Black Laughter / Black Protest: Civil Rights, Respectability ...
Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship
24
Transcript of Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship
BETWEEN CONTINENTS
Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship ArchaeologyIstanbul 2009
Edited by
Nergis Günsenin
ISBSA 12Sponsored and Hosted by the
Istanbul Research Institute of the Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation
Under the auspices of the Underwater Technology Program at Istanbul University’s Vocational School of Technical Sciences in partnership with
the Faculty of Letters, Department of Restoration and Conservation of Artefacts
OFFPRINT
BETWEEN CONTINENTS
Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship ArchaeologyIstanbul 2009
ISBSA 12
Edited by Nergis Günsenin
© 2012 Ege YayınlarıISBN No: 978-605-4701-02-5
Published byEge Yayınları
Publisher Certificate No: 14641
Cover illustrationAntoine Ignace Melling, A Picturesque Voyage to Constantinople and the Shores of the Bosphorus,
“View of the Naval Shipyards of Constantinople”
Cover designAydın Tibet
All rights reserved.
Printed byParagraf Basım Sanayi A.Ş.
Yüzyıl Mah. Matbaacılar Sit.2. Cad. No: 202/A Bağcılar İstanbul
Tel: 0212 629 06 07 Fax: 0212 629 03 85Certificate No: 18469
Production and Distribution Zero Prodüksiyon
Kitap-Yayın-Dağıtım San. Ltd. Şti.Abdullah Sokak, No: 17, Taksim, 34433 İstanbul/Türkiye
Tel: +90 (212) 244 7521 Fax: +90 (212) 244 3209E.mail: [email protected]
www.zerobooksonline.comwww.egeyayinlari.com
With special thanks to
To the memory of
Ole Crumlin-Pedersen (1935-2011) and
Claude Duthuit (1931-2011)
Crumlin-Pedersen founder of the Viking Ship Museum at Roskilde heralded a whole new area of archaeological fieldwork and remained a seminal and inspirational figure in nautical archaeology. Duthuit not only acted as director of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA), but made lifelong contributions to the field. It is thanks to his dedication and his passion that several excavation efforts, including
those at Cape Gelidonya, have come to life.
Contents
List of Contributors ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... x
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... xiii
Keynote address: A Brief History of Nautical Archaeology in Turkey by George F. Bass ..................................................................................... xvii
A. News from the Mediterranean 1. Between the Seabed and the Public: Data Collection for a Virtual Museum from the Underwater Survey
at Kaş, Turkey Güzden Varinlioğlu and Elif Denel ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Pharaonic Ship Remains of Ayn Sukhna Patrice Pomey ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Middle Bronze Age Boat of Mitrou, Central Greece Aleydis Van de Moortel .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
4. Iron Age Phoenician Shipwreck Excavation at Bajo de la Campana, Spain: Preliminary Report from the Field Mark E. Polzer .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
5. Kızılburun Column Wreck Preliminary Hull Analysis: Maximum Results from Minimum Remains John D. Littlefield .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
6. Tantura E: Hull Construction Report Eyal Israeli and Yaacov Kahanov ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
7. A 16th -Century Wreck Found near the Island of Mljet, Croatia Igor Mihajlović, Igor Miholjek and Mladen Pešić ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
8. Akko 1 Shipwreck: The Archaeological Find and its Historical Context Deborah Cvikel ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 59
B. News from Northern Europe 9. A 15th -Century Bulk Carrier, Wrecked off Skaftö, Western Sweden Staffan von Arbin .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67
10. Barcode Project: Fifteen Nordic Clinker-Built Boats from the 16th and 17th Centuries in the City Centre of Oslo, Norway
Jostein Gundersen ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75
11. Loss and Rediscovery of the Swedish ‘Prinsessan Hedvig Sophia’ in the Baltic Sea near Kiel, Germany Jens Auer and Martin Segschneider ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 81
12. Investigation of the Wreck Site of the 18th -Century Russian Warship ‘St. Alexander’ near the Tarkhankutski Lighthouse (Crimea, Ukraine)
Oleg A. Zolotarev and Viktor D. Kobets ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
vi Contents
13. Identification of the 18th -Century Shipwreck W-27 on the Basis of a Comparative Analysis of Archaeological and Archival Sources
Tomasz Bednarz ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
C. The Byzantıne Shıps at Yenikapı14. ‘City’ Harbours from Antiquity through Medieval Times Nergis Günsenin ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
15. Byzantine Shipwrecks at Yenikapı Ufuk Kocabaş ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 107
16. Hull Characteristics of the Yenikapı 12 Shipwreck Işıl Özsait Kocabaş ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115
17. Preliminary Report on the Yenikapı 17 Shipwreck Evren Türkmenoğlu ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 121
18. Ethnicity and Sphere of Activity of the Crew of the 11th -Century Serçe Limanı Ship: Some Tentative Observations Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127
D. Medıterranean and Black Sea Shıps and Seafarıng19. Byzantine Ship Graffiti in the Kilise Mescidi of Amasra Kostas A. Damianidis .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 135
20. Roman Ships Carrying Marble: Were These Vessels in Some Way Special? Carlo Beltrame and Valeria Vittorio .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 141
21. Between East and West in the Roman Empire: Skippers and Shipowners from the Eastern Mediterranean Thomas Schmidts .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 149
22. 14th -Century Galley Fleet from the Black Sea: The Case of Codex 5 in the Hellenic Institute of Venice Yannis D. Nakas ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 157
23. Reflections on the Graffiti of Haghia Sophia at Trebizond (Trabzon), Turkey Lucien Basch ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 165
24. İnebolu Boat: Last Surviving Black Sea Ship of ‘Shell-First’ Construction and the Evolution of Boatbuilding in the Western Black Sea Coast of Anatolia
Hüseyin Çoban .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 171
E. Ottoman Shıpbuıldıng25. Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship Kroum N. Batchvarov .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 175
26. Technological Developments in the Imperial Dockyard (Tersane-i Amire): Anchor Manufacture for the Galleons of the Ottoman Navy
Yusuf Alperen Aydın ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 183
27. A Lesser Known Branch in the Ottoman Imperial Dockyard: Tîr-i Güverte Metin Ünver ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 189
F. Shıp Constructıon28. Wreck of the 1st -Century AD Lyon Saint-Georges 8 (Rhône, France): A Ferry or a Ligther from the River Saône? Marc Guyon and Eric Rieth .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 195
29. Arles-Rhône 3: Architectural and Paleobotanical Study of a Gallo-Roman Barge from the 1st Century in the Rhône River
Sabrina Marlier, Sandra Greck, Frédéric Guibal and Valérie Andrieu-Ponel ............................................................................................................ 203
viiContents
30. Introductory Note to a 1202 Genoese Trading Ship (navis) Furio Cicilliot ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 211
31. 15th -Century EP1-Canche Wreck (Pas-de-Calais, France): A Fluvio-Maritime Coaster of Cog Tradition in the North of France?
Eric Rieth .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 217
32. Drogheda Boat: A Story to Tell Holger Schweitzer ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 225
33. Regional Characteristics of the Iberian-Atlantic Shipbuilding Tradition: Arade 1 Shipwreck Case Study Vanessa Loureiro ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 233
34. Use of Pine Sheathing on Dutch East India Company Ships Wendy Van Duivenvoorde ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 241
35. Early Modern and Pre-Industrial Archaeological Inland Ship Finds from Poland Waldemar Ossowski ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 253
G. Experimental Archaeology36. Sea Stallion from Glendalough: Testing the Hypothesis Søren Nielsen .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 261
37. Travel Speed in the Viking Age: Results of Trial Voyages with Reconstructed Ship Finds Anton Englert ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 269
38. Waterways from the Varangians to the Greeks: Some Results of Experimental Study on Medieval Navigation Petr E. Sorokin ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 279
39. Reconstruction and Sailing Performance of an Ancient Egyptian Ship Cheryl Ward, Patrick Couser, David Vann, Tom Vosmer and Mohamed M. Abd el-Maguid ................................................................ 287
40. Jewel of Muscat: The Reconstruction of a 9th -Century Sewn-Plank Boat Tom Vosmer ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 293
41. Design and Recreation of a 17th -Century Taiwanese Junk: Preliminary Report Jeng-Horng Chen ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 297
H. Research Methods42. Development of an Adaptive Method for the Rescue of 15 Shipwrecks from a Construction Site
in Oslo Harbour: Need for Speed Hilde Vangstad ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 305
43. Recent Advances in Post-Excavation Documentation: Roskilde Method Morten Ravn .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 313
44. Three-Dimensional Recording and Hull Form Modelling of the Newport (Wales) Medieval Ship Nigel Nayling and Toby Jones .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 319
45. Well Preserved or Well Recorded: Approaches to Baltic Sea Shipwrecks Exemplified by the Dalarö-Wreck Project Niklas Eriksson and Patrik Höglund .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 325
46. Hypothetical Reconstruction of the Dramont E Shipwreck Pierre Poveda ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 331
47. Reconstruction of the Oseberg Ship: Evaluation of the Hull Form Vibeke Bischoff ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 337
Valérie Andreieu-PonelAix-Marseille Université-CNRS, Europôle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, BP 80, 13 545 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 04, [email protected]
Staffan von ArbinBohusläns museum, Box 403, SE-451 19 Uddevalla, [email protected]
Yusuf A. AydınIstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of History, Ordu Cad., Laleli 34459, Istanbul, [email protected]
Jens AuerUniversity of Southern Denmark, Maritime Archaeology Programme, Niels Bohrs Vej 9, 6700 Esbjerg, [email protected]
Lucien BaschAvenue Armand Huysmans 206, bte 9, 1050 Bruxelles, [email protected]
George F. Bass Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University, and Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, [email protected]
Kroum N. BatchvarovUniversity of Connecticut, Academic Building 116 C, 1084 Shennecossett RoadGroton, Connecticut 06340, [email protected]
Tomasz BednarzPolish Maritime Museum, Ołowianka 9-13, 80751, Gdańsk, [email protected]
Carlo Beltrame Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Dorsoduro 3484/D 30123, Venezia, [email protected]
Vibeke BischoffThe Viking Ship Museum,Vindeboder 12, 4000 Roskilde, [email protected]
Jeng-Horng ChenDepartment of Systems and Naval Mechatronic Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Rd., Tainan 70101, [email protected]
Furio Ciciliotvia Guidobono 38/3, 17100 Savona, [email protected]
Deborah CivikelDepartment of Maritime Civilizations and Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, [email protected]
Patrick Couser Sunnypowers Limited, 1 rue Saint Blaise, Bagneres de Bigorre, 65200, France [email protected]
Hüseyin Çoban Bartın 74300, Amasra, [email protected]
Kostas A. DamianidisDeligiorgi 51-53, 10437Athens, [email protected]
Elif DenelAmerican Research Institute in Turkey, Şehit Ersan cad. 24/9, Çankaya, Ankara 06680, [email protected]
Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr.Emeritus Professor of Nautical Archaeology,Texas A&M University and Institute of Nautical Archaeology6200 Pelham Court, Bryan, 77802-6059, Texas, [email protected]
List of Contributors
ixList of Contributors
Wendy van DuivenvoordeDepartment of Maritime Archaeology, Shipwreck Galleries, Western AustralianMuseum, 47 Cliff Street, Fremantle, WA 6160, [email protected]
Anton EnglertThe Viking Ship Museum,Vindeboder 12, 4000 Roskilde, [email protected]
Niklas ErikssonSödertörn University, SE-141 89 Huddinge, [email protected]
Sandra GreckArkaeos association, 1 boulevard Longchamp, 13001 Marseille, [email protected]
Frédéric GuibalAix-Marseille Université-CNRS, Europôle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, BP 80, 13 545 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 4, [email protected]
Jostein GundersenThe Norwegian Maritime Museum, Bygdøynesveien 37, 0286 Oslo, [email protected]
Marc GuyonInrap, 12, rue Louis Maggiorini, 69500 Bron, [email protected]
Nergis GünseninIstanbul University, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Underwater Technology Program, Avcılar 34320, Istanbul, [email protected]
Patrik HöglundSwedish National Maritime Museums, BOX 27 131, 10252, Stockholm, [email protected]
Eyal Israeli Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, [email protected]
Toby JonesNewport Medieval Ship Project, Newport Museum and Heritage Service, Newport Ship Centre, Unit 22, Maesglas Industrial Estate, Newport, Wales, NP20 2NN, United [email protected]
Yaacov KahanovLeon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, [email protected]
Viktor D. KobetsKiev State University of Taras Shevchenko, [email protected]
Ufuk KocabaşIstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Conservation of Marine ArchaeologicalObjects, Ordu Cad., Laleli 34459, Istanbul, [email protected]
Işıl Özsait KocabaşIstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Conservation of Marine ArchaeologicalObjects, Ordu Cad., Laleli 34459, Istanbul, [email protected]
John D. LittlefieldNautical Archaeology Program, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, [email protected]
Vanessa LoureiroRua das Janelas Verdes, nº 4-4º, 1200-691, Lisbon, [email protected]
Mohamed M. Abd-el-MaguidSupreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt, National Maritime Museum, 270 Tariq El-Gueish, Alexandria, [email protected]
Sabrına MarlıerConseil Général des Bouches-du-Rhône - Direction de la CultureMusée Départemental Arles Antique, Presqu’île du Cirque RomainBP 205 - 13635 Arles Cedex, [email protected]
Igor MihajlovićDepartment for Underwater Archaeology, Croatian Conservation Institute, Cvijete Zuzorić 43HR – 10000 Zagreb, [email protected]
Igor MiholjekDepartment for Underwater Archaeology, Croatian Conservation Institute, Cvijete Zuzorić 43HR – 10000 Zagreb, [email protected]
Aleydis van de MoortelDepartment of Classics, 1101 McClung Tower, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, [email protected]
Yannis D. NakasIsaia Salonon 13, 11475 Gyzi, Athens, [email protected]
Nigel NaylingSchool of Archaeology, History and Anthropology, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales, SA48 7ED, United [email protected]
Søren NielsenThe Viking Ship Museum,Vindeboder 12, 4000 Roskilde, [email protected]
x
Waldemar Ossowski Polish Maritime Museum, Ołowianka 9-13, 80751, Gdańsk, [email protected]
Mladen Pešić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar Božidara Petranovića 1 HR-23000 Zadar, Coratia [email protected]
Mark E. PolzerArchaeology M405, The University of Western Australia35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, [email protected]
Patrice PomeyCentre Camille Jullian, CNRS , Université de Provence, 5 rue du Château de l’Horloge,1390 Aix-en-Provence, [email protected]
Pierre PovedaBureau d’archéologie Navale, B032, MMSH, 5 rue du Château de l’HorlogeBP 647 13094, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2, [email protected]
Morten RavnThe Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Vindeboder 12, 4000 Roskilde, [email protected]
Eric RiethCNRS (LAMOP), Musée National de la Marine, Palais de Chaillot 75116 Paris, [email protected]
Thomas Schmidts Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsbereich und Museum für Antike Schiffahrt, Neutorstraße 2b, 55116 Mainz, Germany [email protected]
Holger SchweitzerMartime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark, Niels Bohr Vej 9, 6700 Esbjerg, [email protected]
Martin SegschneiderArchaeological State Office Schleswig-Holstein, Schloss Annettenhöh, Brockdorff-Rantzau Str. 7024837 Schleswig, [email protected]
Petr SorokinInstitute of the History Material Culture, Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, Dvorzovaja nab. 18., 191186, [email protected]
Evren TürkmenoğluIstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects Ordu Cad., Laleli 34459, Istanbul, [email protected]
Metin ÜnverIstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of History, Ordu Cad., 34459 Laleli, Istanbul, [email protected]
Hilde VangstadThe Norwegian Maritime Museum, Bygdøynesveien 37, 0286 Oslo, [email protected]
David VannUniversity of San Francisco, 33 East Las Palmas Ave., Fremont, CA 94539, [email protected]
Güzden VarinlioğluSualtı Araştırmaları Derneği, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bulvarı, Akıncılar Sokak, 10/1 Maltepe, Ankara, [email protected]
Valeria Vittorio via G. , Marconi 66/a, 36016 Thiene (VI), [email protected]
Tom VosmerMinistry of Foreign Affairs, PO Box 812, Postal Code 100, Muscat, Sultanate of [email protected]
Cheryl WardDirector, Center for Archaeology and Anthropology, Department of History Coastal Carolina University, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, SC 29528-6054, USA [email protected]
Oleg A. Zolotarev18-35 Lenınsky Village, Leninsky District, Tula Region, [email protected]
List of Contributors
Preface
The island of Tatihou in France was the site of the first ISBSA meeting I attended in 1994. Encircled by seminal figures in our field, it was the most inspir-ing event of my academic career. At the time, it be-came clear that the attendees were eager to hold one of their future meetings in Turkey. Their wish was the driving force that finally led me to this special day.
Positioned between two continents, Istanbul was the perfect place to hold the Symposium. Throughout history, the exchange of goods and cultures between east and west, as well as north and south, was realized in the waters off the Anatolian coast, with the Black Sea to the north, the Sea of Marmara to the north-west, the Aegean Sea to the west, and the Mediterra-nean Sea to the south. Given the vast area of interest, we invited participants to focus on the four seas and address their pivotal role not only for Turkey but also for the rest of the world.
The Turkish coastline had already been the site of pioneering underwater excavations since the 1960s. Indeed, nautical archaeology was initiated
in Turkey under G. F. Bass and further developed under the auspices of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA). Today, the development of nautical archaeology and boat and ship archaeology on an international level far surpasses the initially limited field of underwater archaeology. Moreover, the discovery of the harbour of Theodosius, one of the most outstanding archaeological events of our era, has further enriched our field and added yet another dimension to our symposium.
The excavations in the harbour are still ongoing. Thirty-six shipwrecks dating from the 5th to the 11th centuries have been excavated. Their study will make an enormous contribution to our understanding of ship construction and the transition from shell-first to skeleton-first techniques. It will also allow us to re-examine Byzantine trade and the economy of the period. Furthermore, the remains revealing settlements dating back to 6500 BC, will shed new light on our understanding of the history of the an-cient peninsula.
Fig. 1. Group photograph of the participants of ISBSA 12 (Photo: Engin Şengenç).
Prefacexii
The ISBSA 12 was held under the auspices of the Underwater Technology Program at Istanbul Uni-versity’s Vocational School of Technical Sciences in partnership with the Faculty of Letters, Department of Restoration and Conservation of Artefacts. It was sponsored and hosted by the Istanbul Research In-stitute of the Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation and was held at the Foundation’s Pera Museum on 12-16 October, 2009.
More than 200 participants from 24 countries attended the Symposium where 50 papers, 25 post-ers, and various films were presented (Fig. 1). This also allowed numerous young scholars to present their work and contribute to ongoing debates in our field and even launch new areas of research based on recent discoveries. The papers for the sympo-sium were selected by the ISBSA committee from among a multitude of excellent proposals. The mission of the ISBSA is focused on ship construc-tion. While related subjects are welcome, the main thrust has traditionally been a discussion of the ship itself.
It is our hope that the conference theme which has helped bring together numerous scholars from around the world, will also bring together the two sub-fields of archaeology which have until recently
remained separate. It is believed that a genuine the-matic and methodological dialogue between land and underwater archaeology can only enrich the field and uncover the mysteries of past civilizations. “Between Continents” will thus re-map our field and reset its intellectual boundaries.
Following the Symposium, an excursion to Amasra on 16-18 October offered the opportunity to visit workshops that still continue the traditional art of shipbuilding in Tekkeönü and Kurucaşile in the Black Sea Region. Participants learned methods of ship construction directly from the local ship-builders. The Shipbuilding Program at the Kurucaşile Technical High School, the Amasra Castle, and the Amasra Archaeological Museum were among the lo-cal sites included in the itinerary (Fig. 2). Hüseyin Çoban was pivotal to the success of this excursion; his hospitality and his immense knowledge of tradi-tional shipbuilding enriched our trip.
Like many other scholars in our field, I owe my presence here today to George Bass who not only accepted our invitation to attend the symposium but also graciously delivered the keynote address. Frederick van Doorninck, Jr., the late Claude Duthuit, Don Frey and Robin Piercy from the Institute of Nautical Archaeology further enriched
Fig. 2. Group photograph of the participants of the Amasra excursion.
Preface xiii
this symposium with their presence. It was a genuine honour to have them in our midst. As in all scholarly disciplines the master - apprentice relationship is central to our field. This was made amply clear during the course of this symposium.
However, our field is based not only on scholarly research. The constant interaction between nature and humans is an inextricable part of it: sailing on a fickle sea, working in the hostile underwater envi-ronment, and living in often difficult conditions are among the challenges that make our field so special.
May God save sailors and nautical archaeologists for future research and many more symposia!
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Suna, İnan and İpek Kıraç, founders of the Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation, and Özalp Birol, General Director of the Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation Culture and Art Enterprises; they made it possible for us to hold the meeting at the Pera Museum. The hospitality of the museum staff was also central to the success of this meeting.
My thanks also go to Gülru Tanman of the Istanbul Research Institute whose help and friendship made it easier to navigate through a complexity of organisational issues. Erkan Bora, also of the Istanbul Research Institute, deserves special thanks for his assistance, not only during the Symposium, but also during the excursion to Amasra. Else Snitker welcomed everyone with her endless energyand friendly, familiar countenance.
I want to express my gratitude to Zeynep Kızıltan, directress of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, who made it possible for us to visit the Yenikapı excavation site.
Commandant Ali Rıza İşipek generously opened storerooms of the Istanbul Naval Museum, which is presently under construction. Thanks to him, partici-pants had the opportunity to see the sultans’ kayıks and the famous kadırga.
The Setur Travel Company team contributed to a remarkable organisation.
My heartfelt thanks also go to Carlo Beltrame, Ronald Bockius, Anton Englert, and Fred Hocker, who shared their invaluable experience as previous ISBSA organisers.
I would also like to acknowledge Ayşın Akyor for providing much needed editorial help with the Eng-lish text.
Finally, my sincere thanks go to Rezan Benatar for her valuable intellectual and editorial contributions. She not only helped create a seamless text but also at-tempted to make rather complex material intelligible to the reader.
The success of a symposium is always determined by the contributions of its participants. I would like to sincerely thank each and every one of them for an intellectually stimulating exchange.
This volume is published by Ege Yayınları which has a long-standing commitment to archaeological research. I would like to thank its owner Ahmet Boratav for his interest in our work. My thanks also go to Hülya Tokmak for her patience with the layout of the manuscript.
25. Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship
Kroum N. Batchvarov
Between 2000 and 2003 the Institute of Nautical Ar-chaeology (INA) in cooperation with the Bulgarian Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Sozopol, un-dertook the excavation of a postmedieval vessel off the Bulgarian coast. Based on the artefactual assem-blage recovered from the wreck, its sinking is likely to have occurred in the last years of the 18th or in the first years of the 19th century. Descriptions of the re-mains have previously been published (Batchvarov 2009, 2006; Porozhanov 2000). The extensive preser-vation of the vessel permitted the hull reconstruction as well as an insight into the method employed by the shipwright in building the vessel.
Reconstruction of the Kitten Ship
The reconstruction of the Kitten ship lines (Fig. 25.1) was based on the archaeological evidence of 11 re-corded sections, traditional proportions, iconography
and some limited comparative material from vernac-ular boats (Batchvarov 2009: 109-168). The dimen-sions of the one recovered deck beam, which formed the forward end of the mastpartners, provided the moulded breadth of the Kitten ship to within a few centimeters and enabled the author to calculate the hull proportions. Table 25.1 presents a comparison of the main dimensions and ratios of the Kitten ship with a sample of Mediterranean sources for ves-sels dating from the Renaissance to the 19th century (Batchvarov 2009: 112). The figures demonstrate that the Kitten ship falls in the mid-range of values and suggests that the listed Mediterranean proportions are probably also relevant for this Black Sea vessel.
Little survives to guide the researcher in estab-lishing the bow and stern rakes of the Kitten ship. The stem survived only up to the level of the keel-son (Fig. 25.2), but two floor timbers, that original-ly were stepped on the stem and were found in the
Source LOA in m LKL in m Beam in m DepthFloor
Length LOA/B LKL/B B/D B/Floor
Culip VI (reconstructed) 16.5 c 11 4.11 1.94 n/a 4 2.7 2.1 n/a
Contarina I (1300) 20.8 16.5 5.2 n/a 2.63 4.03 3.2 n/a 2
Nave Latina, c 1410 27.5 20.7 8.28? n/a 3.1 3.32 2.5 n/a 2.7
Nave Quadra,1410 33.6 22.2 9.22 4.52 3.93 3.58 2.5 2 2.4
Contarina II (1550) 20.5 14.5 6.3 n/a 1.67 3.25 2.3 n/a 3.8
Timbotta’s 250-botte nave n/a 20.8 7.13 2.96 2.96 n/a 2.9 2.4 2.4
Pre Teodoro Nave (1550) 24.9 17.4 8 4 2.44 3.1 2.8 2 3.3
Pre Teodoro Galleon (1550) 47.5 34.8 13.5 5.92 3.83 3.6 2.7 2.2 3.4
Kitten Shipwreck c 1800 23? 16.6 7.46 3.56 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.1 3.1
Tartane, c 1800 13.5 10? 4.21 1.99 n/a 3.2 2.4 2.1 n/a
Table 25.1. Comparison of typical Mediterranean Hull Proportions and the Kitten Ship.
Kroum N. Batchvarov176
bow area, had well-preserved bevelled lower faces, that offered guidance in reconstructing a plausible fair curve for the lower stem as high as waterline 5 (Fig. 25.1). The curve of the upper stem, however, is conjectural and based on iconographic evidence (Batchvarov 2009: 116; Müller-Wiener 1994: plate 20; Ovcharov 1992: 120-126; Tzamtzis 1972: 53-174), personal observations of the general shape of stems on traditional Black Sea boats, and espe-cially the proportions derived from the two Turk-ish coasters published by Edmond Paris (Paris 1999: pls 103, 109).
The better preserved sternpost allows more con-fident reconstruction of the stern. The rake and height proportions were calculated from Admiral Paris’ drawings and compared to the values provided by Damianidis (Batchvarov 2009: 118; (Paris 1999); Damianidis 1989, Table 6). The general shape is based on the archaeological material and icono-graphic evidence (Ovcharov 1992:152-191).
A goniometer, an angle-measuring device, was used to record 11 sections across the vessel (Cozzi 1998). The lines plan was drawn from this data and the reconstructed profile of the ship. The extensive preservation of a coherent structure permitted the
calculation of the likely displacement and a par-tial hydrostatical analysis that offer a glimpse of the possible performance under sail of the Kitten ship (Batchvarov 2002: 132-139; Batchvarov 2011: 250-266).
The calculations were based on the assumption that the normal load waterline of the vessel was be-tween waterline 5 and waterline 6 (Fig. 25.1). The estimate was reached by determining that the end of the rudder pintle reached about waterline 6, as on double-ended vessels pintles usually protruded above the water. Displacement and all other cal-culations, however, were carried out for both load waterlines, 5 and 6. Using the trapezoidal rule, the volumetric displacement for waterline 5 was de-termined to be 114.4 m3, giving a weight displace-ment of 117.3 metric tons (Steffy 1994: 251-252). At load waterline 6 the respective values would be 158.3 m3 and 162.3 metric tons. Thus, it can be es-timated that the Kitten ship displaced at light load about 117 tons and at full load about 160 tons. Based on the reconstruction, it can be projected that the ship, without its rig and empty, weighed between 25 and 35 metric tons, thus leaving a payload of 120-130 tons.
Fig. 25.1. Lines of the Kitten Ship (Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov).
Fig. 25.2. Longitudinal section of the hull (Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov).
25. Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship 177
To develop an estimate of the probable perfor-mance of the Kitten ship, all hydrostatical coefficients were calculated. Table 25.2 lists the values and com-pares them to the usual values for modern sailboats. The block coefficient was found to be relatively low (0.40), indicating that the hull had low resistance. In practical terms this means that the vessel would have required less ‘power’ to be driven through the water up to hull speed. Thus a modest rig would have been sufficient for its operation, limiting the loads on the hull caused by the rig.
Coefficient Kitten Ship Modern craft Block 0.40 0.35-0.45Prismatic 0.56 0.50-0.56Waterline plane 0.62 0.65-0.80
Table 25.2. Hydrostatic coefficients of the Kitten ship.
The prismatic coefficient describes the distribu-tion of hull volume. The prismatic coefficient for the Kitten ship, 0.57, falls in the higher end of values, indicating full ends. Higher values are advantageous in vessels intended to sail in stronger wind condi-tions, though, in the case of the Kitten ship, the high prismatic coefficient is probably more result of maxi-mizing carrying capacity than anticipated weather conditions.
The coefficient of the waterline plane illustrates the fullness of the hull and thus gives some indica-tion of initial stability. The Kitten ship has a water-line plane coefficient that is on the low end of the now usual design range and may be explained by the double-ended shape of the hull. The somewhat low value of the coefficient indicates that under sail the ship may have been tender and prone to heeling. Likely, the ship was lateen or settee-rigged and this tendency would have been compensated by the rig’s ability to spill wind, rather than endanger the vessel (Batchvarov 2009: 169-222).
The midship section coefficient for the Kitten ship demonstrates that the vessel had full sections, con-sistent with its cargo-carrying purpose.
Measuring the Kitten Ship
A partially successful, but inconclusive, attempt was made to determine the linear measurement sys-tem used by the shipwrights in building the Kitten ship. Depending on the degree of rounding of the results, the recorded measurements can be made to suit either of the two known values of the late
18th century Ottoman architectural arşın (cubit) and even Venetian feet and paces could be made to pro-duce a convincing fit, as it is visible from the table that the overall dimensions of the Kitten ship are close to even divisions in Venetian units (Table 25.3).
In metersIn Venetian
Feet In arşınsKitten Ship
Mustafa III
Selim III
Keel 16.86 48.45 22.07 22.24Beam 7.3 20.97 9.55 9.63Depth 3.56 10.23 4.66 4.69Floor 2.46 7.1 3.22 3.24
In centimeters
In deda
In parmaks
Keelson sided
46 21.2 14.46 14.55
Keelson moulded
19 8.75 5.97 6.01
Sister Keelson moulded
34 15.7 10.69 10.75
Table 25.3. Measurements in Ottoman units.
For conversion factors from metric units to Vene-tian measurements were used the values offered by Sergio Bellabarba: Venetian foot equal to 34.8 cm, divided into 16 deda (Bellabarba 1988).
It is logical to expect the Kitten ship to have been built to Ottoman measurements, but the results of conversions into them are inconclusive. Throughout its history, the ‘standard’ length of the Ottoman cubit or arşın changed. Even in the same period, anecdotal evidence provided by Baron Tott, who was appointed chief architect by Sultan Mustafa III (1757-1774), suggests that there was no standard pattern for the arşın (Özdural 1998: 104). Selim III was the first Sul-tan to establish a publicly accessible standard length for the arşın in 1794-1795. However the political in-stability in the Ottoman Empire of his reign makes it uncertain when the new standard became dominant along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, where the Kitten ship most likely was built. Thus, as the precise date of launching is not known, it is logical to try to compare the scantlings to both arşın known to have been in use in the later 18th century, those of Mustafa III and Selim III. The length of the arşın that Sultan Mustafa III gave to Baron Tott equaled 76.4 cm and was di-vided into 24 digits, parmaks, of 3.18 cm (Özdural 1998: 105-106). The arşın of Selim III was 75.8 cm in length, divided into 24 digits per arşın and 20 digits
Kroum N. Batchvarov178
per arşın. Attempts with the division of 20 proved that this was not used by the shipwright who built the Kitten ship. Arşıns of 24 parmaks (each equal to 3.16 cm), however, give credible results. Determining the correct measurements system is further compli-cated by the fact that the difference in length between Mustafa III’s and Selim III’s arşıns was less than a centimeter (76.4 cm versus 75.8 cm). Thus, there is rarely a clear-cut difference between the two Otto-man units when scantlings are converted from met-ric units. The table demonstrates that Mustafa III’s arşın fits the vessel’s length on the keel well but the beam less so. Selim III’s standard provides a reasona-ble, though less logical value for the keel length (why make it 22 and one-quarter arşın’s, when a rounded 22 is an easier and more natural unit?). However, for the beam it offers a better fit than Mustafa III’s stand-ard (9.76 arşın versus 9.68 arşın). For the scantlings of the ship’s timbers, both arşıns come reasonably close.
Although the evidence is inconclusive, based on the undoubted association of the vessel with the Ot-toman Empire, it is most probable that the master shipwright employed an Ottoman builder’s arşın, though which of the two used in the closing years of the 18th century was employed for the construction of the Kitten ship is virtually impossible to determine with certainty.
Designing the Kitten Ship
With the help of the beam and the recorded surviving part of the midship frame, it was possible to recon-struct the midship section of the vessel (Batchvarov 2009: 123-124). Analysis of the recorded sections (S, P, M, E, the midship frames, 3, 7, 13, 18, 22 and 28) determined that the frames were cut to the same pattern. This was conclusive evidence that the hull was designed using a single mould, adjusted along the length of the vessel for the narrowing of the hull.
This system of design is known as whole-moulding, a method of shipbuilding based on incremental modi-fications of the midship frame to develop the shape of the vessel. Different versions of this system were used around the Mediterranean and up along the Atlantic coast to Northern Europe, including the British Isles (Batchvarov 2009: 122; Damianidis 1989; Bellabarba 1993; Sarsfield 1984).
Based on his analysis of the Culip VI wreck from Catalonia (Spain), Eric Rieth (Rieth 1998: 206) sug-gested that hook scarfs are characteristic of the Medi-terranean shipbuilding tradition, a position accepted by Hocker and McManamon, and are a diagnostic feature for the use of whole-moulding (Hocker & McManamon 2006: 7). The Culip VI wreck is so far the earliest evidence reported for this type of scarf in association with whole-moulding (Rieth 1998a; Rieth 1998b). Discovering the same characteristic in the framing of the Kitten vessel supported the argu-ment that the shape of this ship was also developed by whole-moulding.
In surviving Venetian shipbuilding treatises, the guides for the incremental modifications to the midship frame required by this design process, are known as partisoni (Hocker & McManamon 2006: 1). Among the clearer descriptions of the physical pro-cess of shaping the hull through moulds and partisoni is Joseph Furtenbach’s Architectura Navalis, pub-lished in 1629 (Furtenbach 1629). The starting point for all variations of whole-moulding is the shape of the midship frame, which was transferred to patterns or moulds. Modified through partisoni, these moulds were used to shape the rest of the frames. In the clas-sic Venetian system four partisoni were used: the nar-rowing of the floor, the rising of the floor, the nar-rowing of the breadth and the rising of the breadth (Hocker & McManamon 2006: 6). In different vari-ants, the method spread throughout the Mediterra-nean (Marzari 1998: 187). The variations usually lie
Fig. 25.3. The reconstructed mezzaluna and mezzarola used in whole-moulding the Kitten ship (Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov).
25. Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship 179
in the number of predetermined frames, the number of partisoni used, and the exact technique (geometri-cal or arithmetic mechanical aids) of producing their increments. The partisoni determined the positions of the points (sirmarks) at which the different pieces of the mould overlapped, thus forming narrower and sharper mutations of the midship frame. The parti-soni were a function of the number of frames that had to be designed prior to erection on the keel (Marzari 1998: 187).
In whole-moulding’s most basic form, a vessel can be built with a single pre-designed frame, the mid-ship bend, and use of ribbands bent around it and terminating at the stem and sternpost to determine the shape of the other frames. Although a fair shape can be achieved in this way, the available volume of such vessel would be limited. This problem was re-solved through the use of ‘tail-frames’, which pushed the useful volume of the hull into the ends of the ship. It is usually accepted that the method predicted the shapes of the frames between the tail frames and the midship frame, but the ends of the vessel still had to be framed by spiling the timbers to ribbands (Hocker & McManamon 2006: 2). In contrast, almost all frames of the 14th -century Culip VI wreck were moulded, as evidenced by the carpenter’s marks and all of them had hook scarfs (Rieth 2003: 9). Only three frames, placed on top of the stem, do not bear carpenter’s marks and therefore were likely spiled to ribbands. These three frames are also the only ones that did not have hook scarfs. This implies that predetermined frames were always scarfed in this shipbuilding tra-dition, probably because the scarfs aided the aligning of the timbers within the bend. Brad Loewen quotes Joao Baptista Lavanha’s treatise from Portugal and the Spaniard M. de Aroztegui’s shipbuilding Ordi-nances of 1618 as also identifying mortised frames with moulded frames (Loewen 1998: 214). Thus, on the 16th -century Ottoman wreck from Yassıada it is likely that all frames were moulded, as all surviving timbers bear hook scarfs. The same seems to be the case with the 17th-century wreck from Sardineaux, although the incomplete preservation leaves some room for uncertainty (Joncheray 1988: 42-43). In the Kitten ship, the chronologically latest example in the group, half of the frames, a total of 27, bear hook scarfs and thus can be considered pre-designed. From the recording of the hull sections, it is evident that in both extremities of the hull the rising be-yond the last scarfed frame was more marked, as was the narrowing. Thus, the last scarfed frames were
assumed to be the tail frames as they also delineated the central portion of the vessel, a feature typical for Mediterranean practice (Batchvarov 2009: 145-149; Damianidis 1998).
Having established that all futtocks were cut to the same pattern, that the frames in the central portion of the vessel were preassembled and had predeter-mined shapes, it was concluded that some form of whole moulding was used in constructing the ship. The research then was directed at determining the method of controlling the incremental modifications to the midship frame used to derive the shape of the other frames. By fitting a pattern of the midship frame to the recorded frames with hook scarfs, both the rising and the narrowing of the floor timbers were determined. Thus, the ranges of two partisoni could be established. Insufficient hull preservation made it impossible to determine the partisoni of the breadth.
Knowing the maximum narrowing and rising of the floor timbers at the last scarfed frames fore and aft, an attempt was made to find the geometrical aid -a mezzaluna, mezzarola or incremental triangle- that would produce divisions corresponding to the recorded values (Fig. 25.3). Although working solu-tions were found for both rising and narrowing of the floor timbers, the lack of identifiable sirmarks, does not permit one to positively state that one of these methods was indeed utilized in developing the sec-tions of the hull: only that such a method was most probably used.
To determine the narrowing and rising the pre-sumed tail frames -M forward and 13 aft of midships- were redrawn on separate mylar sheets and a mould cut to the shape of the midship frame was maneu-vered into place until it faired with the recorded shape of the respective section. Along the drawn centerline the rising of the mould above the base of the midship frame was measured. The narrowing was measured along the protruding part of the floor mould from the centreline. Although the narrowing was noticeable, the rising was significantly less so. Bellabarba wrote that in the traditional Venetian methods, the rising did not begin with the midship frame and the frames immediately adjacent to it had no rising (Bellabarba 1993: 280). The rising was less than the narrowing and was greater aft than forward, in order to achieve a clean and narrow run of the ship for good steering (Bellabarba 1993: 280). All three characteristics were observed on the Kitten ship.
Kroum N. Batchvarov180
Knowing the maximum narrowing or rising at the tail-frames and the narrowing and rising at intermediate stations between the midship frame and the tail-frames, experiments were undertaken to find the geometrical aid that would produce in-crements fitting the measured values for frames E and 7.
As this was a trial and error process, mezzalunas and mezzarolas were constructed to cover the most probable scenarios. The mezzaluna is arguably the best known geometrical aid, and instructions on its use are frequent in contemporary literature on ship design. A drawing of a mezzaluna is to be found in the mid-15th-century Zorzi da Modon (Trombetta) manuscript (Anderson 1925: 154). Furtenbach, writ-ing in 1629, offered instructions on constructing a mezzaluna (Furtenbach 1629: 33).
The mezzaluna is a half circle, with a diameter equal to the total narrowing or rising. The two quar-ter circles are each divided into as many equal parts as the number of frames over which the narrowing/rising has to be achieved. The divisions on the quar-ters are connected with lines parallel to the diameter, which divide the 90 degrees radius into segments. These segments are the incremental narrowings and risings of the respective frames (Furtenbach 1629: 30). The mezzarola is another similarly constructed geometrical aid, which so far does not appear to have been reported outside the Aegean (Damianidis 1998: 222). A mezzarola is constructed by drawing a line equal in length to the maximum narrowing or ris-ing. From each end an arc is struck, with the two arcs crossing above the line. Each of them is divided into as many equal parts as the number of frames over which the modifications need to be applied. Straight lines, parallel to the base, connect the respective points on each arc. These lines are the incremental modifications to be applied for the respective frames. Damianidis determined that the mezzarola produces slightly fuller, but otherwise similar lines to a mez-zaluna (Damianidis 1998: 230).
The experiment with the Kitten ship began with constructing mezzalunas for the narrowing and ris-ing of the floors before and abaft the midship frame. There are 13 scarfed frames forward of the master frame and the same number aft for a total, with the midship bend of timbers, of 27 scarfed and, presum-ably, pre-designed frames. The fore and aft narrow-ings differed very little from each other (less than 1 cm), and it is most probable that the shipwright originally used the same increments for both, there-by using the same gage. The mezzaluna was con-structed on the basis of 13 frames. The intermediate
sections fit surprisingly well and the other incre-ments also produced results that do not contradict the reconstructed lines. Thus, evidently the incre-mental narrowing of the floor timbers was controlled with a mezzaluna, using all 13 frames from the mas-ter to the tail-frame.
Attempts to make the rising, insignificant in the middle part of the hull, fit dimensions produced by a mezzaluna based on 13-frame, 10-frame and even 7-frame divisions were unsuccessful. A 10-frame mez-zarola, however, fit the risings for these two sections, E and 7. It appears that the shipwright was familiar with more than one geometrical aid for producing partisoni. It should be noted that the same result for the rising could probably be achieved with the use of a batten or by the hanging of a string as a guide. Until the emergence of further evidence, the most that can be said is that a mezzaluna for the narrowing, divided into 13 parts corresponding to the number of scarfed frames on either side of the master frame, and a mez-zarola with 10 divisions, leaving the 3 frames fore and aft of the master with no rising, produce results that best match the archaeological evidence.
Although it has been assumed that the whole moulding of the hull was limited to the scarfed frames only, there is no technical reason why the rest of the hull could not have been moulded too. In fact, this was at least partially the case, as the recorded shape of the futtocks forward of tail-frame M are identical to those within the middle section of the hull. However, the much more haphazardous method of assembling the frames outside the tail-frames, makes it likely that a less structured approach to their shaping was fol-lowed. Most likely ribbands guided the narrowing and rising of the frames in the extremities of the hull, but the actual shape of the timbers was cut according to the same mould that was used for the central part of the vessel.
Based on the archaeological evidence of the wrecks from Catalonia, Yassıada, Sardineaux and Kitten, it appears that a common tradition of whole moulding existed in the south and southeast of Europe at least as early as the 14th century. Experiments with determining the method of controlling the shape of the vessel suggested that the Kitten shipwreck is indeed a late example and development of this old shipbuilding tradition, some of the elements of which, may have been in place in the Eastern Mediterranean region as early as the building of the Bozburun ship in about AD 874 (possibly built not too far from the launching place of the Kitten ship itself) (Batchvarov 2009: 161-165; Harpster 2005; Hocker & McManamon 2006: 1).
25. Design and Construction of a Black Sea Ottoman Ship 181
The reconstructed method of controlling the shape of the Kitten vessel fits well with the tradition recorded in documents from the Italian Renaissance. It is evident that the master shipwright was conver-sant with whole moulding techniques, similar to those described in the extant treatises and observed on the Culip VI wreck. It appears possible that he was aware of the slightly different characteristics of the curves produced with a mezzaluna and a mezzarola, and may have utilized both of them to produce the rising and narrowing of the Kitten ship frames. The use of different geometrical aids demonstrates the flexibility of whole moulding for determining the shape of a vessel.
Similarities between the14th-century Culip VI, the 16th-century Yassıada, the 17th -century Sardineaux and the late 18th -early 19th-century Kitten vessel ar-gue that the Mediterranean and Black Seas shared a common tradition of whole moulding and shipbuild-ing. The hook scarfs between floor timbers and fut-tocks are easily identifiable and diagnostic character-istic of this tradition. It would appear that the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 came about at a time when this shipbuilding practice had already established itself along the western shore, and, the subsequent transformation of the Black Sea into an internal lake for the Ottoman Empire helped preserve it later in this region, than anywhere else in the Mediterranean world.
ReferencesAnderson, R. C., 1925, Italian Naval Architecture about
1445. Mariner’s Mirror 11: 135-163.Batchvarov, K. N., 2006, A Black Sea merchantman. In L.
Blue, F. Hocker & A. Englert (eds), Connected by the Sea. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 306-311.Oxford.
Batchvarov, K. N., 2009. The Kitten Shipwreck: the Archae-ology and Reconstruction of a Black Sea Merchantman. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M Uni-versity.
Batchvarov, K. N., 2011, Shipwreck Reconstruction based on the Archaeological Record: Mediterranean Whole-Moulding and the Kitten Wreck Example. In A. Catsambis, B. Ford & D. Hamilton (eds), Oxford Handbook of Nautical Archaeology, 250-266. New York.
Bellabarba, S., 1988, The Square-Rigged Ship of the Fabri-ca Di Galere Manuscript Part I. Mariner’s Mirror 74.2: 113-130.
Bellabarba, S., 1993, The Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls. Mariner’s Mirror 79.3: 274-292.
Cozzi, J., 1998, The Goniometer: An improved device for recording submerged shipwreck timbers. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27.1: 64-80.
Damianidis, K. A., 1989, Vernacular Boats and Boat-building in Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. St. Andrews University.
Damianidis, K. A., 1998, Methods Used to Control the Form of Vessels in the Greek Traditional Boatyards. In E. Rieth (ed.), Concevoir et Construire les Navires, 217-244. Paris.
Furtenbach, J., 1629, Architectura Navalis. Ulm.Harpster, M., 2005, A Re-assembly and reconstruction of the
9th -century AD vessel wrecked off the coast of Bozburun, Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University.
Hocker, F., McManamon, J., 2006, Medieval Shipbuilding in the Mediterranean and the Written Culture at Venice. Mediterranean Historical Review 21.1: 1-37.
Joncheray, J.-P., 1988, Un Navire de Commerce de la Fin du XVII Siècle, L’ Epave des Sardineaux. Cahiers D’Archeologie Subaquatique VII: 22-67.
Loewen, B., 1998, The Morticed Frames of the XVIth Century Atlantic Ships and the ‘Madeiras da Conta’ of Renaissance Texts. Archaeonautica 14: 213-222.
Marzari, M. 1998, Evolution of Shipbuilding Techniques and Methodologies in Adriatic and Tyrrhenian Traditional Shipyards. In E. Rieth (ed.) Concevoir et construire les navires, 181-215. Paris.
Müller-Wiener, W., 1994, Die Haefen von Byzantion, Konstantinupolis. Istanbul. Tubingen.
Ovcharov, N., 1992, Ships and Shipping in the Black Sea, 14th-19th centuries. Sofia.
Özdural, A., 1998, Sinan’s Arşın: A Survey of Ottoman Architectural Metrology. Muqarnas 15: 101-115.
Paris, E., 1999, Souvenirs de Marine Conservés. Paris.Porozhanov, K., 2000, The Sunken Ship Near Urdoviza:
Preliminary Notes. Archaeologia Bulgarica 4.3: 92-95.Rieth, E., 1998a, L’arquitectura naval. Excavations arquelo-
giques subquatiques a Cala Culip 2; Culip VI, 115-189. Girona.
Rieth, E., 1998b, L’épave du caboteur de Culip VI. Archaeo-nautica 14: 205-212.
Rieth, E., 2003, First Archaeological Evidence of the Mediterranean Moulding Ship Design Method. The Example of the Culip VI Wreck. Spain, XIIth-XIVth c. In H. Nowacki & M. Valleriani (eds), Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods From the Renaissance to the 18th Century, Preprint 245: 9-16.
Sarsfield, J. P., 1984, Mediterranean Whole Moulding. Mariner’s Mirror 70.1: 86-88.
Steffy, J. R., 1994, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpreta-tion of Shipwrecks. College Station.
Tzamtzis, A. I., 1972, Ships, Ports and Sailors. In S. Papadopoulos (ed.), The Greek Merchant Marine, 53-174. Athens.
