. It is doubtful that this form of construction would have been efficient enough to hold the planking together in sea conditions. Therefore, to allow the ships to be assembled and disassembled repeatedly, the vessels used by the Egyptians in the Red Sea were almost certainly transversely lashed. Since Hatshepsut’s ships show no evidence of external sewing, they must have been internally transversely lashed, like the Cheops ships and the Lisht timbers (Fig. 10.4). The mortised wood fragments found at Wadi Gawasis also suggest the use of unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery used to seat the planking for lashing, as in the Cheops boat. The manner in which the two funerary ships of Cheops were found, stripped apart for interment, may reveal the procedure used when transporting the ships to and from the Red Sea coast.¹⁴⁷

On the Evolution of Pegged Mortise-and-Tenon Construction

How and where did pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery on Mediterranean seagoing vessels originate? Although this subject must remain conjectural, there are several possible clues.

All ancient ships built using mortise-and-tenon joinery were constructed “shell first.” And yet, “shell first” construction is not a requirement of the mortise-and-tenon method. As L. Basch notes, the Nemi ship’s deck was built “skeleton first” using edge joinery.¹⁴⁸ This may hint at a possible direction of inquiry. Edgerton points out that whenever joinery and lashing exist together, lashing must have evolved first.¹⁴⁹ “Shell-first,” or “shell-based,” construction is a requirement in the assembling of sewn and lashed ships, however, for frames cannot be inserted before the hull is lashed. Severin’s comments on the construction of the Sohar are again illuminating in this regard: “The ship had to be constructed like an eggshell; that is, we would have to put the planks in place and form the complex curves of the hull before we were able to fit the inside supporting ribs. The reason for this apparently roundabout technique was simple—we could not stitch the planks on the inside if there were ribs in the way.”¹⁵⁰

Fastenings are sometimes translated into different materials as a form of ship construction evolves. For example, Hornell notes that in Sudanese Nilotic craft, iron nails had replaced wooden mortise-and-tenon joinery but continued to carry out the same function.151 Is it possible that pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery evolved from a specific type of lashed construction?

In one form of lashing the strakes are edge-joined with wooden pegs, while the rope holes themselves penetrate the hull. After the lashing has been completed, the holes are plugged with short wooden pegs driven into them from inside the hull, and the rope on the outside of the hull is then cut off.¹⁵² This form of construction is found in the Mediterranean Sea on the Bon Porté, Giglio, and Gela wrecks, all of which date to the sixth century B.C.¹⁵³ The mtepe of the Lamu Archipelago of East Africa was also built in this manner. Writes Hornell: “When the sewing was completed, pegs were driven into the holes from within to secure the stitches and to prevent leakage; this had the added advantage that it permitted those parts of the stitching which appeared on the outside to be cut away in order to reduce surface friction.”¹⁵⁴

Figure 10.28. Wood table constructed with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery found in Tomb H at Jericho (Middle Bronze IIB): (A) top; (B) underside; (C) elevation of end; (D) section; (E) reconstruction of underside (from Kenyon 1960: 462 fig. 198; courtesy British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem)

Figure 10.29. Detail of pegged mortise-and-tenon joints connecting frame to table (from Ricketts 1960: 530 fig. 229:1; courtesy British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem)

Such wedged stitches have several points in their favor, as J. F. Coates points out:

By clamping ligatures in their holes, not only can the stretched parts of stitches be loaded to breaking point, but the loosening of those parts which are UN-loaded (i.e. diagonals that are NOT stretched by the sheer load on the seam) is prevented from spreading to parts carrying load, causing the stitching as a whole to slip. Sufficient clamping can easily be achieved by pegs driven into stitch holes, as has been widely practised. It can be calculated that a peg or wedge driven in until its grain is crushed by pressure in the hole, can generate a clamping force sufficient when the ligature is pulled round a right angled bend (the end of a hole), to sustain its breaking stress. Similarly, a ligature of uncrushed diameter one fifth of the plank thickness can be effectively locked by a peg if it reaches 0.8 or more through the plank thickness and, again, is crushed across its grain. Thinner ligatures can be thus effectively locked by shorter pegs.

Locking pegs enable symmetrical zig-zag, or helical stitching to resist shearing forces between planks. Such stitching has been found in the sixth Century ships at Bon Porté, with a peg in every stitch hole. This type of stitching cannot be effective without pegs.155

Figure 10.30. Schematic reconstruction of Cato’s oil-press disk (orbis olearium) with “Phoenician joints” (courtesy A. W. Sleeswyk)

Note that the structural concept of this form of sewn construction is identical to that of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery. In the former, the internal side of the rope stitching acts as a tenon held in place by pegs. At times, wooden dowels in mortises are used to hold the planks in position.156

In classical antiquity sewn, or lashed, vessels were considered ancient. Perhaps this type of “pegged-sewn construction with tenons” considerably predates the sixth century B.C. in the Mediterranean, and perhaps pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery evolved from it when someone pegged the tenons and did away with the ligatures.

Pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery is preferable to pegged sewing because sewn ships must be oiled and repaired repeatedly. Thus, by doing basically the same amount of cutting and drilling, the shipwright created a much more economical craft. This reconstruction of events might also explain the Mediterranean tradition of driving the locking pegs from inside the hull (Fig. 10.25).¹⁵⁷ Alternatively, this phenomenon may have occurred because by driving the pegs from inside the hull, the smaller grain-end is presented to the water.¹⁵⁸

Where, then, might pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery on seagoing ships have originated? As we have seen, it does not seem to have been an Egyptian innovation. The evolution of ship construction was a slow process. The knowledge of a type of joinery in a culture’s carpentry repertoire does not imply a priori that it was used for shipbuilding in that country. Indeed, in Egypt there is no correlation between the knowledge of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery in carpentry and its use in shipbuilding. If Qaha’s artist depicted pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery, then this form of fabrication appears in Egypt at a time when there is evidence for strong Syro-Canaanite influence on Egyptian ship construction.¹⁵⁹ Might the Egyptians have inherited this tradition from Syro-Canaanite shipwrights?

The earliest recorded evidence for pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery on the Syro-Canaanite littoral is a Middle Bronze II table found in Tomb H–6 at Jericho (Figs. 10.28–29).¹⁶⁰ If the ships Thutmose III built near Byblos were made of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery instead of lashed, it would explain why they were not taken apart for the difficult haul overland.

There is another clue that points in this direction. The Romans termed pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery “Phoenician joints,” perhaps because they adopted this form of construction from their Punic (West Phoenician) foes (Fig. 10.30).¹⁶¹

These considerations, although admittedly far from conclusive, suggest an early Syro-Canaanite connection with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery construction on seagoing ships.

Keels on Seagoing Ships in the Late Bronze Age

As we have seen, Hatshepsut’s Punt ships strongly resemble a type of hull commonly known from Eighteenth Dynasty models of Nile traveling ships.¹⁶² Was this latter class of boat used for deep-water seafaring during the Eighteenth Dynasty and later? Indeed, Landström has suggested that these ships had actual keels.¹⁶³

A model patterned after this ship variety found at Byblos raises the interesting possibility that such vessels were frequenting that port (Figs. 3.16–17).¹⁶⁴ It may be argued that this model could have been a local copy of an Egyptian wooden model that somehow found its way to Byblos.¹⁶⁵ This, however, is unlikely since all the wooden Egyptian models of this ship type known to date have hulls made out of solid blocks of wood. The artisan who created this model must have seen an actual ship of this sort at Byblos. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain his knowledge of the ship’s internal construction.

The Byblos model clearly shows a massive keel-like structure inside its hull. This element projects outward at bow and stern but becomes flush with the hull toward the center of the ship in the same manner as do the ship models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamen (Figs. 2.19–23). Landström attributes this to a desire to have the models stand upright on a flat surface.¹⁶⁶ I think not, for the same element is depicted on Hatshepsut’s Punt ships in painted relief, where this reasoning does not apply.

This raises some fascinating questions concerning the construction of these ships: did they have keels? And what, then, constitutes a keel? If Hatshepsut’s ships were built with keels, then why did the Egyptians apparently take the added precaution of using a hogging truss? It appears that Hatshepsut’s ships did have a “developing” form of keel, notwithstanding the hogging truss.¹⁶⁷ This form of keel, or “proto-keel,” which projects primarily inside the hull, might be considered strictly an Egyptian development were it not for clues suggesting that this same type of primarily internal spine may have been used on the ships of other countries as well during the Late Bronze Age.¹⁶⁸

The detailed Cypriot ship model from Tomb 2B at Kazaphani shows no evidence of a keel on its exterior surface. But a narrow molded strip along the model’s centerline may represent the internal projection of the keel above the level of the garboards (Fig. 4.5: C: A).¹⁶⁹ Several models found in the Aegean region also exhibit this characteristic. The most illustrative of these is a Late Helladic IIIC terra-cotta model recently discovered at Kynos.170 On its exterior, dark brown painted lines accentuate the keel, the sheer, and the stempost. Inside the hull, however, the keel is further stressed by the addition of a molded strip. Similarly, a model fragment from Tiryns dated to the Late Helladic IIIB period embellishes the keel with a molded strip (Fig. 7.46). The two small models from Tanagra have frames and a keel painted inside the hull (Figs. 7.39, 41).¹⁷¹ No mention is made of whether the keel is shown on the exterior of the hulls. At Uluburun, the keel-plank juts primarily up inside the hull, projecting only minimally beneath the hull. This confirms what the iconographic evidence suggests: that on at least some Late Bronze Age seagoing ships, keels/keel-planks jutted primarily up, inside the hull.

Figure 10.31. (A) The keke, a forked instrument used to tighten seam lashings on sewn canoes in the Cook Islands; (B) keke from Taumotu Archipelago; (C) device for tightening lashings of sewn canoes in the Society Islands (after Hornell 1975:175 fig. 112, 58 fig. 39: fig, 143 fig. 92: a3)

Figure 10.32. A wooden stick is being used by a shipwright while building a papyrus raft in the tomb of Ptahhotep at Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty) (from Servin 1948: 65 fig. 9, © IFAO, all rights reserved)

Sticks for Tightening Lashings

A device for tightening lashings is a necessary tool in all sewn or lashed forms of ship construction. This may take the form of a stout piece of wood like those used in the building of the Sohar.172 Often, however, they are forked sticks, like those recorded by Hornell in the Pacific Ocean (Fig. 10.31). One such device appears in a scene in which a wooden platform is being lashed to a papyrus raft in the tomb of Ptahhotep (Fig. 10.32).¹⁷³ Another is used by a worker in the tomb of Puimre (T. 39, Thutmose III) to tighten the floor lashings of a chariot (Fig. 10.33). Presumably, they were also used in the construction of contemporary Egyptian transversely lashed seagoing ships.

Mortise-and-Tenon Construction in the Aegean

L. Morgan notes that the extensive use of timber in Minoan and Cycladic ashlar masonry teaches us about Aegean woodworking techniques that may have been used in shipbuilding.¹⁷⁴ Wooden clamps and dowels were employed.¹⁷⁵ Mortises for dovetail-shaped clamps appear almost exclusively at Knossos and came into use toward the end of the Middle Minoan period. Square or round mortises, cut or drilled into the upper surfaces of ashlar blocks, were meant for wooden tenons. These were used primarily to join stone to wood, particularly to seat wooden window frames on sills of ashlar blocks. The earliest date for their use is also Middle Minoan IB.

Figure 1033. Detail of a chariot under construction in the tomb of Puimre (T. 39) at Thebes (Thutmose III) (from Davies 1922: pl. 23; ©, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

In the “West House” at Thera, plaster casts of holes revealed the use of planks and long wooden pegs in the building’s construction.176 The transverse pegs were 50 to 60 centimeters long and 3 to 5 centimeters in diameter. The planks were about 3 centimeters thick. One plank measured 45 by 28 centimeters; another, of trapezoidal shape, was 28 centimeters wide with long sides measuring 46 and 50 centimeters respectively. Wooden rods, 3 to 7 centimeters thick, were also placed transversely between floor beams in the construction of buildings at Thera.¹⁷⁷ The plaster cast of a bed found at Thera has at least one unpegged tenoned joint.¹⁷⁸

I am not aware of any evidence for a knowledge of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery in the Aegean. From the above considerations, we may conclude that the Minoan culture was acquainted with mortise-and-tenon joinery. Evidence for the use of this form of joinery in Aegean ship construction, however, is lacking at present.¹⁷⁹

Finally, no discussion of Aegean Bronze Age woodworking would be complete without a reference to the impressive two-handled saws known from Minoan Crete. Saws up to 1.7 meters long with widths between 20 to 30 centimeters were discovered in the palaces of Knossos and Kato Zakro as well as at Hagia Triada.¹⁸⁰