Dear Author

Here are the proofs of your article.

You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax. For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form. Always indicate the line number to which the correction refers. You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF. For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine black pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page. Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your response via e-mail or fax. Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown. Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/corrections. Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript. The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences. Please take particular care that all such details are correct. Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced forms that follow the journals style. Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof. If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder. Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes are, therefore, not possible. The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.

Please note After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have access to the complete article via the DOI using the URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-012-0091-6

If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage of our free alert service. For registration and further information, go to: http://www.springerlink.com. Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures will only be returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections, please inform us, if you would like to have these documents returned.

AUTHOR'S PROOF!

Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Article Title Article Sub- Title Article Copyright Year Journal Name

Mycenaean shipw right tool kit: its reconstruction and ev aluation Springer-Verlag 2012 (This w ill be the copyright line in the final PDF)
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

Family Name Particle Given Name Corresponding Author Suffix Organization Division Address e-mail Family Name Particle Given Name Suffix Author Organization Division Address e-mail Received Schedule Abstract Revised Accepted

Kav v ouras Panayiotis K. National Agricultural Research Foundation Wood Science and Technology Laboratory, Forest Research Institute Terma Alkmanos, Athens 115 28, Greece pkavv@fria.gr Maragoudaki Elena Ministry of Culture and Tourism LZ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Loutraki , Greece emaragoudaki@yahoo.com 10 October 2011 23 February 2012

The present study aims to answer questions of utility and ef f iciency , on the basis of archaeological ev idence, of the nominated My cenaean shipwright tool kit through experimental methods. The target set was established through the recording of archaeological data, examination of the av ailable f indings, classif ication of the f inds, gathering of the relev ant sources (literature, iconography , archeological parallels and preserv ed traces), reconstruction of the f indings (casting, elaboration of the metallic parts and reconstruction of the haf ts), usage of the reconstructed tools and the ev aluation of them qualitativ ely , quantitativ ely and ergonomically v ia

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
the reconstruction of a segment of the Uluburun shipwreck hull. Knowledge of tool production of the Late Bronze Age has been f urthered. Questions on the casting of the metal parts of tools and the elaboration of their dif f erent parts hav e been answered. The reconstructed tools appear suitable f or use in pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery in shipbuilding by skilled woodworkers. Moreov er, the reconstructed tools prov ed to be user f riendly . Experimental methods prov ed usef ul in the allocation of ef f icient criteria f or the use-based classif ication of tools. Functional dif f erences between the tools were shown, and questions on utility were answered. The Late Bronze Age shipwright, as master of his craf t and tool use, could make new tools or adjust them to the demands of a particular job, as well as to his own body build. The range of tools used f or shipbuilding in the Late Bronze period is comparable to those used today .

25 26

Keywords separated by ' - ' Foot note information

Late Bronze Age - Shipwright toolkit - Mortise-and-tenon shipbuilding

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Archaeol Anthropol Sci DOI 10.1007/s12520-012-0091-6

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

1 3 2

ORIGINAL PAPER

4 5
Q1 6

Mycenaean shipwright tool kit: its reconstruction and evaluation

Elena Maragoudaki & Panayiotis K. Kavvouras

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

7 8

Received: 10 October 2011 / Accepted: 23 February 2012 # Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract The present study aims to answer questions of utility and efficiency, on the basis of archaeological evidence, of the nominated Mycenaean shipwright tool kit through experimental methods. The target set was established through the recording of archaeological data, examination of the available findings, classification of the finds, gathering of the relevant sources (literature, iconography, archeological parallels and preserved traces), reconstruction of the findings (casting, elaboration of the metallic parts and reconstruction of the hafts), usage of the reconstructed tools and the evaluation of them qualitatively, quantitatively and ergonomically via the reconstruction of a segment of the Uluburun shipwreck hull. Knowledge of tool production of the Late Bronze Age has been furthered. Questions on the casting of the metal parts of tools and the elaboration of their different parts have been answered. The reconstructed tools appear suitable for use in pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery in shipbuilding by skilled woodworkers. Moreover, the reconstructed tools proved to be user friendly. Experimental methods proved useful in the allocation of efficient criteria for the use-based classification of tools. Functional differences between the tools were shown, and questions on utility were answered. The Late Bronze Age shipwright, as master of his craft and tool use, could make new tools or

EC

TE

Keywords Late Bronze Age . Shipwright toolkit . Mortiseand-tenon shipbuilding

PR

adjust them to the demands of a particular job, as well as to his own body build. The range of tools used for shipbuilding in the Late Bronze period is comparable to those used today.

34 35 36 37 38

Introduction The Late Bronze Age (LBA) shipwright appears to have had a good array of tools and an in-depth knowledge of woodworking techniques. The need to produce stiffer hulls, to allow sailing in rougher seas with increased loads, led to the transition from the laced ship construction to mortise-andtenon construction, which required the ability to solve more complex structural problems (Drring 1995; Mark 2005). The shipwrights had to invest considerable time in applying different types of joinery and new types of tools required for the work. The application of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery, the use of thicker planking wales and more internal stringers (McGrail 2004) resulted in the enlargement of the shipwright's tool kit. Odysseus could have built a simple boat with the tool kit provided by Calypso (Odyssey 5.234-57), i.e. an axe (tree felling, log splitting or trimming), an adze (shaping, smoothing and edge fitting hull planks) and drills (boring the holes for the fasteners) (Mark 2005; Casson 1964). In the case of a pegged mortise-and-tenon craft, this tool kit would not be adequate. The Mycenaean shipbuilder would additionally require chisels (mortise, paring and parting) for mortise cutting, thicker and longer drill bits for opening the holes for the location of the wooden pegs to lock the joints and more efficient saws for cutting along and across the grain.

39 Q3 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Q2

E. Maragoudaki LZ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Loutraki, Greece e-mail: emaragoudaki@yahoo.com P. K. Kavvouras (*) Wood Science and Technology Laboratory, Forest Research Institute, National Agricultural Research Foundation, Terma Alkmanos, 115 28 Athens, Greece e-mail: pkavv@fria.gr

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Materials and methods Tool reconstruction It was decided to reconstruct certain types of tool from each of the tool categories in the shipwright tool kit. The tools chosen to be reconstructed were determined by a combination of certain criteria and restraints (Maragoudaki 2010). In particular, the available archaeological evidence, the particular tool characteristics necessary for construction of the hull section and the available means and materials needed for the elaboration and the finishing of the tool blades were taken into consideration. Eight types of cutting, perforation and percussion woodworking tools were reconstructed and their characteristics are shown in Table 1. The change to the initial chisel dimensions is due to the constructional need for opening a mortise of 150 mm in depth (Pulak 2003). So therefore, a
Fig. 1 Building an Egyptian ship (Wild 1953, pls CXXVIII, CXXIX). Shipwright tools: a, b chipping adze, c saw, d batshaped mallet, e mortising chisel and f chopping adze

EC

TE

PR

Based on archaeological evidence (Fig. 1), the Mycenaean shipwright tool kit appears to consist of cutting (axe, adze, chisel and saw), perforation (drill and awl) and percussion tools (hammer and mallet) (Maragoudaki 2010). Naturally, questions arose of the utility and efficiency of the nominated shipwright tool kit and, thus, had to be answered through experimental methods. Tool reconstructions based on available archaeological evidence could offer an insight into the realities of the LBA shipwright, which otherwise would be unattainable. The target of the present work is the reconstruction and evaluation of the LBA shipwright tool kit by combining various sources of information and applying methods of experimental archeology. The target set was developed through the recording, examination and classification of the available archaeological data, gathering the sources, reconstructing the chosen tools and by evaluating their efficiency through the reconstruction of a fraction of the Uluburun shipwreck hull (Pulak 1999, 2002, 2003; Yalin et al. 2005).

length of 250 mm was necessary for the shaft. Chisels labelled as double (DBL) bevelled had one dominant bevelled side while the opposite side had only a slight inclination created during edge hammering. Saw tooth shaping and sharpening was carried out using files of different sizes and forms because the technique used during the LBA is not known. The bell-shaped mallet was reconstructed according to an Egyptian parallel (Killen 1980) due to the fact that no such wooden tool from the Mycenaean period has been preserved in archaeological records. The alloy used for the reconstruction of tool blades was in accordance with the results of chemical analysis of LBA tools from continental Greece (Mangou and Ioannou 1999). It was decided to follow the classical metallurgical recipe for a medium tin bronze alloy (Papadimitriou 2001). Chemically pure copper in the form of lump and tin in the form of bar, in percentages of 9091 % and 910 %, respectively, were used for the alloy (Maragoudaki 2010). The casting was made in a silicon carbide crucible due to its fire resistance (up to 1,830 C). First, the copper was melted, and then tin was added at the end of the procedure so as not to be vaporised due to its low melting point (232 C) in comparison to coppers (1,083 C) (Lowe Fri 2007). During the heating of the alloy, the moulds were prepared. After experimenting with moulds of different materials, it was decided to use two-piece moulds made of stone with a sand covering, or made only of sand or only of clay. The use of stone as a raw material for moulds was already known since the beginning of the Bronze Age and was regarded as a rather popular practice during the LBA period throughout Greece (Andreou and Kotsakis 1996; Evely 2000; Hakulin 2004; drymi-Sismani 2004). Schist and serpentinised peridotite were used for the stone moulds. Although the use of sand in mould construction has not been attested to the period due to the materials nature, it can indirectly be detected through the comparative study of metallographic analysis of the findings and through the application of previously reconstructed moulds (Ottaway

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Q4 t1:1
t1:2

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Table 1 Types and technical characteristics of reconstructed tools

Tool category Tool type Prototype origin Prototype Reconstructed Tool characteristics dimensions tool dimensions (L W Th; mm) (L W Th; mm) Blade/bit geometry 18017237 Parting chisel DBL bevelled Parting chisel DBL bevelled Paring chisel SGL bevelled Paring chisel SGL bevelled Mortising chisel SGLbevelled Mortising chisel SGL bevelled Mortising chisel SGL bevelled Mortising chisel SGL bevelled

Cutting Sharpening Hafting Tooth edge width (mm) angle () angle () set (mm) 23 30

t1:3

t1:4 t1:6 t1:8 t1:10 t1:12 t1:13 t1:15 t1:16 t1:17 t1:19 t1:20 t1:21 t1:23 t1:24 t1:26 t1:27 t1:28 t1:29 t1:31 t1:33 t1:35 t1:36

Cutting

Chisel

Perati (Iakovidis 1969, 236, 19216219 338, Fig. 114 left, Table 77a: M36) Perati (Iakovidis 1969, 444, 8177 338, Fig. 133 right, M 164) Acropolis Hoard, Athens (Spyropoulos 1972, 69, Fig. 129, Table 120d) Acropolis Hoard, Athens (Spyropoulos 1972, 69, Fig. 128, Table 20c). Tsountas Hoard, Mycenes, (Spyropoulos 1972, 45, Fig. 79, Table 15b) Tsountas Hoard, Mycenes, (Spyropoulos 1972, 45, Fig. 80, Table 15b) Palace of Nestor, (Blegen and Rawson 1966, 244, Fig. 300:11) Lefkandi, Euboea, (Evely 2006, 282, Fig. 5.9.6., pl. 88.1) Acropolis Hoard, Athens, (Spyropoulos 1972, 69, Fig. 128, Table 20c). Tsountas Hoard, Mycenes, (Spyropoulos 1972, 2223, Fig. 22, Table 9d) Androniani region, Euboea, (Paschalidis 2007, 434-435, pl. CVII a g) Prosymna, Argolis, (Blegen 1937, 346, Fig. 244:1) House of Tripods, Mycenes, (Onasoglou 1995, 49, Fig. 57, Table 13). Anthedon Hoard Boeotia, (Spyropoulos 1972, 61, pl. 17: ) Teichos Dymaion, Achaia, (Papadopoulos 1979, 226: 139, Fig. 306c) Lindos (Blinkerberg 1931, 67:27, pl. 3:27) Anthedon Hoard, Boeotia, (Spyropoulos 1972, 61, Table 17: ) Kalami Tholos, Chania, (Evely 1993, 78, pl. 19) 125314.5

t1:5 t1:7 t1:9 t1:11

2677 125314.5

7 31

30 20

18131426

18131426

42

15

1807137

1807137

13

17, 25

1428108

2408108

F
10

20

t1:14

13510188

22510188 22517308 24012159

18 30 15

25

15912159

PR

25

t1:18

Adze

18131426

18131426

42

12

55

16310418

16310418

TE

D
41

12 15 25 25

50

EC

Saw

55777901.8

55777901.8

Crosscut saw Rip saw Flush cutting saw

0.31 t1:22 0.00 t1:25

217391

217391

Axe

22237602.8

222376028

Double axe

R
20142 138418

201428

Trunnion,SGL bevelled

138418

Trunnion,DBL bevelled Trunnion,SGL bevelled Diamond shape bit SGL bevelled Diamond shape bit DBL bevelled Pyramidical Shape bit

25

15042 Unpublished

150428 190193.5

20 25 t1:30 33 t1:32 t1:34

Perforation Drill

Cretan paral.

190193.5 15277

15277 Tsountas Hoard (Mycenes), (Spyropoulos 1972, 37, Fig. 64, Table 13i) Percussion Hammer Acropolis Hoard, Athens, 1474440 (Spyropoulos 1972,73, Fig. 136137, Table 23a) Mallet Egyptian parallel, 23030112 bell-shape, (Killen 1980,18, pl. 16) Awl

1474440

23030112

137 138 139 140 141

2003). The shape of the tool was chiselled into the surface of the stone, while, in the case of sand moulds, the imprint was created by impressing the required shape into the damp sand using wooden patterns. This technique is archaeologically attested (Kienlin and Ottaway 1996).

After 3.5 hours, the alloy was ready to be poured into the moulds with a silicon carbide crucible. It is worth noting that the stone moulds were heated so as to avoid rupture from thermal shock while the hot metal was being poured. The shaped tools were immersed into cold water while hot, a

142 Q5 143 144 145 146

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 2 Blades of reconstructed cutting, perforation and percussion tools

method which has been experimentally proved (Ottaway 2003). Next, came the elaboration of the of the tool blades, which comprised the following steps: annealing at 600 700 C for about an hour, immersing in cold water and, finally, cold hammering. At first, the cutting tools were formatted. As for the axes, the double axe (Table 1) had its cutting edges cold hammered and then sharpened. Annealing wasnt necessary because its as-cast condition was very close to the final product. The trunnion axe was made in three replicas (Table 1), including single (SGL) and DBL bevel. The sharpening angles were formed at 2025 after cold-hammering, annealing, immersing in water, cold hammering and, finally, sharpening. As far as the chisels and the adzes are concerned, it is worth noting that, due to their simple forms, they were cast into rectangular bars or wedgeshaped forms, enabling their edges to be crafted following the aforementioned elaboration cycle. The two paring chisels had a single bevelled cutting edge with sharpening angles of 15 and 20, respectively (Fig. 2a). The two mortising chisels (Fig. 2b) also had single bevelled cutting edges with sharpening angles of 2025. A file was for the primary shaping of the tool edge, which was followed by honing the edge with an oil slip stone. The cutting edges of the two adze replicas were single bevelled (Fig. 2c), and the sharpening angles were formatted at 12 in one phase of elaboration for both the Acropolis and Tsountas Hoard replicas, while the hafting angles were formatted at 50 and 55, respectively. The saw blades were of rectangular shape and 4 mm thick. After repeating the cycle of annealing at 1,600 C, immersing in cold water and

hammering, the thickness of the blades was reduced to the desirable level (50 and 25 % of their initial thickness for the Androniani and the Prosymna saw, respectively). Saw filing followed, i.e. tooth shaping, setting and sharpening. The use of a file was preferred for the formation of serration so as to achieve uniformity and exact inclinations of the teeth. As far as the flush cutting saw is concerned, the teeth, 6-7 per cm, with an average height of 1.2 mm, were filed with inclinations of 45 towards the haft and 45 towards the rounded end. The Androniani saws had 34 teeth/cm with an average height of 2.3 mm, inclined 35 towards the haft and 45 towards the rounded end (pull stroke saw). The tooth setting on the Androniani saws was carried out by using bearing strokes with a 15-mm cold chisel on the base of every set of three teeth alternatively between the left and right levels till the desired set, i.e. 0.31 mm, was achieved (Maragoudaki and Kavvouras 2007). During tooth setting, the saw blade was laid on a softwood board. The reconstructed drill bit measuring 20081810 12 mm had a lozenge/diamond-shaped cutting end (point angle, 100 and width, 18 mm) (Fig. 2d). The selection of the most suitable constructional geometry for the drill bit was based on a number of experiments. The best shape was that of the diamond-shaped drill bit, sharpened alternatively on each side so as to cut while pulling. Moreover, an awl was also constructed from a square section, slightly tapered bar of 157747 mm (Fig. 2e). The awls tip was shaped on a coarse-grained whetstone. Two different types of hammers were constructed: a bronze hammer (Fig. 2f) (Spyropoulos 1972, 73, Figs. 136137, Table 23a) and two mallets, a bell-shaped and a

178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

EC

TE

PR

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261

bat-shaped one, both based on Egyptian parallels (Killen 1980, 18, pl. 16; Stocks 2003, 30, Fig. 2.8). The bronze hammer was trapezoidal in shape with an elliptical hole for shafting. The reconstruction of the bell-shaped mallet, weighing 1450 g and measuring 230 mm in length (i.e. head length, 136 mm and handle length, 94 mm) and 112 mm in diameter, was completely based on an Egyptian parallel (Killen 1980, 18, pl. 16) due to the fact that no relevant evidence has been preserved from this period. After shaping and elaborating the tool blades, it was time to reconstruct and adjust the handles, all made of oak or olive wood. The choice of wood species was based on their mechanical properties (i.e. bending and impact strength), as well as to satisfy evidence from the available literature and archaeological evidence (Maragoudaki 2010). The haft shapes were inspired by Egyptian parallels (Killen 1980; Petrie 1917) while ergonomic needs were also taken into consideration. The double axe handle was straight, 435 mm in length and 39 mm in diameter. As for the single trunnion axe, its haft was 410 mm in length and 34 mm in diameter with a rectangular hole of 2530830 mm positioned 25 mm from the tip to allow for the insertion of the blade. The axe blade passed through the handle up to the point of the horns (Evely 1993) in order to prevent it from driving back into the shaft under the impact of the blows. The chisels had handles of cylindrical shape, 3035 mm in diameter and 150 mm in length, tapered slightly at the butt. Shafting of the adzes was based on Egyptian parallels, the shape of which was adapted to the reconstructed tools. Two types of handles, a shaped (with one side more elongated than the other) as well as an S-shape, were used. Both shapes were based on Egyptian parallels of the 5th Dynasty (Steindorff 1913, Taf. 119). The handles varied from 250 350 mm in length and 2740 mm in diameter. Both types of handles were adjusted to the reconstructed blades which were tied to them with the bevels facing the hafts. For the reconstruction of the saw handles, the depictions of hieroglyphic ideograms, Linear A and Linear B scripts and the traces left from the wooden handle on the metallic blade of a saw from Akrotiri (Doumas 1994) were taken into consideration. Specifically, two grip-shapes were constructed, i.e. the knife grip for the Prosymna saw and the pistol grip for the Androniani saw (Table 1). Their dimensions were 195293822 and 290365821 mm, respectively. Next the points for the rivets, three for the bigger saw and two for the smaller, were marked and holes of 5 mm and 3 mm in diameter were opened respectively with the help of an electric drill. The awl haft of 130263030 mm was of the same type as that of the chisels. The reconstruction of the bow-drill parts, i.e. the bow, the cap and the haft of the drill bit, was based exclusively on Egyptian parallels (Killen 1980). The haft of the drill bit was almost the same as that of the chisel intitially, but with a

more conical butt so as to turn easily inside the cap. During the experimental work, in order to prevent the cord slipping while turning, the cylindrical shape of the handle was adjusted to a bobbin shape measuring 215 mm in length. The handle diameter was 3743 mm at each end and 31 mm in its middle. The opening of the bow was measured at 590 mm and its diameter at 33 mm. The bow had an angled shape with natural inclination containing one hole at its end for the passing and securing of the cord. The semi-spherical shaped cap was wooden, though it could also be of stone, and its external diameter was 100 mm. In the centre of its base, a cavity of 40 mm in diameter was chiseled to enable the unobstructed turning of the drill shaft. Finally, the construction of the cord was based on the preserved findings of such perishable material from Akrotiri of Thera (Spantidaki and oulhrat 2006, 285287). It was made of linen fibres and measured 4 mm in diameter. It is of the type z3S, which means that it was constructed of three strands in an S-twist (once twisted to the left and three times to the right). Once the twisting was finished, the surface of the cord was then covered with a layer of beeswax so as to prevent it from unraveling whilst being used. The angle bow's cord needed to be frequently stretched during use to secure a continuous, smooth turning of the drill shaft. For this task, the presence of two persons was necessary in order to achieve better results. In concluding this section on tool construction, it is worth mentioning that the reconstructed axes (double and trunnion) and the hammer were not used in the following phase of tool evaluation work as the wood used was already sawn into boards.

262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313

EC

TE

Evaluation of the reconstructed tools As tools are made for use, their replicas can only serve their main purpose if they work, too, and their performance can be assessed by proper measurements. Performance evaluation of the reconstructed tools was attempted through the rebuilding of a segment of the Uluburun shipwreck hull, achieved by following a preset work plan. The Uluburun wreck is the only well-known Late Bronze Age wreck dated to the LH IIIB1 (Pulak 1987) to be found in the Mediterranean Sea. Built with the shellfirst construction technique, this ship provides the earliest example of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery in shipbuilding. The largest and best preserved part of the ships hull, measuring approximately 1.75 m along the line of the keelplank and 1.00 m in width, likely corresponds to the ships midsection, including portions of the ships keel, port garboard, the second port strake at full width, and fragments of the third port strake (Pulak 2002). For the tool evaluation work plan to materialise, it was decided to reconstruct a portion of the survived Uluburun ship wreck. Two planks with the dimensions of the Uluburun shipwrecks second strake (1,17026063 mm) were edge joined with tenons

PR

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

(3006116 mm) placed at 210-mm intervals. The mortiseand-tenon joints were locked with pegs 20 mm in diameter. To ensure the proper curvature of the hull segment, the adjoining edge surfaces of the two planks were bevelled 95 inwards, set to the bevel measurements of the adjoining edge of the port garboard and first strake of the Uluburun shipwreck hull (Pulak 2002). The tool evaluation work plan consisted of six successive steps, i.e. plank cutting to size with rip and cross-cut saws, adjusting the bevel angle of the plank edge with adze, mortising with chisels, tenon manufacturing with saws and chisels, tenon-locking peg manufacturing, opening of the holes for the location of the wooden pegs with a bow drill and hull smoothing with an adze. During each of the aforementioned steps, the efficiency of the tools used was evaluated quantitatively, qualitatively and ergonomically. The efficiency evaluation criteria used were respectively the time required for the completion of the work, excluding sharpening time, the accuracy of cutting together with the quality of the surface created and labour intensity gauged through testimony of fatigue from the craftsman. In an effort to objectively evaluate the efficiency of the tools, it was decided to reconstruct two replicas of the aforementioned segment of the Uluburun shipwreck hull. The first replica was elaborated in the Wood Technology Laboratory of the Forest Research Institute by the authors of this article, and the second was executed by the professional shipwright, Mr. N. Daroukakis, at his own shipyard on the island of Aegina. The unskilled, female worker employed in the construction of the laboratory replica painstakingly followed the work plan, allowing for the tool evaluation measurements to be taken appropriately. It is obvious that the results of the tool evaluation measurements have comparative and not absolute value. The skilled craftsman, specialised in traditional boat building, employed in the construction of the second replica, despite not following the pre-set work plan, offered relatively more down-toearth conclusions on the tool evaluation to be drawn. Air dried (15 % moisture content) Austrian pine wood (Pinus nigra) was used for the hull planks and Broadleaved oak wood (Quercus conferta) for the tenons and pegs. The keel and hull planking of the Uluburun ship hull was made of cedar (Cedrus sp.) (Pulak 2002) while the tenons and the pegs were made of Turkey oak (Quercus cerris) (Pulak 1996). The final dimensions of the oversized planks were engraved on the surfaces with an awl. Then, the cross-cut and rip pull saw (Maragoudaki and Kavvouras 2007) were used for cutting the planks to the desired size. After cutting along 150 mm of the planks length, the rip saw started to get wedged. At first, a bigger set was applied, but it had an unsatisfactory result because saw pulling then became more power demanding. The insertion of a wooden wedge at the

EC

TE

beginning of the section helped to provide the unobstructed movement of the tool. It seems that the Uluburun shipwreck shell was formed strake by strake, as has been attested by the Egyptian pictorial evidence (Steindorff 1913, Taf. 119). The shipwright built the hull from the keel up with planks joined to each other edge to edge. To generate the desired final shape of the hull, the shipwright had to adjust the bevel angle of the plank edge. During the construction of the Uluburun hull replicas, the 50 hafting angle adze was used for the adjustment of the bevel angle (5), and also plank edge smoothing was used for a tight joint between the planks to ensure water tightness of the hull (Table 1). The technique used for mortise opening should ensure the proper inclination of the planks when joined together. As the inboard sides of the port garboard and first strake meet at an angle of 95, the mortise should be cut at an angle, and thus, securing the proper plank inclination at tenon insertion (Fig. 3). To achieve this inclination, the plank was edge rested on wooden wedges of 5 during mortising. By holding the chisel vertically, the mortise was cut so that its axis was perpendicular to the edge surface of the plank. Along the total length of the planks, five mortises 150 mm deep, 60 mm long and 17 mm wide were designed to be cut. In the classic tradition of mortising, a chisel was hammered into the wood with the bell-shaped

367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391

Fig. 3 Mortise cut at an angle for securing the proper plank inclination after tenon insertion

PR

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444

mallet, and then levered out to remove waste. Mortising chisels must have the thickness to withstand the levering out, the stout blade angle to resist abuse and the length to add leverage to the levering out. The reconstructed chisels were of three types, i.e. the mortising chisel to cut the wood, the parting chisel to remove the waste and the paring chisel to finish the sides of the mortise. The need for the use of a parting chisel came up after discovering that the mortising chisel was strong enough to withstand mallet blows, but not robust enough to withstand the bending stresses which develop during the levering out (waste removal). An SGL bevelled mortising chisel with a cutting edge of 30 mm and another with a cutting edge of 15 mm were used for the cutting of the long and the narrow sides of the mortises, respectively (Table 1) (Maragoudaki 2010). Two Broadleaved oak boards measuring 1,500 60 20 mm were used for tenon manufacturing. The five tenons were cut from the board with the use of the cross-cutting saw. For the formation of the tapered ends of each tenon, the adze with a 65 hafting angle (Table 1) was used, while the SGL bevelled paring chisel of 31 mm cutting-edge was used to finish the surface of the tenon in order to achieve the best fit. The drilling points for opening the holes for the location of the wooden pegs were set with an awl at 52 mm from the plank's edge, while the space between the pegs securing the two tenons was measured at 210 mm to the same surface of the plank, as has been attested for the Uluburun hull (Pulak 2002). Then, holes of 18 mm in diameter were opened with a depth of 50 mm by using the bow drill. From the same boards used in the construction of the tenons, several square section bars of 20 mm were cut. The bars, then secured in a vice, were transformed into tenonlocking pegs with the use of the SGL bevelled paring chisel of 31-mm cutting edge and the mallet. After reaching the desired diameter, the peg was located in the hole from the inboard side with the help of the bell-shaped mallet, and then was sawed evenly to the surface of the plank with the flush cutting saw to securing the tenon inside the mortise just as was attested on the Uluburun ship hull (Pulak 1999). As for the smoothing of the plank surfaces with the adze, it is interesting to note the existence of a variety of adzes for different tasks. This has been attested not only in Egyptian iconography (Wild 1953), but also in traditional shipbuilding (Damianidis 1998). After locking the tenons, the outboard surface of the hull segment was smoothed by using both types of reconstructed adzes. At first, the angled surfaces of the plank seams were trimmed with the thicker adze of 55 hafting angle to provide the curvature needed and then were planed with the slender 50 hafting angle adze so as to be smooth and flat. During the construction of the second replica, the shipwright was free to choose the tools most suitable for the task. After the examination of all the reconstructed tools and

their trial use, the shipwright chose the ones he considered most appropriate. The differences in the construction of the second replica in relation to the first were confined mainly to the tools used and the working method followed. Furthermore, the skill of the traditional shipbuilder, as well as his physical strength, should be taken into account. Throughout the mortising process the craftsman exclusively used the single bevelled mortising chisel for the opening of the mortises to a depth of 150 mm. Then, he cleared the sides of the mortises with the single bevelled paring and mortising chisels so as to secure the unobstructed insertion of the tenons. The shipwright opened two mortises at a time in order to use the same tools and keep a constant work rhythm. Also, it was decided to open one of the mortises with modern single bevelled mortising chisels made of steel. Due to the fact that the modern chisels could reach a depth of 120 mm, the use of the bronze SGL bevelled mortising chisel of 15 mm cutting edge was necessary to finish the work. It took the shipwright about 30 min to open a mortise using either the steel or bronze chisels, excluding any time needed for whetting the bronze ones (34 min). During the tenon manufacturing, the traditional shipwright used both of the reconstructed adzes. For the initial formation of the tenon surfaces and the tapered ends, he used the adze of 55 hafting and 12 sharpening angle, while for the smoothing of the surfaces he used the adze of 50 hafting and 12 sharpening angle. For the best fit of the tenons, he repeatedly inserted them into the mortises and gradually reduced their width and thickness with the adzes. The lower half of the tenons was a little bit thicker than the upper half so as to stay stable while placing the overhead plank. Finally, the construction of the tenon-locking pegs was completed using the SGL bevelled paring chisel of 31-mm cutting edge which functioned like a plane, leaving many facets along their length. The mallet was not used during this task because the craftsman held the wooden bar with his left hand and worked the surface of the pegs with his right hand.

445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 482 481

EC

TE

PR

Results Elaboration of tool blades Simple tool blades which are flat on one side, e.g. adzes, chisels and axes, can be cast by pouring the molten metal into a hollowed-out shape in sand. The sand moulds were relatively easy to make and proved better than stone or clay moulds in casting. Specific advantages of sand moulds are the smoother and closer surfaces of the shaped bronze blades as well as their virtually limitless working life. The widespread use of moulds made of perishable materials seems plausible. The annealing process applied to work and harden the woodworking tool blades has been proved quite efficient ( Papadimitriou 1991). In the case of mortise chisels and adzes, where sharp

483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495

Q6

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Fig. 4 The reconstructed Mycenaean shipwright tool kit

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527

Finishing of tool blades Simple tool blades, e.g. adzes, chisels, and axes, need whetting with oil as a lubricant. Not only the two-bevelled, but also the single bevelled blades require honing at both sides. The frequency of whetting depends on the particular use of the tools and the nature of the elaborated material. For instance, during the opening of a 150-mm mortise, the mortising chisels were honed at least once every half hour. Also, during the opening of a 50mm hole through the pine plank and in the oak tenon for the insertion of a wooden peg, the lozenge bit of the bow drill needed to be re-sharpened once. The 0.31-mm set of the Androniani type saw proved insufficient for ripping. Although the saw set was then increased, the result was still not what was expected. The use of a wooden wedge facilitated the cutting parallel to the grain.

EC

TE

496 497 498 499 500

PR

edges are important, it is preferable to refrain from annealing them after the final hammering, since the hardness (and hence the ability to maintain a sharp edge) may be more important than the potential brittleness (and hence the tendency to break).

tool from the slipping from the hand. It was also clear that the LBA tool manufacturer was well aware of the ergonomic importance of tool handle shapes. Plank cutting to size While cutting along the grain (ripping), the increased set, i.e. more than the initial 0.31 mm of the saw teeth, was not adequate to allow the blade to pass freely through the wood. A wooden wedge inserted in the kerf provided the necessary clearance. Generally, the saws used offered precision of cutting and a satisfactory wood surface quality since the examined fibres appeared to be cut rather than torn. As far as tool productivity is concerned, the crosscutting of the planks measuring 260 mm in width took about 10 min, i.e. 26 mm/min while ripping of the same planks measuring 1,200 mm in length took about 2 hours, i.e. 10 mm/min. The execution of both tasks could be characterised as satisfactory as far as sawing accuracy and surface quality are concerned. Mortising During the opening of the mortises the unskilled, female worker used all the reconstructed chisel types, i.e. mortising, paring and parting chisel. In particular, the DBL bevelled ones were used at the beginning of the process for outlining the cutting lines. Then the single bevelled paring chisel was used to smooth the surfaces of the mortise so as to facilitate the insertion of the tenon while the single bevelled mortising chisel was used to cut and extract the inner part of the mortise. The SGL bevelled chisel was preferred due to the fact that it helped keep mortise dimensions constant to the bottom of the mortise while also creating smooth surfaces, characteristics of great importance to the quality of mortise-and-tenon joints. The opening of the mortise took almost 2 hours with three intermediary resharpenings.

528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559

Hafting It has been proved that the shape of the handle is significant in woodworking tool specialisation. Adzes with shaped handles have been found to be suitable for chopping (cutting across the grain) while adzes with S-shaped handles have been proved to be appropriate for surface smoothing or chipping (cutting along the grain). More delicate use of the S-shaped handle allowed the control necessary to perform work in fine detail. Evaluation of the saw handle proved that this particular grip shape was totally ergonomic, because its curvature allowed it to be grasped in the users palm to serve equally well in both pulling and pushing movements, while the swollen end prevented the

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595

On the contrary, the skilled craftsman used mainly one tool, the SGL bevelled mortising chisel of 18-mm cutting edge, to open the mortise. Comparing the mortises of the two replicas, the superiority of the shipwright's work was obvious as far as the uniformity of mortise dimensions and inner surface quality are concerned. The skilled craftsman opened a mortise in 30 min, not including a 5-min interval and three intermediate re-sharpenings. He needed 30 min to open another mortise with modern, steel chisels which did not need re-sharpening. Tenon manufacturing The traditional shipwright used both of the reconstructed adzes exclusively for this task while the unskilled worker used mainly the SGL bevelled paring chisel of 31-mm cutting edge to form the tenon surfaces and the adze of 65 hafting angle to taper their edges. The adze with the bigger sharpening and hafting angle proved to be suitable for chopping while the slender adze with the thinner blade was appropriate for chipping, functioning as a plane. Opening of the holes for the location of the wooden pegs The drill with the diamond shaped drill bit proved to be suitable for opening holes into the wood. The existence of its pointed end helped the users to hold it steady while it was rotated to create circular holes. The angled bow proved user friendly, although the presence of two operators proved necessary for better results. Regarding drill productivity, each hole of 20 mm in diameter and of 50 mm in depth was opened by the unskilled worker in approximately 20 min while the shipwright executed the task in a quarter of an hour, not taking into account the time needed for resharpening the drill bit in both cases. Smoothing with the adze The whole process of the flattening and smoothing of the outboard surface of the planks by the shipwright lasted almost 30 min in comparison to the 45 min required by the unskilled, female worker.

user friendly. Experimental methods proved useful in the allocation of efficient criteria for the use-based classification of tools. The efficiency of the reconstructed tools could only be evaluated qualitatively, quantitatively and ergonomically through their use in the construction of a structure. It seems that the most basic and essential tool for a shipwright is the adze. In the hands of a well-trained craftsman, and sharpened to a razors edge, it was very good at finishing heavy timbers in hull construction, leaving a fine, almost planed, finish. The adze handles were of a different configuration because the shipwright used the adze throughout the construction of a hull. If the handles were the same, this would be very difficult, if not impossible. The handle with a double curvature seems the most appropriate for finishing work. Accepting the principle that the perfection of a saw is to cut as fast and as smoothly as possible, with as little energy expenditure, as possible (Holly 1864) and also bearing in mind the outcome of the qualitative, quantitative and ergonomic evaluation of the reconstructed saws, it could be claimed that the Mycenaean shipwrights had the almost perfect bronze saws at their disposal. The application of tooth setting improved the efficiency of the Mycenaean saw in comparison to the Egyptian saw. The perfection of saws resulted in the downgrading of axes to being woodworking tools for rough splitting or trimming of logs. Chisels were essential components of the tool kit. In order to open mortises of the proper shape and size with vertical and smooth sides, the Mycenaean shipwright should have had at least two types of chisels in his tool kit, i.e. one for chopping and the other for paring the mortise sides. Wooden mallets were used in conjunction with chisels to open mortises, to fit planks tightly together and to hammer in tenons and wooden pegs. Further research work should be done on woodworking tool construction techniques, as well as on tool specialization, to reveal further unknown aspects of Late Bronze Age shipbuilding technology.

607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644

596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606

Conclusions References The Late Bronze Age shipwright, as master of his craft and tool use, could make new tools or adjust them to the demands of a particular job, as well as to his own body build. The range of tools used for shipbuilding in the Late Bronze Age is comparable to those used today. The efficiency of the nominated shipwright tool kit (Fig. 4) has been proved through experimental methods. The reconstructed tools appear suitable for use in pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery by skilled woodworkers in shipbuilding. Moreover, the reconstructed tools proved to be
Andreou St, Kotsakis K (1996) . 10:369387 Blegen CW (1937) Prosymna: the Helladic Settlement preceding the Argive Hereum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Blegen CW, Rawson (1966) The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western essenia. Princeton University Press, Princeton Blinkerberg C (1931) Lindos: fouilles de l'acropole 19021914: les petits objets. Walter de Gruyter et Cie, Berlin Casson L, 1 (1964) Odysseus' Boat (Od., V, 244-257). AJPh 85:61 Damianidis KA (1998) Greek vernacular boat building. ETVA, Athens

EC

TE

PR

645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657

Q7

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
Q8 658

JrnlID 12520_ArtID 91_Proof# 1 - 01/03/2012

Archaeol Anthropol Sci Doumas C (1994) . : 155166 Drring N (1995) Materialien zum Schiffbau im alten gypten, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Kairo, gyptologische Reihe, Band 11, Berlin Evely RDG (1993) inoan crafts: tools and techniques. an introduction, vol. I (SIMA 92: 1). Paul strms Frlag, Gothenburg Evely RDG (2000) inoan crafts: tools and techniques. An introduction, vol. II (SIA 92:2). Paul Astrm Frlag, Jonsered Evely RDG (2006) The small finds. In: Evely RDG, Crouwel J, French E, Popham M, Reese D, Sackett H, Schofield E, Sherratt S (eds) Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC settlement at Xeropolis, supp, vol. 39., pp 265292 Hakulin L (2004) Bronzeworking on Late Minoan Crete, A diachronic study. BAR International Series 1245. Archaeopress, Oxford Holly HW (1864) The art of saw filing scientifically treated and explained on philosophical principles. Wiley, New York Iakovidis S (1969) . . Kienlin TL, Ottaway BS (1996) Flanged axes of the North-Alpine region: an assessment of the possibilities of use wear analysis on metal artefacts. In: Mordant C, Pernot M, Rychner V (eds) L' atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe sicle avant notre re, Actes du Colloque International "Bronze '96, Neuchatel Dijon. CTHS, Paris, p 271 Killen G (1980) Ancient Egyptian furniture l: 40001300 BC. Aris & Phillips, Warminster Lowe Fri M (2007) The double axe in Minoan Crete: a functional analysis of production and use. Dissertation, University of Stockholm Mangou H, Ioannou PV (1999) On the chemical composition of prehistoric Greek copper-based artefacts from mainland Greece. BSA 94:81100 Maragoudaki E (2010) Mycenaean woodworking tools used in shipbuilding. Dissertation, University of Athens Maragoudaki E, Kavvouras P (2007) : . (English summary,Mycenaean carpentry tools: the case of saw). , -- 1117 2005. , 319336. In: Acts of the seventh International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies, Gastouni-Amaliada, 1117 September 2005, Athens, pp 319336 Mark S (2005) Homeric seafaring. Texas A&M University Press, College Station McGrail S (2004) Boats of the World: from the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford University Press, Oxford Onasoglou AA (1995) . . 147, Ottaway BS (2003) Experimental archaeometallurgy. In: Stollner T, Korlin G, Steffens G, Cierny J (eds) Man and mining. Studies in honor of Gerd Weisgerber on occasion of his 65th birthday. Dt. Bergbaumuseum, Bochum, pp 341348 Papadimitriou G (2001) Simulation study of ancient bronzes: their mechanical and metalworking properties. In: Bassiakos Y, Aloupi E, Facorellis G (eds) Archeometry issues in Greek prehistory and antiquity. Hellenic Society for Archaeometry and Society for Archaeological Messenian Studies, Athens, pp 713733 Papadopoulos TJ (1979) Mycenaean Achaea. Paul strms Frlag, Gothenburg Paschalidis K (2007) Euboea at the crossroads of the metal trade: the Aegean and the Black Sea in the Late bronze Age: In Galanaki I, Tomas H, Galanakis Y, Laffineur R(eds), Between the Aegean and the Baltic seas. Prehistory across borders. Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 1114 April 2005. Aegeum 27, pp 433442 Petrie WHF (1917) Tools and weapons: illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London and 2000 outlines from other sources. British School of Egyptian Archaeology, London Pulak C (1987) The Uluburun shipwreck: In: Swiny S, Hohlfelder RL, Swiny HW (eds), Res Maritimae. Cypus and the eastern Mediterranean from prehistory to late antiquity. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium Cities on the sea, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18-22, 1994, Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, Monograph Series, vol. 1. Atlanta, Georgia, pp 233262 Pulak C (1999) The late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun: aspects of Hull Construction. In: Phelps W, Lolos Y, Vichos Y (eds) The Point Iria wreck: interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC. Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998. Athens, pp 209239 Pulak C (2002) The Uluburun hull remains. In: Tzalas H (ed) Tropis VII. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Pylos 2629 August 1999, vol. I. Athens, pp 615636 Pulak C (2003) Mortice and Tenon Joints of Bronze Age Seagoing Ships. In: Beltrame C (ed) Boats, ships and shipyards. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Boat and Ship archaeology. Oxford, pp 284 Spantidaki G, oulhrat C (2006) , , , , 2 , , pp 284289 Spyropoulos TG (1972) . , Steindorff G (1913) Das Grab des T. Hinrichs, Leipzig Stocks DA (2003) Experiments in Egyptian archaeology. Stone working technology in ancient Egypt, London Wild H (1953) Le tombeau de Ti, II, La chapelle (premire partie). IFAO, Cairo Yalcin , Pulak C, Slott R (Hrsg.) (2005) Das Schiff von Uluburun, Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museum, Bochum von 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006. Bochum drymi-Sismani V (2004) Le palais de Iolkos et sa destruction. BCH 128129 (20042005) tudes 154

659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 764

711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763

EC

TE

PR

AUTHOR'S PROOF!
AUTHOR QUERIES
AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES. Q1. Q2. Q3. Q4. Q5. Q6. Q7. Q8. Kindly check if the names of authors are correctly captured and presented. Please check if data on authors affiliations are correctly presented. Please check if section headings are assigned to appropriate levels. Kindly check if the table entries, notes, and other relevant details (Table 1) are correctly captured and presented. Occurrence of three and a half hours was modified to 3.5 hours. Please check. Papadimitriou (1991) and Pulak (1996) are cited in text but not included in list of references. Please provide complete bibliographic details or delete the citations from the text. Please check reference Blinkerberg (1931) if correctly modified (authors first name). Please provide complete bibliographic details for references Doumas (1994) and Iakovidis (1969).

EC

TE

PR