Ships and Boats

Chapter 52
Ships and Boats
Julian Whitewright
1. Introduction
Readers of this volume will be aware of the acknowledged centrality of the sea to human
activity in the Mediterranean world. With this in mind, any study of the Greek and
Roman world must contain an appreciation of the nature, scale, and capability of the
watercraft of the time, provided here in broad terms. We focus more on merchant vessels
than military ones for the simple reason that the evidence is more legible for the former
than for the latter. No apology is made for this, but key sources relating to naval affairs
are provided.
2. Sources
Unlike other topics covered in this volume, no surviving ancient text deals specifically
with the technology of ship and boat construction or use. Accordingly, our knowledge
of the subject is based primarily upon archaeological evidence, supported by icono­
graphic and textual sources, where appropriate. While the general nature of such sources
is probably familiar to most readers, including their various advantages and drawbacks, it
is worth briefly outlining them in the specific context of the ships and boats. This allows
some of the main archaeological sites and accompanying literature to be highlighted
and for some interpretative concerns to be voiced. What follows is therefore concerned
specifically and explicitly with evidence available for understanding maritime activity and
ships and boats in particular.
A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, First Edition.
edited by Georgia L. Irby.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
c52 870
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
871
Archaeological Evidence
It is fortunate that for the period under discussion one can draw upon an extensive and
well‐preserved maritime archaeological record. The majority of the sites are included in
Parker’s 1992 volume, which over twenty years after publication remains the standard
source for shipwreck remains in the Mediterranean. Among this wealth of sites may
be found almost every type and size of Mediterranean ship or boat, ranging from the
huge, long‐distance, wine‐carrying merchant ship excavated at Madrague de Giens in
the 1970s (Tchernia and Pomey 1978), to diminutive fishing vessels such as Fiumicino 5
(Boetto 2006). As discussed below, because of such discoveries our understanding of the
technical aspects of ancient Mediterranean shipbuilding grows, and we are increasingly
able to explain instances of sustained technological change (e.g., Pomey, Kahanov, and
Rieth 2012). Despite this, it should be noted that there is a bias in the shipwreck evi­
dence to those areas where there has been a longer, stronger tradition of relatively well‐
funded maritime archaeological investigation, notably the south of France, and, to a
lesser extent Italy, Turkey, and Israel.
While the evidence for hull remains is extensive and often well documented, evidence
for sailing rigs in situ on shipwrecks is generally quite limited. This can result from the
depositional process of a shipwreck, where a vessel’s rigging is often broken or cut free
and so is detached from the vessel during the sinking process. In addition, the highly
organic nature of rigging is generally seen as unsuited to long‐term preservation under­
water, particularly in warm Mediterranean waters. Evidence from related terrestrial
­contexts, such as harbor sites, can often be better than on shipwrecks, especially in areas
of high organic preservation (e.g., Whitewright 2007).
Our overall view of ancient ships and boats, as provided by archaeological evidence,
is therefore heavily centered toward hull remains and the construction of those hull
remains. Nevertheless, without an understanding of a vessel’s rigging, it is never pos­
sible to fully understand a sailing vessel: how it was propelled, how the crew worked
while aboard, how the rig and hull interacted. Continuing to close the gap between our
comprehension of hull and rigging technology is likely to remain a key challenge for the
study of ancient Mediterranean ships and boats in the coming years.
Iconographic Evidence
The iconography of ancient shipping in the Mediterranean is undoubtedly full of
valuable information (e.g., Figure 52.1); it is not, however, without clear problems
as a source of evidence. Many of the problems and criticisms of employing icono­
graphy from other periods and regions hold true for the ancient Mediterranean.
Rarely is iconographic evidence unequivocal. Consequently, interpretation can often
be difficult, subjective, or indeed both. The nature and, therefore, interpretation of
any single representation may be influenced by its overall context. Medium, shape,
size, and location of the overall piece can have an important bearing on the shape,
detail, and meaning of the representation in question. Vessels can suffer from being
wrongly proportioned, stylized, and schematized, all of which can be obvious
­hindrances to their interpretation and subsequent usefulness as a record of past
maritime activity.
c52 871
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
872
Julian Whitewright
Figure 52.1 Carved Roman sarcophagus relief (third century ce) housed in the Ny-Carlsberg
Glyptotek, Copenhagen. The relief depicts three sailing vessels at the entrance to a port, possibly
Ostia, and is notable for the realism and detail of the subject matter. The central vessel carries a
spritsail with the mast stepped far forward in the hull. The sprit is hidden behind the sail but is
visible when the relief is viewed from the left. The other two vessels both carry square sails with
artemon foresails, and the artist has shown their sails in a very different way, with the ruffled
sailcloth indicating the path of the vertical brailing lines. The left-hand vessel has a conventional
outwardly curved bow. In contrast, the right-hand vessel has a concave bow, forming a cutwater.
Both types of hull are commonly depicted and have been attested in the archaeological evidence.
Source: Julian Whitewright. The most concise summary of many of these interpretative problems is contained
in the semi‐ethnographic work of Tzalas (1990) relating to the modern creation of
mosaic images of the reconstructed Kyrenia vessel. Meanwhile, the seminal monograph
by Lucian Basch (1987) remains still the most comprehensive source of iconographic
images and interpretation. Despite obvious and well‐documented problems, iconography
continues to be a key source of evidence for Greek and Roman Mediterranean ships and
boats. Such records are more commonly accessible and have a longer scholarly tradition
of study than underwater archaeological remains. The fact also remains that, for many
periods, notably Mediterranean prehistory, iconography is still the only widely occurring
evidence for watercraft. The period under discussion here is maybe the earliest where
extensive archaeological remains complement, confirm, and correct the general interpre­
tations offered via iconographic sources.
Literary Evidence
Although lacking a single identifiable “ancient treatise” on the subject, literary sources
for the study of Greek and Roman watercraft are numerous and, as with iconographic
resources, they vary in their ease of interpretation, level of ambiguity and, consequently,
usefulness. The primary work on ancient Mediterranean watercraft, written largely from
the perspective of literary sources, remains that of Lionel Casson (1995). Although
­Casson does utilize archaeological and iconographic sources, his is a view shaped mainly
by the literary material. This is particularly detailed, as might be expected when address­
ing the Greek and Roman world with its relative wealth of such source material. Other
useful commentary, concerned more specifically with the Roman period, comes from
George Houston (1987, 1988).
c52 872
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
873
The caveats relating to the application of literary or documentary evidence to the
study of ancient maritime technology are broadly similar to those pertaining to the
iconographic record. Sources may be subjective in both creation and interpretation,
especially where translation is required. When dealing with texts of a broad theme, care
should be taken not to assume that authors record everything which they have seen.
Only the unique or the unusual may be recorded, with more familiar sights and practices
left un‐noted. For example, there is a dearth of references to smaller vessels such as fish­
ing boats, presumably because they were considered too commonplace, or low status,
to be worthy of comment. Like iconographic depictions, care must be taken to place
textual sources within their wider context and to take into account any standard literary
conventions or previous sources which an author may have used.
Despite some of the general problems highlighted above, literary sources have the
capacity to carry a great deal of information regarding ancient technology. For example
authors might describe specific sail‐handling practices from which rig types or sailing
techniques can be inferred (e.g., pseudo-Aristotle, Mechanics 815b7; Achilles Tatius,
Leucippe and Clitophon 3.1–2). In such scenarios, ancient authors may be taken at face
value, unless there is an obvious reason for fabrication. Interpretation becomes more
difficult once the content of the texts increases in complexity. If it is accepted that artists
­misrepresent shipping owing to a lack of knowledge, then there is no reason for writers
to be any different. The recording of technology and techniques is probably the most
vulnerable in this respect. The use and application of literary sources from the ancient
world to inform our study is therefore not as straightforward as is sometimes perceived.
However, these problems and considerations do not prohibit the use of such sources;
they merely describe the limitations of the evidence.
3. Shipbuilding
An understanding of Mediterranean shipbuilding traditions is obviously central to appre­
ciating the watercraft that underpinned and facilitated maritime connectivity across the
ancient world. The main traditions and their key features are outlined below. However,
the work of Pomey, Kahanov, and Rieth (2012) offers the best summary of the current
situation, with far more detailed discussion of individual sites and practices than is pos­
sible here. An in‐depth account and interpretation of a number of significant archaeo­
logical finds is also offered by Steffy (1994, 23–77), while the principle of ship design in
antiquity is explored by Olaberria (2014).
For interpretative reasons, maritime archaeologists have divided shipbuilding tra­
ditions into two main types: frame‐based building and shell‐based building. Pomey,
Kahanov, and Rieth (2012, 235–236) provide a succinct discussion of the develop­
ment of these approaches in the Mediterranean. In simple terms, frame‐based building
is understood to be a system of construction wherein the vessel’s frames play the most
important role in its design and construction. Having laid the keel and set up the bow
and stern posts, the builder begins erecting the frames (either all of them, or just the
major ones) and, in doing so, defines the vessel’s shape. The outer planking, forming the
watertight shell, is then attached to the pre‐erected framing. The frames play the most
important role in defining the vessel’s shape; because of this, the frames are described as
“active” in the frame‐based system of building. In contrast, a builder using a shell‐based
approach begins by first erecting the planking (the watertight shell), once the keel, bow,
c52 873
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
874
Julian Whitewright
and stern post are in place. There are no frames to hold the planking together at this
stage, so the planks have to be joined together to make a self‐supporting structure, usu­
ally achieved by fastening the edges of the planks together. Edge‐to‐edge plank fastening
of some sort is one of the characteristic features of shell‐based building systems. The
frames may then be added to the shell; but, because they do not dictate the hull’s shape,
but simply serve as reinforcement, they are described as “passive.”
Inevitably, there are variations to these two distinctly defined building processes. Notably,
in flat‐bottomed vessels, such as river barges, the bottom of the hull (planking and frames)
is built first, followed by the sides. Such construction is termed “bottom‐based” building.
In addition, a method of alternative building, identified in the ancient and late antique
Mediterranean, is classified as “mixed‐construction.” As the name suggests, this technique
employs elements of both frame‐based and shell‐based building at different stages of a
vessel’s construction. For example, the vessel’s lower parts might be shell based with passive
frames added after only a few planks are in place. These frames subsequently become active
in dictating the shape of the vessel’s upper portions, which is therefore frame based. The
presence, or absence, of edge‐to‐edge plank fastening is usually a good indicator of when
the builder switches from one method of constructing the vessel to the other.
The ship and boat builders of the Greek and Roman Mediterranean utilized a mixture
of all of the approaches just described. Prior to late antiquity, shell‐based construction
tends to dominate, with planks edge‐fastened by mortise‐and‐tenon joinery, or alter­
natively by sewing. The latter method is particularly associated with Greek shipbuild­
ing dating to the mid‐first millennium bce. Vessels have also been excavated which use
both these fastening methods together. A strong tradition of bottom‐based riverine ves­
sels has also been identified from archaeological remains, dating to the Roman period,
a spectacular example of which has recently been excavated from Arles, on the river
Rhone (see www.arles‐rhone3.fr). The first frame‐based vessel that has been excavated
dates to the late fifth century ce, and vessels built with a variety of mixed‐construction
approaches occur both before this, and for many centuries afterward.
Shell‐First: Mortise‐and‐Tenon
From the perspective of the archaeological record, the shell‐based tradition utilizing
mortise‐and‐tenon joints to fasten the plank edges together is the primary shipbuilding
tradition of the Greek and Roman Mediterranean (Figure 52.2). This approach uses
relatively thick planks, normally of softwood, such as pine, with a series of mortises cut
into the plank edges. Wooden tenons, usually of a hardwood, oak, or olive, are inserted
into those cavities and also into corresponding mortises on the adjoining plank when it
is fitted in place. Wooden pegs, also of hardwood, are then driven through both plank
and tenon to lock the joint in place. Planks are joined to the vessel’s keel and posts
using the same approach. Planks in shipbuilding are normally not long enough to run
a vessel’s entire length, and so the planks are joined (scarfed) together at the ends. The
resulting length of planks, joined end‐to‐end, is called a strake. In the Mediterranean
mortise‐and‐tenon building tradition, the plank scarf joints are usually diagonal or S‐
shaped when seen from outboard with mortise‐and‐tenon jointing between the ends
of the planks. Frames are then fitted inside the planking shell to provide the vessel with
additional reinforcement, and these were usually attached with either wooden treenails
or with conventional nails, in either case, driven from outboard, through the planking
c52 874
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
875
Ships and Boats
Mortises
1. Mortices are cut in the plank edges
and tenons places into the mortises
of the lower plank.
2. The new plank is fitted to the lower
plank, mortises and tenons aligning
to join the edges of the two planks
together.
Tenons
3. Holes are drilled through both plank
and tenon and wooden pegs driven
into the holes to secure the joint.
Locking
pegs
Figure 52.2 The key elements of mortise-and-tenon plank fastening. and into the frame. An excellent account of the building of such a vessel is provided from
an experimental archaeological perspective by Katzev and Katzev (1989).
This method has considerably antiquity beyond the Greek and Roman period. The
earliest example of a shell‐based, pegged mortise‐and‐tenon‐built vessel comes from the
late Bronze Age shipwreck at Uluburun in south‐west Turkey (Pulak 1998, 210–213).
The archetypal example from the Hellenistic period is that of the small merchant vessel,
found off Kyrenia in northern Cyprus, dating to the late fourth century bce, the con­
struction of which is superbly described by Steffy (1985). Compared to the Uluburun
shipwreck, the Kyrenia vessel had a much more developed hull form, characterized by a
wine‐glass shaped cross section, that was certainly seaworthy, an attribute attested by the
performance of various reconstructions of the vessel (e.g., Katzev 1990).
Abundant archaeological evidence from the Roman period allows for the identifica­
tion of variations in approach within the overall building tradition. One of the largest
vessels excavated in the Mediterranean is the first‐century bce vessel from Madrague de
Giens off southern France (Tchernia and Pomey 1978), measuring around 40 meters
(131´) in length, 9 meters (29.5´) in width and capable of transporting nearly 400
tons of cargo. The vessel had a well‐developed keel and a seaworthy hull, characterized
by a concave bow, forming a cut‐water (e.g., Figure 52.1). Its builder added strength
with a double layer of mortise‐and‐tenon‐joined planking, while many of the frame
timbers were bolted to the keel. The latter feature contrasts with the Kyrenia vessel,
where the frames and keel were not attached, perhaps illustrating the primacy of the
planking shell in the mind of the shipbuilder. A contrasting hull form can be seen in
the Laurons 2 vessel, dating to the late second century ce (Pomey, Kahanov, and Rieth
2012, 242–243). As well as being much smaller (circa 15 m × 5 m [49´ × 16´]) than
the Madrague de Giens ship, the Laurons 2 (Gassend, Liou, and Ximénès 1984) vessel
exhibits a much more flat‐bottomed hull form and regularly curved bow (e.g., Figure
52.1), perhaps suited to coastal waters and beaching in estuarine conditions, rather than
open sea voyages and deeper harbors. An illustration of the longevity of these Mediter­
ranean shell‐based approaches is found in the remains of the Dramont E shipwreck
c52 875
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
876
Julian Whitewright
(Santamaria 1995), dating to the mid‐fifth century ce. The vessel measured around
16 meters (52.5´) in length with a capacity of about 40 tons and was engaged in trade
between Vandal North Africa and southern France at the time of its loss. The ship was
built on a completely shell‐based system, exhibiting many of the features seen on earlier
vessels, including a wine‐glass‐shaped cross section. As well as giving some indication of
the longevity of the shell‐based mortise‐and‐tenon approach, the Dramont E ship also
demonstrates the long‐distance capability of even relatively small vessels.
The vessels highlighted above are all classified as merchant vessels. Surprisingly
little is known about warship construction owing to the absence of a substantial body of
archaeological material. The only significant set of vessel remains is a Punic warship off
Marsala, Sicily, dating to the third century bce (Frost 1981). This find, along with other
more fragmentary evidence, indicates that warships of the Hellenistic period and later
were built using the same shell‐based system of mortise‐and‐tenon edge‐joined plank­
ing described above. The traditional viewpoint of earlier warships, such as the trireme of
fifth‐century Athens (e.g., Rankov 2012), is that they were built in the same way. But,
given the extent of a sewn shipbuilding tradition in the Mediterranean (below), this is not
proven beyond doubt, and Hale (2010, 21–25) has suggested that earlier warships were
of sewn construction. Increasing archaeological evidence for warship rams, often recov­
ered from the seafloor beneath naval battle areas, is beginning to shed light on many of
the details of the construction techniques specific to warships (e.g., Tusa and Royal 2012;
cf. Murray 2012), and this picture is likely to increase in complexity in the future.
The approach to shipbuilding described above is striking in its longevity of use and
flexibility of application within the ancient Mediterranean as a whole and the Greek and
Roman world in particular. Chronologically, the application of a shell‐based, mortise‐
and‐tenon‐fastened tradition (when described in general terms) extends from the late
Bronze Age through to late antiquity. Therefore, the most archaeologically common
approach to conceiving and constructing ships and boats of all shapes, sizes, and function
is one with considerable technological continuity across the Mediterranean. It is impor­
tant that such technological continuity is not confused with technological homogeneity.
Clearly, there are technical variations within this overall approach, many of which are now
being identified through excavated archaeological remains and which occur on a tempo­
ral, spatial, cultural, and functional basis. These may be expressed through the outward
shape and size of vessels as well as the details of the internal structures. The mortise‐and‐
tenon‐based tradition is central to Mediterranean shipbuilding, but it is important to
acknowledge that this was not the only one used in the Greek and Roman world.
Shell‐First: Sewn Construction
Sewn construction also utilized a shell‐based approach to conceiving and constructing
ships or boats. The key feature is in the use of cordage to attach the planks together
when constructing the vessel’s shell. To achieve this, holes must be made in the face
of the plank with corresponding holes in the adjacent plank. Cordage is then passed
through the holes and tightened to draw the planks together. If the cordage runs along
the planks, passing through multiple holes, it is termed sewing. Meanwhile the prac­
tice of passing the cordage through only two adjacent holes (one in each plank) and
using multiple individual fastenings is usually termed lashing. As with other shell‐based
c52 876
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
877
t­ raditions, frames are inserted to provide additional reinforcement once the hull shape
has been formed by the planking shell. Frames can be lashed in place, secured with
treenails driven through the planks, or a combination of the two.
It was common in sewn traditions for small dowels to be set into the plank edges as a
means of aligning the planks prior to sewing/lashing. Likewise, almost all sewn vessels
utilize waterproofing wadding, placed over the plank seam and held in place by
sewing/lashing. This can be either on the inside or outside (or both) of the vessel, and
it provides sewn vessels with a distinctive appearance in comparison to non‐sewn vessels.
Further waterproofing and tightening is provided by driving wooden pegs into the
sewing/lashing holes in order to seal them.
Two main distributions of sewn vessel can be identified in the archaeological record.
The earliest has been termed the “Greek Archaic tradition” because all of the vessels come
from that period from sites known to have been contemporary Greek colonies or settle­
ments, with sixth‐century bce examples from Marseilles (Pomey 1998). Other generally
contemporary examples have been found off Gela in Sicily, Giglio in Italy (Bound 1985),
and Bon Porte in Southern France (Pomey 1981). Some of these vessels are not purely
sewn in their construction, but they also utilize mortise‐and‐tenon fastening in some
areas of the hull. Shipwrights obviously possessed an ability to apply and mix together
either tradition of building, perhaps depending on local requirements and context.
The second major group of Mediterranean sewn vessels, dating to the Roman period,
is situated exclusively within the northern Adriatic, both on the Italian and Croatian
coasts (Beltrame 2000). Again, these vessels often employ a mixture of sewn and ­mortise‐
and‐tenon construction. Perhaps the best‐known example is the late‐first‐century bce
Comacchio shipwreck from Italy (Berti 1990). The chronology of these vessels is less
established than the earlier Greek vessels, but it has been suggested that it extends as late
as the seventh century ce (Beltrame 2000, 93). While it may be tempting to view the
Adriatic sewn vessels as a quaint survival of an earlier, simpler tradition of shipbuilding,
in reality it is more helpful to view them as another regional variation in how Mediter­
ranean peoples engaged with and utilized the sea that was so central to their lives.
The relationship between sewn vessels and mortise‐and‐tenon‐built vessels is one that
is still quite poorly understood, aside from the basic temporal and spatial distribution of
the archaeological finds. In particular, the inter‐relationship between the two types of
building tradition, clearly present in Greek Archaic vessels, has not been described beyond
a simple linear process of logical change in which sewn vessels are gradually supplanted.
That in itself ignores the presence of the fully mortise‐and‐tenon‐built Uluburn ship­
wreck, dating to the late Bronze Age. There is clear scope in this area of Mediterranean
shipbuilding for extended, detailed research, identifying not just the nature of technologi­
cal change but also the factors that were underpinning and driving it. In this regard, it
offers an opportunity to visualize and investigate some of the regionality of Mediterranean
seafaring and shipbuilding, particularly during the mid‐first millennium bce.
Frame‐First and Mixed
Variation in Mediterranean shipbuilding was illustrated above in the context of the mid‐first
millennium bce. Around one millennium later, an even more profound and far‐reaching
change occurred, encompassing the traditions that governed how vessels were built as well
as the sailing rigs that propelled them (see below). From the perspective of shipbuilding,
c52 877
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
878
Julian Whitewright
Mediterranean shipwrights began to adopt and develop frame‐based traditions for the first
time as well as a range of mixed approaches, drawing upon elements of both shell‐based
and frame‐based building. The basic principles of these methods were described above.
We can now outline some of the archaeological evidence. Further study should again be
guided by the material and interpretation set out by Pomey, Kahanov, and Rieth (2012).
The earliest Mediterranean vessel built in a frame‐based tradition is the Dor 2001/1
vessel excavated at Dor/Tantura on the Israeli coast (Mor and Kahanov 2006). Dating
to the late fifth century ce, the vessel is shallow‐draughted, suited for relatively local
coastal trading rather than long‐distance open‐water navigation. The vessel is totally
frame based with no elements of the shell‐based mortise‐and‐tenon tradition that was
still widespread. It is unlikely that the Dor 2001/1 vessel was the first frame‐based vessel
to be built in the region, and so the tradition must be earlier. Exactly how early remains
an important question to be answered by the archaeological record.
Another eastern Mediterranean vessel, dating to the fourth century ce, excavated at the
site of Yassi Ada (van Doorninck 1976), was built using a demonstrably mixed construc­
tion. The lower hull was built on a shell‐based system as far as the fifth strake. Thereafter
frames began to be added which must have been “active” in their relationship to the
remaining planking. Other vessels built in a range of mixed approaches have been exca­
vated from across the Mediterranean throughout the late antique period. One characteris­
tic of the mixed‐construction traditions is the reduced use of mortise‐and‐tenon fastenings
to secure the vessel’s shell together, with a corresponding increase in the strength provided
by the vessel’s framing. Overall, there is a long‐term trend throughout the Roman Impe­
rial and late antique period of mortises set further apart with tenons looser in their fitting
and sometimes left unpegged. This trend, however, does not have a readily discernible
pattern; there are both temporal and spatial discrepancies and anomalies throughout the
late antique and early Medieval period, leaving much scope for future research.
Summary
Mediterranean shipbuilding in the Greek and Roman world can be broadly summarized as
comprising two successive general forms of ship construction: first, the shell‐based forms,
both sewn and mortise‐and‐tenon, whose origins lie in the Bronze Age or earlier. The
latter method, in particular, comes to predominate by the second half of the first millen­
nium bce. Second, frame‐based forms developed from late antiquity onward. The individual
traditions and their respective technical details that can be found within these overarching
ways of conceiving and constructing vessels may be considered well documented through
archaeological investigation. However, the extent of technological interplay between tradi­
tions, either at the macro‐level of shell based/frame based, or when focusing on the more
specific identifiable traditions (sewn, etc.), is much less clear, for example, the motives
behind the use of mortise‐and‐tenons in the mid‐first millennium bce or frame‐, and not
shell‐, based construction in the mid‐first millennium ce. What can be stated with some
certainty is that the trajectory of Mediterranean shipbuilding technology during antiquity
is not one of simple, linear development; technological change is variable in pace and
nature across the Mediterranean for reasons that are not yet well established. Extensive
regional variation exists and understanding this, together with an increased appreciation of
the broader context of maritime archaeological remains, may offer the most fruitful means
of shedding further light on this integral aspect of Mediterranean maritime activity.
c52 878
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
879
Ships and Boats
4. Mediterranean Sailing Rigs
Extensive, well‐preserved, and documented archaeological remains have been funda­
mental in understanding Mediterranean shipbuilding during antiquity. In contrast, the
archaeological evidence for the sailing rigs that propelled such vessels is extremely limited.
Rigging components do survive, both underwater and in terrestrial contexts, but not in
quantities comparable to the hulls that they were placed upon. The result of this imbal­
ance is a much increased interpretative emphasis on iconographic and textual sources as
a means to set out the basic chronologies of when different sailing rigs begin to be used,
altered, displaced, and abandoned. While this situation is not ideal for objective interpre­
tation, it is however unavoidable. What follows is simply an attempt to make the reader
aware of the breadth of sailing rig form in use in the ancient Mediterranean and to gain
an impression of how those rigs were integrated within Mediterranean seafaring practices.
Oared Propulsion
As well as the sail, the use of oar power for propelling vessels in the ancient world requires
some brief comment. Iconographic and literary evidence indicates that for much of the
Bronze Age, vessels were often propelled by both oars and sails. Such vessels were probably
fairly non‐specialized, being suited for trading or warfare as required. From the beginning
of the first millennium bce there is more evidence for vessels being developed for specific
purposes; oared vessels used purely for warfare and sailing vessels for cargo‐carrying pur­
poses. The removal of oarsmen from cargo vessels led to increases in carrying capacity and
reductions in the costs associated with maintaining rowing crews. At the same time, a mas­
sive reduction in the amount of water that needed to be carried on board to sustain the
rowing crew is likely to have greatly reduced the potential range and duration of voyages.
For the remainder of the period covered here, the use of oars was mainly restricted
to naval vessels. The reliable, predictable delivery of power and the ability to maneuver
at speed ensured that Mediterranean warships continued to be propelled by oar power
until the post medieval period. In the ancient world, such ships could be configured
to carry several levels of oarsmen, with a single oar per person; alternatively, several
rowers could pull on the same oar. The possible combinations, arrangements, and
sources of evidence are well described by the sources given above in regard to naval
warfare and warship construction. In addition, the contributed volume edited by
Gardiner and Morrison (1995) provides an excellent range of material, including useful
background context and discussion of shore‐side installations.
Square Sails
The square sail is the earliest sailing rig visible in the iconographic evidence, with exam­
ples dating to the fourth millennium bce from Egyptian contexts. Based upon icono­
graphic sources, the square‐sail rig undergoes a myriad of changes and developments
prior to the late Bronze Age. These lie outside the scope of this work, but it is enough
to say that the basic components of the rig had become settled by about 1200 bce.
This was a single sail that was probably quite broad (more rectangular than square), set
on a spar (yard) along its top edge (the head), while the bottom of the sail (the foot)
remained free (“loose‐footed”). In strong wind the sail was furled, or made smaller, by
hauling on a series of ropes (brailing lines) that ran up the forward face of the sail and
c52 879
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
880
Julian Whitewright
guided through fairleads (brail rings) sewn to the sail. These lines ran over the yard and
returned to the deck toward the vessel’s stern, where they could be hauled upon to cause
the sail to be folded upward in a manner similar to a Venetian blind. This arrangement
(Figure 52.3) resulted in a sail whose shape and size were easily altered to suit the course
being sailed upon and the conditions encountered. It also has the potential to leave a
4
3
8
12
15
6
7
5
14
10
11
9
13
1
3
2
1. Braces
2. Sheets
3. Mast
4. Lifts
5. Bolt Rope
6. Brailing Line
7. Brail Ring
8. Parrel
9. Halyard
10. Shroud
11. Dead-Eye
12. Yard
13. Clew
14. Reinforcement Strips
15. Brail Line Fairlead
Figure 52.3 The main rigging components and their arrangement, as found on Mediterranean
square-sails from the Greek and Roman period. c52 880
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
881
Ships and Boats
­ istinctive archaeological signature in the form of brail rings, a component not utilized
d
on the other types of sailing rig present in the ancient Mediterranean.
The sail just described remained the basic building block of the majority of Mediter­
ranean sailing rigs until late antiquity and was used on vessels as varied as fishing boats,
triremes, and grain carriers. This rig underwent a range of technological variation that
is visible in the iconographic, literary, and archaeological record (Figure 52.4). Perhaps
most notably, in the mid‐first millennium bce a small foresail (the artemon) was intro­
duced (e.g., Figure 52.1), probably to improve the maneuverability of vessels when
sailing on courses across the wind and at angles of less than 90° to the wind. Further
development saw the use of vessels with two equally sized masts as well as vessels carry­
ing a main mast and artemon, but also with a third mast (mizzen) at the vessel’s stern to
further improve maneuverability. Nonetheless, vessels continued to be used that carried
only a single square sail, which, according to archaeological evidence, was set around a
third of the vessel’s length from the bow, in the optimum hydrodynamic location for all
courses of sailing (see Palmer 2009).
The rigging components used to create the square‐sail rig are relatively distinctive in
the archaeological record. Surviving rigging components are often characterized by large
numbers of brail rings, made of wood, lead, or animal horn (e.g., Whitewright 2007,
285). Pulley blocks with both disk and cylinder sheaves (pulley wheels) are also com­
mon (e.g., Hesnard et al. 1988, 105–126). The mast, yard, and sail were supported by a
strong set of ropes (standing rigging), known as shrouds and stays, that were tensioned
with wooden blocks called deadeyes, a reasonable number of which have also survived
400 BCE
200 BCE
BCE/CE
CE
200
CE
400
CE
600
CE
800
Mizzen &
Artemon
Square &
Artemon
Two-masted
Square
Square
Settee
Lateen
Sprit-sail
400 BCE
200 BCE
BCE/CE
CE
200
CE
400
CE
600
CE
800
Figure 52.4 The multi-linear nature of sailing rig development in the ancient Mediterranean,
based on archaeological, iconographic, and literary sources. Rig families are differentiated by the
different line styles. c52 881
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
882
Julian Whitewright
on a number of shipwrecks (e.g., Ximénès and Moerman 1990). Even from limited
evidence, it is possible to hypothesize the presence of regional traditions of rigging, and
potentially sailing practice, within the overall rigging tradition of the Mediterranean
square sail. Such traditions are still quite indistinct when compared to those visible in the
hulls of ships, but they are nevertheless present. A future increase in the documentation
and publication of comparative material will bring this picture into sharper focus.
The Mediterranean square‐sail rig as used in the Greek and Roman world was a flex­
ible, effective sailing rig. It had the potential to allow vessels to make ground to wind­
ward (albeit slowly) in good conditions and probably allowed an average speed over
long distances and with a favorable wind of roughly four knots (Whitewright 2011a,
10). With such a rig, a vessel of over 100 tons could probably have been crewed effec­
tively by less than a dozen people and potentially much fewer on shorter voyages. This
rigging tradition was used for at least 1700 years in a recognizably distinct, yet continu­
ous form of maritime technology.
Spritsails
The first alternative to the square sail comes in the form of the spritsail, for which there
are clear, unambiguous, iconographic depictions from the second century bce onward
(Casson 1956). The spritsail is of a type known as a fore‐and‐aft rig because of the
natural position of the sail lying along the vessel’s centerline (the fore‐and‐aft line). The
spritsail is relatively simple to set, from a mast normally located quite a long way forward
in the vessel owing to all of the sail being behind the mast when hauled tight. The sail
is set from a single diagonal spar (sprit), which gives it a quite distinctive appearance.
Other iconographic examples occur from the first to third centuries ce (e.g.,
Figure 52.1), but it is not until a set of archaeological remains at Yenikapi in Istanbul
from the eighth/ninth centuries ce that the rig is visible in the archaeological record.
The appearance of the sprit rig in the Greek and Roman Mediterranean is significant
for two reasons. First, the way the spritsail is conceived and used bears no technical
resemblance or link to the existing forms of the square sail. It therefore demonstrates
technological innovation of Mediterranean mariners in the second century bce. Second,
as far as potential performance is concerned, the spritsail is among the most effective rigs
to have been developed and used in European waters, particularly in its performance to
windward (Marchaj 1996, 161, figures 144–145). It certainly exceeds the performance
potential of contemporary square‐sail rigs and later lateen/settee rigs. Traditional
academic accounts of Mediterranean sailing consistently state that the introduction of
the lateen sail is on the grounds of its superior windward performance when compared
to the square sail (see below), and this widely held position should presumably be rea­
sonably extended to the spritsail, given the performance of that rig. Yet, despite clear
superiority in windward ability, in comparison to other rigs, the spritsail was not widely
adopted, at least on the basis of iconography and in archaeologically attested mast‐step
locations. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that, contrary to accepted academic
tradition, windward performance was not the defining factor in the conception, selec­
tion, and use of sailing rigs in the ancient Mediterranean.
The spritsail continues to be something of an enigma in the study of ancient sailing
rigs. Rarely visible in the available evidence, it is largely absent from regular academic
discussion. Yet it has excellent, well‐documented qualities as a sailing rig and remains in
c52 882
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
883
use for a considerable length of time in Mediterranean waters. In this regard, it offers a
major challenge to purely functionalist explanations of ancient sailing rig development
which indicate that the spritsail should become widely adopted on the grounds of wind­
ward performance. That it did not is the best indication that such models are flawed and
that other explanations for sailing rig development in the ancient Mediterranean should
be sought.
Lateen/Settee Sails
The development and adoption of the lateen/settee sailing rig offers an opportunity
to refine how ancient Mediterranean sailing rigs are discussed. The lateen/settee rig is
another fore‐and‐aft rig, carrying a sail set on a diagonally inclined yard that extends for­
ward of the mast. The lateen form is fully triangular, while the settee variant has a short
leading edge (luff). Their use in antiquity appears to be basically the same. In contrast
to the spritsail, the lateen/settee rig has many practical elements that indicate a prob­
able course of development from the Mediterranean square sail (Whitewright 2011b,
95–98). Unlike the Mediterranean square sail, the lateen/settee rig does not carry any
particularly distinctive rigging components (such as brail rings), meaning that it cannot
be easily distinguished from the square sail in the archaeological record.
Documentation of the lateen/settee rig, therefore, has to be done on iconographic
evidence (Whitewright 2009). The first depiction of a settee rig dates to the second
century ce (Casson 1956) although other sources, lacking secure dating, suggest its use
in the first millennium bce (e.g., Basch 1989). These early depictions remain isolated,
leading to the conclusion that the lateen/settee rig had not become widely adopted,
with a subsequent reflection in the iconographic record. Only from the late fifth century
ce onward do depictions of lateen/settee rigs become more common in the eastern
Mediterranean. It is of further significance that these depictions, in a variety of contexts
and media, all share a common set of well‐defined characteristics, as drawn by their
respective creators (Whitewright 2009, 100). These characteristics may represent a rig
that has become widely adopted, in a settled outward form, to the extent that artists
depict it with a standard set of conventions, easily recognizable to the viewer. This idea is
given further weight by the continued use of some of these conventions until the twelfth
century ce (Whitewright 2009, 101).
The traditional view within maritime academia is that the lateen/settee rig became
widely adopted because of the performance advantages that it offered over the Mediter­
ranean square‐sail rig, namely, better speed and windward performance (e.g., Casson
1995, 243; Pryor 1994, 67–68; Castro et al. 2008, 348). The example of the sprit­
sail, summarized above, indicates the failure of this model to work effectively in one
maritime context from the Roman period. The example of the lateen/settee sail offers
another. Analysis of the performance of full‐scale vessels, reconstructed historic ves­
sels, and historical sources indicates that the lateen/settee rig offers no performance
gain over the square sail in either speed or windward performance (Whitewright 2011a,
10–13). The two rigs are in fact extremely similar. Yet the fact remains that the lateen/
settee rig did become widely adopted in the Mediterranean from the late antique period
onward, eventually displacing the square sail to the extent that characteristic square‐sail
rigging components seem to disappear from the archaeological record.
c52 883
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
884
Julian Whitewright
This change in rig type is clearly interesting, even more so when the very long period
of use of the square sail is considered against its relatively rapid abandonment. The
possible reasons for this change may lie in the wider context of the late antique Medi­
terranean (Whitewright 2011b, 98–102). The lateen/settee rig does not offer improve­
ments in performance, but it does offer a large reduction in the rigging components
required, while maintaining the levels of performance of the square sail. Experimental
archaeological work at Roskilde, Denmark, has indicated that the creation of a sailing
rig in pre‐industrial contexts can take almost as many people‐hours as the construction
of a hull. Moreover, the highly organic nature of sails and rope dictates a relative rapid
attrition rate and the need for regular maintenance and replacement of rope and canvas
as an ongoing expense. Reducing the overall quantity of cordage and components offers
a means to reduce materials and costs, both for building and maintenance. Economic
concerns, in the context of the late antique world, appear to offer a likely reason for the
adoption of the lateen/settee sail and the abandonment of the long‐held Mediterranean
square‐sail rigging tradition.
Summary
When viewed across the whole of the Greek and Roman Mediterranean, the sailing rigs
of the ancient world offer an intriguing picture of long‐term technological continu­
ity, interspersed with notable variation and genuine examples of technological innova­
tion and development. For much of the period, the square sail, in all its variant forms,
provided the primary propulsion to non‐military watercraft, oar power remaining very
much the preserve of naval vessels. Only in late antiquity does the lateen/settee rig
begin to supplant the square sail as the sailing rig of choice. Although largely invisible
archaeologically, this process is increasingly well documented through the iconographic
evidence, indicating an intriguingly uniform way in which such rigs are depicted.
As well as the themes of technological continuity, variation, and change summarized
above, further comment can be passed on the potential performance of all these sailing
rigs. First, Greek and Roman vessels had the ability to make progress to windward in the
right conditions, when a suitable hull form was used (e.g., the Kyrenia or Madrague de
Giens wrecks). This statement can be extended to all the rigs discussed here, although the
spritrig provided the best all‐around performance on the basis of modern wind‐tunnel
testing. This offers a clear indication that windward performance was not the main con­
sideration in deciding upon a particular sailing rig; if so, the spritsail would have been ubiquitous, and it clearly was not. Numerous other factors, such as material cost or required
crew size, influenced what type of rig was used, where, and on which vessel type. These
choices, along with available rigging component technology, dictated regional traditions
and trends in the construction and use of sailing rigs that are likely to become increasingly
apparent as archaeological evidence becomes further refined and better understood.
5. Patterns of Technological Change
Most notable is the long‐term continuity that can be traced in ancient Mediterranean
maritime technology, particularly when the Mediterranean square‐sail and shell‐based
mortise‐and‐tenon building tradition are viewed together as a way of building, rigging,
c52 884
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
885
and using a ship or boat. Taking into account the variations outlined above, it is arguably
a broad approach to seafaring that stretches from the late Bronze Age through to late
antiquity. In addition, the shell‐based sewn method of building and the use of the sprit
rig offer, at different times, alternative methods of both building and rigging a vessel.
Although the spritsail does not seem to have been widely adopted, the sewn construc­
tion method was clearly a significant Mediterranean building tradition.
A notable alteration to this general picture occurs broadly in the mid‐first millennium
bce, and we witness the gradual abandonment of the shell‐based sewn building method
and the roughly contemporary introduction of the artemon foresail. The reasons for the
first of these changes are certainly not fully understood and offers considerable potential
for future research. The introduction of the artemon probably resulted in improvements
to the maneuverability of vessels, especially when sailing on upwind courses. While the
results of this experimentation and variation are fairly clear, the reasons underlying why it
happened when it did have not yet been fully researched and are not clearly understood.
The most far‐reaching maritime technological change occurs in late antiquity when
long‐held building and rigging traditions underwent a fundamental change. The inven­
tion and development of frame‐first building processes completely altered the manner in
which ships were conceived and constructed. While this tradition took several centuries
to become widely established, eventually seemingly ubiquitous in the medieval Mediter­
ranean, its origins lie firmly in the late Roman world. Explanations for this technological
change are still developing (e.g., Pomey, Kahanov, and Rieth 2012), but motives revolving
around economization, the availability of labor, and the efficient use of materials are per­
suasive. The reasons behind the abandonment of the square sail in favor of the lateen/
settee rig may be thought of as economization while maintaining performance (see
Whitewright 2011b, 102). The occurrence of such changes to hulls and rigs at broadly
the same time and for apparently similar reasons strongly suggests, perhaps unsurprisingly,
that changes to hull and rig are interlinked and driven by the same overall trends.
6. Conclusion
An understanding of maritime activity is crucial to our understanding of the Greek
and Roman world. It is clear that an appreciation of the construction and rigging of
ships and boats gives us an insight into the maritime elements of Greek and Roman
society. These societies developed complex watercraft, methodically and carefully built
in a shell‐based tradition, utilizing either mortise‐and‐tenon or sewing as a way to join
plank edges. These vessels were then rigged with a range of effective, adaptable rigs that
allowed efficient travel across the Mediterranean. Numerous variations existed in both
building and rigging, within overarching traditions, the temporal and spatial distribu­
tion of which is still not fully understood. Finally, the late antique period witnesses
wholesale changes to the way that vessels are built and rigged through the development
and adoption of frame‐based and mixed construction alongside the lateen/settee rig.
Our sources for these vessels are becoming increasingly well documented, especially
the archaeological evidence with regard to ship construction. Taken as a whole, they
offer a relatively clear view of Greek and Roman Mediterranean shipping practices. This
view includes the identification of regional building traditions and a considered assess­
ment of the general performance that such vessels were capable of. Most importantly,
documenting and researching this maritime technology has allowed the identification
c52 885
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
886
Julian Whitewright
of periods of significant technological continuity, punctuated by far‐reaching techno­
logical variation and change. The biggest challenge for future maritime researchers is
to further develop our understanding of the relationship between these trends and the
societies that were responsible for them. As archaeological data continue to increase the
complexity of our understanding, it may be possible, eventually, to explain alterations
to Mediterranean societies through their ships and boats, rather than vice versa. Given
the centrality of the sea to day‐to‐day life, this should be the least that we can expect to
achieve through our study of the ships and boats of the Greek and Roman world.
References
Basch, L. 1987. Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens: Hellenic Institute for the
Preservation of Nautical Tradition.
Basch, L. 1989. “The Way to the Lateen Sail.” Mariner’s Mirror 75: 328–332.
Beltrame, C. 2000. “Sutiles Naves of Roman Age. New Evidence and Technological Comparison
with Pre‐Roman Sewn Boats.” In Down the River to the Sea: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 1997, edited by J. Litwin, 91–96.
Oxford: Oxbow.
Berti, F., ed. 1990. Fortuna maris: La nave Romana do Comacchio. Bologne: Museo Archeo­
logico Nazionale di Ferrara.
Boetto, G. 2006. “Roman Techniques for the Transport and Conservation of Fish: The Case of
the Fiumicino 5 Wreck.” In Connected by the Sea: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, edited by L. Blue, F. Hocker and A. Englert,
123–129. Oxford: Oxbow.
Bound, M. 1985. “Early Observations on the Construction of the Pre‐Classical Wreck at Campese
Bay, Island of Giglio: Clues to the Vessel’s Nationality.” In Sewn Plank Boats: Archaeological and
Ethnographic Papers Based on Those Presented to a Conference at Greenwich in November, 1984,
edited by S. McGrail and E. Kentley, 49–65. Oxford: BAR‐IS 276.
Casson, L. 1956. “Fore and Aft Sails in the Ancient World.” Mariner’s Mirror 42: 3–5.
Casson, L. 1995. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer­
sity Press.
Castro, F., N. Fonseca, T. Vacas, and F. Ciciliot. 2008. “A Quantitative Look at Mediterranean
Lateen‐ and Square‐Rigged Ships (Part 1).” IJNA 37: 347–359.
Frost, H. 1981. “Lilybaeum (Marsala). The Punic Ship: Final Excavation Report.” Notizie delgli
Scavi di Antichita 8 (Supplemento al Volume 30).
Gardiner, R. and J. Morrison, eds. 1995. The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since
Pre‐Classical Times. London: Conway Maritime Press.
Gassend, J.‐M., B. Liou, and S. Ximénès. 1984. “L’Epave 2 de L’anse des Laurons (Martigues,
Bouches‐Du‐Rhone).” Archaeonautica 4: 75–105.
Hale, J. R. 2010. Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy.
London: Gibson Square.
Hesnard, A., M.‐B. Carre, M. Rival, and B. Dangréaux. 1988. “L’épave romaine Grand Ribaud
D (Hyères, Var).” Archaeonautica 8.
Houston, G. W. 1987. “Lucian’s Navigium and the Dimensions of the Isis.” AJPh 108: 444–450.
Houston, G. W. 1988. “Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant
Ships and Ports.” AJA 92: 553–564.
Katzev, M. L. 1990. “An Analysis of the Experimental Voyages of Kyrenia II.” In Tropis II, 2nd
International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delphi 1987, edited by H. Tzalas,
245–256. Athens: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition.
c52 886
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
Ships and Boats
887
Katzev, M. L. and S. W. Katzev. 1989. “Kyrenia II: Building a Replica of an Ancient Greek Mer­
chantman.” In Tropis I, 1st International Symposium of Ship Construction in Antiquity, Piraeus
1985, edited by H. Tzalas, 163–176. Athens: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical
Tradition.
Marchaj, C. A. 1996. Sail Performance: Theory and Practice. London: Adlard Coles Nautical.
Mor, H. and Y. Kahanov. 2006. “The Dor 2001/1 Shipwreck, Israel: A Summary of the Excava­
tion.” IJNA 35: 274–289.
Murray, W. M. 2012. The Age of Titans: The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Olaberria, J.‐P. 2014. “The Conception of Hull Shape by Shell‐builders in the Ancient Mediter­
ranean”. IJNA 43: 351–368.
Palmer, C. 2009. “Reflections on the Balance of Traditional Sailing Vessels.” IJNA 38: 90–96.
Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. Oxford:
BAR‐IS 580.
Pomey, P. 1981. “L’Épave de Bon‐Port et les Bateaux Cousus de Méditerranée.” Mariner’s
­Mirror 67: 225–243.
Pomey, P. 1998. “Les épaves grecques du VIe siècle av. J.‐C. de la place Jules‐Verne à Marseille.”
In Construction navale maritime et fluviale, edited by P. Pomey and É. Rieth, 148–160. Paris:
CNRS éditions.
Pomey, P., Y. Kahanov, and E. Rieth. 2012. “Transition from Shell to Skeleton in Ancient Medi­
terranean Ship‐Construction: Analysis, Problems and Future Research.” IJNA 41: 235–314.
Pryor, J. H. 1994. “The Mediterranean Round Ship.” In Cogs, Caravels and Galleons: The Sailing
Ship, 1000–1650, edited by R. W. Unger, 57–76. London: Conway Maritime Press.
Pulak, C. 1998. “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview.” IJNA 27: 188–224.
Rankov, B., ed. 2012. Trireme Olympias: Final Report. Oxford: Oxbow.
Santamaria, C. 1995. “L’épave Dramont ‘E’ a Saint‐Raphael (Ve siècle apres J‐C).” Archaeonautica 13: 1–198.
Steffy, J. R. 1985. “The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on its Hull Construction.” AJA 89:
71–101.
Steffy, J. R. 1994. Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station:
Texas A&M Press
Tchernia, A. and P. Pomey. 1978. “L’épave romaine de la Madrague de Giens.” Gallia Supple­
ment 34.
Tusa, S. and J. Royal. 2012. “The Landscape of the Naval Battle at the Egadi Islands (241 BC).”
JRA 25: 7–48.
Tzalas, H. 1990. “Kyrenia II in the Fresco of Pedoula Church, Cyprus: A Comparison with ancient
Ship Iconography.” In Tropis II, 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity,
Delphi 1987 edited by H. Tzalas, 323–327. Athens: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of
Nautical Tradition.
van Doorninck, F. H., Jr. 1976. “The 4th Century Wreck at Yassi Ada: An Interim Report on the
Hull.” IJNA 5: 115–131.
Whitewright, J. 2007. “Roman Rigging Material from the Red Sea Port of Myos Hormos.” IJNA
36: 282–292.
Whitewright, J. 2009. “The Mediterranean Lateen Rig of Late‐Antiquity.” IJNA 38: 97–104.
Whitewright, J. 2011a. “The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs.”
IJNA 40: 2–17.
Whitewright, J. 2011b. “Efficiency or Economics? Sail Development in the Ancient Mediterra­
nean.” In Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship Design and Navigation, edited by
W. V. Harris and K. Iara, 89–102. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: JRA Supplementary Series No. 84.
Ximénès, S. and M. Moerman. 1990. “Port romain des Laurons (Martigues): Éléments
d’accastillage Antiques.” Cahiers d’archéologie subaquatique 9: 5–25.
c52 887
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm
888
Julian Whitewright
Further Reading
Adams, J. 2001. “Ships and Boats as Archaeological Source Material.” World Archaeology
32: 292–310. Argues for the significance of watercraft as a source for social history.
Basch, L. 1987. Le Musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens: Institut hellenique
pour la préservation de la tradition nautique.
Harris, W. V. and K. Iara, eds. 2011. Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship
Design and Navigation. Portsmouth, RI: JRA Supplementary Series No. 84. A collection
of articles on the nexus between sailing technology and economics.
Olaberria 2014. Explores the presence of geometric design principles underpinning the
conception of vessels within Punic, Hellenistic, and Roman shipbuilding traditions, and
the implications this has for our understanding of wider trajectories of technological
change in ship construction.
Pomey, P., Y. Kahanov, and E. Rieth. 2012. “Transition from Shell to Skeleton in
Ancient Mediterranean Ship‐Construction: Analysis, Problems and Future Research.”
IJNA 41: 235–314.
Steffy, R. 1994. An introduction to the methods, aims, and discoveries of nautical
archaeology.
Whitewright, J. 2011. “The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing
Rigs.” IJNA 40: 2–17. Offers insights into the relative performance of lateen/settee
and square‐sail rigged ships.
c52 888
16 December 2015 6:32 PM 246mm×189mm