Cemal Pulak

The Uluburun hull remnants in this first section were found to be fairly well preserved on their inboard surfaces over an area measuring some 1.8 meters by 1 meter in width. These remains comprised a 1.7 meter section of the ship’s keel, port garboard (the plank or strake adjoining the keel) and second strake, both of which preserved their complete widths, and fragments of the third strake. Only a fragmented portion of the garboard survived on the starboard side. This contiguous hull section, which lay on the only flat area of the seabed at the site, was protected by a blanket of sand that had accumulated over it, but was poorly preserved on its outboard surface, i.e., the surface corresponding to the exterior of the hull. An unusual aspect was the lack of evidence for any framing. At this time we reason that perhaps the preserved hull section is not sufficiently wide or perhaps long enough to include frames or bulkheads or evidence for securing such structural elements to the planking, especially if they were not affixed to the first few strakes on either side of the keel they spanned.

Also unusual was the overall appearance of the ship’s keel. When first uncovered, the flat top surface (sided face on interior) of the keel was 10 centimeters higher than the interior surface of the garboard strakes, rather than being at the same level with them, as is generally the case. For this reason, it was thought that all mortise-and-tenon joints between the keel and garboard had sheared away completely and the bottom planking had eventually settled at a level below its original position on the hull. Examination of the exposed portion of the keel’s sides (molded face) above the level of the garboards, however, did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the garboards had been fastened to the keel at this point. Nor was there any bevelling or a rabbet on either side of the keel to accommodate the garboards, indicating that all the strakes were indeed found in their original positions, that is, below the sided surface of the keel. Moreover, it was also assumed that the keel projected outward, well below the exterior surface of the planking, as in traditional keels.

Lifting the keel clearly disproved this notion and revealed that the garboards were fastened to the keel with mortise-and-tenon joints and that the keel had originally protruded only slightly below the outboard level of the garboard strakes. More remarkably, it was determined that the keel was originally wider (sided 28 cm) than it was high (molded 22 cm). It should be cautioned, however, that the latter dimension was reconstructed with information from a small well-preserved knot in the keel’s exterior, which otherwise had been completely destroyed by teredo worms. As such, this value may not correspond precisely to the original molded dimension of the keel, but it is sufficiently close to give an accurate impression of the keel’s size and, thus, its position relative to the level of the garboards. It should be noted also that a 40-centimeter length of the keel was preserved in the third hull section, located approximately 1.3 meters farther down the slope. As with the larger keel section, the outboard surface of this keel piece is nonexistent, but preservation of its inboard face is sufficient to reveal a sided dimension of only 21 centimeters. It seems, then, that the keel narrowed down by at least a quarter of its maximum width (sided dimension) toward the bow and, presumably, also the stern, but exactly how narrow the keel originally was at either extremity cannot be determined from the surviving parts of the hull.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the keel’s sided dimension is greater than its molded dimension. It also seems safe to conclude that the keel originally projected downward by only about 2 centimeters from the outboard surface of the garboards. Such a robust longitudinal stiffener, then, would have most effectively served as a spine or backbone for the hull, provided protection to the bottom planking, and supported the weight of the vessel when beached or hauled ashore. Unlike keels of later sailing ships, however, it would have helped the ship little in holding course or point nearer the wind when sailing against contrary winds. The keel plank or proto-keel of the Mazarron ship is of similar construction, with its sided dimension (17 centimeters) greater than its molded dimension (10 centimeters), but differs from the Uluburun keel in that its inboard surface is at the same level with those of the garboards (Azipurua & Méndez 1996, 219). It seems, then, we have on the Uluburun ship a rudimentary or a proto-keel that is significantly more massive than a simple keel plank, which offers little or no longitudinal stiffening to a hull, but one unlike a true keel in the traditional sense of the word. Not only does this unusual keel configuration allow for a better understanding of the progression and evolution of ancient shipbuilding concepts, but it also reveals the technological limitations inherent in the sailing capabilities of Bronze Age seagoing ships and the implications of such design constraints on maritime trade routes exploited during the Bronze Age.

The two remaining sections of hull preserved under the copper ingots correspond to the starboard side of the ship’s hold, and with the exception of a small, poorly preserved bit of keel in the third section mentioned above, no other major portions of keel have survived. Both hull sections are somewhat disarticulated, crushed, and distorted, making the identification and association of some of the poorly preserved planking in these areas difficult and arbitrary. Furthermore, the part of the keel preserved in the third (deepest) section of the site is slightly askew (to the south) of direct alignment with the 1.7-meter-long keel preserved higher up on the slope. Unlike the hull remains of the third section, however, much of the wood in the second section is extensively eroded and had shifted a little after settling on the sea bed. Therefore, the identification of strake numbers and their specific association with the other hull timbers is somewhat problematic. The force of dispersal appears to have been more violent here than at the upper or lower hull areas. This probably was due to the steepness of the seabed gradient in this area, which, compounded by the weight of the copper ingots, caused the keel to snap off at this point, leaving the forwardmost section (third) of the preserved hull remains to settle on the seabed with less distortion. The planks appear to have slid a little to the south, becoming slightly out of alignment with the hull section just downslope of them. Strake number three (the third strake from the keel) overlaps strake four, while strakes five and six meet at an angle. Fragments of planking were wedged or forced under the upper end of strake six. Although only partially preserved and in poor condition, this section of hull includes an important construction feature not preserved elsewhere on the wreck. As the hull remains have yet to be studied in detail, the purpose of this feature is not fully understood. It is possible that we have here either a flat scarf (a joining of two planks whose diagonal ends were cut off perpendicular to their lengths) or, more likely, a drop strake (a strake of planking discontinued near the bow or stern because of decreasing hull surface area), indicating that we are approaching the bow. As planks curve in toward the stem and diminish in width, those that become impractically narrow are dropped off and their pointed ends cut square to prevent splitting. Support for the latter option comes partly from the first hull section where there is noticeable tapering of the garboard toward the bow. That this tapering becomes even more pronounced closer to the bow is revealed by the garboard fragment, preserved in the third hull section. There is one well-preserved mortise-and-tenon joint at the scarf of the drop strake, and a vestige of a second. A preserved patch of thorny burnet (Sarcopoterium spinosum) dunnage, a kind of thorny brushwood placed under the ingots to provide a cushioning effect for the cargo placed on the planking, indicated the exact position of ingot placement on the scarf, suggesting that Bronze Age seafarers were not particularly concerned about the weakness of such scarfs. Additional dunnage under the layer of thorny burnet is represented by only a single large branch at the lower (east) edge of hull remains.

The garboards taper in thickness from about 10 centimeters on the edge adjoining the keel to about 6-6.5 centimeters at the opposite edge facing the second strakes. They were fastened to the keel with typical oak mortise-and-tenon joints locked in place with blind pegs driven in from the outboard face of the keel. Pegs on the garboard itself, as well as on all other mortise-and-tenon joints in the hull were driven from interior of the hull and penetrated the plank completely. Oak pegs of 2.1 centimeter (average) diameter are tapered and multi faceted, with one well-preserved peg displaying about 12 facets. After being driven in place, excess pegs were sawn off rather than trimmed with adzes. Not all peg pairs on adjoining planks could be located due to the poor state of preservation in some areas, but spacing between adjacent pegs on the same strake varies from 20 to 25 centimeters, center to center, with inter-peg spacing increasing with decreasing plank width toward the bow.

It had been clear from the beginning of the excavation that the Uluburun ship’s sequence of mortise-and-tenon joinery was more widely spaced and more robust than that found in Greek and Roman hulls of similar size. Unlike most Greco-Roman mortise-and tenon joints, however, those of the Uluburun ship were found to be extraordinarily deep, extending from one plank edge to sometimes within 1.5 to 2 centimeters of the opposite plank edge. In fact, mortise-and-tenon joints of the Uluburun hull are about twice as long as those on Greco-Roman ships of comparable size and, as such, are considerably longer then that needed for optimal shear resistance of the joint. Clearly, these long tenons were much more than simple plank fasteners and acted as small internal frames, offering considerable stiffness and integrity to the shell of outer planking (Steffy 1994, 46). It seems then that Bronze Age shipbuilders relied heavily on the mechanical strength provided by such long hardwood tenons and that this practise was aimed specifically at supplementing the hull’s lateral rigidity with an internal framework to compensate for the scarcity or lack thereof of proper frames. Moreover, rather than staggering or spacing out the mortise-and-tenon joints on opposite edges of a plank equally, each joint cut on one plank edge is positioned immediately next to the nearest joint cut on its opposite edge, so mortises often infringe on one another. Occasionally, the edge of a tenon nearest the adjacent mortise-and-tenon joint was hacked into when the mortise from the opposite plank edge was cut. The removal of a substantial volume of wood for adjacent tenon pairs throughout, would seem to have compromised the structural integrity of the planks and thus the hull. Yet the observed consistency in their placement suggests a conscious attempt to form a network of internal paired frames of tenons extending up the sides of the hull planking. It is difficult to determine whether this was simply a convenient way of uniformly spacing the joints or if it represents a specifically executed structural practice, but the later seems more likely. Had these exceptionally deep mortise-and-tenon joints cut from opposite plank edges been spaced uniformly, the removal of such large volumes of wood would have significantly reduced the structural integrity of the wood, and could have resulted in lateral splitting of the planks. By placing mortises next to one anther results in increased inter-joint spacing, which allows for nearly twice as much volume of undisturbed wood between the joints to resist splitting. In other words, evenly spaced deep mortise-and-tenon joints would have compromised plank integrity more than joints that were cut next to one another, which allowed for nearly twice as much uncut wood to exist between joint pairs to overcome tensile forces imparted on the planks via the hardwood tenons. That with deep mortises, sometimes running nearly the entire width of a plank, the compromise of wood integrity was a genuine concern of the Uluburun shipbuilders is also demonstrated by the varying spacing these joints with narrowing of plank widths. Spacing of mortise-and-tenon joints on Greco-Roman ships is mostly constant throughout the hull, while those of the Uluburun ship are more widely spaced toward the bow. This increase in joint spacing is apparently due to the planks becoming narrower as they close in toward the bow. By placing the joints farther apart, the volume of uncut wood between adjacent joints on a narrow section of planking is maintained at the same level as that between joints on the wide section of the same plank. This, then, is clearly a conscious effort by the boatbuilder aimed at preserving the structural integrity of a strake of varying width, as it spans the entire length of the hull from bow to stern.

*These longer-than-necessary tenons were carefully crafted of oak, a much harder wood than the cedar of the planks. The use of oak for tenons in both the Uluburun and Gelidonya hulls, clearly suggests that Bronze Age shipwrights already knew the value of using tenons that were harder than the wood surrounding them. Such a construction may partly explain how heavy cargos could be carried directly on hull planking without resorting to visible lateral stiffening in the form of frames or bulkheads. One-half of a preserved tenon is approximately 15 centimeters long and 6.2 centimeters wide, giving a length of about 30 centimeters for the complete tenon. When compared with the only surviving tenon from the Cape Gelidonya ship, a relatively constant ratio of about 1.2 -1.3 is observed between the lengths, widths, thicknesses, and peg diameters (Bass 1967, 50-51, fig. 51, Wd 2) of the two tenons. These two tenons are remarkably similar in shape, featuring the same taper in both width and thickness, and bevelling at the narrower extremities. In other words, the Cape Gelidonya tenon is approximately 20-25% smaller than those from Uluburun. If a linear relationship had existed between tenon dimensions and hull size for Late Bronze Age seagoing ships, it would appear then that the Cape Gelidonya ship was some 11-12 meters in length. This is larger than the estimated length of 10 meters for that ship, but it should be kept in mind that Bass’s assessment was based only on the distribution of finds on the seabed, as hull remains were minimal and did not offer additional information for estimating the ship’s size. Recent surveys at Cape Gelidonya, however, have revealed more artifacts, including the base of a pithos, and a large stone anchor weighing nearly 220 kilograms. This single-holed anchor was located some 70 meters from the site of the shipwreck itself, with additional objects scattered between the anchor and the shipwreck site. This indicates that the vessel’s bottom had been torn open and objects had spilled from the ship before it sank some 70 meters down current of where it first struck a submerged reef. This new evidence may indicate that the Cape Gelidonya ship was somewhat larger than originally envisioned.

list of illustrations

Please send any comments or suggestions for the project or website to
Co-ordinator@ancientcyprus.ac.uk

The Ancient Cyprus Web Project is affiliated to the Council for British Research in the Levant

Technical note: this site is best viewed using Internet Explorer. Visitors using other browsers, for example Netscape, may experience some difficulties on certain pages of this site. We are working to address these difficulties.

Search:
Keywords:

Search:
Keywords:

link to Amazon.co.uk detailed book search

link to Amazon.com detailed book search

return to top of page