Did Hatshepsut’s Punt Ships Have Keels?
BY FREDERICK M. HOCKER
The question has been raised of whether several representations of watercraft from the New Kingdom depict vessels with keels. If so, these are the earliest indications of a major advance in ship construction. Earlier Egyptian vessels seem to have relied on a keel plank, central strake, or, as the Cheops barge shows, a broad, heavy bottom made up of three relatively wide, thick strakes. Evidence for the development of the keel in the rest of the eastern Mediterranean basin is lacking until the late fourteenth century B.C. and the Uluburun wreck. This site provides archaeological evidence of a keel, or keel-like member, in an isolated bit of hull remains thought to lie at the original centerline of the ship (Fig. 10.2).1 This keel is a heavy beam of substantial molded depth, part of which projects upward, above the inboard face of the garboards, as do the central strakes of the Dashur boats. The difference in thickness between the Dashur central strake and garboards is in some places negligible, however.2
In order to determine whether the structure represented on the relief of Hatshepsut’s Punt ships at Deir el Bahri, on models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamen, and on the Byblos model are in fact keels, two questions must be answered:
• What defines a keel?
• Can the represented structures function in this way?
I would define a keel as a centerline timber, outboard of the frames, of sufficient cross-sectional area and attachment to the rest of the hull to offer significant longitudinal strength and stiffness to the vessel. Normally, this means a beam at least as deep as it is wide, fastened to either the garboards, the frames, or both. Timbers of substantially greater breadth than depth are generally called keel planks, since they may offer a point of attachment for other timbers (such as posts and frames) but do not possess enough rigidity on their own to qualify as keels. Between keels and keel planks is a gray area, where breadth exceeds depth but depth is still considerably greater than planking thickness. Keels normally project below the exterior surface of the planking and provide resistance to lateral motion (leeway) in addition to strength, but this is not always the case.
In the case of the Hatshepsut ships, the artist has shown a line that apparently delineates the join between the round, planked portion of the hull and the flat blade of the stem-sternpost. This line, similar to a rabbet line or bearding line, continues down to the waterline in many cases but gradually approaches the line representing the exterior limit of the hull. The impression is of a keel projecting below the planking at the ends but disappearing toward amidships. This interpretation is more or less confirmed by carved models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamen, in which the blade of the stem-sternpost continues to protrude below the planking near the ends but gradually disappears amidships. A similar effect can be seen in medieval cogs, in which the hooks, the backbone timbers at the ends, extend below the planking but the keel plank projects very little.
It would be hard to deny that the Punt ships of Hatshepsut 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. The question that remains is how thoroughly this member is attached to the rest of the structure. Although no direct evidence exists, common sense and the general traditions of Egyptian shipbuilding argue for mortise-and-tenon joints (probably unpegged, but there is no way of knowing) between the keel and garboards.
One argument against the use of keels in these ships is the hogging truss, which is also depicted. If a keel offers longitudinal strength, why should a hogging truss be necessary? This is not a major problem, in my view. A keel may provide substantial longitudinal strength and stiffness, but it is not sufficient by itself: there must be other timbers, working together, to form a perfectly rigid structure. In the case of Egyptian ships, there is reason to believe that one aspect of hull structure—framing—was relatively poorly developed (even in this century, frameless vessels of moderate size were used on the Nile). Perhaps also the keel (or proto-keel) was a recent development in Hatshepsut’s time, and so its use and advantages were not yet fully appreciated. The history of technology is full of examples of older technology used alongside innovations until the new ideas had won the confidence of the user. Another maritime example is the introduction of the sternpost rudder into the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. For nearly a century, many ships were equipped with both quarter rudders (the old technology) and sternpost rudders (the new).
If a short answer is needed, then yes, most of Hatshepsut’s ships had keels, but they were not yet fully developed.