Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2005 Deepwater Survey, Archaeological Investigation and Historical Contexts of Three Late Antique Black Sea Shipwrecks Rachel Lynelle Horlings
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DEEPWATER SURVEY, ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION AND HISTORICAL
CONTEXTS OF THREE LATE ANTIQUE BLACK SEA SHIPWRECKS
By
RACHEL LYNELLE HORLINGS
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Rachel Lynelle Horlings All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Rachel Lynelle Horlings defended
on March 28, 2005.
______Cheryl Ward Professor Directing Thesis
______Glen Doran Committee Member
______David Stone Committee Member
Approved:
______Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii
For Mr. “P.” Because you showed me a long time ago that it could be done.
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Robert Ballard (Institute for Exploration and University of Rhode Island) for allowing me to be part of this incredible experience. I wish to thank David Mindell (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Dennis Peichota (Conservator, Object and Textile Conservation, Arlington, MA), Robert Blanchette (University of Minnesota) and Dawn Marshall (Texas A&M University) for their contributions and support to the project as a whole and to my part in it as well. Numerous other individuals have contributed answers to questions and have worked with me to solve problems, and I sincerely appreciate all of their assistance. My participation in this project was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Institute for Exploration, and funding for my Master’s research was provided by NOAA’s Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship. I am absolutely indebted to Cheryl Ward for this experience. Not only was I given the opportunity to work with a prestigious group of professionals in another country, but her persistence in challenging me to improve, insistence on excellence and faith in my abilities have had ramifications far beyond my academic career. I am grateful to Glen Doran and David Stone for their willingness to support and assist not only in this endeavor, but also in many others over the course of my academic career at Florida State University. A bevy of patient people including my mother, my grandfather, Jessica McNeil, Heather Mustonen, Jason Moser, Beth Chambless, Meredith Marten, Hannes Schroeder and Bryan Horlings shared their editorial skills and insights on countless pages. The advice, support and prayers throughout this adventure of my parents, other family members and friends too numerous to mention here, has meant more than I am able to express. It is the rare occasion when a person is afforded the privilege of pursuing ones’ passion, and I am blessed to have been one such person. Finally and most importantly, praise God, from whom all blessings flow.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... viii Abstract ...... xii
1. PREMISES OF INVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 Premises of Investigation ...... 2 Background ...... 3 Sinop Geography and Black Sea Hydrology ...... 4 A Brief History of Sinop ...... 7 Mediterranean and Black Sea Economics and Sinop ...... 9 Ancient Sailing and Sailors ...... 10 Roman Trade ...... 11 Byzantine Trade ...... 13 Archaeology and Connectivity ...... 14 Summary ...... 15
2. TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS ...... 16 The 2000 Season ...... 16 The 2003 Season ...... 19 Care and Curation of Artifacts ...... 23 Post-Processing of Data ...... 23 Summary ...... 25
3. SHIPPING JARS ...... 26 Shipping Jars and Archaeology ...... 27 Sinop and Carrot-Shaped Jars ...... 31 Late Roman Amphora (LRA1) ...... 36 Summary ...... 38
4. SITES A, B and C ...... 39 Overall Environment and Conditions ...... 40 Shipwreck Site Formation ...... 41 Sites A, B and C ...... 43 Artifacts ...... 64
5. DISCUSSION ...... 69 Site Discussions ...... 69 Additional Data Sources ...... 80 Comparisons with Other Shipwrecks of Late Antiquity ...... 80 Summary ...... 83
v
6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 85 Summary of Results ...... 85 Challenges ...... 87 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 88
APPENDIX A Equipment and Definitions of Technical Acronyms ...... 91
APPENDIX B Care and Curation of Artifacts ...... 93
APPENDIX C Copyright Permission ...... 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 114
vi LIST OF TABLES
1. Descriptions of Shipping Jars Produced in the Sinop Region ...... 33
2. Approximate Sizes of Shipwreck Sites A, B and C ...... 44
3. Number of Visible Shipping Jars on Shipwreck Sites A, B and C ...... 44
4. Site A Timber Characteristics ...... 50
5. Site B Timber Characteristics ...... 57
6. Site C Timber Characteristics ...... 63
7. Recovered Artifacts ...... 64
8. Artifact Dimensions ...... 68
9. Ships of Late Antiquity ...... 82
vii LIST OF FIGURES
1. Surveys were concentrated in the Sinop region of northern Turkey because of its role as a central trading port and the subsequent likelihood of shipwrecks in the area ...... 3
2. Sinop is central to both east-west and north-south traffic in the Black Sea ...... 4
3. The geography and geology of Sinop create an environment ideal for a center of shipping and trade in the Black Sea ...... 5
4. Coastal craft often transported shipping jars in carefully stacked arrangements, as is illustrated in this 3rd c. CE relief of two small vessels laden with shipping jars at the entrance to Rome’s harbor ...... 8
5. Dense concentrations of shipwrecks from before 1500 CE in the Mediterranean Sea and the lack of shipwrecks of comparable age in the Black Sea region demonstrate the usefulness of comparing Black Sea shipwrecks with those in the Mediterranean data base ...... 9
6. Shipwrecks A, B and C coincide with a period of decline in the number of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, suggesting that they occurred at a time when shipping was still viable, but was not as prolific as during the Roman period ...... 12
7. The tow sled ARGUS was launched from the stern of Knorr ...... 17
8. The ROV LITTLE HERCULES was present on the 2003 survey but was not used ...... 17
9. Research Vessel Knorr docked in Sinop harbor during the 2003 survey ...... 19
10. HERCULES was launched and retrieved over the port side of the ship by use of a crane ...... 20
11. Protective nets on the elevators served the dual purpose of securing the artifacts and maintaining a constant horizontal position that minimized loss of jar contents ...... 21
12. National Geographic reporters recorded Cheryl Ward and Robert Ballard discussing recently collected artifacts ...... 23
13. Cheryl Ward and Dennis Peichota rinse the sediments out of a shipping jar ...... 24
viii 14. Sites A, B and C are located near the Sinop promontory, a prolific shipping jar production area ...... 31
15. Only four of the five types of shipping jar produced in Sinop are pictured (correctly proportional in size to each other) because no complete example of the “convex lip” form is known ...... 33
16. The shipping jar labeled KN172-15.03B.002 (left) from Site B is similar in profile to this LRA1 in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology ...... 37
17. One of the LRA1 shipping jars on Site B (left) (not collected) is similar to van Alfen’s Type VI jar ...... 37
18. As ships’ hulls disintegrate, cargo is dispersed over the shipwreck site ...... 42
19. One of the partial mosaics from Site A displays dispersed shipping jars, timbers and debris ...... 43
20. The site plan for Site A includes key artifacts, although none were collected ...... 45
21. Section 2 in Site A is a small, separate area with relatively few artifacts visible ...... 47
22. A cluster of mostly buried shipping jars that retain similar orientations in the sediments indicates original lading patterns ...... 47
23. Intrusive debris like this sack is common on any archaeological site ...... 48
24. The sketch of timber A3 (right) is my interpretation of the timber’s features ...... 49
25. Images “grabbed” (using Dazzle Multimedia software) from VHS footage are often difficult to interpret ...... 49
26. It is difficult to depict slope on a site plan, but the highest elevation is on the south slope ...... 51
27. Anchovies school on the approximately 2 m south slope of Site B ...... 52
28. Even when the hull collapsed, the shipping jars remained somewhat in their original formations ...... 53
29. It appears that this jar containing a solid white substance was broken recently, as may be seen in the fresh break in the fabric of the jar ...... 54
ix
30. Modifications of timber B14 include a notch near the center and two holes or depressions on either end of the object ...... 54
31. The LRA1 shipping jar that was collected lies to the lower right of timber B1 in this photomosaic from 2000 ...... 55
32. Differential staining or color is visible on over 40% of Site B and the normally brownish-gray color of the sediments becomes mottled and appears more yellow in color when it is disturbed, as after recovery of a LRA1 shipping jar ...... 56
33. Some changes were evident between 2000 and 2003 on Site B ...... 58
34. A total of 108 shipping jars were visible on Site C in 2000 ...... 59
35. A total of 89 shipping jars were visible on Site C in 2003 ...... 59
36. Site C is located in a dynamic environment, as illustrated by changes from 2000 to 2003 ...... 60
37. Few shipping jars on Site C were completely exposed ...... 61
38. The partially buried shipping jars in this image reflect their original lading pattern ...... 61
39. Grayish-white objects visible on Site C in 2000 were not present in 2003 ...... 62
40. The interior of LRA1 fragment (KN172-15.03B.003) was lined with pine pitch ...... 64
41. One complete carrot-shaped shipping jar was collected from Site B ...... 65
42. One complete LRA1 shipping jar, similar to van Alfen’s Type VI was collected from Site B ...... 65
43. One complete carrot-shaped shipping jar was collected from Site C ...... 66
44. One nearly complete carrot-shaped shipping jar was recovered from Site C...... 66
45. The first object recovered from Site C was the upper portion of a carrot- shaped shipping jar ...... 67
46. There were no diagnostic features on this lead object from Site C ...... 67
x
47. The conjectured dimensions, location and orientation of shipwreck A under the sediments are based on the location, concentration and elevations of shipping jars in the site ...... 70
48. Without further investigation it is impossible to determine any purpose of the protrusion on this grayish-white object (Aa) from Site A ...... 72
49. The conjectured dimensions, location and orientation of the hull of shipwreck B are based on elevations and orientations of shipping jars on the site ...... 74
50. The orientation of shipwreck C’s hull is shown here as a dashed line because too few data are available to suggest possible dimensions of the vessel ...... 79
51. Cheryl Ward ...... 90
52. Robert Ballard and Rachel Horlings examine a shipping jar ...... 114
xi ABSTRACT
Four shipwrecks of Late Antiquity were discovered in deep water during a survey in the summer of 2000 near the city of Sinop on the southern coast of the Black Sea. The survey was part of a long-term Institute for Exploration (IFE) project to explore archaeological maritime resources of the Black Sea led by Robert Ballard and a team of researchers from several organizations. Surveys were conducted using side-scan sonar and remotely operated vehicles. In 2003 the team returned with HERCULES, a remotely operated vehicle especially designed for archaeological investigations. Three of the four shipwreck sites were investigated with HERCULES. The focus of this thesis is the analysis of data collected from three of the shipwrecks during the 2000 and 2003 surveys. Information from analysis has been incorporated into a framework of history and economics, placing the three shipwrecks within an anthropological context, and recommendations for expanding and building on these preliminary investigations are offered.
xii
CHAPTER ONE PREMISES OF INVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND
“The objects which man produces…reveal a…complex morphology of attitudes, social rules and behaviour, values and symbols” (Pucci 1983: 109).
The focus of this thesis is the analysis and synthesis of data from three Late Antique shipwrecks in the Black Sea and the subsequent placement of the wrecks within a historical context. Data used in this thesis comprise the results of the 2000 and 2003 survey seasons in the Black Sea. Surveys near Sinop, Turkey, were led by oceanographer Robert Ballard, in association with the Institute for Exploration and a team of researchers from several organizations. In 2000, Ballard and the team conducted a remote-sensing deep water archaeological survey approximately 15-30 km west of Sinop. A potential habitation site (Site 82) and four shipwrecks (A, B, C and D) were identified and recorded. In 2003 the team returned with the tools necessary to investigate the sites in greater detail and was able to collect data and select representative artifacts from Site 82 and shipwreck Sites B, C and D. I participated in the 2003 survey as graduate assistant to Cheryl Ward. Data collected during the surveys are comprised of visual media, acoustic data (sub- bottom profiler), and the sampled artifacts. Two types of data, the results from the analysis of visual media from Sites A, B and C, and the results of analyses of the shipping jars from Sites B and C, constitute the core of analysis and discussion for this thesis. Site plans were created and the sites were analyzed to the extent that the limited processed data permitted. A complete analysis of these sites can be accomplished only by returning to them for longer periods of time and completing comprehensive investigations. Following chapters include premises of investigation and background for the project, technology and methodologies employed, the significance of shipping jars in archaeology, (specifically as they apply to Sites A, B and C), discussions of artifacts and visual data collected during the 2000 and 2003 seasons, and an
1 integration of these data within an historical framework of economics in the Black Sea in Late Antiquity.
Premises of Investigation
The survey and investigation of submerged resources in the Black Sea is part of a long term project developed by the Institute for Exploration (IFE) in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (Ward and Ballard 2004:2-3), Florida State University, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, among others. Surveys collected bathymetric and sonar data in the Sinop area in 1998 and 1999 (DeepArch 1998, 1999; Ward 1999:4; Ward and Ballard 2004:2), and data from these surveys were used in determining target areas for the 2000 field season (Ballard et al. 2001) (Figure 1). Objectives of the 2000 survey included determining the likelihood of identification of human habitation sites on the ancient submerged landscape and seeking data related to the existence of an ancient deepwater trade route between Sinop and the Crimea (Ballard et al. 2001:618-619; Hiebert 2001:16; Ward and Ballard 2004:3). Specific goals of the survey (Ballard et al. 2001:607) included determining whether or not there are shipwrecks in the anoxic deep water in the Black Sea, and if there are, whether there is differential preservation between the deep and shallow water wrecks, as suggested by Willard Bascom (1971:262, 1976:38). Investigations during the 2000 season concentrated in the area 15-30 km west of Sinop (Ward and Ballard 2004:3). Surveys took place with the cooperation and permission of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, and a Ministry representative was present at all times on the ship. Remote sensing (side-scan) surveys were conducted and targets or anomalies were investigated using remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). As the goals of the 2000 season were locating and identifying archaeological sites, recording capabilities on the ROVs provided sufficient data to accomplish these tasks, although modification allowed scoop sampling (Ballard et al. 2001:614). In 2003 the team returned to four of the sites with an ROV especially designed for deep water archaeological investigations which allowed for more precise recording and measuring of aspects of the sites and also for sample collection.
2
Figure 1. Surveys were concentrated in the Sinop region of northern Turkey because of its role as a central trading port and the subsequent likelihood of shipwrecks in the area (Ballard et al. 2001:609).
The goals of demonstrating the existence of deep water shipwrecks in the Black Sea and that differences exist in preservation between shipwrecks in the upper marine and lower anoxic waters were accomplished. As no extensive investigation was carried out at any of the sites, there are still difficulties in drawing conclusions from collected data. Survey results have provided a basis of comparison for other ancient shipwrecks from this era and for the merits and drawbacks of deep water archaeology.
Background
Archaeologists studying shipwrecks look at wrecked vessels and their cargoes with the intention of understanding their roles in the ancient economies and placing them within the broader context of human social processes. As Parker (1986:39) writes: “The major task confronting the nautical archaeologist is…to identify the way in which each wreck fits into the commercial economy of its period.” Archaeology can provide a great deal of information, but it alone is not sufficient in most cases for determining historical contexts (Young 2001:13). Other
3 sources, such as contemporary and near-contemporary written sources (Braund 1994:74; Boardman 1999:10-12), iconography (Emetz 1995; Greene 1986:18), archaeobotany (Haldane 1993) and ecology (Horden and Purcell 2000:109, 393) among others, provide data crucial to reconstructing social, political and economic environments of material culture recovered in archaeology. The port city of Sinop and shipwrecks A, B and C are part of an ancient maritime landscape. Though there are no data available to suggest destinations, the center of commerce for each vessel was likely the port city of Sinop because shipping jars in a distinctive “carrot” form manufactured in the Sinop and Demirci regions constitute the sites. Part of my research is dedicated to investigating the role of each vessel in the local and regional economies of Sinop and the Black Sea in Late Antiquity. The intricacies of trade in the ancient world and Sinop’s place within the trade networks and different spheres of interaction are complicated. A provisional framework of geography, history and trade will offer the tools necessary to place shipwrecks A, B and C in an appropriate context within Late Antiquity.
Sinop Geography and Black Sea Hydrology
People inhabited the southern coast of the Black Sea since the Neolithic (Hind 1983; Kerr 1998:1132), but it was only after Greek settlement of the region that the town of Sinop was established. Sinop is located at the base of the Boztepe promontory in central northern Turkey (Figures 2 and 3) and situated in the narrowest part of the 0.8 km wide "neck" of a peninsula 3.2 km long and 1.6 km wide at its widest point. Perhaps the most important aspect of the geography and geology of the Sinop peninsula is its role as the only safe natural harbor on the southern coast of the Black Sea between the Bosporus and Trapezus (Doonan 2004a:37; Leaf 1916:5). The harbor’s role is still apparent, as ships regularly utilize the harbor and seek shelter there from inclement weather. Like many colonies and settlements in the ancient world (Casson 1971:365-366), Sinop has two harbors, the protected lee on the southwest side and the less protected harbor on the east (Graham 2001:124; Hiebert 2001:16). The Sinop peninsula is distinctively situated in that it is the geographical center of the southern coast of the Black Sea and is one of two points connecting the shortest distance across the sea.
4
Figure 2. Sinop is central to both east-west and north-south traffic in the Black Sea (Doonan 2004b:120).
Figure 3. The geography and geology of Sinop create an environment ideal for a center of shipping and trade in the Black Sea (after Doonan 2004a:38).
5 Approximately 7500 years ago, the Black Sea, then a fresh water lake, was flooded by the Mediterranean through the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara and the Bosporus. As a result of flooding, the water is now stratified into two different layers: roughly 200 meters of seawater 0 2- above an anoxic mix of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), total elemental sulfur (S +Sn ), thiosulfate (and 2- 2- 2- + sulfites) (S2O3 +SO3 ), sulfate (SO4 ), total organic nitrogen (Norg), ammonium (NH4 ), nitrite - - 2+ 4+ (NO2 ), nitrate (NO3 ), dissolved manganese (Mn ), particulate manganese (Mn ) and dissolved oxygen (O2) (Yakushev 1998), a lethal composition that does not allow life (Ballard et al. 2001:616). The Black Sea has two primary currents, each in a "lobe" of the sea, spiraling in opposite directions. Between these two gyres is an area of minimal current, creating a convenient, corridor-like region between Sinop and the Crimea in southern Ukraine, which also happens to be the shortest distance across the Black Sea (Coleman et al. 2000:661; Hiebert 2001:17; Hind 1983-1984:85), a distance short enough that "in clear weather it is…possible to cross without ever losing sight of land " (Leaf 1916:4). By sea Sinop is located approximately mid-way between Byzantium (Constantinople) in the west and Phasis in the east (Cramer 1971 [1832]:230). Its central position and its proximity to a comparatively easy overland route from Mesopotamia through the Anatolian plateau (Boardman 1999:255; Doonan 2004a:42), combined with its natural harbors and resources such as timber, clay and metals (Boardman 1999:241; Dewdney 1971:53; Leaf 1916:11) made it an invaluable location for commercial shipping in the ancient world. Commerce in the Mediterranean and Black Seas in the Graeco-Roman period tended to follow an east-west pattern (Hiebert 2001:18; Ramsay 1962 [1890]:58), and Sinop’s central location between the trade cities of Byzantium and Trapezus would have facilitated its role as a major trading point (Jurišić 2000:47). Sinop’s function in the spheres and networks of ancient commerce was likely established at its founding in the eighth or seventh centuries BCE by the Greeks, long before Late Antiquity or the Byzantine era (Boardman 1999:240), and Sinop has remained important into modern times. As Robinson (1906a:134) writes, Sinop played such a central role in commerce in the Black Sea that many places were said to be "near Sinop," even if they were not geographically close. Doonan (2004b:158) concludes that “[f]rom at least the 7th century BCE and perhaps even earlier a port at Sinop controlled the crossroads of maritime communication through the Black Sea.”
6 A Brief History of Sinop
There is convincing evidence for the founding of Sinop during the period of Greek (Milesian or Ionian) colonization in the eighth through seventh centuries BCE (Boardman 1999:240; Graham 2001:114, 124; Hind 1983-1984:95; Tsetskhladze 1998b:36), but it is possible that the region may have been involved in long distance trade prior to Greek settlement. Because of its strategic position, Sinop was conquered on several occasions. Though historical and archaeological records are incomplete, there is evidence that the city was destroyed at least once by nomads (Robinson 1906a:149), occupied at one time by Cimmerians (Cramer 1972 [1832]:229; Graham 1971:40; Robinson 1906a:133), Colchians and Scythians (Tsetskhladze 1998a:47), had several vassal states or colonies of its own (Cramer 1972 [1832]:229), was the chief town and residence of the kings of Pontus (Cramer 1972 [1832]: 231), and, in the first century BCE, was ruled by a large group of pirates just before it was forcefully incorporated into the Roman world by the Roman general Lucullus (Cramer 1972 [1832]:232; Lloyd 1989:180; Robinson 1906b:254). After incorporation, Sinop was designated a Roman colony and continued to flourish throughout the Byzantine era (Cramer 1972 [1832]:232-233). Sinop’s prosperity in ancient times was likely due in large part to its exports and trade (Boardman 1999:255). An alternate hypothesis suggests initial Greek settlement was based on the economic foundations of fishing, agriculture and craft-production, making trade a secondary consideration (Tsetskhladze 1998a:68). Sinop became a prominent trading center and in addition to its role as a facilitator of commerce, Sinop exported several products. Products of the olive industry in the Sinop region may have been the primary export in Roman times (Bouzek 1990:100; Doonan 2004b:95), but other exports were also important to the region. A red clay that contained a pigment from the native ore of mercury, called vermilion, cinnabar or bole, was exported. The clay was used as a dye, in paints for artwork, woodwork and for sealing ships (Leaf 1916:11; Robinson 1906a:141). Timber used in ship construction from local hills was also exported (Dewdney 1971:53; Johnson 1927:200; Robinson 1906a:140, 1906b:261). A prominent food export from Sinop was pickled fish sent to Greece as a staple for the “common” people (Graham 2001:136; Robinson 1906a:140). Wine from Sinop was exported from as early as the fifth century BCE through at least the second century CE (Bouzek 1990:100). Shipping jars from local amphora factories (Tsetskhladze 1998a:41-42) were used to transport trade goods.
7 Shipping jars in various forms are common throughout antiquity, but the jars produced in the Sinop region were important during the early parts of the first millennium, particularly the fourth through the seventh centuries CE (Arsenéva et al. 1997:187; Garlan 1998:31; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:447; Robinson 1906b:273).
Figure 4. Coastal craft often transported shipping jars in carefully stacked arrangements, as is illustrated in this 3rd c. CE relief of two small vessels laden with shipping jars at the entrance to Rome’s harbor (Casson 1971:plate 148).
Knowing how trade goods were transported in antiquity allows for greater understanding of Sinop’s role in the economies of the Black Sea in Late Antiquity. Goods in the ancient world were either transported at great cost by land (Duncan-Jones 1982:368) or by sea (Figure 4). While overland transport to and from Sinop was possible, Sinop’s proximity to the sea provided more expedient access to transporting goods in ships (Doonan 2004a:42). An explanation of the basic economic infrastructure within which Sinopean trade functioned during the Byzantine era1 is important in creating a framework for studying shipwrecks A, B and C, and is provided in the following section.
1 The term Late Antiquity, approximately encompassing the time between Diocletian (third century CE) and Justinian’s (sixth century CE) rules (de Souza 1999:225), is used most frequently in recent literature and will be used in this thesis. As the shipwrecks studied in this research date between the fourth and the seventh centuries CE, the particular period of interest in this research centers on the formative years of the Byzantine Empire or era, which occur during the period of Late Antiquity. For purposes of this paper, the Byzantine era begins in CE 320, during the reign of Constantine (Haldon 2000:9). The end of the Byzantine era is typically considered to occur at the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 (Browning 1992 [1980]:291).
8 Mediterranean and Black Sea Economies and Sinop
Braund (1994) writes about trade through Georgia in the eastern Black Sea, and a number of other authors (Alabe 1986; Doonan 2004a, 2004b; Lazarov 1986) have also discussed trade in the Black Sea in antiquity. As more reports of recent archaeological projects become available, more may be understood about trade and economics in the Black Sea region during Late Antiquity. The history and culture of the Black and Mediterranean seas are intertwined, largely by routes of maritime shipping and trade (Jurišić 2000:58). The economic infrastructure of the Black and Mediterranean Seas during the Byzantine era was, in fact, established during the Roman period, but we know more about trade networks in the Mediterranean region during Late Antiquity. Comparisons of shipwreck data, shipping and economics between these regions and periods are used extensively in this thesis for purposes of contextualizing data collected from Sites A, B and C.
Figure 5. Dense concentrations of shipwrecks from before 1500 CE in the Mediterranean Sea and the lack of shipwrecks of comparable age in the Black Sea region demonstrate the usefulness of comparing Black Sea shipwrecks with those in the Mediterranean data base (Parker 1995 [1990]:149).
9 Shipwreck data from the Mediterranean are relatively well represented and highly diverse (Parker 1986:34, 1990:345, 1992a), but significantly less information exists for shipwrecks in the Black Sea (Figure 5). As a result, it is necessary to use the Mediterranean data set as a source of basic and comparative information against which to contrast and compare Sites A, B and C. Comparison to the Mediterranean world also allows an incomplete but formulated and educated consideration of the lives of the people who sailed these ships and invested so much in the transport economy of their times.
Ancient Sailing and Sailors
Every sailing vessel is subject to the winds, seas and navigable routes. Every person on a vessel is constrained by its storage capacity or by the opportunities for provision acquisition (Adams 2001: 299), and it was the same in Roman and Byzantine times as it is now, regardless of the type and size of the vessel. Sailors in Late Antiquity were capable of sailing throughout the year but the summer seasons in the Mediterranean were much more conducive to sailing than others (Casson 1971:270; Hohlfelder 2000:245; Pryor 1998:12). Sailing seasons were likely similar in much of the Black Sea, although Melamid (1993:79) reports that the climatic pattern east of Sinop in the Colchis region varies from the rest of Turkey due to its high mountains, which may indicate other regional differences as well. Though there were undoubtedly differences in sailing seasons and trade patterns, as with distributions of shipwrecks between the Black and Mediterranean Seas, inferences about sailing and trade the Black Sea may appropriately be taken from Mediterranean data due to the dearth of data available from the Black Sea region (Branigan and Jarrett 1969:481; Doonan 2004a:37). One inference that can be drawn from Mediterranean sources concerns those involved in trade and sailing. The interconnectedness of trade between the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions (Horden and Purcell 2000:167) makes similarities in trade logistics likely, including similarities among those who actually conducted most shipping. There is some debate as to specific roles of individuals involved in shipping (Tchernia 1989:534), but two categories are generally agreed on: the navicularii and the negotiatores. Navicularii, the ship owners or operators (Parker 1996:100; Peña 1999:8), and the negotiatores, middlemen, wholesalers (Greene 1992:60; Paterson 1998:158, 160) who often were Roman aristocrats (Whittaker
10 1989:538), were instrumental in conducting trade by sea, and they provided the primary means by which goods were distributed in Late Antiquity. These traders, sailors and entrepreneurs were “the heart of the economic system, which provided for the needs of the people, and they underpinned the state’s contribution as well” (Paterson 1998:157-158), the “backbone” of ancient commerce (Casson 1951:136). As Horden and Purcell (2000:172) have articulated, regardless of whether merchants, pirates or apprentices were sailing, it is people on the water who serve to bind communities together and create networks of trade. The ships that wrecked near Sinop were likely engaged in the typical method of trade known as cabotage or tramping, in which merchants known as caboteurs sailed from port to port with mixed cargoes, buying and selling trade items at one port or stopping area and then moving onto the next one, not necessarily bound by a rigid route (Casson 1971:361; Hohlfelder and Vann 1998:35, 2000:134; Horden and Purcell 2000:145-146; Houston 1988:560; Jurišić 2000:9; Parker 1986:36). The general mode of operation for sailors engaged in cabotage was to work within the bounds of what Horden and Purcell (2000:126) term “lines of sight,” or routes sailors followed that afforded the clearest lines of sight between destinations. As a consequence, networks of trade and communication were naturally patterned in the same manner, and resulted in microregions (Horden and Purcell 2000:150), which, when connected through cabotage or longer distance trade routes, created larger spheres of interaction. It was these larger networks of interaction and trade that formed the basis for trade economy in the Roman and Byzantine periods.
Roman Trade
At the peak of its power, which was also the height of maritime exchange (Parker 1996:98) (Figure 6), Rome imported massive quantities of goods from throughout the Mediterranean region, including grain from Alexandria, Sicily and Spain (Aldrete and Mattingly 1999:193-198; Finley 1999:33; Greene 1986:29), wine, and oil (Casson 1965:31). Scholars disagree on what forces drove the Roman economy (Paterson 1998:153-158). Whether trade was influenced primarily by political factors or by the fluctuations and unpredictability of weather that caused shortages in some areas and surpluses in others (Horden and Purcell 2000:205-206), that the Roman Empire was a far-flung and vast trading market (Casson 1980:21) is not disputed.
11 It was a thriving system that lasted well past the end of the Roman Empire and into the time of the formation of the Byzantine Empire in the east (Cameron 1993:101; Peacock and Williams 1986:55), and it was largely made possible through the efforts of sailors, traders, merchants and entrepreneurs. A complex network of traders and large and small sailing ships existed to carry large and small volume cargoes. Even though many ships carried specialized or bulk goods, such as grain, it appears that in most cases they also carried other goods for trade (Houston 1988:558; Parker 1986:36; Whittaker 1983:173). There is disagreement among scholars as to the precise role of Roman and Byzantine governments in trade, but some effort at stabilization and control was attempted, as is indicated by evidence of taxation and the fiscal reforms of Diocletian.
Figure 6. Shipwrecks A, B and C coincide with a period of decline in the number of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, suggesting that they occurred at a time when shipping was still viable but not as prolific as during the Roman period (Parker 1995 [1990]:151).
Emperor Diocletian issued an edict in 301 CE that regulated everything from agriculture to shipping (Duncan-Jones 1982: 366; Mango 1980: 44), likely in an attempt to stabilize coinage (Kenan et al. 1971:177; West 1969:301) and to enforce price-restraint (Duncan-Jones 1982:367).
12 The edict regulates trade and establishes the maximum prices merchants were allowed to charge for luxury or utilitarian goods. It was enforced first in Italy and later throughout much of the Mediterranean region and Asia Minor, but its focus may have been the eastern part of the empire (Duncan-Jones 1982:366). Though the edict may not have had the far-reaching and long term effect that Diocletian had hoped (Chambers 1966:41), it did succeed in imposing some measure of bureaucratic control for a time. Economic reforms made in the edict stayed in effect through the transition from Roman to early Byzantine periods and affected trade conditions throughout the Black and Mediterranean Seas including trade at the port of Sinop.
Byzantine Trade
When Constantine moved the seat of Roman power east to Byzantium (later Constantinople) early in the fourth century CE, the attentions and efforts of the government also shifted eastwards, and “[a]fter 395 east and west were for practical purposes separate realms, linked, but also divided by their past history” (Liebeschuetz 1996:456). Use of trade networks and other institutions in place during the Roman Empire continued throughout Late Antiquity and the formative years of the Byzantine era (Cameron 1993:83; Lopez 1959:69), but the character of trade began to change along with economic and political changes (Arthur 1998:157, 172; Cameron 1993:95). Braund (1994:40) suggests that the Black Sea was “the greatest highway of the region.” While the transportation of vast quantities of goods such as grain to large cities was no longer necessary due to various social, political and economic changes (Greene 1986:43; Haldon 2000: 96; Liebeschuetz 1996:455), merchant vessels of all sizes continued to carry grain, wine, olive oil, salt-fish, garum and numerous other items for long and short distances along the coasts and across open waters (Casson 1994:102). During the Byzantine era, the state actively provided bulk supplies, primarily to its armies, and continued to tax trade (Hopkins 1980; Liebeschuetz 1996:462), but most significant regional trade was conducted by small businesses and in smaller ships (Houston 1988:559; Kingsley 2001:56; Kingsley and Decker 2001:13; Ward-Perkins 2001:174), not by government contractors. Parker (1990:341, 1992:89) and van Doorninck (1972:139) suggest that one ramification of reduction in cargo size and volume of required goods may have been a general reduction in the size of ships
13 in the Mediterranean during this period. Other factors such as changing construction techniques and wood availability may also have played a role in the general size reduction in ships (Steffy 1991:1). The shipwrecks near Sinop support Doonan’s (2004b:96-97) hypothesis that a significant and even prosperous trade of goods transported in shipping jars continued in the Sinop region through at least the end of the sixth century and perhaps the beginning of the seventh, as is indicated by the shipping jars that make up a large portion of each site.
Archaeology and Connectivity
Archaeology is concerned with elucidating interactions and developments of past peoples with their environments and each other through the study of material remains. Maritime archaeologists are concerned with understanding human interactions within the maritime landscape. Westerdahl (1992:5-6) defines the maritime landscape as that which signifies “human utilization (economy) of maritime space by boat: settlement, fishing, hunting, shipping and its attendant subcultures.” Study of this maritime landscape encompasses exploration of peoples’ dependence on water for sustenance, culture, transport and trade. Included in the investigation of the maritime landscape is everything from grand scale cities on the water, networks, trade routes and webs of interaction or connectivity (Horden and Purcell 2000; Parker 2001:23) to individual shipwrecks, piers, people and animals. Several authors also note that another important aspect of the maritime landscape or culture is individual perceptions of how these features interact and affect lives (Parker 2001:26, 32; Westerdahl 1992:5). The town of Sinop and shipwrecks A, B and C, components of the maritime landscape in Late Antiquity, were part of local and regional networks of trade and of the greater economy of the Byzantine period. Economy in the time of the Roman and Byzantine periods is best understood as a mix of small and separate systems, each with its own rules, purposes and ideologies (Davies 1998:241), yet connected through an intricate system of networks over broad regions (Horden and Purcell 2000:150; Osborne 1996:31). While there were many economic systems operating, Pucci (1983:111) suggests it should be possible to understand these smaller period and regional economic contexts and “to try to define each context by analyzing the connexion between local and interregional markets.” From antiquity through much of the recent past, Sinop was a center
14 or gateway (Horden and Purcell 2000:133, 619) of shipping activity at the local level and functioned as a link in east-west and north-south trade (Doonan 2004a:37). It formed a central node in the network of connectivity between both small, local economies and larger cities, such as Trapezus and Constantinople (Figure 2). Networks of trade between these towns were probably facilitated primarily by means of cabotage.
Summary
Surveys in the Sinop region of the Black Sea were conducted with the specific goals of identifying and investigating archaeological maritime resources including shipwrecks, and comparing preservation of the shipwrecks in deep and shallow water. All four Late Antique sites identified during surveys are comprised primarily of shipping jars of a form produced in the Sinop region, an area significant in networks of ancient trade in the Black Sea. Archaeology is one tool that may be used to investigate shipwrecks and trade networks, but it cannot provide all the information necessary to understand the past. I examined data collected from shipwreck sites and evidence for local history, economic environment, and networks of trade to consider the ships within their historical contexts. Technology played a predominant part in identifying and investigating the shipwrecks near Sinop. A brief discussion of the tools and methods employed in investigating and recording the sites is helpful in appreciating the benefits and challenges of remote deepwater archaeology. The following chapter contains descriptions of the technology and methods employed in surveying and investigating sites A, B and C.
15
CHAPTER TWO TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS
“Ships themselves have been described as the most complex artefact routinely produced prior to the Industrial Revolution, and their crew and material culture as unique manifestations of society as a whole” (Gibbins and Adams 2001:280).
Four Late Antique shipwrecks were discovered and investigated during surveys in the Black Sea during the summers of 2000 and 2003. Methodologies for surveys included the use of remote sensing tools and of remotely operated vehicles to locate, identify and examine submerged cultural resources in shallow and deep water of the Black Sea. The technology and methods of operations, as well as general results of the surveys, are described in this chapter.
The 2000 Season
The platform for the 2000 season was Northern Horizon, a dynamically positioned research vessel capable of launching and recovering the necessary survey vehicles (Coleman et al. 2000:661). Remote sensing surveys were conducted with a DSL-120 deep-towed side-scan sonar system seeking acoustic targets (Singh et al. 2000). Targets were investigated using the optical tow sled ARGUS (Figure 7), and the ROV LITTLE HERCULES (Figure 8) (Coleman et al. 2000:662-664). Video cameras on the robots provided real-time data that enabled crewmembers to photograph and record the sites (Ballard et al. 2001; Ward and Ballard 2004). Plasma and video monitor screens in the control van allowed views from every camera operating on both vehicles to be shown at all times, and output from selected cameras was recorded at all times. ESC (electronic still camera) images taken with the strobe camera on ARGUS provided perspectives from slightly farther away from the sites (Appendix A).
16
Figure 7. The tow sled ARGUS was launched from the stern of Knorr (Photo Jeremy Weirich).
Figure 8. The ROV LITTLE HERCULES was present on the 2003 survey but was not used (Photo R. Horlings).
ARGUS and LITTLE HERCULES operated in a tandem configuration. ARGUS was tethered by cable directly to the research vessel, and LITTLE HERCULES was tethered directly
17 to ARGUS. This configuration reduced cable drag on the ROV and minimized the effects of ship motion, enabling LITTLE HERCULES to be free to investigate sites (Ward and Ballard 2004:4). The host ship provides power to both vehicles, but LITTLE HERCULES receives power through a step-down transformer in ARGUS (Coleman et al. 2000: 661, 664). Each vehicle was designed to perform slightly different tasks: LITTLE HERCULES is used for close inspection of sites. ARGUS supplies additional illumination for LITTLE HERCULES, in addition to providing differential perspectives and documentation of the sites. The difference in elevation between the vehicles serves to lessen optical backscatter from suspended particulate matter, which is beneficial for navigational purposes and improved quality of video and still images. Standard operating procedure for investigating the sites entailed maneuvering LITTLE HERCULES above the site at a safe enough elevation to prevent hitting any part of it, but close enough to allow the cameras to detect details of the artifacts. The archaeologist directing the investigation provided instructions to the pilots, determining areas and objects to focus on. ARGUS generally hovered above and behind LITTLE HERCULES, providing light, recording video and ESC images, and presenting a more comprehensive view of the wreck area. Because LITTLE HERCULES has no manipulation capabilities, no artifacts were recovered in the 2000 season, but sediment samples and wood samples were collected for analysis from Site 82 and Site D (Ballard et al. 2001:614, 620). Other than visual media, limited records of vehicle placement, discoveries, specific locations of the vehicles (in terms of sites or movement within sites) or directions of the person directing investigations were created. Size estimates and measurements of sites and artifacts were made by comparing them to relative to objects of known dimensions (Ward and Ballard 2004:4). Partial photomosaics of several sites were created from ESC images taken from ARGUS, but no overall site photomosaics exist.
Identified Sites Of the side-scan sonar anomalies that were investigated, five proved to be sites of interest in terms of the survey objectives (Ward and Ballard 2004:3). Site 82, originally interpreted as a pre-flood habitation site, was examined (Ballard et al. 2001:613), and four ancient shipwreck sites were also identified. Sites A, B and C are at an approximate depth of 85-95 meters, and Site D, located in the anoxic layer, is at 320 meters. Sites A, B and C are comprised of shipping
18 jar mounds, and Site D is an ancient, well preserved wooden shipwreck sitting upright in the bottom sediments (Ballard et al. 2001:619; Ward and Ballard 2004:5-8).
The 2003 Season
The support ship for the 2003 project was R/V Knorr, a United States government research vessel based at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (Figure 9). The 279-foot-long ship is equipped with a satellite positioning system, accurate to the sub-meter. The ship was also specially equipped for this project with satellite telephone and Internet2 technology, which enabled scientists to communicate freely with technical and other support in the United States and allowed Ballard to broadcast daily progress updates over the internet.
Figure 9. Research Vessel Knorr docked in Sinop harbor during the 2003 survey (Photo R. Horlings).
The team returned to the Black Sea in 2003 equipped with ARGUS, a new ROV named HERCULES outfitted with tools designed especially for archaeological survey and excavation (Appendix A, Figure 10), and two elevators for transporting artifacts to the surface (Figure 11). The elevator is a frame with a net to cradle artifacts and net covers that can be lowered to keep
19 the artifacts in place on each side. HERCULES and ARGUS were used in the same configuration as LITTLE HERCULES and ARGUS had been used in the 2000 season, but additional capabilities of HERCULES increased the types and amount of data collected.
Figure 10. HERCULES was launched and retrieved over the port side of the ship by a crane. HMI lights, the High-Definition digital camera, both hydraulic arms, the tool drawer and suction dredges are visible on the front of the ROV (Photo R. Horlings).
20
Figure 11. Protective nets on the elevators served the dual purpose of securing the artifacts and maintaining a constant horizontal position that minimized loss of jar contents (Photo R. Horlings).
A high-definition television camera on HERCULES provided archaeologists with sharper and more detailed imagery of sites than was available in 2000. Additional cameras on both HERCULES and ARGUS supplied more extensive views of the wrecks, including different angles from the same position in the water column. Different views enabled archeologists to have a more encompassing perspective of sites and to more easily describe where the ROV was to be positioned for work. Views from multiple cameras also allowed the pilots more precise control in navigating the vehicles and when positioning HERCULES on the seafloor. HERCULES’ two primary tools include a Kraft Predator hydraulic arm for complex and detailed manipulations and an ISE hydraulic arm for less detail-oriented work. The Predator arm is equipped with interchangeable attachments for different tasks, including a grasping claw that may be manipulated as a hand and a large, tong-like device for recovering large artifacts, particularly shipping jars. The manipulator arm was built with force feedback technology that allows for extreme care in sampling and handling artifacts because the operator could “feel”
21 what was happening through the joystick (de Jonge 2004:124). Two suction-dredge hoses for excavation, plastic tubes for core samples, box coring devices and a scoop for sediment sampling, various tools that could be grasped by the Predator arm, and a pair of lasers set at a predetermined distance to allow for measurement of artifacts completed the tools crucial to archaeology. Other tools attached to HERCULES included a narrow-beam sub-bottom profiler and a high-precision, beacon-based acoustic navigation system called EXACT that acquires data for absolute referenced precision surveys of the sites (Mindell 2004; Mindell and Bingham 2001; Mindell and Croff 2002). Over the course of the project, the team visited Site 82 and Sites B, C and D, but time constraints prevented a visit to Site A. Site 82 and Site D were investigated, but these two sites are discussed elsewhere (Heibert 2005 in press; Ward and Horlings 2005 in press). Several methods of data acquisition at Sites B and C. Images for photomosaics were taken of each site, and the narrow-beam sub-bottom profiler was also used at both sites. Both the photomosaic images and sub-bottom data were collected before any intrusive work was done. Artifact sampling and subsurface testing of sites was a complicated process that involved coordination of archaeologist, pilots and vehicles. During artifact collection HERCULES either hovered slightly above the sediments or was settled on the seafloor near the object of interest. Selected artifacts were then recovered using the Kraft Predator manipulator arm and placed either in a foam-lined sample drawer or carried to the elevator and placed in one of its two protective nets. Sediment samples and a small lead object collected with the plastic scoop were placed in the foam-lined drawer within HERCULES’ body to prevent loss during the ROV’s ascent. Elevators were designed to be free-ascending when attached weights were released by means of a remote control device on the ship, but chemical properties of the water column in the Black Sea prevented engineers from dropping the weights remotely, so each elevator was carried to the surface by HERCULES using the ISE hydraulic arm. The project was documented by National Geographic writers and cameramen, and Robert Ballard kept the public informed of progress via a live broadcast each day (de Jonge 2004) (Figure 12). Briefing sessions provided opportunities to discuss progress, accomplishments, and artifacts and their importance to the goals of the project, but most were informal and therefore not available for reference.
22
Figure 12. National Geographic reporters recorded Cheryl Ward and Robert Ballard discussing recently collected artifacts (Photo R. Horlings).
Care and Curation of Artifacts
Dennis Peichota was the project conservator responsible for curating and caring for collected artifacts. Contents of each shipping jar were collected (Figure 13), and jars were prepared for transfer to the Sinop Museum (see Appendix B for curation details). Data acquired from all the artifacts included measurements, weights, volumes and photographs. Limited time restricted the quantity of data collected, but basic information was collected for each object. Any further requirements of curation were fulfilled by the Sinop Museum.
Post-Processing of Data
At the time of writing, post-processing of data from the Black Sea surveys is on-going. Archaeobotanical analyses of macroscopic plant remains from sediment samples and shipping jar contents are being conducted by Cheryl Ward of Florida State University, Vaughn Bryant and
23 Dawn Marshall at Texas A&M University have conducted preliminary palynological analysis, and Robert Blanchette of the University of Minnesota has identified wood samples from the shipwreck sites.
Figure 13. Cheryl Ward and Dennis Peichota rinsing the sediments out of a shipping jar (Photo courtesy Mike Durban).
I have conducted extensive analysis of visual media from Sites A, B and C. No plans or complete photomosaics were created from collected data. In order to analyze the sites, it was necessary to create site plans for each of the shipwreck sites using video footage, still images and partial photo mosaics. Placement of objects was recorded after comparing views from as many sources and angles as possible to insure accuracy. For mapping purposes, I used artifact measurements to estimate size and considered each carrot-shaped jar to be 0.85 m long, a figure that is an average of published dimensions for similar shipping jars from other sites and of dimensions of examples recovered in 2003 (see Chapter Four). I identified essentially “whole” shipping jars on the site plans as fitting those criteria, but some may be broken at the shoulder or toe. Shipping jar spacing and timber lengths were based on the shipping jar size estimate.
24 Overall lengths and widths of each site may vary slightly, as it was difficult to estimate the height of the mounds when mapping from video and still images, but physical relationships are accurate.
Summary
Remotely operated vehicles and modern technology provided the means for investigation of three archaeological sites in the Black Sea. The ROV HERCULES was designed for archaeological investigation and was used to acquire artifacts at Sites B and C. Post-processing of data is not complete at the time of writing. Visual data analyses have been completed and site plans have been created for ease in site description and discussion. The site plans combined with analysis of other data contribute to the archaeology and history of shipwrecks A, B and C. The following chapter discusses the general importance of shipping jars in archaeology and their specific role in providing approximate dates for sites A, B and C and placing them within the context of the Black Sea in Late Antiquity.
25
CHAPTER THREE SHIPPING JARS
“The archaeology of shipwrecks should be not merely the embellishment of the maritime historical record, but the elucidation of otherwise unattainable aspects of human behavior. The combination of shipwreck archaeology with the methodologies of other disciplines will result in the authentic reconstruction of behavior patterns, and will permit the formulation of generalities regarding maritime lifeways and human social processes” (Murphy 1983:69).
Study of material culture in archaeological sites provides the basis for understanding sites and their contexts because, as Parker (1990:345) writes, “[a] group of manufactured items from a shipwreck cargo can give insights into wider questions, not otherwise evidenced.” Classifications and typologies are tools for identifying functions of artifacts within societies (Hocker 2004:2). One of the most common artifacts from antiquity is the transport amphora or shipping jar, and the largest number of complete ancient shipping jars is found on shipwreck sites (Hayes 1997:27; Jurišić 2000:9). Even though pottery itself is not a major trade item, its usefulness in the study of archaeology, history and trade is well recognized (Alabe 1986:389, Jones 1986:840, Lawall 1998:77; Poulter 1999:115). Greene (1992:58) suggests that its distribution is likely to reflect patterns of commerce, Kingsley and Decker (2001:15) contend that pottery analysis is arguably one of the most influential tools for examining exchange, and Mango (2001:87) considers shipping jars to be “staples of trade.” Manufactured artifacts visible at Sites A, B and C consist almost entirely of shipping jars, and consequently, production and background knowledge of them is helpful in studying the shipwrecks and their contexts in their entirety. All of the shipping jars on sites A and C are carrot-shaped and similar in form to the jars from Sinop described by Kassab-Tezgör (1999:119). Site B consists primarily of carrot-shaped jars but also includes a few Late Roman Amphora 1 (LRA1) or British type B shipping jars, similar to those found on the Yassıada wreck in Turkey (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:155-160; van Alfen 1996:191) and elsewhere in the Mediterranean and beyond. Classification of these
26 shipping jars has allowed for approximate dating of the shipwrecks and for placing them within the context of Sinopean trade in Late Antiquity.
Shipping Jars and Archaeology
“Pottery is the commonest class of artefact found on excavations, but precisely because it was so common, it received no significant comments from Roman writers; virtually everything known about it is therefore derived from archaeological research” (Greene 1986:156). Even in ancient times, pottery was never very expensive and was a ubiquitous commodity throughout the ancient world (Pucci 1983:110). Many people in modern times do not consider utilitarian pottery a significant aspect of culture due to its association with the common and daily aspects of life, but it is the common aspects of life that are the foundations upon which culture is built. As Pucci (1983:106) writes, “pottery can be regarded as a sort of spy, or a symptom of a much more complex reality.” Production of pottery, particularly of coarse-ware shipping jars, has been extensively studied and mapped in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the United Kingdom (Arsenéva et al. 1997; Garlan 1998; Kassab-Tezgör 1998; Mango 2001:87; Peacock 1982; Peacock and Williams 1986). While jars themselves are of great interest to archaeologists and historians, they were likely of lesser importance to those who used them, thought of simply as receptacles for substances being stored, transported or sold (Casson 1971:199; Garlan 1983:27; Greene 1986:162; Haldon 2000:70; Pucci 1983:109). Archaeologists, however, study them for the insights to which they may lead (Peacock 1982:174): inferences about routine aspects of life, commerce, technology and social organization. Large numbers of shipping jars survive in the archaeological record and it is often comparatively easy to assess chronologies and to trace their source(s) of production (Grace 1979:11; Peacock 1982:154; Ward-Perkins 2001:170). The challenge in assigning chronologies to shipping jars is that it is very difficult to precisely date coarse wares, unless the jars are stamped with names or a date, and as a result date ranges are often assigned (Grace 1963:321, 328). Changing shapes and dimensions of jars over time provide clues for date ranges and identifications as well (Grace 1985:12; Karagiorgou 2001:130; Kassab-Tezgör 1999:119). Many coarse-wares had a localized and restricted distribution, and even if historical contexts and
27 associations are established, it may still be difficult to generalize and extrapolate chronologies outside of immediate production regions or contexts (Peacock 1982:162). The concept of petrological and chemical sourcing of shipping jars is an established method of analysis in the sciences, including archaeology (Greene 1992:35-36; Vaughan 1999:117). Some aspects of shipping jars can be discerned from studying the complete vessels themselves, but other aspects, such as pyroxenes in the fabric of Sinopean shipping jars and processes of production (Kuzucuoğlu and Andrieu 1998:455; Whitbread 1986:96-97, 1995:237- 238) are more precisely determined from petrology and chemical analyses. When present, other means such as stamps or graffiti on the shipping jars themselves can provide similar information, although not to the extent that petrological and chemical analyses may. In the future, petrological and chemical analyses of shipping jar fabric may be able to provide answers to questions concerning specific production regions of shipping jars studied in this thesis. Stamped shipping jars often provide valuable information. There were different types of stamps placed on shipping jars, including maker’s marks, contents, or a date of some kind (Grace 1985; Koehler 1982:285). Stamps placed on jars during production or shipping provide invaluable data when dating the jars (Grace 1949:177, 1985), locating sources of production, trade, and even for identifying individual potters (Grace 1985:14). Hopkins (1983:xxvi) writes that pots, whether or not they are stamped or marked, function now as “tracers” for other items that were used in trade such as wine, oil, honey or other perishable items, but which do not necessarily survive in the archaeological record. Grace (1949:177) points out that the dates of the stamps on jars do not necessarily guarantee the date of the contents, but they may be used to give an approximate date. Archaeologists and historians use more than the shipping jars as data and dating sources. Shipping jar contents, when they are preserved, may provide information about cargoes, trade items, diet and other aspects of culture. Shipping jars were usually used to store or transport liquids such as wine, oil, garum (fish sauce) and other fish products, but they were also used for non-liquids including olives, fruit, nuts, grains and legumes and spices (Jurišić 2000:9-11). Peacock and Williams (1986:17) suggest a general method for determining contents of jars found in archaeological contexts:
28 If the source area is known, a rather better way of assessing the likely content is to study the natural resources of the region. To some extent this can be done considering the climate, flora and fauna…but where possible it is better to evaluate resource exploitation from references in the Classical literature.
A more reliable way to determine original contents and origins of shipping jars, whether they were stamped or labeled or not, is to study the remains found inside them. Remains can include anything from grape or fruit seeds and stones, insect parts or lipids, each of which is preserved under different circumstances (Haldane 1993:351). Botanical remains are beneficial in terms of potential for direct knowledge of traded goods (Haldane 1993:357-358), but they can also be problematic. One problem lies in the possibility that shipping jars may have been produced in one area and shipped to another for filling (Peacock and Williams 1986:17) or were reused. In cases such as these, contents of shipping jars may not actually indicate the origins of shipping jars themselves (Jones 1986:843; Muckelroy 1978:228), but may be indicators of reuse and trade connections, as is indicated by graffiti on shipping jars from the seventh-century Yassıada shipwreck (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:161-165). Another complication is the possibility that the original contents may not be preserved because the seals are no longer intact. Chemical analysis of sediment content from shipping jars is particularly applicable in these cases, although it may also be used in studying the contents of jars still containing cargo. Horden and Purcell (2000:149) report that there was some shipping of empty jars, but there is little evidence to suggest that this was a regular practice, especially considering, as Garlan (1983:27) writes, that the value of the jars lay in their contents and not in the jars themselves. Shipping jars used in antiquity were commonly coated with some form of pine pitch or resin to seal them and prevent evaporation through the porous clay. Pitch or resin lining in shipping jars generally implies that wine or a wine-based product was transported or stored in them (Koehler 1987:54; van Alfen 1996:203). Shipping jars recovered from underwater sites often retain stains or remnants from the pitch coating or sealant, such as the pine pitch lining present in jars from Sites B, C and D. Amphoras intended for conveying oil were apparently treated with oil lees (sediment or dregs), gum or wax (Koehler 1986:52), but it is often difficult to visually identify oil linings in shipping jars. Other products such as fish and olives may have been shipped in jars that had particular treatments on the interiors (Koehler 1986:52).
29 While many mass-produced shipping jars were of standard sizes and capacities in the ancient world (Grace 1949:180), a certain amount of variation in the jars was common, as demonstrated by finds on the Yassıada seventh-century ship and a Hellenistic vessel at Serçe Limanı (van Alfen 1996:189, 207). Pucci (1983:108) writes that “much Roman pottery was mass-produced in standard patterns.” Koehler (1987:54) concludes from her work on the shipping jars from the Hellenistic wreck at Serçe Limanı that “the jars …were manufactured with the intention of being quite uniform in capacity” (emphasis added). Though many shipping jars throughout the ancient world were similar in size and volume, Parker (1992b:92) and Grace (1949:176) agree that there was only a broadly standardized volume for shipping jars, at least until the late sixth or early seventh century (van Alfen 1996:213). Significant variance in size and shape exists in shipping jars, probably the result of production by different individuals rather than in molds (Parker 1990:345). The importance of these shipping jars in Late Antiquity lies in the fact that they were transport containers for various exported goods (Cameron 1993:101) especially wine and oil, two “staples of the ancient world” (Frankel 1999:39) . The jars themselves were incidental exports. The study of shipping jar distribution is one tool that may be used to examine commerce (Peacock 1982:154). As Peacock and Williams (1986:54) write:
It is thus important to consider how our knowledge of Roman [and Byzantine] economics should influence the way in which we explain production and distribution of these vessels, and conversely how the evidence of amphorae can be used to enhance our understanding of economic processes.
Study of shipping jars, other artifacts and their contexts from an archaeological perspective (Grace 1971:63) helps to answer questions about the ancient world that may otherwise be difficult or impossible to answer. Questions of chronology, source, identification of specific events (Grace 1963:332) and related aspects of the economic, social and cultural needs (Garlan 1983:30) may be addressed through study of these artifacts. The shipping jars on Sites A, B and C were likely produced in the Sinop region of Turkey, and a discussion of shipping jar production in this region is useful for placing the jars and the ships that carried them within an appropriate historical setting.
30 Sinop and Carrot-Shaped Jars
Certain variables must be taken into consideration in the mass production of ceramics, including availability and quality of raw materials, abundant sources of fuel, knowledge of form and function for which the jars are designed and some form of market or means of selling the product (Peacock 1982:25). The Sinop region is in an ideal location for the production of shipping jars as it has multiple sources of high quality clay, fuel for firing from the nearby forest, and an excellent harbor (Johnson 1927: 200; Kassab-Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:441; Robinson 1906b:261, 1906a:140). In fact, excavations of ceramic production centers and kilns (Kassab- Tezgör 1993), as well as high numbers of Sinopean shipping jar fragments found around the Black Sea indicate that the Sinop region may actually have been the most important, or at least the most prolific, producer and exporter of shipping jars (as well as tiles and some pithoi) for the Black Sea area (Figure 14) (Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör 1996:325; Garlan and Tatlican 1999:21; Kassab-Tezgör 1999:117).
Figure 14. Sites A, B and C are located (Ward and Ballard 2004:3) near the Sinop promontory, a prolific shipping jar production area (Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör 1996:325; Garlan and Tatlican 1999:21; Kassab-Tezgör 1999:117) (after Doonan 2004:38).
31 It appears that shipping jar producers in Demirci (Garlan 1998:31) and in Zeytinlik/Sinop (Gates 1996:328) commonly stamped their jars in the early centuries of production, mostly before and in the Hellenistic period (Conovici 2002; Dereli and Garlan 1997:1999; Grace 1979; Hiebert 2001:12; Monachov 1993:107). This does not, however, seem to be the case for all shipping jar producers in the Sinop region in later centuries or in the Black Sea area as a whole: “[f]or the exported amphorae of Heraclea, Sinope, Chersoesos and Thasos found in the Black Sea, it would seem that only a fifth or sixth of the amphorae were stamped (all periods together)” (Garlan 1983:28). Shapes of shipping jars produced in the Sinop region appear to have changed over time (Kassab-Tezgör et al. 2003:171, 176-178), and the color of the fabric used in manufacturing seems to have changed from pink to orange red with some white in the period from the second through the sixth centuries CE (Kassab-Tezgör 1993:348, 1999:118; Kassab-Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:441). There are often differences in the color of individual shipping jars that are otherwise nearly identical, but study has shown that this is most likely the result of firing differences and not from differences in the clay used in their production (Arsenéva et al. 1997:187). Variation makes it difficult to assign precise dates to any particular shipping jar or style of jars without additional chronological evidence, so it is necessary to assign a date range. In antiquity, workshops near Sinop manufactured shipping jars of several types, including a carrot-shaped transport amphora (Kassab-Tezgör 1999:119) that is closely related to the jars on Sites A, B and C. Although the name implies that the type was manufactured only in the region of Sinop, there were actually several centers in the surrounding region, including Zeytinlik and Demirci, which also produced this particular jar form (Gates 1997:294-295). The principal production site near Sinop is Demirci (located about 14 km south of Sinop), active from the Hellenistic period in the fourth century BCE through the fifth and sixth centuries CE (Garlan 1998:31; Gates 1997:295; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:447; Kassab-Tezgör and Dereli 2001; Kassab- Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:441). Peak production of carrot-shaped shipping jars was during the fourth and fifth centuries CE (Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör 1996:331; Kassab-Tezgör 1993:348; Kassab-Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:425). Proximity of Sites A, B and C to Sinop and the fabric of the shipping jars suggests that the jars are of Sinopean origin, not Syrian.
32 Table 1. Descriptions of shipping jars produced in the Sinop region
Figure 15. Only four of the five types of shipping jar produced in the Sinop region are pictured (correctly proportional in size to each other) because no complete example of the “convex lip” form is known (Courtesy of editor Jean Maisonneuve, Librairie a’Amérique et d’Orient, from Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör, 1996, Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de céramiques de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 4:325-334).
33 The carrot-shaped form is one of five different shipping jar types produced in the Sinop region that are loosely linked in time and form (Table 1, Figure 15). There are only four types pictured in Figure 15 because no complete example of the “convex lip” jar is known. Two distinguishing features of “Sinopean” shipping jars are the reddish-orange colored clay body or fabric with pyroxene and quartz inclusions (Garlan 1998:31; Gates 1997:295; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:447, 1999:117; Kassab-Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:441; Whitbread 1995:238) and the particular “carrot” shape. Other features include a long, narrow neck banded by a strip or roll of clay at the lip, handles with upper ends attached at the neck and lower ends attached at the shoulder, and a distinctive narrowing towards the solid pointed foot that creates an effect much like the tip of a carrot (Garlan 1998:31; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:445). Each Sinopean carrot-shaped jar has a liquid capacity of approximately six liters (Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör 1996:331; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:445; Kassab-Tezgör 1999:119). Factories in the Sinop and Demirci regions have been making shipping jars from the fourth century BCE and were active through at least the sixth or early seventh centuries CE. Archaeologists are able to identify jars from Sinop based on their form and on maker’s marks or stamps that are present on jars from early years of production. For example, in the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions, the earliest evidence of shipping jars with stamps linking them to Sinop dates to primarily the fourth century BCE (Dereli and Garlan 1997:199; Lazarov 1986:404). There appears to have been a surge in production in the third century BCE, as is illustrated by the building of a new shipping jar factory in Zeytinlik in the third century BCE (Garlan 1998:30). Most Sinopean stamped shipping jars in the Mediterranean (primarily reported from the Athenian Agora, but also from Appolonia in Libya and Thasos in the Aegean) seem to date to the third and second centuries BCE. In the Black Sea, the most frequent finds of third century BCE Sinopean shipping jars are in the ancient cities of Callatis in modern-day Romania, Histria in modern-day Croatia, and Tanaïs in modern-day Ukraine (Alabe 1986:379; Lazarov 1986:404). Alabe (1986:380, 387) suggests that there are problems in dating Sinopean stamps and notes that most Sinopean stamps found in the Black Sea region (primarily in Russia, Romania and Bulgaria) date to the fourth to second centuries BCE (Alabe 1986:381). The distribution of stamped shipping jars throughout the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea is indicative of an extensive trade network operating during the Hellenistic period.
34 Vibrant trade continued after the Hellenistic period. Doonan (2004b:150) suggests that transport amphoras produced in the Demirci area “were distributed widely around the Black Sea and in parts of the Mediterranean.” Carrot-shaped jars were produced in the Sinop region in the fourth through the early sixth centuries CE (Garlan and Kassab-Tezgör 1996:325). Their distribution is not particularly well documented in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, but isolated finds have been reported from several sites. Kingsley and Raveh (1996:48) report a portion of a similar carrot-shaped shipping jar from excavations at Dor Harbor in Israel. Black inclusions in the fabric may suggest it originated in Sinop, but further analysis is required. Empereur and Picon (1989:232) report fragments from carrot-shaped shipping jars from Adana and Tarsus in Turkey, Ras el Bassit in Syria, Tripoli in Libya and in Egypt. The problem with Empereur’s and Picon’s discussion in terms of Sinopean shipping jars is that they cite Zemer (1978:49), who suggests that the production location for carrot-shaped shipping jars nearly identical to the ones produced in Sinop is in fact in Syria. Sibella (2002:14) reports a partial carrot-shaped shipping jar recovered in a fisherman’s net along the southern coast of Turkey suggests it was produced in Egypt or the Black Sea. Chemical composition and petrological analyses of the shipping jars in question may be required to determine their origins. Sites A, B and C contain the largest known assemblages of carrot-shaped shipping jars. Excavations of kilns at Demirci demonstrate a transition in form and fabric of shipping jars from the fourth to sixth century CE orange-colored carrot-shaped jars to the smaller fifth to sixth century Demirci-style jars of lighter fabric. Arsenéva et al. (1997) report a close similarity between the fabric of Demirci-style shipping jars produced in Demirci with the fabric of shipping jars from Tanaïs. Kassab-Tezgör and Touma (2001:111) discuss examples of Demirci-style shipping jars from Dibsi Faraj and Ras Ibn Hani (Syria) that appear nearly identical in fabric, form and production technique to light-colored shipping jars produced in Demirci in the fifth and sixth centuries CE, indicating a likely trade connection between the two regions. Until the discovery of Sites A, B, C and D, the only other evidence for export in shipping jars produced in Demirci was a small shipwreck in the Bay of Karakum on the eastern side of the Sinop peninsula (Figure 14). The vessel was carrying tiles and shipping jars made in Demirci (Kassab-Tezgör 1998:445, Kassab-Tezgör et al. 2003:178) like those found on Site D (Ward and Horlings in press).
35 Evidence presented here demonstrates that shipping jars from Sinop were transported throughout much of the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea and that many examples are not well documented. Up until our survey research, the only direct evidence for distribution of shipping jars from the Sinop and Demirci region came from a small shipwreck next to Zeytinlik (see Figure 14). The dozen jars represented by fragments at that site are of Demirci style and date slightly later than the carrot-shaped shipping jars (Kassab-Tezgör 1999:119). What is apparent from this discussion is that more documentation of Sinopean shipping jars, particularly carrot- shaped jars, needs to take place.
Late Roman Amphora 1 (LRA1)
There are many LRA1 variations (van Alfen 1996:191), also commonly known as British Type B shipping jars (Williams 1989:95). Its origins are uncertain, but evidence suggests that the southwest region of Asia Minor, Cyprus Rhodes and the Antioch region of northern Syria were likely production areas (Bonifay and Villedieu 1989:23; Peacock and Williams 1986:186; Reynolds 1995:71), and Karagiorgou (2001:155) suggests that the LRA1 jars may have originated in Cilician Turkey. Production of LRA1 jars dates from the fourth century CE to the seventh century CE (van Alfen 1996:191). Although only four LRA1 jars are visible on the surface at Site B, at least two forms of LRA1 jars are present. KN172-15.03B.002, recovered from the midships area by HERCULES, is an example of an LRA1 that is slightly wider at the shoulder than at the base and of a type dated by Peacock and Williams (1986:187) to the later fifth and early sixth-centuries, a date also assigned to the type by van Doorninck (1996:210) in his study of the Yassıada assemblage (c.625 CE) (Figure 16). A similar jar is dated to the sixth to early seventh-century by Zemer (1978:76). Another LRA1 at Site B (not collected) is slightly smaller with straighter sides and appears to be similar to van Alfen’s Type VI (1996:197-198) (Figure 17).
36
Figure 16. The shipping jar Figure 17. One of the LRA1 labeled KN172-15.03B.002 (left, Photo shipping jars on Site B (left, Photo Dennis Peichota) from Site B is similar Institute for Archaeological in profile to this LRA1 in the Bodrum Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute Museum of Underwater Archaeology for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium (Alpözen et al. 1995:113). (not collected) is similar to van Alfen’s Type VI jar (1996:197).
It is possible that LRA1 shipping jars, which appear to be more standardized in shape and volume than previous varieties of shipping jars (van Alfen 1996:213), originally were produced for transporting goods, specifically olive oil, to military establishments, especially at the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh centuries (van Alfen 1996:213; Karagiorgou 2001:149, 153). Bonifay and Villedieu (1989:25) suggest that the jars may also have been used to transport wine. Van Alfen (1996:213) also suggests that increasing uniformity of the jars may be an attempt by the Byzantine administration to increase economic relations within its boundaries and change marketing practices through greater accuracy and efficiency “in the way amphora-borne commodities were exchanged.” Distribution of LRA1 shipping jars is better documented than that of the carrot-shaped shipping jars. LRA1 jars are known throughout the Mediterranean from Spain and France in the northwest (Bonifay and Villedieu 1989:25; Vallverdú 2000:205, 216) to Italy in the north central Mediterranean (Arthur 1998:163) to Bulgaria in the north (Poulter 1999:252) to Egypt in the southeast (Hayes 1997:16), although the largest assemblage of the jars (39) is from the Yassıada shipwreck in Turkey (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:155; van Alfen 1996:192). Kingsley and Raveh (1996:49) report several shipping jars from the Dor Harbor that closely resemble LRA1
37 shipping jars. Although the function of the LRA1 shipping jars on Site B is not known, they were likely produced in the Mediterranean and as a result represent a distinct trade connection between the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
Summary
Trade and exchange of goods in the ancient world was in many ways as complex as in modern societies. Modern understanding of the ways trade and economies functioned is shaped by evidence available through historical sources and archaeology, and as a result is inherently limited and affected by biases and differences of interpretation. We do, however, have the advantage of shipping jars in the archaeological record, as has been discussed in this chapter. Artifacts such as shipping jars may provide us with information about trade, diet, ships’ cargoes and to a degree the trade networks or routes by which trade was conducted. The dominant artifact types in sites A, B and C are the shipping jars that provide evidence of trade at the local level and serve as indicators of greater networks of trade (Haldon 2000:70). Though these artifacts provide invaluable data on the economy and trade, and are in fact crucial for understanding trade in the ancient world, they cannot be relied upon alone to provide information on the precise mechanisms of exchange (Ward-Perkins 2001:173). As a result, data provided by complementary sources, for example, history, becomes increasingly important. Information gained from complementary sources, along with analysis of shipwrecks A, B and C, will provide fundamental data important for investigating Sinop’s role within the context of Late Antiquity. The remainder of the thesis consists of analysis and discussion of data from shipwrecks A, B and C.
38
CHAPTER FOUR SITES A, B AND C
“What we do have is archaeology and, above all, shipwrecks – those closed, fine-grain assemblages that encapsulate episodic glimpses of larger processes” (Parker 1996:97).
Shipwreck Sites A, B and C are mound features comprised of coarse-ware shipping jars. These shipping jars contained at least part of the ships’ cargo, but as no excavation was conducted it is not possible to identify any other cargoes. Each site also includes timbers, other artifacts, and miscellaneous objects that probably constitute modern debris. All three sites lie between 85 and 95 m, a depth range beyond normal working depths for divers, and as a result remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) were used to investigate the sites. Video and still images and narrow beam sub-bottom profiler data were collected from the shipwreck sites. Post-processing of collected artifacts, sediment samples, shipping jar contents, and wood samples provides a third category of data from these surveys. As this was a survey project and not an excavation, a limited number of samples was recovered from each site. Sites A, B and C each consist primarily (in visible areas) of shipping jars. Study of these jars, their contents and their contexts provides the core of analysis for Sites A, B and C. Analysis of visual data of the sites provides an important means for describing and understanding the immediate contexts of the jars, and offers insights into processes surrounding the wrecking events and subsequent deterioration of the ships. While there may not appear to be sufficient hull remains of each shipwreck visible for comprehensive study, a great deal of data may still be acquired from these shipwrecks (Parker 1976:288, 1981:332). This chapter focuses on descriptions and observations of the shipwreck sites primarily acquired from visual data from the 2000 and the 2003 field seasons. Sub-bottom data is not yet available, and shipping jar content description and analyses are incomplete.
39 Overall Environment and Conditions
The seascape surrounding Sites A, B and C is one that at first glance appears flat and motionless. Upon closer investigation, however, results of hydrographic dynamics are apparent. Each time we visited the sites there was particulate matter termed “sea snow” in the water column. Sea snow is a common term for authigenic aggregates, “particles produced in the water by the condensation of dissolved organic matter,” including some of biological origin such as degradation of feces and bodies, and some of a secondary nature (Pomeroy and Deibel 1980:643- 644). Video footage from every visit to Sites A, B and C shows sea snow continually falling on the sites, although the amount suspended in the water column on any day seemed to vary. Movement of light sediment, particulate matter and remnants of jellyfish carcasses2 indicates a current. The current appears to be a significant factor in preventing complete inundation of shipwreck sites by sediments and sea snow, but this inference is based only on video footage observation. Ross et al. (1970:163, 165) report that a relatively low year-round rate of sedimentation is uniform throughout most of the Black Sea, with sedimentation rates in the south-central region at >30 cm/1000 years. Though the sedimentation rate is low, there is still build-up of sediments within and around sites, producing areas of slightly higher elevation than the surrounding seafloor. The elevation of the mound essentially creates its own environment that traps sediment, branches and other debris on the seafloor. Currents moving around the mound cause a scouring type of action (Ballard et al. 2001:616-618) in which sediments are removed in some areas and built up in others, although areas of scouring are not deep in the sediments, which may indicate that the scouring is not a significant factor in site formation and dissipation. Currents may be responsible for some dispersal of elements and artifacts on submerged archaeological sites, but other agents also are involved in the deterioration of shipwrecks. In the Black Sea and in many parts of the world, the larval form of certain species of mollusks, including Teredo navalis L., commonly called the shipworm (Murina 1998), is responsible for the destruction of many organics, including wood, on shipwreck sites. These creatures, along with currents and abrading sand, are primarily responsible for the demise of exposed wood and
2 My analysis of video images show that the jellyfish most closely resemble the species Aurelia as described by Bayha (2003).
40 subsequent collapse of the hull. Although little hull structure may remain on the surface, significant portions may be preserved under the cargo and sediments because the cargo and covering sediments act as a semi-permeable cover that prevents destroying organisms and other deleterious elements from accessing buried material (Parker 1981:312). Some timbers are visible on the surface of Sites A, B and C. While it is nearly impossible to determine from existing data whether timbers lying on the surface are directly associated with the shipwreck and are not later deposits, some method for discussing their association with the sites is essential. For clarity in this thesis, any timber that shows obvious signs of intentional modification and is very near or still partially buried in the site is considered to be potentially directly associated with the ship’s hull. At present there is no evidence to suggest that any timber does, in fact, belong to one of the hulls. I describe features such as squared edges, notches and non-erosional features on timbers that I interpret as intentional modification to provide data for future analysis of the timbers and their possible associations with the original vessels. An understanding of shipwreck site formation may also provide insights into the roles of different elements in shipwreck sites and their potential association with the wrecked vessels.
Shipwreck Site Formation
When ancient ships were loaded with shipping jars similar to those in Sites A, B and C, jars were stacked vertically in tiers and interlocked to ensure minimal movement in transit and to allow for maximum storage (Casson 1994:104; Gianfrotta et al. 1997:149, 178-185; Grace 1949:175) (Figure 18). The jars were intentionally shaped for ease of handling and for secure packing or lading in ships, which provided the most economical means of transporting large numbers of jars (Koehler 986:49, 58, 67). Extra protection for the jars was provided by dunnage or packing material, often brushwood, which was placed underneath and between jars (Parker 1992b:90). The shipping jars were packed for maximum economical use of the ship and to ensure least movement and possible breakage in transport, and there may be a relationship between the shape of the shipping jar and where it was stowed on the ship (Bakirtiz 1989:74). Shipping jars were often packed efficiently enough that they retained their basic arrangement
41 even during and after the wrecking event, although the circumstances of the event would certainly have dictated how cohesive and organized the jars remained. When wrecked ships land on the seafloor, they often sink some distance into the sediments and then are covered by sediments (Muckelroy 1978:171). Most shipwreck sites with shipping jars exhibit similar patterns of stacking, but few remain in a coherent mound because of the collapse of the wooden hull. As the exposed hulls break apart and the wood disintegrates or is eaten, many of the shipping jars fall out onto the seafloor. At some stage in the process their
Figure 18: As ships’ hulls disintegrate, cargo is dispersed over the shipwreck site. Cargoes of shipping jars will often partially retain lading patterns even after the hull has completely deteriorated (Gianfrotta et al. 1997:149).
seals disintegrate, allowing contents to spill. Jars fall out of the wreckage in nonrandom distribution, but over time the pattern changes and they become more randomly dispersed. Throughout this process, sediments accumulate throughout the wreck site. The combination of original stacking and sediments filling in space between jars results in some retention of the original lading pattern even when the retaining hull is no longer present. Both stacked and random distribution patterns are represented on sites A, B and C (Figure 19).
42
Figure 19: One of the partial mosaics from Site A displays dispersed shipping jars, timbers and debris (Photomaosaic courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO- URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Shipwreck Sites A, B and C
Sites A, B and C are all mound features, but there is significant variation between sites. Sites A and B have elevations more than a meter in height above the seabed, and Site C is a mound, but is less visible on the surface, and little elevation above the seabed is discernible. In
43 the following descriptions of Sites A, B and C, most data is derived from standard VHS film footage, still frames taken from video footage, ESC images and digital still images. Approximate measurements are derived from the site plans compiled during analysis of visual media from the shipwreck sites.
Table 2. Approximate Sizes of Shipwreck Sites A, B and C Section Area Total Exposed Shipwreck Site Length Width Elevation (m2) Site Area (m2) Site A 18.0 10.0 1.0-1.5 180 Site A - Main 13.0-14.5 5.0 1.0-1.5 65.0-73.0 Site A - Small 3.0 3.0 0.5 9.0 Site B 14.0-16.0 12.0-13.0 2.0 210 Site C (2000) 8.0-8.5 7.5 0.5 64 Site C - Section 1 5.0 3.0-3.5 0.5 15.0-18.0 Site C - Section 2 3.0 3.0 0.5 9.0 Site C - Section 3 4.5-5.0 3.0 0.5 14.0-15.0 Site C (2003) 8.5 7.0 0.5 60 Site C - Section 1 4.5 2.0 0.5 9.0 Site C - Section 2 4.0 2.5 0.5 10.0 Site C - Section 3 5.0 3.0-3.5 0.5 15.0-18.0
Table 3. Number of Visible Shipping Jars on Shipwreck Sites A, B and C Complete Partially Carrot- Buried Carrot- Section Shipwreck Site Shaped Shaped LRA1 Total Site Total Site A 118 138 256 Site A - Main 110 114 Site A - Small 8 22 22 Site B 184 129 4 317 Site C (2000) 108 Site C - Section 1 6 40 46 Site C - Section 2 7 18 25 Site C - Section 3 5 32 37 Site C (2003) 89 Site C - Section 1 8 25 33 Site C - Section 2 5 20 25 Site C - Section 3 10 21 31
44
Figure 20. The site plan for shipwreck Site A includes key artifacts, although none were collected. As no orientation data are available for Site A, Ends 1 and 2 are labeled for ease of discussion (Plan R. Horlings).
45 Site A (Figure 20) Site A was visited only during 2000. There are two separate components to Site A, labeled Sections 1 and 2 on the site plan. Section 1 is a large, low, oval mound consisting mostly of the distinctive, carrot-shaped shipping jars. The 2000 data does not indicate an orientation of the wreck site on the seafloor, so the ends of Section 1 are arbitrarily indicated on the site plan as End 1 and End 2. Estimated dimensions, based on the site plan, for the large mound are approximately 13 to 14.5 m in length, 5 m in width, and 1 to 1.5 m in elevation (Table 2). Section 2, also made up of carrot-shaped shipping jars, is 3 by 3 m and is approximately 4 m from End 2 of Section 1 (Figure 21). The site is located on a featureless bottom, and creates the only relief. Visual data collected in 2000 indicates that Site A is located in a somewhat dynamic environment, as is indicated by lateral movement of particulate matter through the water column and sediment movement or scouring. Scouring or pitting in the sediments is evident near shipping jars and other debris on the outer edges of the mound, but these features are not ubiquitous throughout the site. Because the scouring is not deeply pronounced, it may indicate a hard seafloor bottom (Ballard et al. 2001:616). Superficial scouring, combined with the height of the mound, suggests that the ship landed upright on the bottom and probably did not sink deeply into the sediments (Ballard et al. 2001:616). Some areas within Section 1 appear to be more deeply buried than others. All shipping jars on Site A appear to be carrot-shaped, but slight variations in shape, length and size are visible. At least 118 complete or nearly complete shipping jars lie on the surface, and at least 138 jars are positioned nearly vertically and mostly or partially buried in sediments (Table 3). These jars retain a nearly upright position, often in clusters, with their mouths, mouths and necks, or mouths, necks and shoulders at surface level (Figure 22). The jars appear to remain generally in their original lading position, although no consistent stacking pattern is visible throughout the site. Shipping jars are not distributed uniformly; there are several areas with few or no jars visible, and others where they are concentrated, stacked in several layers and densely packed. Section 2 consists of 8 complete Sinopean jars and 21 partially visible shipping jars that lie approximately 0.5 m above the seafloor. Grayish-white object Ab and timber A14 lie near the
46 jars. Neither of these objects displays any clear modification. There are no objects visible on the surface between Section 1 and Section 2.
Figure 21: Section 2 in Site A is a small, separate area with relatively few artifacts visible (Photomosaic courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Figure 22. A cluster of mostly buried shipping jars that retain similar orientations in the sediments indicates original lading patterns (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
47 Several clusters of twigs and branches have been caught in the site, almost certainly examples of modern debris. Other objects at the site, such as a full sack and what may be a wine bottle, are most likely modern debris as well (Figure 23). This is common on shipwrecks of any age, and it is important when attempting to understand wrecks to differentiate items that may be of modern origin from ancient artifacts (Raab and Goodyear 1998:219).
Figure 23. Intrusive debris like this sack is common on any archaeological site (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
It cannot be determined from available data if timbers A1 to A14 were associated with the original ship. Table 4 describes timbers visible on site A in 2000 (see Site plan in Figure 20). Several display what appears to be notching, shaping or some form of modification of the timber. For example, timber A3 is approximately 0.8 m in length, rectangular in cross-section and is notched (Figure 24). There are several timbers (A2 and A12) 3-5 m long and other smaller ones (A1, A4-A11) on the mound and near it. The largest timber (A2) near the mound was moved approximately 4 m along the edge of the shipping jars by cables on LITTLE HERCULES during an inspection of the site. The movement appears to have repositioned one shipping jar, but did not affect any other part of the site. The timber is mapped in its position as originally recorded near the shipwreck mound.
48
Figure 24. The sketch of timber A3 (right) is my interpretation of the timber’s features. The sketch makes it easier to discuss modifications (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Several distinctive artifacts are associated with this site. The first is a grayish-white object (Aa), approximately 0.75 m long, at End 1 of Section 1, about 1 m from the shipping jars (Figure 25). I interpret the feature indicated by the arrow as a protrusion. A grayish-white substance that covers and surrounds this and other objects like it, and others at Site C, may be the result of corrosion, a chemical reaction or bacterial growth, but it is not clear what it or the object consists of and no samples were obtained. Located near End 2 of the site is a cluster of timbers that are heavily eroded but appear to have been intentionally shaped as indicated by their rectangular cross-sections.
Figure 25. Images “grabbed” (using Dazzle Multimedia software) from VHS footage are often difficult to interpret. My perception of object Aa is sketched (above, right) (VHS footage courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
49
50
51 Site B (Figure 26) Site B is a crescent-shaped mound located on a featureless and firm bottom, as indicated by the lack of scouring around the mound (Ballard et al. 2001:618). Original estimates of 25 m long and 15 m wide (Ballard et al. 2001:618; Ward and Ballard 2004:5) for mound dimensions appear to be too large. According to estimates based on recently created site plans, the site measures approximately 14 to 16 m in length and varies in width from 4 to 12 m (Table 2), although there is no direct confirmation of size from data. The mound appears to be at least 2 m above the seafloor (Figure 27). Stacked jars create elevation differences (estimated based on the heights of stacked jars throughout the site) of up to 0.5 m in several areas of the site. The easternmost area of the site is at an elevation of approximately 1 m above the seafloor. The surface of Site B includes far more broken shipping jars than either Site A or Site C. Clusters and individual twigs and brush are scattered on the site’s surface and several pieces of modern debris and trash are present, including what appears to be an oil filter. Ballard et al. (2001:618) describe an object south of the site as a possible bilge pump pipe, but it was not present in images from 2003.
Figure 27. Anchovies school on the approximately 2 m south slope of Site B (Photo courtesy Institute for Exploration/Institute for Archaeological Oceanography-URI/GSO, captured on LCD screen by Mike Durban).
52 Almost all jars on the surface are carrot-shaped and some display slight variations in dimension and shape. Areas on the southern and eastern edges have more randomly distributed or dispersed jars. The jars are distributed unevenly across the site, some in large concentrations, and some scattered individually between stacks of higher and lower elevations. At least 184 complete or nearly complete carrot-shaped shipping jars are visible on the surface, and at least 128 jars are positioned nearly vertically and partially or mostly buried in sediments (Table 3). The dispersed arrangement of shipping jars on B differs from Sites A and C. In Site B more complete examples are in stacks above the surface (as opposed to many jars lying individually on Sites A and C), and fewer partially buried jars are visible. The northern edge of the site displays the most consistent reflections of stacking patterns as illustrated by the alternating directions in which the shipping jars lie (Figure 28).
Figure 28. Even when hull collapsed, the shipping jars remained somewhat in their original formations (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Five LRA1 hourglass-shaped shipping jars also are visible on the site, all in its eastern part. Three are essentially complete, and a fourth, though broken, is identifiable as an LRA1. When shipping jar KN172-15.03B.002 was raised, a fragment of another LRA1 shipping jar was (KN172-15.03B.003) was also recovered. Several mostly buried jars and other large sherds in the eastern half of the wreck site may be from LRA1 jars, but are too buried or fragmentary to
53 allow positive identification. I believe five more LRA1 shipping jars may be present on the mound near the others, but available images only suggest this identification, rather than prove it. All of the shipping jars on the surface are open, and many are broken. Some jars contain what appears to be a compact white substance (Figure 29). Because all the jars with this substance are located in the center of the site and consequently outside of the reach of HERCULES’ grasping arms, none were recovered.
Figure 29. It appears that this jar containing a solid white substance was broken recently, as may be seen in the fresh break in the fabric of the jar (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
There are several intentionally modified timbers on Site B (Figure 26, Table 5). At least three (B8, B14, B22) display notching (Figure 30). Most timbers have either a rectangular cross- section (width somewhat greater than thickness) or a more plank-like (width at least two times the height) cross-section, and one (B21) appears to have a more squared cross-section. Two adjacent, similarly shaped upright timbers appear to be curved (B6, B7). Other timbers and wood fragments may be modified, but their severely eroded states preclude positive identification of intentional modification.
Figure 30. Modifications of timber B14 include a notch near the center and two holes or depressions on either end of the object. Timber B14 is approximately 1.5 m long and rectangular in cross-section (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium, drawing R. Horlings).
54 In 2000 we recorded timber B1, approximately 3.7 m long with a rectangular cross- section and probable notches, near the middle of site B (Figure 31). No shipping jars or other timbers were in direct contact with it, but near it were several smaller timbers and many carrot- shaped jars. Both ends of the timber were more eroded than its body and the southern end rose at a slight angle. It is not clear if this angle was an intentional modification or the result of differential erosion, and timber B1 was not present when the team returned in 2003.
Figure 31: The LRA1 shipping jar that was collected lies to the lower right of timber B1 in this photomosaic from 2000 (Photomosaic courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
On the eastern portion of the site there is considerable staining of or color differences in the sediments (Figure 32). The color of the staining, which is generally brownish-gray, appears yellow and varies in shades when the sediments are disturbed, as was the case after the LRA1 shipping jar and scoop sample were removed (Figure 32). Several areas around and near the central timber (B1) also exhibited considerable color differences in the 2000 video and photographic images.
55
56
57 Two particular differences were noted on the site in 2003: the large central timber (B1) was no longer visible, and a concentration of small chunks or fragments of wood that appear to have been intentionally modified was visible in the western part of the site (Figure 33).
Figure 33. Some changes were evident between 2000 and 2003 on Site B. The cluster of modified timbers not visible in 2000 (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Site C (Figures 34 and 35) Site C was visited briefly in 2000 (Ward and Ballard 2004:5), and in 2003. Site C is also a concentration of shipping jars, but it differs from Sites A and B in that the elevation of the site rises to little more than 0.5 m above the seafloor. The site is composed of three areas or sections of mostly buried shipping jars. All three sections (see Table 6) include some loose jars on the surface interspersed between larger clusters of jars positioned nearly vertically and mostly or partially buried in sediments (Figures 37 and 38). The site appears more deeply buried than either Site A or B. The only type of shipping jar visible on the site is the carrot-shaped shipping jar, but, as on Sites A and B, there is some variation between individual jars. Between September of 2000 and August 3, 2003, a number of significant changes had taken place at the site, including changes in the number and position of shipping jars visible (Figure 36). In 2000, 18 complete or nearly complete carrot-shaped jars were on the surface, and 90 jars upright and mostly or partially buried in sediments. In 2003, 23 complete or nearly complete jars and 66 vertical or
58
Figure 34. A total of 108 shipping jars were visible on Site C in 2000 (Plan R. Horlings).
Figure 35. A total of 89 shipping jars were visible on Site C in 2003 (Plan R. Horlings).
59
60 partially buried jars were visible (Table 3). Very few broken jars or sherds were visible on the site in the 2000 footage. A few more were visible in 2003, but this difference may be attributed to acquisition of higher-resolution images.
Figure 37: Few shipping jars on Site C were completely exposed, as can be seen by comparing the number of fully exposed jars to mostly buried ones in this image (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
Figure 38: The partially buried shipping jars in this image reflect their original lading pattern (Photo courtesy Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, GSO-URI/Institute for Exploration, Mystic Aquarium).
61 As at Sites A and B, the elevation of the jars above the surface has trapped branches, twigs and other modern debris. Near the site are several large timbers or logs that do not display any evidence of modification (Table 6). Video images from 2000 include at least one mostly buried timber (C2) that appears to be modified by shaping and notching, but the timber (C2) is not visible in 2003 images. Six grayish-white objects (Ca-Cf), similar to Aa at End 1 of Site A, are present in images from 2000 (Figure 39). They vary in length and thickness. A grayish-whitish substance on the exterior and on the seafloor immediately surrounding them appears to be caused by disintegration of the outer surface. No grayish-white objects were visible in 2003 images, though two timbers on the wreck site (C4 and C6) are the same sizes and in relatively the same positions as were two grayish-white objects in 2000 (Cb and Ce). The corresponding grayish- white objects from 2000 data with timbers from 2003 data suggest that they are the same objects, and the grayish-white coloring was likely the result of some form of reaction between the timber and something in the water or sediments.
Figure 39. Grayish-white objects visible on Site C in 2000 were not present in 2003 (Courtesy Institute for Exploration/Institute for Archaeological Oceanography-URI/GSO).
62
63 Artifacts No artifacts were collected from Site A in 2000, and the team did not return to Site A in the summer of 2003. At Site B we recovered artifacts (Table 7) and a scoop sample of sediments from the south edge of the site. Collected artifacts included part of a broken LRA1 shipping jar (KN172- 15.03B.003) (Figure 40), the inside of which still contains some pitch lining, a complete carrot- shaped shipping jar (KN172-15.03B.004) (Figure 41) and a complete LRA1 jar (KN172- 15.03B.002) (Figure 42). Jar interiors were lined with pitch (pending palynological and chemical analysis will determine composition of lining). None of the shipping jars bore any sort of stamp or maker’s mark. A plank fragment was recovered and returned after inspection, as it was determined that it had no characteristics to indicate its association with the original vessel.
Table 7. Recovered Artifacts Site Artifact Number Description B KN172-15.03B.003 broken LRA1 from B B KN172-15.03B.002 complete LRA1 from B B KN172-15.03B.004 complete carrot-shaped jar from B
C KN172-15.03C.001 lead object from C C KN172-15.03C.003 broken carrot-shaped jar from C C KN172-15.03C.004 nearly complete carrot-shaped jar from C C KN172-15.03C.005 complete carrot-shaped jar from C
Figure 40. The interior of LRA1 fragment (KN172-15.03B.003) was lined with pine pitch (Photos courtesy of Dennis Peichota).
64
Figure 41: One complete carrot- Figure 42: One complete LRA1 shaped shipping jar was collected shipping jar, similar to van Alfen’s Type VI from Site B (Photo courtesy of Dennis (1996:197-8) was collected from Site B Peichota). (Photo courtesy of Dennis Peichota).
Artifacts recovered from site C (Table 7) included a sediment sample, one complete carrot-shaped shipping jar with black staining (KN172-15.03C.005) (Figure 43) and one missing the mouth and tip of the toe with pitch accretion on one side (KN172-15.03C.004) (Figure 44), the neck and handles of a broken carrot-shaped shipping jar lined with pitch (KN172- 15.03C.003) (Figure 45), and an unidentified lead object (KN172-15.03C.001) (Figure 46). On one side of 03C.005 is a small, rust-colored semi-circle identified by Dennis Piechota as a metal
65 residue, probably from an iron object. Artifact 03C.001 is a piece of lead of even thickness approximately 0.5 cm thick, 5.5 cm wide and formed into an incomplete oval 6 cm long. The object appears to be made of two layers hammered together. Some scratches are visible on the surface, and impressions in the lead appear to be left by metal tools (Dennis Piechota, personal communication 2003), but it has no other diagnostic features.
Figure 43: One complete carrot- Figure 44: One nearly complete shaped shipping jar was collected carrot-shaped shipping jar was from Site C (Photo courtesy of Dennis recovered from Site C (Photo Peichota). courtesy of Dennis Peichota).
66
Figure 45: The first object recovered from Site C was the upper portion of a carrot-shaped shipping jar (Photo courtesy of Dennis Peochota).
Figure 46. There were no diagnostic features on this lead object from Site C (Photos courtesy of Dennis Peichota).
The carrot-shaped shipping jars from Sites B and C most likely date to between the fourth and fifth centuries CE, although they may have been produced as late as the sixth century (Garlan and Kassab Tezgör 1996:331; Kassab Tezgör 1993:348; Kassab Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:425). The style of LRA1 shipping jars on Site B dates to between the fifth and sixth centuries CE (Peacock and Williams 1986:187), although some were made as late as the early seventh century CE (van Alfen 1996:213; Zemer 1978:76).
67
68
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
“Archaeology is not the study of objects simply for themselves, but rather for the insight they give into the people who made or used them” (Muckelroy 1978: 4).
All data presented in this thesis were obtained during two brief surveys conducted in 2000 and 2003. As the projects were surveys and no sites were excavated or mitigated, analyses are restricted to a limited set of data, including video and still images, some remote sensing data, documentation of recovered artifacts, wood sample and sediment and shipping jar content analysis. Data derived from video and still images includes site plans and tables of artifact descriptions. This chapter discusses data provided in preceding chapters and attempts to interpret the data within its archaeological and historical contexts.
Site Discussions
Site A Data from the 2000 season does not provide an orientation for Site A, which lies in approximately 85 m of water. The exposed area at Site A is approximately 180 m2, including a small component approximately 4 m from End 2 of Section 1. Included in the site are carrot- shaped shipping jars, timbers, branches and sticks and some modern debris trapped on the site, such as a trash bag, an oil filter and a wine bottle. The dimensions of the actual vessel are impossible to determine, but estimates from available data, based on the site plan, the ship is about 12-13 m long and 4 m wide. The estimated location of the original position and boundaries of the vessel’s hull in Figure 47 is based on concentrations of shipping jars, including their horizontal distribution over the site and vertical elevation created by stacks of jars. Few broken jar sherds are visible, and only a few
69 surface jars have been broken, which may indicate less breakage of the jars as the hull disintegrated. Alternatively, it may also indicate that few of the jars were broken during the wrecking event and settling of the vessel on the seafloor. While it also may be possible that broken shipping jars on Site A are obscured by a heavier layer of sediment, the large quantity of broken jars on Site B suggests that if they were present in large quantities on Site A, they would be visible.
Figure 47. The conjectured dimensions, location and orientation of shipwreck A under the sediments are based on the location, concentration and elevations of shipping jars in the site (Plan R. Horlings).
70 Any explanation for why Section 2 is spatially distinct from Section 1, located away from End 2, is conjectural. The most likely explanation is that a section of the ship broke or fell off and was carried a distance away, along with part of the ship’s cargo, perhaps by a strong current, as the accessible hull was being dismantled and destroyed by the elements and larval mollusks. If it is possible to collect and analyze sub-bottom data on this site in the future, it may possible to test this hypothesis by determining how large a section was moved and the depth to which remains are still buried in the sediments. Some loose jars along the right side of the site plan (see Figures 20 and 47) near End 2 appear to have been scattered towards the small isolated component and may be there as a result of the same event(s). Jar distribution may indicate original ship lading, although stacking patterns are inconsistent throughout the site. Much of the central area of the site is comprised of partially or mostly buried jars with only their mouths protruding above the sediments. Of the jars for which it is possible to assign an orientation, at least half appear to be angled towards the right side of the site plan, although no more specific pattern is readily apparent. As the ship disintegrated, the jars would have shifted, and consequently, the current orientation of the jars is not a true indicator of how they were originally stacked. Their present positions do, however, provide clues about where the hull is likely located as jars concentrations and elevations indicate some structural integrity or at least some cohesion of artifacts below the surface. Timbers on the site pose a challenge to interpretation. The basic premise used in characterizing timbers on Sites A, B and C is this: if a timber plainly shows signs of intentional modification, it is considered to have a higher likelihood of having been associated with the original vessel than timbers that do not display signs of intentional modification. No timbers on Site A display indications of fasteners or methods of joinery. A notched timber (A3), appears to be flat in cross-section and is near the edge of the site. As it is on the surface and not obviously associated with any particular objects or timbers, it is impossible to directly associate it with the ship. A cluster of mostly buried but evidently intentionally modified timbers is visible at End 2 of the site. Their position in a cluster near the end of Section 1 and the shapes of each timber may be a clue as to their function. The final object of immediate interest is grayish-white object (Aa) near End 1. The grayish-white matter on and surrounding the object appears to be the result of some sort of decomposition (whether chemical or bacterial is indeterminable) and resembles the substance on the grayish-white objects found on site C in 2000. What makes this object
71 unique, in my estimation, is the presence of a round knob or plug in one end, between 10 and 15 cm in diameter, and jutting out slightly from one end of the object (Figure 48, see Figure 25 in Chapter 4 for another image).
Figure 48: Without further investigation it is impossible to determine any purpose of the protrusion on this grayish-white object (Aa) from Site A (Drawing R. Horlings).
Limited information makes it impossible to determine the size and tonnage of the cargo and total number of shipping jars carried in the ship, and no samples were taken for content analysis. It is not possible to determine whether or not the cargo consisted only of what was carried in the shipping jars or if other cargoes had also been included in the ship. What is clear is that the ship was carrying, at the least, a cargo in carrot-shaped shipping jars, and these jars were likely manufactured in Sinop sometime in the fourth to sixth centuries CE (Garlan 1998:31; Gates 1997:295; Kassab-Tezgör 1998:447; Kassab-Tezgör and Tatlican 1998:441). There are slight differences in shape and length of the shipping jars on Site A when compared to those on Sites B and C, but data available at present does not permit precise measurement of differences. It is possible that these variations may indicate a slightly different date for Site A than Sites B and C, but limited data (from 2000 only) prevent further analysis. Analysis of Site A has raised more questions than it has answered, but it is possible to draw some conclusions from available data. The size of the site is comparable to Site B and it is likely that the ships were similar in size. The shipping jars on the site are of a form made in Sinop, likely the point of origin for the ship, and provide a date range for the ship between the fourth and sixth centuries CE. The site has grayish-white objects, similar to those on Site C, and are therefore a point for comparison. It also has a distinct section or area a distance from the main body of the wreck, which was likely moved as an entire part of the vessel. If it is possible to return to Site A, analysis of visual data suggests that the grayish-white objects on Site A are
72 likely to be timbers undergoing a chemical reaction with something in their environment, as had been seen from repeated visits to Site C. It is unknown how much of the hull remains below the sediments, but, because so many shipping jars are still in stacked formation, it is likely that a significant portion of the hull remains. Upon return to the site, minimally intrusive testing and sub-bottom data may provide evidence for this.
Site B Site B is oriented on an east-northeast to west-southwest bearing at a depth of approximately 90 m. The site covers an area of approximately 210 m2, and reaches an elevation of nearly 2 m above the seafloor. Figure 49 presents an estimate of the approximate size and possible location of the ship’s hull within the site. This estimate, like that of Site A, is based on concentrations of shipping jars. Estimates based on the site plan indicate that the vessel may have been approximately 14 m long and at least 4 m wide. It is likely that the bulk of the hull, if it exists, lies underneath the areas of highest elevation, created by stacks of shipping jars, on the site. Site B is comprised of complete, partially buried and mostly buried shipping jars, timbers and some modern debris, including sticks and pieces of modern trash. The many broken jars may have been broken during the wrecking event or may be the result of the jars falling over and breaking as the hull disintegrated. Carrot-shaped and LRA1 shipping jars visible on the surface of the site provide a date range between the late fifth and early seventh centuries CE for the sinking of the vessel. Collected examples of each jar type provided the opportunity to study the jars closely and to collect the contents. There was no pitch visible in the neck of the carrot-shaped shipping jar, which may be an indicator that it carried a substance other than wine. Both the complete LRA1 shipping jar and the fragment are pitched, so it is more likely they carried wine. A sample of only two jars is not sufficient to generalize about the cargo the entire vessel, but it may be possible to determine contents of each jar. LRA1 shipping jars are only at Site B. Because only five to ten examples are visible on the site, it is possible that they represent a smaller cargo, perhaps contained crew provisions, or may indicate cabotage. If cabotage is the case, it is likely that the jars’ contents may differ from those of the carrot-shaped jars, as they likely came from a different region. The Mediterranean may be the source of the LRA1 shipping jars (Bonifay and Villedieu 1989:23; Karagiorgou
73 2001:155; Peacock and Williams 1986:186; Reynolds 1995:71), but little firm data on their contents are available.
Figure 49: The conjectured dimensions, location and orientation of the hull of shipwreck B are based on elevations and orientations of shipping jars on the site (Plan R. Horlings).
Most authors identify LRA1 shipping jars as olive oil carriers, and it is generally accepted that shipping jars that carried oil were not pitched. Both the partial and the complete sampled jars from Site B retain a pitch lining. It is unclear if the jars originally were pitched, or if we are seeing reuse as van Doorninck (1989:253) documents for LRA2 shipping jars from the early seventh-century Yassıada shipwreck. If reuse is a viable explanation for the pitch in the
74 LRA1 shipping jars from Site B, the LRA1 jars there may be convincing indicators of cabotage, as the jars were acquired subsequent to original use, presumably not from their original production site, and coated with pitch to make them suitable for secondary use. The problem with the assumption that the pitch indicates secondary use is that all LRA1 shipping jars on shipwreck sites and in harbors, for example at Antioch ad Crageum in Rough Cilicia, Turkey (Rauh 2004) are pitched, and it is unlikely that every LRA1 shipping jar was converted for secondary use. Most shipping jars visible on Site B are completely exposed on the surface (see Site plan, Figure 49 and Table 2), suggesting that less of the hull is preserved on this site or that it is not as deeply buried as the hulls on either Site A or Site C. Stacked jars create differences in elevation throughout the site, with the highest apparent elevation approximately 1-2 m to the northwest of where timber B1 was positioned in 2000. It appears that differences in elevation on the site are the result of differing concentrations of shipping jars, and may indicate areas of the ship that contained more jars (such as in sections of the hull closer to midships which would have allowed for more jar storage), or, conversely, where less of the hull remains and the jars are sitting higher on the seafloor. In several areas, specifically along the northern area of the main site, the position of many jars reflects original lading patterns (Figure 28). Because the jars shifted as the hull disintegrated, current distribution does not necessarily indicate original vessel lading, but does provide a glimpse into how and where in the ship the jars originally may have been packed. Positions of other dispersed jars may assist in understanding how the vessel broke apart, both upon wrecking and as the hull disintegrated. The kidney- shaped appearance of the wreck site is most likely the result of hull disintegration and dispersal after the wrecking event itself. Site B has at least 24 timbers visible on the surface, 20 of which appear to have been intentionally modified and may be, but are not necessarily, associated with the original vessel (Table 5). Half of these timbers are fully exposed on the surface, and half are at least partially, if not mostly, buried. It is difficult to determine how deeply buried some of the timbers are, but many indicate more of the timber remains buried based on the angles at which they jut out above the surface or the size and cross-sections suggest larger or longer timbers. An angle more closely approaching 90° implies a greater length to the buried timber to allow support of the timber at such an angle above the sediments. It is also possible that some of the angled timbers
75 are short and wedged between other objects or that they are still attached to the hull. Like on Sites A and C, none of the timbers visible may be definitively associated with the wrecked vessel. A combination of heavy erosion, limited selection of exposed timbers and the fact that only small sections of many timbers are visible accounts for this. Several timbers on Site B warrant further discussion. Timber B1, the most prominent timber in the site during the 2000 survey, was not present in 2003. This timber had a rectangular cross-section and sharply defined edges over much of its length. Both ends were severely eroded, although there were indications of possible notching on the body. Timber B1 was not present on the site in 2003 and so is particularly helpful as a reminder of the dynamic forces present on the seafloor. Three timbers (B11-B13) on the periphery of the site are heavily eroded yet visibly rectangular in cross-section. It is not clear how they became integrated into the site, and it is likely that they are intrusive. Timber B14 is a particularly well preserved example of intentional modification. This timber, though slightly eroded, is notched, has a shallow groove on the upper surface approximately 3 cm from one end, and two small depressions on either side of the notch that may be holes (possibly for fasteners) or filled with another substance, but available footage does not allow more in-depth analysis. Like the majority of the other timbers on the wreck site, this timber is not directly in contact with any other objects, and its function is not clear. Several carrot-shaped shipping jars, perhaps recently broken as indicated by apparently fresh breaks in the fabric, contain a compact or solid substance that looks white or gray. The substance is slightly separated from the edges of the jar, yet retains the shape of the jar. Cheryl Ward has suggested that the material in the jars may be degraded olive oil, but as no samples were collected it is not possible to positively identify the contents. Site B is the only site with large, prominent or distinct differences in sediment coloration (approximately 35m2 or 15% of the total wreck site area). Surface sediments are brownish gray in color, but when disturbed they display a more yellow coloring. The color differences may be the result of bacterial activity or may be chemical reactions with something in the cargo. Chemical analysis of the sediment sample may be able to identify the source(s) of coloration. Site B data provide the opportunity to explore various aspects of a late fifth- to early seventh-century shipwreck. The higher number of broken shipping jars on the surface, when compared to Sites A and C, may provide clues as to how the ship may have settled on the bottom
76 (perhaps if the ship landed heavily on one side, jars were displaced and broken), or of post- depositional processes at the site. The presence of a distinct slope on the south side of the site suggests that the ship may have landed on its side and later collapsed onto itself which would have had the effect of one side of the site being much higher than the other. The presence of fewer than ten LRA1 shipping jars visible on the surface of the wreck site suggests that they may have stored supplies for the crew of the vessel, they may have represented a smaller cargo or they may be indicators of cabotage, and their locations within the site may be indicators of standard shipping practices for different shipping jar types or cargoes. Many timbers on and near the site display signs of intentional modification, but it is not possible to determine association with the wrecked vessel. The complicated distribution of artifacts and timbers on Site B creates a fascinating data set for further exploration.
Site C Significant changes on Site C took place between the first visit to the site in 2000 and the second in 2003. The site is composed of carrot-shaped shipping jars of a style dating to the fourth through sixth centuries CE, timbers, and six grayish-white objects present only in the 2000 images. Two complete carrot-shaped shipping jars and one partial carrot-shaped shipping jar were recovered from the site. One complete carrot-shaped and the partial shipping jar are lined with pitch, and the interior of the second complete shipping jar is stained black. It is likely that the shipping jars contained some form of a wine product, but without chemical analysis or archaeobotanical identification, these data are unavailable. A lead object, not recorded in 2000, was recovered from the site in 2003, but it lacks diagnostic features. Shipping jars on the site were distributed in three sections of low elevation, approximately 0.5 m. The entire site covered approximately 64 m2 in 2000 and 60 m2 in 2003. Shipping jars in Sections 1 and 3 are similarly oriented, but those in Section 2 generally lie at a different angle in the sediments. These directional associations are consistent from 2000 to 2003: the orientation of the jars in Section 1 is roughly north-northwest to south-southwest, Section 2 north-south, and Section 3 north-northwest to south-southwest. The orientation of the ship’s hull (Figure 50) appears to be roughly south-southwest to north-northeast. This suggested orientation is based on the assumption that Section 2, like Section 2 in Site A, is not part of the main body of the shipwreck, and is probably part of the hull that has fallen away or jars that may have spilled
77 out of the vessel on impact. If jars fell out as the ship landed on the seafloor, it is possible that partial decking on the bow and stern of the vessel may have prevented jars in those areas from falling out, resulting in the pattern of three distinct areas or sections now visible on the seafloor. Whether the vessel righted itself after impact (consequently spilling shipping jars) or remains on its side under the sediments (in which case Section 2 would have been removed from the main body later through natural or man-made means) cannot presently be determined, but in either case, I suggest that the main area of the hull is represented by Sections 1 and 3. More shipping jars were visible on the surface in 2000 than in 2003, but data from both years indicate that there were more partially and mostly buried jars in Sections 1 and 3 than in Section 2. Also consistent between the two years is the orientation of shipping jar mouths in Section 2. More than 80% of visible jars in 2000 are oriented east-southeast, and nearly 60% of visible jars in 2003 are in the same direction. The orientation of jars in Sections 1 and 3 is not as clear, but the general trend is that the jars lie in a more north-south orientation. It is unclear how much of the original hull remains buried under the shipping jars, but it is likely that a significant portion of the wrecked vessel and its cargo are still present under the sediments. There are six grayish-white objects in the 2000 video footage and still images. They vary in length, and like those on Site A, the grayish-white coloring appears to be the result of disintegration of the exterior due to some chemical or biological process. Too few details are visible on most of the grayish-white objects to be able to identify original cross-sections and shapes, but those that are identifiable appear to be logs with severely degraded exteriors. No grayish-white objects are visible in 2003 images. Two timbers on the site in 2003 (C4 and C6) are the same sizes and in relatively the same positions as were two grayish-white objects in 2000 (Cb and Ce) and are likely the same objects without the grayish-white substance. The correlation between these grayish-white objects and timbers supports the hypothesis that they were probably wooden objects undergoing a chemical or biological reaction to something in the environment. Four other grayish-white objects visible in 2000 were no longer present in 2003. Differences in the site between 2000 and 2003 have been highlighted throughout this discussion. While it is relatively easy to identify differences, it is more difficult to discern the causes for them. The discrepancy of nearly 20% in the number of visible shipping jars between 2000 (108 jars) and 2003 (89 jars) suggests that there are powerful forces acting on the site. As
78
Figure 50: The orientation of shipwreck C’s hull is shown here as a dashed line because too few data are available to suggest possible dimensions of the vessel (Plan R. Horlings).
there is no indication on the surface implying that nets or anchors have been dragged through the site, the most plausible conjectured source of disturbance is the water currents or sediment action. Site C displays significantly greater changes between 2000 and 2003 than does Site B (it is not known what changes may have occurred on Site A). It is possible that future monitoring of the environments of these shipwreck sites could provide information that can explain these significant differences in post-depositional processes between the sites. Shipwreck C appears to be deeply buried in an area intensely affected by dynamic factors in its local environment or possibly factors of recent human interference. In the span of three years its visible components were significantly altered and rearranged, but it is unclear what may have occurred just below the surface. Documentation of these changes suggests that further investigation into the area may provide data not only about the shipwreck, but also about the local environment in this part of the Black Sea.
79 Additional Data Sources
Photomosaics and the sub-bottom data are not yet available. If they become available, they may enhance the understanding and interpretation of these shipwreck sites by, for example, demonstrating how much of the original vessel remains under sediments and shipping jars. Analysis of the contents of the shipping jars has not yet been completed. Once it has, it will provide supplementary information about what the ships were transporting, perhaps where the contents originated, and clues to where the ships may have been headed. The sediment sample is currently being analyzed. Wood from sediment samples on Sites B and C have been analyzed by Robert Blanchette of the University of Minnesota. Results indicate that sediments on Site B contain fragments and twigs of Pinus sp. (pine), Abies sp. (fir), and an unidentified hardwood. Sediments on Site C contain fragments of Populus sp. (poplar) or Salix sp. (willow). Identification of these wood species may assist in identifying types of wood used in ship construction (such as from wood shavings), flora used as dunnage between jars in the hold, or wood on board the ship for some other purpose. Preliminary palynological analysis by Dawn Marshall of Texas A&M University indicates the presence of pollen in sediments and shipping jar contents, but further analysis is required for more definitive assessments. Pine (Pinus sp.) and oak (Quercus sp.) dominate the samples.
Comparisons with Other Shipwrecks of Late Antiquity
Data from these three sites may be compared to contemporary shipwrecks and further extrapolated, although on an extremely limited basis. Table 9 compares eight shipwrecks contemporary to shipwrecks A, B and C. The end of the third-century CE Laurons II vessel is included because of estimated size similarities between the vessels. As is indicated in the table, ships A, B and C were built in a time of changing construction techniques and are comparable in size and cargoes to several contemporary shipwrecks. Even though we know about construction techniques of the time period in which ships A, B and C were built, we do not know the specific
80 techniques applied in constructing these vessels. Because of this, only general comparisons of size and cargo capacity estimations may be made at present. The Yassıada seventh-century ship carried LRA1 shipping jars similar in form to those observed on Site B. The Yassıada shipwreck contains the largest concentration of LRA1 shipping jars (39) found to date (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:155-157; Karagiorgou 2001: 139; van Alfen 1996: 208). Most LRA1 shipping jars on the Yassıada shipwreck are located on the port side of the vessel; approximately three quarters of them are aft of midships and the remainder are forward of the anchor in the bow (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:Wreck Plan 3). The LRA1 shipping jars on Site B are concentrated on the east end of the vessel (see Figure 26). Shipwreck B is closest in estimated size to the Yassıada seventh-century shipwreck, which is estimated to have had a cargo capacity of 37 tons (Bass and van Doorninck 1982:316). Dramont Wrecks E (15-18m in length and 5-6m wide) and F (10-12m in length and 4-5m wide) are also comparable to the Black Sea shipwrecks in size and in cargoes transported in shipping jars. Dramont E is estimated to have been capable of 40 tons (Santamaria 1995:191). It is difficult to determine the cargo capacities of ships A, B and C. It is, however, possible to compare Sites A, B and C with the known size of the Yassıada vessel. I estimate that shipwreck B is comparable in size to Yassıada, shipwreck A is slightly smaller, and without processed sub- bottom data it is nearly impossible to estimate the size of shipwreck C. Analysis of wood from sediment samples, while not proving conclusively what the wood was used for, may allow some parallels or similarities to be drawn between shipwrecks. For example, the Dramont E (Santamaria 1995:181) shipwreck and Tantura A (Kahanov et al. 2004:113) were at least partially constructed from pine, and fragments of pine have been found in Site B sediments. Comparisons such as this provide a base from which to begin more detailed assessments of these shipwrecks. Artifact samples from Site A are necessary for any comparisons to be made. Data acquired from surveys near Sinop and investigations of the sites are typical for any Phase I survey. They provide enough information to allow a small number of conclusions to be drawn, but more importantly, they allow informed formulation of plans for further investigations. More comprehensive analyses are difficult without more comprehensive data.
81
82 Summary
As this was a Phase I (survey and some intrusive testing) project and not a comprehensive excavation, acquired data were limited to observations from video and still images and a small artifact sample. Data analysis resulted in the generation of site plans of the shipwreck sites, suggested sizes and locations of the actual remains of vessel hulls, tables of timber typologies, artifact descriptions and comparisons to contemporary shipwrecks. These three shipwrecks, dated to between the fourth and seventh centuries CE, represent nearly a quarter of known shipwrecks from Late Antiquity (Table 9). As a result, they form the basis of comparison for any Late Antique shipwrecks found and studied there in the future. Though all three sites contain the remains of Late Antique shipwrecks, none of which were comprehensively investigated, there are significant differences between the sites, which, when compared to each other and to other shipwrecks of similar age, may provide insights into shipping and site formation processes in the Black Sea. Of the three sites, Site B exhibits most variation in types of shipping jars, has the greatest number of modified timbers, and presents the most complex sediment coloration patterns. Site A is a coherent shipwreck site with the exception of a small component spatially distinct from the main body of the wrecked vessel, likely separated as a complete section of the ship before its hull disintegrated on the surface. Site C is the most visibly dynamic shipwreck site, or perhaps more accurately, seems to have been subjected to the most dynamic environment when compared to the other two shipwrecks. The noticeable differences in changes between Sites B and C over a three-year period raise questions of why one site (C) was apparently more dramatically affected by its environment or modern disturbances than the other (B), which appears to be in a similar environment. A return to Site A may provide clues as to how localized these factors are. Linings of collected shipping jars suggest that at least some of the jars on Sites B and C contained wine or wine-based products. The compact, whitish-substance visible in several jars on Site B may indicate a different content, possibly solidified oil. Any other cargoes or contents of jars present on the site may be detected in visual and chemical analysis of the sediment samples and the shipping jar contents. It is likely that the cargo of shipwreck A is similar to that of shipwrecks B and C.
83 The three vessels did not sink at exactly the same time, yet they are within 1.5 km of one another. It is reasonable to assume that, as there are no natural geological hazards such as rocks or reefs in the region, the most likely cause of the wrecking of each is related to currents or weather patterns formed around the Sinop promontory that extends 25 km into the sea. If this is the case, it is feasible that there are similar wrecked vessels that met with the same fate in the same general region, though data to date (collected through side-scan sonar remote sensing), has not yet demonstrated the presence of any other shipwrecks in the area (with the notable exception of shipwreck D). Survey of the Sinop region, defined by relict river channels and not by shipping hazards, was limited but thorough, and only Site D was located in the same direction and area as Sites A, B and C. It is possible that there may be more shipwrecks in the area, but they no others were documented. The presence of four shipwrecks of similar age in such a confined area is likely to be explained by the fact that during the Byzantine period there was increased ship traffic in the Black Sea. The higher number of ships sailing around the natural weather hazard of the Sinop promontory statistically indicates the greater probability that more of them were destroyed by the same hazard. The destinations to which these ships were heading when they sank are not possible to determine from the information available at present. A reasonable hypothesis, based on cargoes carried in carrot-shaped shipping jars of a type known to have been produced in and near Sinop, indicates that the town of Sinop was, if not their home port, probably the last port at which they took on cargo. Any one ship and its cargo represent considerable investment in time and resources. The loss of not one but three such investments (and the likely concomitant loss of human life) is particularly staggering. Each of these shipwrecks is illustrative of a small part of the human experience, and together they represent a minute segment of human history.
84
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS
“If we cannot as archaeologists learn everything about the past, we can at least learn much that is important” Trigger 1989:396.
Summary of Results
The data analyzed in this thesis derive from two survey seasons in 2000 and 2003 in the Sinop region of the Black Sea. Teams of researchers led by Robert Ballard conducted remote- sensing maritime surveys in the Black Sea during the summers of 1998 through 2001 and in 2003. The survey for submerged resources and sites included such objectives as determining the likelihood of identifying human habitation sites on the ancient submerged landscape and seeking data related to the existence of a deepwater trade route from Sinop in northern Turkey to the Crimea in southern Ukraine. The specific goals and tactics of investigation during each survey season were modified according to previous survey results. Field work in 2000 was directed towards determining whether or not there are shipwrecks in the anoxic deep water of the Black Sea, and if so, whether there is differential preservation between the deep water and shallow water wrecks. Survey results determined that at least one deepwater shipwreck (Site D) exists, and that there are extreme differences in preservation between it and the three shallow water shipwrecks (Sites A, B and C). A potential ancient habitation site (Site 82) was also identified. Return to the Sinop region in 2003 provided the opportunity to explore the previously discovered sites in somewhat greater detail than was possible during the initial process of site identification. The ROV HERCULES has tools that allowed for artifact sampling and some subsurface testing of the sites, and a number of representative artifacts were recovered. Site 82 and shipwrecks B, C and D were revisited, but time constraints prohibited a return to Site A.
85 Use of the specially designed archaeological ROV named HERCULES proved that remote deepwater archaeology is feasible, although time- and equipment-intensive. Representative artifacts and sediment samples were collected from Site 82 and Sites B and C and exploratory excavation was conducted at Site D, including some artifact sampling. Digital video, which constitutes the bulk of data, and acoustic data were acquired from all four locations, and artifacts were recorded and photographed. Representative artifacts from the sites have provided general date ranges for the shipwrecks, but at present the dates cannot be refined. Several professionals are involved in ongoing analyses and post-processing of acquired data. As in any survey, interpretation of the overall site from collected data is limited. I accompanied the expedition as a graduate student with Cheryl Ward (Figure 51) during the 2003 field season and participated in several aspects of the survey, including data recording, directing excavation, curating and recording collected artifacts and assisting with minor equipment preparations. My role in the post-processing of data concentrated on analysis of digital media from both the 2000 and 2003 seasons and synthesis of that information with the incomplete results of sediment content and wood sample analyses. These data are incorporated with a short discussion of the historical and economic and trade contexts of Sinop in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine era. Compilation of these data has produced a limited description of the historical framework within which ships A, B and C were operating, and has provided several means (site plans and various tables) of further investigation of Sites A, B and C. While the temptation exists to inflate the importance of already acquired data and the potential of data from future investigations of Sites A, B and C, in the “big picture” of ancient history, they are not as informative as one might wish. Data concerning local and regional trade may be acquired from these sites, and, when combined with data from terrestrial surveys and excavations, may enhance already existing information of local and regional histories. The limited survey and Phase I nature of the Institute for Exploration’s collaborative project and resulting data have allowed two main conclusions to be drawn from Sites A, B and C. The first conclusion is that the ships were trading vessels carrying cargoes in shipping jars likely produced in the Sinop region, and the presence of more jars on these shipwreck sites than are known from terrestrial sites in the Sinop region points to a strong local connection with Sinop. The second conclusion is that the shipping jars on the sites provide date ranges for the vessels; Sites A and C
86 date to between the fourth and late fifth centuries CE, and Site B dates slightly later in the fifth to early seventh centuries CE. The locations of shipwrecks on A, B,C and D on the western side of the Sinop promontory may suggest that the ships were en route to Constantinople, the heart of the Late Antique world, where the cargoes would likely have been transshipped or dispersed elsewhere, probably by means of cabotage. Future investigations may provide data on trade connections in the Black Sea region, but at present these sites serve as indicators of broader connections that cannot be explored without complete excavation. For example, it is only now, 35 years after complete excavation that the Yassıada shipwreck is being fully interpreted and understood. Van Alfen (1996:211-213) reports that his analysis of pottery shows that the vessel was most likely a Byzantine imperial and clerical supply ship, not a merchant vessel as was originally believed. Because our project goals were limited to identification of shipwrecks and minimal site disturbance, more complex interpretations must await future archaeologists. While the loss of one or even three ships probably did not greatly affect the economy of the time or the trade in whatever cargoes they carried, loss of even one vessel and its crew likely meant devastation to at least a limited group of people. All of the combined aspects of shipwrecks allow anthropologists to study the people of the past, and it is to that end that these three small shipwrecks in the Black Sea are significant in human history.
Challenges
Time constraints proved the greatest hindrance to investigation during the 2003 survey, as it was not possible to adequately investigate any of the sites. Though project goals did not include full excavation of any site, more time at any one of them would have provided the opportunity to more thoroughly investigate, and thus more completely document, the site. Other challenges included logistical complications, some technical difficulties with equipment, and a plethora of anchovies blocking view of the site on several occasions. As this was the first project to utilize HERCULES, it took time for the pilots to learn command of the ROV, which compounded the issue of time management. The High-Definition video camera on HERCULES proved invaluable in high-quality data acquisition, but as other high-precision instruments, including multibeam sonar, were not available for use on Sites A, B and C (as was available
87 during survey of the Ashkelon sites [Ballard et al. 2002]), the finely detailed plans and photomosaics of the sites are not available. Despite these challenges, it was possible to visually document the sites in much greater detail than possible in previous seasons, a significant accomplishment in light of the fact that there are very few known shipwrecks in the Black Sea from the Byzantine era. It was also possible to sample representative artifacts (including four complete shipping jars) from Sites B and C. Post-project data analysis challenges are on-going and involve data from both the 2000 and 2003 seasons. Visual data from 2000 includes video and still images gathered by ARGUS and LITTLE HERCULES. Three primary difficulties associated with these data include the poor quality of many images due to low-resolution cameras and the inherent difficulties of lighting underwater sites, the unsystematic manner of data acquisition, and incomplete processing of visual, navigational and acoustic data. The combined effects of these issues, challenges, and complications resulted in subsequent analyses producing data that is not of an optimum quality for interpretation and assimilation with data from the 2003 survey. At the time of writing, analyses of data from 2003 have not been completed. Nonetheless, I was able to create site plans and have made estimates about sites similar in size to other known shipwreck sites. At present, results of surveys and subsequent analysis demonstrate the presence of both shallow and deepwater shipwrecks from late Antiquity in the Black Sea. The results also illustrate the need for comprehensive archaeological investigation and complete post-processing of data from any archaeological site, but especially of sites investigated through use of remotely operated vehicles.
Suggestions for Further Research
Analysis of visual data from the 2000 and 2003 season is comprehensive, but further examination of all data is merited. Analyses of sub-bottom data and creation of more accurate photomosaics and site plans will enhance knowledge of overall perspectives, arrangements, and determination of the amount of hull remains buried beneath the sediments. Continued analysis of sediment sample contents and shipping jar contents may provide information about what the sampled jars were carrying, but, as the shipping jars were collected from the surface of an active post-depositional environment, it is likely that data from the contents will be limited. A larger
88 sample of shipping jars and their contents is necessary to ascertain information about the cargoes of shipwrecks A, B and C. The data that will be accessible if comprehensive excavations of these shipwreck sites are ever conducted will exponentially increase the data set of Late Antiquity and Byzantine shipwrecks in the Black Sea. Determination of the extent of hull and cargo preservation beneath the sediments will provide information regarding hull construction and also details of site formation and environmental processes in the Black Sea. Further site investigations should include current and environmental monitoring. Future excavations may provide greater insights into the merits and drawbacks of remotely conducted deepwater archaeology. There are several principal merits to remote underwater archaeology, including access to areas and sites that would otherwise be practically inaccessible, even for diving archaeologists, ability to constantly record in detail everything that takes place on the site, and no time restrictions in terms of safety and breathing requirements, enabling work to continue according to crew stamina. Drawbacks of remote underwater excavations include expensive equipment and maintenance, the necessity of a long time frame to allow for thorough investigation, coordination of a large crew, including archaeologists, oceanographer, geologists and engineers (this is not a negative aspect, it is simply more complex than a small, compact crew), limits in terms of what the equipment is capable of, and the common problem of inadequate budgets and lack of personnel for data post-processing. Conducting remotely operated deepwater excavations is not entirely new in terms of technology or science, but solid, anthropologically archaeological remotely operated excavation techniques are not yet fully developed. Comprehensive methods of remote, deepwater site investigations need to be continually refined and tested against accepted techniques of modern archaeology and critically assessed by those who are trained in anthropological archaeology. On a broader scale, I recommend that additional surveys be conducted in the immediate region of Sinop, as well as over a more extensive area of the Black Sea to assess destinations, numbers and types of vessels conducting trade in the region of northern Turkey in Late Antiquity, and the frequency of voyages to and from the port of Sinop. An assessment of shipwrecks in the Crimea may provide insights into the trade connection between Sinop and southern Ukraine and reveal some of the intricacies of the trade networks and webs of connectivity in the Black Sea. Finally, a more comprehensive study of local economies and how
89 they fit into broader contexts of trade in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine era, combined with the knowledge gained from these surveys and analyses, will greatly enhance present understanding of the people involved in the ancient Black Sea maritime landscape.
90
Figure 51. Cheryl Ward. (Photo: Mike Durban).
91
APPENDIX A EQUIPMENT AND DEFINITIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL ACRONYMS
2000 Field Season Equipment and Technology DSL-120 - 120 kHz side-scan sonar 6000m depth rating - also used in 1999 survey LITTLE HERCULES – Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) 1.2m (l), 300kg/660lbs (weight in air), 3000m depth rating - industrial-quality 3-chip color zoom tilting camera - two small utility cameras - two 400 watt HMI piloting lights - magnetic compass - simple heading rate sensor - precision pressure/depth sensor - obstacle avoidance sector scanning sonar - altimeter ARGUS – Tow Sled and Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) 3.5m (l), 1m (w), 1.24m(h), 1800kg/4000lbs (weight in air), 3000m depth rating - low-light level video camera - highly sensitive electronic still strobe camera (produces ESC images) - highly sensitive black and white SIT camera for distance viewing - 35mm color still camera - three HMI lights - acoustic altimeter - obstacle avoidance sector scanning sonar
2003 Field Season Equipment HERCULES – Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) 2340kg/5200lbs (weight in air), 6000m depth rating - High-Definition color zoom camera bubblecam - utility video cameras, some with LED illumination - up to four 250W incandescents (DSPL Deep Multi-Sea Lite) - two 400W HMI ballasted lights (DSPL) - two Ocean Imaging 130 w-sec strobes - Kraft Predator hydraulic arm with force-feedback technology - ISE manipulator arm
91 - Paroscientific 8B4000-I pressure/depth sensor - Falmouth Scientific Micro-2 CTD - Aanderaa Optode oxygen sensor - Benthos PSA-916D altimeter - RDI Doppler Velocity Log - Crossbow AVRS-400 heading and altitude reference - USBL (ship-based) acoustic Navigation to at least 5000m - HYPack integrated navigation software - Tool Drawer, hydraulically actuated - Sample Drawer, Hydraulically actuated - two suction pumps - two jetting pumps - two suction dredge hoses - various coring devices - pair of lasers for measuring precise object sizes - high-frequency narrow-beam sub-bottom profiler (attached to underside) - high-precision, beacon-based acoustic navigation system (EXACT) - various archaeological tools
Definitions of Technical Acronyms
CTD: Current, Temperature and Depth measuring device
DSL-120 (kHz) sonar: Deep Submergence Laboratory sonar from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
DSPL: DeepSea Power and Light (manufacturer)
ESC: Electronic Still Camera images
EXACT: a precision acoustic navigation system
HMI piloting lights: Halogen Metal Iodide (underwater lights), highly efficient, low heat
ISE: International Submarine Engineering (manufacturer)
LED illumination: Light Emitting Diode
ROV: Remotely Operated Vehicle
SIT camera: Silicon Intensifier Target, underwater TV camera, low-light level, high light sensitivity
92
APPENDIX B CARE AND CURATION OF ARTIFACTS
Dennis Peichota was the project conservator responsible for curating and caring for collected artifacts. Contents of each shipping jar were removed using common minimal hand contact fresh water rinsing technique called suspension-flotation (Haldane 1993:351) which protects content integrity and minimizes contamination (Figure 8). The contents of each jar were sieved individually and collected in sterile vials to be analyzed upon return to the United States. Recovered artifacts were soaked in fresh water and dried as slowly as was possible in order to prevent cracking, as artifacts from submerged sites tend to be extremely fragile if not cared for correctly (Ballard et al. 2000:614). After desalinization baths, the shipping jars were dried using the warmth from lamps and small fans to complete and expedite the process, which resulted in only minor fractures or cracking in several jars. Data recorded from all the artifacts included measurements, weights, volumes and photographs. Limited time restricted the quantity of data collected, but basic information was acquired for each object. None of the items recovered required extensive care or curation, and each was fully prepared for presentation before being carefully packed in bubble-wrap and transferred to a shuttle ship for delivery to Sinop Museum officials. Any further requirements for curation were fulfilled by the Sinop Museum.
93
APPENDIX C COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
Permission to use four images from:
Garlan, Yvon and Dominique Kassab-Tezgör 1996 Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de ceramiques de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 4:325- 334.
Tue, 15 Feb 2005
Chere Mlle,
Je vous ecrit quant a la communication telephonique concernant l'authorisation de l'usage de quelques illustations dans une de votres publications. L'article en question est apparu en 1996 dans Anatolia Antiqua 4: 325-334 et est entitre 'Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de ceramiques de Sinope'. Les auteurs sont Yvon Garlan et Dominique Kassab-Tezgör.
Les images en question sont les figs. 9-12 sur les pp. 332-334. Au nom d'une amie, je voudrais bien vous demander pour l'authorisation d'utiliser ces images dans une these de MSc en archaeologie maritime a l'Universite de la Floride, USA. Si vous ne pouvez pas donner cette authorisation je serais ravi si vous pouvez transmettre mon message au (ou m'envoyer l'adresse du) tiers concerne.
Merci beaucoup pour votre cooperation.
Cordialement,
Hannes Schroeder.
94
Wed Feb 16, 2005
Monsieur,
Suite à votre demande, nous vous donnons notre accord pour la reproduction des figs. 9-12 sur les pp. 332-334 de Anatolia Aniqua IV.
Nous vous demandons de mettre en note et en référence les notations d'usage, soit notre nom (Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient, Ed. Jean Maisonneuve), ainsi que l’intitulé exact de l'ouvrage dont sont issus les figures (Anatolia Antiqua IV etc ...).
Nous vous remercions également de nous faire parvenir gracieusement, à titre justificatif, deux exemplaires de votre thèse dès sa parution.
Nous vous prions de recevoir, Monsieur, nos meilleures salutations.
C. Maisonneuve
95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Jonathan 2001 Ships and Boats as Archaeological Source Material. World Archaeology 32: 292-310.
Alabe, Françoise 1986 Les timbres amphoriques de Sinope trouvés de dehors du domaine Pontique. In Recherches sur les amphores Greques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp. 13, edited by Jean-Yves Empereur and Yvon Garlan, pp. 376-389. École Française d’Athèns, Athens.
Aldrete, Greg S. and David J. Mattingly 1999 Feeding the City: The Organization, Operation, and Scale of the Supply System for Rome. In Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, edited by David S. Potter and David J. Mattingly, pp. 171-204. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Alexander, P.J. 1962 The Strength of Empire and Capital as Seen through Byzantine Eyes. Speculum 37:339- 357.
Alpözen, T. Oğuz, Bahadır Berkaya and A. Harun Özdaş 1995 Commercial Amphoras of the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology: Maritime Trade of the Medieterranean in Ancient Times. Bodrum Museum of Archaeology Publication No. 2. Dönmez Offset, Ankara.
Anuskiewicz, Richard J. 1998 [1992] Technology, Theory, and Analysis: Using Remote Sensing as a Tool for Middle-Range Theory Building in Maritime and Nautical Archaeology. In Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Lawrence E. Babits and Hans Van Tilburg, pp. 223-231. Plenum Press, New York.
Arsenéva, T., Dominique Kassab-Tezgör and S. Naumenko 1997 Un dépotoir d'atelier d'amphores à pâte claire. Commerce entre Heraclée du Pont et Tanaïs à l'époque romaine. Anatolia Antiqua 5: 187-198.
Arthur, Paul 1998 Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae between 500 and 700: A View from Italy. In Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo. Atti del Colloquio in onore di John w. Hayes (Roma 1995), edited by Lucia Saguì, pp. 157-184. Florence.
96 Babits, Larry and Hans van Tilburg (editors) 1998 Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Plenum Press, New York.
Bakirtzis, Ch. 1989 Byzantine Amphorae. In Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, edited by V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 73-77. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, Supp. 18. École Française d’Athènes, Athens.
Ballard, Robert D., Anna M. McCann, Dana Yoerger, Louis Whitcomb, David Mindell, J. Olson, Hanumant Singh, Brendan Foley, Jonathan Adams, Dennis Peichota and C. Giagrande 2000 The Discovery of Ancient History in the Deep Sea Using Advanced Deep Submergence Technology. Deep-Sea Research I 47:1591-1620.
Ballard, Robert D., Frederik Hiebert, Dwight Coleman, Cheryl Ward, J.S. Smith, K. Willis, B. Foley, K. Croff, C. Major and F. Torre 2001 Deepwater Archaeology of the Black Sea: The 2000 Season at Sinop, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 105:607-623.
Ballard, Robert D., L.E. Stager, D. Master, D.R. Yoerger, D.A. Mindell, L.L. Whitcomb, H. Singh and Dennis Piechota 2002 Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel. American Journal of Archaeology 106:151-168.
Bascom, Willard 1971 Deep-Water Archaeology. Science, New Series 174 [4006]:261-269. 1976 Deep Water, Ancient Ships. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Bass, George (editor) 1972 A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London.
Bass, George 1976 A Byzantine Trading Venture. In Avenues to Antiquity, edited by Brian Fagan, pp. 277- 288. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 1983 A Plea for Historical Particularism. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard Gould, pp. 91-104. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Bass, George and Frederick van Doorninck Jr. 1971 A Fourth-Century Shipwreck at Yassi Ada. American Journal of Archaeology 75:27- 37. 1978 An 11th Century Shipwreck at Serçe Liman, Turkey. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 7:119-132. 1982 Yassi Ada: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, vol. 1. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
97 Bayha, Keith 2003 Invasion of the Jellies: Unwelcome Visitors to the Black Sea. Electronic document. http://www.ocean.udel.edu/blacksea/chemistry/jellyfish.html, accessed March 3, 2005.
Boardman, John 1999 The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. 4th ed. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.
Bodley, John 2000 Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and the Global System. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA.
Boetto, Guilia 2000 New Technological and Historical Observations on the Fiumincino 1 Wreck from Portus Claudius (Fiumincino, Rome). In Down the River to the Sea: Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdańsk 1997, edited by Jerzy Litwin, pp. 99-102. Polish Maritime Museum, Gdańsk.
Bonifay, Michel and F. Villedieu 1989 Importations d’amphores orientales en Guale (5th-7th centuries). In Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp.18, edited by V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 17-46. École Française d’Athèns, Athens.
Bouzek, Jan 1990 Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area. Charles University, Prague.
Branigan, J.J. and H.R.Jarrett 1969 The Mediterranean Lands. Macdonald & Evans, London.
Braund, David 1994 Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC-AD 562. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Browning, Robert 1992 [1980] The Byzantine Empire. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
Cameron, Averil 1993 The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity AD 395-600. Routledge, London.
Casson, Lionel 1951 Speed Under Sail of Ancient Ships. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 82:136-148. 1965 Harbour and River Boats of Ancient Rome. The Journal of Roman Studies 55:31-39. 1967 [1959] The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times. The Macmillan Company, New York.
98 1971 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1980 Rome’s Trade with the East: The Sea Voyage to Africa and India. Transactions of the American Philological Association 110:21-36. 1994 Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times. British Museum Press, London.
Chambers, Mortimer 1966 The Crisis of the Third Century. In The Transformation of the Roman World: Gibbon’s Problem after Two Centuries, edited by Lynn White, Jr., pp. 30-58. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Coleman, Dwight F., James B. Newman, and Robert D. Ballard 2000 Design and Implementation of Advanced Underwater Imaging Systems for Deep Sea Marine Archaeology Surveys. IEEE Oceanic Engineering Soc., ed. Oceans 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, 1. Piscataury. CD Rom.
Conovici, Niculae 2002 The Dynamics of Trade in Transport Amphorae from Sinope, Thasos and Rhodes on the Western Black Sea Coast: A Comparative Approach. Electronic Document. http://www.pontos.dk/Kronologiseminar/Papers/CONdynamics_of_trade.htm, accessed February 14, 2005.
Cramer, John A. 1971 [1832] A Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor. Adolf M. Hakkert, Amsterdam.
Crawford, Michael H. and Joyce Reynolds 1975 The Publication of the Prices Edict: A New Inscription from Aezani. The Journal of Roman Studies 65:160-163.
Davies, John K. 1998 Ancient Economies: Models and Muddles. In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by Helen Parkins and Christopher Smith, pp. 225-255. Routledge, New York. de Jonge, Peter 2004 Going Deep with Bob Ballard. National Geographic 205:112-129.
DeepArch 1998 Black Sea 1998. Electronic document. http://web.mit.edu/deeparch/www/expeditions/1998BlackSea/1998BlackSea.html, accessed February 3, 2005. 1999 Black Sea 1999. Electronic document. http://web.mit.edu/deeparch/www/expeditions/1999BlackSea/1999BlackSea.html, accessed February 3, 2005.
Dereli, Fuat and Yvon Garlan 1997 Quelques nouvelles amphores timbrees de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 5:199-209.
99 Dewdney, J.C. 1971 Turkey: An Introductory Geography. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Dolley, R.H. 1948 The Warships of the Later Roman Empire. The Journal of Roman Studies 38:47-53.
Doonan, Owen 2004a Sampling Sinop: Putting Together the Pieces of a fragmented Archaeological Landscape. In Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues, edited by Effie F. Athanassopoulos and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 37-54. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. 2004b Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in the Black Sea Hinterland. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.
Duncan-Jones, Richard P. 1980 Length-Units in Roman Town Planning: The Pes Monetalis and the Pes Drusianus. Britannia 11:127-133. 1982 The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Elsner, Jaś 1998 Imperial Rome and the Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100-450. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Emetz, Igor 1995 Iconographic Evidence for the Ships of the Bosporus Kingdom. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24:133-138.
Empereur, Jean-Yves and Maurice Picon 1989 Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée Orientale. In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches. Collection de l’École Française de Rome, pp. 223-248. École Française de Rome, Rome.
Finley, Moses I. 1999 [1973] The Ancient Economy. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Frankel, Rafael 1999 Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Garlan, Yvon 1983 Greek Amphorae and Trade. In Trade in the Ancient Economy, edited by Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker, pp. 105-117. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1998 Note d'Information on "Les fouilles des atelier amphoriques de Sinope de 1994 à 1997." Comptes Rendus des Séances – Académie de Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, pp. 29-32.
100 1999 Premières fouilles de l’atelier amphorique de Zeytinlik 1 à Sinope. In Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire, edited by Yvon Garland, pp. 21-25. University of Provence, Provence.
Garlan, Yvon and Dominique Kassab-Tezgör 1996 Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de céramiques de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 4:325- 334. Edited by Jean Maisonneuve, Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient.
Garlan, Yvon and İsmail Tatlican 1998 Fouilles d’ateliers amphoriques à Nisiköy et a Zeytinlik (Sinop) en 1996 et 1997. Anatolia Antiqua 6:407-422.
Gassend, J-M. 1978 Vestiges d'une épave antique dans le port de Pommègues (Marseille). Archaeonautica 2:101-107.
Gassend, J-M., B. Liou and S. Ximénés 1984 L'épave 2 de L'anse des Laurons (Martigues, Bouches-du-Rhône). Archaeonautica 4:75-105.
Gates, Marie-Henriette 1996 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 100:277-335. 1997 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 101: 241-305.
Gianfrotta, Piero A., Xavier Nieto, Patrice Pomey and André Tchernia 1997 La navigation dans l’antiquité. Édisud, Provence.
Gibbins, David 1990 Analytical Approaches in Maritime Archaeology: A Mediterranean Perspective. Antiquity 64:376-89. 1995 What Shipwrecks Can Tell Us. Antiquity 70:234-6.
Gibbins, David and Jonathan Adams 2001 Shipwrecks and Maritime Archaeology. World Archaeology 32:279-291.
Gould, Richard (editor) 1983 Shipwreck Anthropology. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series 45. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gould, Richard 2000 Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Grace, Virginia 1949 Standard Pottery Containers of the Ancient Greek World. Hesperia: Supplement 8, pp. 175-189. 1963 Notes on the Amphora from Koroni Peninsula. Hesperia 32:319-334.
101 1971 Samian Amphoras. Hesperia 40:52-95. 1979 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey. 1985 The Middle Stoa Dated by Amphora Stamps. Hesperia 54:1-54.
Graham, A.J. 1971 Patterns in Early Greek Colonization. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 91:35-47. 2001 Collected Papers on Greek Colonization. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Netherlands.
Grant, M. 1998 From Rome to Byzantium: The Fifth Century AD. Routledge, London.
Graser, Elsa Rose 1940 The Significance of Two Fragments of the Edict of Diocletian. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 71:157-174.
Greene, Kevin 1986 The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. B.T. Batsford, London. 1992 Roman Pottery. British Museum Press, London.
Haldane, Cheryl [Ward] 1993 Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze Age. World Archaeology 24:348-360.
Hayes, John W. 1997 Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Haldon, J. 2000 Byzantium: A History. Arcadia Publishing Inc., Charleston, South Carolina.
Hesnard, A., M.-B. Carre, M. Rival, B. Dangréaux, M. Thinon, M. Blaustein and M. Dumontier 1988 L'épave romaine Grand Ribaud D (Hyères, Var). Archaeonautica 8.
Hiebert, Frederik 2001 Black Sea Coastal Cultures: Trade and Interaction. Expedition 43:11-20.
Hiebert, Frederik, Dwight Coleman and Robert Ballard In press A Possible Submerged Site of Human Habitation off Sinop in North Central Turkey. In Archaeological Oceanography, edited by Robert Ballard. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Hiebert, Frederik, D. Smart, A. Gantos and O. Doonan 1998 From Mountaintop to Ocean Bottom: A Comprehensive Approach to Archaeological Survey Along the Turkish Black Sea Coast. In Ocean Pulse: A Critical Diagnosis, edited by J. Tanacredi and J. Loret, pp. 177-184. Plenum Press, New York.
102 Hind, J.G.F. 1983-1984 Greek and Barbarian Peoples on the Shores of the Black Sea. Archaeological Reports 30:71-97.
Hocker, Frederick M. 2004 Shipbuilding: Philosophy, Practice and Research. In The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: The Study of Wooden Ships, edited by Fred Hocker and Cheryl Ward, pp. 1-11. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Hohlfelder, Robert L. 2000 Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod’s Harbor. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59:241-253.
Hohlfelder, Robert L. and Robert L. Vann 1998 Uncovering the Maritime Secrets of Aperlae, A Coastal Settlement of Ancient Lycia. Near Eastern Archaeology 61:26-37. 2000 Cabotage at Aperlae in Ancient Lycia. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29:126-135.
Hopkins, Keith 1980 Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400). Journal of Roman Studies 70:101-125. 1983 Introduction. In Trade in the Ancient Economy, edited by Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker, pp. ix-xxv. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell 2002 The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History, vol. 1. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.
Houston, George W. 1988 Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Material on Roman Merchant Ships and Ports. American Journal of Archaeology 92:553-564.
Johnson, Allan Chester 1927 Ancient Forests and Navies. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 58:199-209.
Joncheray, J.P. 1975 Une épave du bas empire: Dramont F. Cahiers d'archaeologie subaquatique 4: 91-140. 1977 Mediterranean Hull Types Compared 2. Wreck F from Cape Dramont (Var), France. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 6:3-7.
Jones, R.E. 1986 Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. British School at Athens, Athens.
103 Jurišić, Mario 2000 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic: Maritime Transport during the First and Second Centuries AD. BAR International Series 828. Hadrian Books Ltd., Oxford.
Kahanov, Yaakov, and S. Breitstein 1995a Tantura Excavation 1994: A Preliminary Report on the Wood. CMS News 22: 10-12. 1995b A Preliminary Study of the Hull Remains. INA Quarterly 22: 9-13.
Kahanov, Yaakov, and Jeffrey G. Royal 1996 The 1995 INA/CMS Tantura A Byzantine Shipwreck Excavation – Hull Construction Report. CMS News 23:21-23. 2001 Analysis of Hull Remains of the Dor D Vessel, Tantura Lagoon, Israel. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30:257-265.
Kahanov, Yaacov, Jeffrey Royal and Jerome Hall 2004 The Tantura Wrecks and Ancient Mediterranean Shipbuilding. In The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: The Study of Wooden Ships, edited by Fred Hocker and Cheryl Ward, pp. 113-127. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Karagiorgou, Olga 2001 LR2: A Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border? In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, pp. 129-166. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Kassab-Tezgör, Dominique 1995 Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores à Demirci près de Sinope en 1994 et 1995. Anatolia Antiqua 4:335-354. 1998 Prospection sous-marine près de la côte Sinopéenne: Transport d'amphores depuis l'atelier et navigation en Mer Noire. Anatolia Antiqua 6:443-449. 1999 Types amphoriques fabriqués à Demirci près de Sinope. In Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire, edited by Yvon Garlan, pp. 117-123. Publications del’Université de Provence, Provence.
Kassab-Tezgör, Dominique and Fuat Dereli 2001 Rapport de la fouille de Demirci-Sinop 2000. Anatolia Antiqua 9:215-225.
Kassab-Tezgör, Dominique, Séverine Lemaitre and Dominique Pieri 2003 La collection d’amphores d’ İsmail Karakan à Sinop. Anatolia Antiqua 11:169-200.
Kassab-Tezgör, Dominique and İsmail Tatlican 1998 Fouilles des ateliers d'amphores à Demirci près de Sinope en 1996 et 1997. Anatolia Antiqua 6:423-442.
Kassab-Tezgör, Dominique and May Touma 2001 Amphores exportées de Mer Noire en Syrie du nord. Anatolia Antiqua 9:105-115.
104 Keen, Anthony G. 2000 Grain for Athens: The Importance of the Hellespontine Route in Athenian Foreign Policy Before the Peloponnesian War. In The Sea in Antiquity, edited by G.J. Oliver, R. Brock, T.J. Cornell and S. Hodkinson, pp. 63-73. BAR International Series 899. John and Erica Hedges, Ltd., Oxford.
Kenan, T. Erim, Joyce Reynolds and Michael Crawford 1971 Diocletian’s Currency Reform; A New Inscription. The Journal of Roman Studies 61:171-177.
Kerr, Richard A. 1998 Black Sea Deluge May Have Helped Spread Farming. Science, New Series [5354]:1132.
Kingsley, Sean A. 2001 The Economic Impact of Palestinian Wine Trade in Late Antiquity. In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, pp. 44-68. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Kingsley, Sean A. and Michael Decker 2001 New Rome, New Theories on Inter-Regional Exchange. An Introduction to the East Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity. In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, pp. 1- 27. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Kingsley, Sean A. and Kurt Raveh 1996 The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of Underwater Surveys 1976-1991. BAR International Series 626. Hadrian Book Ltd., Oxford.
Koehler, Carolyn G. 1982 Amphoras on Amphoras. Hesperia 51:284-292. 1986 Handling of Greek Transport Amphoras. In Recherches sur les amphores Greques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp. 13, edited by Jean-Yves Empereur and Yvon Garlan, pp. 49-67. École Française d’Athèns, Athens. 1987 The Hellenistic Shipwreck at Serçe Limanı, Turkey: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 91:31-57.
Kuzucuoğlu, Catherine and Ana Andrieu 1998 les ateliers de Demirci (Sinop) approche géomorphologique du site ie premiers élément de réponses analytiques. Anatolia Antiqua 6:451-456.
Lawall, Mark L. 1998 Ceramics and Positivism Revisited: Greek Transport Amphoras and History. In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by Helen Parkins and Christopher Smith, pp. 75-101. Routledge, London.
105 Lazarov, Mihail 1986 Le timbres amphoriques grecs et les problèmes commerciaux en Thrace pontique. In Recherches sur les amphores Greques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp. 13, edited by Jean-Yves Empereur and Yvon Garlan, pp. 401-405. École Française d’Athèns, Athens.
Leaf, Walter 1916 The Commerce of Sinope. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 36:1-15.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.G.W. 1996 Government and Administration in the Late Empire (To AD 476). In From Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Change in the Late Roman Empire. Variorum, Hampshire.
Lenihan, Daniel J. and Larry Murphy 1998 [1981] Considerations for Research Designs in Shipwreck Archaeology. In Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Lawrence E. Babits and Hans Van Tilburg, pp. 233-239. Plenum Press, New York.
Lewis, Archibald R. 1951 Naval Power and Trade in the Mediterranean: A.D. 500-1100. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lloyd, Seton 1989 Ancient Turkey: A Traveler’s History of Anatolia. British Museum Publications, London.
Lopez, Robert S. 1959 The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13:69-85.
Mango, Cyril 1982 Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Mango, Marlia Mundell 2001 Beyond the Amphora: Non-Ceramic Evidence for Late Antique Industry and Trade. In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, pp. 87-106. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
McGrail, Sean 1989 The Shipment of Traded Goods and of Ballast in Antiquity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8:353-358. 2001 Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Melamid, Alexander 1993 Colchis Today. Geographical Review 83:79-83.
106 Mindell, David A. 2004 Recent Advances in Precision Measurement and Survey for Underwater Sites. Paper presented at the “Underwater Acoustics and Archaeology” conference, Crete. Manuscript on file at the Program in Science, Technology and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mindell, David A. and Brian Bingham 2001 A High-Frequency, Narrow-Beam Sub-bottom Profiler for Archaeological Applications. Oceans 2001. MTS/IEEE Oceans Conference 4:2115-2123.
Mindell, David A. and Katherine L. Croff 2002 Deep Water, Archaeology and Technology Development. MTS Journal 36:13-20.
Monachov, S.J. 1993 Les amphores de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 2:107-132.
Moseley, K.P. and Immanuel Wallerstein 1978 Precapitalistic Social Structures. Annual Review of Sociology 4:259-290.
Muckelroy, Keith 1978 Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murina, V. 1998 Meroplankton of the Black Sea. Electronic document. http://www.ibss.iuf.net/blacksea/ecosystems/meroplan/meroplan.html, accessed November 12, 2004.
Murphy, Larry E. 1983 Shipwrecks as a Database for Human Behavioral Studies. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard Gould, pp. 65-90. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Newman, Jim 2003 HERCULES Science Sensors and Capabilities. Electronic document. http://www.whmsi.com/HERCULES.htm, accessed February 10, 2005.
Osborne, Robin 1996 Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy. Antiquity 70:31-44.
Parker, Anthony J. 1981 Stratification and Contamination in Ancient Mediterranean Shipwrecks. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10:309-335. 1984 Shipwrecks and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 3:101. 1986 The Evidence Provided by Shipwrecks for the Ancient Economy. Thracia Pontica 3:30-45.
107 1990 Classical Antiquity: The Maritime Dimension. Antiquity 64:335-346. 1992a Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman Provinces. BAR International Series 580. Hadrian Books Ltd., Oxford. 1992b Cargoes, Containers and Stowage: The Ancient Mediterranean. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21:89-100. 1995 [1990] The Pattern of Commerce as Evidenced by Shipwrecks. PACT 27:147-168. 1995 Maritime Cultures and Wreck Assemblages in the Graeco-Roman World. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24:87-95. 1996 Sea Transport and Trade in the Ancient Mediterranean. In The Sea and History, edited by E.E. Rice, pp. 97-109. Sutton Publishing, Stroud. 2001 Maritime Landscapes. Landscapes 1:22-41.
Paterson, Jeremy 1998 Trade and Traders in the Roman World: Scale, Structure, and Organization. In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by Helen Parkins and Christopher Smith, pp. 149-167. Routledge, New York.
Peackock, David P.S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Longman, London.
Peacock, David P.S. and D.S. Williams 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy. Longman, London.
Peña, J. Theodore 1999 The Urban Economy during the Early Dominate: Pottery Evidence from the Palatine Hill. BAR International Series 784. Hdrian Books, Ltd., Oxford.
Pomeroy, Lawrence R. and Don Deibel 1980 Aggregation of Organic Matter by Pelagic Tunicates. Limnology and Oceanography 25:643-652.
Pomey, Patrice 2004 Principles and Methods of Construction in Ancient Naval Architecture. In The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: The Study of Wooden Ships, edited by Fred Hocker and Cheryl Ward, pp. 25-36. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Poulter, A.G. 1999 Nicoplis and Istrum: A Roman to Early Byzantine City. The Pottery and Glass. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Pryor, John H. 1988 Geography, Technology, and War: Studies in Maritime History of the Mediterranean, 649-1571. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
108 Pucci, Guiseppe 1983 Pottery and Trade in the Roman Period. In Trade in the Ancient Economy, edited by Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker, pp. 105-117. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Raab, L. Mark and Albert C. Goodyear 1998 Middle-range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. In Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Lawrence E. Babits and Hans Van Tilburg, pp. 205-219.
Ramsay, William Mitchell 1962 [1890] The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. Adolf M. Hakkert, Amsterdam.
Rauh, Nicholas 2004 Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project Report of the 2004 Season. Electronic document. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~rauhn/rc2004/RC04_report.htm. Accessed April 7, 2005.
Raveh, Kurt and Sean A. Kingsley 1992 The Wreck Complex at the Entrance to Dor Harbour, Israel: Preliminary Details. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21:309-315.
Reynolds, Paul 1995 Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: The Ceramic Evidence. BAR International Series 604. Tempvs Repartvm, Oxford.
Rival, Michel 1991 La charpenterie navale romaine: Matériaux, méthodes, moyens. Travaux du Centre Camille Jullian 4. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Robinson, David M. 1906a Ancient Sinope: First Part. The American Journal of Philology 27:125-153. 1906b Ancient Sinope: Second Part. The American Journal of Philology 27:245-279.
Rollins, Alden 1991 Rome in the Fourth Century A.D.: An Annotated Bibliography with Historical Overview. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, North Carolina.
Ross, David A., Egon T. Degens and Joseph MacIlvaine 1970 Black Sea: Recent Sedimentary History. Science, New Series 170 [3954]:163-165.
Santamaria, Claude 1995 L'épave Dramont 'E' à Saint-Raphaël, Ve siècle ap. J.-C. Archaeonautica 13.
Schiffer, Michael Brian 1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
109 Schmidt, Peter R. and Stephen A. Mrozowski 1983 History, Smugglers, Change and Shipwrecks. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard Gould, pp.143-171. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Sibella, Patricia 2002 The George McGhee Amphora Collection at the Alanya Museum, Turkey. INA Quarterly 29 [Supp. 1]:3-20.
Singh, Hanumant, Jonathan Adams, David Mindell and Brendan Foley 2000 Imaging Underwater for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:319-328.
Steffy, Richard 1991 The Mediterranean Shell to Skeleton Transition: A Northwest European Parallel? In Carvel Construction Techniques, edited by R. Reinders and K. Paul, pp. 1-9. Oxford, Oxford. 1994 Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Straussfogel, Debra 1997 World-Systems Theory: Toward a Heuristic and Pedagogic Conceptual Tool. Economic Geography 73:118-130.
Tchernia, André 1989 Encore sur les modèles économiques et les amphores: vitesse et efficacité. In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherches. Collection de l’École Française de Rome, pp. 529-536. École Française de Rome, Rome.
Trigger, Bruce 1989 History and Contemporary American Archaeology: A Critical Analysis. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp.19-34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. 1998a Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models and Native Population. In The Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, pp. 9-68. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. 1998b Trade on the Black Sea in the Archaic and Classical Periods: Some Observations. In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by Helen Parkins and Christopher Smith, pp. 52-74. Routledge, New York.
Vallverdú, Josep Anton Remolà 2000 Las ánforas tardo-antiguas en Tarraco (Hispania Tarraconensis) Siglos IV-VII d.C. Publicacions Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.
110 van Alfen, Peter G. 1996 New Light on the 7th-c. Yassi Ada Shipwreck: Capacities and Standard Sizes of LRA1 Amphoras. Journal of Roman Archaeology 9:189-213. van Doorninck, Jr., Frederick H. 1972 Byzantium, Mistress of the Sea: 330-641. In A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass, pp. 134-146. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. 1976 The 4th Century Wreck at Yassi Ada: An Interim Report on the Hull. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 5:115-131. 1982 The Hull Remains. In Yassi Ada: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, vol.1, edited by George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck Jr., pp. 32-64. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 1989 The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and 11th Century Serçe Limani Shipwrecks: Two Examples of Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport Jars. In Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp.18, edited by V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, pp. 247-257. École Française d’Athèns, Athens. 2002 Byzantine Shipwrecks. In The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century I, edited by Angeliki Laiou, pp. 899-905. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 39, Washington, D.C.
Vaughan, Sarah J. 1999 Contributions of Petrology to the Study of Archaeological Ceramics and Man-Made Building Materials in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. In The Practical Impact of Science on Neareastern and Aegean Archaeology, edited by Scott Pike and Seymour Gitin, pp. 117-125. Archetype Publications, London.
Wachsmann, Shelley 1995 The 1994 INA/CMS Joint Expedition to Tantura Lagoon. INA Quarterly 22:3-8.
Wachsmann, Shelley and Yaakov Kahanov 1996 Shipwreck Fall: The1995 INA/CMS Joint Expedition to Tantura Lagoon, Israel. INA Quarterly 24 [1]:3-18.
Wachsmann, Shelley, Yaakov Kahanov and Jerome Hall 1997 The Tantura B Shipwreck: The 1996 Joint Expedition to Tantura Lagoon. INA Quarterly 24.4:3-15.
Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16:387-415. 2000 The Essential Wallerstein. The New Press, New York.
Ward, Cheryl 1999 1999 Black Sea Trade Project. INA Quarterly 26.3:4-6.
111 Ward, Cheryl and Robert D. Ballard 2004 Preliminary Report on Black Sea Shipwrecks: 2000 Season. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 33:2-13.
Ward, Cheryl and Rachel Horlings In press The Remote Exploration and Archaeological Survey of Four Byzantine Ships in the Black Sea. In Archaeological Oceanography, edited by Robert Ballard. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Ward-Perkins, Bryan 2001 Specialization, Trade, and Prosperity: an Overview of the Economy of the Late Antique Eastern Mediterranean. In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, pp. 167-178. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Watson, Patty Jo 1983 Method and Theory in Shipwreck Archaeology. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard Gould, pp. 23-36. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
West, Louis C. 1969 The Coinage of Diocletian and the Edict on Prices. In Studies in Roman Economic and Social History, edited by Paul R. Coleman-Norton, pp. 290-302. Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, New York.
Westerdahl, Christer 1992 Maritime Cultural Landscape. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21:5-14.
Westerdahl, Christer (editor) 1994 Crossroads in Ancient Shipbuilding: Proceeds of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 1991. Oxbow Monograph 40. Oxbow, Oxford.
Whitbread, Ian K. 1986 The Application of Ceramic Petrology to the Study of Ancient Greek Amphorae. In Recherches sur les amphores Greques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supp. 13, edited by Jean-Yves Empereur and Yvon Garlan, pp. 95-101. École Française d’Athèns, Athens. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch laboratory Occasional Paper 4, British School at Athens. 1996 Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. The British School at Athens Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper No. 4, The Short Run Press, Exeter.
Whitcomb, Louis, Dana Yoeger, Hanumant Singh, David Mindell 1998 Towards Precision Robotic Maneuvering, Survey, and Manipulation in Unstructured Undersea Environments. In Robotics Research – The Eighth International Symposium, edited by Y. Shirai and S. Hirose, pp. 1-11. Springer-Verlag, London.
112 Whittaker, C.R. 1983 Late Roman Trade and Traders. In Trade in the Ancient Economy, edited by Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker, pp. 163-180. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Williams, Caroline 1989 Anemurium: The Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery. Universa, Belgium.
Yakushev, E.V. 1998 Modeling of anoxic conditions formation as an example of the Black Sea. Electronic document. http://www.fadr.msu.ru/mmc/anmod/HIC_214.html, accessed February 3, 2005.
Young, Gary K. 2001 Rome’s Eastern Trade: International Commerce and Imperial Policy, 31 BC-AD 305. Routledge, New York.
Zemer, Avshalom 1978 Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade. National Maritime Museum Foundation, Haifa.
113
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Rachel Lynelle Horlings (Figure 52) was born and raised in Nigeria, daughter of missionary parents Andy and Linda. In 1997 she moved to the United States to pursue an education in Anthropology. She received her Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts degrees in Anthropology from Florida State University. She has worked as an archeologist for the National Park Service and has participated in multiple archaeological projects, both terrestrial and maritime. Fieldwork for her Masters degree has focused on the archaeology of ancient trade in Asia Minor, including work in the Black Sea and as part of the Rough Cilicia Maritime Archaeological Survey. She plans to continue her studies in maritime archaeology at Syracuse University, focusing on the abolition of the Transatlantic slave trade in West Africa.
Figure 52. Robert Ballard and Rachel Horlings examine a shipping jar (photo Jeremy Weirich).
114