LIFE ON BOARD: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SHIPBOARD ITEMS FROM FOUR CLASSICAL TO EARLY HELLENISTIC MERCHANTMEN
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences
2004
by
Kristine M. Trego B.A., University of South Florida, 2001
Committee Co-Chairs: Kathleen M. Lynch Peter van Minnen Abstract
Over the past fifty years, Nautical Archaeology has been shedding light on the ways by which people of the ancient world moved commodities between cities across the
Mediterranean, while they consequentially also spread culture and technology. The academic community, however, has been slow to realize the importance of this information and utilize it for understanding the mechanics and magnitude of ancient maritime trade. By examining the results of underwater excavations, we can gain much knowledge about ancient ships and the men who sailed them. As excavation results have been gradually published, we have at our disposal a growing corpus of information which we can tap into in attempts to elucidate not only ancient trade, but the lives of the men who engaged in it. Due to the limited amount of evidence for this important economic segment of ancient Greek society, the lives of sailors have barely received the attention of modern scholars. As the body of evidence has steadily been growing over the last fifty years, augmenting ancient textual and epigraphic evidence with the material evidence from the men’s daily lives, this vital group can begin to be better understood.
This study examines this material evidence from excavated shipwrecks and investigates the means by which the men on board small merchantmen were able to survive while on commercial voyage. I will compare the shipboard items recovered from four Classical to early Hellenistic shipwrecks and argue for a standard corpus of equipment taken on board the ships to sustain and entertain the sailors. By examining the diet, conviviality, and daily subsistence practices and customs of life spent on board these merchant ships we can gain a better understanding of who these men were and where they belonged in Greek Mediterranean society. With this paper, which will explore the material evidence of the shipboard equipment and what this evidence can contribute to our knowledge of shipboard life, I plan to start to investigate these questions.
Dedicated to William and Suzanne Murray, for helping this ship set sail, and Ben, for keeping it afloat. Acknowledgements
I wish to thank George F. Bass for allowing me the opportunity to be a part of the
Tektas Burnu excavation and the world of Nautical Archaeology which he helped create and legitimize. I would also like to thank Deborah Carlson for her unwavering leadership, reaffirming support, and one of my most cherished friendships. Thanks are also due to the amazing staff of the Classics library and to the patient Graduate
Committee. I am very grateful to Bilge Gunesdogdu for her fantastic artifact drawings.
Marcie Handler not only selflessly committed her energy to make sure my thesis would reach tangible form, but also helped me to remember to laugh down the long tunnel.
I especially want to offer my deepest gratitude to Peter van Minnen for spending time reading and greatly improving this investigation. My deepest thanks go to Kathleen
Lynch, without whom I never could have accomplished this task. Her constant encouragement, devotion of time, and smiling patience gave me focus when I had lost it, drive when I was exhausted, and a path when I had wandered. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………….………………………….……p. 5
Chapter Two: A Comparative Study of Three Mediterranean Merchantmen………..…..p. 14
Chapter Three: Analysis of the Tektas Burnu Shipwreck………………………..………..p. 33
Chapter Four: Conclusions…………………………………………………..…………...p. 49
Chapter Five: Catalogue of the Shipboard Items from the Tektas Burnu Excavation………………………………...…………...p. 60
Maps and Images………………………………………………………..………..p. 78
Bibliography………………………………………………………………...……p. 105 ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The three excavated ships with respective dates, excavation locations, size, and cargo…………….………………………………………………....p. 28
Table 2: Crew assemblage items from each of the three ships categorized by primary use…………………………….……….…………...p. 31
Table 3: Crew assemblage items from the Tektas ship categorized by primary use………………………………………………….p. 47
Table 4: Placing the Tektas ship in context. Crew assemblage items from each ship…………………………………………………………….…………….p. 52 iii
LIST OF IMAGES
Map 1/ Plate 1: Location of Tektas Burnu on the Ionian coast (from Carlson 2003, fig. 1)……………………………………………… …..p. 78
Map 2/ Plate 2: Tektas Burnu excavation site (From Carlson 2003, fig. 4)…………………………………...………………p. 79
Plate 3: Kantharos from Cargo (Photo by INA staff)…………………...……………p. 80
Plate 4: Kantharos (1) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…………..p. 81
Plate 5: Kantharos (2) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)………………...………………p. 82
Plate 6: Hydria (3) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)……………………………………p. 83
Plate 7: Jug (4) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)………………………………………..p. 84
Plate 8: Lekanis (?) (5) (Photo by INA staff)………………...……………………....p. 85
Plate 9: Saltcellar (6) (Photo by INA staff)…………………………………………..p. 86
Plate 10: Plate (7) (Photo by INA staff)………………………………………………p. 87
Plate 11: Mortar (8) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…………….p. 88
Plate 12: Chytra (9) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)…………………………………..p. 89
Plate 13: Chytra (10) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)…………………………………p. 90
Plate 14: Chytra (11) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)…………………………………p. 91
Plate 15: Cooking pot lid (12) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)………………………..p. 92
Plate 16: Lopas (16) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)……………...…………………..p. 93
Plate 17: Casserole (18) (Photo by INA staff)………………………………………..p. 94
Plate 18: Lekanis (?) lid (Photo by INA staff)……………………………………….p. 95
Plate 19: Lamp (20) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…………….p. 96
Plate 20: Bone tile (22) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…………p. 97 iv
Plate 21: Bone tile (23) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…………p. 98
Plate 22: Situla handle (24) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)…..…p. 99
Plate 23: Situla handle (25) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu; Photo by INA staff)……p. 100
Plate 24: Bronze rim fragment (26) (Photos by INA staff)…………………………p. 101
Plate 25: Bronze kyathos (31) (Photo by INA staff)………………………………...p. 102
Plate 26: Bronze palmette (32) (Drawing by B. Gunesdogdu)……………………...p. 103
Plate 27: Bronze object (33) (Photo by INA staff)………………………………….p. 104 5
Chapter One: Introduction
The focus of this paper is an analysis of shipboard artifacts recovered by the
Tektas Burnu shipwreck excavation, which was led by the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology (INA) during the summer seasons of 1999 to 2001. The artifacts itemized in the catalogue are those categorized as utilitarian: items found in limited quantities with minimal or no decoration which presumably were aboard the vessel for the convenience of the crew. The assemblage includes: utilitarian vessels for dining, cooking, and drinking, fragments of a bronze bucket and ladle used for drink service, two fish hooks,1 gaming tiles made of bone, and a coarse, handmade lamp with signs of significant use. These items will be compared with the utilitarian artifacts recovered from three other shipwrecks of dates close to that of Tektas. This material was chosen for study to attempt to shed light on the shipboard lives of ancient mariners in the
Mediterranean. The catalogue of this paper will be included in the forthcoming excavation report to be published by Texas A&M Press.2
The excavation site was located off the barren and rocky western coast of Turkey on the Izmir peninsula approximately 40 kilometers southeast of Cesme and east of the island of Chios (Map 1). For three seasons, a team of archaeologists under the direction of INA founder George F. Bass and his assistant director, Deborah N. Carlson,
1 In addition to the hooks, a quantity of small lead fishing weights was recovered from the site. Although they are included in the catalogue (37-47) as having been excavated from the wreck site, they were not likely part of the ancient ship’s equipment. The weights share no uniformity in size or shape with one another and were excavated from points all over the wreck site and at different levels in the stratigraphy. As such, these were almost certainly intrusive objects lost by later fishermen who had laid lines over the wreck site. Had the weights been discovered in close proximity to one another and within the same stratum, as were weights that were excavated from the other wrecks that will be discussed, it would be possible to make a much stronger argument for their original provenience aboard the Tektas ship. 2 For preliminary reports on the Tektas Burnu excavation and findings, see Carlson 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Nowak 1999; Oron, 2000; Trethewey, 1999. 6 systematically and meticulously uncovered, photographed, mapped, and raised the cargo and remains of the ancient ship (Map 2). The ship itself was modest in size with an estimated length of about twelve meters, but its significance is substantial. This was the first Classical period shipwreck ever to be fully excavated in the Aegean and as such, it is bound to shed light on localized trade conducted in Ionia with small merchantmen.
The cargo was largely comprised of almost two hundred and fifty transport amphorai identified, in descending order of their frequency, as Pseudo-Samian, Mendean,
Samian, Chian, and Northern Aegean. Mark Lawall of the University of Manitoba examined the two most prevalent amphora shapes from the wreck and identified them as
Pseudo-Samian and Mendean from the third quarter of the fifth century B.C. The presence of a complete Samian amphora dating from the last quarter of the fifth century
B.C. offers evidence for dating the wreck itself to ca. 425 B.C.3 The cargo thus suggests a timeframe within the Greek Classical Age and sets this merchant and his crew trading wares over the Aegean waters during the period of Athens’ imperial height.
The majority of the cargo transport amphorai were pitch-lined to contain wine, as evidenced by several grape seeds found fixed into the pitch lining. The organic remains recovered from the wreck site suggest some of the foodstuffs, although others may have since deteriorated, that were intended for sale or for consumption by the crew. Although most of the transport amphorai appear to have carried wine, some were utilized to store food. Over one hundred cattle rib bones were found in two amphorai4 as well as a large quantity of small fish bones;5 both the beef and fish had very likely been salted or pickled for preservation. Several olive pits were recovered either inside or near amphorai. In
3 Carlson 2003, pp. 581, 587-588, and note 31. 4 Carlson 2003, pp. 589-590 and notes 34-41. 5 Carlson 2003, p. 590 and note 42. 7 addition to the main amphora cargo carrying wine and those that were used to store food, ten Mendean amphorai were completely filled with pine tar,6 which was likely used for flavoring wine. These tar-filled amphorai, each weighing nearly eighty pounds, were also doubling as ballast for the ship.
The pitch-lined Pseudo-Samian amphorai that were carrying the wine cargo numbered over two hundred. The origin of the wine cargo is presently unknown. There is, however, compelling evidence to suggest Erythrai, located on the Ionian coast near the
Tektas site (Map 1). About forty of the vessels were marked with a circular stamp most commonly placed on the neck between the handles, but also found on the vessel shoulder or at the base of a handle.7 The purpose of this stamp is still ambiguous as its occurrence is found on amphorai from a broad range of locations and dates.8 Some scholars believe that the stamp may have been used to test the density of the clay before firing,9 but it may also have served to mark a separate consignment of goods or signify that the jar met local standards of capacity regulations. Several other Pseudo-Samians from the cargo, at least seven thus far discovered, were stamped with an ivy leaf and one was marked with the
Greek letter eta (H).10 One of the Pseudo-Samians, however, displays a monogram stamp that likely points to the home port of the ship and the origin of its main amphora cargo.
The circular stamp, about two centimeters in diameter, contains three Greek letters
6 Carlson 2003, pp. 587-589. 7 I am extremely grateful to Deborah Carlson for allowing me to read and utilize the rough drafts of her dissertation and for enlightening me with endless discussions concerning these topics. For discussion of the Tektas amphorai, their stamps and meanings, see Carlson 2003, pp. 586-587 and the final excavation report to be published by Texas A&M Press. 8 See Carlson 2003, p. 586 and note 20. 9 Carlson 2003, p. 586 and note 20. 10 One could speculate that the ivy leaf stamp may be associated with the god Dionysus and thus to wine, however, this is only one possibility. The eta, appearing only once on the cargo amphorai, cannot be positively linked to any person. It may have been etched onto the vessel to denote ownership or to simply single it out from the other amphorai for some unknown reason. 8 followed by a dot: ERU. This monogram bears striking resemblance to the fifth-century
B.C. coinage from nearby Erythrai, which often depicts a central flower in an incuse square with the letters ERU or ERUQ in the corners surrounding a rosette.11 It is arguable that the main cargo of wine, contained in the Pseudo-Samian amphorai, originated from
Erythrai located less than 40 kilometers northwest from where the ship sank, while the ship itself was headed toward an unknown port on the other side of the Izmir peninsula
(Map 1).
A load of black-glazed finewares including table amphorai, kantharoi, large and small one-handled cups, lamps, saltcellars, and olpai accompanied the amphora cargo.
The objects that have been categorized as utilitarian objects intended for the crew’s use were designated as such either from their location on the wreck in the bow or stern of the ship, which were areas for storage kept separate from the main cargo hold, and/or by the singular occurrence of an item. Conversely, the items intended for sale, such as the black-glazed table wares, appeared in greater numbers, with little to no evidence of use, and were concentrated in groups in the main hold.
Significance of Study
This was not a large merchantman carrying the treasures of a cultural and artistic explosion nor a swift-sailing trireme of a tribute-extracting navy, but a modestly sized and humbly loaded cargo vessel that appears to have made short runs along the Ionian coast and nearby islands. There is little evidence to suggest that cities engaged directly in state-sponsored trade, but rather influenced, monitored, and profited from it by means of harbor dues, regulating officials, and laws governing importation, exportation and
11 Head [1911] 1981, pp. 119-121, pl. 15. 9 investment in foreign trade.12 The trading itself, however, was in the hands of private investors and merchants. It should be noted that there is a paucity of information in the ancient evidence about merchants and their means and manner of business. Without a doubt, there existed merchants both large and small who were continually engaged in the exchange of commodities both luxurious and humble throughout antiquity; the immense number of recorded shipwrecks itself testifies to this extensive movement of goods.13
The great majority of Greek poleis were situated on or near the coast in part to ensure the communities’ access to the sea and the vendibles that were transported on its waves. As variations existed in the climate of individual regions across the Mediterranean basin, no polis was capable of producing everything the community needed or desired; importation of goods and foodstuffs was vital, as is demonstrated by the case of grain scarcity in
Attica during the fifth century and Athens’ regulation of its exchange.14 Contact and trade between cities by way of the sea began early in Greek history and continued at irregular, but near-constant degrees of intensity from the Archaic to the Roman age and beyond.
This paper’s aim is not to examine the mechanisms and management of maritime trade, nor to present a new model for ancient trade and economy, but to look at the lives of the men who made the inter-politic exchange possible. We have, to our misfortune,
12 Stanley 1976 makes an admirable attempt to investigate Greek market regulation from the literary and epigraphical evidence. He concludes, p. 316, “In general the local governments were not so directly involved in the control of commercial activities in the emporion as they were in the area of the commercial agora. If a government were to have legislated too extensively in the area of import and export trade, the result of such legislation might have been to diminish the trade which was carried on in this area of the emporion, since a good number of the merchants were not local citizens and would have objected to excessive regulation of their business. The regulations which were passed by a city were primarily concerned with commercial practices once the cargo had arrived in the harbor and was unloaded…This restraint from attempting to control the import trade indicates that the governments were cognizant of the fact that the foreign supply of goods was dependent on a fairly free and open emporion, where few controls or none interfered with or prohibited the importation of goods.” 13 See Parker 1992 for a catalogue of known shipwrecks, their size, and cargoes. 14 Stroud 1998; Stanley 1976, pp. 302-307. 10 scarce literary or epigraphical evidence to shed light on the character and nature of the lives and social status of these men. We do, however, have a growing collection of material evidence that is filling in the gaps, evidence that has been coming from the depths of the Mediterranean over the past half century due to the birth, development, and employment of underwater archaeology. It is this material evidence from the sailors’ lives aboard the merchant ships upon which I intend to focus. The goal of this study is to explore how these artifacts can contribute to the social history of the merchants and sailors who played an integral role in the life of nearly every ancient Greek. There has been little focus upon these traders by modern scholars. Casson, the most prolific writer on nautical topics, focuses primarily on the ships themselves, and especially on the warships, but says comparatively little about the men who built and ran the ships.15
Nautical Archaeology, although having only been born within the last half century, has already provided a wealth of evidence about trade in ancient Mediterranean societies and the men who conducted it. The number of ships, however, that has been professionally excavated by archaeologists is small in comparison to the unquantifiably large number of wrecks that lie in wait on the Mediterranean floor. Moreover, only a fraction of those wrecks that have been excavated have been fully published and subsequently have reached the academic community. Parker’s exhaustive list of known shipwrecks is one of the first comprehensive attempts to gather together information on ancient wrecks into a reference that includes a bibliography for each ship. In his foreword, Parker points out the difficulty, which his publication attempts to address, of tapping into this pool of historical information by acknowledging, “These lost ships constitute a remarkable resource for the social, economic and technical history of
15 Casson [ 1971] 1986, 1991, 1994. 11 antiquity, but knowledge of them, often unpublished, has been hard to come by for historians and others who would like to make use of the statistics or the insights they offer.”16 Those ships that have been published fully or partially, however, are still vastly under-utilized by scholars of trade, economy, and the social history of non-aristocratic members of ancient Greece and Rome. As more wrecks are excavated and published, economic and social historians are bound to realize the neglected wealth of information these merchantmen can give us about commercial relationships between cities as well as how and by whom these relationships were made possible.
In the following chapter, I will discuss three other wrecks and analyze the objects recovered that are believed to have been utilized by the men on board. I will present them in a chronological order beginning with the Ma’agan Micha’el wreck (430-390
B.C.) excavated off the coast of Israel. Following this will come the Porticello wreck
(400-390 B.C.) excavated off the Italian coast. The last wreck I will discuss will be the
Hellenistic ship excavated off the coast of Cyprus at Kyrenia (306-300 B.C.). The Tektas ship, itself dating to 440-425 B.C., wrecked over a hundred years before Kyrenia wreck, but within a generation or two of the other two wrecks.
In the third chapter, I will analyze the utilitarian materials recovered from the
Tektas wreck and compare these finds to those of the wrecks discussed in the second chapter. By examining the similarities and discrepancies in the objects from the Tektas wreck to those from the other wrecks, I will draw conclusions about the duration of the voyage and the lifestyle of the crew on board the Tektas ship. Questions that will be explored will include: What kind of food did the crew consume? How was it obtained?
16 Parker 1992, ii. 12
How was such food prepared? Where would it have been eaten? Is there evidence for communal drinking? What did the crew do to pass idle time?
In the fourth chapter, I will draw my conclusions from the analysis of the materials from all four wrecks and argue for a standard corpus of material that was necessary to have at hand for the convenience of the crew, the equipment that made life on these ships during their voyages possible. In addition, I will analyze variations in the equipment from one ship to the next and discuss what these variations can tell us about the duration of the sailors’ venture. By examining the material evidence, I believe light can be shed upon the nature of crew life on board these Classical and early Hellenistic merchantmen. By examining the diet, conviviality, and daily subsistence practices and customs of life spent on board these merchant ships we can gain a better understanding of who these men were and where they belonged in Greek Mediterranean society. The fifth chapter is a catalogue of the crew’s materials excavated from the Tektas wreck. A version of this catalogue will be published in the forthcoming final excavation report to be published by Texas A&M Press.
Examining the physical remains of merchantmen, even as small a sampling as that which is used in this paper, can tell us a great deal about the workings of inter-politic exchange and those conducting trade. Gaining an understanding of how and by what means the men who conducted maritime trade were able to live while on voyage can help us understand the mechanics of trade. By understanding the mechanics of trade, we can gain a broader understanding of the ability of ancient societies and individuals within those societies to engage in the physical exchange of goods at varying levels of intensity.
At a later date I intend to couple this present investigation with literary, epigraphic, 13 iconographic, and archaeological evidence in an attempt better illuminate the role this previously neglected segment of society played in the history of ancient Greek trade and connectivity. With this present study, I hope only to inaugurate my own investigations into these relationships between ships, men, and cities by starting with an examination of the lives of the men while on board the ships. 14
Chapter Two: A Comparative Study of Three Mediterranean Merchantmen
e{spete nu`n moi Mou`sai jOluvmpia dwvmat j e{cousai, ejx ou| nauklhrei` Diovnuso~ ejp ; oi{nopa povntou, o{ss ; ajgavq ; ajnqrwvpoi~ deu`r ; h}gage nhi; melaivnh: ejk me;n Kurhvnh~ kaulo;n kai; devrma boveion: ejk d ; JHllhspovntou skovmbrou~ kai; pavvnta tarivch: ejk d ; au| jItaliva~ covndron kai; pleura; boveia: kai; para; Sitavlkou ywvran Lakedaimonivoisi kai; para; Perdivkkou yeuvdh nausi;n pavnu pollai`~: aiJ de; Suravkousai su`~ kai; turo;n parevcousi: * * * * * * * * kai; Kerkuraivou~ oJ Poseidw`n evxolevseie nausi;n ejpi; glafurai`~, oJtih; divca qumo;n e[cousi tau`ta me;n ejnteu`qen: ejk d ; Aijguvptou ta; kremasta; iJstiva kai; bivblou~: m ajpo; d ; au| Suriva~ libanwtovn: hJ de; kalh; Krhvth kupavritton toi`si qeoi`sin, hJ Libuvh d ; ejlevfanta polu;n parevcei kata; pra`sin: hJ JRovdo~ ajstafivda~
“Now tell me, Muses who have your dwellings on Olympus, of all the good things Dionysus brought here in his black ship from the time when he sailed the wine-dark sea as a merchant. From Cyrene silphium stalks and ox-hides, from the Hellespont mackerel and all varieties of salt fish, from Italy fine flour and ox ribs, and from Sitalces an itch to plague the Spartans and from Perdiccas lies in a great fleet of ships. Syracuse, providing pigs and cheese…[lacuna] And may Poseidon destroy the Corcyreans in their hollow ships because their loyalties are divided. That’s what comes from those places, then. And from Egypt rigged sails and papyrus, and from Syria frankincense. Fair Crete provides cypress for the gods and Libya much ivory for sale, and Rhodes dried grapes and dried figs that bring sweet dreams. And again, from Euboea pears and fat apples; slaves from Phrygia, mercenaries from Arcadia. Pagasae provides slaves and branded runaways, while the Paphlagonians provide chestnuts and shiny almonds, which are the delights of the feast. Phoenicia provides the fruit of the palm and fine flour, Carthage rugs and multi- coloured head-cushions.”18
This fragment from the comic playwright Hermippus, dated to 426-425 B.C., gives an amusing catalogue of the types of raw materials and luxury items imported to
17 Hermippus, Fragment 63 in Athenaeus 1.27e-28a. 18 Translation by John Wilkins as quoted in Gilula 2000, pp. 78-79. 15
Athens during the period of her naval superiority.19 The goods listed are shipped in from all over the Mediterranean world for sale and consumption within Athens. It offers modern scholars an example of the profundity of commodities available from all over the ancient western world, commodities that found their way into the markets and onto banquet tables delivered by merchantmen plying the waves in commercial pursuit.
Although Hermippus’ fragment is comic in nature and not a harbormaster’s inventory of cargoes taken for the collection of harbor dues, it nevertheless gives us a glimpse of the traffic sailing in and out of the Piraeus during the late fifth century B.C. The ships listed in the fragment sailed from every corner of the Mediterranean to find their market in
Athens, and the evidence being uncovered on the floors of the sea reflects the multi- national trade and commerce that flourished during this time period.
In order to place the crew assemblage of the Tektas wreck into a context, the equipment recovered from three other wrecks will be discussed below against which the equipment on board the Tektas ship will be compared in the following chapter. What follows is a brief discussion of three ships that carried the goods of the ancient world to international markets: ships that sank off Israel, Italy, and Cyprus, but whose holds held the merchandise of cities and nations located at distances from their final resting places.
These three ships were chosen for comparison because of their similarity to one another and the Tektas ship in size and date, with each measuring in length from 12 to 17 meters and dating from 430 to 300 BC. Each ship was determined to have been a trading vessel by the presence of cargo and/or by the deep-bellied hull construction characteristic of
19 For a discussion of the dating of this fragment and the genre into which it belongs, see Gilula 2000, pp. 75-90. 16 merchant ships.20 Moreover, because the excavators and scholars of these completely excavated wreck sites21 have published the wrecks fully or partially in preliminary reports, there is information available which can be utilized in a comparison; of the very few completely excavated wrecks dated to the fifth and fourth centuries, these are among the only such wrecks for which there are available publications. The discussion below will be particularly focused on examining the equipment needed on board these trading vessels for the men who connected the cities and nations of the Mediterranean by means of markets, purses, and appetites. A comparative study of crew assemblages and the establishment of a standard corpus for on board equipment can aid our understanding of how these trading vessels operated and were able to link the markets of the
Mediterranean.
Ma’agan Micha’el (430-390 BC)
A small merchant ship, 13-15 meters long, was discovered under only a couple meters of water close to the shore of Israel near Kibbutz Ma’agan Micha’el in 1985 and was subsequently excavated by E. Linder, A. Raban and J. Rosloff.22 A probable date from the late fifth to early fourth centuries BC was deduced from the pottery found on board.23 The origin of the ship may have been Phoenician, a possibility suggested by the site location, ship construction, and pottery that originated from the Palestinian coastline,
20 For disscussion of merchantmen sizes, shapes, and characteristics, see DeVries and Katzev 1972, pp. 47- 48; 50-52; Casson 1995, pp. 169-182. 21 As compared to some Classical wrecks where only a single or small number of two meter grid squares were chosen for excavation. See, for example, Hadjidaki 1996. 22 There has been no final excavation report published for this wreck. The best available sources are Parker 1992, p.247-248 and Linder 1992, pp. 24-35. 23 Linder 1992, p. 26; 32. 17 although the excavators have not been able to determine the ship’s origin with certainty.24
The hull of the ship was extremely well preserved with very little wear or teredo worm damage, observations which have led the scholars to speculate that the ship sank on its maiden voyage or soon thereafter. There was no discernible cargo onboard the ship; rather, it was loaded with over twelve tons of ballast, most of which was schist slabs.
The only other items were a collection of cooking and utilitarian wares concentrated at the ship’s stern for the use of the crew. This discovery is particularly important to the study of shipboard items as without a load of cargo, the crew assemblage can be easily recognized without the added effort of analyzing the layout of the ship and stowage of cargo in order to determine what were crew utilitarian items and what were cargo items.
With the Ma’agan Micha’el we get a clear picture of what the crew would have kept on board their ship for their own comfort and survival.
There were some seventy pottery vessels recovered, many of them complete, dated to the fifth to fourth centuries B.C. and originating from Cyprus or the Palestinian coastline, some with Greek parallels.25 As no final excavation report has been published, there is no catalogue to which to refer for details of the vessels and their quantities.
Nevertheless, we know from the preliminary report that the pottery assemblage includes a cooking pot, large plates, jugs, lamps, and a pithos. The exterior bottom of the recovered
24 Linder 1992, p. 32; 34-35. 25 It is interesting and worthwhile to note that while the pottery, wood species, and pollen all appear to have originated from the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus, Levant, perhaps Greece, and the Phoenician coast), the ballast stones, of five lithic types, could have come from the Tyrrhenian Sea, Corsica or Calabria. Although the origin of the ballast has not been firmly established, and may in fact have been derived from the same areas of the cargo, if the ballast did indeed come from the west, it does not mean the ship ever sailed in the area of the ballast’s origin. The stones would have been dumped at a port and left when a cargo was taken onto the ship and new ballast could always be acquired at a different port, if needed. The possibility of the stones’ western origin, however, and their discovery aboard an eastern Mediterranean ship could nevertheless be an indicator of long distance trade and contact between the two regions during this time period. 18 cooking pot was covered “with enough soot to stain [the excavators’] hands,”26 indicating that the vessel had already been used to prepare meals. There were also at least nine storage jars of the “basket handle” type, some decorated amphorai, miniature juglets, and black-glazed vessels, two of which were saltcellars. A whetstone was also recovered from the site, which may have served in grinding grain for bread or herbs for meals.27
Food remains were also excavated and indicate the types of meals the sailors would have consumed on board. The remnants include barley, as well as fig, grape, and olive seeds.28 Pollen samples taken from the barley indicate the grain was an eastern
Mediterranean coastal variety that was usually grown in the summer.29 This evidence suggests that the ship was indeed sailing during the customary summer sailing season.30
No animal bones were reported to have been found, which suggests that the sailors caught fish, as the lead fishing weights indicate, in order to fulfill their dietary needs for protein.
Metal finds included a small copper shovel possibly used for incense, iron and copper nails, lead fishing weights, and a lead ingot that could have been on board to use as raw material for patching the hull or making fishing weights.31 In addition to the metal finds were several woodworking tools found in and around a fiber basket, as well as rope, remains of a mat, a quantity of treenails, tenons, toggles, a small woven basket, and a wooden carpenter’s square;32 all likely kept on board in case repairs to the ship were
26 Linder 1992, p. 29. 27 Linder 1992, p. 32. 28 Linder 1992, pp. 32-33. 29 Linder 1992, pp. 32-33. 30 Linder 1992, pp. 32-33. 31 Linder 1992, p. 33. 32 Linder 1992, p. 32. 19 needed. Fresh wood chips and some unused wooden stakes were found in the bilge.33
Five unusual wooden boxes were recovered: one four inch, swivel-topped box of olive wood shaped into a heart or leaf and having three circular compartments, and four
“violin-shaped” boxes. Linder34 has speculated that the boxes may have housed cosmetics or jewelry while Parker35 postulated that the heart-shaped box could have held weights.
If, in fact, there was no cargo onboard the Ma’agan Micha’el ship, the crew was nevertheless prepared for a voyage and perhaps wrecked before the cargo could be acquired. The excavation recovered a pithos, in which fresh water could have been stored,36 and suggests that the ship was equipped to make voyages during which there would not have been the need, and perhaps the opportunity, to come ashore in order to rehydrate the sailors or refill smaller water storage vessels.
Porticello (400-390 BC)
In 1969 near the Italian village of Porticello, located on the shores of the Straits of
Messina, a local fisherman was snaring many rockfish with his nets. Thinking a reef was concealed below, he asked a sport diver to investigate the seabed. It was not a reef, however, but a shipwreck that the diver found. The fisherman then organized a group of divers to help systematically loot the site.37 After having raised about a hundred
33 Linder 1992, p. 32. 34 Linder 1992, pp. 32-33. 35 Parker 1992, p. 248. 36 Pithoi are believed to have been used for storage of liquids or grain; Agora XII, p. 193. Their common presence on ships are often associated with the storage of fresh drinking water, as on the Yassi Ada ship, Bass and van Doorninck 1982, pp. 315-316. The large storage jars could, however, also be used to carry other contents. For example, ten pithoi were recovered from the Ulu Burun shipwreck, some of which contained large quantities of Cypriot pottery, Pulak 1994, p. 242. 37 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, pp. 3-4. 20 amphorai, small pottery vessels, anchors, and fragments of bronze sculpture, the looters began to sell the artifacts. When, however, the divers and fisherman began to argue over the division of the money made from the sales, one of the looters contacted the local police. The looters were arrested, and Dottore Giuseppe Foti, the superintendent of antiquities of Calabria, organized an investigation of the site. When the team realized that much of the wreck was still concealed under the sand, Foti invited the University
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and David I. Owen, assistant curator of the
Underwater Archaeology Section, to organize an expedition to excavate the remainder of the wreck site.38
The finds recovered from the wreck, as well as those that the police were able to retrieve from the homes of the looters and those who had purchased the illegal artifacts, have been fully published by Texas A&M press.39 The dating of the wreck to around the beginning of the fourth century was deduced primarily from the black-glazed pottery used by the crew, but also from the amphora cargo, and radiocarbon analysis of wood samples.40 The ship was carrying amphorai with origins as diverse as the Northern
Aegean to Punic and Western Greek regions. 41 Many superb specimens are discussed in the publication, including the now-famous bronze statue of a bearded man, but my
38 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, p. 4. 39 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987. 40 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, pp. 24-25, 27-28, 31-33, 39. They state on pp. 31-32: “The date of the wreck can best be determined by the pottery used by the crew for cooking and eating, as this material is more likely to have a shorter life span aboard a ship than might the cargo amphoras.” 41 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, p. 35, pp. 37-51. Again, the presence of such geographically varied amphorai on board the ship does not necessarily determine that this ship visited each region, for it could have picked up its variegated cargo at main ports of trade like Athens. Porticello’s scholars admit that it is impossible to know whether this ship had sailed from Byzantion to Italy, but consider it technically possible. They also entertain the ideas that it could have picked up its cargo at Athens and sailed west, or simply was a western Mediterranean trader who picked up its wares in Syracuse and sold them locally. The authors discuss the three possibilities in their concluding chapter, pp. 107-113. 21 discussion will focus only upon those artifacts which were excavated from the stern of the ship and those determined by the scholars to have been the crew convenience items.42
Several examples of cooking, dining, and drinking vessels were recovered from the wreck. The collection contained three or four black-glazed bolsals, one black-glazed cup-skyphos with impressed decoration, one jug-like chytra, fragments of two or three lidded chytrai or lopades, an oinochoe, and a mortar. In addition to the pottery, there were also two whetstones and a wooden bowl excavated from the stern area. Evidence for food consumption is supplemented by the discovery of two small fishing weights, likely used for fishing with a line in shallow waters, and a bone from the fore-extremity of a sheep or goat.43 Two black-glazed lamps were also retrieved and because the glaze was deteriorated only on the interiors of the lamps, the Porticello authors believe the deterioration was caused by use aboard the ship and not by the marine environment, which would have resulted in a more even deterioration on the exterior as well as the interior of the wells.44
In addition to the cooking and dining wares, several miscellaneous items were recovered from the stern including an awl with an iron point set into a wooden handle, which likely was used to repair the sails; a pyriform weight used for an unknown purpose, but may have originally had a metal hook at the top and could have also been
42 Unfortunately, because the site had been looted to some degree before archaeologists could map and excavate the wreck, some of the items lack a provenience. The authors, however, do list which items were recovered from the site and which were recovered from the looters or the black market. On p. 26 they note, “All the utilitarian pottery recovered by the excavation team came from the northern extremity of the excavation area. The Carabinieri reported that they retrieved the lamps (G5-6), oinochoe (G11), and chytra (G8) from this part of the site as well. Items other than pottery aboard the ship for the crew’s convenience also recovered from this area included the awl (G15) and the wooden bowl (G14). We cannot know now for certain from what part of the wreck came the mortar (G10) or the whetstones (G12-13), but it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would have been kept in the stern storage area as well.” 43 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, p. 36 discuss the bone and state, “Since the bone was retrieved from an area of the site that had been heavily plundered, it is impossible to state whether or not it was intrusive. If not, it can best be accounted for as having been from the crew’s food.” 44 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, p. 29. 22 used for fishing; five lead and silver cake ingots and one hundred and twenty-two lead and silver nuggets which could have been trade items, counterfeit bullion, or raw material for making fishing weights and brailing rings for the sail or for patching the hull. The ingots and nuggets were concentrated in an area with the fishing weights, which suggests that the items were stored in a container that has since disintegrated, much like the metal finds and woodworking tools excavated from a deteriorating basket on the Ma’agan
Micha’el. A metal box, perhaps used as some type of mold, and a wood-and-metal oval of unknown function, but speculated to have been part of the cargo sculpture, were also retrieved.
These utilitarian items provide a useful example of the type of assemblage needed on board for a successful journey. It included not only vessels for cooking and dining, but also tools for food preparation, like the whetstones and mortar. In addition, there is evidence for provision acquisition, as the fishing weights suggest a means by which the sailors could supplement their stores with fresh fish. The excavators speculate that, in addition to the oinochoe, other table wares and storage vessels, which would have likely held oil, wine and other vitals, would have been stored in the stern area but did not survive or were removed by the looters and could not be recovered.45
Missing from the assemblage is a pithos, whose presence would be a useful indicator of the need for a fresh water storage vessel and thus perhaps indicate a sustained voyage. An informant, however, mentioned that the looters had removed a “very large jar” and it is thought that this was likely a pithos. Such a storage container may well have been needed if indeed the ship traveled to any of the ports from where the amphorai cargo originated, namely the Northern Aegean (Mende and Byzantion), Punic, and
45 Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, pp. 33-34. 23
Western Greek regions. Although it must be noted that such a diverse cargo may have been taken on board at a nearby emporion like Syracuse.
Kyrenia (306-300 BC)
This Hellenistic merchantman was excavated by Michael Katzev off the northern coast of Cyprus near Kyrenia from 1969 to 1972 and has drawn much publicity during the succeeding decades due, in part, to the extensive study invested into the hull, which resulted in the construction of a full-size replica of the ship.46 Over four hundred amphorai, which were pitch-lined for the transportation of liquid and primarily originated from Rhodes, were recovered from the site. Additionally, there were several amphorai from Samos, Paros, Crete and Palestine. Twenty-nine grinding stones of a hopper design were used as ballast along the axis of the ship.47
The age of the ship and the date of its sinking were determined by Carbon-14 analysis and coins found at the site. The Carbon-14 analysis of almonds found on board points to a date of 288 ± 62 B.C.48 The same analysis of the wood used for the hull points to a date of 389 ± 44 B.C. for when the trees were felled.49 Four bronze coins were found that could better pinpoint the time period of the ship’s final voyage. One coin was minted in the time of Antigonos Monophthalmos (316-301 B.C.), and another from the time of his son, Demetrios Poliorketes (306-294 B.C.).50 These coins, therefore, give
46 For the construction of the replica and her surprising success during sea trials, see Katzev and Katzev 1986, pp. 2-11; 1989 pp. 4-10. 47 Katzev 1970, p. 8; Swiny and Katzev 1973, p. 342. 48 Katzev 1970, p. 14. 49 Katzev 1970, p. 14. 50 Katzev 1970, pp. 8-9. 24 a terminus post quem for the sinking of the ship of 306 B.C. after the time when
Demetrios Poliorketes’ coin would have been minted. The date suggested by the coins agrees with the range of dates provided by the analysis of the almonds. The Carbon-14 analysis of the hull planking suggests that the ship itself had been sailing the seas for some ninety years when it finally sank below the waves off the coast of Cyprus.51
As for the crew assemblage, there were two concentrations of coarsewares and finewares in the bow and stern areas, which must have served both as the living spaces for the men and the storage for their equipment on board.52 Although there was no discernible galley or evidence that cooking took place on board the ship, several food preparation and cooking items were discovered in the stern, including a bronze cauldron, a mortar, fragments of a pottery sieve, several broken cooking pots, and two casserole lids.53 Drink service included three black-glazed pitchers and a pottery ladle (which may have been used in either cooking or drink service). All four black-glazed kantharoi were found forward and aft of the main cargo area, which has led Katzev to deduce that the ship’s drinking water must also have been kept in this area, although no pithos was found on the wreck.54 These kantharoi, however, may rather suggest that communal wine drinking took place among the sailors while on voyage.
51 Katzev and Katzev 1986, pp. 4-5: during the excavation, a number of concreted iron “blobs” were recovered from underneath the hull which, when conserved, were found to be eight iron spearheads, some of which had pieces of the ship’s iron sheathing attached. Kyrenia’s scholars believe that these spearheads were fixed into the hull at the time of the ship’s sinking and provide evidence that the merchantman was attacked and sunk by pirates. This scenario, Katzev and Katzev add, would also explain why there was a paucity of coins, small trade goods and personal items excavated as these would have been confiscated by the pirates, along with the crew who would have been sold into slavery, before they punctured the hull to sink the ship. 52 Katzev 1972, p. 50; 1973, pp. 344-345. 53 Katzev 1972 p. 50; 1973, p. 345. 54 Katzev 1972, p. 50. 25
The assemblage of eating and dining utensils, excavated from the stern area, contained thirteen black-glazed echinus bowls, an assortment of flat black-glazed dishes, four saltcellars, four gutti (oil jars), a wooden bowl, and fragments of four wooden spoons. It is thought that the crew may have numbered four as most of the dining dishes and drinking vessels were found in groups of that same number. Katzev also speculates that wooden utensils may have been used with much more frequency onboard ancient ships than the extant evidence suggests.55 The marine conditions were extremely favorable for the preservation of both the hull and wooden objects. This environment affords scholars a glimpse into shipboard life that is otherwise not often available because of the rapid deterioration of unprotected wood in the marine environment.
In addition to the cooking and dining wares, a fragment of a lamp was retrieved which offers evidence for the need for light, however limited, on the ship. As a single lamp would have offered only a limited amount of light, Katzev believes the ship did not likely run at night.56 Twelve unhewn tree limbs were found in the stern of the ship; one can easily imagine this material being used to make a fire for cooking meals on a shore or beach, as no brazier or galley was found to lend evidence that meal preparation could have taken place within the ship herself. Without a galley or similar protected area where a fire might safely be built on board a wooden ship, the men must have cooked their meals off the ship to avoid setting it ablaze. Much rigging equipment was likewise recovered from the seafloor and, as on the Ma’agan Micha’el, several tools for repairing the ship. The hull itself was entirely sheathed in lead from its keel up to and above the waterline. The merchantman appears to have been about eighty to ninety years old when
55 Swiny and Katzev 1973, p. 345. 56 Katzev 1972, p. 50. 26 it sank and had been repaired several times.57 Naturally, there was need to keep on hand the tools and equipment necessary should the hull need further work, and this is evidenced by the presence of several rolls of surplus lead as well as mallets which could be used to repair the lead patching and keep the aged ship watertight.58
Other interesting finds included an “ink well”59 and a marble pedestal; the use of latter is still undetermined. A quantity of over three hundred lead fishing weights was uncovered in the fore of the ship and in such an arrangement that suggests they were once attached to a net that has since disintegrated.60 The reoccurrence of fishing weights onboard ancient merchant vessels is becoming more and more apparent; this seems natural as there would undoubtedly be excess time spent on the ship during which the men could easily utilize such opportunities to supplement their food stores with fish that would not only be fresh source of protein, but would not have to be purchased from a market. Over nine thousand almonds were found in the bow of the ship grouped in such a way that indicates they were once stored in sacks or baskets;61 these may have been consumed by the crew themselves or were intended for sale.
Other remnants of food found on the Kyrenia provide important clues to the sailors’ provisions at sea. In addition to the almonds, pistachios, hazelnuts, olives, garlic, grapes, figs, and dried herbs were found creating a list of ingredients that, along with the
57 Katzev 1972 p. 52. 58 Katzev 1972, p. 52 59 Quotations are those of Katzev 1973, p. 345. This “ink well” has been only mentioned in passing by Kyrenia’s scholars and no image or drawing of the vessel has been published. If it is indeed an ink well, it is impossible to know with the given evidence whether its presence on the ship indicates literacy on board. Only the one ink well was reported to have been recovered from Kyrenia, whereas at Porticello there were eight inkpots excavated from the cargo hold. Their quantity and location on the Porticello ship led its scholars to conclude these were transporting ink for sale. For a discussion of the Porticello inkpots and the ancient sources for ink in antiquity, see Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, pp. 60-62. Agora XXIX, p. 199, identifies small closed pots with a hole in the center of the top as probable ink wells. The identification of these vessels as ink wells is strengthen by finds that still contain remains of ink, Agora XXIX, p. 199. 60 Swiny and Katzev 1973, p. 345. 61 Katzev 1970, p. 8; Swiny and Katzev 1973, pp. 343-344. 27 fish caught by the sailors, formed a basic, but varied menu.62 No animal bones were found during the excavation that would indicate that meat was a part of the sailors’ diet.
The Kyrenia carried eleven different types of amphorai, eight of which may represent supplies for the crew. Only those from Rhodes and Samos can be confidently classified as part of the cargo as their number and location in the hold suggest two separate consignments intended for markets. Eight other types of amphorai were uncovered, but they were either found in small numbers or only a single jar of one type was uncovered. Katzev speculates that these singular and small groups of jars carried the foodstuffs needed by the crew for the voyage; their rarity on the ship can otherwise only be explained as carrying rare commodities for sale.63 Unfortunately, the final excavation report has yet to be published for this wreck, although several preliminary reports have entered circulation. It would be greatly beneficial to know whether the singular examples of amphorai were stowed and concentrated in a separate area on the ship, from which one can better argue that these jars were stored in such a way to facilitate crew access.
Comparing the Data
Each of these ships was excavated from different regions of the eastern and western Mediterrean. Nevertheless, these three ships, sailing the Mediterranean waters within a hundred and fifty years of one another, have a remarkable number of similarities among them. The ships were similar in length, with the Ma’agan Micha’el and the
Kyrenia being smaller, at 13-15 meters and 13.6 meters respectively, than the Porticello, which is estimated at about 17 meters in length. Each ship, however, had a displacement
62 Katzev and Katzev 1986, p.10. 63 Katzev 1972, p. 50. 28 between twenty to thirty tons. Below is a table illustrating each ship’s date, location, size and cargo, as determined by the excavators.
Ship Date Location Size Cargo
Ma’agan 430-390 Kibbutz Ma’agan 13-15 m None discernible. Micha’el Micha’el, Israel 12 tons of ballast
Porticello 400-390 Porticello, Italy 16-17 m Mendean, Punic, West Greek, and Solokha II amphorai; lead ingots; inkpots; bronze sculpture
Kyrenia 306-300 Kyrenia, Cyprus ca. 14 m Rhodian, Samian, Parian (?), Cretan (?), and Palestinian (?) amphorai; grinding stones; almonds (?)
Table 1. The excavated ships with respective dates, excavation locations, size, and cargo. Items with ‘?’ may not have been cargo.
Although the cargo of each ship varied from one another to some degree, with the
Ma’agan Micha’el carrying only ballast stones at the time of its sinking, the equipment on board each trader for the crews’ convenience was noticeably very similar. Each ship had an assortment of cooking and food preparation wares that included chytrai, casseroles and cauldrons for cooking stews, some with charring still preserved on the vessels’ bottom, mortars, likely used for grinding herbs, sieves, and whetstones for sharpening tools. Drinking assemblages always included drinking cups or kantharoi for drinking 29 wine and water, and often oinochoai. Dining wares included plates and bowls, mainly black-glazed with little or no decoration, which were used by the men during the meal.
Saltcellars and oil jugs accompanied the dining wares for the meals and there was always one or two lamps found to provide a limited amount of light. A wooden bowl was excavated on both the Kyrenia and the Porticello, and wooden utensils were also found on the Kyrenia. It is likely that such wooden tableware was more common on trading ships than the material evidence suggests, as wood is often unable to survive in the marine environment.
Fishing weights were found on each of the three ships, pointing to the evidently common practice of augmenting the sailors’ diets with fresh fish caught and consumed along the course of a voyage as a low cost source of protein. Aside from the single sheep or goat bone found at Porticello, which may have been intrusive,64 there was no other evidence for meat taken on board these three ships. The food remains that have survived all point to a similar diet of fish, olives, wine, nuts, grain, and fruit, which was perhaps dried. On the Kyrenia, herbs and garlic were also found, evidence that does not often survive to modern times, but the extremely favorable marine conditions in which the ship was found give us a broader look at the quality of meals which the men could enjoy while trading. Below is a table itemizing the different categories of crew utilitarian items for each ship. The terminology for the vessels has been adapted from the excavators’ reports as often no illustrations or images of the vessels were published. The items were assigned to categories based on the most likely primary use for each item; i.e. a cooking pot was primarily used for cooking a meal although it could have theoretically have been used for other purposes, as for instance, dining from the vessel.
64 See p. 21 and note 43 above. 30
Ma’agan Ship Micha’el Porticello Kyrenia
Food whetstone whetstones; mortar; Preparation mortar pottery sieve
Cooking cooking pot chytrai; bronze lopades cauldron; cooking pots; pottery ladle (?); tree limbs
Dining plates; wooden bowl black-glazed jugs (?); echinus bowls; saltcellars; black-glazed black- flat dishes; glazed vessels saltcellars; gutti; wooden bowl; wooden spoons
Drinking pithos; pithos; black- jugs (?) black- glazed glazed kantharoi; bolsals; cup- black- skyphos; glazed oinochoe pitchers; pottery ladle (?)
Food barley; sheep or almonds (?); figs; grapes; goat bone pistachios; olives hazelnuts; olives; garlic; grapes; figs; dried herbs
Fishing weights weights weights with gear net 31
Ship repair lamp; baskets; lamps; lead lamp; ink well; tools and wooden boxes; and silver marble misc. nails; shovel; ingots and pedestal; equipment lead ingot; nuggets; metal rolled sheets of carpenter’s box; awl lead; mallets square; toggles; treenails; tenons; rope; mat
Table 2. Crew assemblage items from each ship categorized by primary use. Items with ‘?’ may belong to another category.
None of the ships provided any evidence of a galley or on board cooking, but each had cooking wares. As the unhewn tree limbs found in the stern of the Kyrenia suggest, the sailors would likely put ashore, either in port or on a stretch of beach, and make a fire over which the cooking could take place. Dining was likely then done on or near the ship itself, where the equipment and supplies were all housed. It should further be noted that, although the exact identities of these sailors is impossible to determine, there has never been any reference in the ancient evidence to the presence of women on board these ships as part of the crew. It can be inferred, therefore, that the cooking must have been done by the men themselves, although it is possible that the task was relegated to a slave on board the ship. The numbers of utilitarian vessels uncovered suggest a small crew for each of the ships, likely around four men per ship, perhaps numbering only a few more.
The days would have been occupied with sailing, fishing, and repairs that the voyage necessitated, as woodworking tools and spare rigging parts often formed part of the stern area equipment. Nights possibly were spent ashore, as very few lamps seemed to have been kept on board likely ruling out night sailing, but this cannot be stated as fact.
We simply do not know how much sailing could be done by star and moonlight. Pithoi, possibly for water storage, were found on the Porticello and the Ma’agan Micha’el, 32 which may suggest that the men could be technically and physically capable of sailing out of sight of the shoreline and into open waters for several days. The pithoi, on the other hand, could also suggest that the ships were often put ashore on uninhabited stretches of coast where fresh water was either inaccessible or unknown by the sailors to be present in the area. On the Kyrenia, where no pithos has been reported to have been found, fresh water could have been stored in the amphorai found in small numbers which the scholars believe held provisions for the crew.
To date, these three merchantmen, and the Tektas ship discussed in the next chapter, are the only ships from the Classical and early Hellenistic period which have been fully excavated,65 however, these small traders probably were more common than the present evidence suggests. As more shipwrecks are professionally excavated and comparative analyses are made of their material, cargo, and equipment, we will get an even clearer picture of how great a quantity of commodities was transported in small ships by these men during ancient times. Although these merchantmen and their crews, who were all engaged in similar inter-politic trade, may have come from widely different backgrounds and areas, the uniformity in their needed provisions and customs of dining is becoming more evident. The consistency found among the crew assemblages of the four merchantmen in this survey provides a more secure context into which we can proceed to place the crew assemblage recovered during the Tektas excavation.
65 Other wrecks dating to this period have been only partially excavated, with often only a single or couple two-meter grid squares being investigated. See, for example, Arribas et al. 1987 and Hadjidaki 1996. 33
Chapter Three: Analysis of the Tektas Burnu Shipwreck
The ship that wrecked off the rocky Ionian coast ca. 425 B.C. is the only merchantman from the Greek Classical era that has been fully excavated in Aegean waters. Much like the ships discussed in the previous chapter, the Tektas ship was of a modest 12-15 meters in length and carried a varied cargo of amphorai and black-glazed fineware. The small number of cooking, dining, and drinking vessels recovered from this wreck points to a small crew that would have manned the ship. In order to place this crew assemblage in the context of those discussed in Chapter Two, we must first look at and analyze the material that was retrieved from this ship.
The majority of the utilitarian wares and small finds on board the Tektas ship were excavated from the stern while a few other crew convenience items were found at the bow. As the analysis of the shipwrecks in the previous chapter indicates, these two areas, the bow and stern, are evidently the most typical spaces in which the sailors stowed their belongings and equipment. As discussed in Chapter One, the items that were categorized as utilitarian were designated as such either by their location on the wreck in the bow or stern of the ship, by the singular occurrence of an item, and/or by significant evidence of use.
The stern of the Tektas ship was located downslope and furthest from the cliff against which the ship likely punctured its hull. The bow was upslope and closest to the cliff face.66 Two marble ophthalmoi, or eyes, excavated in the upslope area, gave
66 Carlson 2003, pp. 594-596 and fig. 4, p. 585. 34 certainty in identifying the bow of the ship.67 These talismanic eyes, which were fixed to the bow by large, clenched iron nails, are commonly depicted on the bow of ships in vase paintings and other artistic depictions of ships.68 Those recovered from the Tektas ship, however, are the only such ophthalmoi that have been found in a shipwreck excavation.
When the merchantman sank, the hull apparently came to rest on the tops of two large out-croppings of rock. As the hull disintegrated over time, the cargo came to rest on the sandy sea floor between the rocks. When this occurred, part of the stern broke away from the ship and items stored there tumbled further down the slope.
Much like the merchantmen discussed in the previous chapter, the Tektas ship carried a variety of cooking vessels in the ship’s stern.69 A lidded chytra (11), lopas (17), and casserole (18) were all uncovered in close proximity to each other. The bottoms of each of these three vessels are covered with a significant amount of charring on exterior and interior, similar to the cooking pot on the Ma’agan Micha’el shipwreck.70 One complete (12) and three partial knob-topped lids (13-15) as well as a large coarseware lid
(19) possibly belonging to a lekanis (5) were also found in this area, all likely components of the cooking assemblage. A nearly complete mortar (8) was recovered and provides further evidence for food preparation carried out by the crew; although mortars
67 Nowak 1999, pp. 10-11; Carlson 2003, pp. 594-595. 68 Casson 1995 figs. 81, 82, 91 show such eyes on merchantmen; figs. 65-68, 72, 81-85, 88-90 show warships with prows armored with rams in the shape of boar’s heads complete with similar eyes. 69 Two chytrai and a lopas, with a complete and a partial lid, were also found closer to the bow. These three pots show no sign of use and may have been intended for sale, or were spare cooking vessels kept in case a replacement was needed. The chytrai were chemically analyzed by Curt Beck of the Amber Research Laboratory at Vassar College. One of the largest chytrai on board (9) was recovered from the bow of the ship, and Beck’s analysis shows that it contained resinated wine. For further discussion of chytra 9 and the results of Beck’s analysis, see Chapter Four, pp. 57-58. 70 Linder 1992, p. 29. 35 are commonly associated with making bread,71 they were more probably used on ships to grind herbs and other such meal components.
Although only one plate (7) survived to provide possible evidence for the manner by which the crew consumed their meals, it is more likely that this plate was used as a type of serving dish. The use of plates by individuals at a meal was not ordinary practice during the Classical period; rather, it was more common for individual diners to use wooden vessels, bread, or possibly one-handlers72 to hold their food. 73 Plates do not often occur in the archaeological record until the Hellenistic Period and only then in some regions of the Mediterranean.74 There may once have been wooden dining vessels on the
Tektas ship, as were on both the Porticello and Kyrenia ships discussed in Chapter Two.
There were, however, no such wooden vessels found during the Tektas excavation, although it must be noted that the marine environment in which the ship was excavated was unfavorable for the prospect of wood preservation. Very little of the hull itself remained, and what wooden items and hull components did survive were very fragmentary and scrappy. It is quite possible, then, that there were wooden bowls or utensils which the crew utilized during mealtime that simply did not survive the marine conditions while the plate itself was primarily utilized for serving food.
There was one unglazed saltcellar (6) recovered from the stern with stain and wear patterns found along the rim of the salt well. The pattern is such that it suggests the
71 For discussion of this primary use of mortars, see Agora XII, p. 221, and note 2. 72 Agora XII, p. 124. 73Agora XII, p. 144. 74 Berlin 1999, p. 89 discusses plates found in the Lower City of Ilion and notes that because so few examples were found in comparison to the quantity of drinking vessels and because there was a wide variety in shape and fabric, “plates and saucers were relatively unimportant to this area’s residents, who instead must have relied on small bowls and, undoubtedly, bread to hold their food; the few plates they owned were clearly sporadic, individual acquisitions.” It may indeed be a similar case on board the Tektas. With only one half of one plate recovered, it is most probable that the crew ate their meal off bowls and dishes that have since disintegrated and that the plate was utilized as a serving dish, perhaps for fish. 36 vessel had been often used by fingers pinching a substance from the well drawn along the interior wall to the rim. The saltcellar has a concave exterior wall on a narrow, shallow flaring foot, which is recessed underneath. In this recessed area below the well and above the foot, there are two small holes piercing the fabric. This saltcellar could have been chosen for use on the ship because these holes could serve as a means by which the vessel could be suspended and stored in such a way as to preserve space on the small ship. I have been able to find only one parallel for this saltcellar shape with the two holes. The parallel is nearly exact to the Tektas saltcellar and was uncovered during land excavations at Klazomenai, which is located near the final resting place of the Tektas ship.75
The crew’s small assemblage of wares would have experienced daily use and as a result from wear and damage would have often needed replacement. These replacements would either be brought on board at the start of the sailing season at the first venture or would be replaced as needed in the ship’s ports of call. Determining the provenience of such items, however, is often exceedingly difficult as most of the vessels are undecorated or black-glazed vessels of a more common variety. Regional production of such vessels with little or no decoration and in shapes that are found all over the Mediterranean provide little help in identifying production sites. There are often, however, subtle differences in fabric and details in shape that can provide clues to production sites when analyzed against comparanda. Analyses of these “simple” vessels, black-glazed and coarseware, have usually been neglected in earlier excavation reports devoted to more intense study of decorated vessels and amphorai where proveniences can be puzzled out with more certainty, due to a longer tradition of scholarly research. This trend, however,
75 Gungor 1994, no. 082, p. 30 and, p. 86 (illus.). 37 is beginning to change. One only has to look at the compelling study of Andrea Berlin on coarsewares from Hellenistic Tel Anafa to see how much such investigations have to offer, in spite of the great challenge of the endeavor. The publication of the plain and coarsewares from Tektas will add to the growing corpus of published undecorated vessels to further add investigations into regional pottery production and distribution.
The Tektas saltcellar is not of a common variety. As mentioned, only one other parallel has thus far been found. Because this unique parallel suggests that the Tektas saltcellar may have been acquired by one of the crew near Klazomenai, it is very likely that the ship was indeed operating around this peninsula on a fairly regular basis. As discussed above, the ship likely took on her main cargo at Erythrai, itself located within close proximity to Klazomenai, and was sailing towards an undetermined port south of the peninsula. The saltcellar on board, once more, does not appear brand new and unused. It is possible, therefore, that the ship had previously sailed in this area and had visited the port of Erythrai. In fact, it is possible that this was the peninsula where the crewmen themselves lived and operated their trade here on a regular basis. This can, however, only be cautiously suggested as a possibility, but one that both the Erythrian cargo and the Klazomenaian saltcellar suggest as feasible.
No pithos was found on board Tektas to hold the ship’s fresh water as there was at
Porticello and Ma’agan Micha’el.76 Its absence may indicate that the ship did not undertake long distance trading over open waters, but sailed within proximity to coastal areas and places where the crew knew where and how to collect fresh water.77 Indeed, if
76 Pithoi have been reported at numerous shipwreck sites. See, for example, entries in Parker 1992 pp. 220, 224, 229, 282, 292-293, 392-394, 405, 412, and 439-440. 77 In Athenaeus’ description of a fanciful grain-freighter commissioned by Hieron of Syracuse, he includes a report of a fresh water tank with a twenty thousand gallon capacity that was built into the bow. It was 38 the ship operated around this peninsula on a regular basis, no large water storage vessel would have been needed by the crew, who plausibly would know the area well enough to be able to supply themselves with fresh water.
Drink service vessels were, however, uncovered. A banded hydria (3) was found in the stern and a jug (4) was found in the bow area. Four bronze rim fragments (26-29), all with an egg-and-dart decoration stamped onto the rim, were found near a fragmentary bronze vessel bottom (30). The decoration and estimated circumference, found by placing the fragments on a diameter chart, find parallels with buckets uncovered during land and underwater excavations.78 Further downslope, in the concentration of stern items that fell away from the ship when the hull disintegrated, two bronze bucket handles
(24-25) and a bronze duck head ladle (31) were uncovered. The size and length of the handles almost certainly suggest that they once belonged to the same vessel as the bronze rims. Bronze buckets have been found on numerous shipwreck excavations, and the vessel may have been standard equipment for ship voyages.79 Whether the bucket was used for drink service or tasks on board, such as removing water from the bilge, has not been determined. Its proximity to the duck head ladle and its ornamentation, however, suggest that its primary function was centered on drink service. It may have served as a vessel in which wine could be mixed during communal drinking, or could have simply
built with wooden planks, caulked with pitch, and lined with tarpolins (5.208a). Although Athenaeus’ description of the Syracuse ship is embellished with extravagance, his short discussion of the unexciting water tank could likely have some basis in truth. Both Tektas and Kyrenia must have been carrying a heavy load of perishable goods at the bow in order for the ships to have been properly trimmed. As neither excavation yielded the discovery of pithoi aboard, it is possible that these ships could have had a holding tank for fresh water similar to that described by Athenaeus. 78 See Chapter 5 below, nos. 22-29, for comparanda and discussion of each individual bronze item. 79 See, for example, Hadjidaki 1996, pp. 585-586. See also Parker 1996, pp. 88, 173, 183, 199, 392. Casson 1995, p. 176 and note 42 discusses the use of buckets for bailing out bilge water, but says nothing of their shape, material, or other possible uses. 39 aided in fresh water service. Several Greek vases depict duck head ladles being used to fill cups with wine from amphorai, kraters, and other liquid containers.80
The question concerning the types of cups the crew used for communal drinking of wine is more complex. Eleven kantharoi were excavated from the sea floor, all of which were black-glazed. Nine of the eleven are of similar profile and formal details,81 four were found in the bow, three in the stern, and two amidships. These nine kantharoi, however, are believed to have been cargo for several reasons. Although it is possible that the crew could have kept extra kantharoi on board in case of breakage or for entertaining guest passengers on board or on shore, it is more likely that the vessels were part of the fineware cargo that included table amphorai, lamps, and one-handlers. The kantharoi show no sign of use, and some are in such fine condition that the black glaze is completely intact (see Pl. 3). Additionally, the quantity of kantharoi was similar to that of the table amphorai, lamps, and one-handlers, suggesting a consignment of finewares that was perhaps intended to be sold as sets. The distribution throughout the hold of the ship of the table amphorai, lamps, and one-handlers was similar to that of these nine kantharoi. The large number of kantharoi, moreover, could not indicate that eleven men were on board, indeed, the small size of the ship speaks against this.
On the other hand, two of the eleven excavated kantharoi were different from the other nine kantharoi. One of these two kantharoi was excavated from the bow and the other from the stern. The kantharos excavated from the bow (1) has vertical handles, a ring foot, and three bands of stamped decorations on the body; the top and bottom bands are ovules, while the middle band shows a series of palmettes. The other unique
80 Richter 1935, p. 8, 13; Smith 1896, E 65; Williams [1985] 1999, no. 62g, p. 84; Vickers 1978, fig. 26 and text. See Chapter Five, entry 31 and comparanda. 81 See plate 3. 40 kantharos (2), excavated near the duck head ladle, had a ring foot and a sharply angled body. These two kantharoi were likely the personal possessions of crewmen and may indicate that there were only two men on board this ship. It should be kept in mind that
Kyrenia is thought to have only had four men aboard, as the crew’s dining dishes and utensils were found in groups of four,82 and that ship’s size was a bit larger than that of
Tektas, therefore suggesting that this ship could have run with fewer than four men and very likely did not run with an eleven man crew.
In addition to the kantharoi, seven large one-handled cups and seven small one- handled cups all of similar profile and formal elements were uncovered, all of which were located in the stern in close proximity to one another. Two small one-handled cups, however, were found inside two amphorai. They either could have served as a means to scoop out the amphorai contents or had been dragged into the amphorai by octopi, as hoarding of small objects by these creatures is quite common. The one-handlers are identical in shape suggesting that cups may have been a set or were the work of one potter who fashioned them in two different sizes. Could these one-handled cups have been used by the crew or were they part of the cargo? Their concentration in the stern would speak in favor of their use by the crew, however, their large number, like the kantharoi, and equal quantity and similar forms would argue against this theory. Unless the crew was extremely careful in their use of these vessels or had just obtained them, it is more likely that there would be an unequal number as a result of breakage from repeated use. Thus, like the nine kantharoi discussed above, the one-handlers were most likely a part of the cargo.
82 Katzev 1970, p. 8; Katzev and Katzev 1986, p. 4. 41
Three small finds, also from the stern, provide an interesting impression of life on board this small trade vessel. One of these finds was a small, heavy coarseware lamp
(20). No comparanda have been found for this lamp, and it may have even been handmade. The walls are thick and uneven, and the surfaces were all once covered in black-glaze, which has now largely flaked or worn off. The bottom is heavy, stable, and thick. The lamp may indeed have been made or purchased with its use on a moving vessel in mind, as its weight and stability make it a practical lighting choice for a ship. In fact, it appears to have had a lengthy and much utilized life as the nozzle is heavily charred from repeated use. As on the three ships discussed in the previous chapter, where only one or two lamps were found, this appears to have been the only source of artificial light provided in the evening. Although this may indicate, as Katzev speculated about the
Kyrenia shipwreck,83 that the ship did not run at night, it does provide evidence that some activity occurred after sunset that necessitated the need for a lamp. The cooking and dining assemblages certainly indicate that meals were taken on or near the ship herself, and such a lamp would have provided a transportable source of light for meal preparation and table lighting.
Another pastime activity that may have required a light source is evidenced by two small bone tiles (22-23) that were uncovered in the stern. These smooth, unmarked tiles were most likely components to some type of game indulged in by the crew to fill idle time either while at sail, in port, or ashore. The presence of gaming tiles on board trading vessels has been documented in another, albeit later, shipwreck excavation. The
Serce Limani excavation, excavated by INA during the summers of 1977 through 1979, brought to light the cargo and remains of an 11th century A.C. merchantman with a main
83 Katzev 1972, p. 50. 42 cargo of glass pieces.84 Found among the pottery and glass were eight wooden chessmen, a round bone tableman, and a bronze cube with holes similar to a die.85 The wooden chessmen are simple, quickly carved, and of an Islamic design using abstract shapes to represent figures.86 The bone tableman resembles modern backgammon tablemen, a form that Cassavoy states has been used since at least early Roman times.87 If indeed the
Tektas bone tiles are game pieces, and until positive comparanda can be found this must remain a speculation, they provide an intimate glimpse at the way crewmen could spend idle time with one another while on a voyage. Thus, the pieces are useful in helping to identify other ways, alongside communal dining and drinking, in which the men on board socially interacted with one another.
The Tektas ship, like the three discussed in Chapter Two, shows no evidence for cooking aboard the ship in a galley or comparable area. Thus, the crew must have put ashore to cook hot meals and then dined near or on the ship. Although a quantity of fishing weights (37-47) were uncovered at Tektas, they were dispersed randomly over the wreck site. Unlike the weights found at the sites discussed previously, which were excavated in concentrated areas, the Tektas weights were so unevenly distributed that they must have been intrusions from later fishermen working over the wreck. It does appear, however, that the Tektas sailors still fished for food to supplement their diet.
Rather than having lead fishing weights provide the evidence for the crew’s piscatorial undertakings, we have on Tektas one large and two small bronze hooks and one large
84 van Doornick, et al.1988, pp. 1-31. 85 Cassavoy 1998, p. 29 states that the bronze cube does not resemble dice used in any known game at this time and because it was found in close proximity to weights and a counterbalance, it may actually itself have been a weight and not a game die. 86 Cassavoy 1988, pp. 28-29. 87 Cassavoy 1988, pp. 28-29. Having studied the progression of the game of chess through social levels, Cassavoy suggests that the owner of the chessmen was likely an officer of the ship or a passenger, but believes that the owner of the bone piece was probably “a simple member of the crew.” 43 iron hook.88 These hooks can be attributed to the ship’s equipment more soundly than the weights as they were found in the lower levels of the stratigraphy and among the artifacts that had settled during the decomposition of the hull. The small bronze hooks would have been baited to catch smaller fish, particularly shore species. The large harpoon hook, however, could have been used to catch larger open water varieties that could potentially feed more than one man. Obtaining fish with hooks rather than nets, however, would yield a smaller catch that could only feed a few men. Having only a few hooks, a few cooking pots, one plate, and two unique kantharoi available to the men for eating and drinking all speak to the possibility that the crew was a small one, perhaps only with two or three men.
In addition to fish, there is evidence for the consumption of olives, hazelnuts, salted fish and beef. Whereas the quantity of olive pits found and their occasional discovery inside amphorai offer strong evidence that olives were being transported on the
Tektas ship, questions surround the latter three food remnants. Only one hazelnut shell was discovered, which could indicate a small quantity or remains of a quantity that had been consumed on board the ship at some time previous to the sinking. The shell could thus have fallen into the hold and stayed there for any length of time before the ship met its end. The single hazelnut could also simply be an intrusion from above, perhaps even from one of the later fishermen who had lost some of his weights while fishing over the wreck site.
The difficulty in determining whether salted fish was kept on board is obvious.
The excavation was underwater, so how can cargo fish bones be differentiated from the
88 Only one fish hook is included in the catalogue (34). The other small bronze hook and the large iron and bronze harpoons are not included in the catalogue as they are still awaiting conservation. 44 natural local marine life? I would argue that there was at least one amphora that was filled with fish based on the following. Although fish bones are inevitably going to turn up on an underwater excavation, the manner in which they are distributed as well as stratigraphy can provide important clues.89 On the port side amidships, there were several amphorai that came to rest on their sides or upside down on the sea floor. Near the end of the final excavation season, when the last of the artifacts and remains were being excavated from the lower stratigraphic levels composed of densely packed, fine sand, a clear stratum of small fish bones was uncovered. The stratum was only a couple of centimeters deep and appeared highly concentrated. It is highly probable that one of the amphorai that had come to rest on its mouth had once contained salted fish that poured out when the amphora either broke or its stopper deteriorated. This is, in fact, precisely what happened to the salted beef that was kept in an amphora in the exact same area. In this instance, a Mendean amphora had been reused to transport several hundred beef ribs, which had been cut and must also have been salted. Dozens of the bones were found around the area of the amphora that had come to rest on its shoulder. The possibility that a neighboring amphora, also containing a salted protein source, had undergone similar movement and loss of contents is extremely probable.
What we do not know, however, is whether the preserved fish and beef were intended for sale or as provisions for the crew. A handful of amphorai that differed in shape from those of the main cargo were all stored in the same area, that is, on the port or starboard sides amidships or, in two cases, in the stern. There were two Chian amphorai on board. One was stored in the stern and the other in the port side amidships area. It is
89 Fish bones have been positively identified as part of cargo or supplies on other ships. See, for example, Parker 1996, pp. 97, 99, 101, 105, 109, 124, 140, 143, 236, 307, 330-331, and 414. 45 possible that crew provisions were stored in these and while one was being used, and thus kept in the stern, the other was kept in a convenient place in the hold. Likewise, there were two Samian amphorai on the ship. Again, one was found in the stern and the other port side amidships. One smaller amphora was also found port side amidships and has been tentatively identified as Northern Aegean, possibly Ionian or Lesbian.90 The
Mendean and large Pseudo-Samian amphorai that contained the cattle bones were both kept near the starboard side amidships. These amphorai, all numbering only one or two in quantity per category, were arguably the storage vessels for the crew’s provisions. By consolidating the amphorai on the port and starboard sides of the hold, the sailors could have easy access to their provisions and move amphorai to the stern once supplies there needed replacement.
Although we do not yet have a site plan for the Kyrenia excavation, the excavators there also noted a number of amphorai on board, found singularly or in small numbers, which differed from the main cargo amphorai. The scholars of Kyrenia have thus speculated that these were the jars that contained the supplies of the crew.91 Indeed, it may be a similar organization on board the Tektas. Both of these ships, it should be added, provide no evidence for the presence of a pithos on board. It is also possible, therefore, that some these variant amphorai were the freshwater containers. Which ones were used, however, to contain this water has not been able to be determined.
90 Carlson 2003, p. 590. 91 Katzev 1972, p. 50. 46
The presence of preserved fish and beef on Tektas is a noticeable difference from the other ships discussed.92 Presumably, the crews on board the three traders discussed earlier acquired their protein needs from the fish they caught as well as from nuts and grain. With the absence of a means to catch large quantities of fish with a net, having instead only a few hooks, did the Tektas crew carry preserved meat that could be kept for the entire sailing season, provided that it was well preserved? It is certainly a possibility.
However, because beef has always been thought by modern scholars to have been a rare, and even luxurious table item93 often connected with festivals involving animal sacrifice,94 one wonders if the crew had access to this commodity for their own consumption, rather than intending it as a market item. What is more, because the
Mendean amphora that was carrying the bones was identical to those filled with pitch, is it more reasonable to assume that the Mendean containing the bones was also part of the same cargo shipment? If this trader, however, operated in this area on a regular basis and repeatedly shipped the same main cargo, resin and wine, it is possible that the bone- carrying jar was part of an earlier shipment and the jar was left over and reused by the crew.
Determining the homeport and identity of a merchant crew is exceedingly difficult to accomplish by examining only the ship’s cargo. Cargoes are most often very diverse aboard a single ship and have material originating from varying ports across the
Mediterranean. This is also true of Tektas whose cargo included amphorai from Erythrai,
92 It should be noted, however, that there was one sheep or goat bone found at Porticello, but the excavators question its place on the ship. Because it came from one of the most heavily looted areas, they speculate that it may have been an intrusion from the boat anchored above. 93 Frayn 1995, p. 110. 94 Wilkins 1995, p. 105. It is an interesting observation that in the section of Food in Antiquity titled “Meat and Fish,” only one of the five sections actually discusses meat, all other sections are devoted to the discussion of fish trade and consumption. The rarity of scholarship on the consumption of meat in antiquity may not conclude the rarity of meat consumption in antiquity itself. 47
Mende, the North Aegean, Samos, and Chios. By attempting to determine the provenience of the crew utilitarian items, however, one can often get a better idea of where the ship most likely operated.
As the majority of the amphora cargo originated from Erythrai and the saltcellar
(6) was most probably produced at nearby Klazomenai it is conceivable that this small trader operated locally around the Izmir peninsula. Moreover, the lack of evidence for a large storage container for fresh water indicates that this merchantman did not engage in long distance trade that took the crew over open water where a fresh water supply would have been necessary. The Tektas ship therefore provides our only present evidence for local Ionian maritime trade during the late fifth century. Based on the size of the ship and the small assemblage of cooking, dining, and drinking vessels, the crew was likely a small number of local men.
Having examined the crew assemblage from the Tektas shipwreck, we can construct a table categorizing each item according to their most likely primary use, as was done with the other shipwrecks discussed in Chapter Two.
Food Misc. Prepar- Cooking Dining Drinking “Food” Fishing equipment ation Gear mortar chytrai; Plate; black- dried fish; large and lamp; bone lopades; lekanis glazed preserved small fish (gaming?) casserole kantharoi; beef; hooks tiles chytra (?); olives; hydria; hazelnuts jug; bronze (?) bucket (?); duck head ladle
Table 3. Crew assemblage items from the Tektas ship categorized by primary use. Items with ‘?’ may belong to more than one category. 48
In the following chapter I will compare the crew assemblage of the Tektas ship against those of the previously discussed ships and attempt to determine a standard corpus of shipboard equipment that enabled life on ships to be conducted and made inter- politic trade possible. 49
Chapter Four: Conclusions
The proceeding discussions focused on exploring answers to questions about life on small Greek trading ships in order to better understand the logistics of moving limited quantities of commodities between ancient cities. These ships offer us sealed deposits of information, often untouched by men for thousands of years, which provide invaluable information about the ancient world. By exploring the material evidence of crew assemblages, we have been able to elucidate some of the social customs and means of life of sailors while on voyage. Answering fundamental questions about how the sailors were able to carry, procure, prepare, and cook meals for themselves and engage in social interactions with one another is the first step in understanding the mechanics of localized
Greek trade and the impacts these small merchantmen had on the ancient economy.
The equipment on board each ship provides clues as to the expected duration of each voyage. Such investigations into crew assemblages and equipment can be coupled with the examinations of the ship’s cargo to better determine ports of call and whether trade was normally conducted over long routes or by short hops. A ship that was, for instance, carrying amphorai which originated at a great distance from the wreck site might suggest that the merchantman sank while conducting long distance trade, a perilous venture of which the returns must have been proportionate to the risk involved and time invested. If, however, that ship contained only a limited amount of equipment, supplies, and was without a pithos to store a sufficient quantity of fresh water for the crew, such observations may be indicative of the existence of intermediary ports where the trader could pick up cargoes that had originated from a distant city. This could suggest a shorter voyage that could be traveled numerous times over the duration of a single sailing 50 season and may help provide clues as to the intensity of supply and demand of a given commodity between particular areas at the time when the ship sank. Moreover, it may provide important evidence of personal contacts in various cities between merchants and traders from different communities. By starting our investigations into ancient Greek trade with collections of materials from these sealed deposits we have a firm starting point from which we can continue to compare other ancient evidence in order to construct better models for ancient economies.
The evidence from the four ships discussed in the previous chapters points to the certainty that the men who conducted maritime trade on these ships routinely spent a considerable amount of time at sea. It is obvious from the material evidence that voyages were not conducted in a matter of hours, but over a number of days, weeks, or months.
Time, thought, and preparation needed to be invested into each voyage to ensure the greatest possibility of a successful venture. By comparing the equipment taken aboard each ship we can gain a better understanding of the types of items that each merchant on these four ships considered essential for meeting the crews’ physical needs. Although each of the four sampled ships was excavated from a different area of the Mediterranean and each one is dated to a slightly different time period, the uniformity in crew utilitarian items is evident. By composing a chart listing the types and categories of vessels and evidence found from the four sampled ships, we can better visualize the features common among crew assemblages. As stated in Chapter Two, the terminology for the vessels has been adapted from the excavators’ reports as often no illustrations or images of the vessels were published. The items were assigned to categories based on the most likely primary use for each item; i.e. a cooking pot was primarily used for cooking a meal 51 although it could have theoretically have been used for other purposes, as for instance, dining from the vessel. As evidenced below, each ship provides evidence for food preparation, cooking, dining, drinking, and fishing.
Ship Tektas Ma’agan Porticello Kyrenia Micha’el
Date 440-425 430-390 400-390 306-300
Size 13-15m 13-15m 16-17m ca. 14m
Cargo Amphorai No cargo Amphorai Amphorai (wine, pine (wine), lead (wine), almonds tar), finewares ingots, bronze (?) statuary, inkpots
Food mortar whetstone whetstones; mortar; Preparation mortar pottery sieve
chytrai; cooking pot chytrai; bronze Cooking lopades; lopades cauldron; casserole cooking pots; pottery ladle (?); tree limbs
Dining Plate plates; wooden bowl black-glazed jugs (?); echinus bowls; saltcellars; black-glazed black- flat dishes; glazed vessels saltcellars; gutti; wooden bowl; wooden spoons 52
Drinking black-glazed pithos; pithos; black- kantharoi; jugs (?) black- glazed chytra (?); glazed kantharoi; hydria; jug; bolsals; cup- black- bronze bucket skyphos; glazed (?); duck head oinochoe pitchers; ladle pottery ladle (?)
Food dried fish; barley; sheep or almonds (?); preserved figs; grapes; goat bone pistachios; beef; olives; olives hazelnuts; olives; hazelnuts (?) garlic; grapes; figs; dried herbs
Fishing large and small weights weights weights with gear fish hooks net
Ship repair lamp; bone lamp; baskets; lamps; lead lamp; ink well; tools and (gaming?) tiles wooden boxes; and silver marble pedestal; misc. nails; shovel; ingots and rolled sheets of equipment lead ingot; nuggets; metal lead; mallets carpenter’s box; awl square; toggles; treenails; tenons; rope; mat
Table 4. Placing the Tektas ship in context. Crew assemblage items from each ship categorized by primary use. Items with ‘?’ may belong to more than one category.
In Parker’s analysis of his catalogue of ships and their reported cargoes, he makes the observation that cooking wares were commonly associated with wrecks during all periods.95 Parker further reports that wooden utensils were found at sixteen sites and contends, as Katzev likewise postulated, these perishable utensils were likely used much
95 Parker 1992, p. 29. 53 more extensively than the surviving material evidence suggests.96 The analysis of this paper supports this observation that sailors aboard ancient trade vessels evidently carried on their ships the equipment for preparing, procuring, cooking, and eating their meals and did not necessarily put in port in order to buy food and dine.
The noticeable similarities between the shipboard items from each of the four excavations analyzed strengthen the conclusion that the traders made careful arrangements to see to it that the crew would be adequately supplied with provisions during the voyage; thus making each ship a microcosmic self-sufficient society capable of acquiring, preparing, and consuming their meals as well as engaging in social rituals, such as communal dining, while on a commercial voyage. Each of the four ships discussed in the previous chapters had the equipment to cook food. None of the ships, however, had galleys where meals could be cooked without the risk of setting fire to the vessel or its rigging.97 This leads us to the simple conclusions that provisions were taken on board to supply the crew and, as no women were on board, meals were cooked by the men off the ship and on shore or in port. While under sail, the crew could consume previously prepared foods and perhaps partake in drinking wine to sustain them throughout the day. Leftovers from the dinner might provide an adequate mid-day meal,98 as well as any stores of preserved meat or fish like those found at Tektas. The
96 Parker 1992, p. 29; Swiny and Katzev 1973, p. 345. 97 The seventh century A.C. Byzantine shipwreck at Yassi Ada gives an excellent example of what a ship’s galley would look like and what accommodations would be necessary to have a fire aboard. A quantity of terra cotta roof tiles and pantiles were excavated from an area of the ship that held no amphora cargo. Enough of these tiles as well as timbers were preserved to allow a reconstruction of the ship along with its galley. Bass and van Doorninck 1982, pp. 87-120. 98 When the reconstruction of the Kyrenia ship underwent sea trials in 1987 from Paphos, Cyprus to Athens, Greece to test the capability of the ship to make overseas voyages, the modern crew was given provisions for meals like those that were found during the excavation: water, milk, wine, brandy, olives, olive oil, honey, salt, oregano, garlic, onions, lemons, oranges, bananas, raisins, dried figs, almonds, peanuts, hardtack, goat cheese, lentils, white beans, sardines, tuna, salami, and smoked pork. As no hearth 54 presence of pithoi on some of the ships may indicate more lengthy trade routes, although it must be kept in mind that fresh water could also be kept in amphorai, skins, or other containers. The need to have foodstuffs and fresh water on the ship indicates that meals would be taken near the ship and perhaps at times outside the reaches of a city. The ships could be drawn up on shore where a fire would be built over which meals would be prepared. The need to have fresh water available on the ship may indicate that there would not always be the opportunity to find fresh water at every stop, especially if some nights were spent on uninhabited stretches of the coast.
The daytime activities evidently included catching fish for meals with either nets or lines. On each of the four ships discussed above, the excavators found hooks, weights, or nets indicating that this practice was likely widespread. Fish would provide a low cost means to provide the crew with protein and the task could presumably be undertaken during idle time while sailing or while at port or put ashore.
The presence of over a hundred cattle ribs inside two amphorai on Tektas contradicts the prevalent belief that meat was available and consumed at public sacrifices, but was otherwise not a part of the Greek diet.99 The meat in the amphorai was most probably salted or preserved in some fashion and could therefore last a considerable amount of time.100 It is also a possibility that some of the amphorai on the Tektas ship also contained preserved fish. Such provisions, if they were indeed intended for the crew’s consumption and not for sale, would provide a form of insurance that protein was found on the ancient ship, the modern crew of Kyrenia II cooked their food ashore and ate the meals in pottery and with wooden utensils similar to those found during the excavation. The leftovers from the cooked meal were later eaten on board “simply warmed in the pot by the sun.” Katzev and Katzev 1989, p. 8. 99 Garnsey 1999, 123. 100 Frost 1999, p. 245, in discussing the methods of preserving meat by salting points out that, “With enough salt any piece of meat can be made to last forever, although in mariners’ journals form the great age of sail we find uncharitable remarks about barrels of salt meat that had been to the Indies and back.” 55 would be available for the crew should they, for instance, be unable to catch fish on a given day or for an extended period of time.
The presence of woodworking tools and extra ship components points to a crew that was knowledgeable not only in navigation, but also in ship construction. Repairs would inevitably be needed at some point during the life of a ship, and perhaps often over one sailing season. Having the tools on board the ship, as well as a crew knowledgeable in ship repairs, would result in less time and money wasted during a commercial venture while waiting for a shipwright to make needed repairs at a nearby port. The Kyrenia, thought to be at least eighty years old when it was sunk at the hands of pirates,101 underwent scores of repairs and needed to be sheathed in lead in order to remain watertight.102
If nights were not spent at sea, but on shore or in port, the evening activities likely included meal preparation and consumption. At least one lamp was found on each of the four ships indicating a need for a limited amount of light after nightfall. The two small bone tiles that were found at Tektas may be pieces to a game board that did not otherwise survive. Although direct parallels have yet to be found for these pieces, gaming is well documented in literary and vase painting evidence and is known to have been used to consume idle time on other ships like the Medieval ship excavated at Serci Limani.103
While wine was thought to be part or most of the cargo on the Kyrenia,
Porticello, and Tektas there must have also been a separate store of wine for the crews’ consumption. Although no kraters, used for mixing wine with water, were found on the ships, there were kantharoi, bolsals, and oinochoai, all of which are associated with wine
101 See note 51 above. 102 Katzev and Katzev 1986, pp. 4-5. 103 Cassavoy 1988, pp. 28-29. 56 consumption. At Tektas, the bronze bucket (24-30) could have served as an ad hoc krater for wine served with the duck-head ladle (31). Moreover, one of the chytrai (9) that underwent chemical analysis by Curt Beck of the Amber Research Laboratory at Vassar
College provides strong evidence for a utilitarian symposium assemblage on board
Tektas that contradicts the notion that drinking assemblages necessarily included what modern scholars envision as the “appropriate” vessels for social drinking.104 His study found the presence of methyl dehydroabietate, which he states is a certain indication of pine resin, and more particularly resinated wine. The chytra was one of the largest retrieved at Tektas and it is therefore possible that the pot could have been used by the crew to mix their wine with water. Furthermore, this large chytra, unlike the cooking vessels retrieved from the ship’s stern which had charred bottoms (11, 17, 18), showed no evidence of ever having been used over a fire. This gives us an intimate glimpse at modifications made in daily life to social customs that reflect the realities of the sailors’ lives. They perhaps did not have what we consider the proper drinking assemblage for their communal drinking, but made due with the equipment available to them, perhaps limited due to the size of their ship, and engaged in ritualized social drinking with an assemblage more suitable to their circumstances.
By comparing the evidence that surfaced from underwater excavations of
Classical and Hellenistic merchantmen, this study has been able to draw conclusions about shipboard life based on the materials utilized by the crews themselves. A remarkable similarity is evident in the provisions and equipment taken on board these ships that sank in different regions of the Mediterranean and at slightly different time
104 Pers. comm. with Deborah Carlson (October 27, 2003). Results of Beck’s study will be published in the final excavation report of Tektas Burnu (forthcoming). 57 periods. This similarity suggests a rough uniformity in the customs of this economically important segment of ancient society. Examining the crew’s equipment enable conclusions to be drawn about the storage of supplies primarily in the stern and bow of these merchantmen, a small crew of only a few men needed to carry out the sailing, navigation, and trade, the types of meals the men consumed and the manner by which they were prepared and enjoyed.
This was, however, a study greatly limited in the amount of evidence available for consideration. The crew assemblages could not exclusively determine the ethnicity of the men on board, their social status at home, their frequency of engaging in maritime trade, or the profit they expected to gain. Indeed, this study could not even speculate about the fates of the crews once the ship began to sink and whether any could have survived the capsizing. Nor can this study answer the question of breadth of the economic influence these small traders contributed to the wider ancient economy. As more of these small merchantmen are excavated and receive their due attention, however, many of these questions will begin to be answered. By taking a sample of ships from a wider timeframe and coupling it with material and textual evidence linked to traders, harbors, and ships a clearer picture of the scope of ancient maritime trade and the identity and status of those who engaged in it will begin to emerge. The ancient evidence can also be employed in conjunction with modern anthropological studies of sailors and merchant classes to better understand the status of the ancient traders and their function within their own societies.
That was not, however, the purpose of this study. This study is an attempt to inaugurate my own investigations into these obscure, but vitally important, topics of the ancient world and its economy. By first understanding the means by which men were able to 58 sustain life while on voyage, we can begin to understand the mechanics of maritime trade and its impact upon ancient society. So little has been done with the evidence that underwater archaeology has recently been offering that, until this point, there had not even been a comparative study of shipboard materials elucidating life on board these merchant vessels.
On the one small ship that came to grief at Tektas Burnu, there are a number of finds that contradict generally held beliefs about the ancient world: communal drinking could still take place outside the environs of the city even if one did not have all the formal vessels, meat could be a part of a daily diet, and men could make a living off the sea. Trade and traders have been consistently over-looked and marginalized by modern scholars who investigate ancient trade and economy. In his seminal work, The Ancient
Economy, Finley marginalized all trade that was not agricultural as imperfect and unimportant.105 Contrarily, when one considers the number of ancient cities that were located on the coast and the number of wrecks littering the Mediterranean seafloor which represent only a fraction of the total number of merchantmen which ever sailed, one wonders how marginal maritime trade really was. In order to better assess this question, there is a need for more historians to contemplate the physical evidence coming from the waters at the hands of nautical archaeologists and compare these findings with the epigraphic evidence dealing with trade between cities, harbor dues, funerary stelai of
105 Finley [1973] 1999 devotes very little space to the discussion of maritime trade. Among the few scattered pages that touch upon the subject Finley maintains that the citizenry was almost wholly devoted to agricultural pursuits and asserts on p. 131, “Ancient cities in the great majority counted farmers, whether working or gentleman farmers, men whose economic interest lay chiefly and often exclusively in the land, as the core of their citizenry.” However, maritime trade positively did take place on a large scale. If the citizenry of “the great majority” of ancient cities was “chiefly and often exclusively” devoted to agricultural pursuits, what room is left for the existence of merchants? It cannot be that all areas of manufacture and transport was solely in the hands of slaves or metics, there must have been a considerable segment of the Greek population that manufactured the items of everyday use and made these items available for wide consumption. 59 sailors, merchants, and resident aliens, maritime laws and oratory speeches, literary, and iconographic evidence. Only once this is done will we be in a position to truly assess the breadth of maritime trade, the commercial relationships between cities and individuals within those cities, and the subservience of all things and persons to the agricultural elite.
If we can better understand who these men were who conducted their daring ventures over the waves, which served to spread culture and technology as well as commodities, we may begin to understand the magnitude of the role they played in ancient Greek society. 60
Chapter Five: Catalogue of the Shipboard Items from the Tektas Burnu Excavation
The items included in the catalogue are arranged in the following order: black- glazed vessels followed by coarseware vessels, small finds followed by metal objects. The order within the these categories are large shapes, closed, followed by large shapes, open, followed by small shapes, closed, followed by small shapes, open. The name of the vessel and plate number, if applicable, is given first. Below this are the Lot and TK numbers, as assigned to each artifact during excavation. Below the Lot and TK numbers is the grid square location on the wreck site (see Map 2) and the find spot within the grid square. Each grid square was divided into four quadrants: Upper Left, Upper Right, Lower Left, and Lower Right. Each of these four quadrants was further segmented into four sections from left to right: 1 and 2 on the top of the quadrant and 3 and 4 on the bottom of the quadrant. For example: Q7LL3 signifies the artifact was excavated from grid square Q7 in section 3 of the Lower Left quadrant, or near the center of the Q7 grid square. Measurements are given below the find spot location. A description of the shape, features, and decoration, if any, of each artifact is given below the measurements. Comparanda and discussion follow. The date is given last. All dates are B.C., unless otherwise noted. The following abbreviations have been used: H. = height W. = width L. = length Th. = thickness Diam. = diameter max. = maximum min. = minimum est. = estimated cm = centimeter Wt. = weight g = gram
1 Black-glazed sessile kantharos with low handles Pl. 4 (Lot 0133; TK 0022) Q5LR1 H. 10.5 cm; max. Diam. 10.7 cm Complete, mended. Ring foot in three degrees; concave moulding beneath with convex underside having inset center. Low vertical segmental handles not rising above rim. Rounded lower wall and inset upper wall; rim slightly outturned. Decoration on exterior wall: stamped around middle of upper wall with ovules above a groove and hanging palmettes below it; lower down, a band of ovules. Black-glazed. Cf. Agora XII, no. 633, pp. 113-116, 281, pl. 27. Date 450-425
2 Black-glazed sessile kantharos Pl. 5 61
(Lot 0215; TK 0039) P11 H. 9.9 cm; max. Diam. 9.8 cm Partial, handles missing. Flaring ring foot. Body consists of a shallow lower wall and a slightly concave upper wall, joining to form a sharp keel. Rim slightly outturned. Black- glazed. Cf. Agora XII, no. 629, pp. 113-116, 280, pl. 27. Date ca. 430
3 Banded Hydria Pl. 6 (Lot 0014; TK 0004) R7UL4 H. 44.5 cm; max. Diam. 31.7 cm Intact, one horizontal handle missing. Diagonal, non-decorative divot extends down neck, 4.0 cm long, 1.2 cm thick. Deep ovoid body on slightly flaring ring foot; straight, rolled rim slightly undercut. Horizontal handles on shoulder, upturned; vertical strap handle extending from neck below rim to shoulder. Deep groove at junction of foot and body; thin groove incised on upper surface of foot. Three bands of red glaze, Munsell 2.5 YR 5/8: one near bottom of neck 0.8 cm thick, of which 45% of circumference still visible. Second band around shoulder directly under and slightly overlapping bottom of strap handle, 1.6 cm thick, of which 90% of circumference still visible. Fugitive glaze also visible over one extant stub of broken horizontal handle. Third band at the widest section of body directly under and slightly overlapping horizontal handles, 1.1 cm thick, of which 40% of circumference still visible. Two bands of red glaze at top of vertical handle, each 4.5 cm long, 1.0 cm thick. Very fine fabric with mica densely dispersed throughout; very fine to fine bright white inclusions densely dispersed throughout; very fine glassy black inclusions sparsely dispersed throughout. Fabric is reddish yellow to yellowish red, Munsell 5YR 6/6 to 5YR 5/6. Cf. Agora XII, no. 1585, pp. 200-201, 348, pl. 70. This example is missing its base, however the body and lip is very similar to 3. This hydria came from a deposit dating to the last quarter of the 5th century and is categorized as East Greek banded ware. Discussion I had the privilege of visiting the Turkish excavations at Klazomenai in the summer of 2003 and was able to examine several of their unpublished recent finds. One of such artifacts was a banded hydria, dating to the last quarter of the 5th century, with a near exact profile and decoration as 3. It is possible, therefore, that this hydria was produced in or around Klazomenai. Date ca. 425-400.
4 Coarseware Jug Pl. 7 (Lot 0005; TK 0003) Q5UR H. 34.8 cm; max. Diam. 25.4 cm Nearly complete. Complete profile. Wall fragment missing, hole in vessel bottom. Parts of vessel are speckled with hollow pockmarks and several large pieces of rock or soil 62 spot areas of vessel. Deep pointed ovoid body on flaring low ring foot; continuous curve from concave neck to shoulder; flat-topped, slightly flaring rim, irregularly formed, slightly undercut; strap handle from shoulder to neck below rim. Thin incised line 1 cm below rim on neck. Deep groove at junction of foot and body. Fabric slightly coarse; very fine mica moderately dispersed throughout; fine to medium bright white and off- white to yellow inclusions densely dispersed throughout; medium quartz pieces sparsely dispersed throughout. Fabric color light brown to reddish yellow; Munsell 7.5 YR 6/4 to 5 YR 6/6. Cf. Agora XII, no. 1617, pp. 204, 350, pl. 73. This example, from a 425-400 context, has a very similar body shape, but with a rolled handle, less angular body, and slightly more projecting rim. Date ca. 425-400.
5 Coarseware Lekanis (?) Pl. 8 (Lot 0216; TK 0040) P11LR1 H. 5.9 cm; max. Diam. 19.1 cm Bottom of undetermined vessel. Much of exterior surface is flaking/exfoliating. Body slopes to very slightly flaring ring base. Circular hairline crack, which opens into a larger tangent crack, on interior floor. Small nipple on interior floor. Fine to slightly coarse fabric; very fine mica, fine to moderate quartz pieces, fine to moderate black opaque inclusions, and fine white to yellow inclusion moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric light brown to reddish brown; Munsell 7.5 YR 6/4 to 5 YR 5/3. Cf. Agora XII, nos. 1554, 1815, 1833, pp. 197, 211-215, 345, 363-364, pl. 69, 85-86. Although 5 cannot be positively identified as a lekane or lekanis, the examples excavated in the Athenian Agora have a similar ring bases and curvature of walls. Discussion The size of the base and angle of the extant walls suggest the possibility that this is a partial lekanis. 19 is perhaps its corresponding lid. Only one such lid and one such vessel bottom with such a profile were excavated from Tektas, which suggests, along with their proximity to one another on the site, the possibility that the two were once paired. Date ca. 425-400
6 Unglazed Saltcellar Pl. 9 (Lot 0253; TK 0057) R9LL2 max. H. 4.0 cm; Diam. 6.1 cm Intact. Rim is discolored and appears worn; bottom of vessel clean and smooth. Thick rim over deep, concave wall on narrow, shallow flaring foot. Recessed underside. Two small holes below well and above foot, possibly for suspension and storage. Interior of well is clean and smooth. Very fine fabric; very fine mica and fine to moderate glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout; fine to moderate quartz pieces sparsely dispersed throughout. Fabric color reddish yellow to brown (on rim); Munsell 5YR 6/6 to 7.5 YR 5/4. 63
Cf. Agora XII, no. 932, p. 136-7, 302, pl. 34. (with similar form); Near exact parallel can be found in Gungor, 1994, no. 0082, p. 30, p. 86 (illustration). Discussion The example excavated from the Athenian Agora has a similar shape with a recessed underside, but is glazed and decorated with palmettes. 6 is neither glazed nor decorated. The example in Gungor 1994, however, is both unglazed, undecorated, of the same shape, and, most notably, has two small holes piercing the fabic below the well and above the foot. This example was excavated at Klazomenai. Date ca. 425
7 Plate Pl. 10 (Lot 0613; TK 0151) R8UL3 H. 4.7 cm; max. Diam. 25.9 cm Complete profile; half preserved. Shallow bowl on short, inward flaring base; convex exterior wall curves to incurving rim. Fine fabric; very fine mica moderately dispersed throughout; fine black inclusions and fine bright white inclusions densely dispersed throughout. Exterior surface reddish brown, Munsell 5YR 4/4; interior surface pink, Munsell 7.5 YR 7/4, sandy and light with small patches of red. Cf. Hadjidaki 1996, p. 583 (G59); a black-glazed bowl, which, however, has a taller foot and smaller diameter. Arribas, Trias, Cerda, and de la Hoz 1987, incurving rim bowl no. 42, p. 255, fig. 22; shape is similar, with similar height, but smaller diameter than plate. Date ca. late 5th century
8 Mortar Pl. 11 (Lot 0138; TK 0024) R9LR3 H. 8.3 cm; Diam. 35.6 cm Nearly complete, mended from three joining pieces, one small section reconstructed. Thin layer of concretion covering approximately half of vessel surface making the determination of wear from use difficult. Half of vessel is discolored, likely due to marine conditions. Broad ring-foot base, convex body curves to thick, slightly outcurved rim; interior floor slightly flattened. Groove at junction of foot and body. Very coarse fabric with many small to moderate sized pockmarks on surface; surface porous and rough to the touch. Fine to moderate sized opaque quartz densely dispersed throughout; very fine mica moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric white to yellow/brownish yellow, Munsell 2.5 Y 8/2 to 10 YR 7/8, 6/8. Mouldmade? Cf. Shape similar to Hesperia Supp. XXV no. 313, p. 369, fig. 24, pl. 57, but larger, with a ring-footed base, and different fabric. Porticello G10, p.31, 32, fig. 3-9, 3-10; Agora XII, no. 1897, pp. 221-223, 369, pl. 90 has slightly straighter walls than 8. Discussion: Agora XII, p. 223, before the end of the 5th century, a new type of mortar appeared in Corinth that had a massive solid rim that was rounded and projecting, much like 8. These 5th century Corinthian mortars often had lugs and a spout. The spout became normal on mortars during the Hellenistic period; Agora XII, p. 222, note 4. 8 lacks both a spout and lugs and, although an exact parallel has yet to be found, it can be dated to pre-Hellenistic period. 64
Date ca. 430-400
9 Wide-mouthed and lidded Chytra Pl. 12 (Lot 0247; TK 0051) R5LL4 H. 14.9 cm; max. Diam. 25.2 cm; rim Diam. 16.7 cm Complete, mended. Hairline cracks on exterior of base. Flaring rim, with interior flange; unpierced spout attached at shoulder; two horizontal handles attached at shoulder, round in section, slightly projecting. Round bottomed. Moderate amount of black mottling on exterior surface. Very fine wheel marks on interior surface. Very fine, sandy fabric for cooking ware; very fine mica and fine, bright white inclusions moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric brown to dark brown, Munsell 7.5 YR 5/4 to 4/4. Cf. Agora XII, no. 1952, pp. 224-226, 373, pl. 94. This chytra, unlike 9, has an open spout. Agora XII, no. 1954, pp. 242-226, 373, pl. 94 is smaller and with taller handles than 9, but of a similar shape and with an unpierced spout. Discussion Chytra lid 12 fits this vessel and the two may have been a unit. Unable to determine if black mottling on exterior surface is caused by use or marine environment. Curt Beck of the Amber Research Laboratory at Vassar College chemically analyzed 9 and found the presence of methyl dehydroabietate, which he states, “is a certain indication of pine resin and, in a food vessel, that can only be explained by resinated wine (retsina). Two unassigned diterpenoid hydrocarbons are also consonant with pine resin, and the presence of methyl benzoate is a strong indication that the pine resin was that of the Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis). Unique in the analysis of absorbed residues in pottery is the tentatively assigned ethyl enanthate, also known as wine oil, grape oil, or cognac oil. In the present context, it strongly supports the presence of wine in the vessel. In summary, retsina is the only consumable certain to have been in this vessel.” Deborah Carlson (pers. comm. 10/27/03). Date ca. 425-400
10 Wide-mouthed and lidded Chytra Pl. 13 (Lot 0277 TK 0315) R5LR1/3 H. 10.2 cm; Diam. 18.3 cm; rim Diam. 14.4 cm Nearly complete, one third of rim missing, mended. Pre-firing hairline ‘T’ shaped crack, on surface only, just below spout on vessel. Flaring rim, with interior flange; unpierced spout attached at carinated shoulder. Groove in fabric at junction of rim and shoulder. Two horizontal handles attached at shoulder, round in section; one (on right as facing spout) is longer and leans out more near top, both handles projecting. Round bottomed. Very fine fabric for cooking ware. Very fine mica densely dispersed throughout; fine, glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout; fine to moderate opaque quartz inclusions sparely dispersed throughout. Fabric reddish yellow to reddish brown, Munsell 5 YR 6/8 to 5 YR 4/4. 65
Cf. Agora XII, no. 1952, pp. 224-226, 373, pl. 94. This chytra is larger than 10 and with an open spout. Agora XII, no. 1954, pp. 242-226, 373, pl. 94 has taller handles than 10, but of a similar shape and with an unpierced spout. Discussion Smear marks visible in clay from shoulder to unpierced spout; spout clearly formed separately and attached to shoulder by rubbing wet clay over the spout to shoulder to join it to the vessel. Date ca. 450-400
11 Wide-mouthed and lidded Chytra Pl. 14 (Lot 0042; TK 0006) R9LR3 H. 13.9 cm; max. Diam. 22.2 cm; rim Diam. 15.6 cm Complete, mended. On exterior: areas of blotchy black stain on bottom, shoulder and rim on side opposite spout. Same black substance covers spout. Interior bottom covered with opaque black substance. Lighter, thinner black substance appears along body interior continuing inconsistently up to one (1) centimeter from mouth opening. Fine wheel marks visible on interior except on bottom in opaque black area. A few deeper scratches and marks visible on interior surface. Handles covered with thin black substance, appearing somewhat worn. Tall, slightly flaring rim, with interior flange. Deep body, carinated shoulder. Two horizontal handles attached at shoulder, projecting. Unpierced spout, tall and slightly flaring tip, edges appear very worn. Round bottomed. Fine to coarse fabric. Very fine mica and fine bright white inclusions densely dispersed throughout; very fine glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric strong brown to yellowish red, Munsell 7.5 YR 5/6 to 5 YR 4/6. Cf. Agora XII, nos. 1953, 1954, pp. 224-226, 373, fig. 18, pl. 94. The angles on no. 1953 are more pronounced than that of 11. Discussion Curt Beck of the Amber Research Laboratory at Vassar College chemically analyzed fragments from 11 with the black stain and found the stain to be pure carbon. (Deborah Carlson, pers. comm. 12/21/03). This chytra, therefore, must have been used over a fire. Date ca. 425-400
12 Cooking pot lid Pl. 15 (Lot 0277.01; TK 0316) R5LR1/3 H. 4.5 cm; Diam. 15.7 Complete. Indentation, the size of a fingertip, beneath knob on underside of lid. Shallow dome shape, topped by rounded knob slightly off-center. Very fine fabric for cooking ware. Very fine mica and fine, bright white inclusions relatively densely dispersed throughout; fine, glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout; opaque, white quartz inclusions sparsely dispersed throughout. Fabric light to dark brown, Munsell 7.5 YR 6/4 to 4/4. 66
Cf. Agora XII, nos. 1962, 1974, 1975, pp. 227-228, 373-374, fig. 18, pl. 95. The knob of 12 is more rounded than those found in the Agora and is larger than nos. 1974 and 1975. Discussion Lid may have served either a chytra or lopas. Fits Chytra 9 . Hairline crack runs along base of knob, suggesting that the knob was formed separately and smoothed onto lid while clay was wet. Edges of lid worn, but unable to determine if this is caused by marine environment or use. Date late 5th century
13 Cooking pot lid (Lot 0109; TK 0317) R9LR3 H. 2.1 cm; max. Diam. 12.8 cm Nearly complete, mended; small fragments missing from rim and body. Cuprous stain on one fragment where the lid must have come to rest against a bronze object on the sea floor. Shallow dome shape, trace of start of knob. Very fine fabric. Very fine mica and fine to moderate black glassy inclusions densely dispersed throughout. Fabric yellowish brown to dark brown, Munsell 10YR 5/4 to 10YR 4/3. Cf. See 12 above. Discussion: Lid may have served either a chytra or a lopas. Date late 5th century.
14 Cooking pot lid fragment (Lot 0587) P11LR1 max. H. 2.5 cm; max. preserved Diam. 7.9 cm Fragment of center of body with knob. Areas of thin concretions cover some of fragment. Convex dome topped by a solid inverted short cone of irregular height. Fine to slightly coarse fabric. Very fine mica and fine black inclusions densely dispersed throughout. Fabric brown to reddish brown; Munsell 7.5YR 5/4 to 5YR 4/4. Discussion: Lid may have served either a chytra or a lopas.
15 Cooking pot lid fragment (Lot 0212) R5LR3 max. H. 2.6 cm; max. preserved Diam. 6.6 cm Fragment of center of body, slightly convex, topped by knob with rounded top. Very fine fabric for cooking ware. Very fine mica and fine to moderated sized bright white to off- white inclusions densely dispersed throughout; fine, glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric pink to brown; Munsell 7.5YR 7/4 to 7.5YR 5/4. Discussion: Lid may have served either a chytra or a lopas. 67
16 Lopas Pl. 16 (Lot 0488; TK 0128) R5LR3 H. 5.8 cm; Diam. 16.3 cm; rim Diam. 16.6 cm Complete, mended. Hairline cracks cover exterior and interior surfaces resembling dry, cracked mud. Edges of rim exfoliating. Some dark mottling on interior surface. Flaring rim, with interior flange. Shallow body with two horizontal handles attached at shoulder, round in section, projecting. Unpierced spout steeply angled upwards, attached at shoulder. Round bottomed. Groove at junction of rim and shoulder. Coarse fabric. Very fine mica, very fine to fine bright white inclusions, and fine glassy black inclusions densely dispersed throughout. Brown/dark brown to very dark grayish brown, Munsell 10 YR 4/3 to 10 YR 3/2. Cf. Agora XII, nos. 1960, 1966, pp. 227-228, 373-4, pl. 95. no. 1960 has a higher rim than 16; no. 1966 has higher handles than 16; both are slightly larger. Date ca. 440-400.
17 Lopas (Lot 759 TK 0319) R9LR1 max. H. 7.7 cm; max. Diam. 21.8 cm; Diam. of rim 21.8 cm Complete profile; missing approximately 40% of rim, 80% of body, one handle, and 60% of bottom. Black stain, possibly carbon, on interior and exterior bottom fragments. Grayish-black stain covers bottom of spout exterior and interior, same stain covers underside of extant handle. Tall, flaring rim, interior flange. Shallow body; carinated shoulder. Horizontal handle attached at shoulder, round in section, projecting. Unpierced, slightly flaring spout attached at shoulder, projecting. Round bottomed. Very fine fabric. Very fine mica and fine to moderate bright white to off-white inclusions densely dispersed throughout; fine to moderate glassy black inclusions moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric pale brown to brown, Munsell 10YR 6/3 to 7.5YR 5/4. Cf. See 16 above. Discussion Looking at the fragment cross sections, when the black stain penetrates through the fragment from the bottom exterior it is also present on the corresponding interior. When the stain does not fully penetrate the fragment, the stain is not visible on the interior. This pattern may be consistent with repeated use over a flame and thus may suggest this vessel had been often used. Date ca. 440-400
18 Angled rim casserole (?) Pl. 17 (Lot 0421 TK 0318) R8UR1 max. H. 4.7 cm; max. Diam. of bowl 12.3 cm; max. Diam. of rim 12.9 cm Nearly complete, mended. Surface exfoliating in many areas, thin layer of concretion covers about 20-30% of surface. Outward flaring rim, with interior flange. Straight, nearly vertical walls angled inward at the base to a flat bottom. Coarse fabric. Very fine 68 mica, fine to moderate sized opaque quartz inclusions, and fine to moderate opaque grayish black inclusions densely dispersed throughout. Fabric light brown to dark grayish brown, Munsell 7.5YR 6/4 to 10YR 4/2. Cf. shape is similar to the covered bowl no. 1565 from sacrificial pyres in Agora XII, pp.198-199, 346, pl. 69. These bowls, however, were made of very thin fabric and were covered with a brown glaze; because they were so fragile, it is not likely that they were intended for domestic use; Agora XII, pp. 98-99. 18 is neither thin nor glazed, but rather solidly built and, judging from the black stain on the bottom, appears to have been used over a fire repeatedly. Berlin 1997, PW 234 and 235, pp. 94-96 and no. 210, 97-98; pl. 28, 80. Vessel walls of 18 are more angled than PW 234 and with a more upward flaring rim; walls and rim closer to PW 235. Berlin, in her discussion of casserole vessels on p. 94 states, “A casserole form, with a wide, round belly and steeply angled, almost vertical rim with an interior flange, first came into regular production in Greece in the third quarter of the fifth century BCE.” The shape is similar to Agora XII, no. 1970, pp. 227, 374, pl. 95; fig. 18, but 1970 is much larger and with handles. This similar cooking vessel, however, with a flattened bottom and gritty red clay, is a product of the third quarter of the 4th century and an early variation on the angled rim casseroles found in the Hellenistic period. Discussion Black stain on about 25% of rim, possible soot mark, but area also has red metal corrosion product stains and both could have been caused by metal corroding nearby on the sea floor. Half of vessel bottom interior covered in thin layer of concretion, on the clean half there is a black stain on both the interior and exterior, possibly from use over a fire. Fabric is coarse to the touch, but this is partially caused by the presence and removal of marine concretion. Date Third quarter of the 5th century
19 Unglazed lekanis (?) lid Pl. 18 (Lot 0185; TK 0031) R9LR3 H. 7.6 cm; Diam. 21.7 cm Complete profile, approximately 70% preserved. Steep conical body, sharply angled to rim. Thick, slightly flaring conical knob of irregular height. Very fine fabric for cooking ware. Very fine mica and fine to moderate opaque and glassy black inclusions densely dispersed throughout; fine to moderate quartz pieces moderately dispersed throughout. Fabric light brown to grayish brown; Munsell 7.5 YR 6/4 to 10YR 5/2. Cf. Agora XII, shape is between nos. 1558 and no 1560, pp. 197, 346, pl.69. Disscussion Possibly the lid to entry 5 above. Date last quarter of 5th century
20 Black-glazed lamp Pl. 19 (Lot 0631.08; TK 0158) P11LR4 Found inside amphora TK 157 max. H. 3.4 cm; max. Diam. 6.4 cm 69
Complete. Small areas of black glaze survive on well interior, body exterior, and vessel bottom. Surface around rim covered in small red spots of unknown substance. The wick hole and nozzle interior, also with some black glaze, is heavily charred. Slightly undercut rim on interior; shallow well; thick and heavy base. Irregular height and thickness. Slightly coarse fabric. Very fine mica and medium quartz pieces moderately dispersed throughout; fine black inclusions sparsely dispersed throughout. Fabric light reddish brown to reddish brown; Munsell 5YR 6/4 to 5/4. Cf. No suitable comparanda have been found for this lamp. See discussion below. Discussion There are no visible wheel marks on the lamp and the irregularity of thickness and shape may suggest that the vessel was handmade and thus no suitable comparanda have been found. The lamp, with its heavy base and undercut rim, would have been a practical lamp to have on board a moving vessel. The weight of the vessel would have kept it from toppling over and starting a fire while the vessel was moving and certainly while it was in port. The small red spots may be the result of firing. The spotting is not present on bottom, under nozzle, or on section of rim opposite the nozzle. The lamp was found inside an amphora at the bottom of the site. It is likely that it rolled into the amphora when the stern of the ship broke apart and fell down slope. It is also possible that the lamp was taken into the amphora by an octopus, as hoarding of small objects is a common habit of the marine animal. Either way, the location of the lamp was almost certainly from the stern of the ship, the most common area for the storage of crew convenience items. The heavy charring, which is thick and coarse, lends strong evidence to suggest that this lamp was used by the crew on board. The char is visibly a very different substance than that of the black glaze and the difference is even more obvious when viewed under a microscope. The lamp is completely different in shape, fabric and decoration from the lamps found within the cargo area located upslope.
21 Stone object (Lot 0175; TK 0030) R5 max. L. 30.0 cm; max. W. 13.5 cm; max. Th. 1.3 cm Large, heavy rectangular (schist?) stone of fairly regular thickness, but of completely irregular dimensions. One side is smoother than the other. Unknown use.
22 Bone tile Pl. 20 (Lot 0140; TK 0026) R9LR3 1.9 cm x 1.8 cm; Th. 0.5 cm Square bone tile. Two of the four narrow sides are very slightly convex; small amount of chipping and flaking. Small bone cavities visible on one side. Color is greenish yellow on one side and white to yellow on the reverse. Discussion The exact use for this tile is undetermined, however, it could possibly be a gaming piece used to pass idle time by the crew. Cassavoy 1988, pp. 28-29, discusses game pieces from Serce Limani, dated to A.D. 1025, which do not resemble the bone tiles excavated at Tektas, but their comparison to the tiles in location on the ship and their 70 occurrence onboard is worthy of mention. Most of these pieces were found near the stern of the ship. A three-dimensional model of an Egyptian boat, now at the Ashmolean Museum, shows two crew members playing senet, an ancient Egyptian board game. For photos and discussion, see Jouer dans l’ Antiquite, pp. 134-142, figs. 124-125. Such board games were also well known in the Greek world. One of the most famous representations of board games in the Greek world is the contest between Ajax and Achilles represented on vases. For several examples of this, see Jouer dans l’Antiquite, pp. 166-173, figs. 161-168.
23 Bone tile Pl. 21 (Lot 0171; TK 0028) R9LL4 1.8 cm x 1.7 cm; Th. 0.4 cm Square bone tile; small amount of chipping and flaking. Two of the four narrow sides are slightly convex. Small bone cavities visible on one side. Color is gray-green to gray- blue. Discussion See entry 22 above.
24 Bronze situla handle Pl. 22 (Lot 0922; TK 0278) P11LR4 H. 9.8 cm; L. 20.9 cm; max. Th. 0.5 cm Arched strap handle square in section, recurved at both ends, which terminate in a cone shaped knob; one broken and missing. Recurved segments are cylindrical in cross- section. Irregular thickness due to corrosion; green cuprous corrosion products cover much of the surface, scarce red corrosion products present. Cf. Hayes 1984, no. 20, pp.15-17. Although the exact provenance is unknown, Hayes speculates the situla’s origin was South Italian Greek dating to the 5th century B.C. Hadjidaki, 1996, pp. 585-586, figs. 31-32. Vokotopoulou n.d., Be 9, pp. 165-166. Discussion 24 and 25 were found concreted together on the seabed and the two certainly belonged to a double-handled situla. The bronze rim fragments 26-29 all came from the same vessel with an estimated circumference of 20 cm. The handles both have a length of ca. 20 cm suggesting that all were components of the same bronze situla. These artifacts, along with the situla’s probable vessel bottom, 30, were all excavated from the stern of the ship. The handles were among those artifacts that had fallen downslope when the ship’s stern deteriorated. Date Second half of 5th century
25 Bronze situla handle Pl. 23 (Lot 0921; TK 0277) P11LR4 H. 8.9 cm; L. 22.9 cm; max. Th. 0.5 cm 71
Arched strap handle square in section, recurved at both ends, which terminate in a cone shaped knob; one broken and missing. Recurved segments are cylindrical in cross- section. Irregular thickness due to corrosion; green cuprous corrosion products cover much of the surface, scarce red corrosion products present. Cf. See 24 above. Discussion See 24 above. Date See 24 above.
26 Bronze open shape Pl. 24 (Lot 0556; TK 0288) R8UR1 max H. 1.6 cm; L. 11.6 cm; est. Diam. 20 cm Rim fragment with small portion of vessel wall. Thin, straight wall to deeply undercut, flaring rim. Egg-and-tongue stamped (?) decoration visible on rim. Heavily corroded, much green and some red cuprous corrosion product covers of surface. Cf. The pattern on the rim is similar to that on a possible 5th century B.C. situla in Hayes 1984, no. 20, pp.15-17. Although the exact provenance is unknown, Hayes speculates its origin was South Italian Greek dating to the 5th century B.C. Hadjidaki 1996, pp. 585- 586. In the description of the situla found at Alonnesos, Hadjidaki states, “Originally, the band would have been decorated either with ovules or rouletting along its length, but corrosion makes the decoration difficult to discern.” Discussion Curvature of fragments is identical to that of rim fragments 26-29 suggesting that the four rim fragments came from the same vessel. The four rim fragments were positioned on a diameter chart and suggest a total diameter for the vessel of 20 cm. The handles, 24 and 25, both have a length of ca. 20 cm suggesting that all were components of the same bronze situla. These artifacts, along with the situla’s probable vessel bottom, 30, were all excavated from the stern of the ship. Date Second half of 5th century
27 Bronze open shape (Lot 0610; TK 0156) R8UR1 max. H. 1.7 cm; L. 19.2 cm, est. Diam. 20 cm Rim fragment, about 40% of circumference. Thin, straight wall to deeply undercut, flaring rim. Egg-and-tongue stamped (?) decoration visible on rim. Much green and very little red cuprous copper corrosion product covers much of the surface. Cf. See 26 above. Discussion See 26 above. Date See 26 above.
28 Bronze open shape (Lot 0674; TK 0180) R9UL4 72 max. H. 0.7 cm; L. 8.4 cm, est. Diam. 20 cm Rim fragment. Heavily corroded, no original surface visible, no visible decoration. Thin, straight wall to deeply undercut, flaring rim. Much green and very little red cuprous corrosion product covers surface. Cf. See 26 above. Discussion See 26 above. Date See 26 above.
29 Bronze open shape (Lot 0410.01) R8UR2 max H. 1.7 cm; L. 5.9 cm; est. Diam. 20 cm Rim fragment with small portions of wall. Thin wall to deeply undercut, flaring rim. Egg-and-tongue stamped (?) decoration visible on rim. Heavily corroded, much green and little red cuprous corrosion product covers much of the surface. Cf. See 26 above. Discussion See 26 above. Date See 26 above.
30 Bronze vessel floor (Lot 0111; TK 0019) R9LLR3 max. Diam. 14.6 cm; Th. 0.1 cm Vessel floor. Floor interior and exterior is formed into three alternating convex and concave rings around a circular convex area. The outermost ring slopes up into either another convex ring or the vessel wall. Green cuprous corrosion product covers much of surface. Very small indentation in center of one side. Cf. Hayes 1984, no. 20, pp. 15-16. Note illustration at bottom of p. 16 showing alternating convex and concave rings on the vessel floor. Discussion Floor may be from situla. The indentation in the center of the floor may be from the point of a compass or tooling device used to create the rings. See 26-29 above for discussion of other components of the situla. Date Second half of 5th century.
31 Bronze ladle (kyathos) Pl. 25 (Lot 0647; TK 0168) P11LR3 L. 35.4 cm; Th. 0.4 cm; W. 0.5 cm; Duck head L. 2.7 cm; max. W. of Duck head 0.7 cm. Thickness and Width is irregular due to corrosion. Long, intact shaft ending in a duck head with a long, thin upward turning beak; bowl missing. Entire surface covered with green cuprous corrosion product. Shaft is bent at about 10 degrees around midpoint. Shaft, rectangular in section, thinnest near duck head 73 and widest and flattened into chisel-like point at bowl attachment. Short 0.1 cm incision just below cheek of duck perhaps marking the start of the beak. Cf. Olynthus X, no. 614, pp. 194-197, pl. L. See Hayes 1986, nos. 48-63, pp. 40-46 for broad range of duck-head ladle types from 6th century through Roman period. Discussion Ladles of this type and decoration have been found all over the Mediterranean and often with bronze buckets. Olynthus X, p. 195-196, describes it as having originated from the Orient during the 2nd millennium B.C. and came to Asia Minor and Etruria from Syria during the orientalizing period. It reached the Greek mainland by way of Ionia, probably during the 6th century; they were commonly used for dipping liquid from larger into smaller vases; Olynthus X, p. 195-196. See Olynthus X, p. 196, no. 26 for depictions on vases of the ladle in use. Date Late 5th century.
32 Bronze palmette appliqué Pl. 26 (Lot 1124; TK 0302) P12 Airlift Spoil H. 4.0 cm; max. W. 3.0 cm; max. Th. 1.4 cm Bronze decorative appliqué for a vessel; intact. Palmette with teardrop shaped fronds extending from two scrolls, between which are two elongated, connected darts, all of which is topped by a thick concave cylinder. The base of the cylinder has a deep, uniform groove on the reverse. The fitting would have been attached to the rim of a vessel. The reverse side curves inward from this indentation resulting in a convex profile on the reverse. Cf. For style: Olynthus X, no. 30, p. 45, pl. VI Discussion The palmette was found in the airlift spoil pile at the bottom of the site. Because of this, it is difficult to know with certainty where it was located on the ship, however, the airlift into which it was sucked was the one that was used to excavate the lowest squares of the site. Thus, the palmette most likely came from the stern area of the ship. It is possible, therefore, that this is an appliqué for the situla that was located in the stern, but this must be stated with caution.
33 Bronze object Pl. 27 (Lot 0688; TK 0188) P5LR1 L. 32.7 cm; max. W. of shaft 1.1 cm; min. W. of shaft 0.1 cm; Th. of shaft 0.4 cm tapering to less Long, intact shaft, rectangular in section, thickness and width is greatest near one end, tapering to a point at other end. One end has been worked with a hammer and bent upward. This area splays out wide and then thins into a bent triangular section 1.7 cm long, 0.7 cm wide tapering to 0.2 cm. Two semicircular fragments are missing from the splaying end. Discussion Use undetermined. The two semicircles may have been rivet holes where the object was once attached to something (handle? cup?) In the x-ray, taken before the object was cleaned and conserved, the two holes can be more clearly delineated. The 74 bend in the splaying area may have either been intentional or bent when the ship wrecked or during deterioration.
34 Bronze fish hook (Lot 1103) S4LR2 max. H. 5.2 cm; max. L 3.6 cm Complete, two joining fragments. Heavily corroded; 0.1 cm of tip of hook protrudes from corrosion. Hole at the other end, where line would have been attached, 0.3 cm long and 0.1 cm wide. Cf. Olynthus X, nos. 1788-1794, 1796, 1799, pp. 367-268, pl. CXVII.
35 Lead weight (Lot 1177; TK 0309) K16 max. Diam 3.3 cm; min. Diam. 3.1 cm Wt. 20.0 g Spherical lead weight of irregular diameter. Shape approaching tear drop. The more pointed area is topped by a flat, rough patch. Small seam, likely from mold, extends from flat area on one side for 1.2 cm. All of surface has been worked with a hammer. Discussion The flat, rough patch may be the point at which the weight was once attached to another object. Use undetermined. As it was found so far off the site, it is likely this item is intrusive.
36 Lead coil (Lot 0021) R5LR4 max. H. 1.1 cm; max. Diam. 1.6 cm; Th. 0.2 cm; H. of lead strip 0.7 cm- 1.0 cm Wt. 7.27 g Short strip of lead wrapped around itself into a loose spiral.
37 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0132 TK 0021) R7LR1 max. H. 3.4 cm; max. Diam. 1.8 cm; min. Diam. 1.2 cm Wt. 56.7 g Conical to pyramidal; heavily corroded. Slit in top, approximately 1.0 cm long, filled with concretion. Discussion: This fishing weight, along with all those that follow (38-47) are included in this catalogue as having been excavated from the wreck site, but are most likely intrusive. All the weights vary from one another in shape and size. Moreover, they were found scattered around the wreck site and at different levels in the stratigraphy. As wrecks are 75 known to attract fish, it is likely that fishermen over the centuries cast their lines over or near the Tektas wreck site and inevitably some lost their fishing weights when lines were snared on rocks, the ship, or amphorai.
38 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0377; TK 0101) R8UR3 H. 3.9 cm; max. Th. 2.0 cm; min. Th. 1.0 cm Wt. 7.6 g Pyramidal; heavily corroded. Wide slit, 1.0 cm long, in top. Cf. Porticello, no. G17, p.33, figs. 3-15, 3-16. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
39 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0467; TK 0124) R7UL4 H. 3.0 cm; max. Th. 1.7 cm, min. Th. 0.7 cm Wt. 4.0 g Pyramidal; moderately corroded. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
40 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0495; TK 0131) P6UL H. 3.5 cm; max. Diam. 2.0 cm; min. Diam. 0.9 cm Wt. 7.0 g Conical; very slightly corroded. Pierced horizontally through top, circular in center and square at ends, 0.5 cm Diam. Square indentation, 0.7 cm L, with depression, 0.3 cm Diam, in bottom. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
41 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0551; TK 0141) R6LR2 H. 5.4 cm; max. Diam. 2.7 cm; min. Diam. 0.8 cm Wt. 15.0 g Conical; moderately corroded. Irregularly shaped indentation on bottom, perhaps formed when weight was removed from mould. Ridge, 1.8 cm long and 0.1 cm thick, on one side starting at the top, likely from mold. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
42 Lead fishing weight 76
(Lot 0685.01; TK 0187) R6UR3 H. 5.2 cm; max. Diam. 1.8 cm; min. Diam. 0.9 cm Wt. 8.6 g Conical; heavily corroded. Small slit, 0.4 cm, visible in top. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
43 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0731; TK 0212) R6UR3 H. 4.4 cm; max. Th. 1.7 cm; min. Th. 0.9 cm Wt. 7.2 g Pyramidal; moderately corroded. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
44 Lead fishing weight (Lot 0998.01) P5LR4 H. 4.3 cm; max. Diam. 1.5 cm; min. Diam. 0.8 cm Wt. 5.2 g Cylindrical at base tapering into a cube from the midpoint to top; heavily corroded. Slit in top, 0.7 cm long. Small hole in bottom, 0.4 cm Diam.; two other small holes, 0.1 cm, on two sides. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
45 Lead fishing weight (Lot 1065.01; TK 0300) Q6UL1/P6UR2 H. 3.9 cm; max. Th. 1.5 cm; min. Th.0.6 cm Wt. 4.4 g Pyramidal; moderately corroded. Slit in top, 0.9 cm, with the two sides pinched together to hold a line. Discussion: See entry 37 above.
46 Fishing weight (Lot 1081; TK 0301) Q8UR4 H. 2.4 cm; max. Diam. 2.0 cm; min. Diam. 0.6 cm Wt. 3.6 kg Conical; moderately corroded. Small slit, 0.2 cm, in top. 77
Discussion: See entry 37 above.
47 Lead fishing weight (Lot 1123) 180’ near anchor stocks H. 5.6 cm; max. Diam. 2.6 cm; min. Diam. 0.9 cm Wt. 15.0 g Conical; very little corrosion. Slit visible at top extending 2.5 cm down the length of the weight Discussion: See entry 37 above. The slit is likely either a mould mark or cut to hold a line. 78
Map 1: Location of Tektas Burnu on Turkish coast.
Plate 1 79
Map 2: Tektas Burnu site plan.
Plate 2 80
Chian kantharos from cargo
Plate 3 81
1: Black-glazed kantharos
1: Black-glazed kantharos
Detail of 1
Plate 4 82
2: Black-glazed kantharos
Plate 5 83
3: Banded Hydria
Plate 6 84
4: Coarseware Jug
Plate 7 85
5: Coarseware Lekanis (?)
Plate 8 86
6: Unglazed Saltcellar
Plate 9 87
7: Plate
Bottom of 7
Plate 10 88
8: Mortar
Photo of 8
Plate 11 89
9: Chytra
Plate 12 90
10: Chytra
Plate 13 91
11: Chytra
Plate 14 92
12: Cooking pot lid
Plate 15 93
16: Lopas
Plate 16 94
18: Angled rim casserole (?)
18
Plate 17 95
19: Unglazed lekanis (?) lid
19
Plate 18 96
20: Black-glazed lamp
20
Plate 19 97
22: Bone tile
22
Plate 20 98
23: Bone tile
23
Plate 21 99
24: Bronze situla handle
24
Plate 22 100
25: Bronze situla handle
25
Plate 23 101
26: Bronze rim
Deatil of 26
Plate 24 102
31: Bronze kyathos
Plate 25 103
32: Bronze palmette
Profile of 32
Plate 26 104
33: Bronze object
Plate 27 105
Bibliography
Agora XII = B.A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C., Princeton, 1970.
Agora XXIX = S.I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, Princeton, 1997.
Arribas, A., G. Trias, D. Cerda, and J. de la Hoz 1987. El Barco de El Sec (Calvià, Mallorca): Estudio de los Materiales, Mallorca.
Bass, G.F. and F.H. van Doorninck, jr. 1982. Yassi Ada, College Station, TX.
Berlin, A. M. 1997. Tel Anafa II: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, S.C. Herbert, ed. Ann Arbor.
------1999. “Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: The Lower City Stratified Assemblages and Chronology,” Studia Troica 9, pp. 73-158.
Carlson, D.N. 1999. “The 1999 Excavation Season at Tektas Burnu, Turkey,” INA Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, pp.3-8.
------2000. “The 2000 Excavation Season at Tektas Burnu, Turkey,” INA Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 3-8.
------2001. “The 2001 Excavation Season at Tektas Burnu, Turkey,” INA Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.12-14.
------2003. “The Classical Greek Shipwreck at Tektas Burnu, Turkey,” AJA 107, pp. 581-600.
Cassavoy, R. 1988. “The ‘Gaming Pieces,’” INA Newsletter vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 28-29.
Casson, L. [1971] 1995. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, repr. Princeton.
------1991. The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times, Princeton.
DeVries, K. and M. L. Katzev 1972. “Greek, Etruscan and Phoenician Ships and Shipping,” in A History of Seafaring based on Underwater Archaeology, G.F. Bass, ed., London, pp. 37-64.
Eiseman, C.J. and B.S. Ridgway 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C., College Station, TX. 106
Finley, M.I. [1973] 1999. The Ancient Economy, repr. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Frayn, J. 1995. “Roman Meat Trade,” in Food in Antiquity, eds. J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson, Exeter, pp. 107-114.
Frost, F. 1999. “Sausage and Meat Preservation in Antiquity,” GRBS 40, pp. 241-252.
Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge/New York.
Gilula, D. 2000. “Hermippus and his Catalogue of Goods (fr. 63),” in The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, D. Harvey and J. Wilkins, eds., London, pp. 75-90.
Gungor, U. 1994. “Klazomenai Karantina Adasi Sondaji Tabakalannmasi” (diss. Ege Univeristy).
Hadjidaki, E. 1996. “Underwater Excavation of a Late Fifth Century Merchant Ship at Alonnesos, Greece: The 1991-1993 Seasons,” BCH 120, pp. 561-593.
Hayes, J.W. 1984. Greek, Roman, and Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
Head, B.V. [1911] 1981. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia, repr. Bologna.
Hesperia Supp. XXV = Rotroff, S.I. and J.H. Oakley 1992. “Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia Supp. XXV, Princeton.
Jouer dans l’Antiquité, Musée d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne-Centré de la Vieille Charite 22 novembre 1991-16 février 1992.
Katzev, M.L. 1970. “A Greek Ship is Raised,” Expedition 11, pp. 6-14.
------1972. “The Kyrenia Ship,” in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology,” G.F. Bass, ed., pp. 50-64, London.
Katzev, M.L. and S.W. Katzev 1986. “Kyrenia II: Research on an Ancient Shipwreck Comes Full Circle in a Full-scale Replication,” INA Newsletter, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 2-11.
------1989. “Voyage of Kyrenia II,” INA Newsletter, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4-10.
Linder, E. 1992. “Excavating an Ancient Merchantman,” BAR 18, pp. 25-35.
Nowak, T.J. 1999. “A Marble Ophthalmos from Tektas Burnu,” INA Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, pp.10-11. 107
Oron, A. 2000. “Conservation on the Rocks at Tektas Burnu,” INA Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 8-10.
Olynthus X = D.M. Robinson, Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, an Original Contribution to Greek Life, Baltimore/London.
Parker, A.J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, Oxford.
Paterson, J. 1998. “Trade and Traders in the Roman World: Scale, Structure, and Organisation,” in Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, H. Parkins and C. Smith, eds. London/New York, pp. 149-167.
Porticello = Eiseman, C.J. and B.S. Ridgway 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C., College Station.
Pulak, C. 1994. “The Uluburun Shipwreck,” in Res Maritimae, S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder, and H.W. Swiny, eds. Atlanta, pp. 233-262.
Richter, G.M.A. 1935. Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, New York.
Smith, C.H. 1896. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, vol. III: Vases of the Finest Period, London.
Stanley, P.V. 1976. “Ancient Greek Market Regulations and Controls” (diss. University of California, Berkeley).
Stroud, R. S. 1998. The Athenian Grain-tax Law of 374/3 B.C. (Hesperia Supp. 29), Princeton.
Swiny, H.W. and M.L. Katzev 1973. “The Kyrenia Shipwreck: A fourth-century B.C. Greek Merchant Ship,” in Marine Archaeology, D.J. Blackman, ed., pp. 339-360, London.
Trethewey, K. 1999. “An Interesting Anchor from the Tektas Burnu Shipwreck,” INA Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 9. van Doornick, et al.1988. “The Glass Wreck: An 11th-Century Merchantman,” INA Newsletter, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1-31.
Vickers, M. 1978. Greek Vases, Oxford.
Vokotopoulou, J. N.d. Guide to the Archaeological Museum of Thessalonike (Exhibition catalogue, Archaeological Museum of Thessalonike 1996), Kapon.
Wilkins, J. 1995. Food in Antiquity, Exeter. 108
Williams, D. [1985] 1999. Greek Vases, London.