by kind permission of the ETANA team, search the ABZU database:
 |
Home
Periods
Sites
People
papers
projects
Resources
for Study
RESOURCES BY COUNTRY
TECHNIQUES
site map
by kind permission of the ETANA team, search the ABZU database:
|
THE LATE BRONZE AGE SHIPWRECK AT ULUBURUN
As noted above, the Uluburun shipwreck has not revealed any indication of lateral, or sideways, stiffening. One large timber, which lacks any evidence to indicate how it may have been fastened to the ship, was discovered near the first hull section. This heavy timber, of oval section and angled at one end, may be part of a standing beam or through-beam, but it is so poorly preserved that its placement on the ship and its ultimate function is completely lost. In contrast to the ship’s longitudinal strengthening provided by the keel, this lack of lateral support for the hull is perplexing, especially when one considers that the ship was carrying more than 11 tons of metal ingots when it sank. How could the ship accommodate a cargo of such concentrated weight placed directly on planking only 6-6.5 centimeters in thickness? This difficulty was partly overcome by placing branches of 5 centimeters in diameter or more, but mostly smaller, athwartships from either side of the hull toward the keel. The ingots were then placed directly on top of these cushioning branches or, sometimes, on thorny burnet layered over the branches so that the cargo damage to planking would be minimized. It seems, then, that the notion of placing heavy cargo directly on hull planking would be detrimental to a vessel’s water tightness is not necessarily true. The Uluburun hull appears to challenge the inverted-arch analogy for describing the behaviour of frameless hulls. According to this view, such a hull had to carry cargo on deck so that its weight could be distributed evenly throughout the hull in much the same way an architectural arch bears the load of a building. The load on deck, counter acted on by buoyancy forces of water, would then push together and lock the hull planks thereby sustaining water tightness and hull integrity. If, on the other hand, heavy cargo were placed directly on hull planking, the sheer weight of the cargo would force apart the planks and thereby compromise water tightness of seams. Yet, not only was the Uluburun ship mostly deckless, but surviving portions of its hull clearly demonstrate that the cargo of heavy metal ingots carried in the ship was placed directly on hull planking with only minor cushioning offered by branches and brushwood.
What we have thus far learned from surviving remnants of the Uluburun hull permits us to re-evaluate and better interpret certain ship iconography from Late Bronze Age contexts in the eastern Mediterranean. A detailed depiction of Egyptian seagoing ships is shown in the expedition to Punt portrayed on Queen Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el Bahri (Naville 1898, pls. 72-75, see also, Wachsmann 1998, 17, fig. 2.11; 20-21, figs. 2.15-2.18). These ships are shown in profile and appear to be long and slender. A line delineates the seam between the planked part of the hull and the flat spine or central timber terminating in a projecting stem and sternpost. This line, although incomplete on some of the ships, is similar to a rabbet line and gradually approaches the line representing the exterior limit of the hull as it progresses downward, but becomes parallel to it before merging with the waterline of the ship. The impression appears to be that of a keel projecting below the planking at hull extremities and which possibly diminishes considerably or disappears entirely amidships. Hatshepsut’s Punt ships bear a strong similarity to carved boat models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamun (Reisner 1913, figs. 348-49; Landström 1970, 107, figs. 331-333; also in Wachsmann 1998, 22-24, figs. 2.20-2.23), all of which appear to conform to a particular hull form that appears in the New Kingdom (Landström 1970, 106-107, figs. 327-330). Like the Punt ships, these boat models also feature a spine or backbone timber that protrudes below the planking near the ends of the hull, but which gradually disappears amidships. As the hulls of these wooden models are carved solid, internal structural features have not been rendered. Consequently, the constructional features represented by these boat models have to be gleaned from details shown on the exterior of models.
A hollow terra-cotta boat model from Byblos, on the other hand, is modelled with a molded internal centerline representing a massive longitudinal member running the full length of the hull and projects outward horizontally at bow and stern. On the exterior surface of the model, this longitudinal element becomes flush with the hull amidships in the manner observed on the ship models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankhamun. Also shown in relief on the model are the protruding ends of four through-beams on either side of the hull. Two of these protrusions correspond to ends of standing beams that cross uninterrupted from one side of the hull to the other, while the other two are concealed beneath the partial decks placed fore and aft; there is no indication of framing. The model is thought to represent a Bronze Age, Syro-Canaanite ship, but Wachsmann (1998, 52-53), correctly in my view, identifies it as a somewhat foreshortened version of Egyptian hulls of the type represented by models from the tombs of Amenhotep II and Tutankamun, mentioned above. The evidence strongly suggests, then, the use of a keel-like member or a proto-keel in certain Late Bronze Age Egyptian ships (Wachsmann 1998, 241-42; Hocker 1998).
Other Late Bronze Age models suggest that a similar internal keel configuration was also used on ships elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. A molded strip running along the inboard centerline of a late Late Cypriot I-II (mid 15th- late 13th centuries B. C.) terra-cotta ship model from a tomb may represent the internal projection of such a keel (Wachsmann 1998, 63, 65, fig. 4.5). There is, however, no indication of a keel on the model’s exterior. A Late Helladic IIIB (13th century B. C.) model fragment from Tiryns, Greece features a similar molded strip in its interior to represent an inward projecting keel (Kilian 1988, 140, fig. 37.5; also in Wachsmann 1998, 151, fig. 7.46), whereas the keel and frames--or other lateral timbers such as beams or through-beams--of two small Late Helladic IIIB (13th century B. C.) models from Tanagra, Greece are delineated with dark paint on the interior of the hulls (Wachsmann 1998, 148-49, figs. 7.39, 7.41).
It seems, then, that the pegged mortise-and-tenon construction of the Uluburun hull is the earliest known use of this technique in the history of ship construction. Thus, we not only can push back in time the employment of this technique in seagoing-ship construction by more than half a millennium, but we also have before us the unprecedented opportunity to compare structural details of this shipbuilding method with those of Greco-Roman ships of comparable size. Examination of the hull remains and objects recovered from the site further revealed that the Uluburun ship was assembled without the use of any metal fasteners. Neither was there any conspicuous use of framing in the traditional sense, at least not in the parts of the hull that were preserved, but the occurrence of very widely spaced frames, several heavy bulkheads, or through-beams on the ship cannot be ruled out entirely.
The iconographic evidence presented above, in concert with archaeological documentation from the Uluburun ship, then, strongly suggest that during the Late Bronze Age at least some seagoing ships were equipped with robust centerline timbers or spines similar in function to those of later keels, but which amidships protruded into the hull rather than outward as in later keels. It seems, then, that our first and only direct archaeological evidence for the existence of such a keel comes from the Uluburun ship.
Cemal
Pulak
pulak@tamu.edu
http://ina.tamu.edu/pulak.htm
Institute
of Nautical Archaeology at
Texas A&M University
P.O. Drawer HG
College Station,
Texas 77841-5137
U.S.A.
| 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.
|
|
|||
