Monday, February 8, 2016

10 facts about Stonehenge

History Extra

 Built in several stages, Stonehenge began about 5,000 years ago as a simple earthwork enclosure where prehistoric people buried their cremated dead. The stone circle was erected in the centre of the monument in the late Neolithic period, around 2500 BC
• Two types of stone are used at Stonehenge: the larger sarsens, and the smaller bluestones. There are 83 stones in total
• There were originally only two entrances to the enclosure, English Heritage explains – a wide one to the north east, and a smaller one on the southern side. Today there are many more gaps – this is mainly the result of later tracks that once crossed the monument
• A circle of 56 pits, known as the Aubrey Holes (named after John Aubrey, who identified them in 1666), sits inside the enclosure. Its purpose remains unknown, but some believe the pits once held stones or posts
• The stone settings at Stonehenge were built at a time of “great change in prehistory,” says English Heritage, “just as new styles of ‘Beaker’ pottery and the knowledge of metalworking, together with a transition to the burial of individuals with grave goods, were arriving from Europe. From about 2400 BC, well furnished Beaker graves such as that of the Amesbury Arche are found nearby”
• Roman pottery, stone, metal items and coins have been found during various excavations at Stonehenge. An English Heritage report in 2010 said that considerably fewer medieval artefacts have been discovered, which suggests the site was used more sporadically during the period
• Stonehenge has a long relationship with astronomers, the report explains. In 1720, Dr Halley used magnetic deviation and the position of the rising sun to estimate the age of Stonehenge. He concluded the date was 460 BC. And, in 1771, John Smith mused that the estimated total of 30 sarsen stones multiplied by 12 astrological signs equalled 360 days of the year, while the inner circle represented the lunar month
• The first mention of Stonehenge – or ‘Stanenges’ – appears in the archaeological study of Henry of Huntingdon in about AD 1130, and that of Geoffrey of Monmouth six years later. In 1200 and 1250 it appeared as ‘Stanhenge’ and ‘Stonhenge’; as ‘Stonheng’ in 1297, and ‘the stone hengles’ in 1470. It became known as ‘Stonehenge’ in 1610, says English Heritage
• In the 1880s, after carrying out some of the first scientifically recorded excavations at the site, Charles Darwin concluded that earthworms were largely to blame for the Stonehenge stones sinking through the soil
• By the beginning of the 20th century there had been more than 10 recorded excavations, and the site was considered to be in a “sorry state”, says English Heritage – several sarsens were leaning. Consequently the Society of Antiquaries lobbied the site’s owner, Sir Edmond Antrobus, and offered to assist with conservation
To read more about Stonehenge, click here.

History Trivia - Mary, Queen of Scots, executed

February 8

1587 After twenty years of captivity in England, Mary, Queen of Scots was executed at Fotheringay Castle, Northamptonshire, on suspicion of having been involved in the Babington Plot to murder her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

7 surprising Ancient Rome facts

History Extra

The Intervention of the Sabine Women, painting by the French painter Jacques-Louis David, 1799. Musee Du Louvre, Paris, France. (Photo by via Getty Images)


1) The Roman’s couldn’t decide on their origins

The legend of Romulus and Remus tells the story of twin brothers raised by wolves who become the founding fathers of Rome.

The boys’ mother, Rhea Silvia, had been forced into becoming a Vestal Virgin (priestesses who attended to the sacred fire of Vesta) by the usurper Amulius. Rhea Silvia then had a miraculous conception, either by the god Mars or by Hercules (there are variations on the myth). When Amulius heard of this, he ordered the infant twins to be taken to the river Tiber where they were left to die.

In the event they were saved and nourished by a she-wolf and later taken in by a shepherd and his family until they grew to manhood, unaware of their origins. Eventually they heard the story of the treachery of Amulius, after which they confronted and killed the tyrant. Then, because Romulus wanted to found their new city on the Palatine Hill and Remus preferred the Aventine Hill, they agreed to see a soothsayer. However, each brother interpreted the results in his own favour. This led to a fight in which Romulus killed Remus, and that founded the new city of Rome in 753 BC.

What’s stranger still is that there was a later ‘founding of Rome’ story. Written around the 8th century BC, Homer’s Iliad recalls the story of the Trojan War but Rome's origins are linked to the second telling of this same story by another giant of ancient writing, Virgil, in his book The Aeneid. As well as enhancing Homer’s earlier story, The Aeneid also postdates the tale of Romulus and Remus. This is important because, according to Virgil, Troy’s population wasn’t completely destroyed. Instead, a prince called Aeneas escaped with a small group of Trojans and sailed the Mediterranean until he found an area he liked the look of. So this ancient and noble civilisation transplanted itself in Italy and founded Rome.

Both tales are revealing. The first shows us that the Romans were explaining where their predatory and argumentative attitudes came from: they are all the children of wolves. The second story was created at the time of emperors, so there is a demand for respectability and heritage. The Trojan War was as famous then as now, so why not connect this new empire to a very old and familiar tale?

A stone plate of Rome's founders, Romulus and Remus, suckled by a female wolf, seen at the National Historical Museum, Sofia, Bulgaria, in April 2011. (Photo by Nikolay Doychinov/AFP/Getty Images)

2) Rome was a bad neighbour

By the 5th century BC, Rome was one of many tiny states on the Italian peninsula. If you were a gambler in 480 BC you would probably have put your money on an eventual Etruscan empire. The Etruscsns were after all the biggest power on the Italian peninsula at that time. Over the centuries the realm had grown substantially, and while Rome’s central and southern towns had thrown off Etruscan dominance, it was still the largest power in an area populated by numerous other Italic peoples, many of their names barely remembered by history.

It's a forgotten fact that the Romans had to conquer the rest of Italy, and one of the first tribes to fall was the Sabines. According to a famous legend, oft repeated in ancient texts (and a popular subject with Renaissance artists), the Romans abducted the Sabine women for breeding purposes, in order to increase the population of Rome. Whether this was true or not is impossible to say, but the Romans were consistently avid slavers, and what is uncontested is that by the dawn of the 4th century BC the Sabine kingdom had been absorbed into Roman lands.
Romans and Italians were never the same thing. It’s just that the Roman city state was more aggressive, with a better army, or luckier than the other kingdoms of Italy.  It wouldn’t have taken much to snuff out Rome at this time, in which case this article you are reading could have been about the empire of the Frentani, yet another Italic people then located on the east coast of the peninsula.

Although geographically close to each other, these realms were so diverse that they didn’t even speak the same language. Etruscan is still, frustratingly, one of the languages that has yet to be satisfactorily translated. The Sabines, similarly, were not Latin speakers. The Hellenic colonies in the toe of Italy spoke Greek. To these people the Romans were not fellow countrymen carrying out a hostile takeover that was always inevitable and perhaps a tiny bit yearned for. Instead, this was an invasion by a foreign nation of terrifying men who spoke an alien tongue.

3) The first sacking of Rome nearly finished the city

The traditional date for the first sacking of Rome is 390 BC, but modern historians agree that a date of 387 BC is more likely. When a tribe of Gauls, called the Senones, came over the Alps into Italy in search of lands to settle, the first people they met were the Etruscans. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t want to cede any of their lands to these foreigners, so they asked for military assistance from the rising military power of Rome.

Rome gathered together a large army and sent it north to help its neighbour fight this alien threat. Meanwhile, the diplomacy wasn’t going well. Even in this ancient era there was a general rule that ambassadors and messengers were to be left unharmed, but one of the Roman diplomats killed one of the Gaulish chieftains. The Gauls (not unreasonably) demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice, and some in Rome agreed. However, the Roman masses did not, and this provocation led to the meeting of both sides at the Allia River, both ready for battle.

The Romans had amassed a mighty army; the Senones had an army of about half the size. However, as battle ensued, the Gauls shattered the two flanks of the Roman army and surrounded the elite central force. Now outmanoeuvred and tired from fighting, this Roman army was completely annihilated. The road to Rome was open to the Gauls, who were led by the terrifying figure of Brennus.

What happened next is described in a series of fables and legends, none of which dispute that the Gauls fell on Rome and destroyed much of it. Indeed, they did such a good job that contemporary histories of Rome prior to and during this period are sketchy because of the scale of destruction.

Why the Gauls didn’t settle in the conquered city is unknown. One Roman source claims they were chased away by another Roman army, but this was most likely an explanation created to give the Romans something of a face-saving ending to an otherwise total defeat. What is more probable is that like many northern armies that had tried to settle around Rome, the Gauls found the climate distinctly unhealthy, and it’s probable that disease spread through Brennus’ men. Either way, the Gauls retreated into the mists of legend and hearsay.

Rome was so completely destroyed that there was serious debate about re-founding the capital in the nearby (and completely forgotten town) of Veii. Instead, the Senate decided to stay and authorised the building of the first major stone walls to defend the city.

Battle between Romans and Gauls. (Photo by Leemage/UIG via Getty Images)

4) The battle of Adrianople was the beginning of the end

By the 4th century AD, Germanic invasions were starting to become a serious problem for the Roman empire. It was during this period that a number of new groups began to appear in the Roman hinterlands. Some of these people were known as the Goths.

Initially the Goths agreed to join the empire, settle as farmers and, in essence, merge with the local population. But the Goths were hardly welcomed with open arms, and heavy-handedness by local Roman governors led to Goth resentments and uprisings. Exactly who was to blame for the resulting conflict is hard to say.

The Gothic War lasted from AD 376 to 382. This new wave of barbarians was running amok, and there were frequent clashes with the forces of the western Roman emperor Gratian. However, it was the eastern Roman emperor Valens who went personally to deal with them.

The two sides met near Adrianople (modern day Edirne in Turkey). The Roman writer Ammianus Marcellinus claims that Valens had around 25,000 men against a horde of 80,000 (as is often the case with ancient texts, these numbers are probably exaggerated).

The Romans had marched for seven or eight hours over rough terrain; they were tired and out of formation when they arrived in front of the Gothic army. The 4thcentury legions were, by now, clad in mail armour and had large round shields, all of which were an added burden under the hot August sun. Some of the Roman army attacked without orders and were easily pushed back. The Roman soldier’s rash actions meant he had no option but to engage in battle.

The Gothic force’s centre was a defensive circle of wagons, which the Romans failed to penetrate. However, while the Romans were busy attacking this defensive position, the Goth cavalry crept in from the sides and outflanked Valens’ forces. The heavily armoured Romans were not as nimble or agile as the Goths, and while they managed to break out from the enveloping moves by the Goth cavalry, they were now fighting in small groups and not as a unified army. In the ensuing chaos most of the Roman troops were slaughtered, including the emperor, Valens.

Valens’ successor, Theodosius, was forced to turn the Goths from enemies into allies, but at the cost of land. This was a turning point from which the Roman empire never recovered.

5) The capital of the late Roman empire wasn’t Rome

The Roman empire got its name from its founding city. Therefore, when Rome finally fell forever from the power of the emperors, the change in circumstances must mark the end of the Roman empire, right?

However, while it is often recognised that in the late Roman era Constantinople was the more important city, what almost nobody realises is that by the early 5th century AD, the western Roman emperors had moved the capital from the ancient and illustrious city of Rome.

By AD 402 the terrible emperor Honorius felt that Rome was no longer defensible and decided to move the capital to Ravenna. This was a large town with a population of around 50,000, and had been part of the empire since the 2nd century BC. Despite receiving regular investment funds (emperor Trajan built a massive aqueduct), it was never one of the most important urban areas of the empire and had been in decline in recent times. However, Ravenna had a large and easily defendable port and became the base for Rome’s naval fleet in the Adriatic Sea. As it was also surrounded by marshland, it was regarded as a place of safety, with guaranteed connections to the stronger eastern empire.

The move to Ravenna was an admission by Honorius that Rome could no longer hold back the barbarian invasions. It remained the capital of the empire until its eventual fall in AD 476. It was recaptured by the eastern Roman empire in AD 584 and was part of those lands until 751.

6) The last western emperor shared a name with the founder of Rome

Romulus Augustus, better known as Romulus Augustulus, ‘little Augustus’, was a boy who ‘ruled’ for about 10 months from AD 475–476.  He was little more than a figurehead for his father Orestes, a Roman aristocrat (of Germanic ancestry), who had manoeuvred his way into a position of power in the court in Ravenna.

By now the title of western Roman emperor was virtually meaningless. The only remaining areas of the empire were the Italian peninsula, along with some fragmentary lands in Gaul, Spain and Croatia. Barbarian groups had already sacked Rome twice, and any real power was held by these tribes and not by the Roman court in Ravenna.

Little is known about the teenage Romulus Augustulus. Coins were minted with his face, but he led no armies and no monuments were built for him. He was an irrelevance.
The Germanic leader Odoacer knew this and, in AD 476, marched on Ravenna. Odoacer had been leading the foederati, the barbarian contingents that by now made up almost the entire ‘Roman’ army. He had all the real power and he knew it.

On arriving in Ravenna and finding no resistance, Odoacer met face-to-face with the so-called emperor, Romulus Augustus. However, the chronicles then say that Odoacer, “taking pity on his youth”, spared Romulus' life. Odoacer carried out no bloody coup, nor did he take the imperial title, because he knew that it had ceased to have any significance. Instead, he recast himself as the first king of Italy, after which he granted Romulus an annual pension and sent him to live with relatives in southern Italy.

Odoacer then got on with reshaping Italy, not in the mould of the old empire, but in the form of a new kingdom. The transformation was long overdue, and as a result, Odoacer was able to bring more stability to the time of his reign than the previous emperors had managed during the past 80 years.

The last western Roman emperor did not go down in a battle, nor did he commit suicide. He was deposed and sent home like a naughty schoolboy. This was final humiliation for a title that, from Scotland to Iraq, had once put fear in men’s hearts.

c475 AD, last Roman emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus. (Photo by Spencer Arnold/Getty Images)

7) When the Roman empire ended is up for debate

What determines the final demise of the empire is notoriously difficult. The easiest date to use is the fall of Rome… but which one? 410 doesn’t mark the end of the list of western Roman emperors, nor does 455. The other problem is that while Rome was the cradle of the empire, by the 5th century it was neither the most important city (Constantinople), nor the capital of the Western Roman Empire (Ravenna).

The second date that could be used is 476, when Romulus Augutulus was deposed. Again, this doesn’t work because the eastern Roman emperor was still the most powerful person in the world (except for the emperor of China). His empire might have become known as the Byzantine empire, and its inhabitants might have begun speaking Greek, but they considered themselves to be as Roman as Julius Caesar – right up until the bitter end – an ending that happened twice.

The Byzantine empire was the victim of the Fourth Crusade and was conquered in 1204. This was the end of the empire then, surely?

However, just a couple of generations later, it threw off its western overlords, and the emperors returned. These were to last until the Ottoman conquest of 1453 (where the last eastern Roman emperor, unlike the last western one, did go down in a blaze of glory on the city’s battlements).

So does 1453 count as the end of the empire? This is an even harder date to use because the 15th-century world was very different to that of the Roman empire at its peak. Worse still, since Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Romans in 800, there had been a number of Germanic rulers who would, by the Middle Ages, claim to be ‘holy Roman emperors’. They were no such thing, but the title was still in play.

And yet, still later dates could be used: when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, two very different dynasties took up the title of Roman emperor and Caesar. Firstly the Ottoman sultan took the title because he had just conquered the old eastern capital. Secondly, as Constantinople had been the capital of Orthodox Christianity, the Russian rulers, as defenders of the Orthodox faith, took the title Caesar (‘tsar’ in Russian).

None of these dates are satisfactory, so the last fact is really a question. Which date would you choose?
Jem Duducu is the author of The Romans in 100 Facts (Amberley Publishing, 2015). You can follow Jem on Twitter and Facebook @HistoryGems.

History Trivia - Prince Edward of England made Prince of Wales

February 7

1301 Edward, eldest son of Edward I was made the first English Prince of Wales, a tradition continued to this day.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

How jousting made a man of Henry VIII

History Extra

An illustration on the Westminster Tournament Roll of 1511 depicts a joust organised by Henry VIII in honour of Catherine of Aragon. © AKG Images

“The king hath promised never to joust again except it be with as good a man as himself.” So stated an angry Henry VIII on 20 May 1516, following a tournament held in honour of his sister Margaret, Queen of Scots. Jousting was the king’s favourite sport, but the day had proved disastrous. As always, Henry was captain of the Challengers, the team comprising the jousting elite of the Tudor court: Sir Nicholas Carew; Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex; and Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.
The opposing team, the Answerers, consisted of a dozen other jousting enthusiasts from court. They waited in the lists (the barriers that defined the edge of the tournament ground) to answer the challenges given by Henry and his three dashing knights.
Henry was a highly skilled jouster. But what should have been a well-fought and exciting series of duels turned into a succession of bad runs and complete misses, making for a disappointing display. The king, the ultimate showman, was not impressed by the performances of certain knights in the Answerers. Henry blamed them for limiting his final score, arguing that they had failed to keep their horses close enough to the barrier for him to make contact and score points.
The king made it clear that, from then on, it was essential he should compete only against skilled jousters. That way, if he won, the victory would confirm that he was the best jouster – and, by extension, the best man – at court. But Henry hated winning too easily. Each challenge was to be a hard-won battle. It was vital to his manly reputation that competitors did not let him triumph simply because he was king.
To Henry VIII, the joust was more than just a sport – it was a vital part of his kingship. And he modelled this kingship on a particular version of chivalrous masculinity inspired by the archetypal medieval knight bedecked in shining armour, charging down the tiltyard with lance ready to strike his opponent.
For Henry, knighthood was not just an ideal but an active ideology; to his mind, it was essential that 16th-century men still demonstrated such proficiency in arms. He longed to showcase this prowess in battle, to be acknowledged as a warrior king, like Henry V, and started making plans to go to war with France after his accession to the throne in 1509. But his ambition to have his own Agincourt was not to be realised. So, for most of his reign, the tournament was not just a training ground for warfare but also the means by which Henry and his nobles could showcase their warrior skills and chivalrous accomplishments.
Despite improvements, jousting remained a dangerous sport, which is why kings usually refrained from participating. Yet for Henry and men such as Charles Brandon it provided the perfect platform for shows of prowess – and manliness – in front of a great audience.

Charles Brandon’s jousting skills helped propel him up the social ladder. © Bridgeman

Keeping score

For all their testosterone-fuelled swagger, the jousters’ conduct was governed by a concise and coherent set of rules that informed a sophisticated scoring system. A ‘king of arms’ marked each contestant’s score in strokes on a scoring tablet known as a cheque. The scoreboard sported three horizontal lines showing the number of courses run. Attaints (hits) were noted on the top line, often differentiated as blows to the body or head. The middle line tallied the number of lances broken, and the bottom line recorded faults.
When Henry VIII was searching for a man “as good as himself”, he needed to look no further than Charles Brandon. The product of a modest gentry background, Brandon attained the highest social status, becoming Duke of Suffolk in 1514 and marrying Henry VIII’s sister Mary Tudor in 1515 – an almost unprecedented ascent up the social ladder.
When I studied the score cheques for Henry VIII’s reign in detail, the reason for Brandon’s meteoric rise soon became obvious: his brilliance as a jouster. Brandon was the perfect companion for Henry, whom he resembled in both looks and build, and regularly jousted alongside the king in a team of two Challengers against all the Answerers.

A tournament cheque from Henry VIII’s reign shows, in the left column, the points scored by the Challengers – the team comprising the king, the Duke of Suffolk (Charles Brandon), the Earl of Essex and Sir Nicholas Carew. Their opponents’ tallies are shown in the right-hand column. © College of Arms MS Tournament Cheque 1c. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms
In the 1516 tournament Brandon was on Henry’s side, so would not have competed against the king. The cheque reveals that, unlike Henry, Brandon was on top form, losing not a single duel and achieving the highest overall score of all four Challengers. On the second day of the tournament, Brandon broke 17 lances compared with Henry’s 12.
So Henry decided that Brandon would henceforth joust directly against him, leading the Answerers. In this way, at least one of Henry’s duels promised to be a valiant martial display. When the two were matched against each other, one observer compared their fight to that between Hector and Achilles.
This new arrangement created a win-win situation for the king. Not only would Brandon joust against all Henry’s Challengers and beat them, he would then do his duty to the crown and let the king beat him. In this way, Henry would effectively triumph – but it was Brandon who would do all the hard work.
The cheques help explain how a non-noble man not born for high office could achieve high status. Charles Brandon proved time and again to Henry that he was indeed a man “as good as himself”.

Pageantry with a punch

How the Tudor joust worked
Jousting dominated the cultural environment of court during the first half of Henry VIII’s reign. Like modern sports events, tournaments attracted competitors and spectators from afar.
The joust was fought between two knights riding from opposite ends of the lists to encounter each other with lances. The Challengers was a small team of knights who would challenge all competitors. The opposing team, known as the Answerers, comprised knights who answered the challenge.
The Challengers often displayed their shields on a tree known as the ‘Tree of Chivalry’ or ‘Tree of Honour’. Each Answerer would respond, indicating the knight against whom he wished to compete, by hitting the shield of his chosen Challenger.
By the reign of Henry VIII, the joust had become a more formalised competition. A number of rules were introduced, as well as score cheques; prizes were awarded by the queen, and her ladies might add a gold crown, a gold clasp, a diamond ring or even a falcon.
Cheques showed the scores of the competing knights. Points were awarded for unhorsing a knight, breaking two spears tip to tip, striking an opponent’s helmet and breaking the most spears.
Yet there was a lot more to the joust than fighting. By the time of Henry VIII’s reign, it had become a lavish spectacle, with knights entering the lists in fanciful disguises and pageant cars before performing heroic speeches.
Emma Levitt is a PhD student at the University of Huddersfield, working on court culture in the reigns of Edward IV and Henry VIII.

History Trivia - Riots of Lynn in Norfolk spread to Norwich England

February 6

 1189 Riots of Lynn in Norfolk spread to Norwich England.  The riots began in Lynn when the Jews attempted to attack a baptized coreligionist who had taken refuge in a church. The seafaring population rose against them, fired their houses, and put them to the sword.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Unique Discovery Made in Egyptian Necropolis

Ancient Origins

Czech archaeologists have unearthed an 18 meter (59.1 ft.) long boat near a tomb of an unknown member of the Old Kingdom’s elite class in Abusir (Abu-Sir), Egypt. The boat was found in a good state of preservation and there are hopes that the new discovery will help to increase Egyptologists’ understanding of the purpose of ships in funerary rites and shipbuilding techniques of the Old Kingdom.
The archaeologists are from the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, and have said that the boat is unique and in good condition - many of the boards and pegs have even been found in their original positions. The report on the iFORUM site of Charles University explains that:
“Extraordinarily, the desert sand has preserved the plant fiber battens which covered the planking seams. Some of the ropes that bound the boat together are also still in their original position with all their details intact, which is a unique discovery in the study of ancient Egyptian boats. All these minute details are of the highest importance, since most of the ancient Egyptian boats and ships have survived either in poor state of preservation, or were dismantled in pieces.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities told the press that the remains of the ship were found on top of stones, and its orientation, length, and the pottery collected from its interior have led the team to date the boat to the very end of the Third or beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, approximately 2550 BC.
Work at the Abusir Old Kingdom necropolis site, where Czech archaeologists discovered an ancient funerary boat. ( Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities )
At the moment, the archaeologists remain uncertain to whom the ship pertained, but they have made the assumption that it was a member of the elite class. They do not believe it was a part of the royal family however: “Although the name of the mastaba owner has not yet been identified due to the bad preservation condition of the shrine, the boat wreck shows that he was a very important man in the royal palace - a top official or a close person to the king but not a royal family,” Minister of Antiquities, Mamdouh Eldamaty, told Ahram Online .
Eldamaty also “described the discovery as “important” because it is the first time that such a boat has been found at Saqqara necropolis.” He added that “Most of the previously uncovered Old Kingdom boats are in a very bad preservation condition except those of King Khufu.”
The reconstructed Khufu ship. Giza, Egypt.
The reconstructed Khufu ship. Giza, Egypt. ( CC BY SA 3.0 )
The practice of burying boats near mastabas began in the Early Dynastic Period. However, as Czech Egyptology Institute head Miroslav Barta notes, the Abusir boat is a very special discovery because it was not found beside a royal tomb.
He told the press , “It is really a very unusual find since vessels of this size and structure were designated only for the most significant members of society then, which were those from the royal family.”
Although they are less popular than the Khufu ships, another example of important ancient Egyptian watercraft is the Abydos boats . These consist of 14 vessels that were discovered in 2000, which are believed to have been built around 3000 BC. The Abydos boats are the oldest of their kind found to date.
Some of the Abydos boats in their brick-built graves.
Some of the Abydos boats in their brick-built graves. (
The boat in Abusir was found in the south cemetery of mastaba AS 54. Czech archaeologists have been working at the Abusir site since 2009. They believe that the boat was probably used in ancient Egyptian funerary rituals. However, the purpose of the boats as funerary vessels remains a point of debate. The question is, how did they serve the dead in their afterlives – as a means of transport? Or, perhaps, they were associated with Ra’s voyage in his solar ship .
The Abusir necropolis
The Abusir necropolis. ( Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities )
Apart from the role of ships in funerary rituals, the team believes that the good preservation of the boat will be helpful in understanding more about shipbuilding practices in the Old Kingdom. Barta is also hopeful that the boat discovery will lead the way for more findings. “This suggests the potential for additional discoveries during the next spring season,” he said in the Charles University report

Charles University also reports that “During the 2016 season, the Czech Institute of Egyptology will launch a project, together with experts from the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) at Texas A&M University, to study the techniques used in the hull’s construction.”
Featured Image: The Abusir boat.  Source: Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities
By: Alicia McDermott