The problem of reconstructing an Afro-Iberian ship from the neolithic age

              Zygmunt KRZAK, Warszawa
THE PROBLEM OF RECONSTRUCTING AN AFRO - IBERIAN
SHIP FROM THE NEOLITHIC AGE
In 1966 A. Wiercinski, collaborator of the Warsaw University, had the
chance to investigate abundant Mexican concentrations of sculptural and
iconographic sources. Studying moreover human bone remains he managed
to distinguish particular types with characteristics of negroid-armenoid races,
evidencing their doubtless African and Near Eastern origin. This Mexican
material is directly connected with the La Venta culture, dated to the 2nd
millenary B. C., that is to the period of the forming of the Olmec civilization
that had played an essential role in the rise of ancient Mexico's higher
civilizations. The problem of their origin has not been solved yet and in spite
of sorne proofs of south-eastern Asian culture having a share in their
appearance, that question is still lively debated among adherents of an
autochtonic or allochtonic theory1
• Finding a confirmation of connections
linking those civilizations with the circle of east Atlantic cultures settled in
the Mediterranean basin and the Near East, would have important scientific
meaning. The Olmec civilization was well developed already in the 2nd
millen. B. C., therefore it should be surmised that its beginnings reached as
far as the 3rd millenary. This is a period of unheard flourishing among high
cultures in the Ancient World, including China, India, Egypt, the Near East
and other Mediterranean countries. It seems, according to A. Wiercinski, that
the megalithic culture had been the centre from which started migrations of
human groups identified in Mexico, i.e. mixed black-and-white specimens,
suggesting moreover the idea that their meeting and mixing within the
Ancient World should have most probably occurred in north-western Africa
and in the Pyrenean peninsula.
This discovery prompted the idea of organizing an experimental sea-going
expedition with the aim of crossing the Atlantic Ocean by a ship similar to
one used in the period of the megalithic cultures. Such an experiment might
increase our knowledge on possibly existing contacts, kept up by Mediter­ranean
and East Atlantic sailors with the peoples of Middle America.
The idea was initiated by the editorial staff of the Warsaw weekly
"Kulisy" and supported by S. Bratkowski's articles published in another
147

weekly, "Kultura" 2
• Hence arase the necessity of gathering data to enable
the reconstruction of a ship, that may have existed in the second half of the
3rd millenium B. C., among megalithic peoples inhabiting south-western
Europe and north-western Africa.
In the present article the author shows the way leading to such a recon­struction,
by gathering basic data from sources in south-western Europe and
the western part of the Mediterranean basin. On account of the vague
character of these sources, the author was rather obliged to make use of
materials provided by eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. For we endeavour
to indicate here the well-established notion that western cultures were then
under the strong influence of eastern civilisations evidenced by every branch
of production. Therefore western Mediterranean and Atlantic sources are
more widely discussed in these lines, whereas east Mediterranean sources are
mentioned only within the limits of data indispensable to the reconstruction.
There can be no doubt that the expansion of megalithic cultures kept to
river and maritime ways, as proved by stone tombs, temples and defence
objects built in stone. They are found on the coasts of Asia, Africa and
Europe. These regions also display a high level of navigation and skill in
shipbuilding, told by reminiscences persisting among peoples of the coasts
and islands. The sources discovered confirm the idea that the Mediterranean
basin, the coasts of Syria and Palestine, the Iberian peninsula and north
Africa were the oldest megalithic centre. The great similai:ity of buildings,
religious rites, funeral customs and sorne specimens of material production
suggest the conclusion advanced by certain scientists that the civilisation
mentioned may be considered a "megalithic Mediterranean culture". A close
chronological analysis shows that its oldest area was the Near East, as it
appeared there already in the 6th millenium B. C. At the turn of the 5th and
4th millenary megalithic tombs occur also in the Pyrenean peninsula. Me­galithic
architecture and corresponding beliefs were accompanied by
symptoms of Almería culture producing artefacts in copper. Fortified
coastal colonies, established by newcomers from the islands and the eastern
shores of the Mediterranean, appear in the Iberian peninsula. The high level
of their civilisation is shown by stone architecture, metallurgical skill, water
pipelines in settlements, etc. Further expansion covered the Canary islands,
Ireland, Britain, the western coasts of Europe as far as Scandinavia and the
coasts of north-west Africa, including the Ivory and Gold coasts, where
traces of megalithic colonies were found ( fig. 1). The builders of Iberian
strongholds kept contacts with Africa, which is evidenced by products made
148

out of ostrich eggs and hippopotamus bones. Finds of amber are proof of
relations with north-western Europe, imports and loans of east Mediter­ranean
origin are frequent. V.G. Childe states that so-called Beacharra
pottery appearing in the British Isles, dated to the 3rd millenary B. C. is
known also from Crete, Morocco and southern France, providing one more
proof of convergence of material products over so vast an area. The Nor­wegian
historian A. W. Brogger supposes that megalithic sailors from the
western part of the Mediterranean visited also the coasts of Western Europe;
they had certainly discovered sorne of the east-Atlantic islands and knew
perhaps the ocean route to America. Mediterranean anthropological material
indicates direct contacts between those lands achieved by long-distance
overseas migrations3
•
D. J. Wolfel's suggestion is that this vast area might have been mastered
even by very primitive navigation techniques, which would mean sailing by
boats dug out in big treetrunks and driven by many oars. Findings from
Holland and Scotland evidence the knowledge of dugouts already in the
Mesolithic Age; they must have been an important means of communication
along water tracks up to the beginning of the Neolithic. Wicker boats, such
as the primitive craft "Ra" built by T. Heyerdahl in 1970 for his voyage
from Africa to America were probably also used. Ships and boats of that
type were very early provided with sails. It should, however, be noticed that
wicker boats and dugouts may have been adequate means for navigation in
rivers and along sea shores, but not for transoceanic expeditions. Rafts and
boats made of wood with airfilled leather bags and balanced by the weight of
stones would not have been useful in the open sea4
•
One of the earliest written sources concerning navigation is the mytho­logical
record of the Flood. In the Sumerian poem about Gilgamesh dating
from the 2nd millenary B. C., the hero Utnapishtim relates the event himself,
telling us that the wise god Ea, master of all sweet waters, warned him of the
im pending danger and recommended him to "pull down his house and build
a ship of determined size, equal in length and width and set it to 'apfo'-".
Further he says "- on the fifth day I erected the ship's wooden frame, with a
surface of one 'iku' 5
, its walls were 120 ells long and every side of the square
roof had also 120 ells6
• Determining the shape of walls I put them together.
I equipped the ship with six decks, dividing it thus into seven parts and the
inside into nine. I drove wedges into the middle against the submersion of
water, chose a boathook and ranged all necessary things. I poured six 'saras'
of pitch into the furnace 7 and three 'saras' of asphalt ... inside". - "On the
149

seventh day the ship was ready ... the builders added weight to its deck
plunging two thirds of it under water".
A similar undertaking is later related in Hebrew Scripture about Noah's
Ark. God gives him the following advice: - "Thou shalt build a ship out of
resinous wood, divide it into compartments, covering them with pitch inside
and outside. Such are to be the ship's dimensions: 300 ells long, 50 ells wide
and 30 ells high. The cover, allowing the penetration of light, should be one
ell high; thou shalt make an entrance in the side wall and establish three
divisions: bottom, second and third".
Both these documents deal with large sailing units, the Sumerian ark
resembles a floating chest and the Hebrew ark displays proportions more
proper to ships. Neither of these two specimens, says A. Parrot, expert in
these problems, has been illustrated by any iconographic testimony from
ancient times. Both however, deserve our attention, as the Flood itself and
the events connected with it are part of humanity's archaic inheritance, and
besides the Near East they are noted also in mythological legends, not only
in the Old World but also in the New One. W. F. Albright considers the roots
of this legend to be older than the Neolithic Age, possibly as old as the
Mesolithic in Asia.
The gist of its story, speaking about the construction of a mighty ship,
should therefore be judged older than the earliest archaeological sources
dated to the late N eolithic Age 8
•
The oldest archaeological evidence concerning ships dates back to the
4th millenary B. C. and refers to lands of the Near East and Egypt, where the
first urban and state centres carne into existence. Then wooden ships and
boats driven by oars and sails appear. The discovery of sails slowly spreads
among barbarian peoples and among more advanced societies inhabiting the
coasts of the west Mediterranean. According to sorne authors (V.G. Childe,
B. Landstrom, S. Marinatos) influences from the east Mediterranean lands
can be traced, because of the form of ships of the Bronze Age, even in
distant northern Europe. The kind of ship that played an important role in
the attempts of linking overseas contacts was probably the galley, a vessel
provided with oars and sail, its hull consisting of keel, frames and boards. It
can be supposed that galleys were constructed by builders busy in the service
of sovereigns in megalithic Los Millares (Almería - Spain) and Zambujal
(Santarem - Portugal) in the 3rd millenary. Despite the use of timber,
shipbuilding was still very primitive. In the 8th century B. C. wicker boats
circulated between Egypt and Palestine, as is proved by the words of the
150

Hebrew prophet Isaiah who reproaches Egypt with "the dispatch of mes­sengers
in papyrus boats".
Already in the 4th millenium B. C. sails were common in the Near East
and Egypt. The Sumerians, creators of Mesopotamian civilization, were said
to have arrived there by sea. In their early dwelling place Eridu, the clay
model of a sailing boat has been found (fig. 2). Sailing boats were known at
that time to the inhabitants of the Nile valley and they already had deck
cabins. Their images are visible on painted clay vases and on rock engravings
( fig. 3 ). They have the shape of river boats. There is an interesting picture
engraved on the handle of a knife in Djebel el-Arak presenting a maritime
battle between several Egyptian and one Asiatic ships. The former are
characteristic by their arched hull, and the latter has high stems and stern­frames
( fig. 4). Vessels with high stems are later generally used in the Me­diterranean
basin. Early seafaring traditions are also noted among the
inhabitants of the Aegean islands, Crete and the Anatolian coasts. In the 3rd
millenary Crete becomes a centre for spreading culture and a maritime power
with lively relations with Egypt, Asia minor, the Balkan peninsula, Sicily and
probably the Pyrenean peninsula. Ships and boats of Minoan and Mycenean
cultures ( fig. 7 -9) are known from images on seals, vessels, rings, tablets and
in miniature clay models. Boatbuilding was an early ideogram introduced
into handwriting. The oldest Phenician town according to legends, Byblos,
developed on the coasts of Liban and became the centre of ancient metal­lurgy.
Its port was called in Egypt "key to the land of gods", then meaning
Asia. Craftsmen of Byblos are busy building ships for the Pharaoh's court,
here is also the point of transshipment of timber carried on to Egypt 9
•
Two distinct zones and two kinds of shipbuilding that persisted till later
times can be distinguished in the area mentioned. In Egypt, Arabia, Persia
and other Asian lands, ships used to be built without keel or frames, only
with boards joining bow and stern, strengthened with ribs before com ple­tion.
In the eastern part of the Mediterranean, in Byblos, Crete and the
Aegean islands, shipbuilding attained a much higher level. Keel and ribs were
essential and planking covered the construction. We do not know whether
that technique occurred first in the eastern part of the Mediterranean or in
Mesopotamia. A Sumerian tradition would place it in the latter area, as told
by the ancient legend of Utanapishtim, the Flood's hero, who mentioned the
"driving a plug against water into the middle of his ship" 10
• We lack descrip­tions
of the stages of building the ship. An illustration may be provided by
Homer's report in the latter part of the 2nd millenium B. C. In building his
151

sailing raft Odysseus applies a technique that may be similar to those
common in the Neolithic Age. "After felling twenty trees he chopped them
with bronze, whittled them skillfully and measured them by rope. Mean­while
the archidivine Callypso brought a drill. He drilled all the beams
through and put them together, joining finally the raft by pegs and clamps".
We further read about building the deck: - "He drove piquets in clase to
one another, covering them with long boards; put up a mast with yards and
fixed a rudder for steering. Finally the raft was wrapped up in plaited willow
twigs and covered abundantly with branches. Meanwhile archidivine Callypso
brought linen for the sail. Odysseus managed also that task by typing a
trysail, deadeyes and pushing the raft by lever onto the divine salted waters".
The wreck of a ship several meters long, dated to about 1200 B. C., has
been found near Cape Gelidonya in south-east Turkey. The remains of
frames and planking joined by wooden pegs remind us of the above
described technique 11•
We possess sources illustrating sorne details of prehistoric shipbuilding
from the east-Mediterranean countries, but only scanty data have persisted in
the western ones and along the Atlantic coasts. They hardly allow an
approximate reconstruction of the forms of ships. Images of megalithic ships
from the 3rd and first haif of the 2nd millenary B. C. are known from
tombs, temples and shrines. They have the form of petroglyphs, presenting a
vessel meant for the soul of the dead (Anghelu Ruju in Sardinia, Heerestrup
from Seeland in Denmark, megaliths in Brittany). Sometimes ships are
engraved as votive offerings on the walls of places of worship (Hal Tarxien in
Malta). Others are inserted into scenes relating to worship on the rocks of
shores, i. e. petroglyphs from the Canary Islands and the coasts of Scan­dinavia
(these are of a much later date). Scenes relating to worship with ships
showing the fate of megalithic gods, heroes and dead individuals occur
among many peoples over vast areas of the Old World. They are also known
outside Europe from Africa, Arabia, the Far East and the Pacific Islands,
which would approximately correspond to the area where megalithic culture
and architecture had spread. Megalithic petroglyphs in which we are in­terested
present several forms of vessels; their differentiation is no doubt due
to various local shipbuilding traditions. Three most often repeated types can
be distinguished. One of them has a slightly arched hull with its end turning
gently into stems. The stem is much higher than the sternframe; the ship
resembles a gondola. That form has been chosen as a basis for the reconstruc­tion
of the vessel designed to carry the Polish expedition. Such boats are
152

found on the walls of crypt tombs in Anghelu Ruju in Sardinia (fig. 11), and
on megalithic plates in Mané-Lud and Kervéresse in Brittany (fig. 12:1,3). In
the Tarxien temple of Malta it is found on a stone grafiti (fig. 10: 1, 2, 7,
10, 13) among a number of ships in which Aegean, Egyptian and proto­Phenician
ships can ce recognized. Western analogies allow to conclude that
sailors from the western Mediterranean coasts used to visit Malta. Another
group of images is presented by engravings inside a tomb at Dowth in Ireland
and is regarded as ships by sorne authors. Replicas found along the western
Mediterranean coasts dated to the 2nd half of the 3rd and the beginning of
the 2nd millen. B. C. have corresponding items dated to the 4th millenary in
the Near East and Egypt. That kind of vessel was also known to Anatolian
and Cretan sailors; its survival with only few modifications of the 2nd
millenary B. C. is proof of its general use. It is seen among Phenician and so
called Sea Peoples' ships, and occurs in the Bronze Age even in Scandinavia.
We should stress that it is characteristic mostly in the megalithic circle and
accompanies in a slightly altered form megaliths of the Far East which have
existed there till now (fig. 14 ). Its modification is a ship with straight hull
and canted stems giving the ship a more angular silhouette. Such vessels are
confirmed in western Europe (Brittany) and in the Mediterranean basin
(Malta, Crete, fig. 10: 8, 9, 11, 12) 13•
Another kind of ship characteristic for megaliths of the Old World was a
ship with arched hull. It was used on rivers but also as a sea-going unit. It is
presented on a dolmen in Herrestrup, Seeland ( fig. 13), in the Canary
Islands, in the Mediterranean countries and islands, among others in Malta
and Crete ( fig. 7). It is characteristic for the shipbuilding in ancient Egypt
(fig. 4, 5 ), reaching to the predynastic period. Together with the ship's
gondola-type it fits into forms registered by early Sumerian pictograms. It
constitutes a form of cult certified in Indochina of about 500 B. C. Only
scanty sources confirm its existence in the western Mediterranean, whereas
the eastern part of the basin presents rich source documents 14 􀀅􀔠
The third kind of megalithic ship is distinctly a seagoing vessel. It has an
eminently straight prow and strongly rising stem. Its prow is sometimes
ended by a protruding keel, reminding a ram (fig. 8). It is certainly connec­ted
with the east Mediterranean, we have also analogous testimonies among
western European megaliths. On the dolmen of Heerestrup ( fig. 13) we find
that type of vessel; sorne engravings in Brittany may be similarly interpreted
(fig. 12: 2, 4). More interesting are sources from Ireland. Within the me­galithic
tomb of Dowth the drawings discovered may be regarded as several
153

images of vessels including a ship with raised stern. However this interpreta­tion
is not generally accepted. Also the engravings from the tomb of New
Grange (Ireland) which G. Coffey and J. Raftery regard as the image of a
sailing ship are described by other authors as characters of an oghamic or
Phenician handwriting (fig. 12: 9, 10). It is not at all like the drawings of
ships found in Danish and Britannic megaliths and its vertical design accord­ing
to C. A. Althin excludes this possibility. It also seems doubtful to experts
of western European megaliths: such as P. S. Ó Riordáin and G. Daniel.
G. Cofey's hypothesis is, however, supported by parallel drawings in the
eastern Mediterranean, which are important on account of probable contacts
of Ireland with those peoples. For a similar type of vessel is found in the
Minoan-Mycenean circle and in Egypt of the predynastic period 15•
Ships of keel-and-frame build are well certified to have occurred on the
Syrian-Palestine coast and in the east-Mediterranean islands. The clay model
discovered in Byblos represents a ship with strongly protruding keel on bow
and stern; the sides are joined by benches much raised at both ends ( fig. 6).
Clay models with similarly elongated keels are known from Cyprus, Rhodos
and Mochlos in Crete. Sorne of them have a keel protruding only in the prow
(fig. 8). Spectacular examples of keel-and-stave units are late Phenician ships
dated to the 2nd and 1st millenary B. C. They differ from the former by
their bent keel, tapering into high stems. We know many examples of keel­and-
stave ships in the circle of Minoan-Mycenean culture; they appear in
various forms. On ideograms and seals from Knossos, Tiryns and Iolkos we
distinguish fast galleys provided with a sail and oars, amounting to up to
thirty. Sorne units have high stems. The images are miniatures and do not
show the structure of the sides. A valuable complementation of our
knowledge are clay models of Aegean boats with marked frames. Egyptian
sources from the 3rd millen. B. C. mention the use of timber by shipbuilders
of Byblos. It is worth mentioning that B. Landstrom, an expert in the matter
of reconstruction of ancient ships, gives stave sides to reconstructed Cretan
vessels 16•
Decks and superstructures appear on Cretan ships of the 3rd millenium
B. C. In sorne images a construction placed above the hull, taking about
three quarters of the ships's length (prow excepted) may have been a deck.
Others have a superstructure placed in the middle of a ship (fig. 9). Frag­mentary
sources do not allow to determine whether the superstructure
occupied the entire width of the vessel, or only its middle part, leaving free
space along the sides for the oarsmen. Small superstructures and transport-
154

able cabin-tents were fixed on Egyptian ships in the predynastic period and
in the Old Realms (fig. 3-5) also in the Near East, Nubia and the Canary
Islands. The engraving from Kervéresse (Brittany) confirms their existence in
the megalithic circle. They were certainly necessary in case of long-distance
voyages as the righ t place for sleeping and storing goods. They are mentioned
in Homer's records speaking about the preclassical period of Greece. Super­structures
used to be fixed either in the bottom or on deck. It can be
supposed that the deck covered initially only the ballast. Its development
and full use is seen to occur only in the subsequent classical period. An
exception is the clay model of ship from Haghia Triada in Crete which seems
to reach nearly the level of shipbuilding in the classical period. It presents a
kind of passenger sailing ship with two manholes fit for the transportation of
people 17
•
None of the Mediterranean sources testify the existence of furnaces in
ships. Navigation conditions in the Mediterranean probably did not require
them. For the ship we are building a clay-and-stone furnace adapted for
cooking is foreseen. This is just an assumption based on general features of
the period. It is worth mentioning here that Polynesian sailors, when under­taking
long-distance voyages of 1500 kilometers and more, put up furnaces
in their primitive ships and used to take live animals with them among their
provisions. The Vikings used to bum fires under their tents inside containers
filled with sand 18•
Between the cabin and both sides there were generally benches for the
oarsmen. Most of the images show oarsmen sitting in rows facing the stern.
Sometimes, in very early Egyptian primitive ships and probably in sorne
megalithic European units, oarsmen are working in a standing position 19
•
Besides oars a second means of propulsion is a sail. It was used very early
and then had a most primitive rectangular shape. It was common in Egypt
and Mesopotamia as early as in the 4th millen. B. C. (fig. 2, 3 ). We find it
later on Cretan, Mycenean and Phenician ships with lowered upper yard
(fig. 7). In Egypt and the Mediterranean zone at that time there appear sails
hanging on one yard only. They are either rolled up or lowered with the
yard. S. A. Semenov states that on wicker boats the sail was usually hung on
two yards, which prevented the sides from being disrupted by ropes.
In the Mediterranean zone ships having only one yard were more frequent
than those provided with two. One may suppose that the loose part of sails
made their handling easier. Rigging was limited to ro pes allowing to handle
the sail by lowering the yard or sheet. The mast is provided only with stays,
155

i. e. rapes Jülmng its top with praw and stern, although the model of a
Sumerian sailing boat presents also shrouds that are side rapes. Rape ladders
often occur on ships 20•
Steers are also intraduced early. The oldest Egyptian ships have steers in
the shape of an enormous oar fixed in the middle of the stern. In the 3rd
millenary B. C. another form of steer easier to manage spread in the Mediter­ranean,
namely two oars at the stern on one or both sides of the ship ( fig. 5,
7). A curious feature are steers sometimes placed in front; this reminds us of
ancient Inca rafts provided with so-called "swords", namely vertical boards
fixed under the raft. The steering was usually managed by way of shortening
or plunging the "swords". This singular way of steering was also u sed by
T. Heyerdahl during his experimental trip acrass the Pacific Ocean. It seems
that the handling of heavy steering oars was neither easy nor safe. In Vergil's
poem Aeneis we read the complaint of Palinurus, a tragically drawned
steersman, who says: - "the steer entrusted to my care and held fast in both
my hands to keep the ship on course brake suddenly owing to a mighty
shock and carried me deep clown into the water". - Other sailors en­deavoured
to render that manipulation easier the steer with rods. Their
samples are found on hieraglyphic Cretan signs from Haghia Triada. Nor was
the archaic type of steer rejected. The clay miniature ship from Knossos
show an advanced type of steer: a vertical opening in the stern part which
was probably the framing of steer. Steering oars were often simply tied to
the sides by rapes, or else they were attached by wooden fittings. It is worth
mentioning that steers were not regarded by all sailors as an indispendable
equipment of a ship. Homer's poem mentions the Pheaks people visited by
Odysseus. He described them as perfect sailors who progressed without
steers. We may suppose that they managed to keep the ship on course by
merely manipulating the sail 21•
Iconographic items, written sources and above all archaeological findings
indicate the use of stone anchors that were employed from at least the 3rd
millenary B. C. The type most often occurring in the east Mediterranean
basin was a stone anchor resembling a triangular plate, with a raund hale far
the rape. This form has been praved as regards Egypt, Palestine, Liban
(Byblos), Cyprus, Crete and megalithic Malta.
Sorne anchors had a pyramidal shape. According to A. Evans metal
anchors were already known in the period of Minoan culture. Sorne anchors
were rectangular plates with one hale, others were oval plates with two.
Their length varied from SO to about 100 centimeters and they weighed
156
several seores of kilograms. Sorne ships were equipped with two or three
small anchors. Stone anchors persisted there until the 2nd millen. B. C. and
afterwards. They are evidenced by references by Homer and also by archae­ological
findings. That very archaic forro persists still in sorne remate parts of
the world in Romania, India, Indonesia, China and Brasil 22
•
Trading ships were mostly equipped with lifeboats. They may have been
dugouts or wicker boats, but sorne sources speak of lifeboats made of boards
joined by frames. Sorne others were made of wooden bars and pales coated
with leather. In Portugal fishermen still use that kind of canoes and call them
"saveiro". In the light of archeological sources from Britain and Malta it may
be presumed that they are survivals of boats used in the western part of the
Mediterranean in prehistoric times 23
•
Ships belonging to particular ports and coming from particular countries
or islands had their specific ornamentation. Its outstanding feature was a
carved gallean fixed to the bow or stern. The sculptures were often figures of
animals known from mythologic legends. They were related with the name
of the vessel and made it distinct and personal. The Cyclades' ships of the
3rd millen. B. C. had the sign of a fish in their figurehead. Egyptian sailors of
the 12th century B. C. fixed a lion's head to their bows, and fighting ships of
the "Sea Peoples" had a goose's head. We lack sources in this respect for the
western part of the Mediterranean. The fanciful sculpture of a winged dragan
ornamenting the forebody of our ship (fig. 15) is the symbol of the le­gendary
hero, ruler and demigod, described in Mexican myths as a super­human
being who brought such achievements to their civilization as laws, the
knowledge of the calendar and who also introduced the cultivation of Indian
corn. Ancient art and Mythology ascribe to him the shape of a "serpent
trimmed with feathers" or "winged serpent" called "Quetzalcóatl" by
Nahuatl Indians and "Kukulcan" in the language of Mayas. It may be
supposed that the winged serpent motif was a familiar feature in the me­galithic
orbit of the Old World and particularly in the Far East. In the
Mediterranean basin sorne of its reminiscences persist in Egypt and Greece.
We know a ship ornamented by a sculptured serpent on a seal of Meso­potamia
dated to about 2200 B. C. One thousand years later the motif of a
winged hydra appears on a Cyprus ship. In south-western Europe the motif
of a winged dragan dates from the Magdalenian period (about 20.000 to
1 O. 000 B. C.), which would in elude the Paleolithic Age 25
•
On many images of megalithic boats a number of several or over a dozen
oarsmen can be distinguished, which allows to estimate the length of the ship
157

at sorne ten or more meters. Prehistoric north African ships might have had
up to thirty pairs of oars. Such long vessels appear on images of pottery from
the Cyclades, dated to about 2800 B. C. They were most probably dugouts
made of very long tree trunks. Mediterranean sailing boats had usually a
smaller number of oars, but the image of a galley on a Cretan seal presents a
ship with fifteen pairs of oars ( fig. 7). C. Torr and S. Marina tos, authors
studying vessels of the antiquity, estimate the length of a ship driven by
thirty oars at sorne 21-23 meters. Our calculation suggests, however, that
ships of the Mediterranean basin were rather smaller, limited as they were to
a length of about a dozen meters. Units built specially for royal courts were
probably larger. Pharaoh Sahure's ship (26th century B. C.) was about
60 meters long and 20 meters wide. Queen Hatshepsut's ships (about 1500
B. C.) had a length of about 30 meters. The largest Cretan ships were
probably 30 meters long and 8 meters wide. Ships built for warfare were
longer and narrower. Merchant ships were made far wider and steadier, sorne­times
clase to an elliptic form as they were meant for carrying considerable
loads over long distances. Usual dimensions for vessels of that time were
widths equal to 1/5 or 1/4 of their lengths. Such proportions were usual in
the Mediterranean basin of the classical period, and according to S. Ma­rinatos
they may have been common also in earlier periods. The ship's width
had to correspond to its depth, taking also the superstructure into account.
This is confirmed not only by classical sources, but also by early Babylonian
documents. The extreme width of the hull fell to midship, and its highest
point was the stern Cabins were mostly placed astern 26•
The mast stood up right in midship. While the Egyptians had folding
masts made of two parts, only salid masts of one piece are confirmed in the
Mediterranean Sea. Folded masts however may have been known to Mediter­ranean
sailors, as is mentioned later in Homer's writings. The height of masts
over deck may have been half or 3/4 of the ship's length. The dimensions of
sails varied considerably. Primitive Egyptian sailing boats of the predynastic
period had rather small sails and their yards may have been only over one
half of the ship's length. In the 3rd millen. B. C. the sail became an
important means of propulsion when its surface gradually increased to
double size. In Cretan and late Phenician sailing boats yards were about as
long as the vessel itself and the surface of a sail for a galley 20 meters long
was 80 square meters.
In the light of documents from the classical period the speed of ships was
between 4 and 6 knots, or 7,5-11 kilometers per hour. Thus, a voyage from
158

Egypt to Crete (about 600 kilometers) for instance, was accomplished in
four and later only three days. Xenophon informs us that Phoenician pirates
attained a speed of 6 knots or 11 kilometers per hour between the islands
Rhodos and Tyros. The distance from Carthage to the straits of Gibraltar of
about 1500 km was covered in seven days at a rate of 5 knots. Favourable
winds allowed to reach even a speed of 6 knots on shorter trips. Sorne
trading ships from the classical period could make 240 km per day. Archaic
and Neolithic ships never achieved such results. Por the reconstructed vessel
"Quetzalcóatl" no more than 4 knots are probable, which would make
177 km per day. That standard rate would require 50 days for covering the
9000 km of water lying between the Moroccan and Mexican coasts.
T. Heyerdahl's wicker boat "Ra l ", whose expedition in 1969 was a failure,
had only sail propulsion and managed to cross the 5600 km in 58 days,
which amounts to an average of about 97 kilometers per day. On sorne days
the boat even made 150 kilometers. In the following year another expedition
crossed the Atlantic in a similar boat, covering 6300 km in 5 7 days. A well
equipped modern sailing boat would manage the voyage from Morocco to
Mexico in 40 days. One of the swiftest yachts of our century, a three-mast
schooner "Atlantic", crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 1905 (about 5300 km) in
12 days, 4 hours and 3 min.28•
The tonnage of ancient ships was entirely dependent on their size and
shape. In the classical period it used to reach or even exceed 250 tons. River
boats gliding on the Euphrates carried, as notified by Herodotus, a load of
5000 talents, weighing over 130 tons. Archaic ships had no such possibilities.
Merchants' vessels were expected to convey heavier cargoes, as they trans­ported
copper ore and later tin. Merchants from the east Mediterranean
islands made long-distance voyages searching ore mined in the Pyrenean
península. Sailors dwelling on the coasts of the Atlantic kept contacts with
the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland. An interesting event illustrating
the building of large sailing units occurred in the reign of Queen Hatshepsut.
Two stone obelisks, weighing together about 740 tons, were said to have
been transported by the river route to Karnak in a mighty Nile barge rowed
by 60 pairs of oars ranged in three rows, resembling the later Greek
triremes 29
•
Taking all these features into consideration, the ship we envision is shaped
like a galley propelled by a sail and oars ( fig. 15). Assuming the attainment
of a high level of shipbuilding techniques by the sailors of the megalithic
period, the ship envisioned would be equipped with all the features of
159

construction and navigation to be expected on the strength of archeological
evidence, its hull composed of keel and stems, frames and wooden planking.
Such a ship would have a single deck, superstructure, benches for oarsmen,
oars, a steer, a mast with a sail of the yard type, and rigging. Its approximate
dimensions would be: outside length 20 to 32 metres, greatest width of the
hull 5 metres, midship height 4 to 5 metres including keel and superstruc­ture,
height of mast overdeck 10 to 12 metres, and approximate size of sail
12 by 6 metres. Thus our ship would be middle-sized, built of timber
according to archaic techniques, and would be approximately on the level of
shipbuilding prevailing in the late Stone Age.
A complete design of such a ship is now at the shipyard in Szczecin.
Poland 30
•
NOTES
1 Bosch Gimpera 1960, pp. 334-338. Heine-Geldern 1955, p. 343. Kühn, Vol. 2,
p. 137, Vol. 3, pp. 153, 159, 164. Wiercinski 1969, reprint. Wiercinski 1971, p. 485
fol. (Notes refer to parts of text dealing with one subject. Authors are listed se­parately,
according to alphabetic order).
2 Bratkowski 1969, pp. 4, 9.
3 Alimen 1960, p. 441 fol. Childe 1949, p. 46 fol. Childe 1950, p. 208 fol. Daniel
1958, p. 1 fol. Kidder 1959, p. 145 fol. Kidder 1964, p. 19 fol. Kühn 1963, p. 37 fol.
Lachler Wirz 1962, p. 263. O'Riordain, Daniel 1964, p. 133 fol. Savory 1968, p. 85
fol. Wilke 1912, p. 1 fol. Wilke 1913, p. 1 fol.
4 Barnett 1958, p. 220 fol. Hawkes, Woolley 1963, pp. 159-160. Semenov 1958,
p. 272. Urbanczyk 1970, p. 30 fol. Wolfel 1955, p. 185.
5 About 3500 square meters.
6 60 meters.
7 Unknown measure of capacity.
8 Albright 1967, p.1 48, Holy Scripture ..., 1965, p. 28. Parrot 1968, p. 169 fol.
Stiller (no date of edition) p. 79.
9 Barnett 1958, p. 220, fig. 1, Table XXI, b. Casson 1959, p. 21. Casson 1964, p. 27.
Childe 1949, p. 46 fol. Drover, Bottéro 1968, p.3 2 fol. Holy Scripture ..., 1965,
p. 5. Encyclopaedia ... 1961, Table 321. Hawkes, Woolley 1963, pp. 328, 618-621.
Hutchinson 1962, pp. 94-99. Koster 1923, fig. 15. Kramer 1963, p. 104. Lachler,
Wirz 1962, fig. 4. Landstrom 1962, p. 123. Marinatos 1933, p. 170 fol., 232, fig. 2,
Table XIV-XVI. Montet 1960, pp. 238-240. Parrot 1968, p. 170. Pendlebury 1939,
p. 271. Holy Scripture ..., p.8 95. Taylour 1964, p.1 63. Torr 1964, p. l. Wasowicz
1966, p. 156 fol. Wrigth, Churchill 1965, pp. 19-20.
160
10 Casson 1959, p. 14. Casson 1964, p. 21 fol., 45. Koster 1923, pp. 50, 56 fol. Parrot
1968, p. 170.
11 Bass 1961, p. 270, Table 84, fig. 11, Table 86, fig. 13. Homer 1953, p. 76 fol.
12 Althin 1945, fig. 85: 1-8. Déchelette 1924, fig. 245: l. Giot 1960, fig. 10, l. Wilke
1913, fig. 111,114 and 118. Woolner 1957, fig. 1-3. Wolfel 1955, p. 199, fig. la.
13 Althin 1945, fig. 85: 1-8, Table 47 (top), Table 58: 3, 4, 7, 8. Barnett 1958, fig. S.
Déchelette 1924, fig. 245: l. Giot 1960, fig. 101. Holmberg 1848, Table XXXIII,
XXXIV: 110, 117 and others. Kidder 1959, Table 102. Kidder 1964, fig. 34.
l'Helgouach 1965, fig. 33: 2, 3. Marinatos 1933, Table XV: 31, 32, Table XVI: 65.
O'Riordain, Daniel 1964, fig. 14, p. 172. Pritchard 1954, fig. 111. Reallexíkon 1952,
fig. 11. Wilke 1913, pp. 113, 114, fig. 11(7). Woolner 1957, fig. 1: 1, 10, fig. 2:
23-25, 28. Zervos 1954, fig. 263, 264. Zervos 1956, fig. 143, 306: 2,
14 Bar;ett 1958, fig. S. Branígan 1970, fig. 44. Mate and others 1968, fíg. 38, b.James
1970, fig. l. Koster 1923, fig. 15. Koster 1924, fíg. 4. Kramer 1963, fig. 3. Lachler,
Wírz 1962, fig. 8, 207. Marínatos 1933, fig. 2, Table XVI: 54, 58. Resch 1969, Table
72. Wílke 1913, fig. 11 (1). Woolner 1957, fíg. 2: 15. Wolfel 1955, fig. 1: a, f, g.
15 Althin 1945, pp. 160, 162. Branígan 1970, fig. 44 c. Casson 1964, fig. 25, 28.
Lachler, Wírz 1962, fig. 28. Marínatos 1933, fig. 2: 1, Table XIII: 16, 17, XV: 28, 34.
O'Ríordain, Daniel 1964, pp. 59, 60, 72, fig. 14, Table 25. Ragtery 1951, fig. 112.
Taylour 1964, fig. 74. Wilke 1913, fíg. 11(1).
16 Barnett 1958, fig. S. Bossert 1951, fig. 750. Branigan 1970, pp. 86, 179 fol. Casson
1959, p. 14. Casson 1964, p. 21 fol. Drover, Bottéro 1968, pp. 31-33. Koster 1923,
fig. 15, 19, 24, p. 57. Landstrom 1962, p. 24, fig. 40, 46, 53, 62. Marinatos 1933,
Table XIV-XVI. Prítchard 1954, fíg. 111,141. Wasowícz 1966, p. 156.
17 Casson 1964, fig. 25. Frobeníus 1933, Table 40, a, b. Koster 1923, pp. 65, 74, fig. 18.
Landstrom 1962, p. 31, fig. 40, 46, 53, 62. Lachler, Wírz 1962, fíg. 28, 31. l'Hel­gouach
1965, fig. 33: 3. Marínatos 1933, pp. 174, 194-195, 219. fig. 2, Table XIV:
23, XVI: 54, 58. Mate and others 1968, fig. 38 b. Pendlebury 1939, p. 171. Prítchard
1954, fig. 110. Taylour 1964, fíg. 74, p. 163. Wasowicz 1966, pp. 157-158. Wolfel
1955, fíg. 1: a-d, f-h.
18 Adamus 1970, p. 219. Koster 1923, p. 186. Nations ... 1956, p. 591. Semenov 1968,
p. 275.
19 Althín 1945, fíg. 20, 85: 1-8. Gíot 1960, fig. 10, í. Landstrom 1962, p. 31 fol.
Lachler, Wírz 1962, fig. 31. Marínatos 1933, p. 189. Wasowícz 1966, p. 158. Wolfel
1955, fig. 1 f.
20 Barnett 1958, fig. 15, Table XXI: b. Casson 1959, fíg. 2. Casson 1964, fig. 26, p. 25-
A Hístoríy ... 1956, fíg. 533, 535. Koster 1923, fíg. 15, pp. 170-171. Landstrom
1962, p. 27. Lachler, Wirz 1962, fíg. 4, 28, 31. Marínatos 1933, p. 209 fol., Table
XV, XVI. Mate and others 1968, fig. 38, b. Montet 1960, pp. 238-240. Prítchard
1954, fig. 110, 111. Semenov 1968, pp. 269-270. Wasowicz 1966, p. 156.
21 Casson 1964, fíg. 26. Heyerdahl 1955, pp. 125-126. Lachler, Wírz 1962, fig. 203,
212. Maríantos 1933, pp. 200, 234, fíg. 2, 15, Table XIII-XVI. Mate and others
1968, fig. 38, b. Prítchard 1954, fig. 42, 110. Vergil 1970, p. 131.
22 Casson 1959, Table 2 a. Frost 1963, pp. 29-61, fig. 2-6, 8. Glotz 1923, fíg. 31.
161

Homer 1953, pp. 124, 226. Marinatos 1933, p. 211. Nikolaou, Catling 1968, Table
XXXIV.
23 Johnstone 1964, p. 43, Table XLIX: b. Koster 1923, fig. 9. Marinatos 1933, Table
XV: 26. Renfrew 1967, Table 3: 12. Torr 1964, p. 103. Wolfel 1955, p. 185.
24 Barnett 1958, fig. 3, 5, p. 225. Torr 1964, p. 64 fol. Wolfel 1953, fig. l.
25 Eliade 1966, p. 145. Hoernes 1925, p. 158, fig. 4. Kramer 1963, fig. 8, after p. 160.
Kühn 1966, p. 144. Nicholson 1967, p. 79. Schaeffer 1952, fig. 106: 2. Turchi 1954,
Vol. 1, p. 252. Vaillant 1965, p. 226, passim. Wilke 1913, fig. 127 c.
26 Barnett 1958, fig. 3, p. 222-224. Casson 1959, pp. 14-15. Casson 1964, fig. 26,
pp. 25, 27. Glotz 1923, fig. 32. Koster 1923, p. 156. Marinatos 1933, pp. 192-193.
Resch 1969, Table 72. Torr 1964, pp. 23-25, 47-48. Wilke 1913, fig. 111.
27 Barnett 1958, fig. 1, 5, Table XXI, b. Casson 1964, fig. 26. A History ... fig. 533.
Homer 1953, p. 29. Koster 1923, p. 167 fol. Lachler, Wirz 1962, fig. 4. Marinatos
1933, fig. 2, Table XV, XVI. Mate and others 1968, fig. 38, b. Pritchard 1954,
fig. 110,111. Torr 1964, p. 78 fol. Woolner 1957, fig. 2: 15.
28 Koster 1923, p. 179 fol. Kroll 1923, p. 409 fol. Urbanczyk 1970, p. 30 fol. "Zycie
Warszawy" No 166, 1970, p. l.
29 Casson 1964, p. 25. Koster 1923, p. 161.
30 The problem of ships from the megalithic period is also discussed in sorne other
articles of the same author. (Cf. Krzak 1971, p. 605 fol. Krzak 1972, in press).
162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMUS, M. 1970, Tajemnice sag i run (The Mystery of Sagas and Runes),
Wrodaw.
ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1967, Od epoki kamiennej do chrzescijanstwa (From the
Stone Age to Christianity), Warszawa.
ALIMEN, A. 1960, Doistoriceskaya Afrika, Moscow.
ALTHIN, C. A. 1945, Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Felszeichnungen von
SUne, Lund.
BARNETT, R. D. 1958, Early Shipping in the Near East. "Antiquity",
Vol. XXXII, No. 128, pp. 220-230.
BASS, G. F. 1961, The Cape Gelidonya Wreck: Preliminary Report,
"American Journal of Archaeology", Vol. 65, No. 3. pp. 267-276.
BOSCH-GIMPERA, P. 1960, Amerika: Die neolithische und prakolum-bische
Zeit, in: Der Mensch der Urzeit, Koln, pp. 325-342.
BOSSERT, H. Th. 1951, Altsyrien, Tübingen.
BRANIGAN, K. 1970, The Foundations of Palatial Crete, London.
BRATKOWSKI, S. 1969, Kto wlasciwie odkryt Ameryke? (Who was the real
Discoverer of America? ), "Kultura", No. 37, pp. 4-5; No. 38,
pp. 4-5; No. 39, pp. 9-10.
CASSON, L. 1959, The Ancient Mariners, London. - 1964, Illustrated
History of Ships and Boats, New York.
CHILDE, V. G. 1949, Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, London.
- 1950, The Dawn of European Civilization, London.
DANIEL, G. 1958, The Megalith Builders ofWestern Europe, New York.
DECHELETTE, J. 1924, Manuel d'Archéologie Préhistorique Celtique et
Gallo-Romaine, Paris, Vol. l.
DROWER, M. S., BOTTERO J. 1968, Syria befare 2200 B. C., Cambridge.
ELIADE, M. 1966, Traktat o historii religii (Treatise on the History of Re-ligion),
W arszawa.
Encyclopedia ofWorld Art, London 1961., Vol. IV.
FROBENIUS, L. 1933, Kulturgeschichte Afrikas, Leipzig.
FROST, H. 1963, Under the Mediterranean, London.
GIOT, R. P. 1960, Brittany, Lodon.
GLOTZ, G. 1925, La civilisation égéenne, Paris.
HA WKES, J., WOOLLEY L. 1963, Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civiliza­tion,
London.
HEINE-GELDERN, R. 1955, Das Problem vorkolumbischer Beziehungen
163

zwischen Alter und Neuer Welt und seine Bedeutung für die allgemeine
Kulturgeschichte; reprint from ,,Anzeiger d. phil. hist. Klasse der
Osterr. Akad. der Wissenschaften", An. 1954. No. 24, pp. 343-357.
l'HELGOUACH, 1965, Les sépultures mégalithiques en Armorique, Rennes.
HEYERDAHL, T. 1955, Wyprawa Kon-Tiki (The Kon-Tiki Expedition),
Warszawa.
The History of Technology, Vol. I, Oxford 19 56.
HOERNES, M. 1925, Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst in Europa van den
Anfangen bis um 500 vor Christi, Wien.
HOLMBERG, A. 1848, Skandinaviens Hallristninger, Arkeologisk Afhand-ling
of, Stockholm.
HOMER, 1953, Odyseja (The Odyssey), Warszawa.
HUTCHINSON, R. W. 1962, Prehistoric Crete, London.
JAMES, O. E. 1970, Starozytni bogowie (The Gods of Antiquity),
Warszawa.
JOHNSTONE, P. 1964, The Bantry Boat, "Antiquity", Vol. XXXVIII,
No. 152, pp. 277-284.
KIDDER, J. E. 1959, Japan befare Buddhism, London. - 1964, Early
Japanese Art. The Great Tombs and Treasures, London.
KOSTER, A. 1923, Das Antike Seewesen, Berlín. - 1924, Schifahrt und
Handelsverkehr des ostlichen Mittelmeeres im 3. und 2. J ahrtausend v.
Chr., Leipzig.
KRAMER, N. S. 1963, The Sumerians. Their History and Character, Chicago.
KROLL, W. 1923, Schiffahrt, in: Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, Vol. 2, pp. 407-419.
KRZAK, Z. 1971, Najwczesniejsze statki wschodnio atlantyckie i zachod­niosródziemnomorskie.
Ze studiów nad rekonstrukcj<t (The Earliest
East-Atlantic and West-Mediterranean Ships. Studies relating to their
Reconstruction). "Kwartalnik HKM", An. XIX, No. 4. pp. 605-625. -
1972, Zagadnienie statku afro-iberyjskiego z mtodszej epoki kamiennej
(The Problem of an Afro-Iberian Ship of the Later Stone Age), "Ma­terialy
Zachodniopomorskie", being printed.
KÜHN, H. 1963, 1966, Vorgeschichte der Menschheit, Koln, Vol. 2, 3.
LACHLER, P. u. WIRZ, H. 1962, Die Schiffe der Volker, Olten und Frei­burg
im Breisgau.
LANDSTROM, B. 1962, The Ship, London.
MARINATOS, S. 1933, La marine créto-mycénienne, "Bulletin de Cor­respondance
Hellénique, An. 57, pp. 170-235.
164
© Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017
MATE,M. E. AFANASEVA W. K., DYAKONOV I. M., LUKONIN W. G.
1968, Iskusstwo drevnego Vostoka, Moskwa.
MONTET, P. 1960, Das prahistorische Agypten, in: Der Mensch der Urzeit,
Düsseldorf, pp. 218-251.
Narody Avstralii i Okeanii (Nations of Australia and Oceanía), Moskwa
1956.
NICHOLSON, l. 1967, Mexikanische Mythologie, Wiesbaden.
NIKOLAOU, K., Catling H. W. 1968, Composite Anchors in the Late Bronze
Age Cyprus, "Antiquity", Vol. XLII, No. 167, pp. 225-229.
' O'RIORDAIN, P. S., DANIEL G. 1964, New Grange and the Bend of the
Boyne, London.
PARROT, A. 1968, Biblia i Starozytny Swiat (The Bible and the Ancient
World), Warszawa.
PENDLEBURY, S. D. J. 1939, The Archaeology of Crete, London.
Pismo Swi􀁜􅱴te Starego i Nowego Testamentu (Holy Scripture, Old and New
Testament), PoznaÍl 1965.
PRITCHARD, J. B. 1954, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, Princeton.
RAFTER Y, J. 1951, Prehistoric Ireland, London.
Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, Vol. XI, Berlín 1927/1928.
RENFREW, C. 1967, Cyladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age,
"American Journal of Archaeology", Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
RESCH, W. F. E. 1969, Die Felsbilder Nubiens, Graz.
SAVORY, H. N. 1968, Spain and Portugal, London.
SCHAEFFER, F. A. C. 1952, Encomi - Alasia, París.
SEMENOV, S. A. 1968, Razvitie techniki v kamennom veke (Technical
Development in the Stone Age) Leningrad.
STILLER, R. (interpreter) Gilgamesz (year and place of edition unknown).
TAYLOUR, W. 1964, The Mycenaeans, London.
TORR, C. 1964, Ancient Ships, Chicago.
TURCHI, N. 1954, Storia delle religioni, Firenze, 3 volumes.
URBANCZYK, A. 1970, Jak zaton􀁝􅵬l'a tratwa "Ra"? (The Sinking of the
Raft "Ra"), "Poznaj Swiat", No. 6, p. 30.
VAILLANT, G. C. 1965, Aztekowie z Meksyku (The Aztecs of Mexico),
Warszawa.
WASOWICZ, A. 1966, Obróbka drewna w starozytnej Grecji (Wood Proces­sing
in Ancient Greece), Wrodaw.
VERGILIUS, 1970, Eneida (Aeneis), Warszawa.
WIERCINSKI, A. 1969, Ricerca Anthropologica sugli Olmechi, "Terra
165

Ameriga", Vol. 18-19, reprint. - 1971, Racial Affinities of sorne
Ancient Populations in Mexico, in: Anthropological Congress dedicated
to A. Hrdlicka, Prague, pp. 485-499.
WILKE, C. 1912, Südwesteuropaische Megalithkultur und ihre Bewegung
zum Orient, Würzburg. - 1913, Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Orient,
Indien und Europa, Würzburg.
WÓLFEL, D. J. 1955, Eine Felsgravierung eines neolithisch-bronzezeitlichen
Schifstypus und anderes aus der Archaologie der Kanarischen lnseln,
,,Afrikanische Studien", No. 26, pp. 183-197.
WOOLNER, D. 1957, Graffiti of Ships at Tarxien, Malta. "Antiquity",
No. 122, pp. 60-67.
WRIGHT, E. V., CHURCHILL D. M. 1965, The Boats from North Ferriby,
Y orkshire, England, with a Review of the Origins of the Sewn Boats of
the Bronze Age, "Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society", Vol. XXXI,
pp. 1-24.
ZERVOS, Ch. 1954, La civilisation de la Sardaigne du début de l'eneolithi­que
a la fin de la période nouragique, ne millenaire, Ve siecle avant
notre ere, Paris. - 1956, L'art de la Créte neolithique et minonne, Paris.
166
Translated from Polish by Maria Starawieyska
Fig. l. Diffusion of megaliths in the Mediterranean basin and in Europe (After H. Kühn.)
© Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017
Fig. 2. Model of sailing ship from Eridu, southern Irak, 4th millen. B. C. (After B. Brent­jes.)
Fig. 3. Image of sailing ship on Egyptian vase, about 3500 B. C. (After R. D. Barnett.)

Fig. 4. Carved handle of knife from Djebel-el-Arak, presenting battle on sea. Egypt, the
decline of 4th. millenary B. C. (After O. E. James.)
J 1

Fig. 5. Painting representing sailing ship from the tomb of Kayemankh in Gizeh, Egypt
2500 B. C. (After M. E. Mate.)
© Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017
Fig. 6. Clay model of ship from Byblos, Liban, towards the end of 3rd millen. B. C.
(After T. H. Bossert.)
Fig. 7. lmage of ship on Cretan seal; first half of 2nd millenary B. C. (After L. Casson.)
© Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017
Fig. 8. Reconstruction of ship on Mycenaean vase from Iolkos, Greece; turn of 3rd-2nd
millenary B. C. (After W. Taylour.)
Fig. 9. Reconstruction of ship on clay seal from Knossos, Crete, about 1500 B. C. (After
P. Lachler and H. Wirz.)


14
Fig. 10. Images of shi:ps on the wall of the temple Hal Tarxien, Malta. Turn of 3rd-2nd
millen. B. C. (After D. Woolner.)

Fig. 11. lmage of a ship engraved on the wall of a tomb, in Anghelu Ruju, Sardinia, 3rd
millen. B. C. (After G. Wilke.)
© Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017
4

5 6 Jt:7
8
Fig. 12. lmages of ships (1-4) and boats (5-8) on south European megaliths. 9, 10
presumed ship from New Grange, Ireland, Neolithic Age. (After C. A. Althin.)
Fig. 13. Ships or boats on Neolithic dolmen from Heerestrup, Seeland, Denmark. (After
G. Wilke.)

Fig. 14. Ship of the dead, Malayan península. Contemporary period. (After L. Frobe­nius.)
Fig. 15. Reconstruction of sailing ship of the megalithic period. Drawn by J. Lupina.