Ships Remains at Ayn Soukhna

21
e Red Sea in Pharaonic Times Recent Discoveries along the Red Sea Coast Edited by Pierre TallET and El-Sayed Mahfouz INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE bIbLIOTHèqUE D’ÉTUDE 155 – 2012 Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Cairo / ayn Soukhna 11th -12th January 2009

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. 

52 PatricePomey

Fig. 12.  Rod el-Air, detail of a rock carving of a ship. 

© P. Tallet

Drawing P. Tallet

Drawing P. Tallet

Fig. 13.  Rod el-Air, drawing of a rock carving of a Type 1 ship. 

Fig. 14.  Rod el-Air, drawing of a rock carving of a Type 2 ship.