bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2015) 44.1: 7480

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 18th20th dynasties of the New Kingdom (c.15391077
BC) that provide evidence for the introduction of keels in Egyptian shipbuilding, and new archaeological material from
excavations at Thonis-Heracleion that sheds more light on the question.
2014 The Author

Key words: Ancient Egyptian shipbuilding, ancient naval architecture, proto-keel, Mediterranean underwater archaeology.

R
epresentations of Ancient Egyptian watercraft
prior to the New Kingdom give no hint of the
presence of keels in their construction. Like-
wise, 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.18781841 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 flat-
bottomed 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 (24282416 BC)
(Assmann, 1913: 13366; Landstrm, 1970: 637).
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.15391077 BC) may point to the
appearance of a keel, or its analogue, in the construc-
tion of Egyptian ships. The representations of the sea-
going ships of the Punt expedition of Queen
Hatshepsut (14791458 BC) from Deir el-Bahari are
probably the oldest images that can be included in the
discussion. Landstrm 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
(Landstrm, 1970: 1227). 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: 1415) 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
(14251400 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 warand are
thus probably meant to represent royal war ships
(Landstrm, 1970: 1078, fig. 338, 339; Werner, 1986:
123). It seems that keels can be seen in the numerous
models of travelling ships from the tomb of Tutankha-
mun (?1324 BC).
Jones (1995: 54) remarks that the presence of elon-
gated 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 incon-
clusive, as data from a papyriform royal bark (prob-
ably unfinished, see Mark, 2009: 148150; 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 cer-
tainly those sailing on a high sea. It was about this time
too they adopted the Levantine seagoing Mn-ships
which did possess a keel. This opinion agrees with
Landstrms suggestion that the concept of a keel was
brought to Egypt by Palestinian or Syrian shipbuilders Figure 1. Section of the proto-keel of the Uluburun ship-
(Landstrm, 1970: 107). Syrians were employed in the wreck (c.1300 BC). (After Pulak, 2002: 636, fig. 4)
shipyard and at the main Egyptian port of Prw-nfr in
Memphis (Pap.Ermitage 1116 B, verso 15) in the reign
absence of a hogging truss is also contrary to the
of Thutmose III (14791425 BC) and, probably, of
construction customs of contemporary Egyptian sea-
Amenhotep II (14251400 BC). The gods Baal and
going ships. Basch concludes that the menesh ship
Astarte were venerated at Prw-nfr proving that Phoe-
belongs to a Levantine type, adopted and reproduced
nicians were firmly installed in this area (Pap. British
by the Egyptians (Basch, 1978). During the Ramesside
Museum 10056: column 4, line 3; column 9, line 12,
period (1292c.1077 BC), Egypt had its own trade fleet
commented in Glanville, 1932: 256, 29; see also
of menesh ships 100 cubits in length (about 52 m)
Save-Soderbergh, 1946: 37). While it is debatable
(Edgerton, 1931: 501) and they too are mentioned in
whether the Egyptian term of pipit referred to a keel
the Story of Wenamun. Ramses III built a navy con-
(Jones, 1988: 164), it is more certain in the case of
sisting of menesh ships on the Mediterranean and Red
tp-h.t, which is attested for the first time in the Prw-nfr
Seas (P. Harris IV, 211, 328. See Bradbury, 1996: 50,
shipyards wood register (Pap. British Museum 10056,
note 67).
column 6, line 12; see Bradbury, 1996: 51, note 69).
Representations of the Syrian ships from the tombs
One can hardly fail to see the parallel with the term
of Nebamun and Kenamun serve in their turn as icono-
tpy-h.t found in the Story of Wenamun (Glanville,
27, note 82; Goedicke, 1975: 142143, note 156). graphic models for the Uluburun shipwreck (c.1300
1932:
BC) (Bass, 1986: 293; Pulak, 1987: 1367; Pulak, 2008:
This story, probably composed during the 22nd
3003). The home port of this ship, which was partially
dynasty (943c.746 BC), unfolds in the reign of
laden with Egyptian goods, was located somewhere on
Pharaoh Ramses XI (c.11061077 BC) of the 20th
the Levantine coast (Pulak, 2008: 299). The length of
dynasty. Wenamun, a priest of Amun at Karnak, was
the boat has been estimated at 15 m with a beam of 5 m
sent to Lebanon to buy the cedar necessary to build the
and a tonnage of about 20 tonnes. It is noteworthy that
divine bark Amun Userhet. The text alludes to the
the width of the proto-keel of the ship exceeded its
construction of an earlier bark in the time of Ramses
height and that it projected inside the hull (Fig. 1),
III (11871157 BC) and mentions that the keel of this
while only a few centimetres of the proto-keel
ship measured 130 cubits in length (about 68 m)
descended below the outer surface of the planking. The
(Goedicke, 1975: 1423, note 156). Bradbury judi-
proto-keel of this ship could not offer much lateral
ciously remarks that the keel of this river-going vessel
resistance but it contributed to the longitudinal
must have been composed of several segments scarfed
strength of the hull and protected the planking from
together (Bradbury, 1996: 51, note 69).
wear during beaching (Pulak, 2008: 302). The two
During the reign of Thutmose III (14791425 BC),
Mazzarn shipwrecks from Spain (early 7th century
or that of Amenhotep II (14251400 BC), a new type of
BC), which betray a strong Phoenician influence,
ship called a menesh (mn) was introduced in Egypt.
include a proto-keel of approximately the same pro-
The term itself is attested in the reign of Amenhotep III
portions as that of the Uluburun shipwreck
(13901353 BC) but iconographic documents have
(Negueruela, 1996: 167; Negueruela, 2004: 237).
allowed an earlier date for the appearance of these
However, in this case the proto-keel does not project
ships in Egypt to be proposed (Basch, 1978: 11518).
inside the hull.
The construction of Syrian ships depicted in the tomb
Returning to Egypt, Hocker (1998: 246) wrote on
of Nebamun (reign of Amenhotep II) and Kenamun
the Punt ships of Queen Hatshepsut (14791458 BC):
(reign of Amenhotep III) has been extensively dis-
cussed in the literature (Kster, 1923; Edgerton, 1931; It would be hard to deny that the Punt ships have some
Save-Soderbergh, 1946: 567; Davies and Faulkner, sort of backbone structure that includes a centerline
1947; Landstrm, 1970: 139; Basch, 1978; Bradbury, member of substantial depth, at least at the ends. I suspect
1996). Among some typically Egyptian features, these that this timber is also quite robust amidships but that it
projects inboard, like the upper portion of the Uluburun
ships also show obvious elements of foreign origin,
keel and the keel-like timber seen in the Byblos model.
such as the vertical endposts of the hull, the fence-like
gunwale, a foreign rigging arrangement and a large Hocker not only adheres to the opinion of
Canaanite amphora for storing drinking water. The Landstrm (1970: 12227) 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 (11871157 BC) in
Medinet Habu (Breasted, 1930: 104: pl.37) reveal inno-
vations in construction details, and these have been
claimed to be of foreign origin (Landstrm, 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 crows nest. The mast has a downward-
curving 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 (Landstrm, 1970: 11214,
fig. 349). The difference between these and the hulls of
the Sea Peoples ships (Wachsmann, 1981: 1915) with
their vertical stems, alien to the Egyptian boatbuilding
tradition, is quite unambiguous (Landstrm, 1970:
139; Basch, 1978: 11518).
Figure 2. Fighting ships of Ramses III (11871157 BC) and
of the Sea Peoples, from the temple in Medinet Habu.
(Drawing after Landstrm, 1970: 112, fig. 3457)
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 (Landstrm, 1969: 23; Landstrm, 1970: 107).
Stems are crowned with a carved lion head holding an
Asiatic-featured human head in its mouth. Marx inter-
prets this composition as a ram (Marx, 1946: 24251;
Marx, 1948: 11819), a hypothesis supported by
Landstrm (1970: 112) and Roug (1975: 91). Accord-
ing to Roug: Being positioned well above the water-
line, it is not a [conventional] ships ram [un peron in
the original], but rather a sort of [battering] ram [un
blier 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: 42949). Other scholars, on the con-
trary, 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 Marxs
interpretation (Bradbury, 1996: 52), as a ram of this
type must necessarily have rested on a keel.
Ship 17
The excavation of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion was
carried out by the Institut Europen dArchologie
Sous-Marine (IEASM) directed by F. Goddio in 2009
2011 (Belov, 2014b: 314, fig. 1). The ship is dated to the
early 5thmid 4th century BC and is identified as a
specimen of Herodotus baris (History, 2.96) (Belov,
forthcoming; Belov, 2014b). Ship 17 was a Nilotic
freighter built entirely of acacia. The preserved length
of its central longitudinal member, which we will tem-
porarily call a keel, is composed of 12 segments and is
24.2 m long (Table 1). The bow and the stern segments
are probably not preserved completely (Fig. 3). The
segments are made of squared logs of acacia (Acacia
nilotica, A. raddiana). The length of the segments varies
between 1.62 and 3.05 m. The longest segment K1 at
the stern contains two shafts for an axial rudder
(Belov, 2014a: 39). In the middle of the central
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 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 Average

Length m 3.050 2.098 2.129 2.008 1.977 2.588 1.938 1.681 1.675 1.827 1.692 1.629 2.024
Sided_East m 0.560 0.446 0.378 0.367 0.367 0.357 0.351 0.351 0.347 0.347 0.347 0.235 0.371
Sided_West m 0.456 0.379 0.367 0.364 0.361 0.361 0.337 0.337 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.214 0.323
Sided_ 0.514 0.413 0.373 0.366 0.364 0.359 0.344 0.344 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.225 0.348
Average m
Moulded m 0.175 0.160 0.220 0.198 0.2120.265 0.229 0.1190.149 0.1700.173 0.191

76 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society
A. BELOV: DID ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SHIPS HAVE KEELS?
Figure 3. Plan of the keel of Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion. (Drawing by Patrice Sandrin/Alexander Belov IEASM)
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 pos-
sible 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 tenon-
ribs passing through the keel and through four to five
strakes of each board (Belov, 2014b: 316320, 323,
2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society
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 ship-
building (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
The reconstruction of Ship 17 suggests a crescent-
shaped, 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 neigh-
bouring 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 sug-
gests that the concept of a spine has been introduced
in this ships 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 5thmid 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 represen-
tations 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.
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 Chris-
toph Gerigk Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)
The proto-keel of Ship 17 resembles that from the
Uluburun shipwreck, although there are major differ-
ences between these ships. Namely, the first is a river-
going freighter, built of acacia in a largely Egyptian
tradition, dated to c.500350 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 centime-
tres 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 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society
in the construction of Egyptian ships. Some of them,
such as the ships of the Punt expedition of Queen
Hatshepsut (14791458 BC) were seagoing ships; others,
such as those represented by the models of King
Tutankhamuns tomb (?1324 BC), were destined to sail
on the Nile. The construction of the Uluburun ship-
wreck (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 Egyp-
tian tombs dating to the reigns of Amenhotep II and of
Amenhotep III (13901353 BC). Menesh ships in their
turn were probably built by the Egyptians following
Phoenician styles. Dated to approximately one millen-
nium later, a proto-keel has been found in the construc-
tion of the Nilotic freighter recently excavated in
Thonis-Heracleion. The construction of Ship 17 pro-
vides evidence of the choice of local woods, of a tradi-
tional 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 debat-
able, 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 (722332 BC) but were often stationed there.
While the question of whether the triremes of Necho II
(610595 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: 8897) 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
A. BELOV: DID ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SHIPS HAVE KEELS?

Table 2. Dimensions of the mortises and tenons of joints between segments of the keel

Joint Groove, width (mm) Tongue, width (mm) Groove, depth (mm) Tongue, depth (mm) Position

K1/K2 51 40 56 51 horizontal
K2/K3 62 59 71 41 horizontal
K5/K6 47 47 65 70 horizontal
K6/K7 72 33 61 58 horizontal
K11/K12 44 37 54 52 vertical
Average 55 43 61 54

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)

However, taking into consideration the high degree

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 Thonis-
Heracleion, such as Ship 61 (calibrated date 23440 BC)
and Ship 11 (conventional date 165 50 BC).
of conservatism of boatbuilding in general and of this
trait in Ancient Egypt in particular (Jones, 1990: 55;
Ward, 2000: 13334; Rieth, 2008: 67; Pomey, forth-
coming), I believe that much time must have passed
between the introduction of the concept of the proto-
keel and it being widely put into practice. The hypoth-
esis 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 Europen dArchologie Sous-Marine, for his kind permission to use
the excavation data from Ship 17 of Heracleion. I am very grateful to Dr Sabine Laemmel for proofreading this article.

References
Assmann, E., 1913, Die schiffsbilder, in L. Borchardt (ed.), Das Grabbenkmal des Knigs Sahu-re, 13366. Leipzig.
Basch, L., 1969, Phoenician oared ships. Mariners Mirroir 55, 142.
Basch, L., 1977, Trires grecques, phniciennes et gyptiennes. Journal of Hellenic Studies 97, 110.
Basch, L., 1978, Les navires mn et autres notes de voyage en Egypte. Mariners Mirroir 64, 11518.
Basch, L., 1980, M. le Professeur Lloyd et les trires: quelques remarques. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1989.
Bass, G. F., 1986, A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun (Kas): 1984 Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 90, 269
96.
Belov, A., 2014a, New evidence for the steering system of the Egyptian baris (Herodotus 2.96). IJNA 43.1, 39.
Belov, A., 2014b, New type of construction evidenced by Ship 17 of Heracleion-Thonis. IJNA 43.2, 31429.
Belov, A., forthcoming, Archaeological Evidence for the Egyptian baris (Herodotus, II.96), in Robinson, D. (ed.) Proceedings
of the International Symposium Heracleion in context: The maritime economy of the Egyptian Late Period, 1517 March 2013,
Oxford. Oxford.
Bradbury, L., 1996, Kpn-boats, Punt Trade, and a Lost Emporium. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 33, 3760.
Breasted, J. H. (ed.) 1930, Earlier historical records of Ramses III, Medinet Habu. Chicago.
Casson, L., 1959, The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times. New York.
Clarke, S., 1920, Nile boats and other matters. Ancient Egypt: 29, 4051.
Cowley, A., 1923, Aramaic papyri of the Vth century BC. Oxford.
Darnell, J. C., 1992, The Kbn.wt vessels of the Late Period, in J. H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from
Cambyses to Constantine and beyond, 6789. Chicago.
Davies, N. D. G., Faulkner, R. O., 1947, A Syrian trading venture to Egypt. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33, 406.

2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society 79
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 44.1

Edgerton, W., 1931, Egyptian Seagoing (?) Ships of One Hundred Cubits. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 47, 501.
Emanuel, J. P., 2012, Egypt, the Sea Peoples, and the Brailed Sail: Technological Transference in the Early Ramesside Period?
Unpublished paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting Chicago, 2012. https://
www.academia.edu/2069291
Glanville, S. R. K., 1932, Records of a Royal Dockyard of the time of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056. Part II.
Zeitschriff fur Agyptische Sprache 66, 741.
Goedicke, H., 1975, The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore, London.
Hocker, F., 1998, Did Hatshepsuts Punt ships have keels?, in S. Wachsmann (ed.), Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze
Age Levant, 24546. London.
Hornell, J., 1943, The sailing ship in Ancient Egypt. Antiquity 17, 2741.
Jones, D., 1988, A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms. London & New York.
Jones, D., 1990, Model Boats from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford.
Jones, D., 1995, Egyptian bookshelf: Boats. London.
Kster, A., 1923, Zur Seefahrt der alten gypten. Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 58, 12532.
Landstrm, B., 1969, Sailing Ships in Words and Pictures from Papyrus Boats to Full-Riggers. London.
Landstrm, B., 1970, Ships of Pharaohs: 4000 Years of Egyptian Shipbuilding. London.
Lloyd, A. B., 1972a, The so-called galleys of Necho. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, 3078.
Lloyd, A. B., 1972b, Triremes and the Saite Navy. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, 26879.
Lloyd, A. B., 1975, Were Nechos Triremes Phoenician? Journal of Hellenic Studies 95, 55.
Lloyd, A. B., 1980a, M. Basch on Triremes: Some Observations. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1958.
Lloyd, A. B., 1980b, The Trireme Controversy. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1958.
Mark, S., 2009, The construction of the Khufu I vessel (c.2566 BC): a re-evaluation. IJNA 38.1, 13352.
Mark, S., 2011, New data on Egyptian construction methods in the Khufu I vessel (c.2566 BC) from the Paul Lipke collection.
IJNA 40.1, 1838.
Marx, E., 1946, The First Recorded Sea Battle. Mariners Mirror 32, 24251.
Marx, E., 1948, The Origin of the Ram. Mariners Mirror 34, 11819.
Negueruela, I., 1996, Excavaciones arqueolgicas subacuatics realizadas por el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Arque-
olgicas Submarinas en el yacimiento de la Playa de la Isla (Mazarrn): Memoria de la campaa de 1995. Memorias de
arqueologia 10, 16280.
Negueruela, I., 2004, Hacia la coprensin de la construccin naval fenicia segn el barco Mazarrn 2 de siglo VII a.C., in V.
Pea (ed.), La navigacin fenicia: Tecnologa naval y dirroteros; Encuentros entre marinos, arquelogos e historiadores, 22778.
Madrid.
Partridge, R., 1996, Transport in Ancient Egypt. London.
Pomey, P., forthcoming, La batellerie nilotique grco-romaine daprs la mosaque de Palestrina, in Pomey, P. (ed.) La batellerie
gyptienne. Archologie, Histoire, Ethnographie. Actes du Colloque International du Centre dEtudes Alexandrines, 2527 juin
2010, Alexandrie.
Pulak, C., 1987, A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: Preliminary Analysis (19841985 Excavation Campaigns). MA
Thesis, Texas A&M University, http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1987-THESIS-P981
Pulak, C., 2002, The Uluburun hull remains, in Tzalas, H. (ed.) TROPIS VII7th International Symposium on Ship Construc-
tion in Antiquity, Pylos, 615636. Athens.
Pulak, C., 2008, The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade, in J. Aruz (ed.), Beyond Babylon. Art, trade and
Diplomacy in the Second Millenium BC, 289385. New Haven.
Rieth, E., 2008, Gomtrie des formes de carne et construction sur membrure premire (Ve-XIIe sicles). Une autre approche
de lhistoire de larchitecture navale mditerranenne au Moyen Age? Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea 5, 4568.
Robinson, D, forthcoming, Ship 43 and the formation of the ship graveyard in the central basin at Thonis-Heracleion, in
Robinson, D. (ed.) Heracleion in context: The maritime economy of the Egyptian Late Period. Oxford Centre for Maritime
Archaeology Monograph Vol. 8, Oxford.
Roug, J., 1975, La marine dans lAntiquit. Vendome.
Save-Soderbergh, T., 1946, The Navy of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. Uppsala & Leipzig.
Sleeswyk, A. W., 1996, Ramming trim of Ships, in H. Tzalas (ed.), TROPIS IV, 4th International Symposium on Ship
Construction in Antiquity: Proceedings, 42949. Athens.
Vinson, S., 1994, Egyptian Boats and Ships. Buckinghamshire.
Wachsmann, S., 1981, The ships of the Sea Peoples. IJNA 10.3: 187220.
Ward, C., 2000, Sacred and secular: Ancient Egyptian ships and boats. Boston.
Ward, C. and Couser, P., 2012, Reconstruction and sailing performance of an ancient Egyptian ship, in Gunsenin, N. (ed.)
Between Continents: proceedings of the twelfth symposium on boat and ship archaeology, Istanbul 2009, 28793. Istanbul.
Werner, E. K., 1986, Montu and the Falcon Ships of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
23, 10723.

80 2014 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2014 The Nautical Archaeology Society