Designing the 11th-century AD vessel from Serce Limani, Turkey

Designing the 11th-century-AD vessel from Serçe Limanı,Turkeyijna_227 44..55

Matthew HarpsterDepartment of Archaeology and Art History, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Eastern Mediterranean University,Famagusta, via Mersin–10, Turkey

A previous article investigated the methods used to design the 9th-century vessel from Bozburun, Turkey, and a basicmethodology emerged which combined Richard Steffy’s emphasis on the comprehensive deconstruction of a hull with thesegregation of hull-construction into the phases of conception, design and assembly. This article tests this methodology byapplying it to the 11th-century craft from Serçe Limanı, a vessel studied and reconstructed by Steffy. It discusses the resultingdesign-method, the similarities between this method and that used on the Bozburun vessel, and how we gain insight into changesin the maritime community which built these ships.

© 2010 The Author

Key words: Serçe Limanı Turkey, ship design, Richard Steffy, mould frames, shipbuilding community, Renaissance.

In the previous article, the application ofSteffy’s comprehensive methodology to the9th-century-AD vessel from Bozburun,

Turkey, revealed that four floor-timbers and twotail-frames were erected on the keel, stem andsternpost before any other components wereassembled. By distinguishing these components asthose which manifested hull-shape, and throughthe use of repeated multiples of a set length of345 mm, it was possible to decipher the design-methods potentially used to create the Bozburunvessel and further re-create the cultural context ofthe vessel’s construction. This article, which exam-ines the 11th-century-AD vessel excavated at SerçeLimanı, Turkey, attempts to build on the previouswork by pursuing two goals. The first is to test themethods established in the previous article—byfocusing on those components which wereassembled first, is it possible to decipher a design-method that may have been used to create the11th-century ship? Second, if this design-methodappears to be present, what does it reveal about thecultural context of this vessel’s construction, andwhat do we learn about the maritime communityfrom the 9th to the 11th century AD?

The 11th-century Serçe Limanı shipThis wreck was discovered off the south-easterncoast of Turkey in 1973, and excavated between1977 and 1979 by the Institute of NauticalArchaeology (Bass and van Doorninck, 1978:119, 121). In addition to the cargo of early-medieval glassware, one of the largest collectionsin the world, the site is also important for itspreserved hull material which is now on display inthe Museum of Underwater Archaeology inBodrum, Turkey. The vessel’s framing is particu-larly distinctive because, like the framing in theBozburun vessel, it contains a series of asymmetri-cal floor-timbers which alternate in orientationalong the ship (Steffy, 1994: 88–9). Unlike theBozburun vessel, however, the majority of theframing was asymmetrical; in Bozburun, onlythe seven oak floor-timbers near amidships wereasymmetrical (Harpster, 2005: 115).

Other parallels between the two vessels aremore significant. Multiples of a set length ofapproximately 320 mm were used to define theshapes of some of the components of the SerçeLimanı hull and the locations of some of the

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2010) 39.1: 44–55doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2009.00227.x

© 2009 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

floor-timbers (Steffy, 2004: 155–6). Additionally,the Serçe Limanı midships floor-timber was fixedto the keel first, similar to Bozburun, and it waslocated at a point halfway along the length of thekeel (Harpster, 2002: 413; Steffy, 2004: 155).Moreover, once the midships floor-timber was inplace, the shipbuilders fixed the three floor-timbers 4, A and E to the keel, as well as tail-frames 12 and P, to begin the process ofmanifesting the vessel’s shape (Fig. 1) (Steffy,2004: 155–6). Not only had the shipbuilderserected these floor-timbers and tail-frames beforeany planks were added, they had also effectivelydemarcated the hull into six sections by doing so.

The presence of these characteristics and mul-tiples of a unit of c.320 mm implies the use of adesign-method similar to that identified in theBozburun vessel. Indeed, by using these character-istics, as well as other information gleaned fromSteffy’s report, it is possible to re-create a set ofadjustable rising and breadth-moulds potentiallyused to design the floor-timbers and tail-framesthat manifested the Serçe Limanı ship. The twomoulds have the same purposes as those employedin the Bozburun vessel and, ultimately, their appli-cation predicts how the hull’s curves will rise andnarrow towards the bow and stern of the ship(Fig. 2). As the Serçe Limanı vessel has a standardunit of c.320 mm, however, and a slightly differentshape, the gradations inscribed on the moulds aredifferent. Because the keel of the Serçe Limanıvessel does not have a rabbet, for example, all themarks on the rising mould are above the markindicating the height of the keel (Fig. 3). The dis-tance between the keel-mark and that indicatingthe height of the turn of the bilge for midships andfloor-timber A is 20 mm. Similarly, the mark indi-cating the height of the turn of the bilge forfloor-timbers 4 and E is 20 mm higher. Lastly, the

appropriate mark for the tail-frames is 240 mmabove the mark for the midships floor-timber.When the 320-mm unit is applied to these dis-tances, the two marks above the keel are each 1

16/of a unit apart, while the tail-frame mark is 3/4 ofa unit above the midships mark.

The breadth-mould, again because there is norabbet, had fewer marks than its parallel for theBozburun vessel (Fig. 4). The first mark, at theend opposite the curve that defined the turn ofthe bilge, indicated the width of midships andfloor-timber A. This mark was 1.6 m from thebeginning of the turn of the bilge. The next mark,which indicated the widths of floor-timbers 4 andE, was 20 mm closer to the bilge mark. The markon the mould for the tail-frames was 320 mmfrom the midships mark and 1.28 m from the

Figure 2. The two-piece set of adjustable moulds used todesign the floor-timbers and tail-frames in the Serçe Limanıvessel. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 3. Detail of the rising mould. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 1. The four floor-timbers and two tail-frames which began to manifest the shape of the 11th-century ship from SerçeLimanı, Turkey. (After Steffy, 2004: 155, fig. 10-2)

M. HARPSTER: DESIGNING THE 11TH-CENTURY-AD VESSEL FROM SERÇE LIMANI, TURKEY

© 2009 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society 45

bilge mark. The gradations on this breadth-mould reveal a similar use of multiples of the320-mm unit. The breadth mark for midshipsand floor-timber A is five units from the begin-ning of the turn of the bilge, while the mark forfloor-timbers 4 and E is 1

16/ of a unit closer. Simi-larly, the mark for the tail-frames is one unitfrom the midships mark, and four units from thebeginning of the turn of the bilge.

Similar to the moulds possibly employed indesigning the Bozburun vessel, this set of mouldsmay be used to predetermine the shapes of thefour floor-timbers and two tail-frames that beganto manifest the shape of the Serçe Limanı vessel.Once a baulk for the midships floor-timber hadbeen sided appropriately, the shipwright markeda horizontal line upon it, approximately parallelto the upper and lower edges, and added a per-pendicular line approximately 1.6 m from the

longer end that curved up through the turn of thebilge (Fig. 5). Again, the vertical line representedthe centreline of the ship, while the horizontal linerepresented the top of the keel. Next, to either sideof the centreline, the shipwright used the risingmould to inscribe the point 1

16/ of a unit above thekeel onto the baulk. The horizontal line thatpassed through these two points represented theheight of the turn of the bilge for midships andfloor-timber A. Lastly, the shipwright markedtwo points 160 mm, or half a unit, to either side ofthe vertical centreline (Fig. 6).

To inscribe the moulded shape of the midshipsfloor-timber on the baulk, the shipwright alignedthe midships mark on the breadth-mould withthe point one-half a unit to one side of the cen-treline. He then inclined the breadth-mould sothat the point indicating the beginning of theturn of the bilge met the higher of the two

Figure 4. Detail of the breadth-mould. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 5. Step one: laying out the guidelines on a baulk for the adjustable moulds. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 6. Step two: transferring heights from the rising mould to the baulk to design the midships floor-timber and floor-timber A. (Matthew Harpster)

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 39.1

46 © 2009 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society

horizontal lines. Once set, he simply inscribedthis line and its curve onto the baulk. By repeat-ing this process on the other side of the centre-line, he was able to define the entire mouldedshape of the midships floor-timber (Fig. 7).

Creating floor-timbers 4 and E was a similarprocess. In these cases, the shipwright inscribedthe mark 2

16/ , or 1/8 of a unit, above the keel lineonto the baulk to either side of the centreline(Fig. 8). The line that passed through these twopoints still represented the height of the turn ofthe bilge, but for floor-timbers 4 and E. Lastly, theshipwright aligned the mark 20 mm away fromthe midships mark on the breadth-mould with thepoint half a unit to either side of the centreline. Byinclining the breadth-mould appropriately andaligning the mark at the turn of the bilge with thehigher horizontal line, the shipwright defined themoulded shapes of floor-timbers 4 and E (Fig. 9).

Defining the shapes of the tail-frames main-tained this progression, but had to be alteredslightly as these were half-frames and not floor-timbers. Again, the vertical line representing thecentreline of the ship was skewed to one side ofthe baulk. Once done, the shipwright marked thepoints 3/4 of a unit above the midships mark on thecentreline and to one side, drew a horizontal linethrough them and aligned the breadth-mouldappropriately (Fig. 10). Once the bilge-mark onthe breadth-mould met the higher horizontal line,the result was the moulded shape of a half-framecomposing part of a tail-frame (Fig. 11).

The four floor-timbers and two tail-frames inthe Serçe Limanı vessel were also distributedthrough the hull in a manner very similar to thatidentified in the Bozburun vessel. As evident inthe Bozburun hull, the flat of the vessel atmidships was 3.45 m, or ten Bozburun feet. As

Figure 7. Step three: using the breadth-mould to define the inclination and shape of the midships floor-timber and floor-timberA. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 8. Step one: transferring heights from the rising mould to the baulk to design floor-timbers E and 4. (MatthewHarpster)

Figure 9. Step two: using the breadth-mould to define the inclination and shape of floor-timbers E and 4. (Matthew Harpster)



discussed previously, multiples of this flat, suchas 1

10/ or 1/2, were extended from amidshipsforward and aft to indicate the locations of theother floor-timbers or tail-frames. Collating asimilar series of measurements among the fourfloor-timbers and two tail-frames that mani-fested the shape of the Serçe Limanı hull gener-ates a similar pattern. The measurements andassociated multiples are listed in Table 1, while acomparison of the multiples between the twovessels is summarized in Table 2. The resultsindicate that a very similar method of distribu-tion appears to have been used in the SerçeLimanı vessel, but using a midships flat ofapproximately 3.2 m, or ten Serce Limanı units(Fig. 12) (Steffy, 2004: 167, table 10-1).

The design similarities between these twovessels are significant. The floor-timbers and tail-frames that began manifesting the shapes ofeach vessel were most likely designed with adjust-able moulds that determined their respective

heights, widths and curves. Similarly, these floor-timbers and tail-frames were distributed throughthe length of each vessel by multiplying the mid-ships flat against the same series of multiples.Lastly, the distribution of the floor-timbers andtail-frames in each ship yielded a hull that wassegregated into six sections: one section in the bowand stern beyond each tail-frame, and the remain-ing four within the central body of the ship.

Their comparison, however, necessarilyhighlights subtle differences. The multiples deter-mining the locations of the tail-frames, forexample, have the same values in each ship, butare applied in opposite ways. Whereas theforward tail-frame in the Bozburun vessel is 11/4

times the flat forward of midships, the forwardtail-frame in the Serçe Limanı vessel is 11/2 timesthe flat forward. Similarly, the midships floor-timber in the Bozburun vessel is essentiallypaired with floor-timber 1 immediately aft. Bothact in concert to define the cross-sectional shape

Figure 10. Using the breadth-mould to define the shape and inclination of tailframes P and 12. (Matthew Harpster)

Figure 11. The completed shape of tail-frames P and 12. (Matthew Harpster)



Table 1. Multiples of the Serçe Limanı midships flat. The numerals in bold are the measures closest to the ideal multiples

Measurement? Faces? Distance?Multiple ofmidships flat?

Serç

eL

iman

ıMid

ship

sF

lat:

3.2

m

Midships to A forward to forward 0.34 m 0.106aft to aft 0.33 m 0.104forward to aft 0.21 m 0.065aft to forward 0.46 m 0.144

Midships to E forward to forward 1.624 m 0.507aft to aft 1.622 m 0.507forward to aft 1.502 m 0.47aft to forward 1.744 m 0.545

Midships to 4 forward to forward 1.20 m 0.375aft to aft 1.208 m 0.377forward to aft 1.328 m 0.415aft to forward 1.08 m 0.34

Midships to P forward to forward 5.18 m 1.61aft to aft 5.25 m 1.64forward to aft 5.13 m 1.6aft to forward 5.3 m 1.65

Midships to 12 forward to forward 3.99 m 1.24aft to aft 3.994 m 1.24forward to aft 4.114 m 1.28aft to forward 3.87 m 1.2

A to E forward to forward 1.302 m 0.407aft to aft 1.302 m 0.407forward to aft 1.182 m 0.37aft to forward 1.424 m 0.445

A to 4 forward to forward 1.58 m 0.494aft to aft 1.57 m 0.491forward to aft 1.7 m 0.53aft to forward 1.45 m 0.455

A to P forward to forward 4.85 m 1.51aft to aft 4.68 m 1.46forward to aft 4.80 m 1.5aft to forward 4.73 m 1.47

A to 12 forward to forward 4.228 m 1.32aft to aft 4.326 m 1.35forward to aft 4.456 m 1.39aft to forward 4.198 m 1.31

Table 2. Comparisons of the multiples between the Bozburun and Serçe Limanı vessels

Measurement DistanceActual mutipleof midships flat

Ideal multipleof midships flat

Bozburun midshipsflat: 3.45 m

midships to 1 0.345 m 0.1 0.1midships to E 1.73 m 0.502 0.5midships to 5 1.74 m 0.505 0.5midships to L 4.31 m 1.25 1.251 to 16 5.20 m 1.50 1.5

Serçe Limanı midshipsflat: 3.2 m

midships to A 0.33 m 0.104 0.1midships to E 1.62 m 0.507 0.5A to 4 1.58 m 0.494 0.5A to P 4.80 m 1.5 1.5midships to 12 3.99 m 1.24 1.25



of the ship, and are separated by a distance equalto 1

10/ of the flat. On the Serçe Limanı ship, themidships floor-timber is paired with the nextfloor-timber forward, floor-timber A. They, too,work together to define the cross-sectional shapeof the vessel, and are similarly separated by adistance equal to 1

10/ of the vessel’s flat.The reasons for these reversals may only be

speculated. The possibility that researchersreversed the bow and stern of the Bozburunvessel was investigated and discarded. Otherwisethe vessel’s galley would have been in the bow ofthe ship, which was uncommon, and would placethe mast-step too far aft to balance either a singlelateen or square sail. It seems more likely that thetail-frame was placed further forward in theSerçe Limanı vessel to accommodate the two-masted rig that it may have carried (Matthews,2004: 180–81). Moreover, as the pair of floor-timbers at amidships in both vessels essentiallyfunctioned as a unit, this would explain why thesame multiples are used in each vessel, but arenot always applied from the same floor-timber.In the Bozburun vessel the location of theforward tail-frame was determined by measuringfrom the midships floor-timber. In the SerçeLimanı vessel, in comparison, the location of theforward tail-frame was determined by measuringforward of floor-timber A. These few discrepan-cies, however, merely highlight how similar thesetwo methods are.

Emerging trends in structure and design?Through the application of an interpretative toolthat combines Steffy’s methodology and the dis-tinction between design and assembly to theSerçe Limanı vessel, trends within ship-construction between the 9th and 11th century

come to light and the previously static view ofMediterranean shipbuilding practices changesinto a dynamic one spanning 150 years. In someways, little change is evident. The manifestationof both vessels began with the assembly of aseries of four floor-timbers and two tail-frameswhich segregated each hull into six blocks ofspace. These floor-timbers and tail-frames, more-over, were the result of very similar design-methods that used two-piece adjustable mouldswhich predicted their characteristic heights,widths and curves. These moulds and, in turn,the design and distribution of the framing com-ponents, were based on multiples of a set length.The toolkits used for each vessel, containingsimilar tools, also demonstrate continuity asneither required a dedicated infrastructure norspecialized training.

The content of textual sources from later cen-turies hints that these trends in construction mayhave continued. The six-part division of the hull,already distinguished in the Bozburun and SerçeLimanı vessels, is also evident in the 13th-centurymanuscript of Constantinos Euteles Anagnostes,catalogued in the Vatican Library as PalatinusGraecus 367 (Fig. 13). On folios 88b–91a, Con-stantinos appears to reiterate two methods ofdetermining a ship’s burden in kouphia, orbaskets, which have their origins in earlier centu-ries (Harpster and Coureas, 2008). Constantinos’sfirst example, on folios 89a–b, divides a ship’s hullinto six portions so that the capacity of eachportion may be determined separately. Thecapacities of all six are then added together to findthe total burden of the ship (Harpster andCoureas, 2008: 7).

While Constantinos does not indicate thesource of the methods he describes, it is tempting tospeculate on a relationship between this method

Figure 12. Distribution of the floor-timbers and tail-frames in the Serçe Limanı vessel based upon multiples of the midshipsflat. (Matthew Harpster)



of assessment and the methods of designing andmanifesting the Bozburun and Serçe Limanıvessels. Primarily, if Constantinos’s codex reflectsactual practice, the Bozburun and Serçe Limanıdesign-methods would enable shipwrights to esti-mate burden in kouphia prior to assembly. Theshipwrights knew the widths and inclinations ofthe floor-timbers and tail-frames that manifestedvessel shape, based on the adjustable moulds,and they knew the distances between them, basedon multiples of the midships flat. As a result, theshipwright could estimate the number of kouphiathat fitted between these framing components.Similarly, they could estimate how high to stackthe kouphia beneath the beams, and thusdetermine the total number of kouphia in that

section of the ship. By adding the estimatedcapacities for each section, the total approximateburden of the ship was known before assemblywas complete. This indicates that shipwrightsmay have possessed sets of moulds that designedvessels of specific capacities, and that shipownerscould request a vessel of a particular capacitywhen contracting a shipwright.

It is similarly tempting to speculate aconnection between Constantinos’s methods andthe Rhodian Sea Law, from the 8th or 9thcentury. These regulations indicate that thetaxable value of a ship is based upon its capacity(Ashburner, 1909: 64). Therefore there must havebeen an official means of determining thisquantity in the 9th century, used just for this

Figure 13. Folio 89a from Codex Palatinus Graecus 367. (Reproduced by kind permission of the Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticana)



purpose. While Constantinos never indicates theage of the methods he describes, or their source, ifhis method of measuring burden reflects the prac-tices implied in the Rhodian Sea Law, then theremay also be a relationship between designingthese vessels and the assessment of their value.Because the assembly process began by manifest-ing a ship’s hull around six distinct sections ofspace, it allowed the shipwright to maximize thevessel’s capacity within the limits imposed by themanner of the hull’s later assessment. Thisoccurred because measuring the vessel’s capacityreversed the process of manifesting the vessel’sshape. To determine burden, the complete hullwas divided into those six distinct spaces and thecapacity of each was estimated.

Treatises from 15th- and 16th-century Italyseem to reiterate this process of manifestingvessel shape through a six-part division of thehull. The earliest of these treatises is a manu-script by Michael of Rhodes. Michael joined theVenetian navy in 1401 as an oarsman, butascended to the rank of Master of the Oarsmenduring approximately 40 years of service (ff.090-92b and 093a,). His manuscript, finished by 1436,documents his duties and contains records ofconstructing and outfitting ships. Particularlyimportant, he provides the dimensions andspacing of a series of floor-timbers and tail-frames similar in distribution to those that beganto manifest the shapes of the Bozburun and SerçeLimanı hulls.

In Michael’s instructions for building andfitting out galleys of Flanders and of Romania, heonly provides measurements of the midshipsframes, the tail-frames, and the 18th framesforward and aft of midships (f.135b, 136a,148a–b; pers. comm. David McGee). These lattertwo intermediate frames demarcated the collec-tion of relatively flat-floored frames surroundingmidships from others that rose and narrowedtowards the bow and stern. Similar to the inter-mediate frames in the Bozburun and Serçe Limanıvessels, these intermediate frames also elongatedthe widest and deepest portion of the hull. Thesame series of frames are highlighted in theFabrica di Galere, also compiled in the 15thcentury (Jal, 1840: 7; Rieth, 2000: 383).

A similar pattern is evident in a manuscript ofPrè Theodoro de Nicolò, called Instructione sulmodo di fabricare galere, written in the middleof the 16th century (Lane, 1934: 24). UnlikeMichael, Prè Theodoro was a Foreman of the ShipCarpenters in the Venetian Arsenal (Lane, 1934:

24). In his documentation of building two greatgalleys, he prescribed only the dimensions of themidships frame, the tail-frames, and the interme-diate frames between these two. In the first greatgalley, these intermediate frames are the 15thframes forward and aft, while in the secondexample they are the 20th frames forward and aft(Lane, 1934: 36–7). Similar to Michael’s manu-script, the Fabrica and the vessels from Bozburunand Serçe Limanı, Prè Theodoro is again manifest-ing vessel-shape by controlling the design of themidships frames, the tail-frames, and a pair ofintermediate frames.

These structural similarities may result from theimportation of methods from the eastern Medi-terranean. Greek vocabulary, for example, isfound in the Venetian shipbuilding texts. Termssuch as panixello, paramexal, parascena, para-schuxula and schermo refer to the garboard,keelson, stern bulwark, bilge-stringer and thole-pin respectively (Jal, 1840: 6, 7, 9, 15; Alertz, 1995:143; pers. comm. Alan Hartley). The VenetianArsenal, moreover, hired Greek shipwrights in thefirst half of the 15th century to oversee the con-struction of their galleys (Lane, 1979: 56). One ofthese vessels, built under the supervision of theGreek shipwright Theodoro Baxon, is mentionedin the Fabrica di Galere (Lane, 1934: 25). Baxon’sskills were apparently so great that, by the end ofhis life in 1407, the Venetian Senate was not onlypaying him more than the Foreman of the ShipCarpenters of the Arsenal, but they had alsosequestered eight of his light galleys to serve asmodels for later vessels (Lane, 1979: 56–7).Baxon’s nephew, Nicolo Palopano, went on tospecialize in the construction of light war-galleysas well. His expertise, however, caused rivalrywith local builders, issues that were commonlysettled by the Venetian Senate (Lane, 1979: 57–8).His success continued, nonetheless, so that by hisdeath in 1437 his son, Giorgio, went on to becomethe only Greek Foreman of the Ship Carpenters(Lane, 1979: 59).

The parallels implicit and explicit in thesesources may be superficial at present, but theyhave been addressed for two reasons. First,authors such as Sergio Bellabarba, Carlo Bel-trame, Mauro Bondioli and Alvise Chiggato havesuggested similar progressions from the Byzantineera to the Renaissance by extrapolating into thepast through written sources (Chiggato, 1987:78–9; Chiggato, 1991: 179; Bellabarba, 1996: 260;Beltrame and Bondioli, 2006). This research onthe Bozburun and Serçe Limanı vessels, therefore,



may be the first to provide Byzantine-era archaeo-logical evidence which supports their theories.The preceding discussion should be viewed, as aresult, as an amendment to their work. Thesecond reason this discussion has been included isbecause this research is by no means complete. Itis hoped that these parallels, rather than repre-senting a complete thesis, instead serve asprompts for further work by other researchers.

Emerging social and cultural trendsIn addition to the trends that emerge through thecontinuity in design-methods, other trends maybe speculated in the societies surrounding theconstruction of these ships. The continuity indesign-methods, for example, indicates that thesocial context surrounding each vessel wassimilar: a shipwright led the construction of thevessel, aided by skilled and semi-skilled workmen.But this continuity, particularly over such a longperiod, also demonstrates that shipwrights hadaccurately codified this method and were teachingit for over a century. The minor differencesbetween the methods evident in the two shipsdemonstrates the quality of this codification andits application; the different standard lengths, forexample, most likely reflect distinct builders,yards, or geographic regions, but not differentmethods. More particularly, the continuity indesign between these two vessels also demon-strates control over dissemination of the methods.While the possession of a design-method by anindividual imparts an ability to control its distri-bution, continually controlling this informationfor over 150 years implies an organized system ofteaching and dissemination, such as shipwrights’guilds. After all, the moulds could act as a tem-plate to measure a shipwright’s skills and thustheir potential membership. This control, more-over, would have enhanced the exclusivity of theguilds within the surrounding society. Over thedecades between the construction of these twovessels, therefore, it is likely that shipwrights’awareness of a hierarchy between themselves andother craftsmen increased. Soon, they were deeplyinvested in maintaining that hierarchy by rein-forcing their own necessity within the maritimecommunity.

The continuity of these methods also reflects acontinual demand for the ships they created. Iftheir application resulted in unpopular vessels,after all, the methods would either change ordisappear. This continual demand may relate to

the increasing maritime activity throughout theMediterranean in the early-medieval era. Follow-ing a relative lull from the 7th century to the thirdquarter of the 8th century, maritime activityacross the Mediterranean rose sharply. Thenumber of maritime communications between775 and 800, for example, was twice the numberbetween 750 and 774 (McCormick, 2001: 435,table 14-3). Similarly, activity doubled againbetween 800 and 825. Even when activity droppedin the following 25 years, it still settled at a levelgreater than that in the last quarter of the 8thcentury (McCormick, 2001: 435, table 14-3).Moreover, this activity was increasingly interna-tional. People and communications regularlytravelled back and forth between the Muslim,Byzantine and Carolingian empires, whilemerchants visited Cairo to bring goods back toConstantinople, Italy or France (Goitein, 1967:42–59). This increasing activity demanded a com-mensurate increase in the number of merchantships available to carry these cargoes. While theBozburun and Serçe Limanı vessels alone cannotdemonstrate an increase in the number of shipsconstructed, they might embody the shipwrights’reactions to this demand: the incorporation ofthese design-methods. These methods, after all,streamlined the production process. Labour,materials, costs and capacities may be predictedprior to construction, and the shipwright has theability to supervise the construction of numerousships at one time. Moreover, these methods usedframing components to begin manifesting a hull-shape that would be highly difficult to make ifstrakes were manifesting the same design. Theintermediate frames between the pair amidshipsand the tail-frames elongate the widest anddeepest portion of the hull, increasing cargo-capacity. Similarly, the tail-frames literally andfiguratively push out against the strakes’ tenden-cies to taper more gradually into the stem andsternpost. Essentially, using these design-methodsseems to reflect an increasing interest in stream-lining and standardizing methods of construction,while using framing components to manifest thesevessels’ shapes appears to demonstrate the ship-wrights’ increased focus on maximizing the inte-rior space of the vessel.

It is not known whether there is a causal rela-tionship between this increase in maritime activityand the appearance of these design-methods.Indeed, a relationship between the two may neverbe found. Nevertheless, this increasing demandfor merchant vessels would mean an increasing



demand for the shipwrights’ skills. Combinedwith their ability to limit the dissemination ofthese design-methods, this increasing demandmeant that shipwrights could have controlled pro-duction and further enhanced their status in amaritime society.

This gradual social elevation of the shipwrightin the structure of the Mediterranean maritimecommunity, due to their possession of these exclu-sive skills, is paralleled by a shift in the epistemo-logical context of ship-construction in thefollowing centuries. Constantinos’s 13th-centurycodex reflects this transformation. His folioswhich discuss vessel-burden are preceded by foliosof astrology and lunar calendars, and followed bymathematics (Cod. Pal. Gr. 367: 43a, 84b, 95a-97a). The information on ships is both didacticand one of a number of practical intellectual exer-cises throughout his codex. The treatise producedby Michael of Rhodes, as well as the 1445 manu-script of Giorgio Trombetta of Modon, similarlyblur this distinction by presenting ship-designwithin a larger epistemological culture encom-passing astrology, art, mathematics, portolans,and accurate means of measuring time (Michaelof Rhodes, ff.1b, 12a, 47a-b, 103b–111a, 130b–131b, 120a, 192b; Trombetta manuscript, seeAnderson, 1925: 135). The consequences of thispossession were perhaps inevitable in 15th-century Venice. Tied to a state economy based oninternational maritime trade and a society top-heavy with rich merchant businessmen, someshipwrights emerged as designers or naval archi-tects who became personalities both in theArsenal and in Italian life. While other crafts suchas rigging, caulking, carpentry, rope-making andsail-making remained skilled practices in craftguilds, shipwrights such as Theodoro Baxoncould ascend within the Arsenal’s bureaucracydue to his status within the maritime community(Lane, 1979: 55–6). Shipwrights’ capabilities asdesigners, and not their craft skills, were rewardedand their vessels, once built, were often kept instorage to act as models for other designers (Lane,1979: 56, 63). Rather than participating in a ship’sconstruction, as their predecessors may havedone, they skirted a social line between expertcraftsmen and intellectuals, sending their sons toschool to learn Latin and mathematics (Lane,1992: 55). The 16th-century humanist VettorFausto epitomized this trend as he disengagedship-design from practical realities by viewing itas an intellectual practice, just as he lectured onGreek and translated Aristotle’s Mechanica

(Lane, 1979: 64). By the 17th century, MatthewBaker’s and Anthony Deane’s methods exempli-fied the gulf between the naval architect and theskilled craftsmen in the shipyard—one of whomwas once again a shipwright. Baker and Deanecould design a vessel using a complex series ofproportions, arcs and tangents, but these weremethods never practised by the anonymousworkers manifesting their plans (Lavery, 1981:67–9).

ConclusionsThe conclusions drawn in this article, and the pre-vious one examining the 9th-century vessel fromBozburun, Turkey, came about as a result of com-bining two ideas in maritime archaeology. Thefirst was the work of Richard Steffy and hisemphasis on a comprehensive deconstruction andstep-by-step reassembly of the remains of a ship’shull. Because Steffy perceived ship-constructionas a cultural process, and not just a technical exer-cise of putting components together, he under-stood that a step-by-step reassembly of a hullallows us to recreate not just what past shipbuild-ers did, but how and why they did it as well. Bycombining this methodology with the ideas ofBasch, Pomey, Hocker, Rieth and others who per-ceived ship construction as a series of phases andnot a monolithic exercise, it was possible not onlyto segregate design and assembly from each other,but re-create and understand the design processused in each vessel. This design process, more-over, gives us additional insight into the ship-wrights and their community. Not only has partof a shipwright’s intellectual process been deci-phered, but by combining the results from the twovessels, changes and patterns in the maritimecommunity of the early-medieval Mediterraneanhave been modelled. In short, the combination ofthese two ideas changes a hull study from a tech-nical exercise into a cultural study. The true ben-efits of this tool’s application, however, have yetto be demonstrated. The results presented here,while containing new insights and demonstratingcultural trends, are only preliminary; the majorityof this information was generated from only twoships. What is truly needed is what Steffy empha-sized in 1994, the continuous and rigorous appli-cation of a comprehensive methodology in a largenumber of hull studies. It is only through thatinvestigation that we will be able to understandtruly the cultural process of ship construction inits entirety.



AcknowledgementsThis article, and the previous one, are the result of many people helping in many places in many ways. Much of this workemerged while I was a Fellow at the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, and I would like toparticularly thank Claire Calcagno, David McGee and George Smith for their friendship, input and guidance. I am indebtedto Dr Yasar Yıldız, the Director of the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology for permission to examine the SerçeLimanı vessel. The Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana very generously granted me access to the Codex of Constantinos EutelesAnagnostes, and the Institute of Nautical Archaeology in Bodrum, Turkey, generously housed me and opened their libraryoutside working hours. I could not have completed this work without the patience and love of Kirsten Jerch, and thefriendship and support of Rebecca Ingram, Glenn Grieco, Troy Nowak, Athena Trakadas, Doreen Barako, Michael Walsh,and Ozlem Çaykent.

ReferencesAlertz, U., 1995, The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Medieval and Later Galleys, in R. Gardiner (ed.), The Age of the

Galley, 142–62. London.Anderson, R. C., 1925, Italian Naval Architecture about 1445, Mariner’s Mirror 11, 135–63.Ashburner, W. (ed. and trans.), 1909, The Rhodian Sea Law, edited from the manuscripts. Oxford.Bass, G. and van Doorninck, F. H. Jr, 1978, An 11th Century Shipwreck at Serçe Liman, Turkey, IJNA 7, 119–32.Bellabarba, S., 1996, The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis, Mariner’s Mirror 82, 259–68.Beltrame, C. and Bondioli, M., 2006, A hypothesis on the development of Mediterranean ship construction from Antiquity

to the Late Middle Ages, in L. Blue, A. Englert and F. Hocker (eds), Connected by the Sea. Proceedings of the TenthInternational Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology. Oxford.

Chiggiato, A., 1987, Le ‘Ragioni Antique’ dell’Architettura Navale, in Ragioni Antique Spettanti all’ Arte del Mare et Fabrichede Vasselli, LV–LXXIX. Venice.

Chiggiato, A., 1991, Contenuti delle architetture navaali antiche, Ateneo Veneto 178, 141–211.Codex Palatinus Graecus 367, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.Goitein, S. D., 1967, A Mediterranean Society, The Jewish communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of

the Cairo Geniza, vol. I. Berkeley.Harpster, M., 2002, A Preliminary Report on the 9th-Century AD Hull Found near Bozburun, Turkey, in H. Tzalas (ed.),

Tropis VII, 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, 409–18. Athens.Harpster, M., 2005, A Reassembly and Reconstruction of the 9th-century AD Vessel Wrecked off the Coast of Bozburun,

Turkey, unpublished PhD thesis, Texas A&M University.Harpster, M. and Coureas, N., 2008, Palatinus Graecus 367: A 13th-century Method of Determining Vessel Burden?,

Mariner’s Mirror 94, 8–20.Jal, A., 1840, Archéologie naval. Paris.Lane, F. C., 1934, Venetian Naval Architecture about 1550, Mariners’ Mirror 20, 24–49.Lane, F. C., 1979, Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. New York.Lane, F. C., 1992, Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. Maryland.Lavery, B., 1981, Deane’s Doctrine of Naval Architecture. London.McCormick, M., 2001, Origins of the European Economy, communications and commerce, AD 300–900. New York.Matthews, S., 2004, Evidence for the Rig of the Serçe Limanı Ship, in G. Bass, S. Matthews J. R. Steffy and F. H. van

Doonrninck Jr (eds), Serçe Limanı, An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. I, 171–87. College Station TX.Michael of Rhodes, http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/manuscript.manuscript_pop.html.Rieth, E., 2000, La Fabrica di galere, in L. Pressouyre (ed.), Utilis est lapis in structura, Mélanges offerts à Léon Pressouyre,

381–93. Paris.Steffy, J. R., 1994, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station TX.Steffy, J. R., 2004, Construction and Analysis of the Vessel, in G. Bass, S. Matthews, J. R. Steffy and F. H. van Doorninck Jr

(eds), Serçe Limanı, An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. I, 153–69. College Station TX.



Designing the 11th-century AD vessel from Serce Limani, Turkey

Documents

Transcript of Designing the 11th-century AD vessel from Serce Limani, Turkey