Ships Remains at Ayn Soukhna
Transcript of Ships Remains at Ayn Soukhna
The Red Sea in Pharaonic TimesRecent Discoveries along the Red Sea Coast
Edited by Pierre TallET and El-Sayed Mahfouz
INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALEbIbLIOTHèqUE D’ÉTUDE 155 – 2012
Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Cairo / ayn Soukhna 11th -12th January 2009
Sommaire V
Foreword ..................................................................................................................... . vii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. . ix
Dominique ValbelleIntroduction ............................................................................................................... . 1
Mahmoud Abd el-Raziq, Georges Castel, Pierre Tallet, Grégory MarouardThe.Pharaonic.Site.of.Ayn.Soukhna.in.the.Gulf.of.Suez:.2001-2009.Progress.Report ................................................................................... . 3
Rodolfo Fattovich, Kathryn A. BardArchaeological.Investigations.at.Wadi/Mersa.Gawasis,.Egypt:.2006-07,.2007-08.and.2009.Field.Seasons ....................................................... . 21
Rodolfo Fattovich, Kathryn A. BardShips.Bound.for.Punt ............................................................................................. . 27
Patrice PomeyShip.Remains.at.Ayn.Soukhna ........................................................................... . 35
Cheryl WardAncient.Egyptian.Seafaring.Ships:.Archaeological.and.Experimental.Evidence .................................................... . 53
Contents
VI TheRedSeainPharaonicTimes
Chiara Zazzaro, Claire Calcagno Ship.Components.from.Mersa.Gawasis:.Recent.Finds.and.their.Archaeological.Context ........................................... . 65
Chiara Zazzaro, Mohammed Abd el-MaguidAncient.Egyptian.Stone.Anchors.from.Mersa.Gawasis ............................. . 87
Pierre TalletNew.Inscriptions.from.Ayn.Soukhna.2002-2009 ........................................ . 105
El-Sayed MahfouzNew.Epigraphic.Material.from.Wadi.Gawasis ............................................. . 117
Annie GasseWadi.Hammamat.and.the.Sea.from.the.Origins..to.the.End.of.the.New.Kingdom ........................................................................ . 133
Yann TristantHow.to.Fill.in.the.Gaps?..New.Perspectives.on.Exchanges.between.Egypt.and.the.Near.East..During.the.Early.Neolithic.Period .................................................................... . 145
Julie Masquelier-LooriusAt.the.End.of.the.Trail:..Some.Implications.of.the.Mention.of.Turquoise..in.Egyptian.Tombs.and.Temples ........................................................................ . 159
Pierre Tallet The.Red.Sea.in.Pharaonic.Egypt..Assessment.and.Prospects .................. . 171
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... . 175
Patrice Pomey
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 35
During��the�2006�field�season�at�the�Ayn�Soukhna�site,1�the�opening�and�excavating�of�gallery�G2�revealed�a�thick�layer�of�carbonised�wood�fragments.�The�morphology�of�these�fragments�and�the�traces�of�fastening�techniques�allowed�them�to�be�identified�
as�remains�of�boat�parts.�The�excavation�of�this�layer�of�burnt�wood�was�continued�throughout�the�2007�field�season�and�was�completed�at�the�end�of�the�2008�field�season.One�of�the�main�features�of�the�Ayn�Soukhna�site�is�a�series�of�nine�galleries�dug�into�the�
foot�of�the�mountain�some�500�m�from�the�shores�of�the�Gulf�of�Suez.�These�galleries�were�carved�during�the�Old�Kingdom�and�were�clearly�re-used�as�storehouses�during�the�Middle�Kingdom�to�hold�equipment�and�supplies�needed�for�maritime�expeditions�to�Sinai.�Such�expeditions,�organized�to�bring�back�copper�ore�and�turquoise,�are�explicitly�mentioned�in�hieroglyphic�inscriptions�carved�on�the�rock�wall�above�the�site.2Of�these�galleries,�six�run�parallel�to�each�other�and�are�slightly�oriented�south-west/north-east�
[fig.�1].�They�open�to�the�north,�looking�onto�the�sea.�The�entrances�to�three�of�these�galler-ies�were�enclosed�in�a�building�that�was�erected�during�the�Old�Kingdom,�while�the�first�two,�to�the�east,�have�unhampered�access.�The�first�gallery,�G2,�held�the�burnt�remains�of�a�boat,�which�were�excavated�from�2006�to�2008.�The�adjacent�gallery,�G9,�was�opened�and�excavated�during�the�January/February�2009�field�season�and�is�still�under�study.�Like�G2,�it�held�a�large�amount�of�charred�boat�remains.
Ship Remains at Ayn Soukhna
1. The Ayn Soukhna excavations are under the supervision of Prof. Mahmoud Abd el-Raziq, egyptologist ( University of Suez), Georges Castel, archaeologist (IFAO), Pierre Tallet, egyptologist (University of Paris IV-Sorbonne). For the excavations of the Ayn Soukhna site, see Abd el-Raziq, Castel, Tallet 2007, and supra, M. Abd El-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, G. Marouard, “The Pharaonic Site of Ayn Soukhna in the Gulf of Suez: 2001-2009 Progress Report”, in this volume. I would like to express my warmest thanks to Colin Clement for translating the present article into English.2. Abd el-Raziq etal. 2002.
1. The wood PieceS found in gAlleRy g2
1.1. general layout
The�gallery�is�oriented�exactly�SSW–NNE3 and�opens�to�the�north�[fig.�2].�The�front�sec-tion�turns�slightly�towards�the�north�at�mid-gallery�while�the�ramp�is�clearly�oriented�to�the�east.�The�gallery�is�20.10�m�long,�1.80�to�2.90�m�wide�and�1.60�to�2�m�high.�The�layer�of�burnt�wood�covering�the�surface�of�the�floor�in�gallery�G2�was�12.80�m�long,�2.60�m�wide�and�roughly�30�cm�deep.�It�was�found�under�blocks�of�sandstone�from�the�caved-in�ceiling�of�the�gallery,�a�layer�of�sand�that�accumulated�during�the�period�when�the�site�was�not�in�use,�and�another�layer�of�sandstone�blocks,�sand�and�waste�from�a�late�nomadic�occupation.�Beyond�the�burnt�wood,�over�some�3,50�m�at�the�rear�of�the�gallery,�mats�were�found,�covering�vegetal�fibres�and�wood�fragments�which�must�have�belonged�to�the�original�boat,�though�their�precise�function�has�not�yet�been�determined.Indeed,�the�gallery�had�originally�held�the�carefully�stored�parts�of�a�dismantled�boat.�A�fire�
occurred,�the�heat�causing�part�of�the�sandstone�ceiling�of�the�gallery�to�collapse,�which�in�turn�extinguished�the�fire.�Since�the�fire�must�have�quickly�consumed�the�oxygen�in�the�gallery,�slow�combustion�took�over,�as�in�a�charcoal�kiln,�turning�the�boat�pieces�into�charcoal.�The�state�of�preservation�of�the�wood�is�therefore�uneven.�Certain�parts�were�completely�destroyed�by�the�collapsing�ceiling�and�others�are�now�no�more�than�shapeless�fragments�[fig.�3].�Yet�oth-ers,�however,�have�been�partially�well�preserved�in�terms�of�their�morphology�and�assembly�techniques—tenons�and�vegetal�ligatures�included.�Similarly,�fragments�of�vegetal�matting�and�cordage,�although�burnt,�have�been�in�part�preserved.Obviously,�given�the�state�of�preservation�and�fragility�of�wood�reduced�to�carbon,�the�ex-
cavation�required�a�particularly�cautious�approach.�It�was�necessary�to�proceed�both�delicately�and�with�reasonable�speed�in�that,�once�exposed,�the�charcoal�began�to�decay.�Any�interven-tion,�whatever�its�nature,�still�involved�slight�destruction.�Another�difficulty�lay�in�the�need�to�remove�enough�of�the�ash�and�sand�that�enveloped�the�structures�to�be�able�to�read�and�interpret�them,�without�at�the�same�time�discarding�too�much�of�the�very�sediment�that�held�the�pieces�together.�Finally,�it�was�imperative�both�to�shore�up�the�gallery�ceiling�with�multiple-base�scaffolding,�for�obvious�safety�reasons,�and�to�excavate�from�a�system�of�movable�planks�set�above�the�archaeological�layers,�in�order�to�protect�them,�which�further�complicated�the�field�work�in�the�narrow�gallery.After�clearing�the�structures,�drafting�the�ensembles�in�both�plan�and�section�and�document-
ing�the�area�photographically�(photo�mosaics),�it�was�possible�to�discern�the�general�layout�of�the�wood�pieces�within�the�gallery.�Fragment�after�fragment,�following�the�wood�grain�pattern�of�each�piece,�its�cut�and�morphology,�the�original�alignments�were�brought�to�light.
36 PatricePomey
3. For simplicity, we shall consider that the gallery is oriented north-south.
Three�rows�running�parallel�to�the�length�of�the�gallery�were�clearly�visible,�especially�towards�the�far�end�of�the�gallery:�one�central�row�and�two�side�rows.�A�closer�examination�of�the�best�preserved�elements�led�to�a�more�precise�idea�of�the�structure:�the�main�row�was�made�up�of�at�least�two�levels�of�planks�one�on�top�of�the�other,�while�the�lateral�rows�had�at�least�three�layers.�Additional�layers�could�well�have�existed�originally,�in�which�case�they�would�have�burnt�down�beyond�trace.�Other�than�these�three�sets,�there�were�fragments�of�planks�standing�on�their�edges�between�
the�west�row�and�the�gallery�wall,�either�as�they�had�been�placed�originally,�or�as�a�result�of�falling�from�the�adjacent row�during�the�fire.�Likewise,�some�fragments�lay�along�the�east�wall,�probably�for�the�same�reasons.�Finally,�other�seemingly�isolated�pieces�that�could�not�easily�be�associated�with�any�one�ensemble�were�found�among�these�sets,�particularly�between�the�west�row�and�the�fragments�standing�on�their�edges.All�the�found�elements�are�fragments�of��“long”�pieces,�most�of�which,�given�their�morphol-
ogy�and�traces�of�assembly�techniques,�would�appear�to�belong�to�the�“planking”�of�the�ships.Some�rope�was�found�under�the�rows�of�wood�and�other�lengths�of�rope�were�directly�associated�with�certain�pieces�[fig.�4].�The�rope�was�of�two�diameters:�from�1.7�cm�to�2�cm�and�1�cm.�These�ropes�were�clearly�used�to�tie�up�the�planks�of�each�row�and�then�to�hold�these�bundles�together.Rods�were�used�to�insulate�the�rows�of�wood�from�the�ground.�These�rods�measure�on�aver-
age�5�cm�in�diameter�and�some�seem�to�be�tapered.�Several�were�lying�at�an�angle�in�relation�to�the�rows�of�planks�and�were�most�probably�no�longer�in�their�original�position.�If�repositioned�perpendicular�to�the�wood,�they�were�spaced�roughly�0.9�m�apart.�The�whole�assemblage�rested�upon�mats�lying�on�the�ground,�as�can�be�seen�from�the�fibres�that�still�adhere�to�the�lower�faces�of�certain�pieces.In�short,�the�general�layout�of�the�burnt�wooden�remains�in�gallery�G2�obviously�tallies�
with�the�storing,�after�dismantling,�of�parts�of�a�boat.�The�elements�are�mostly�hull�planks�belonging�to�the�hull�bottom.�The�parts�were�carefully�stored,�probably�grouped�according�to�function�(bottom�planks,�port�and�starboard�strakes).�The�sets�were�bound�with�rope�and�then�tied�together.�The�assemblage�seems�to�have�been�placed�upon�rods�resting�on�mats�that�covered�the�ground,�while�other�mats�probably�covered�the�entire�pile.
1.2. Some Pieces worthy of note
A�detailed�in situ�study�of�the�carbonised�remains�of�the�wood�being�highly�problematic,�some�vestiges�were�removed�to�be�studied�separately.�Coherent�ensembles�were�isolated,�taking�into�account�any�lacunae�and�lines�of�breakage,�and�each�set�was�then�reinforced�and�laid�upon�a�rigid�support�that�allowed�it�to�be�lifted�and�transported.4 Overall,�15�separate�
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 37
4. The consolidation of the elements, their mounting on a support was undertaken by Ebeid Mahmoud, restorer (IFAO).
samplings�of�the�burnt�wooden�remains�of�gallery�G2�were�taken,�some�of�which�call�for�detailed�attention:�1.�A set of three stacked planks (AS G2-P2.06). This�set�comes�from�the�northern�end�of�the�
west�row�of�planks�and�lay�approximately�5�m�into�the�gallery.�It�consists�of�three�fragments�of�stacked�planks�set�upon�a�rod�that�was�at�a�slant�and�on�a�mat,�the�remains�of�which�were�visible�underneath�the�sample�[fig.�5].The�ensemble�was�94�cm�long�by�40�cm�wide�at�plank�level,�and�30�cm�high.�The�preserved�
part�of�the�rod�was�66�cm�long�with�a�5.3�cm�diameter.The�lower�plank�(width�40�cm,�thickness�9.5�cm)�corresponds�to�a�fragment�of�a�hull�
plank.�Only�the�two�lateral�faces�are�well�preserved�and�present�a�straight�edge.�The�plank�shows�traces�of�assembly.�One�of�the�lateral�faces�bears�the�following:�a�dowel�hole�(diam.�2�to�3�cm);�a�single�mortise�(width�6�cm;�thickness�2.5�cm)�with�a�fragment�of�tenon�(width�4.5�cm;�thickness�1�cm);�a�mortise�(width�7�cm;�thickness�2.5�cm)�with�ligature�remains.�This�mortise�is��L-shaped,�opening�on�the�lateral�face�and�exiting�on�the�upper�face,�and�was�designed�to�channel�assembly�stitches.The�other�lateral�face�bears:�two�mortises,�one�2�cm�above�the�other�(lower:�width�7�cm,�
thickness�1.5�cm;�upper:�width�>�6�cm,�thickness�2�cm),�with�the�remains�of�a�tenon�in�the�lower�mortise�(thickness 1�cm,�preserved�length�15�cm,�width�>�4�cm);�an�L-shaped�mortise�(width�6.5�cm,�thickness�2�cm)�with�rope�remains�(diam.�1�cm);�a�single�mortise�(width�7�cm,�thickness�2�cm)�holding�a�tenon�(width�5�cm,�thickness�1.5�cm);�and�just�above,�tangential�to�the�upper�surface,�a�circular�hole�(diam.�3.5�cm)�holding�a�dowel�(diam.�2.5�cm).The�middle�plank,�which�was�stacked�upon�the�previous�one,�shows�the�same�morphological�
characteristics�(width�37.5�cm,�thickness�9.5�cm).�It�is�part�of�the�hull�planking�and�it�also�bears�traces�of�assembly.�One�of�its�lateral�surfaces�has�a�badly�deformed�L-shaped�mortise�(width�5.5�cm,�thickness�2.5�cm)�with�the�remains�of�stitches;�an�oval�dowel�hole�(diam.�3�to�4.5�cm)�holding�a�fragment�of�the�dowel�(diam.�3�cm).�The�other�lateral�surface�has�an�incomplete�mortise�(width�7�cm,�thickness�1.5�cm).The�upper�plank,�which�made�up�the�third�layer,�is�unfortunately�badly�damaged�with�neither�
ends�nor�edges�preserved.�Only�its�thickness�can�be�measured:�11�cm.�Among�the�noteworthy�particularities�of�this�ensemble,�one�should�mention�the�state�of�preservation�of�the�growth�rings�of�the�wood,�which�are�still�perfectly�visible�and�enable�us�to�understand�how�the�planks�were�cut,�in�this�instance�as�a�quarter-sawn�board.
2.�An ensemble of two stacked planks (AS G2-P3.06). This�set�is�one�of�the�most�spectacular�owing�to�its�state�of�preservation.�It�comes�from�the�middle�of�the�west�row�[fig.�6].�It�consists�of�two�planks�placed�on�top�of�each�other,�with�the�upper�lying�off-centre.�They�rest�upon�a�rod�at�a�slight�slant�and�a�mat�whose�remains�can�be�seen�below.�The�planks�are�“hull�plank”�types.The�set�is�93�cm�long,�43�cm�wide�at�plank-level�and�20�cm�high.�The�preserved�part�of�the�
rod�is�65�cm�long�with�a�diameter�of�4.7�cm.One�end�of�the�lower�plank�(width�38�cm,�thickness�10.5�cm)�is�preserved�as�originally�cut,�
bearing�axe�or�adze�type�tool�marks.�Only�one�lateral�face,�with�a�straight�edge,�is�well�preserved.�Traces�of�assembly�on�this�lateral�surface�consist�of:�an�L-shaped�mortise�exiting�on�the�upper�
38 PatricePomey
surface�(lateral�aperture:�6�cm�by�1.8�cm;�upper�aperture:�6�cm�by�3.5�cm;�horizontal�depth�9�cm;�vertical�depth�5.5�cm)�with�the�remains�of�stitches�in�place;�two�mortises�one�above�the�other�spaced�from�2�to�2.5�cm�(lower:�width�8.3�cm,�thickness�1.3�cm;�upper:�width�8�cm,�thickness�1�cm)�with�the�remains�of�tenons�(lower:�width�>�6�cm,�thickness�1.3�cm;�upper:�width�7.3�cm,�thickness�1�cm).The�upper�plank�(width�33�cm,�thickness�10�cm)�is�18.5�cm�off-centre�in�relation�to�the�lower.�
Neither�end�is�preserved�and�only�one�lateral�face�can�be�read.�On�this�surface,�the�following�elements�can�be�observed:�an�oval�hole�(horizontal�axis�4.5�cm;�vertical�axis�3.3�cm)�probably�designed�for�a�dowel;�a�single�mortise�(preserved�width�9�cm;�thickness�1.5�cm�containing�the�remains�of�a�tenon�(preserved�width�5.2�cm;�preserved�length�7�cm;�thickness�1.2�cm);�an�L-shaped�mortise�exiting�on�the�upper�surface�(lateral�aperture:�8�cm�by�1.8�cm;�upper�aper-ture:�8�cm�by�1.5�cm;�horizontal�depth�7�cm,�vertical�depth�5.2�cm)�still�holding�the�remains�of�stitches�made�from�at�least�9�cords�(diam.�0.5�cm)�[fig.�7].
3.�“Rhomboidal” pieces (AS G2-P1.07 & AS G2-P9.08). The�best-preserved�piece�(AS�G2-P1.07)�comes�from�the�southern�end�of�the�west�row.�It�is�characterised�by�a�complex�changing�shape�[fig.�8]:�the�preserved�end�of�this�rectangular-section�parallelepiped�(width�32.5�cm;�max�depth�9�cm)�is�shaped�like�a�truncated�pyramid�with�a�triangular�section�(width�varying�from�28�to�16�cm;�height�varying�from�11�to�7�cm).�This�piece�shows�evidence�of�assembly:�the�lateral�face,�which�makes�up�the�small�side�of�the�truncated�pyramid,�has�an�L-shaped�mortise�for�lash-ing�(lateral�mortise:�width�10�cm;�thickness�1.5�to�2�cm;�depth�12.5�cm;�vertical�mortise:�width�10�cm;�thickness�3�cm);�on�the�same�side,�on�the�parallelepiped�end�of�the�piece,�there�is�a�single�mortise�(width�>�5�cm;�thickness�>�1�cm;�depth�13�cm)�containing�a�tenon�(length�13�cm;�width�4.5�to�3�cm;�thickness�1�cm).A�similar�piece�(G2-P9.08)�was�situated�immediately�next�to�the�above,�between�the�west�
row�and�the�fragments�of�planks�placed�against�the�west�wall�of�the�gallery.�Its�total�length�can�be�reconstituted�to�1.22�m.Obviously,�these�two�pieces�were�placed�together.�In�terms�of�morphology,�this�type�of�
long�piece�with�a�tapering triangular�section�is�generally�found�towards�the�extremities�of�the�bottom�planking.
1.3. general characteristics of the wood
The�other�fragments�of�wood,�although�less�well�preserved,�possess�the�same�general�char-acteristics.�The�pieces�have�been�carved�and�shaped�on�all�four�faces.�With�the�exception�of�the�two�rhomboidal�pieces,�they�are�all�parts�of�“long”�rectangular-section�pieces.�In�the�vast�major-ity�of�cases,�the�morphology�and�traces�of�assembly�mark�them�out�as�“hull�plank”�boat�parts.Their�individual�length�remains�unknown�but�could�vary�from�2.35�to�6.4�m.�Their�width�
ranges�from�28�to�44�cm�and�their�thickness�from�9.5�to�13�cm.�While�most�of�the�fragments�show�parallel�edges,�it�is�not�certain�that�these�pieces�were�parallelepiped�along�their�entire�length.�On�the�contrary,�some�of�the�reconstituted�planks�feature�polygonal�planes�with�non-parallel�edges.�Such�pieces,�which�can�be�extremely�elaborate,�are�common�in�Egyptian�naval�
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 39
construction,�as�seen�in�the�plank�sequences�of�the�boats�of�Cheops5�and�of�Dahshur,6�and�in�the�pieces�from�Lisht7�and�Wadi�Gawasis.8The�central�row,�however,�held�some�of�the�most�important�pieces�in�terms�of�dimension�
and�thickness�especially�(width�39�cm,�thickness�13�cm).�One�might�suggest�that�these�elements�were�parts�of�the�boat’s�axial�planks.The�two�“rhomboidal”�pieces�(AS�G2-P1.07�and�AS�G2-P9.08)�display�a�particular�morphol-
ogy�characterised�by�a�parallelepiped�body�and�an�extremity�shaped�as�a�truncated�pyramid�with�a�triangular�section.�These�pieces�are�relatively�short�(1.22�m)�but�feature�the�same�assembly�characteristics�(single�mortise�and�tenon,�L-shaped�mortise�for�stitching)�as�the�hull�plank-ing�pieces.�This�particular�form,�which�has�not�been�found�elsewhere�so�far,�could�be�related�to�the�extremities�(stem�post,�sternpost)�of�the�bottom�planking.9�The�morphology�suggests�that�they�could�be�the�ends�of�the�two�garboard�strakes,�the�first�range�of�planks�laid�on�either�side�of�the�keel.�Their�tapering�shape�may�have�allowed�for�the�junction�between�the�bottom�planking�and�the�end�pieces�that�compose�the�stem-�and�sternposts.�If�such�is�the�case,�these�pieces�also�belong�to�the�planking�and�are�particular�elements�thereof.�The�presence�of�these�two�end�pieces,�which�are�symmetrical�in�relation�to�the�longitudinal�axis�of�the�boat,�indicates�that�one�of�the�two�extremities�of�the�boat�is�located�towards�the�far�end�of�the�gallery.�The�fact�that�they�were�lying�close�to�each�other�confirms�that�the�different�boat�parts�were�stored�according�to�both�their�nature�and�their�relative�positions�in�the�hull.
1.4. fastening elements
There�is�evidence�of�several�types�of�fastening�techniques�among�the�pieces�and�often�simul-taneously�on�the�same�piece:–�single�mortises�cut�horizontally�mid-way�into�the�edge�of�the�pieces�to�receive�tenons.�The�
tenons�are�never�pegged,�contrary�to�Mediterranean�tradition.10�The�mortises�measure�on�average:�width�6�to�8.5�cm;�thickness�1�to�2�cm;�max.�depth�15�cm;�tenons:�length�15�cm;�width�5.5�to�8�cm;�thickness�0.9�to�1.9�cm;–�double�mortises,�one�above�the�other�(spaced�2�to�2.5�cm�apart)�to�receive�unpegged�tenons.�
Mortises:�width�5.5�to�8.3�cm;�thickness�1.1�to�2�cm;�max.�depth�15�cm;�tenons:�length�15�cm;�width�5�to�8�cm;�thickness�0.9�to�1.9�cm.
40 PatricePomey
5. Lipke 1984, p. 66, 68. 6. Ward 2000, fig. 36. 7. Ward 2000, p. 109, 117.8. Ward, Zazzaro 2007, fig. 26, 59; Ward, Zazzaro 2009; Ward 2009, fig. 3, 5. On the boat elements found at Wadi Gawasis, see also infra, Ch. Ward, “Ancient Egyptian Seafaring Ships: Archaeological and Experimental Evidence”; Ch. Zazzaro and Cl. Calcagno, “Ship Components from Mersa Gawasis: Recent Finds and their Archaeological Context”, in this volume.9. One recalls the pieces with triangular extremities on the Cheops boat that joined the edges of the keel-planks and of the stem- and sternpost pieces (Lipke 1984, p. 66, 69) and, more so, the ends of the sculpted garboards in Roman naval construction, as on the Roman shipwreck at the Bourse in Marseilles (end 2nd century AD), see Gassend 1982; Pomey, Rieth 2005, p. 107.10. Pomey 1998.
–�L-shaped�mortises,�cut�horizontally�from�the�edge�and�exiting�vertically�through�the�upper�surface.�This�type�of�mortise�was�used�for�single-point�lashing.�Mortises:�width�6.5�to�8�cm;�thickness�1�to�2�cm;�depth�11�cm;�stitches:�9�to�12�cords�of�4�to�5�mm�diam�;–�cylindrical�mortises�for�dowels:�diam.�2.5�to�4.5�cm.�These�assembly�elements�are�charac-
teristic�of�naval�construction�in�pharaonic�Egypt11�and�are�also�found�on�the�ships�of�Cheops,�of�Dahshur,�and�the�fragments�of�Lisht�and�of�Wadi�Gawasis.�However,�whereas�single�mortise-and-tenon�joints�and�L-shaped�mortises�for�single-point�lashing�are�common�features�on�all�these�remains,�double�mortises�are�only�attested�on�planking�from�Lisht12�and�from�Wadi�Gawasis.13�As�for�cylindrical�dowels,�they�have�so�far�only�been�attested�on�pieces�from�Ayn�Soukhna.�One�might�think�that�the�double�mortise�system,�whose�obvious�function�is�to�secure�the�fastening,�was�specific�of�seafaring�(Wadi�Gawasis,�Ayn�Soukhna)�and�cargo�(Lisht)�ships.�Likewise�for�the�cylindrical�dowels,�which�are�thought�to�have�helped�hold�the�components�together�during�pre-assembly,�avoid�any�lateral�strain�and�reinforce�the�structure.
2. The wood PieceS found in gAlleRy g9
2.1. general layout
During�the�2009�campaign,�the�excavation�of�gallery�G9,�which�is�adjacent�to�G2,�confirmed�the�presence�of�charred�wood�and�rope�that�used�to�belong�to�a�ship.�What�follows�is�an�overview�of�the�initial�results�of�this�excavation.Gallery�9�runs�parallel�to�G2�and�is�21.8�m�long,�2.5�to�2.9�m�wide�and�1.8�to�2�m�high.�The�
floor�of�the�gallery�slopes�down�unevenly�towards�the�middle�and�back�up�again�at�the�other�end.�Whether�this�was�deliberate�is�still�to�be�determined.�The�vestiges�of�rope�and�wood�are�preserved�over�an�area�some�13.5�m�long,�over�the�entire�width�available�and�up�to�a�maximum�height�of�61�cm.�The�combustion�in�G9�probably�took�place�under�different�conditions�than�in�G2�and,�as�a�result,�the�mass�of�carbonised�wood�in�G9�is�much�greater�[fig.�9].�This�turned�the�excavation�and�study�into�an�even�more�delicate�operation�since�the�fragility�of�the�wood�and�its�very�mass�precluded�the�idea�of�lifting�and�removing�the�archaeological�material.Initial�observations�have�led�to�the�distinction�of�three�major�ensembles.The�first�and�most�imposing�set�forms�a�6�m�long�homogeneous�mass�that�covers�the�back�
of�the�gallery.�It�extends�towards�the�north,�though�not�continuously,�over�some�5.5�m.�The�best�preserved�section�consists�of�five�layers�of�planks�lying�flat�one�on�top�of�the�other�[fig.�10].�The�maximum�height,�in�this�section,�is�61�cm�and�the�maximum�width,�which�is�that�of the�lower�plank,�is�70�cm.�Small�stone�chocks�were�inserted�in�between�the�planks�to�hold�them�in�place�and�in�their�particular�shape.�Other�stones�were�also�placed�under�the�planks�to�prop�them�up�and�insulate�them�from�the�ground,�as�opposed�to�the�rods�that�were�used�for�the�same�purpose�in�gallery�G2.
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 41
11. Ward 2000; 2004.12. Ward 2000, p. 113-115.13. Ward, Zazzaro 2007; Ward, Zazzaro 2009; Ward 2009.
The�second�large�ensemble�is�located�along�the�east�wall�of�the�gallery.�It�consists�of�planks�placed�on�edge,�leaning�against�each�other�more�or�less�vertically,�and�of�several�other�elaborately�shaped�pieces.�There�are�up�to�6�planks�on�their�edges�in�a�row.�The�ensemble�runs�continu-ously�for�5.7�m,�after�which�the�remains�are�separated�by�gaps�and�become�sparse�and�very�fragmentary.�As�with�the�previous�ensemble,�chok�and�support�stones�were�used.The�last�ensemble,�situated�towards�the�entrance,�consists�of�a�dense�mass�of�rope�that�cov-
ers�the�entire�width�of�the�gallery�over�a�preserved�length�of�1.2�m�and�a�maximum�thickness�of�12�cm.�In�this�mass�one�can�make�out�a�coil�of�rope�wound�and�tightened�around�one�end�[fig.�11].�Several�support�stones�were�found�on�the�cordage�thus�indicating�that�the�pieces�of�wood�extended�towards�the�entrance�of�the�gallery�over�the�rope�that�lay�on�the�floor.Other�wooden�remains,�often�associated�with�bits�of�fastening�tenons,�lie�along�the�west�
wall�of�the�gallery.�They�indicate�that�one�or�several�wooden�planks�were�probably�propped�against�the�wall�originally.�The�continuous�remains�of�two�poles,�2.10�and�2.20�m�in�length,�are�also�found�along�the�same�wall.As�in�gallery�G2,�the�remains�of�ropes�and�associated�matting�are�found�over�the�whole�
surface�of�the�gallery�and�there�is�even�a�small�fragment�of�cloth.�The�ropes�were�used�to�fasten�the�pieces�of�wood�into�homogeneous�sets�that�were�protected�from�the�ground�by�mats�and�may�have�been�wrapped�in�cloth.
2.2. Main characteristics
The�majority�of�the�pieces�correspond�to�hull�planking�30�to�40�cm�wide�and�11�to�13�cm�thick.�The�first�ensemble,�however,�consists�of�planks�of�greater�dimensions,�up�to�50�cm�and�even�70�cm�for�the�first�one.�These�are�most�probably�pieces�of�a�specific�nature�that�remains�to�be�determined.�Among�the�noteworthy�pieces,�the�second�ensemble�includes�a�short�thick�piece�with�a�rounded�base�and�sharp�inbound�edges�(preserved�length�45�cm;�width�52�cm;�thickness�30�cm),�and�a�triangular�piece�(reconstituted�length�87�cm;�max.�width�40�cm;�max.�thickness�20�cm)�that�recalls�the�so-called�“knife-shaped”�pieces�often�found�in�Egyptian�naval�construction�and�corresponding�to�end�planking.14The�assembly�elements�are�the�same�as�on�the�gallery�G2�pieces,�including�single�mortise-
and-tenon�joints,�double�mortise-and-tenon�joints,�L-shaped�mortises�for�single-point�lashing�and�ordinary�dowels.�The�cordage�fragments�can�be�sorted�out�into�three�groups�according�to�their�diameters:�1.2�
to�1.3�cm;�0.9�to�1.1�cm;�0.6�to�0.7�cm.The�two�sections�of�pole�lying�along�the�east�wall�seem�to�be�different�from�the�rods�that�
were�placed�transversally�beneath�the�planks�in�gallery�G2.�Their�size�(diam.�4.9�to�6�cm),�placing�and�location�near�the�cordage�suggest�that�they�might�have�been�part�of�some�sort�of�equipment,�such�as�oars.
42 PatricePomey
14. For example, on the Dahshur boats (Ward 2000, fig. 36), at Lisht (Ward 2000, p. 117) and at Wadi Gawasis (Ward, Zazzaro 2007, fig. 26; Ward, Zazzaro 2009, fig. 5; Ward 2009, fig. 3).
All�in�all,�everything�seems�to�point�to�the�presence�of�a�second�ship,�which�was�probably�quite�similar�to�that�of�gallery�G2.�The�preserved�elements,�however,�are�more�numerous�and�varied�than�in�gallery�G2,�which�is�probably�due�to�different�combustion�conditions.
2.3. Analyses and dating
The�analysis�of�the�different�samples�of�wood�taken�from�the�gallery�G215�show�that�the�ma-jority�(13�samples�out�of�14)�of�the�planks�are�of�cedar�and�one�of�oak.�All�the�tenons�(5�samples),�on�the�other�hand,�are�made�of�acacia.�As�for�the�rods,�acacia�provided�11�out�of�12�samples�and�cedar�one.�It�is�to�be�noted�that�the�structural�elements�are�made�of�imported�wood�(cedar�and�oak),�while�assembly�elements�were�cut�from�a�common�Egyptian�tree,�acacia.�With�only�one�exception,�the�rods�were�also�made�from�that�same�local�species.In�gallery�G2,�the�remains�of�the�boat�lie�upon�ceramics�from�the�Middle�Kingdom�dating�
to�the�12th�dynasty,�which�implies�that�the�boat�was�placed�there�at�that�time�or�thereafter.16�The�radiocarbon�dating�analysis�confirms�this�interpretation.17�While�the�oldest�plank�sample�dates�back�to�the�5th�dynasty�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�2462�BC:�2336�BC�(61.2%),�the�most�recent�dates�to�the�12th-13th�dynasties�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�1778�BC:�1690�BC�(46.2%).�The�matting�and�ropes�on�which�the�wood�rested�date�to�the�12th-13th�dynasties,�and�even�to�the�beginning�of�the�2nd�Intermediate�Period�(matting,�Carbon�14�calibrated:�1832�BC:�1746�BC�(45.5%);�rope,�Carbon�14�calibrated:�1681�BC:�1604�BC�(40.9%).�From�this,�one�can�deduce�that�the�boat�in�gallery�G2�was�dismantled�and�stored�there�at�that�time.�In�addition,�the�most�recent�plank�indicates�that�the�boat�was�still�in�use�during�the�12th-13th�dynasties,�while�the�presence�of�a�tenon�dated�to�a�period�between�the�6th�and�11th�dynasties�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�2142�BC:�2024�BC�(62.7%)�suggests�that�assembly�occurred�at�some�point�between�the�end�of�the�Old�Kingdom�and�the�beginning�of�the�Middle�Kingdom�and�thus�is�witness�to�the�boat’s�great�age.Radiocarbon�dating�of�the�wood�from�gallery�G9�confirms�the�above.�The�oldest�plank�
sample�is�dated�to�a�period�between�the�6th�and�11th�dynasties�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�2232�BC�(88.3%)�2012�BC)�while�the�most�recent�dates�to�between�the�12th�dynasty�and�the�beginning�of�the�2nd�Intermediate�Period�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�1830�BC�(85.5%)�1616�BC).�Likewise,�a�tenon�dated�to�the�13th�dynasty�or�beginning�of�the�2nd�Intermediate�Period�(Carbon�14�calibrated:�1776�BC�(84.6%)�1602�BC)�suggests�assembly�between�the�end�of�the�Middle�Kingdom�and�the�beginning�of�the�2nd�Intermediate�Period.Thus�the�boats�would�have�been�dismantled�and�stored�in�galleries�G2�and�G9�towards�the�
end�of�the�Middle�Kingdom�and�the�beginning�of�the�2nd�Intermediate�Period.�The�fires�that�destroyed�them�were�most�probably�deliberate�and�simultaneous�and�can�only�have�happened�
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 43
15. The analysis of the carbonised wood was undertaken by Claire Newton, archaeobotanist, IFAO, Cairo. The results of the analysis of the gallery G9 wood remains are not yet known.16. The ceramic material was studied by Virpi Perunka, a doctoral student of Liverpool University.17. C14 dating was undertaken in the IFAO laboratory, Cairo, under the supervision of M. Wuttmann. The dates proposed remain indicative because of the chronological uncertainties regarding the reigning years of the pharaohs that stand as references, and the approximation involved in C14 dating. I would like to thank G. Castel and P. Tallet for their valuable remarks regarding the dating of material and wood from the galleries.
thereafter.�The�ongoing�excavation�will�perhaps�help�to�date�them�more�precisely.�The�wide�gap�in�dating�between�the�oldest�and�the�most�recent�planks,�which�goes�far�beyond�the�problem�of�any�approximate�dating,�raises�several�questions.�The�first�concerns�the�age�of�the�original�wood�when�it�was�felled�and�the�ensuing�time-lag�before�it�was�used�as�a�boat�component.�The�fine�imported�species�(cedar,�oak)�had�probably�reached�a�respectable�age�and�size�when�they�were�hewn.�The�requirements�of�importation,�involving�the�organisation�of�a�distant�expedition,�and�the�resultant�storage�problems,�must�have�greatly�increased�the�delay�in�use.�The�second�question�is�that�of�the�longevity�of�the�boats,�which�appears�to�have�been�considerable.18�Taking�into�consideration�the�rarity�and�price�of�the�imported�woods�that�were�used,�the�sailing�and�maintenance�of�the�boats�must�have�followed�very�specific�rules.�The�use�of�fine�species�of�great�durability,�the�practice�of�dismantling�the�boats,�which�is�so�well�attested�here,�the�reshaping�and�recycling�of�pieces,�as�witnessed�in�the�Wadi�Gawasis�excavations,19�can�all�contribute�to�a�considerable�life�span.�These�particular�conditions�of�use�thus�make�the�notion�of�longevity�appear�more�relative.�
3. A hyPoTheTicAl inTeRPReTATion
Obviously,�the�burnt�pieces�of�wood�of�galleries�G2�and�G9�were�methodically�laid�out�in�a�way�that�is�consistent�with�the�dismantling�and�storage�of�the�components�of�two�ships.�The�two�dismantled�funerary�boats�of�Cheops,�which�were�found�in�pits�near�the�pyramid,�show�that�the�various�elements�were�layered�in�a�logical�pattern�with�regard�to�the�geometry�and�architecture�of�the�boat.20In�gallery�G2,�the�pieces�were�divided�into�three�rows�of�at�least�two�to�three�stacked�layers�
each,�with�some�additional�pieces�possibly�lying�along�the�walls.�The�central�row�of�the�layout�seems�to�have�been�devoted�to�the�elements�making�up�the�axial structure�of�the�boat,�which�were�generally�the�thickest�(axial�planking�that�functions�as�keel-sternpost-stem�post�as�in�the�Dahshur�boats,�or�bottom�planking�as�in�the�Cheops�boat).21�Following�the�same�logic,�the�three-layered�side�rows�seem�to�consist�of�elements�from�the�planking�strakes�on�each�side�of�the�boat.�In�comparison,�the�Dahshur�boat�at�the�Carnegie�Museum�of�Natural�History�in�Pittsburgh�(USA)�has�only�three�strakes�on�either�side�though�each�is�composed�of�several�planks.22�The�finding�of�two�pieces�that�are�likely�to�belong�to�the�ends�of�the�bottom�strakes�(garboards)�fits�in�with�this�hypothesis.
44 PatricePomey
18. For example, this is a far cry from the longevity—twenty to thirty-odd years—that is generally agreed upon for ancient ships of the Mediterranean. On the question of dating shipwrecks, see Pomey, Rieth 2005, p. 139-142.19. Ward, Zazzaro 2007; Ward, Zazzaro 2009; Ward 2009.20. Jenkins 1980; Lipke 1984, Ward 2000.21. Lipke 1984, p. 66; Ward 2000, p. 47-48, 85, fig. 36.22. Ward 2000, fig. 36.
On�the�other�hand,�we�have�not�found�any�longitudinal�strengthening�pieces�(keelson�or�axial�girder)�or�any�transversal�reinforcement�(floor�timber�or�beam).�Similarly,�except�for�the�possible�fragments�of�oars�in�G9,�there�were�no�elements�that�could�be�linked�to�the�super-structure�(deck,�cabin,�gallery�etc.),�steering�gear�(rudder),�or�rigging�(mast,�yards�etc.).�It�may�be�that�such�pieces�were�lying�on�top�and�were�burnt�to�ashes,�or�that,�in�some�cases�(e.g.�floor�timbers),�they�never�existed�at�the�origin.The�carbonised�wood�fragments�preserved�in�gallery�G2�at�Ayn�Soukhna�are�rather�ho-
mogeneous�and�would�seem�to�correspond�to�a�single�boat,�though�probably�quite�incomplete.�The�dimensions�and�morphology�of�the�planking�elements�are�closer,�on�average,�to�those�of�the�Dahshur�boats,23�than�to�the�pieces�of�the�Cheops�boat,�which�are�a�good�deal�thicker,�or�to�the�pieces�from�Lisht,�which�are�more�elaborate�and�quite�different�in�shape.24�Likewise,�the�absence�of�interior�framing�recalls�the�absence�of�framework�in�the�Dahshur�boats.25�The�Ayn�Soukhna�boat�thus�seems�to�more�closely�related�to�the�Dahshur�type�than�to�any�other.A�comparison�may�therefore�be�drawn�to�help�gauge�the�size�of�the�G2�boat.�The�three�
multi-layered�rows�of�pieces�are�at�least�12.8�m�long,�which�makes�for�a�cumulative�length�of�102.4�m.�The�planking�of�the�Dahshur�boats�is�known�in�detail�and�their�cumulative�lengths�are�respectively:�69.94�m�for�the�Pittsburgh�Carnegie�Museum�boat�that�is�itself�9.25�m;�and�73.96�m�for�the�Chicago�Field�Museum�boat�that�measures�9.8�m.26�If�we�conjecture�that�the�planking�and�strakes�of�the�Ayn�Soukhna�boat�were�assembled�along�the�same�lines�as�the�Dahshur�boats,�we�can�venture�a�minimum�reconstituted�length�of�13.5�m.�Nevertheless,�given�all�the�uncertainties�concerning�the�layout�of�the�wood�in�the�gallery�and�the�percentage�of�the�original�volume�that�has�remained,�this�result�can�only�be�an�indication.As�for�the�remains�of�the�boat�in�gallery�G9,�which�seem�to�be�even�more�numerous,�it�is�
still�too�early�to�attempt�any�such�evaluation�of�the�original�vessel.
4. SoMe ReMARkS on ShiPbuilding TechniqueS
Given�the�characteristics�of�the�pieces,�as�revealed�by�an�analysis�of�the�wooden�vestiges�of�gallery�G2�and�an�initial�examination�of�gallery�G9�remains,�we�have�seen�that�comparisons�with�the�Dahshur�boats�were�more�relevant�than�with�the�Cheops�and�Lisht�ships.�As�far�as�the�lashing�is�concerned,�the�single�stitch�system�observed�at�Ayn�Soukhna�also�bespeaks�a�differ-ent�a�fastening�design�than�the�continuous�transversal�stitching�system�found�in��Abydos27�and�Cheops.28�The�most�relevant�comparisons�for�the�fastening�scheme�can�be�found�in�the�pieces�of�the�sea-going�boat�from�Wadi�Gawasis�and�the�cargo�ship�of�Lisht:29�single�mortise-and-tenon�
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 45
23. Ward 2000, p. 85-91.24. Ward 2000, p. 116-117.25. Ward 2000, p. 83-98.26. Ward 2000, p. 84-85, 89-90.27. Ward 2003.28. Lipke 1984, p. 75.29. Ward 2000, p. 113-115; Ward, Zazzaro 2007; Ward, Zazzaro 2009; Ward 2009.
joints,�double�mortise-and-tenon�joints,�L-shaped�mortises�for�single-point�lashing.�So�far,�however,�dowels�seem�to�be�attested�only�at�Ayn�Soukhna.�The�Ayn�Soukhna�consolidated�fastening�system�could�thus�be�distinctive�of�sea-going�cargo�vessels.The�boats�at�Ayn�Soukhna�are�close�to�the�Dahshur�crafts�morphologically�and�also�chrono-
logically�since�they�are�dated�to�the�Middle�Kingdom.�The�Ayn�Soukhna�boats�might�therefore�possibly�be�considered�as�Nilotic�type�vessels—like�the�Dahshur�examples—that�were�adapted�for�maritime�navigation,�notably�by�a�reinforced�fastening�design.The�fastening�systems�call�for�one�final�observation.�It�has�been�deemed�surprising�that�the�
single�or�double�mortise-tenon�joints�were�not�pegged�in�the�Egyptian�ship�assembly�system,�even�though�the�locked�tenon�technique,�which�is�a priori�more�solid,�had�been�known�since�the�Old�Kingdom.30�The�reason�for�this�would�seem�to�be�that�the�unpegged�tenon�technique,�in�association�with�lashing,�allowed�for�the�dismantling�of�the�vessel.�Up�until�now,�ship�dis-mantling�had�been�considered�as�circumscribed�to�funerary�boats.�It�may,�in�fact,�have�been�a�current�procedure�if�one�is�to�go�by�the�examples�of�Ayn�Soukhna�and�Wadi�Gawasis.31�This�would�explain�the�systematic�use�of�unpegged�tenons.�The�dismantling�implies�that�the�ships�were�not�used�continuously�in�the�Red�Sea.�Since�they�could�not�be�left�in�the�water�nor�on�dry�land�without�some�form�of�shelter,�they�were�disassembled�between�expeditions�to�be�stored�in�the�galleries�(Ayn�Soukhna)�or�carried�back�to�the�Nile�(Wadi�Gawasis).
5. TyPeS of boAT
From�the�site’s�geographic�position�and�hieroglyphic�inscriptions,�it�can�be�surmised�that�the�maritime�expeditions�leaving�Ayn�Soukhna�were�probably�bound�for�Sinai�and�more�specifi-cally�for�the�mining�region�of�Serabit�el-Khadim.�The�inscriptions�that�have�been�discovered�at�Serabit�el-Khadim�would�seem�to�confirm�this.32 These�inscriptions,�especially�those�found�on�the�Rod�el-Air�cliff�face,�are�often�combined�with�rock�engravings�of�vessels:�it�can�be�rea-sonably�be�assumed�that�they�are�related�to�the�expedition�vessels�and�thus�to�the�sort�of�boat�whose�vestiges�have�been�found�at�Ayn�Soukhna�[fig.�12].On�first�analysis,�one�can�distinguish�two�types�of�representations.The�first�features�a�crescent-shaped�hull,�a�large�central�cabin,�a�mast�with�yards�(not�al-
ways�represented),�prow�and�poop�galleries�and�a�lateral�rudder�[fig.�13].�The�second�features�a�rather�slim�crescent-shaped�hull,�a�cabin,�a�mast�(often�lowered�and�not�always�represented)�and�a�long-loomed�axial�rudder�[fig.�14].�These�two�boat�types�are�well�attested�in�the�Middle�Kingdom.�The�former�resembles�the�Dahshur�boats�through�its�steering�system�though�the�hull�here�seems�stouter.�The�second,�with�the�long-loomed�axial�rudder,�is�found�in�paintings�
46 PatricePomey
30. Ward 2000, p. 33.31. Ward, Zazzaro 2007; Ward, Zazzaro 2009; Ward 2009.32. I would like to express my thanks to Pierre Tallet, to whom I am indebted for this information as well as that of the Rod el-Air rock carvings. He is to publish this previously unreleased data as part of survey of the mining region of South Sinai.
and�models�from�Beni�Hassan�(12th�Dynasty).33�Are�we,�once�again,�faced�with�an�adaptation�of�a�Nilotic�type�vessel�for�seafaring�expeditions,�as�has�already�been�suggested?The�14-15�m�boats�of�Ayn�Soukhna�are�of�a�respectable�size,�quite�sufficient�to�cross�the�Gulf�
of�Suez�to�the�Sinai�Peninsula�and�return�with�a�cargo�of�ore�weighing�several�tons.�It�looks�as�though�they�were,�in�fact,�shuttle�boats�that�ferried�back�and�forth�on�a�swift�turnaround�basis.�The�Rod-el-Air�engravings�show�that�these�vessels�were�sail-powered,�but�they�were�probably�also�equipped�with�oars�according�to�Egyptian�practice.�The�distance�between�Ayn�Soukhna�and�Abu�Zenima,�a�port�that�could�serve�the�Serabit�el-Khadim�mining�sites,�is�some�100�km,�that�is�55�nautical�miles.�If�one�allows�for�a�cruising�speed�of�around�3�to�4�knots�with�a�favourable�wind,�the�outbound�crossing�would�last�only�14�to�18�hours,�and�probably�slightly�more�for�the�return�journey.34The�part�the�Ayn�Soukhna�boats�played�as�the�key�elements�in�the�success�of�maritime�
expeditions�to�Sinai�could�perhaps�explain�why�they�were�destroyed.�The�fire�that�selectively�ravaged�the�G2�and�G9�galleries,�turning�the�dismantled�boat�parts�that�lay�there�to�charcoal,�do�not�seem�to�have�been�accidental.�The�simplest�and�most�effective�way�to�bring�the�expedi-tions�to�brutal�halt�would�have�been�to�destroy�the�craft.�Without�them,�expeditions�were�no�longer�possible�and�the�link�was�severed.�While�the�fire�and�intention�to�destroy�were�probably�deliberate,�it�remains�to�be�seen�who�was�the�culprit�and�why.The�results�of�the�study�of�the�charred�wood�in�galleries�G2�and�G9�at�Ayn�Soukhna�clearly�
confirm�that�these�are�the�remains�of�dismantled�boats.�Their�layout�on�the�ground�show�that�the�pieces�were�carefully�stored,�following�a�pattern�that�was�most�probably�connected�to�the�actual�structure�of�the�craft.�This�practice�of�dismantling�can�thus�be�attested�not�only�for�funerary�purposes,�as�with�the�two�Cheops�boats,�but�also�in�the�context�of�maritime�expedi-tions�as�also�proved�by�the�pieces�discovered�at�Wadi�Gawasis.In�short,�the�exceptional�interest�of�the�Ayn�Soukhna�boat�components�should�be�empha-
sised.�In�use�at�the�end�of�the�Middle�Kingdom,�if�not�before,�they�provide�us�with�some�of�the�oldest�evidence�as�yet�of�Egyptian�sea-going�boats�found�within�a�maritime�context,�unlike�the�other�Egyptian�ship�remains�that�had�previously�been�found�in�funerary�or�religious�contexts.�Their�study�offers�a�fundamental�contribution�to�the�overall�study�of�Egyptian�maritime�naval�construction,�of�seafaring�practices�and�more�generally�of�Egyptian�navigation,�which,�in�some�respects,�remains�little�known.
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 47
33. Fabre 2005b, p. 116.34. According to the experimental navigation of MinoftheDesert, a hypothetical reconstruction of an Egyp-tian ship based upon archaeological evidence and the reliefs of the Punt ships on the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir-el-Bahari. The latest results were presented in Istanbul in October 2009, at the XIIthInternationalSymposiumonBoatandShipArchaeology, see Ward, Vann forthcoming. The prevailing north winds probably facilitated the voyage down towards Abu Zenima while the return up to Ayn Soukhna must have been a more difficult journey, essentially undertaken by oar, using the coastal currents and any changes in wind direction.
a
0
passage
17 m
78
a
11.3
0 m
15.3
0 m
13,1
6 m
12,9
5 m
/ 12
,86
m
13,9
2 m
13,5
1 m
12,9
4 m
13,4
4 m
13,5
7 m
14,2
3 m
14,4
7 m
13,3
7 m
13,1
4 m 13
,34
m14
,07
m
13,3
7 m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
14
,52
m
VII
foye
r29
c
?
foye
r
c
VII
An
cho
rs
e
1
5
9
9
87
7
h
n
r
u
2005
2006
2007
f'
N
01
23
45
67
89
10 m
11,9
7 m
12,3
5 m
12,1
9 m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
1
4,22
m
12,3
4 m
12,1
4 m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
1
4,12
m
13,6
1 m
G2
G7
G5
G4
G8
c
c
c
d
11,9
7 m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
1
3,90
m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
1
3,84
m 11,8
0 m
N so
us p
lafo
nd
1
3,99
m
13,1
1 m
12,0
1 m
13,3
7 m
13,7
2 m
N pl
afon
d
13,
06 m
0
21
101101
Lean
-to
stru
ctur
e
G9
Drawing G. Castel, IFAO
Fig.
1. Location plan of the galleries G2 and G9, situated to the east of an ensemble of six more or less parallel galleries.
Note their unhampered entrances.
48 PatricePomey
Drawing G. Castel, IFAO
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 49
Fig. 2. Plan of gallery G2 with layout of carbonised wooden vestiges corresponding to the components of a dismantled boat.
Fig. 3. Overview, towards the centre of the gallery, of the carbonised wood of the east row in gallery G2.
© P. Pomey, CNRS
© P. Pomey, CNRS
Fig. 4. Detailed view of the central zone with remains of ropes that held the planks together. Note, just above, an assembly tenon still in place in a burnt plank.
50 PatricePomey
Fig. 5. View of lifted group AS G2-P2.06 comprising the remains of three stacked planks and their assembly elements.
© P. Pomey, CNRS
Fig. 6. View of lifted group AS G2-P3.06 comprising the remains of two stacked planks and their assembly elements.
Fig. 7. Detailed view of the burnt remains of assembly stitching still in place in group AS G2-P3.06.
Fig. 8. View of the “rhomboidal” piece from group AS G2-P1.07.
© P. Pomey, CNRS
© P. Pomey, CNRS
© P. Pomey, CNRS
ShipRemainsatAynSoukhna 51
Fig. 9. Overview of the mass of carbonised wood towards the back (south) of gallery G9, corresponding to the dismantled components of a boat.
© P. Pomey, CNRS
© P. Pomey, CNRS
© P. Pomey, CNRS
Fig. 10. Detailed view of the central mass of carbon-ised wood in gallery G9 composed of five layers of stacked planks.
Fig. 11. Detailed view of a coil round the middle of a mass of carbonised rope. Note, to the lower left-hand side, the end of the rope inserted into the coil.