The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C [1 ed.] 0890962448, 9780890962442

Citation preview

NUMBER TWO The Nautical Archaeology Series

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

THE PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.c. BY CYNTHIA JONES EISEMAN and BRUNILDE SISMONDO RIDGWAY

Published with the cooperation of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology by

* D

>

TEXAS

A&M

UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE

STATION

PRESS

Copyright © 1987 by Cynthia Jones Eiseman and Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway

All rights reserved Published with the assistance of the J. Paul Getty Trust Manufactured in the United States of America FIRST EDITION

The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements ofthe American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39, 48-1984. Binding materials have been chosen for durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Eiseman, Cynthia Jones, 1944-

The Porticello shipwreck. (Nautical archaeology series; no. 2) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Porticello (Italy)—Antiquities. 2. Italy—

Antiquities. 3. Bronzes, Classical—Italy—Porticello. 4. Underwater archaeology—Italy—Porticello. 5. Merchant ships—Italy—Porticello. 6. Shipbuilding— Mediterranean Region. I. Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo, 1929-

.

I. Title.

DG70.P777E35

1987

ISBN 0-89096-244-8

III. Series.

937'.7

86-14503

CONTENTS

. Qualitative Spectrographic Analysis of

Acknowledgments

Metallic Nugget

List of Abbreviations

III. The Stern Storage Area IV. The Cargo V. The Sculpture Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway

Cran

I. The Discovery and Excavation

II. The Ship and Her Fittings

36

. Analysis of Lining from Amphora C15

48

Capacity Measurements of Transport Amphoras

52

. Water Equivalents of Mendean Jars

52

. Equivalents in Milliliters of Polystyrene Beads for Punic Amphoras

52

. Lead Isotope Ratios

56 WRECK PLANS

VI. Conclusions Bibliography

. Plan of the Shipwreck Site

following page 8

Index

. Detail of Plan I: North End, Cargo and Ship's Fittings

TABLES 1. Radiocarbon Analyses of Wood Samples 2. Atomic Absorption Analysis of Cake Ingot 3. Chemical Analysis of Metallic Nugget

. Detail of Plan I: Galley Ware and Personal Property Detail of Plan I: South End, Cargo and Ships Fittings

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IT is a great pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to the many organizations and individuals who offered assistance in the Porticello shipwreck excavation and in the preparation of this volume. The late Dottor Giuseppe Foti, soprintendente alle Antichita della Calabria and director of the Museo Nazionale in Reggio Calabria, invited the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to mount a salvage excavation of the site. To him and to Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, who succeeded him in 1981, and to the staff at the Museo Nazionale I owe a debt of thanks for study facilities, assistance of every form, and warm hospitality. Special thanks go to Dottor Claudio Sabbione for his particular help during the study seasons. Prof. David I. Owen, director of the excavation, offered the material from the site for me to study, with the encouragement of George F. Bass. I am grateful indeed to them both for this exceptional opportunity. The excavation was supported by the University Museum,

the Geographical Society of Philadelphia, and the late Dr. and Mrs. Oliver C. Colburn. A grant from the Ford Foundation enabled me to travel to Italy in 1970 and

1971. Diving and excavation equipment were lent by the Kyrenia Ship Project, through the cooperation of its director, Michael L. Katzev. I am grateful to the late Elizabeth A. Whitehead, Sumner Gerard, the Italian Studies Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of L’Aquila for financial assistance for the 1982 study season. Contributions for preparation of the manuscript came from Bryn Mawr College and the Madge Miller Research Fund, Sumner Gerard, Karen J. Grove,

the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, and the University Museum. A special word of thanks goes to Robert H. Dyson, Jr., direc-

tor of the University Museum, who always managed to help find funds to advance the publication of this site. The excavation team must be commended for a masterful job under difficult conditions. The team included, in addition to Professor Owen, Franco Colosimo, Chiya Edelman, Alan Freeman, Owen Gander, Robin C. M. Piercy, and Stephen Scheifele; from the Nucleo Sommozzatori

Carabinieri di Messina,

Antonio Aprile,

Antonio DiGianfrancesco, Vincenzo Romano, Beniamino LaGreca, and Antonio Picci; and from the U.S. Air Sup-

port Facility at Sigonella, Sicily, George C. Carswell III, Jack A. Pavlidis, and John T. Gray. The artists, whose work constitutes a vital part of this volume, are Jane Cook and Susan Womer Katzev for the object drawings and Kim Hartswick for the schematic drawing of the head; Robin Piercy and Stephen Scheifele kept the site plan. Sylvia Barkan reworked the site plan for publication and drew the maps. Some photographs published here were taken by Professor Owen, Robin Piercy, and Susan Womer Katzev, while the majority were taken by Donald A. Frey. Figs. 3-5 and 3-6 are published with the permission of the Soprintendenza Archeologica Reggio Calabria. I express my warm gratitude to all for their contributions. Many individuals have given generously of their time and expertise in helping me with particular problems. I want especially to thank Virginia Grace for her tireless assistance with my questions concerning the amphoras. Carolyn G. Koehler was also a great help in all

matters concerning the amphoras and made many useful suggestions for improving the manuscript. J. Richard Steffy shared his familiarity with Kyrenia ship material and his vast knowledge of things nautical, all done with characteristic generosity. Frederick H. van Doorninck,

X

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Jr., with equally characteristic thoroughness, gave me the benefit of his knowledge on matters concerning hulls, anchors, and maritime trade and commented in detail on the manuscript at several stages. In an earlier incarnation this volume was a doctoral dissertation for the Department of Classical Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania, and I owe thanks for contributions and improvements to it at that stage to G. Roger Edwards, A. J. Graham, Anna Sophocles Hadgis, and Cynthia Harrison. I am particularly grateful to Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, whose expertise in ancient sculpture has made such an important contribution to this volume. Professor Ridgways chapter is the consummation of her long-held conviction of the place that the Porticello head holds in the history of art. In 1970 she expressed the belief that it belonged to the fifth century B.c.—an opinion formed on the basis of photographs of the uncleaned sculpture. Only later, when excavation of the site extablished a context for the sculpture and cleaning revealed details of the work,

did

she receive

confirmation

of her conviction,

which she always held, despite numerous opinions to the contrary.

To these and the many others who helped, encouraged, and discussed various aspects of the Porticello shipwreck, I extend my thanks. The conclusions are mine alone, however, and my consultants must not be held accountable for them. A final word of thanks goes to my husband, Jim, and to Marilyn L. Simon and Karen D. Vitelli. Those who know them will appreciate as I do the magnitude of their friendship that has sustained me throughout the Porticello project. Cynthia Jones Eiseman

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania July 4, 1985

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am

most

grateful

TO CHAPTER V

to Dottoressa

Elena

Lattanzi,

soprintendente alle Antichità della Calabria, for having granted me access to the pieces and for having made my task as easy as possible. I am also greatly indebted to Dottor Claudio Sabbione of the Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria and, through his good offices, to Dottoressa Liliana Costamagna, who provided me in March,

1983, with measurements of all fragments.

Dur-

ing my visit in July, 1983 I was helped by two more members of the museum staff, Dottoresse Andronico and Basile, whom I wish to thank. My technical discussion of the bronzes would not have been possible without the friendly advice and the many helpful comments by Prof. Arthur Steinberg, who, however, should not be held responsible for my theories. He opened my eyes to many important details that were meaningless to me and patiently read a draft of my manuscript. I regret that I have so far been unable to read F. V. Frazzoli, L. Vlad Borrelli, P. Fiorentino, "Indagine XRF su frammenti di statue bronzee sottoposte a corrosione marina," Atti dei Convegni Lincei 11 (1976):339-56, which discusses the Porticello bronzes and their restoration. Finally, I owe my greatest gratitude to Dr. Cynthia J. Eiseman, who first interested me in the Porticello bronzes and invited me to collaborate on the publication of the wreck. Her research formed the indispensable preliminary for mine. Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway

ABBREVIATIONS

REFERENCES

Archäologischer Anzeiger American Institute of Nautical

AJA AntDenk AntK AntP

ArchCl ArchEph ArchEspArq AthMitt

AttiMGrecia

Archaeology American Journal of Archaeology Antike Denkmäler Antike Kunst Antike Plastik Archeologia Classica Archaiologike Ephemeris Archivo Espanol de Arte y Arqueologia Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung

BdA Bonn] bb BSA

Annual of the British School at

BCH

BSR CA

CAS CRIS

DarSag

IstMitt

Jdl JFA JRS KSIIMK LIMC

Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van de Antike Beschaving Bulletin de correspondence hellénique Bollettino d'Arte Bonner Jahrbucher

BABesch

IG IJNA

Athens British School of Archaeology at Rome, Papers Cahiers archéologiques Cahiers d'archéologie subaquatique Centro de Recuperación e Investigaciones Submarinas, Revista de la Mar Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines

MAAR

Inscriptiones Graecae

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Journal of Field Archaeology

Journal of Roman Studies Kratkie So-obshchenie Instituta Istori Materialnoj Kulturi Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

MemPontAcc

Atti della Pontificia Accademia

MIA

Materialy i Issledovanya po

Romana di Archeologia, Memorie

MontAnt

Arkheologii SSSR Monumenti Antichi, pubblicati a cura della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome Numizmatika i epigrafika Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, Accademia dei Lincei, Rome

Prähistorische Zeitschrift Revue archéologique Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise

Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue des études anciennes

ABBREVIATIONS

Rivista di Studi Liguri Transactions of the American Philosophical Society CATALOG

pres.

preserved

S

sculpture

th.

V

thickness vessel

Ww.

width

cargo PHOTOGRAPHERS

cubic centimeter

Donald A. Frey

diameter field notebook

David Owen Jane Cook

gram

Kim Hartswick Robin C. M. Piercy

Soprintendenza Archeologica Reggio Calabria Sylvia Barkan

height kilogram kg l. (preceding numbers) length

l (following numbers) max.

ILLUSTRATORS

depth

galley

m

AND

_liters

meter maximum

SWK

Stephen Scheifele Susan Womer Katzev

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Fıc. 1-1. The Mediterranean. SB

SICILY Area of

Detail

alo Messina Ganzirri

STRAITS OF MESSINA Torre Cavallo SHIPWRECK

@

Power Pylon Fiumara di S. Trada

Cannitello

Punta Pezzo Fic. 1-2. The Straits of Messina. SB

¥ To Reggio

THE DISCOVERY AND EXCAVATION

The Discovery THE Italian coast on the Straits of Messina runs almost due north from Capo dell’Armi at the south, past Reggio Calabria and Villa San Giovanni, and on to Punta Pezzo at the north. At Punta Pezza the coast turns and runs

ther south the depth of the Straits approaches 1,000 m. Early in 1969 a Calabrese fisherman was working along the coast. In the bay near Porticello he observed that his catch consisted of many rockfish. He asked a local sport diver to investigate the area to determine if there was a reef. There was none, but the diver discovered instead a number of large boulders and the remains of a shipwreck settled among them.' Numerous am-

phoras, which constituted the greater part of the ship's cargo, were scattered among the boulders, and the diver and fisherman immediately recognized their potential value on the antiquities market. Enlisting the aid of other local divers, the fisherman and his friends began to loot the wreck systematically. They anchored the fishermans boat over the site and used this as their "cover" as well as their base of operations. Small objects they brought directly to the boat. Larger, heavier items they moved up-slope near the shore and retrieved them under cover of night. The precautions they took against discovery were not unnecessary. Although the beach and area directly behind it near the wreck site are uninhabited, the village of Porticello is less than 100 m away, and the somewhat larger village of Cannitello lies not far to the south. The railroad runs only 50 m from the shore. The divers raised about a hundred amphoras of three types, a variety of pieces of small pottery, several anchors, and fragments of bronze sculpture.* Much of this

'This wreck has sometimes been referred to as the “Messina Wreck" or the "Messina Straits Wreck" because of its location, or the "Philosopher Wreck" because of the supposed identity of the bronze

was recovered and then sold locally. The rest must still be on the seabed, but the excavation team did not find it. Three animal rhyta about 30 cm in length, heavily concreted.

sculpture on it. It seems preferable to call it the Porticello Wreck, for

One was shaped like a chicken. Ten or fifteen small jars about 20 cm high. Fifteen or twenty four-handled bowls with flat bottoms, painted

northeast, forming three wide bays in succession. The northernmost of these is fed by the Fiumara di Santa Trada and lesser rivulets, and the village of Porticello (38°14'3" N., 15?40'3" E.) is located there less than 100 m from the shore (see Figs. 1-1 and 1-2). A railroad runs through the town (Fig. 1-3). The seabed of the little bay

at Porticello slopes to a maximum depth of 272 m; far-

more wrecks are now known in the Straits of Messina, and ambiguity can best be avoided by referring to wrecks by the name of the nearest town, village, or other landmark rather than by the name of the body of water in which they are located. Furthermore, the identity of the sculpture is not certain. *The fisherman spoke to David Owen and me in the expedition camp in 1970. Using Franco Colosimo as interpreter, he described the

objects which the divers raised: Three amphora types, two cylindrical (large and small) and one carinated. Some of the amphoras were almost full of what the informant called "pitch" and could not be cleaned out. One "amphora" was very large, approximately 2 m high, and may have served as the ships water jar; only the upper half of this jar

light brown on the inside and unpainted on the outside; the painting was without design. At least one plate approximately 25 cm in diameter. It was decorated with a molded vine starting at the center and radiating to the outer edge. Some terracotta pitchers. Two anchors were found lying some 15 or 20 m from the wreck. Both were of the same shape. One weighed approximately 350 kg, the other about 150 kg. On one, there was a bar (collar?) holding the flukes to the shank, and wood was still adhering to this bar. Each anchor bore two inscriptions of four or five letters each. The fisherman did not

4

THE

PORTICELLO

Fic. 1-3. View of the bay at Porticello, looking southward toward Villa San Giovanni, with Sicily in the distance. DO

material was sold locally, and one version of the ensuing events is that the divers and fisherman quarreled over the division of the proceeds.’ In the course of the dispute, one of the looters appealed to the police, who

SHIPWRECK

brought the wreck to the attention of the superintendent of antiquities of Calabria, Dottor Giuseppe Foti. Another version has it that a local diver, Giuseppe Mavilla, gave the bronze bearded head, the bronze hand, and other pieces of statuary to Foti, who called in the police.* Whatever the case, the police intervened abruptly in November, 1969, arrested the looters at the site, and confiscated all the antiquities in their possession both at the site and in their homes. The looters were tried and convicted in court, and the leader was sentenced to a long prison term. The recovered antiquities, as property of the state, were deposited in the Museo Nazionale in Reggio, under Foti' care. But the wreck itself still needed protection. Foti sought the help of Franco Colosimo, of Catania, Sicily, who was an experienced diver and had worked with archaeologists on ancient shipwrecks in the past. Colosimo was assisted by four members of the Nucleo Sommozzatori Carabinieri di Messina, a special diving unit of the Italian state police.’ The group investigated the site, drew a plan of it (see Figs. 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6), locating to the best of their abilities the find spots of the objects the looters had removed, and brought to the surface the artifacts still visible on the seabed.* Colosimo realized, however, that more wreck remains were probably concealed beneath the sandy seabed and that a scientifically conducted, systematic excavation might produce more objects of great value and archaeological interest. At Colosimo’s instigation, the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania was invited by Foti to undertake such an excavation. At that time, November, 1969, David I. Owen was assistant curator of the Underwater Archaeology Section, and he was asked to organize an expedition. In little more than seven

months,

Owen

raised the necessary funds,

assembled a team of sixteen experienced divers and archaeologists, and arranged for the necessary equipment.

The Excavation THE

CAMP

As the wreck was located in a populated area, it was not necessary for the entire expedition to camp out on the beach. Rather, the museum excavation team settled in a nearby hotel. In addition, the team established a small remember any of the letters, and it is possible that they may not have

camp among the ruins of a modern house on the beach near the wreck. This camp consisted of two small tents and an awning attached to a partly collapsed wall. One tent held all diving gear and medical supplies; the other was for changing out of wet swimming suits and as a place to sleep for the two team members who stayed at the

been in the Latin alphabet. The completeness and accuracy of the fishermans report are diffi-

cult to evaluate. The information provided by him has not been considered at all in the conclusions. ? David I. Owen, “Excavating a Classical Shipwreck,” Archaeol-

ogy 24 (1971): 118-29.

“A. Sommerso

Laviano and (Jan.,

F. Colosimo,

"La testa del filosofo," Mondo

1970):22-27.

°Carabinieri Beniamino LaGreca, Egidio Dei, Vincenzo Romano, and Brigadiere Antonio Aprile. *Laviano and Colosimo, "La testa del filosofo."

THE DISCOVERY AND EXCAVATION

Fıc. 1-4. Plan of the shipwreck site drawn by police divers.

5

Fic. 1-5. Location of the shipwreck drawn by police divers.

Fıc. 1-6. Section of the shipwreck drawn by police divers.

beach camp each night to keep an eye on the equipment

been done so successfully in other operations. Instead,

and the wreck. The awning provided a spot of shade, much needed in the heat of July, and it was here that morning and afternoon conferences were held to discuss

the wreck was marked with a buoy attached to a modern anchor that happened to lie near the wreck site on the seabed. Each day we tied one of the project's two rubber boats to the buoy, and a back-up diver was in this boat whenever divers were in the water. The diving teams suited up at the waters edge and rode out to the buoy in the second rubber boat. Dives were made from the

the days activities. A high-pressure Bauer compressor was set up in the camp. WORKING

CONDITIONS

The wreck lay 225 m off shore at a depth of 33 to 37 m.

boats, and because the wreck site was so close to the

The swift and ever-changing current prevented anchoring a diving barge or boat over the wreck site, as had

beach camp, this system worked satisfactorily. The hazards of working under water are by now too

6

THE

PORTICELLO

well known to require repetition.” The conditions at Porticello, however, were different in some cases from any encountered in previous excavations. The main problem was the current, which, during the course of a single day, changed direction several times as it ran swiftly

through the Straits, heading first northward, then southward, then back again.* At peak current, diving was impossible. At least twice a day, however, the current would become slack, usually at the time when it was pre-

paring to reverse itself.’ These periods generally lasted several hours each, allowing plenty of time to send down two-person diving teams in succession. The amount of time between the slack current period in the morning and that in the afternoon determined the interval between morning and afternoon dives and thus determined the length of afternoon dives. The Italian coast guard publishes a chart showing predictions of high current and slack current times on

SHIPWRECK discovered that it was not difficult to work in a slight current. Furthermore, even when the current was strong on or near the surface, it was often slight on the bottom. Thus, the strength of the current presented a problem only when divers were decompressing. Often the current was so strong at the ten-foot decompression stop that divers had to cling to the buoy line with both hands lest they be swept away. Each diver was required to wear an inflatable life vest, and no incidents occurred. Other safety precautions taken were much the same

as those used on the University Museum expeditions at Kyrenia and Yassi Ada. U.S. Navy decompression tables were followed, with an added safety factor of using the schedule for the next deeper depth and the next longer time than we were actually diving at. We always dived in

teams of two, and each diver wore a watch to monitor bottom and decompression times. One member of each team wore a depth gauge. As the current frequently pre-

any given day. This chart was used to give approximate

vented repetitive dives, it was not necessary for divers

times of ideal diving conditions each day, but we discovered an additional aid, which, although somewhat less scientific than the chart, proved highly reliable for the small section of the Straits we were working in." The buoy marking the wreck site was an inflated yellow rub-

to take one day off from diving per week to rid their bodies of accumulated nitrogen. Only one incident of bends occurred, on the second day of diving, but it was very slight and was successfully treated in the recompression chamber at the Italian naval base in Messina. The diver resumed his duties a few days later, and as the

ber sphere about 50 cm in diameter. When the current was running at its peak, the buoy was pulled under water and could not be seen from the beach. When the current was slight or slack, the buoy could be seen bob-

staff physician believed that the attack may have been provoked by the diver' getting chilled (he had not worn the pants of his wet suit on the dive during which he was

bing around on the surface. Thus the buoy's behavior,

stricken), all divers were required thereafter to wear full

more than the charts, told us when diving conditions were good. Slack current periods were very short, but we soon

wet suits. Minor effects of nitrogen narcosis were alleviated by carefully planning each dive. On one occasion a diver suffered a more severe attack of nitrogen narcosis than normal, but his diving partner was able to handle the situation, and no one was injured. The diver took the

"George F. Bass, Archaeology under Water, pp. 20-29. *The currents in the Straits of Messina have been notorious since antiquity. If one accepts the theory that the Odyssey records an actual Mediterranean voyage, the whirlpools of Charybdis and the rock-

bound cave of Scylla represent the Straits of Messina. This interpretation was followed by Thucydides, Aeschylus, Aristotle, Strabo, Diodorus, and Virgil, to name only a few. ?The Straits of Messina connect the Tyrrhenian and Ionian seas. The water of the latter has a higher salinity and is thus heavier; this causes the water of the Tyrrhenian Sea to flow into the Ionian Sea in the upper layer and in the opposite direction in the lower layer. The depth at which the current changes direction, in a section at the narrowest part of the Straits, between Punta Pezzo and Ganzirri, is 30 m;

“The time of the beginning of the tidal current can be computed for any day. However, the time of the beginning of the resultant

current does not coincide with that computed time. ... Near the coasts on both sides of the Straits, northgoing resultant currents produce counter currents of variable velocity, called ‘mongrel’ or ‘bas-

tard’ currents. The principal southgoing countercurrents on the mainland side occur between Torre Cavallo and Punta Pezzo. This latter countercurrent is preceded by a prolonged slack water extending from

Torre Cavallo to Punta Pezzo and attaining its greatest width abreast

rents of 4 knots occur at the narrowest point of the Straits. The cur-

Cannitello. The principal whirlpools formed by the northgoing resultant currents are found also between Torre Cavallo and Punta Pezzo.” U.S. Department of Defense, Sailing Directions, p. 347. One can see from the foregoing that the currents in the Straits are created by an exceedingly complex set of circumstances. Wind and weather conditions confuse the issue even further. The bay at Porticello lies between Torre Cavallo and Punta Pezzo, the area subject to a great many variables. I suspect that only the most sophisticated

rent, however, diminishes rapidly to the north and south of this point

oceanographic equipment could have told us when diving conditions at

as the Straits widen and deepen; see Defant, Physical Oceanography II, 395ff., and U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic Center, Sailing Directions (enroute) for the Western Mediterranean, Publication No. 131.

the wreck site were ideal, with the degree of reliability that our buoy system provided. We were fortunate that in the short time we had to conduct our excavation, weather prevented us from working on only one day.

see Albert Defant, Physical Oceanography 1, 533. In addition to these stationary currents, as they are called, there are strong currents cre-

ated by the tides in the two seas. The tides in each sea are semidiurnal, and although they are of the same type, the times at which the lows and highs occur differ by as much as six hours. The difference in level is less

than a foot, but it is concentrated into such a short distance that cur-

THE

DISCOVERY

next day off from diving and then returned to work with

no further incidents. EXCAVATING

Camp

THE

WRECK

was pitched on July 4, 1970, the Carabinieri

arrived from Messina the following day, and the search for the wreck was begun the same day." Colosimo, LaGreca, Romano, and Antonio Aprile had all dived on the wreck earlier in the year and remembered the wreck’s location, finding it again on the morning of July 6. They positively identified the wreck by the large boul-

ders on the site, and the Carabinieri’s sketch plan confirmed it. The same day, regular working dives began.'* Once the wreck was located and marked with a buoy, the next step was to determine the approximate extent of the remains. The surface finds that generally mark a wreck site (usually an amphora pile) had, in this case, been removed by the looters. Therefore, a metal detector survey was undertaken to locate metal concentrations in the seabed." Working from the Carabinieri's sketch plan, divers laid out lanes 2 m wide with white string, covering an area of about 20 m by 30 m. A team of two divers followed the lanes, one operating the metal detector and signaling to the other whenever a target was located. Each target was marked with a wooden stake to avoid interference with the detector. Upon completing the survey, the team systematically excavated the major targets. Many turned out to be modern debris, but some proved ancient. Excavation was accomplished in part by hand, but

large quantities of sand were moved by air lift.“ The compressor for the air lift was located on the beach, and the hose simply ran down the sloping seabed from the beach to the wreck site. The air lift discharged into the water some 15 m above the wreck. Although the strong

currents prevented sand from settling back onto the wreck, they also tended to sweep the air lift onto its side and cause excavated areas to fill up rapidly with

AND

EXCAVATION

7

locations were recorded on plastic slates carried by each diver. Large, heavier objects were photographed in situ and their locations triangulated. Small objects and even

some amphoras were raised with lifting balloons, which were filled with air from divers' mouthpieces or the airlift hose.'* The preliminary excavation of targets obtained from the metal detector survey enabled us to define the limits

of the site and determine roughly the position of the wreck on the seabed. By correlating the metal targets with the police sketch plan, we determined four areas where additional excavation should be concentrated. This focusing of efforts proved useful, as time did not permit as thorough and systematic an excavation as was desirable. The first and northernmost section lay in the deepest water (37 m). Here the looters had found bronze sculpture fragments. Our own excavation turned up the bolsals, the cake ingot sections, the metallic nuggets, fragments of cooking ware, the wooden bowl, awl, cleat, toggle, and lead patches. This was also where we found sculpture fragment $16. These small finds lay just at the base of a large boulder. A few meters south and slightly to the west we turned up a number of amphoras. It was in this second major area of our concentrated excavation that the looters appeared to have been most active. Fortunately, however, they missed a portion of the main cargo area, again further south and in slightly shallower

water. Here we found a jumble of amphoras, with examples of three of the four major types. Many were in an excellent state of preservation. In the same area were the eight inkpots. To the east of the amphora pile we recovered three

of the trapezoidal lead anchor stock fillings, and south of it uncovered the fourth stock filling and the two bronze anchor teeth. Also in the latter area was the half lead ingot. Scattered throughout the entire site were copper nails.

sand between dives. Six fixed points were established around the wreck area, and from these all finds were triangulated.

EXCAVATION RESULTS

By correlating the distribution of finds uncovered

in

their discovery small objects

excavation and the evidence provided by the police div-

were removed lest the current carry them away. The

ers’ map, the following observations can be made. The

!!Brigadiere Antonio Aprile, Vicebrigadiere Antonio Di Gianfrancesco, Carabiniere Vincenzo Romano, Carabiniere Beniamino

from the U.S. Navy Air Support Facility at Sigonella, Sicily, included

Immediately

upon

LaGreca, and Carabiniere Antonio Picci. ? [n addition to the Carabinieri, the staff included the following: David I. Owen, director, University Museum, Philadelphia; Robin C. M. Piercy, assistant director, Kyrenia Ship Project; Dr. Alan Freeman, physician; Owen Gander, chief diver; Stephen Scheifele, draftsman, University of Pennsylvania; Cynthia Jones, recorder, University of Pennsylvania; Chiya Edelman, archaeologist, Undersea Exploration Society of Israel; Franco Colosimo, foreman. The diving team

Lt. George C. Carswell III, Jack A. Pavlidis, and John T. Gray. All staff members were divers. “David I. Owen, "Picking Up the Pieces: The Salvage Exca-

vation of a Looted Fifth Century B.c. Shipwreck in the Straits of Messina," Expedition 13 (1970):26; David I. Owen, "Excavating a Classical Shipwreck," Archaeology 2A (1971):120—21.

“Bass, Archaeology under Water, pp. 115-24 has a good description of the uses of air lifts. See ibid., p. 126, for the use of balloons as lifting devices.

8

THE

PORTICELLO

northernmost and deepest area represents a storage area

SHIPWRECK

bly marks the site of the ships stern.'* Whether there

The ship appears, then, to have settled on the seabed heading in a southerly direction. This cannot be taken to indicate that she was sailing southward when she sank, for she could have foundered in the currents or

was an actual galley and whether cooking was done on

a storm and swung about any number of times before

board cannot now be determined. No traces of hearth

actually settling on the seabed. She might well have been making for shore. Once the ship sank, she must

of the ship, judging from the cooking devices and personal items present (see Plans I, II, and III). This proba-

tiles or braziers were found, however. The Kyrenia ship likewise had its cooking equipment in the stern but does not appear to have had a galley proper nor arrangements

for cooking on board." The evidence from Porticello and Kyrenia is not sufficient to indicate common practice. Forward of the stern storage area lay the cargo area. This has now been divided, somewhat artificially, into two sections by the cluster of boulders on the seabed (see Plans I and IV). The northern section produced sculpture and amphoras, and the southern section yielded amphoras, inkpots, and ingots. Excavation uncovered anchor components at the southern extremity and the southeastern corner of the site. The police map (Fig. 1-4) shows anchors or parts of them toward the southern extremity of the site as well as farther north, toward the midships on both the east and west sides. Although not all these anchors can belong to

the Porticello ship, we would expect those that do to be found at the opposite end of the site from the stern stor-

have broken up quickly on the large rocks that stud the seabed. These rocks probably did as much to preserve the wreck as to destroy it, for although they must have caused the hull to break up almost immediately and wash away, they provided the cargo with some protection against the strong currents and surely prevented arti-

facts from being swept into deeper water. What damage was done to the ship by her sinking and breaking up on the rocks and what was done by the centuries of merciless currents or by the looters is now virtually impossible to determine. Common sense suggests that the cargo and other items aboard must have tumbled around a great deal when the ships remains settled among the rocks, and the absence of uniform orientation of the amphoras bears this out. It is likely, too, that the looters destroyed additional evidence of the ship's lading, which would have provided valuable clues about the ships final

voyage.

age area.'?

Study Seasons As small artifacts were retrieved from the wreck site, they were taken to the hotel, where they were cleaned and cataloged. The largest objects were left on the seabed, in the shelter of the boulders, until the team was able to transport them to the museum in Reggio Calabria. Normally, all objects would have been transferred to the museum on a weekly basis, but civil disturbances in Reggio that summer caused the closing of roads and suspension of some business in the city. Fortunately, by the time excavation was completed, we had

no difficulty transporting all the finds to the museum. In the summer of 1971, David Owen, Jane Cook, and I returned to Reggio Calabria, where we photographed, drew, and completed cataloging all the finds, both those which the excavation team had recovered and The location of the galley in the stern has been observed on other Mediterranean ships, including the two wrecks at Yassi Ada; see

Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., "Byzantium, Mistress of the Sea: 330-641,” A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, ed. George F. Bass, pp. 133-58. "Michael L. Katzev, “The Kyrenia Ship," A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, ed. George F. Bass, pp. 50-52.

those which had been confiscated at the wreck site from the looters.

During the 1971 summer study season, Foti showed us some amphoras

and other artifacts, mostly anchor

components, that had been discovered by the police at the homes of the looters at the time of their arrest. This material had been turned over to the museum, where it was stored separately from objects retrieved at the wreck site. Foti explained that he believed that the provenance of the objects in the looters’ homes could not be proved to be the Porticello wreck; however, a brief examination of the amphoras revealed that some were of the same types as those definitely from the shipwreck, and they had similar marine deposits. (Three other amphoras were of unique types, and I have published them elsewhere.'* These also had marine deposits, demCompare the location of the anchors on the Yassi Ada Byzantine vessel: George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., Yassi Ada, vol. I, A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, pp. 134-37.

Cynthia Jones Eiseman, "Amphoras from the Porticello Shipwreck

and 10.

(Calabria),”

IJNA

2 (1973):

20-21,

nos.

26-28,

and

figs.

9

Plans I-IV

0

1

2 METERS

Plan I. Plan of the shipwreck site excavated by the University Museum team. RCMP, SS

0

1

2 METERS

Plan II. Detail of Plan I. North end of the site, showing cargo and ships fittings. RCMP, SS

0

1

2 METERS

Plan III. Detail of Plan I. North end of the site, showing galley ware and personal property. RCMP, SS

C32

&/

o

v39

& m

va Ww

n

va

. C34

0

1

2 METERS

Plan IV. Detail of Plan I. South end of the site, showing cargo and ships fittings. RCMP, SS

THE

DISCOVERY

onstrating that the looters had been active in other under-

AND

EXCAVATION

9

cluded in the present publication all artifacts that seem

water areas.)

most likely to have been on the Porticello ship, but their

In 1976 I returned briefly to Reggio Calabria to reexamine some of the objects. In 1982, Donald A. Frey and I went there to photograph all the objects; by then, still more amphoras had come to light in the museum storerooms and were exhibited with other Porticello material. Furthermore, Dottor Sabbione showed me a cupskyphos (G7) that Giuseppe Mavilla had brought to the museum in July, 1981, claiming that it had come from the Porticello wreck. Because so much material reportedly from Porticello has turned up over the years, but without context or precise documentation, I have in-

origins are indicated in the catalog so that readers can decide for themselves whether the attribution to the ship is legitimate. (See the following section for the

method of distinguishing the objects’ respective origins.) This has been done in an effort to give the reader the same advantages and disadvantages the excavators had in trying to determine which objects belonged to the Porticello ship beyond question, which ones were found at the site but may have been intrusive, and which ones were found in the possession of the looters and may have come from Porticello or other sites that they had worked.

Conventions The catalog entries include the following features: 1. The object number, which corresponds to the number on the site plan. Objects belonging to the vessel

their arrest and brought to the excavators’ attention by museum authorities in 1971; a number preceded by 82 indicates an object that I saw for the first time in the

and her fittings have a V preceding the number. Items

museum

from the stern storage area (where the cabin or galley would have been located had there been one) have a G before the number. Cargo objects are designated by a C, except for items of sculpture, which are preceded by an S. 2. The field notebook number, which indicates the origin of the object. A simple number, for example, FN 31, FN 92, indicates that the object was discovered on the wreck and excavated by the University Museum team; all these artifacts appear on the site plan. A number preceded by the letter M, as in FN M126, indicates that the object was recovered by the police at the wreck site at the time the looters were arrested. Although such objects must certainly have come from the wreck, we do not know their original find spots and so have not been able to include them on the site plan. A number preceded by the designation 71, as in 71.3, indicates an object that was found in one of the looters’ homes after

is some question about the provenance of such objects, and readers must decide for themselves whether attribution to the wreck is just. 3. Figure numbers. 4. Plan number. This is given to aid the reader in locating the find spot of the particular object within the site. 5. Inventory number. This is the number given to the object by the Museo Nazionale in Reggio Calabria. Not all objects have an inventory number. 6. Dimensions of the object. For abbreviations, see the list in the front of this volume. 7. Descriptions of the object. In the case of pottery, this includes a Munsell Soil Color Chart reading.

in Reggio in 1982. As mentioned above, there

8. References to preliminary publications in which illustrations of the object appeared. For abbreviations, see the list in the front of this book.

II

THE SHIP AND HER FITTINGS

VERY sparse remains of the wooden hull and ships fittings survived, and some wooden fragments were so riddled by teredo worms that nothing could be learned

from them. Three samples of wood were taken for radiocarbon dating (see Table 1, chapter II), and one frag-

ment of lead sheathing was used for isotope analysis (see Table 9, chapter IV). While some items which were recovered simply confirm what is known of ancient ship construction or routines aboard ship, others present ex-

citing new evidence of maritime practices. WOOD

Vl.

FN 17. Fig. 2-1. Piece of hull. L. 0.21; h. 0.065; w. 0.08 m.

Irregularly shaped; smooth on one face and rough on the other.

Two

mortises

cut into opposite

edges. The edges of the mortises are not parallel to one another; the width of one mortise ranges from 0.031 to 0.053 m; the width of the other

ranges from 0.059 to 0.063 m. The interval between the mortises is 0.023 to 0.026 m. Eiseman,

1975b, fig. 3.

v2.

FN 113. Figs. 2-2, 2-3.

Tenon. L. 0.095; max. w. 0.053, th. 0.005 m.

Flat, rectangular piece of wood with two round holes (diam. 0.007 m) bored through it near one end. Eiseman 1975b, fig. 4. 'I am indebted to J. Richard Steffy and to Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., both of whom read this chapter in several drafts. Mr. Steffy shared a great deal of unpublished information concerning the Kyrenia ship, and Dr. van Doorninck made many detailed comments

on the hull and anchors. In no way, however, can they be held responsible for conclusions that I draw here.

Fic. 2-1.

Hull fragment. 1:3. JC

V3.

FN

121. Figs. 2-2, 2-3.

Tenon.

L. 0.059; max. w. 0.043; th. 0.004 m. Similar in shape to V2. Hole at one end (diam. 0.005 m). Eiseman 1975b, fig. 4. V4. Plan II. FN 18. Fig. 2-2. Wedge. L. 0.07; w. 0.054; th. 0.021 m.

One face is flat; the other is smoothly curved to form a wedge shape; the back of the wedge is also sawed smooth. V5. Plan II.

Cleat. L. 0.21; w. 0.04; h. 0.04 m.

FN 81. Figs. 2-4, 2-5.

THE SHIP AND HER FITTINGS Rectangular hole, measuring 0.012 by 0.01 m, cut

V6.

V19.

down through the center. Eiseman 1975b, fig. 7.

FN

104.

FN

111.

L. 0.31; diam. of head 0.018 m. Nail is very worn and bent in five places.

FN 68. Figs. 2-2, 2.3.

Cylinder, perhaps a belaying pin or treenail.

ll

V20.

L. 0.20; diam. of head 0.013 m.

L. 0.19; diam. 0.04 m.

Smoothly rounded at one end, roughly broken off at the other. Several wormholes pierce the piece

Shaft is bent in the middle and curved at the tip. V2].

FN

112.

FN

123.

L. 0.093; diam. of head 0.013 m.

crosswise. V7.

Slightly curved; tip of shaft is broken off.

FN 116.

Cylinder, perhaps a belaying pin or treenail.

V22.

L. 0.23; diam. 0.063 m.

L. 0.067; diam. of head 0.012 m.

Tip of shaft is flattened.

Roughly broken at both ends. V23.

FN MS8.

L. 0.26; diam. of head 0.026 m. Shaft tip is bent slightly.

NAILS

All are copper. In most cases, the shafts are square in section and the heads are round. The shafts of many are straight or almost straight, but those which are clenched

V24A.

are so indicated in the catalog. Some still have concre-

V25.

tion around the shaft or head or both, but concretion does not always appear to have been accompanied by deterioration of the metal. Figs. 2-6, 2-7. V8. FN 6. L. 0.04; diam. of head 0.009 m. Head is very worn. v9.

FN

7.

FN M9. L. 0.15; diam. of head 0.023 m.

Shaft tip is curved. FN

M10.

L. 0.263; diam. of head 0.013 m. Shaft is heavily concreted V26.

FN M11.

L. 0.43; diam. of head 0.02 m.

Concreted along lower portion of shaft; nail is clenched near the tip. V27.

FN M12.

L. 0.44; diam. of head 0.02 m.

L. 0.114 m.

Shaft is bent in two places.

Head and upper part of shaft are concreted. V10.

FN

8.

V28.

Vil.

FN M13.

L. 0.47; diam. of head 0.04 m. Heavily concreted except for tip. Shaft is clenched near the tip.

L. 0.034; diam. at top 0.004 m. Head missing. FN 9.

L. 0.052; diam. of head 0.009 m. V12.

FN 19.

L. 0.055; diam. at top 0.005 m. Head broken off. Shaft is very thin and quite worn. V13.

FN 22.

lead, with tacks or tack holes at irregular intervals along the edges. Marine concretions cover some parts.

L. 0.072; diam. of head 0.025 m. FN 39.

L. 0.235; diam. of head 0.08 m. V16.

FN

40.

L. 0.235; diam. of head 0.018 m. V17.

FN 41. L. 0.075 m.

Tip is bent back. V18.

FN 42.

FN M3. Figs. 2-8, 2-9. L. 0.31; max. w. 0.085 m. Traces of tacks and tack holes. Eiseman 1975b, fig. 6 (left); Owen 1973, p. 7 (top); Owen 1971a, p. 126 (left).

FN 28.

V15.

PATCHES

V99.

L. 0.041; diam. of head 0.007 m. V14.

LEAD

Most pieces recovered were rectangular strips of pliable

V30.

v3l.

FN M4. L. 0.15; max. w. 0.045 m.

Uncataloged. Figs. 2-8, 2-9.

L. 0.255; max. w. 0.065 m. Evidence oftacks and tack holes. Eiseman 1975b, fig. 6 (right); Owen 1973, p. 7 (second from top);

L. 0.25; diam. of head 0.018 m.

Owen 1971a, p. 126 (right). Lead isotope analysis

Nail is very worn and bent in three places.

given in Table 9 (see chapter IV).

Fic. 2-2. Tenons, wedge, and cylinder. 1:2. DO and DAF

Qu . Fic. 2-3. Tenons and cylinder. 1:2. JC

Fic. 2-4.

Cleat. 2:3. DAF

THE SHIP AND HER FITTINGS

13

V34. Plan II.

FN

100

FN

101

L. 0.07; max. w. 0.035 m.

Two tacks preserved; heavily concreted. V35. Plan II. L. 0.095; max. w. 0.053 m.

Heavily concreted; piece is broken in two. V36. Plan II. FN 102. Four tiny bits of lead sheathing. TOGGLE

Fic. 2-5. Two views of the cleat. 1:3. SWK

V37. Plan II.

FN 51. Figs. 2-10, 2-11.

Wooden toggle. V32.

Plan II.

FN 31.

L. 0.10; diam. 0.09 m.

L. 0.085; max. w. 0.06 m. V33. Plan II. L. 0.065; max. w. 0.034 m.

Two spheroid knobs, FN 99.

shaped much

like door-

knobs, joined by a short shaft or axle at their centers. Owen 1971a, p. 123; Eiseman 1975b, fig. 8.

The Hull struction used in the Mediterranean in antiquity in-

By far the most widespread method of wooden ship con-

stern posts, we can suppose that the vessel was about 16.6 m in length. It must be emphasized, however, that

volved edge-joining strakes by means of mortise-andtenon joints.? Ship archaeology has provided dozens of

this figure is very approximate. The single hull timber preserved (V1) is a pitiful

examples of Mediterranean vessels built by this process.

fragment, only one original face being preserved. Since we have no idea precisely where it came from on the hull, we do not know whether it is a strake or a wale.

While the remains of the hull from Porticello are modest in the extreme, they are nevertheless sufficient to indicate that the ship must have been constructed in the

traditional Mediterranean manner.” We have evidence for mortise-and-tenon construction in the form of the single timber preserved (V1) and two tenons (V2 and V3). Several dozen nails were recovered from all over the site, some by the excavation team, and others by the two groups that worked the site previously. The area over which the nails and other finds on the seabed were scattered measured approximately 26 m in length. This can be compared with the figure of about 22 m for the distribution of nails on the seabed at Kyrenia. The Kyrenia ship has been restored to a length of about . 14 m.‘ Using the same proportions for the Porticello : wreck, which allows for an outward collapse of stem and *The bibliography on this question is now very large. Introductory discussions can be found in Lionel Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, pp. 201-203; Peter Throckmorton, “Romans on

the Sea,” A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, ed. George F. Bass, pp. 67-73; Lucien Basch, “Ancient Wrecks and the Archaeology of Ships," IJNA 1 (1972): 1-58. See also George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., Yassi Ada, vol. I, A SeventhCentury Byzantine Shipwreck, pp. 65-86. 3J. Richard Steffy, "Maximum Results from Minimum Remains,”

Beneath the Waters of Time. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, ed. J. Barto Arnold III, pp. 53-54.

Steffy supposed that its original width was some 11 cm and its thickness about 6.5 cm, making it thicker than the Kyrenia ship strakes and narrower than her wales. Possibly it came from a scarf joint. What is important

about the timber is that the two mortises cut into its opposite faces prove what method was used to construct the ship. Two tenons were recovered as well, and these

have holes in them where wooden pegs had originally transfixed them to strengthen the joint. (A third tenonlike object was also found but in very poor condition.) The strakes and frames were fastened together by the copper nails mentioned earlier. On better-preserved wrecks, nails were driven from the outer face of the hull inward, and nail ends which protruded beyond the face of the frame were clenched over.’ This had been done

with some of the Porticello nails. ‘J. Richard Steffy, “The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction,” AJA 89 (1985): 100. *The Kyrenia ship: ibid., pp. 84, 91, 93; the Capistello ship, Don Frey, Faith D. Hentschel, and Donald H. Keith, “Deepwater Archae-

ology: The Capistello Wreck Excavations, Lipari, Aeolian Islands,” IJNA 7 (1978): 295; the Punic ship: Honor Frost et al., “Lilybaeum

(Marsala). The Punic Ship. Final Excavation Report,” NSc Supplement to Vol. 30, p. 126; the Lake Nemi barges: Guido Ucelli, Le navi di Nemi, p. 152.

|

Fic. 2-6. Nails. Because of changes in the nails’ appearance over time and the difficulty in maintaining accurate records under such circumstances, not all nails could be identified by item number. 1:4. DAF

Fıc. 2-7.

Nails. 1:4. JC

Fıc. 2-8. Lead patches. Exterior face above, interior face below. 1:4. DAF

16

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Where the frames were not fully flush with the interior face of the strakes, it was the practice to drive in wedge-shaped shims, and we retrieved one of these at Porticello (V4).

The

Kyrenia ship hull was fully sheathed,

with

broad sheets of lead fastened to the strakes by copper nails forming diagonal patterns.* Sheathing has been found on hulls of some vessels of early Roman times, and the Porticello ship may offer the earliest example of the practice.” There is, however, an important difference between the Porticello sheathing and that preserved in quantity on later wrecks.* On the latter, where the lead was applied in broad strips or sheets on the entire hull, it was fastened on, as in the Kyrenia ship, with nails forming a diagonal pattern, which gave a neat and attractive appearance. On the Porticello lead pieces, however, there is no indication of a tidy pattern of nails. On the contrary, close examination of the position of the nails or

Fic. 2-9. Lead patches. 1:4. JC

their holes indicates that these lead pieces may simply be small, discrete patches that were attached with nails only on all four edges.? And, although there is no way of ascertaining this now, the patches may have been ap-

plied on either the inside or the outside of the hull, to stop leaks. Lead patches found on the interior of the Kyrenia ship hull may have been necessitated by cracked and leaking timbers. The cleat (V5) is unique among remains of ancient

V37 Fic. 2-10.

Wooden toggle. 1:2. DAF

Fic. 2-11.

Wooden toggle, restored. 1:2. SWK

Mediterranean shipwrecks. That others have not survived is to be expected, as cleats were fastened to cap rails, masts,

or other parts of a ship above

deck

level,

which have not been preserved in ships found to date. It is clear from the Porticello cleat that this sort of device was not new in the fifth to fourth centuries B.C. but had been in use for some time, because the principle behind it was well understood: the cleat was fastened by a square bolt (not preserved) driven through its center; the bolt narrowed toward its tip, providing resistance to

the upward pull of the line wrapped around the cleat.

The Rigging The only clue we have to the nature of the rig carried by the Porticello ship is the wooden device here called a toggle (V37). Similar devices were recovered from the

Kyrenia ship," and Steffy is to be credited with having determined their function. An undated toggle turned up °Steffy, “The Kyrenia Ship," pp. 83-84; Helena Wylde Swiny and Michael L. Katzev, "The Kyrenia Shipwreck: A Fourth-Century B.c. Greek Merchant Ship,” Marine Archaeology, ed. D. J. Blackman, p. 41; Susan W. Katzev and Michael L. Katzev, “Last Harbor for the Oldest Ship," National Geographic 146, no. 5 (Nov., 1974): 622-23.

in the sea as a chance find in southern France, and at Colonia de Sant Jordi, Yet another example was of a Hellenistic wreck at

at Anse Saint-Gervais near Fos the second century B.c. wreck Majorca, produced another." recovered in test excavations Serge Liman, Turkey." Steffy

7D. J. Blackman, "Further Early Evidence of Hull Sheathing,” IJNA 1 (1972): 117-19.

*Grand Congloué ship: Fernand Benoit, Fouilles sous-marines, l'épave

du

Grand

Congloué

à Marseille,

Gallia

Supp.

14, fig. 84,

pl. XXIX; Antikythera ship: Peter Throckmorton, “The Antikythera

THE SHIP AND HER FITTINGS believes these toggles were used as antiluffing devices on square sails when the ship sailed off the wind. The weather edge of the sail has, in such a situation, a tendency to flap or luff, diminishing the efficiency ofthe sail to drive the ship forward, unless it can be held taut. This can be accomplished by attaching a number of lines at intervals to the weather edge, and these lines run aft to the helm, where a sailor controls them by pulling them up or letting them out as the need arises. These lines are quickly and easily put into place or removed if each is tied to the axle of a toggle and the toggles are slipped

into loops of line, which are a permanent feature of the sails leech. Since it was not always necessary to sail off the wind, the toggles could be quickly slipped off and stowed away when not needed. Such toggles are not known to be a normal feature of ships with fore-and-aft rigging, and the presence of one of them on the Porticello ship suggests that the vessel was square rigged. This is to be expected, as foreand-aft rigging is not documented in the Mediterranean before the second century B.c." Steffy believes that toggles were used in sets, as mentioned above, but we have evidence that a single toggle could be put to use when a ship was under sail.

17

One side of an Attic black figure neck amphora, now said to be in Mannheim, depicts a warship proceeding under sail.“ The helmsman is busy manipulating two steering oars. The sheet for the port clew of the sail appears to be

attached at a point just aft of the mast, but the sheet for the starboard clew of the sail runs aft to the helm. The painting is not clear enough to indicate whether the helmsman is actually holding the sheet or whether it is tied off at some point in the helm, but what is of interest from our standpoint is the other end of the sheet—the point where it attaches to the sail. At the clew of the sail, clearly outlined against the white fabric, is a small black

device shaped like a top. The sheet is attached to the clew at the same point. It is obvious that there is a close

relationship between

the sheet and the toggle: the

toggle (in this case'shaped like a top rather than a doorknob) was used to attach the sheet to the sail. Although it was necessary that the antiluffing lines be easily removable from the sails because they were not always needed, it would be preferable for the sheets to be permanently attached. However, a warships rig had to be capable of being stowed quickly when the ship went into action, and removable sheets may have facilitated the procedure.

The Anchors A rather large number of anchors and anchor components were found on or near the wreck site by looters, police, and excavation team members. The informant told us that he and his associates had found "two anchors" lying 15 or 20 m from the wreck; one of these weighed about 125 kg and the other about 350 kg. Made of lead, they apparently were stocks (rather than complete anchors) of the commonest ancient type, with a central box flanked by two arms. Each had two inscriptions on the arms, but the informant did not remember any of the letters. Near one of these anchors they found an anchor collar with wood preserved Ship," in Gladys Davidson Weinberg et al., The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered, TAPS 55, no. 3 (1965): 43, fig. 12; Lake Nemi

in the sockets. A third anchor stock was also recovered, but the informant did not indicate whether it was found on or near the wreck. He said it weighed about 1,000 kg, but gave no indication of its form. All three anchor stocks, being of lead, were cut up and sold for scrap. Three collars of lead were among the items found by antiquities authorities in the looters’ homes. These

have not been included in the present report, although they were included in my original discussion of the anchors from this site.'5 The informant mentioned that one

such piece was found in association with the 1,000 kg stock, but the museum itself did not find similar objects. The looters recovered one bronze anchor tooth,

barges: Ucelli, Le navi di Nemi, figs. 78, 82, 95, 110; Punic ship: Honor

Damian Cerda Juan, La nave r Sant Jordi, p.%, fig. 155. I have

Frost, "The First Season of Excavation on the Punic Wreck in Sicily,"

Doorninck told me about.

IJNA 2 (1973): fig. 7. *We

see parallels for this practice on the Cavallo I wreck:

W. Bebko, Les fig. 65. Also, the van Doorninck, terim Report on

épaves antique du sud de la Corse, pp. 3-4, pl. XI, fourth-century Roman wreck at Yassi Ada: Frederick H. Jr., "The Fourth Century Wreck at Yassi Ada. An Inthe Hull," IJNA 5 (1976): 128-29.

Swiny and Katzev, "The Kyrenia Shipwreck,” p. 351; Steffy. "The Kyrenia Ship," p. 87. "Anse Saint-Gervais: Fernand Benoit "Nouvelles épaves de Provence III,” Gallia 20 (1962): 149, fig. 3. Colonia de Sant Jordi:

republi de la Colonia de not seen the latter, which van

" Unpublished. This information is from van Doorninck.

Lionel Casson, “Studies in Ancient Sails and Rigging,” Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles, vol. 1, American Studies in Papyrology, pp. 43-58. “Münzen und

Medaillen,

A.G.,

Auktion 51 (1975) no.

129,

pp. 50-51 and pl. 25. My thanks to Frederick Winter for bringing this vase painting to my attention.

'SCynthia Jones Eiseman, "The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.c.," Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1979.

V39

V39

Fic. 2-12.

Lead anchor stock fillings. 1:5. DO

Fic. 2-13. Lead anchor stock fillings. 1:5. JC

THE SHIP AND HER FITTINGS

19

identical in form to two found on the site by the museum team.

All anchor parts found by the excavation team were uncovered in the south-central and southeastern extremities of the site. The police map indicates that “lead anchors” were found in this area by the looters as well. Since it is known that the looters were active in this sector of the site, we have no way of knowing whether any anchor parts found here by the excavators had been disturbed. The police map also indicates than an iron anchor and a stone anchor were found in the central part of the site, but no more is known about these items. LEAD

ANCHOR

STOCK

FILLINGS

Oblong lead bars, trapezoidal in section. The shape is that of a truncated pyramid, although it is often called, incorrectly, a parallelepiped. The surfaces are lightly concreted and of rough finish. V38. Plan IV.

FN 82. Figs. 2-12, 2-13.

L. 0.96; max. Weight 74 kg. Curves slightly tion of the lead of breaking off

h. 0.13; w.

0.045

to 0.105

m.

at one end; at the same end a porappears to be missing, as a result or miscasting.

V39. Plan IV.

FN 83. Figs. 2-12, 2-13.

L. 0.83; max. h. 0.145; w. 0.06 to 0.11 m. Weight

112 kg.

Toward one end, at the top, are two protrusions, one projecting from either side, and both trapezoidal in shape. At the other end, also near the top, three nail-like objects project. Lead isotope analysis is given in Table 9. V40. Plan IV. L.

FN 84. Figs. 2-14, 2-15.

0.96;

max.

h.

0.115;

w.

0.065

to 0.115

m.

Weight 94 kg. Toward one end, lead is worn away, broken away, or miscast. V41. Plan IV. L.

FN 85. Figs. 2-14, 2-15.

0.80;

123.5 kg.

h.

0.20;

w.

0.065

to 0.15

m.

Weight

Three deep gouges penetrate this object at one end, and two at the other. Owen 1971a, p. 126; Owen 1973, p. 7. BRONZE

ANCHOR

Fic. 2-14.

Lead anchor stock fillings. 1:5. DO

V42.

FN M6. Figs. 2-16- 2-18. 0.255; w. 0.07; h. 0.05 m. IV. FN 50. Figs. 2-16, 2-19, 2-20. 0.315; w. 0.135; h. 0.12 m. IV. FN 110. Figs. 2-16, 2-21, 2-22. 0.315; w. 0.125; h. 0.12 m. Owen 1971a, 127; Owen 1973, p. 6.

TEETH

Bronze sheets taking the form of hollow cones with flattened, blunt ends. The bronze has been wrapped or folded around a wooden core and fixed to it by tacks, which are themselves preserved occasionally; elsewhere tack holes are preserved. Some of the wooden core is preserved inside V43 and V44. Heavy marine concretions in places.

L. V43. Plan L. V44. Plan L. p.

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

V40 V41

|

Min,

u

Fic. 2-16.

V42

Bronze anchor teeth. 1:4. DAF

The position of V38 and V40 in relation to one another on the seabed can be interpreted as indicating they have not been disturbed, and it is not difficult to reconstruct a complete anchor stock using these two objects as fillings. It is no easy matter, however, to understand the relationship between V41 on the one hand and V38 and V40 on the other, or between V39 and V41. Conceivably, V38, V40, and V41 had all been moved from their origi-

Fic. 2-15.

Lead anchor stock fillings. 1:5. JC

nal positions and set aside by the looters, to be brought to the surface at another time. It is no simpler to understand the relationship between the stock fillings and the teeth. Thus, the disposition of anchor components on the seabed does not indicate with any certainty whether or not the anchors were disturbed by the looters. The wide range of anchor types observed at Porticello by one group of divers or another must be addressed. We have no idea of the size or appearance of the stone anchor indicated on the police map. The same is true of the iron anchor. Lead anchor stocks with a central box were recovered by the looters and indicated on the police map. The museum team recovered lead stock cores and bronze teeth. The questions are: Which of these anchor types belonged to the Porticello ship and which were intrusive? How did the intrusive anchors come to be at the site, and to what extent do they suggest that other material from the site may be intrusive? It is now commonly accepted that ancient anchors developed from those having stone stocks, to those having stocks with lead cores, to those having all-lead

V42 Fic. 2-17.

Fic. 2-19.

Fic. 2-21.

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. DAF

Fic. 2-18.

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. JC

Fic. 2-20.

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. JC

Fic. 2-22.

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. DAF

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. DAF

Bronze anchor tooth. 1:4. JC

22

THE

PORTICELLO

stocks. ^ While iron anchors did not becorne common on merchant ih.ps before the third century B.c.. Herodotus mentioned them in the fifth. century Be.” Without knowing the form of the stone anchor. said by the police to have been found at Porticello. we cannot sav whether it was intrusive or not. Was it a complete stone anchor of the type commonly used in the Bronze Age or a stone stock affixed to the shank of a wooden hook anchor. a type said to have been invented around the seventh century BC.” Were it the latter type. it could likely belong to a vessel of Porticellos vintage. or it could be intrusive and from an earlier vessel. Lead stocks with a central lead box are best documented from the third century B.C. to the second century after Christ. So the anchors of this type mentioned by the informant and indicated on the police map are very likely intrusive and later than the Porticello ship.

This leaves only the anchor with a lead-filled stock. This is the least well understood type of anchor stock in terms of chronology because few have been recovered from datable contexts—only those from Porticello. Kyrenia, and La Secca di Capistello. This type does represent the transition between the stone stock and the all-lead stock. It is not unreasonable to suppose that such anchors were used on the Porticello ship. Gianfrotta has proposed as a working hypothesis that at some time in the fourth century B.c. lead replaced stone as the standard material for anchor stocks.'* He could find no reliable evidence for lead stocks dating earlier than the mid-fourth century, and none of stone

later than that date. I propose that, based on the Porticello anchors, his date for the transition may have to be “Gerhard Kapitan, "Ancient Anchors—Technology and Classification,” IJNA 13 (1954): 33-44. See also the discussion by P. A. Cnanfrotta and Patrice Pomey, Archeologia subacquea, storia, tecniche, scoperte, e relitti, pp. 297-309. In a master's thesis written at Texas A&M University, Douglas Haldane has synthesized the available evidence on Mediterranean wooden anchors. I have not seen his thesis, but I have read the manuscript of an article based on the thesis that he

has submitted for publication to the American Journal of

Archaeology.

Subsequent references to Haldane are to this manuscript. "Herodotus 9.74. Haldane asserts that iron anchors replaced wooden anchors toward the end of the Roman period, perhaps late in the third century after Christ. Kapitän, "Ancient Anchors," provides shapes of five iron anchor types and lists dated contexts for some twelve examples “The Kyrenia anchors have been published in a preliminary manner by Gerhard Kapitan, “Greco-Roman Anchors and the Evidence for the One-armed Wooden Anchor in Antiquity,” Marine Archaeology, ed.

D. J. Blackman, and those from the wreck at La Secca di

Capistello by Frey. Hentschel, and Keith, “Deepwater Archaeology," pp. 295-96 and fig. 21, and by Donald H. Keith with Donald A. Frey, “Saturation Diving in Nautical Archaeology,” Archaeology 32 (1979): 2%. This wreck is dated to around the turn of the fourth/third century. Although “numerous oblong leaden pieces, trapezoidal in section” are said to have been found in ancient harbors and waterways of

SHIPWRECK

moved back to the tum of the £75 century. [t should be pointed out that the Archaic and Classical stone stocks on which his theory is based are ^ . amost exclusively stocks that have been offered by seamen in maritime shrines or otherwise dedicated to the gods... ." It is not unreasonable to deduce from this evidence that stone was the usual material of cotice anchor stocks and thus cannot necessarily be expected to indicate the standard material of anchors used on ships. Furthermore. lead stocks are much less likely than stone ones to have been preserved on land because the metal would have been melted down and put to other uses: where stone votive stocks were reused as building materials. their form did not change bevond recognition. Additionally, we may imagine that the transition did not occur abruptly and uniformly all across the Mediterranean. but rather gradually. Possibly. the Porticello anchors are an early example, with the transition more or less complete by the middle of the fourth century B.c. The presence of anchors of varving tvpes and several eras at Porticello is a strong indication that the bay at Porticello served as an anchorage in antiquity. We can imagine vessels anchoring there to await favorable wind and current conditions that would have easily enabled them to round the point at Torre Cavallo and proceed northward. Surely some of them would have lost an an-

chor in the process. Aside from anchors. however. the excavation the site.

team

found

no other

intrusive

objects

on

The anchors that we propose belonged to the Porticello ship consisted of a wooden shank. wooden arms with bronze teeth, and a wooden stock with lead cores. the Mediterranean. and are “often found in pairs.” none have come from well-dated contexts: Gerhard Kapitän. “A New Type of Ancient Anchor Stock." Archaeology 21 :1965 : 63. See also Gerhard Kapitän, “Explorations at Cape Graziano. Filicudi. Aeolian Islands. 1977." JNA T

197%): 269-77.

One lead piece of this shape has come from the Bon Porté wreck. There is some question as to whether it is an ingot or a stock core. Bernard Liou, “Note provisoire sur deux gisements greco-étrusques ‘Bon Porté A et Pointe du Dattier'." CAS 3: 1974): 7-19. J.-P. Joncherav. “1974 Excavations on the Wreck of Bon Porté :Sixth Century B.c.),” IJNA 5 (1976): 55-59 and fig. 3: J.-P. Joncheray. "L'épave grecque. ou étrusque. de Bon Porté.” CAS 511976 : 21-23. Haldane thinks it is an anchor stock. See also Gianfrotta and Pomev, Archeologia subacquea. p. 156.

'* P. A. Gianfrotta. “First Elements for the Dating of Some Anchor Stocks,” 1JNA 6‘ 1977": 255-92; and P. A. Gianfrotta, "Ancore 'Romane.' Nuovi materiali per lo studio dei traffici marittimi," in "Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome," MAAR 36 (1950): 103—16. In the latter article Gianfrotta makes the common mistake of assigning a date to the Porticello ship on the basis of the apparent style of the sculpture; he rejects the late fifth- to early fourth-centur date consistently proposed by Owen, Foti, and Eiseman, which is based on the pottery. Gianfrottas claim here. that the second bronze head from Porticello is now in the Edinburgh Museum, is not true.

THE

SHIP AND

Kapitän has shown that lead cores were cast in wooden casings serving as molds.” Whether the casings for the Porticello anchors were constructed out of several pieces of timber or were made by hollowing out a single piece of wood is not immediately evident. The curve along the length of V38 and V41 seems to favor the latter method. Yet the sharp angles where the faces of the lead meet on all four pieces suggest the former alternative, which Kapitän postulated for the type. There is no trace on any of the four cores that they were joined by a tongue of lead to another core.? The question then arises as to whether we have pairs of stock cores. V38 and V40 are close enough in weight—or would be, once the missing fragment of lead is restored to V38—to have constituted the halves of a balanced stock. In the case of V39 and V41, they are close enough in length and weight to constitute a pair. A stock made of these two cores would, in fact, be less unbalanced than were removable lead stocks that were to become so common in later years.? ®Gerhard Kapitän, "Der Ankerfund von Syrakus," Delphin (Mar., 1968) 14-16, 32, and “Meeresarchäologie in Bulgarien— Ankerfunde im Schwarzen Meer," Das Logbuch 16 (1980): 45-58. Haldane also argues that a wooden box was fixed to the shank of an anchor, a number of precautions were taken to prevent the lead core from slipping inside the box, and then molten lead was poured in.

HER

FITTINGS

23

Likewise, no traces of a shank for these anchors survived, and we must assume that it was made of wood, which has disintegrated. That the arms were wooden is certain, however, because two of the bronze teeth which covered the ends of the arms had wood preserved inside them.? Comparable bronze teeth have been found only on the wooden anchor with a lead stock from Lake Nemi.* LEAD

V45. Max. diam.

RING

FN 71.16. Figs. 2-23, 2-24. of ring 0.28; max. diam. of section

0.055 m.

Slightly flattened circle, almost round in section, but thicker on one side than on the other. At one side is a flange with two holes piercing it. The lead ring is the sort found extensively throughout the Mediterranean, often under water and frequently, although not always, without context.^ The function of these rings is still uncertain. The most common explanation is that they served to free a fouled anchor line or mooring line.*

the two halves being joined by a narrow tongue: cf. Kapitàn, "GrecoRoman Anchors," fig. 8a. Anchor stocks consisting of a lead core cast in a single piece have been found at Cape Stomi and Kynosoura in the Bay of Marathon: Frangois Braemer and Jean Marcadé, "Céramique antique et piéces d'ancres trouvées en mer à la pointe de la Kynosoura (Baie de Marathon)” BCH 77 (1953): 139-54, cf. fig. 11. These are much smaller than ours, weighing 15 kg or less. They are of truncated pyramid shape with a crescent-shaped piece missing from one long side near the center, where the stock was attached to the shank. The remains of another such piece have come from Syracuse harbor: P. N. Gargallo, "Anchors of Antiquity," Archaeology 14 (1961): 31-35, fig. 12. Another lead stock, cast in a wooden casing which has since per-

There is a bronze tooth in the Bodrum museum (Turkey), but with unknown provenance; I owe this information to F. H. van Doorninck, Jr. Iron rods that served as cores for wooden arms have been found at Tomis: cf. Cosma (“Anchor Stocks from Tomis,”), who has reconstructed his anchor with these rods extending beyond the end of the wooden arms and filed to a point (cf. p. 239 and fig. 7) in such a way that they would function as bills. Iron arm casings which were probably closer in form to our bronze ones were found on the wooden anchor of the second century B.c. from La Chrétienne C wreck, J.-P. Joncheray, et al., “Découverte d'une ancre en bois à jas de plomb sur une épave grécoitalique,” CAS 1 (1972): 121-23 and 126. ®See for example Benoit, Grand Congloué, pp. 178-79; Frey, Hentschel, and Keith, “Deepwater Archaeology,” pp. 296-97, fig. 22; Frederic Dumas, “Exploration sommaire de certaines zones cotiéres d'îles de Marseille,” CAS 1 (1972): 111 and fig. 2; W. Deonna, Exploration archéologique de Delos XVIII, 202, no. 94, Le mobilier delien;

ished, was found in Syracuse harbor: cf. Kapitän, "Der Ankerfund von

Nino Lamboglia, “Ricerche e scoperte d’archeologia sottomarina in

Syrakus." It consisted of two pyramidal extremities joined by a lead bar; the whole item appears to have been cast in a single piece. Two lead anchor stocks, both now in the Palermo Museum, were found at Capo Zafferano near Solunto, Sicily, and at Isola delle Femine, off the north coast of Sicily, not far from Palermo. See V. Tusa, "I rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini nella Sicilia nord-occidentale tra il II et III congresso internazionale," Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Sottomarina, pp. 263-95. “Unbalanced lead or stone stocks are, nevertheless, documented. An undated stone anchor stock in the Syracuse collection: Kapitän “Greco-Roman Anchors,” p. 390. Undated removable lead anchor stocks have been found at Tomis: cf. Vasile Cosma, "Anchor Stocks from Tomis," IJNA 2 (1973): 235-41, figs. 3 and 4. The lead stocks from Marathon Bay are also unbalanced: cf. Braemer and Marcadé, "Céra-

Liguria dal 1959 al 1961," Atti del III Congresso internazionale di archeologia sottomarina, pp. 176-92; Fernand Benoit, "L'archéologie sous-marine en Provence," RStLig 18 (1952): 274, fig. 37; Gianfrotta and Pomey, Archeologia subacquea, p. 287. * Haldane argues persuasively that impressions of such rings on anchor stocks provide confirmation of this argument. As with images of other devices—including astragals, names or attributes of divinities— these things were represented on anchor stocks as apotropaic devices to ward off influences that might cause the anchor to malfunction. The lead rings assured the safe recovery of the anchor, and so images of them on anchor stocks were thought to bring good luck. See J. Bravo Perez and J. Bravo Soto, "Vestigos del pasadao de Ceuta," Immersión y ciencia 4 (1972): 5-39; M. B. Soriano, "Los hallazagos arqueologicos submarinos ingresados en el Museo Arqueologico de Tarragona."

"The cores from the Kyrenia ship were evidently cast in pairs,

mique antique," pp. 139-54. ? Haldane has discovered that this anchor element was called a

tooth in antiquity. He cites Pindar, Pythian Odes 4.24, who speaks of bronze teeth, and Livy 27.30.9— 10, who describes iron teeth. ^ Ucelli, Le navi di Nemi. figs. 118, 275. 278, and p. 242.

Boletín arqueológico

de Tarragona

69-70

(1969-70):

11; P. A. Gian-

frotta, "Un ceppo di C. Aquilo Proculo tra i rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini a Punta Licosia nel Cilento," Forma Maris Antiqui 19731974 10 (Bordighera, 1950): 23; E. Foerster Laures, "Un ceppo de ancla romana, con decoration, frente a Taimiru," CRIS 152 (1976): 18.

24

THE

Fic. 2-23.

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Lead ring. 1:4. DAF

Fic. 2-24.

Lead ring. 1:4. JC

Radiocarbon Analyses of Wood Samples The results of radiocarbon analyses performed on three samples of wood recovered from the Porticello shipwreck site by the University Museum excavation are given in Table 1.” There is no way to reconcile the date given by

sample P-1728 with the date of the shipwreck as determined by study of the pottery found on board. This sample, therefore, was either contaminated or intrusive. The other two samples provide dates more in keeping with the pottery dates. The MASCA corrected dates “The samples were analyzed at the Radiocarbon Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania. The dates were previously published by Barbara Lawn, “University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XV," Radiocarbon 15, no. 2 (1973): 368-69. Elizabeth K. Ralph, Barbara Lawn, and Anne Meulengracht assisted in interpretation of the results. *The correction is based on tree-ring dating: E. K. Ralph, H. N. Michael, and M. C. Han, “Radiocarbon Dates and Reality,” MASCA

of 470—440 +52 B.c. and 420 +43 B.c. represent not the time of the ships sinking but the time of the cutting of the trees which furnished the timber for the ship's planking.” In addition, wood taken from the interior of the tree provides an earlier radiocarbon date than does wood from the outside of the tree.? The results of the radiocarbon analyses indicate, therefore, that the ship appears to have been constructed several years or perhaps several decades prior to the time when she set out on her final voyage. Newsletter 9, no. 1 (1973): 1-20. The figures which I mentioned in my article (Cynthia Jones Eiseman, "Amphoras from the Porticello Shipwreck [Calabria]," IJNA 2 [1973]: 13-23) were based on preliminary corrections.

®See Elizabeth K. Ralph, "Carbon-14 Date for the Antikythera Shipwreck," in Gladys Davidson Weinberg et al., The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered, TAPS 55, no. 3 (1965): 48.

THE

SHIP AND

HER

FITTINGS

TABLE ı. Radiocarbon Analyses of Wood Samples. 5568 Half-life

5730 Half-life MASCA Corrected

Sample

B.P. 1950

P-1755 P-1814

2360 2277

+ 50 + 42

P-1728

1541

+ 40

B.C.

B.P. 1950

B.C.

410 + 50 327 + 42

2431 + 52 2346 + 43

481 + 52 396 + 43

470-440 + 52 420 + 43

A.D.

A.D.

383 + 41

450 + 41

A.D. 409 + 40

1588 + 41

B.C.

IH

THE STERN STORAGE AREA

Utilitarian Pottery THE term utilitarian pottery is used here as a convenience to refer to pottery believed to have been taken aboard the ship for use by the captain and crew, which

distinguishes it from pottery carried as cargo.

with lower part of wall. A wheel-run

groove

marks the join between the underside of the base and the foot.

Two wheel-run grooves at rim; decoration on

All the utilitarian pottery recovered by the excavation team came from the northern extremity of the ex-

underside consists of a dot, a circle, and a broad

cavation area. The Carabinieri reported that they re-

decoration consists of a circle rounded by six linked palmettes.

trieved the lamps (G5, G6), oinochoe (G11), and chytra (G8) from this part of the site as well. Items other than pottery aboard the ship for the crew's convenience also recovered from this area included the awl (G15) and the wooden bowl (G14). We cannot know now for certain from what part of the wreck came the mortar (G10) or the whetstones (G12, G13), but it is not unreasonable to

suppose that they would have been kept in the stern storage area as well.

BOLSALS

Ring foot; concave lower part of wall; upper part of wall has single curve; two wheel-run grooves at rim; maximum diameter at rim. Handles have a rectangular out-

line and tilt upward very slightly. Outer and inner surfaces are black glazed, but fired

red or worn in places. Reserved areas on underside. Inside decoration consists of a circle of ovules surrounded by linked palmettes. FN 43. Figs. 3-1, 3-2. H. 0.067; diam. 0.129 m. Upper part of wall and part of one handle missing. Angular join at inner face and resting surface of foot; outer face of foot forms a continuous curve

G1. Plan III.

band with broad reserved bands. Inside stamped of ovules

sur-

Fabric is between 5YR 7/4 and 6/4, with gray flecks.

G2. Plan III.

FN 44-47, 56, 57. Figs. 3-1, 3-2.

Pres. Rim, Inner uous lower

h. 0.063; diam. 0.117 m. handles, parts of wall missing; repaired. face and resting surface of foot form contincurve. Outer face of foot is flat and meets part of wall at an angle. Concave lower part

of wall with scraped groove just below join with upper wall. Decoration on underside consists of single black band. Inside stamped decoration is a circle of ovules surrounded by five linked palmettes. Fabric is 5YR 6/6. FN 58 and 60. G3. Plan III. Pres. 1. 0.048 m. Part of handle and wall, not repaired. Clay like that of G2. It may belong. G4. Plan III. FN 59. Pres. 1. 0.031 m. Part of handle and rim. Rim shows slight outward curve and has two parallel wheel-run grooves. This does not fit Gl, and its clay is a lighter

THE

Fıc. 3-1.

STERN

STORAGE

AREA

27

Bolsals. Profiles 1:2. Details not to scale. DAF

G1

Fic. 3-2.

Bolsals. 1:2. JC

color than G2, suggesting that it came third cup altogether. G1-G4,

from

a

ca. 420-380 B.c.

The Porticello bolsals are good examples of Attic black glaze pottery, even though some of the glaze is

worn. They can be firmly assigned to the years 420 to 380 B.c., as demonstrated below. " The shape originated in the third quarter of the fifth century and enjoyed considerable popularity until about the middle of the fourth, when it was ousted by kan-

28

THE

PORTICELLO

tharos types.' The earliest bolsals are marked by experi-

mentation, but soon the shape took the form which was to characterize it for most of its duration. Corbett has observed that in Agora examples of the last thirty years of the fifth century, “. . . the bolsal is found with several varieties of profile and decoration, all of which appear to be contemporary. . . ."? Features include proportion of height to diameter, type of foot, decoration of underside,

and impressed decoration on the interior. In all these respects, the Porticello examples reflect details of Agora cups. The size of our cups falls within Agora ranges, and

proportion of height to diameter of our Gl is 1:1.9, Agora examples ranging from 1:2.5 to 1:1.9. No two foot profiles of published Agora examples are identical to one another or to Porticello examples, but the form of the latter falls within the range of documented variations. Likewise, the underside decoration of our G1 is close to that of several Agora cups, although G2 is distinctly more plain than most. On the interior, the impressed decoration of a circle of ovules surrounded by linked palmettes, in its relative simplicity, is characteristic of examples that fall between the earlier, carefully executed, elaborate decorations consisting of two or more zones of linked palmettes surrounding circles of ovules on the one hand and the later perfunctory palmette crosses or pal-

mettes around a circle on the other hand. From these considerations the upper limit of our cups can safely be assigned to the last fifteen or twenty years of the fifth

SHIPWRECK

certain that they belong to the years preceding 380—370. The single feature of our vessels that argues against

a date later than the decade 390—380 is the absence of rouletting for the interior decoration. Rouletting seems to have come into fashion gradually in those years. Negative evidence must be used cautiously, and in the case of the Porticello bolsals the absence of rouletting is used only in conjunction with the details of the vessels' shapes and underside decoration to argue for a date no later than about 380 B.c. Further support for a lower limit of 380 comes from material recovered from a well, U 13:1, in room 6 of a group of shops beneath the Roman Stoa on the east side of the Athenian Agora. The upper 13.5 m of this well was used for a dump in the early years of the fourth century, until about 380 B.C., when it was sealed. From this deposit, which the excavator argues was made over a short

period of time, came a number of bolsals almost identical to one another and similar to those from the Porticello ship.* Although the interior decoration, consisting of four palmettes around a circle, is simpler than our decoration, details of the shape are the same, including two grooves around the rim and a groove at the transition between the lower, concave wall and the upper, convex wall. The vessels from the well are notable in that they lack those features which are typical of mid-fourth century cups, namely a groove on the resting surface of the foot, outturned rims, molded undersides, and rouletting.

century.

With respect to the lower limit, a number of factors

LAMPS

must be brought to bear. Sparkes and Talcott have noted

Broad,

the paucity of deposits in the Athenian Agora and else-

base. Curved sides. Clearly defined rim, sloping inward

where in Greece for the early years of the fourth century (but see below).? When evidence increases in the third decade of the century, it is clear that changes have taken place in some shapes and in decorative devices. For the bolsal, the most telling change in form is the appearance

to a moderately small opening. Wide nozzle with flat top and large wick hole. Opposite, a flat band handle. Very shiny black glaze covers the entire lamp, in-

of the out-turned rim.* Other factors by themselves cannot give an indication of date. Handles with roots close together and their sides forming a sharp angle with the

arch, and the "canonical black underside with rising central cone and grooved resting surface" characterize bolsals of the mid-fourth century.” Inasmuch as not one of

turies B.C., pp. 107—108. * Peter E. Corbett, "Attic Pottery of the Late Fifth Century from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 18 (1949): 301.

Slightly concave,

simple

raised

side and out, except for the reserved underside of the base, but it is very chipped and worn on the exterior. Clay is light red.

G5.

FN MM. Figs. 3-3, 3-4. H. 0.035; diam. 0.075 m. Surface is 5YR 6/4.

G6.

FN MIS. Fig. 3-3.

H. 0.033; diam. 0.072 m.

Glaze better preserved on this example. Around

these features is found on the Porticello cups, we can be 'Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott, The Athenian Agora, vol. XII, Black and Plain Pottery of the Sixth, Fifth, and Fourth Cen-

shallow body.

the mouth, the glaze is fired to a deep red. Sur*T.

Leslie

Shear,

Jr.,

"The

Athenian

Agora:

Excavations

of

1973-1974,” Hesperia 44 (1975): 355—61, deposit U 13:1. I am grateful to Professor Shear for permission to examine pottery from this deposit. The bolsals that I looked at were

P30429,

P30488-92,

P30511,

and

*Sparkes and Talcott, The Athenian Agora XII, 12.

P30614-15. The five cups numbered P30488-92 are those that bear a

*]bid., p. 107.

strong similarity to the Porticello cups. They all came from the uppermost layer, Layer 1, of the deposit.

*[bid.

THE STERN STORAGE AREA

29

£N

à El Fic. 3-3.

Lamps. 1:2. DAF

Fic. 3-4.

face of underside of foot is 7.5YR 7/4. Owen 1970,

p. 29; Owen 1973, p.6; Owen 197la, p. 122;

Lamp.

1:2. JC

ing perhaps that deterioration of the glaze occurred during its period of use rather than its centuries in the sea.

Owen 1971c, p. 58; Laviano and Colosimo, p. 26. G5 and G6, ca. 400 B.c. Bailey land's Type diameter to though the

has classified the Porticello lamps as How23A, but the dimensions and proportions of height are closer to those of Type 23C, aldistinction is a very fine one.’ Scheibler has

noted that among

the Late Classical I lamps (430-

380 B.C.) a diameter-to-height ratio of 2.8:1 is common around 430; around 400 it is 2.17:1, and later in the fourth century it is 2.03:1.° The Porticello lamps have ratios of 2.14:1 and 2.18:1. Proportions alone cannot be used as a dating criterion, but within the category of Diskuslampen I, to which the Porticello lamps belong, another detail of shape points to the earlier period: walls and base are thinner than Scheiblers later examples. None of the other details is especially distinctive: length of nozzle, size of filling holes and wick holes, breadth of

rim, shape and size of band handle are all average. Glaze originally covered all surfaces of the lamps, except for the underside of the base, but much was worn away on G5. On G6 a band of glaze around the filling hole is deep red, indicating where another pot resting on it in the kiln would have prevented it from turning black during firing. The condition of the glaze on the interior of both lamps is better than that on the exterior, suggest"Donald M. Bailey, A Catalogue of Lamps in the British Museum,

vol. I, Greek,

p. 46, Q 57.

Hellenistic, and Early Roman

FN 82.1. Figs. 3-5, 3-6. H. 0.072; diam. 0.132 m. Complete except for top of one handle.

Rim is offset. Wheel-run grooves where the lip joins the wall. The foot consists of an upper and a lower member with a groove where the foot joins the wall and two grooves where the upper and lower members of the foot join. Handles are attached just above the midpoint of the wall and swing up to above the level of the rim.

Outer and inner surfaces are black glazed but fired red or worn in places. Underside decoration consists of a dot and four concentric circles. Interior impressed decoration consists of three plain concentric circles surrounded successively by a circle of palmettes and a circle of ovules, all carelessly done. G7, ca. 420-380 B.c. This cup, which only came to my attention in 1982,

(see p. 9) is earlier than the bolsals. Its closest published parallel is no. 617 in Sparkes and Talcott' catalog of Attic black-glaze cup-skyphoi.? It falls into the sub-category of the heavy-walled cup-skyphos, which existed for a short period from 420 to 380 B.c.

Pottery Lamps,

*Ingeborg Scheibler, Kerameikos, vol. XI, Griechische Lampen, p. 107.

CUP-SKYPHOS

G7.

°Sparkes and Talcott, The Athenian no. 617, p. 279, pls. 27, 55, and fig. 6.

Agora

XII;

111-12,

and

30

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 3-6.

Fic.

3-5. Cup-skyphos

and detail.

Profile 1:2.

Detail not

Cup-skyphos.

Some Some a. b.

to scale. SA

COARSE

WARES

G8.

FN M18.

Figs. 3-7, 3-8.

Chytra. H. 0.065; diam. 0.08 m.

Flared rim; single strap handle rising from rim; round body; rounded base. Surface is 10YR 7/2 and rough. Core is 7.5YR 4/0. Owen 1970, p.29; Owen 1971a, p.6; Owen 1971b, p. 122; Owen 1971d, p. 58; Laviano and Colosimo, p. 26. G9. Plan III. FN 13, 14, 33-37, 53, 118, 120. Figs. 3-7, 3-8. Lopades or lidded chytrai. Small sherds of gritty cooking ware fabric, ranging in color from light red to reddish brown.

c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

1:2. SA

of the heavier pieces have a light gray core. show traces of a dark wash on the exterior. Handle fragment. L. 0.147 m. Handle fragment or unpierced spout. L. 0.065 m. Handle fragment. L. 0.061 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.096 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.069 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.065 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.061 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.052 m. Rim fragment. L. 0.075 m. Wall fragment. L. 0.024 m. Knob. L. 0.023; w. 0.026 m.

These sherds have been designated as belonging to a lopas (its flattened version) or to a lidded chytra because of the rolled handles, flared rim with a flange inside for resting the lid, unpierced spout, and pinched knob for the lid, all of which are characteristic of examples from the Athenian Agora." These sherds must have come

from several different pots, two or three at

most, but the remains are so small and fragmentary that

THE STERN STORAGE AREA it has not been possible to determine precisely how many pots are represented, or their original sizes. G10.

FN

M20.

Figs. 3-9, 3-10.

17035. Mortar.

H. 0.085; diam. 0.32 m. Flat base with slight concave curve; walls rise with convex curve to broad, outcurved rim. Outer surface is white slipped; inner surface is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); sea concretions on one side. Owen Gll.

In contrast to the lopas and chytra, whose shape details are very close to Attic examples, the oinochoe and mortar seem clearly non-Attic. The very plain mortar— a flat base, undecorated, overhanging rim, without spout or handles—seems undocumented in either Athens or Corinth." Likewise, our oinochoe is taller, thinner, and has different proportions than jugs of either household or cooking wares from Athens." The date of the wreck can best be determined by the pottery used by the crew for cooking and eating,

1971a, p. 6; Owen 1971b, p. 123. FN M16. Figs. 3-7, 3-8.

Oinochoe.

31

! [bid., pp. 221-23, pls. 90-92, figs. 16, 20. " [bid., pp. 58-69, pls. 5-10, figs. 2, 3, and pp. 204-209, pls. 73-79, figs. 14, 17.

H. 0.20; diam. 0.12 m.

+45 fr we" | Ovoid body on low, raised ring base; high neck, well-defined rim with pinched spout; strap handle rising from rim to shoulder. Surface is white (2.5Y 8/2); brown and black

stains beneath spout. Owen

1970, p. 29; Owen

1971, p. 122; Owen 1971c, p. 58; Owen p. 6; Laviano and Colosimo, p. 26.

1973,

The bolsals, lamps, and the cup-skyphos Athenian manufacture, but the origin or origins remainder of the utilitarian pottery, being coarse cannot be pinpointed with the present state of edge. The shapes—chytra, mortar, oinochoe, and lopas or chytra—are common and widespread.

are of of the ware, knowllidded

" [bid., pp. 224-28.

BE” 9»

aw w

Fic. 3-7. Chytra and fragments of lopades of lidded chytrai. 1:2. DAF

ad

32

THE PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

G11 Fıc. 3-9.

G10

Mortar and oinochoe. 1:4. DAF

|

SN"

G8 Fic. 3-8.

1:2. JC

Chytra and fragments of lopades or lidded chytrai.

as this material is more likely to have a shorter life span aboard a ship than might the cargo amphoras. (For the same reason, determining the home port of the vessel from this pottery might prove risky, for the captain undoubtedly replaced broken crockery at any place and at any time when the need arose on a voyage.) Furthermore, shape developments are documented in better detail for black-glaze ware and lamps than for those transport amphoras of which we have examples from this wreck. Therefore, on the basis of the lamps, bolsals, and

Fic. 3-10.

Mortar and oinochoe. 1:4. JC

d

THE STERN STORAGE AREA the cup-skyphos associated with the Porticello ship, we can fix the time that the vessel sank to around the year 400 B.C., with a margin of perhaps ten or fifteen years on

33

either side, but no more. This date is compatible with

what we know of the shape development for Mendean amphoras.

Miscellaneous

G12.

FN M2. Fig. 3-11.

Awl. Pres. 1. 0.06; 1. of point 0.025 m. Iron point set into hollow wooden handle, now

L. 0.10; w. 052 to 0.055; th. 0.012 to 0.013 m.

Hard gray stone. Smooth surfaces, but rough, irregular edges. G13.

broken.

The point is lightly corroded.

G16.

FN 67. Figs. 3-15, 3-16.

L. 0.19; w. 0.06; th. 0.045 to 0.055 m.

Bone.

Hard gray stone. Smooth on one side, but irregu-

L. 0.146; max. w. 0.029 m.

Mammalian fore-extremity, sheep or goat; proxi-

lar on the other side and on the edges. G14. Plan III.

Owen

1971a, p. 123; Eiseman 1975b, fig. 9.

FN M5. Fig. 3-11.

Whetstone.

FN 38. Fig. 3-14.

G15. Plan III.

Whetstone.

mal end is broken horizontally; distal end remains intact with only slight disintegration on the medial surface. Concretions over the distal end.

FN 15. Figs. 3-12, 3-13.

Wooden bowl.

Pres. diam. 0.101; pres. h. 0.043 m. Rim and base not preserved; worm hole in the bottom.

Metal Objects FN 11. Figs. 3-15, 3-16. Fishing weight, lead. Max. I. 0.051; max. w. 0.044 m. Weight 113 g. Truncated pyramid; hole pierced horizontally

G17. Plan III.

G21. Plan III.

One

FN 65. Fig. 3-16.

Truncated pyramid; through the top. G19.

hole

pierced

FN M22.

G20. Plan III.

FN

1, 2, 3, 4. Fig. 3-15.

L. 0.034; w. 0.032 m. Weight 70 g. L. 0.038; w. 0.028 m. Weight 70 g.

L. 0.026; max. w. 0.023 m. Weight 58 g.

o

. L. 0.022 m. Weight 16 g.

See Table 2, for composition of G20a and Table 9 (chapter IV) for isotope analysis of G20a.

nuggets,

irregularly

FN 12. Fig. 3-15.

Metal box, lead and silver? Max. |. 0.033; max. w. 0.025; thickness 0.01 m. Along the center of one side is an opening.

Figs. 3-15, 3-16.

Cake ingots, lead and silver. Measurements are taken along straight edges. L. 0.038; w. 0.033 m. Weight 80 g. £07»

G22. Plan III.

diagonally

Pyriform weight, lead. Max. |. 0.105; diam. 0.028 m. Weight 453 g. One end comes almost to a point; the other is nearly rounded. Ridges run the length of the object, giving it an octagonal shape in section.

twenty-two

scratched, color is silver. See Tables 3 and 4 (this chapter) and Table 9 (chapter IV).

Fishing weight, lead. Max. l. 0.016; max. w. 0.007 m. Weight 7.5 g.

hundred

shaped, varying in size from 0.5 cm? or less to about 1.0 cm?. Surface color is gray; when

through the top. G18. Plan III.

FN 5, 30, 60. Fig. 3-15.

Metallic nuggets, lead and silver.

G23.

FN 48. Figs. 3-15, 3-16.

Oval object of uncertain function, mostly wood

with band of metal, perhaps bronze, around one edge. Max. l. 0.108; w. 0.069 m. Despite the disturbed condition of the stern storage

area, the artifacts recovered here offer a general picture of the kinds of equipment carried on board for the convenience of the ships crew; some may have been per-

sonal belongings. In addition to vessels (both wooden ' and terracotta) for cooking, eating, and food storage, the crew was supplied with whetstones for sharpening their

knives and other tools, an awl which may have been used in repairing sails, and fishing weights. We can imagine

that in addition to the oinochoe, other sizable closed

-

34

THE

Fıc. 3-11.

Whetstones. 1:4. DAF

Fic. 3-12.

Wooden bowl. 1:2. DAF

Fic. 3-13.

Wooden bowl. 1:2. SWK

Fic. 3-14.

Awl. 1:1. JC and DAF

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 3-15. Bone, lead weights, cake ingots, metallic nuggets, metallic box, wood-and-metal oval. 1:2. DAF

THE STERN STORAGE AREA

35

concentrated in a small area, suggesting that they were stored together in a container that disintegrated, per-

haps a basket or leather bag. The sections of cake ingots, G20, bear a strong resemblance to silver cake ingots from coin hoards, and the

nuggets, G21, could be regarded as Hacksilber or “cut silver,” also occasionally found in hoards together with coins, or in silversmiths’ hoards." It is difficult, however, to identify those metal objects as cake ingots and cut silver because the analyses show that they are composed

of more lead than silver and so could not have been bullion carried aboard ship for use as currency in business transactions (see Tables 2, 3, and 4). Nevertheless, we »A. D. H. Bivar, “A Hoard of Ingot-Currency of the Median Period from Nush-I-Jan near Malayir," Iran 9 (1971): 97-112.

TABLE 2. Atomic Absorption Analysis of Cake Ingot. Cu Ag Pb Zn Sb Fe

3.96 12.465 82.69 00.11 00.73 00.00

Sn Au

— —

Note: Analysis performed on a cake ingot (G20) by Asha Varma, Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter (LSRM), Univer-

sity of Pennsylvania. Robert Maddin arranged for the tests, and Stuart Fleming of the University Museum results.

Fıc. 3-16.

Bone, lead weights, wood-and-metal oval. 1:2. JC

vessels containing oil, wine, and other foodstuffs were carried in this part of the ship, but these have not sur-

vived. The informant mentioned that part ofa very large jar had been recovered by the looters, and this may have been the ships fresh-water jar. Two small oil lamps provided a little light for the crew after dark. G17 and G18 are likely to be weights for fishing with a line, although both are so small and light that they must have been intended for use in shallow waters only. The crew would have used them to catch fish to supple-

ment their diet of whatever was carried aboard ship. G19 lacks a suspension hole but may originally have had a metal hook at the top; nevertheless, its function remains unknown. G23 is of uncertain function also and may ac-

tually be part of the cargo of sculpture. G22 might have been used as a mold of some sort.

The fishing weights, cake ingots, and nuggets were

assisted in interpretation of the

TABLE 3. Chemical Analysis of Metallic Nugget.

Element Lead Silver

Weight % in alloy Major 23.3

Estimated Composition (96) 72-74 23.3

Copper

Minor high

1-5

Iron Bismuth Gold Aluminum Silicon Magnesium Manganese

nf 0.X* 0.0X 0.0X nf 0.0X* nf 0.00X low* 0.00X low-0.00X high* 0.000X

— — — — — — —

Note: Analysis of metallic nugget (G21) performed by Lucius Pitkin, Inc., New York. Robert H. Brill of the Corning Museum of

Glass arranged for the tests. Analysis indicated no trace of molybdenum, vanadium, nickel, chromium, tin, zinc, antimony, cadmium, indium, beryllium, platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, irid-

ium, cobalt, gallium, germanium, phosphorus, or boron. *Sample apparently not homogeneous with respect to the indicated elements.

36

THE

PORTICELLO

TABLE 4. Qualitative Spectrographic Analysis of Metallic Nugget. Element Lead Silver

Weight % Major Major

Copper

Minor-high

Iron

nf-0.X*

Bismuth

0.0X

Gold

0.0X

Aluminum

nf-0.0X*

Silicon

nf-0.00X low*

Magnesium Manganese

0.00X low-0.00X high* 0.000X

Note: Analysis of metallic nugget (G21) performed by Lucius Pitkin, Inc., New York. Robert H. Brill of the Corning Museum of Glass arranged for the tests. Analysis indicated no trace of molybdenum, vanadium, nickel, chromium, tin, zinc, antimony, cadmium, in-

dium, beryllium, platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, cobalt, gallium, germanium, phosphorus, boron. *Sample apparently not homogeneous with respect to the ele-

ments indicated.

are left with three problems: the similarity between silver cake ingots and our ingots, that between cut silver and our nuggets, and the high lead content of our objects. The possibility that the owner of the Porticello

metal might have tried to pass it off as the genuine article

SHIPWRECK

suggests itself. Although there is much talk among numismatists of counterfeit coinage, the question of counterfeit bullion has not been discussed; yet to my knowledge no cut silver or cake ingots from hoards have

been analyzed for their composition, except for examples from the Asyut hoard.' The metal from Porticello may have had other purposes on board ship, purposes which would have directly served the captain, the crew, and the ship herself. The lead might well have been kept convenient, in the stern storage area of the ship near the cooking and eating ware and lamps, in order to make it into fishing weights, patches of sheeting for the hull, brailing rings, or other items that are likely to need replacement during a voyage. Yet, why should lead with a high silver content be used for this purpose? Another possible explanation for the cake ingots and nuggets is that they were partially refined lead being carried as a trade item. Since the bone was retrieved from an area of the site that had been heavily plundered, it is impossible to state whether or not it was intrusive.

If not, it can best

be accounted for as having been from the crew’s food. ^W, Gentner, O. Müller, G. A. Wagner, and N. H. Gale, “Silver

Sources of Archaic Greek Coinage,” Die Naturwissenschaften 65, no. 6 (1978): 273, 281.

IV

THE CARGO

Transport Amphoras SOME ofthe amphoras discussed here were recovered by the University Museum excavation team, others by the

surface; gritty, light gray fabric. A finger impression at the base of each handle. Impression on

looters and by the police (see chapter I). Those found by

underside of toe is smeared with pitch. Lined.

the excavation team were concentrated in two midships areas of the wreck, but their positions on the seabed showed no clear, orderly alignment as is evident in some amphora cargoes, and they were not concreted to one

Eiseman 1973, no. 1, pp. 13-14, and fig. 1; Eiseman 1975, fig. 2; Owen 1971a, p. 124. C2. Plan IV. FN 92. Figs. 4-1, 4-3.

17858. Pres. h. 0.65; max. diam. 0.40 m.

another, as also happens. For these reasons it appears that the ship must have been severely broken up when she struck the large rocks on the seabed when she sank; this would have caused the cargo amphoras to tumble

Toe missing. Pink (7.5YR 7/4) surface; Surface badly discolored. On the handle a circular stamp, ca. 0.02 m. Lined. Eiseman 1973, no. 2, p. 14, Owen 1970, p. 24.

around a great deal before the ship settled on the seabed. During the formation of the wreck in ensuing

gray fabric. top of one in diameter. and fig. 2;

FN M126. Fig. 4-1.

years, when the wood of the hull deteriorated, amphora piles would have collapsed even more. Many of our amphoras were lined with a dark brown or black substance which is glossy in some cases; the presence of this lining is indicated in the catalog. Samples of the lining were taken from several amphoras,

C3.

but only one sample has been analyzed (see Table 5, this

C4. Plan IV.

17862.

Pres. h. 0.63; max. diam. 0.38 m. Toe missing. Light brown (7.5YR 6/4) surface; gritty gray fabric. Surface badly discolored and

encrusted. Eiseman 1973, no. 3, p. 14, and fig. 3.

FN 94. Figs. 4-1, 4-2.

17859.

chapter). TYPE

H. 0.70; max. diam. 0.39 m. Neck repaired. Reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) surface.

1. MENDEAN

Finger impression at the base of each handle.

Flaring rim; long neck flaring outward at base to a broad shoulder; scraped groove where rim joins neck; simple

Fully lined; pitch smeared across indentation on underside of toe. On top of one handle is a very worn, unidentifiable stamp. Eiseman 1973, no. 4, p. 14, and fig. 1; Owen 1971b, p. 125.

strap handles from upper neck to shoulders; sharply sloping lower wall with slight convex curve; flared toe with round impression on the underside. Cl. Plan IV.

FN 90. Figs. 4-1, 4-2.

H. 0.67; max. diam. 0.40 m. One handle restored.

FN 82.1. Fig. 4-1.

C5.

17854.

17857. Light brown

(7.5YR 6/4)

H. 0.66; max. diam. 0.375 m. Complete.

Fic. 4-1. Mendean amphoras. 1:10. DAF

THE

C6.

CARGO

39

FN 82.2. Fig. 4-1. 17863.

C7.

Pres. h. 0.66; max. diam. 0.375 m. Part of neck and rim missing.

FN 82.3. Fig. 4-1.

17852.

C8.

H. 0.64; max. diam. 0.38 m. Complete. Surface is reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6).

FN 82.4. Fig. 4-1.

17029.

C9.

Pres. h. 0.596; max. diam. 0.38 m. Toe and part of rim missing.

FN 82.5. Fig. 4-1.

17860. Pres. h. 0.639; max. diam. 0.395 m. Rim chipped. Surface is reddish yellow (7.5YR

6/6). C10. Plan IV.

FN 32.

Fragment of neck and rim. Pres. h. 0.045; pres. 1. 0.11; th. 0.08 m.

Lined. Eiseman 1973, no. 5, p. 14. C11. Plan IV.

FN 91. Fig. 4-1.

17856. Pres. h. 0.64; max. Handles and parts face is pink (7.5YR gray (SYR 5/1) all 1973, no. 6, p. 14.

diam. 0.40. of neck missing. Lined. Sur7/4) and micaceous; fabric is the way through. Eiseman

C12.

FN 71.3.

17855. Pres. h. 0.623; max. diam. 0.38 m. Handles and part of neck missing. Eiseman 1973, no. 7, p. 14. C13.

FN 71.4.

17867.

Fic. 4-2.

Mendean amphoras. 1:10. JC

Pres. h. 0.59; max. diam. 0.38 m.

will summarize it here. References to Russian-language articles are

Handles and part of neck missing. Eiseman 1973,

given here; others can be found in the following note. I. B. Zeest, "Ceramic Containers from the Elizavetovskaya Site of the Ancient Town and Its Necropolis,” MIA 19 (1951): 122; I. B.

no. 8, pp. 14-15. Primarily on the basis of shape development worked out by J. B. Brashinsky and illustrated in his paper, the

Porticello amphoras can be assigned a date at the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century B.c.' Brashinsky's chronology is based on examples mostly from Black Sea and northern Aegean sites,? and is substanti-

ated by other examples from the eastern Mediterranean and from Sicily, which, however, are less well preserved and less well published.? ‘Joseph

B.

Brashinsky,

"Amphori

Mendi

(Amphoras

from

Mende)," Akademiia Nauk SSSR 1976: 67ff. My thanks to Anatol Milstein for translating this article for me.

*Since Brashinsky's article may be inaccessible to many readers, I

Zeest, "On the Question of Internal Trade between the Kuban Area and Phanagoria," MIA 19 (1951): 111ff; I. B. Zeest, “Excavations at Hermonassa," KSIIMK 74 (1954): 62ff; I. B. Zeest, "Ceramic Containers from the Bosporus," MIA 83 (1960); D. B. Shelov, "Ceramic Stamps from Excavations at Phanagoria," MIA 57 (1956): 151ff, D. B.

Shelov, "Stamps on Amphoras and on Pottery Found at Panticapaeum Excavations, 1945-49,” MIA 56 (1957): 221ff; J. B. Brashinsky, "Prog-

ress in Ceramic Epigraphy,” CA 2 (1961): 296ff; J. B. Brashinsky, “On the History of the Trade between the Northern Black Sea Area and Mende in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.," NE 3 (1962). Brashinsky begins by reviewing previous research: Amphoras

with so-called "wineglass-shaped stems" are one of the most widely found of fourth-century imported amphoras around the Black Sea. They were isolated as a type by Zeest (1951, first article cited) and described by her in detail (1954 and 1960). On the basis of shape and fabric, she postulated that they came from the northern Aegean, in the

region of Thasos. Shelov (1956) studied the stamped amphora handles

40

THE

PORTICELLO

As with so many other amphora types, this one is fairly squat and globular in its earlier stages (mid-fifth century) and gradually becomes taller and slimmer. The neck, handles, and stem lengthen; the shoulder becomes and, noting similarities between them and Thasian stamps, found sup-

port for an origin on Thasos or the nearby Greek mainland. In another study of their shape and fabric Shelov (1957) proposed that some were made on Thasos itself and others at some place on the mainland. A. Bon and A. M. Bon identified stamps as Thasian (1957), as did Brashinsky himself (1961).

Brashinsky then describes the main characteristics of the jars: a long, cylindrical stem flaring at the toe, with an indentation on the underside (that is, the “wineglass-shaped” stem). The lip is flat and

SHIPWRECK

angular; and the lower walls converge on the stem at

a sharper angle, giving the body of later jars a conical form, in contrast to the spheroid shape of earlier ones. The flaring toe with an impression on the underside, and there but not illustrated from the same deposit are P2374, P2376, P2377, and P2378. One of these is illustrated in Virginia R. Grace, Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade, fig. 43. Compare with this Brashinsky, "Amphoras from Mende," figs. 1.1 and 1.2, both from the Elizavetovskaya necropolis, Mound 27, level 3.

Late fifth century: Fragments bearing the Mendean coin type: Peter E. Corbett, "Attic Pottery of the Late Fifth Century from the Athenian Agora,"

Hesperia

18 (1949): 336-37,

no.

106, fig. 7, and

out-turned, with a groove marking the transition between lip and

pl. 98 (SS 7614), and p. 345, no. 166, fig. 7, pl. 98 (SS 10,231); Virginia R. Grace, "Standard Pottery Cont s of the A t Greek World,"

neck. The light brown fabric includes white quartz sand particles and a quantity of mica. Some jars have brown stripes painted around the

this chapter, for references to the discussion of the coin type. Joan du

neck or body. Zeest (1960) had

Hesperia Supp. 8 (1949): 186 and pl. 20, no. 1 (SS 6917). See note 4, Plat Taylor in B. S. J. Isserlin et al., "Motya—a Phoenician-Punic Site

identified two chronologically consecutive

near Marsala, Sicily," Annual of the Leeds University Oriental Society

forms of the type, forms which reflect that characteristic evolution in

4 (1962): 125 and fig. 13, nos. 1 and 2. In a personal communication Taylor informed me that the Phase IV deposit is dated on revised analysis to the last quarter of the fifth century, before the siege. From the Maryinskaya tumulus in the Kuban River valley, Max Ebert, "Aus-

Greek ceramics proportionately A number Elizavetovskaya

by which necks and stems become longer and bodies more slender. of jars found in excavations of the necropolis at on the Don River have all the characteristics of jars

with wineglass-shaped stems but are earlier, belonging to the third and

fourth quarters of the fifth century. Though their stems are shorter, the toes flare broadly and have an identation on the underside. The lip is the same, as is the fabric. Brashinsky proposes that successors all come from Mende. Grace (1953) identified the type as Mendean, as same as the Mendean coin type, with Dionysus on a basis of shape, decoration, and fabric, she made the

they and their the stamp is the donkey; on the connection be-

grabungen auf dem Gute Maritzyn, Gouv. Cherson (Süd-Russland)," PZ 5 (1913): 26, figs. 28-31. With all these compare Brashinsky, "Amphoras from Mende," fig. 1.3 (fourth quarter of the fifth century, from the Elizavetovskaya necropolis, Mound 28, level 2) and fig. 1.4

(end of the fifth/beginning of the fourth century, from the town of Roxolan, ancient Niconium, in the Dnieper Valley). Mid-fourth century: Einar Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition II, 270—74, pls. 48 and 137 (Marion Tomb 34, nos. 1 and 7). The tomb as a whole is dated to shortly after the middle of Cypro-Classic II,

tween stamped and unstamped jars. Brashinsky noted (1962) that stamping of these jars in the fifth and sixth centuries is very sporadic. The slender version of the type appears for the first time in the last

or about 360 B.c. Most of the pottery is Type VII; a few pieces are Type VI or early Type VII; I believe amphora no. 1 is earlier than no. 7.

quarter of the fifth century, with the squat version belonging to the middle of the fifth century. The identification of these two forms as Mendean shows that, by the second halfof the fifth century, wine from that city was being im-

vetovskaya, Mound 2, dated 400-350; David M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, vol. XI, Necrolynthia, grave 119, p. 26, and pls.

ported into the Black Sea, including the most remote region around the mouth of the Don. Demosthenes’ speech against Lacritos, dated 341, shows that Mende was among a number of Greek cities that exported wine to the Black Sea at that time. Only now, with the identification of the type with wineglass-shaped stems, do we make the connection between the archaeological and the literary evidence. The speech also shows that

export trade was “significantly in the hands of Athenian merchants.” Brashinsky then lists a number of jars from Black Sea sites. I have incorporated those in a chronological list (see note 3, this chapter), along with jars found at other sites around the Mediterranean. Brashinsky comments that the similar conclusions concerning the date and origin of amphoras with wineglass-shaped stems that he

and I published in 1976 and 1973, respectively, were arrived at independently. In all fairness, however, it should be pointed out that both of us consulted with Virginia Grace on these questions, and our results

cannot truly be called independent. 3In chronological order: Mid-fifth century: Virginia R. Grace in Cedric Boulter, "Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 22 (1953): nos. 161 and 162, pl. 40, and fig. 5 (P21987 and P21988). Charles K. Williams, "Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest," Hesperia 47 (1978): 17-20, fig. 5 (C-1977-131). Third quarter of the fifth century: Lucy Talcott, "Attic Blackglazed Stamped Ware and Other Pottery from a Fifth Century Well," Hesperia 4 (1935): 514-16, fig. 17, no. 88 (P2375). Others mentioned

Compare Brashinsky, "Amphoras from Mende," fig. 1.5, from Eliza-

XVIII and LIX, 23 (second quarter of the fourth century). Grave 155,

p. 33 and pl. LIX, 23 (fourth century). Brashinsky cites examples

of amphoras

with wineglass

stems

from Rhodes, cf. G. Jacopi, "La necropoli di Pontamo," Clara Rhodos 2 (1932): 117-64, from Tomb 7, pp. 130-40 and Tomb 9, 143-44 and pl. VI. The amphora from Tomb 7 pictured in pl. VI might be an example from the third or fourth quarter of the fifth century, but it is impossible to tell from the picture. The amphora from Tomb 9 is con-

siderably more slender and elongated than ours and must belong well into the fourth century, if it is Mendean. The stamp, however, says Thasos.

Second half of the fourth century: An unstamped fragment is mentioned but not illustrated in Grace, "Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century," p. 107 (P4422). Fragments found at Chios and identified by Grace as being Mendean are too small to add significantly to the shape development: J. K. Anderson, "Excavations on the Kofina Ridge, Chios," BSA 49 (1954): 155, no. 247 and fig. 10ff. The deposit is dated to the fourth century.

Brashinsky alludes to examples of this period found at Melitopol. The problems of later development of the shape, however, are beyond the scope of his paper, and of mine as well. For development of the type in the first half of the fifth century,

cf. Ursula Knigge, Kerameikos, vol. IX, Der Südhügel, pp. 21-22. Under one category (Form B) she has grouped thirty-eight amphoras, some of which can be related to Mendean amphoras. Most are dated to the first half of the fifth century, none being later than 440. Clearly

more study is needed on the early development of the type, but again, we are not concerned with it here.

THE the flaring rim remain constant, however, as does the placement of the handles. Not enough is known about the S-curved handles to determine whether or not they characterize amphoras of a certain date, and to my knowledge they appear on Mendean amphoras only at Porticello and Olynthus. The Porticello deposit is the largest single deposit of contemporary amphoras of this type, and it shows that within such a group, details of shape can and do vary. For example, a glance at Fig. 4-2 will show that in determining the date of manufacture of a jar, not too much emphasis can be placed on the length of the stem alone when only a stem and toe are preserved, for Cl and C4 are contemporary, yet the latter's stem is longer. Virginia Grace is to be credited with identifying this shape as Mendean,* on the basis of fabric and of Mendean coin types on handle fragments. With the shape development well established, we can state with assurance that the Porticello amphoras are Mendean, even though they do not bear the Mendean coin-type stamp.

C2 does have a simple circle stamp on the top of one handle (see Fig. 4-3). Other Mendean amphora handles with the same stamp have been found at Olynthus.° Chian jars so marked are reported at Athens and at Megara Hyblaea.* The Kyrenia ship produced an amphora of Samian manufacture with such a stamp on a handle,’ and Zeest shows similar stamps on amphoras from sites in the Soviet Union.* Carolyn Koehler has informed me that she has seen such stamps on Corinthian ‘Grace, “Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century," pp. 106-107, discusses the Mendean coin type and, on the basis of shape, decoration,

and fabric, makes the connection between stamped and unstamped examples.

Fragments bearing the coin type are given in note 3, Late

fifth century, this chapter; to these Brashinsky added four examples:

CARGO

41

Fic. 4-3. Mendean amphora detail. DO

commercial amphoras.? Even Punic amphoras with this stamp are known.'? The meaning of this stamp remains a mystery." Applied to amphoras with a variety of origins, the circle stamp or dipinto cannot denote the amphoras source or place of manufacture. It is equally unlikely that it indicates a single unit of measure commonly used by manufacturers of amphoras (or wine growers), in Mende, Chios, Samos, the Bosporus, Corinth, and so on, over a lengthy span of time. The sign © or © as used in Greek inscriptions of the fourth to second centuries B.C. has meanings ranging from as little as one-eighth obol (in Troezen, fourth century) to as much as ten thousand drachmas or one talent (Chersonesus

Taurica,

200

B.c.)

The

symbol

occurs

rarely, however, Tod recording its appearance in inscriptions from only a dozen cities of the sixty-two places in his catalog, and it is not recorded in inscriptions of Mende, Chios, or Samos. He mentions that the symbols in his catalog are modifications on the pure number sys-

two from Olbia, one perhaps from Panticapaeum, and one from Mir-

mekia: Brashinsky, “Amphoras from Mende,” note 18. “Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus XIII, 426 and pl. 259, nos. 1091 and 1093; pl. 262, no. 1093. ‘Grace,

“Pottery

of the

Mid-Fifth

Century,”

pp. 104-105,

no. 152, and pl. 40; Eugene Vanderpool, “The Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft,” Hesperia 15 (1946): 278, no. 29 (SS 9628) and pl. 28. G. Vallet and F. Villard, Mégara Hyblaea, vol. Il, La céramique archaïque, p. 82. Circle dipinti occur on amphoras from the Kerameikos; cf. Knigge, Kerameikos IX, 21-22, in graves 17, 34, 48, 51, 95, 166, 176 and 211; these are all dated to the first half of the fifth century. Other circle dipinti occur on unattributed transport amphoras found in a midfifth century context at Francavilla Marittima, M. W. Stoop, “Un recinto e un gruppo di anfore," AttiMGrecia 15-17 (1974-76): 162-67,

nos. l and 3.

*Incuse circles on Corinthian A and A’ amphoras are illustrated in Carolyn G. Koehler, Corinth VII, pt. 5, Corinthian Transport Amphoras. "Yves Solier, "Céramiques puniques et ibéro-puniques sur le littoral du Languedoc du Vléme siècle au debut du Il&me siècle avant J.-C.,” RStLig 34 (1968): 141, fig. 6.6; Anna Maria Bisi, “Anse di anfore con lettere puniche da Selinunte," Oriens Antiquus 6 (1967): 245—57. See also Fernand Benoit, "Nouvelles épaves de Provence (IID)," Gallia 20 (1962): 28—29, for round anepigraphic stamps on amphora stoppers of Roman times.

"On the whole problem of the relationship between stamps on amphoras of Greek manufacture and capacity measurements, see Grace, "Standard Pottery Containers," 176-81. Another tradition was revealed on pithoi found in Persian levels

Exca-

at Gordion, which are marked with a dotted circle, a half circle, a dot,

vation of a Looted Fifth Century B.c. Shipwreck in the Straits of

or a stroke; G. Roger Edwards, "Gordion: 1962," Expedition 5, no. 3 (Spring, 1963): 42—48, points out that the signs are used as indications of capacity, and the dotted circle, the largest number, represents a measure of about 25 l.

"David

I. Owen,

“Picking

Up the Pieces: The

Salvage

Messina,” Expedition 13 (1970): 27.

*Zeest, "Keramischeskaia," pl. 2, 6b, and pl. 18, 35a, and 35d. The last two are Solokha II amphoras; cf. pp. 50-51, below.

42

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

tem, expressing money, weights, or measures."

It is pos-

sible, therefore, but in no way demonstrable,

that the

stamp came

into common

use among wine growers,

pot-

ters, or merchants as a device to show that a batch of amphoras had been checked, while still in the leatherhard stage, for conformity to a standard of size. Perhaps the inspector then marked a proportion of amphoras (one in ten, for example) with the circle stamp on the amphora neck or handle, and it came to be expected that a similar proportion of amphoras in any given shipment would bear the mark." TYPE

A.

2. PUNIC

Long, slender cylinder tapering at the bottom; no neck; round hole for mouth bounded by a scraped groove; short vertical handles near the top; regular round hole in the bottom; wheel marks covering approximately the middle third of the body.

"Marcus N. Tod, "The Greek Numerical Notation," BSA 18 (1911-12): 131-32. This explanation does not differ appreciably from that offered

C17 Fic. 4-4.

Punic amphoras. 1:10. DAF

by Virginia R. Grace and Maria Savvatianou-Petropoulakou, "Les timbres amphoriques grecs," Exploration archéologique de Délos XXVII, L'ilot de la maison des comédiens, pp. 278-79.

eue p

CT pa

C15

C14 Fic. 4-5.

Punic amphoras. 1:10. JC

C14. Plan IV.

Bottom, mouth, and one handle missing. Eiseman

FN 95. Figs. 4-4—4-6.

17821.

1973, no. 12, p. 15.

Pres. h. 1.12; diam. 0.32; diam. of bottom hole

C18.

0.055 m.

17824

Repaired; mouth missing.

Wheel marks cover entire amphora except lower

Pres. h. 0.29; pres. diam. 0.105 m. One handle and part of rim and wall are pre-

26 cm.

served. Surface discolored. Fabric has red edges,

Lined.

Eiseman

1973, no. 9, p. 15, and

figs. 4 and 5; Owen 1971a, pp. 124- 25. C15. Plan IV.

gray middle layers, and dark red center with small holes and white bits. Eiseman 1973, no. 13,

FN 124. Figs. 4-4- 4-6.

p. 15, and fig. 6.

17811.

Pres. h. 0.85; diam. 0.26; diam. of bottom hole

B. As A, but without wheel marks.

0.043 m.

C19.

Mouth

not preserved.

Lined.

Analysis of the

C16.

FN 71.2. Figs. 4-7, 4-8. 17820.

lining is given in Table 5. Eiseman 1973, no. 10, p. 15, and fig. 4.

Pres. h. 0.909; diam. 0.26; diam. of bottom hole 0.046 m. Rim, wall pieces, one handle missing. Eiseman

FN 71.9. Figs. 4-4, 4-5.

1973, no. 14, p. 17, and fig. 4.

17822.

CET.

FN 109. Fig. 44.

Plan II.

Pres. h. 0.95; diam. 0.33; diam. of mouth 0.095 m.

C. As A, but without bottom hole.

Bottom portion missing. p. 15, and fig. 4.

C20.

Eiseman

17815.

Pres. h. 0.99; diam. 0.29 m.

1973, no. 11,

FN 71.8. Fig. 4-4.

FN 71.7. Figs. 4-5, 4-7.

17823 Pres. Rim, 1973,

and 17825. h. 1.00; diam. 0.316 m. handles, upper walls no. 15, and fig. 7.

missing.

Eiseman

44

THE

Fic. 4-6. tom). DO

D.

Punic

amphora

details,

C14

(top) and

PORTICELLO

C15

SHIPWRECK

(bot-

As A, but without wheel marks or bottom hole.

C21. Plan IV.

FN

127. Fig. 4-7.

17818.

Pres. h. 0.95; diam. 0.025 m. Rim, one handle, parts of wall missing. Eiseman

1973, no. 16, p. 17

C22.

Plan II.

FN 97. Figs. 4-7, 4-8.

17816.

H. 0.97; diam. 0.28; diam. mouth 0.085 m. Lower part of wall restored. Eiseman 1973, no. 17, p. 17, and fig. 7. Owen 1971a, p. 125. E. Oval body with walls converging to rounded bottom; disc rim. C23.

FN

M125.

Fig. 4-9.

17813.

C21 Fic. 4-7.

C22 Punic amphoras.

1:10. DAF

H. 0.60; diam. 0.30; diam. of mouth 0.09; w. of

lip 0.02m.

Surface is heavily encrusted, yellowish red (5YR 5/8); fabric in cross section does not show. Eiseman 1973, no. 18, p. 17, and fig. 7; Owen 1971a, p. 125; Owen 1971c, p. 57; Owen 1972, p. 2.

C24.

FN 71.11. Fig. 4-10. 17031.

Pres. h. 0.22 m.

Rim, part of walls, one handle preserved. Surface heavily concreted.

Fabric is brown

(7.5YR

5/2),

THE

CARGO

1

C24 |

C19

45

|

J

C22

J

Fic. 4-10.

Punic amphora. 1:10. DAF

Fic. 4-11. Punic amphora. DAF

Fic. 4-8. Punic amphoras. 1:10. JC

|

C25

u

C23 FiG. 4-9. Punic amphoras. 1:10. JC streaky, with white bits. Eiseman 1973, no. 19, p. 17. C25. Plan II. FN 108. Figs. 4-9, 4-11. 17034. Pres. h. 0.13; diam. 0.20 m. Base only preserved. Eiseman 1973, no. 20, p. 17, and fig. 7. C26. FN 82.6. Fig. 4-12. 17810.

H. 0.583; max. diam. 0.290 m. Complete but cracked. Unlined. Surface is light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4).

C27 Fıc. 4-12. Punic amphoras. 1:10. DAF

C28

46

THE PORTICELLO

C27.

C28.

FN 82.7. Fig. 4-12. 17819. H. 0.555; max. diam. 0.265 m. Complete. Unlined. Surface is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). FN 82.8. Fig. 4-12. 178X4 H. 0.575; max. diam. 0.271. Complete. There is no doubt that these amphoras had a Punic

origin, but the present state of knowledge of form variants, chronology, and places of manufacture is such that

there is some question about their precise place of origin and date."

Mana made a study of Punic amphoras in 1950, but it was very elementary.

Yves Solier provides a useful

review of the problems and discusses distribution of Punic jars in the south of France and Spain, mostly of the archaic period.'^ To his catalog of jars like our Type 2E we should add jars from Italy: examples of archaic date

have been found at Megara Hyblaea," where the amphora was reused for a burial which contained a protocorinthian aryballos, at Gela,'* and also at Metauros, as a sporadic find." In tombs of the archaic period at Motya similar amphoras were found reused for cremation bur-

ials.? From the necropolis at Camarina, dated from the second half of the fifth century down into the fourth, come other examples.*! C25 is even more difficult to trace since we have only the base, but similar bulge-bases have been found at Lilibeo® and Monte Sirai, where the cemetery is be-

SHIPWRECK lieved to have been in use in the seventh and sixth centuries, and from the fourth through the second cen-

turies. There may also be an example from Motya. Solier has published a discussion of a variant that is cylindrical and corresponds in several details of shape to our C14- C22; his classification is based on a very few examples from southern France, Spain, and northern Africa, and he concludes that they originated in southern Spain. He dates them from the fourth century to the beginning ofthe second century B.c. His primary sources are largely unavailable to me. Soliers study does not take into account the abundance of amphoras from central and western Sicily,“ Sardinia,* and the nearby small islands.* An important point of reference in dating these jars, and the only example known to me of a cylindrical example probably dating earlier than the Porticello amphoras, is a jar, re-

used in an infant burial in the necropolis at Vassallaggi, inside of which were found an oinochoe and a small Attic

red figure lekythos; the latter has been dated to a little after the middle of the fifth century B.c.” Most cylindrical amphoras known to me from this area are isolated finds, have been found in secondary

uses, and are dated only very roughly to the fourth and third centuries B.C. They have not been the subject of much careful atttention; description of their fabric is often lacking, and frequently the jars are incomplete. So their publications often fail to include those details of shape and clay that are vital to constructing a comprehensive picture of their distribution and shape develop-

ment, and ultimately to establishing their place of ori“Pierre Cintas, Céramique punique catalogs Punic amphoras but does not provide a typology, and his original sources are largely

unavailable to me. Anna Maria Bisi, La ceramica punica, aspetti et problemi, sheds no light on the place of manufacture of Punic amphora variants nor on their shape development in the fifth/fourth centuries. 5j. M. Mania, "Sobre tipologia de anforas punicas," Cronica del VI Congresso arqueologico do sudeste Espanol, Alcoy 1950. ** Solier, "Céramiques punique," pp. 128-34. " Gino V. Gentili, "Megara reperti sporadici nella proprietà dio Vinci," NSc 8 (1954): 97, fig. Paolo Orsi, "Gela. Scavi

193 and fig. 150.

Hyblaea (Siracusa). Tombe arcaiche e della ‘Rasioni’ e tomba arcaica in pre21. del 1900-1905,” MonAnt 17 (1906):

WA. de Franciscis, "METAYPOZ," AttiMGrecia 3 (1960): 34 and pl. X b, no. 68.

®Mozia, Rapporto preliminare della missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle antichità della Sicilia occidentale IX, passim. There is no discussion of these jars in the publication, which is devoted to the archaic necropolis excavated in 1972. Paolo Orsi, "Camarina. Campagne archeologiche del 1899 e 1903," MonAnt 14 (1904): 793, 806. * Anna Maria Bisi, "Lilibeo (Marsala). Nuovi scavi nella necropoli punica (1969—70)," NSc 25 (1971): 690 and fig. 21.

? Monte Sirai, Rapporto preliminare della missione archeologica dell Università di Roma e della Soprintendenza alle antichità di Cagliari II, 115 and pl. XLIII.

gin. As a result, what we can say about the place of the

Porticello amphoras in the larger picture is necessarily constrained. On the other hand, the Porticello amphoras afford

several advantages. As the wreck can be closely dated by other associated pottery, the Punic jars from the ship can likewise be dated accurately, more accurately than has

been possible for most other Punic amphoras. Because “Orsi, "Camarina," pp. 838-39 and fig. 53; Anna Maria Bisi, "Erice (Trapani). Scoperta della necropoli punica e ricerche archeogiche nell'agro ericino," NSc 25 (1971): 655-66; Ida Tamburello, “PalermoNecropoli: L'esplorazione 1953—54," NSc 20 (1967): 374, fig. 26 B and

377, fig. 31; Anna Maria Bisi, "La ceramica ellenistica di Lilibeo nel Museo

Nazionale

di

Palermo,"

“Lilibeo,” pp. 662-762, Tomb VIII.

ArchCl

19

(1967):

269-92;

Bisi,

5 Monte Sirai I, 45 and pl. XXIX; F. Barreca, La civiltà di Cartagine (Cagliari, 1964) pl. CXII; D. Levi, Le necropoli puniche di Olbia, p. 20, fig. 2a, p. 37. I have not seen the last two. ® Anna Maria Bisi, "Recenti scoperte puniche in Sicilia," Oriens 9 (1970): 249-58. "Piero Orlandini, "Vassallaggi, Scavi 1961, I. La necropoli meridionale," NSc 25 (1971): Supp., 186-88.

Antiq

THE the Porticello wreck is an easily datable closed deposit, the amphoras on it serve as an important fixed point in the chronology of Punic amphora development.

A second advantage to our amphoras lies in the shape variants they show: presence or absence of the bottom hole and striations or wheel marks on the walls. Amphoras found together in a closed deposit, and undoubtedly employed in their primary use, but showing slight variations of form, clearly demonstrate that shape variations are not necessarily a function of change over

time. Differences in form can indicate different potters or could, in antiquity, have denoted something about the contents of the amphoras.

In my original discussion of these amphoras, I pro-

CARGO

47

empty. Many who have seen photographs of the amphoras have expressed doubt that they were made with a hole in the bottom, especially since not all have one, and the Porticello jars are the only ones known to have this feature. It is clear, however, that some were indeed made with the hole, as its edge is finished and shows no signs of having been broken (Fig. 4-6). Stoppering the hole in the bottom would have pre-

sented no greater problem than stoppering the top hole. If a stopper like the one found at Thasos were used to block the hole in the bottom, the pointed part would serve as a convenient handle and would facilitate lifting and carrying.”

Similarly, such a stopper could have been removed as easily as that at the top, to ensure that the amphora

posed that they might have been of Motyan manufacture. Examination of a number of jars in the museum and storerooms at Motya since then, however, has

was completely empty and to facilitate cleaning it out in preparation for another use. We have seen how often

not confirmed this theory. While the general shape of Motyan and Porticello amphoras is similar, details such

these amphoras were reused in burials, and another use was discovered at Gela, where at a public bath a number

as the profile of the rims and treatment of the wheel

of them were laid end to end to form a water conduit, with the base of one fitting into the mouth of the next.’

marks differ. Motyan amphoras have a crumbly, dry, buff fabric, in contrast to the hard red or gray fabric of the

An alternative explanation for the bottom hole has

Porticello jars. Many Motyan amphoras have a white slip

been suggested by G. Roger Edwards. As these amphoras are so very tall, they must have been thrown in sections on the potter's wheel, and the sections joined with a slip of wet clay. The bottom hole is simply the lower edge of the next-to-last section of a jar whose bottommost section has come away during deterioration in the sea. One difficulty with this suggestion is that it

that is nowhere in evidence on jars from Porticello. Admittedly, such a slip might have disappeared in the sea. Thus, while there is a very strong tradition of cylindrical amphora manufacture at Motya,* it is probably premature to assert that the jars from Porticello were made there. The most that should be said of them is simply that they are Punic. Meanwhile, some observations about the shipwrecks amphoras are in order. The wheel marks, or

grooving, as Whitaker called it (and he observed that it occurred on some vessels), ". . . was probably made for the purpose of holding the vessels more securely and in order to prevent them slipping from ones hands, or it may have been to enable them to be bound with cords for transport. It can hardly have been for ornament." ? It was found in excavating these jars at Porticello that they

were very difficult to carry because of their great size

fails to explain why the amphoras always separated between the lowest two sections and never at a higher point. Another objection is that ordinarily the bottommost section of pots made in pieces incorporates a good portion of the wall, constituting a larger part of the vase than simply the very bottom. This has been countered by the observation that clay would have been added to the very bottom to close the hole, if the jar had been

thrown right side up and then inverted for finishing.” Since the evidence is equivocal, it would do well to leave the question open.

and weight when full and because of the lack of a knob

on the bottom. The best way to empty one was to grasp it by the hole in the bottom and tip it upside down. The hole also facilitated flushing out the last bits of sand and

shell accumulated inside and allowed a person to look into the amphora

to determine

if it was

completely

? Joseph I. S. Whitaker, Motya, A Phoenician Colony in Sicily, pp. 173-74, 300-302. I am grateful to Gioacchino Falsone for permission to visit Motya and to Adriana Fresina for showing me the Punic amphoras there. ®Ibid., p. 302.

®»A. M. Bon and A. Bon, Études thasiennes, vol. IV, Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos, p. 24, fig. 8,3, top. ?! P. Orlandini and D. Adamesteanu, “Gela—Nuovi Scavi," NSc 14 (1960): 191ff. The amphoras range in length from 0.80 to 1.00 m and retain handles at one end. The excavators do not consider that the sections of the conduit may be reused amphoras and do not indicate whether they originally had a hole in the bottom. The baths are dated 310-282 B.c. *[ owe this to Carolyn Koehler who, with P. Vandiver, discusses

this question in Appendix I of "The Manufacturing Technology of Corinthian Amphoras," in Corinth VII, pt. 5, Corinthian Transport Amphoras, forthcoming.

48

THE

PORTICELLO

Why did some amphoras have the grooves and others not? And why did some have the bottom hole? The standard explanation is that these details reflect different potters’ or workshops’ products. But we must also consider the possibility that they signified something about the contents: different producer, different quality, or even different product altogether. So we must now consider the question of the contents. The original Canaanite jars from which our

SHIPWRECK TABLE 5. Analysis of Lining from Amphora C15.

Black/dark brown microparticles,

Appearance:

amorphous in polarized light microscopy.

Thermal analysis:

Melted to give a viscous brown liquid over a broad range under 160? C. Differential scanning calorimetry: broad melting endotherm from +50 to + 160? C with some structure peaks at +80, +105, and +155°

amphoras are descended may have been used for wine, honey, incense, various oils, spices, condiments, and drugs or medicines.? In Roman times, amphoras from Punic Spain have been found to contain wine, salt or pickled fish, olives, oysters, and garum.” Yet big jars with the hole mouth are generally regarded as being poorly suited for transporting wine. The notion that Punic amphoras carried salted fish, however, seems to be gaining support. A correlation between the locations of western Phoenician colonies of the Archaic period and

C. No decomposition or volatiliza-

Density:

Solubility studies:

polar. Soluble in tetrachloroethylene, dichloroethylene, and benzene.

Slightly soluble in diiodomethane.

later Roman saltworks has been observed.* A number of Punic amphoras have been found in fish-salting establishments in Spain. have been uncovered at Corinth, and their associated debris has revealed

association with Punic amphoras examination of fish bones and

tion up to 360? C. Burns readily with clean flame; probably aromatic. Approximately 1.595 g/cc (suspended in tetrachloroethylene with slow, almost complete solubilization). Insoluble in heptane; must be highly

Almost completely soluble in ethanol. Resinous material with aromatic/polar character.

Conclusion:

Note: Analysis conducted by Andrew R. McGhie, Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter, University of Pennsylvania.

"scaled fish skin."* Thus it seems possible that the Porticello ship was carrying fish products in the Punic jars.? In fact, there is a strong likelihood that she was carrying more than one type of fish product in the several variants of Punic jars, as might be suspected also from the fact that some jars

Corinth, Roman Republican amphoras found on the Giens shipwreck, and Roman amphoras carrying garum in different forms.”

are lined and others are not. The notion that shape variants among contemporaneous amphoras of the same type reflect differences

in content rather than potters’ hands or place of manufacture

finds

support

from

widely

separate

quarters:

Corinthian A and B amphoras, Punic amphoras found at ? Virginia R. Grace, "The Canaanite Jar," The Aegean and the

Near East, Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, ed. S. S. Weinberg,

TYPE 3. WEST GREEK Heavy, rounded rim; bulging neck at the bottom of which is a wheel-run groove; strap handles; concave shoulders; pointed stem ending in a button. Only one almost complete example of this type has been found; of the two fragmentary examples C31 may be a completely different type altogether. C29. Plan IV.

pp. 98-99. "Fernand Benoit, “Relations commerciales entre le monde ibéro-punique et le midi de la Gaule de l'époque archaique à l'époque romaine," REA 63 (1961): 328. % Michel Ponsich and Miguel Tarradell, Garum et industries an-

tiques de salaison dans la Méditerranée occidentale, p. 113. , ** Ricardo Pascual Guasch, "Un nuevo tipo de anfora Punica," ArchEspArq 42 (1969): 12-19. * Williams "Corinth 1977," and Charles K. Williams, "Corinth 1978: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 48 (1979): 105—44. *[t might have been possible to determine this for certain had the contents of the jars been sieved and examined during excavation. While this procedure is now routine on underwater excavations, it was not regularly practiced as early as 1970. See George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., Yassi Ada, vol. I, A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, p. 31.

FN 96. Figs. 4-13, 4-14.

17864.

H. 0.82; diam.

at shoulder 0.32; diam.

0.17 m.

mouth

:

9 Corinthian A and B amphoras: Carolyn G. Koehler, "Evidence around the Mediterranean for Corinthian Export of Wine and Oil,"

Beneath on

the Waters of Time.

Underwater

Archaeology,

Proceedings of the 9th Conference ed. J. Barto Arnold

III, pp.

232-39.

Punic amphoras at Corinth: J. Maniatis et al., "Punic Amphoras Found at Corinth, Greece: An Investigation of Their Origin and Technology," JFA 11 (1984): 205-22. Roman Republican amphoras: A. Tchernia, P. Pomey, and A. Hesnard, "L'épave romaine de la Madrague de Giens (Var), Gallia Supp. 34, pp. 34-46. Garum: Ponsich and Tarradell Garum et industries.

THE

49

CARGO

One handle missing; neck repaired. Pinkish white surface (5YR 8/2); clean, pinkish white clay. A finger impression at the base of each handle; heavily lined. Eiseman 1973, no. 21, p. 19, and fig. 8; Owen 1971a, p. 125. C30.

FN 71.5. Fig. 4-13. 17836.

ca.

Pres. h. 0.495; diam. at shoulder 0.365 m. Neck, rim, and handles missing. No trace of lining. Surface is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); fabric is light red (2.5YR 6/6). Eiseman 1973, no. 22, p. 19.

FN 98. Figs. 4-13, 4-14.

17033. Pres. h. 0.25; diam. of mouth 0.13 m. Rim, neck, one handle only preserved. Very pale brown (10YR 7/3) surface; gray clay. Surface is micaceous.

Lined.

Eiseman

1973,

no.

23,

p. 19

and fig. 8. It must be noted at the outset that C29 differs enough from C31 in details of form and fabric that they might not have had a common place of manufacture, even though they share the bulging neck and swelling lip. Published examples date from the sixth century to the second half of the fourth and come from Corinth, Megara Hyblaea, Motya, Francavilla Marittima, Lipari, Marzamemi, and Agrigento.” At least two complete jars of this type, from Selinunte, are in storage in the Palermo museum, but are unpublished.”

C30

Fic. 4-13.

West Greek amphoras. 1:10. DAF

“Published examples, in approximate chronological order, are as follows: Sixth century: G. Vallet and F. Villard, Mégara Hyblaea, 11, 83 and pls. 71, 1 and 71, 2. Mid-sixth century: Mozia VIII, 20 and pl. XV; Mozia VIII, 40 and pl. XXIV, 2. Late sixth/early fifth century: Mary Lou Zimmerman Munn, “Corinthian Trade with the West in the Classical Period,” Ph.D. diss.,

C31

Bryn Mawr College, p. 258, pl. 43, inv. no. C-47-926. Mid-fifth century: M. W. Stoop, “Un recinto,” pp. 164, nos. 6 and 7, pl. LXXVI, 2, 3, 4.

Fifth century:

Luigi Bernabd-Brea and

Madeleine

Cavalier,

Meligunis-Lipara, vol. II, La necropoli greca e romana nella contrada Diana, Tomb 3, fig. 1, p. 5; Tomb 349, p. 127-28, pl. XLI, no. 8; Tomb

398, p. 140, pl. LIII, no. 1; Tomb 418, p. 151 and pl. LII, no. 4; Tomb

424, pl. LIII, 3, p. 152-53.

Late fifth century: Williams, "Corinth, 1978," pl. 45 c, inv. no. C-78-44 and Munn, "Corinthian Trade," 258, pl. 22 b; M. Z. Pease, "A Well of the Late Fifth Century at Corinth," Hesperia 6 (1937): 303, no. 1582; and Munn, "Corinthian Trade," 258, inv. no. C-34-1582 (?) pl. 23a; du Plat Taylor in Isserlin et al., “Motya,” p. 125, fig. 13, nos. 3, 4, and 6; Anthony J. Parker, "Sicilia e Malta nel Commercio Marittimo dell'Antichità," Kokalos 22-23 (1976-77): 622-31; Anthony J. Parker,

"Methods and Madness: Wreck Hunting in Shallow Water," Progress in Underwater Science 4 (1979): 7-27.

First half of the fourth century: Munn,

“Corinthian Trade,”

Fic. 4-14.

West Greek amphoras. 1:10. JC

50

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Those at Megara Hyblaea and Lipari are said to be Chian because of the characteristic swelling neck, but Chian amphoras of archaic date have a thin rather than a heavy rim, and Chian jars later than the third quarter of the fifth century no longer have the swelling neck.“ It has been suggested that such amphoras may be West Greek, perhaps Locrian, but corroboration from Epizephyrian Locri itself has, unfortunately, not yet appeared in print. Nevertheless, a West Greek origin has been strongly argued, especially by Parker, who has observed that this type has been found in a rather closely circumscribed area of southern Italy and Sicily.*

TYPE 4. SOLOKHA II (BYZANTINE) Thin, rounded rim set off by a wheel-run groove; oval mouth; long, straight neck; handles, almond shaped in section, from upper neck to shoulder; a finger impression at the base of each handle; flared toe with impression on underside. C32. Plan IV. 17835.

C32 Fic. 4-15.

Solokha II (Byzantine) amphoras. 1:10. DAF

Fic. 4-16.

Solokha II (Byzantine) amphora.

FN 93. Figs. 4-15, 4-16.

H. 0.73; diam. at shoulder 0.34 m. Light red, smooth surface; fabric does not show. Eiseman 1973, no. 24, p. 20, and fig. 8; Owen 1970, p. 24; Owen 1971a, p. 124. C33.

FN 71.7. Fig. 4-15.

17836. Pres. h. 0.33; diam. of mouth 0.113 m. Neck, rim, handles, and part of shoulder preserved. Whole is heavily encrusted. Fresh break shows clean reddish yellow fabric (5YR 6/8) with small gray streaks. Eiseman 1973, no. 25, p. 20. Compare Zeest's Type 44, which comes mostly from two groups of burial tumuli at Solokha and Elizavetovskaya, dated to the fourth and third centuries B.c.* She has observed that the general shape and reddish or pinkish clay of the amphoras is characteristic of those from the Bosporus and Byzantion. p. 258, inv. no. C-37-311, pl. 23b; and an uninventoried rim fragment

from Well 1947-2. Second half of the fourth century: Munn, "Corinthian Trade," p. 258, an uninventoried rim fragment from Well 1972-6; Ernesto de Miro, "Agrigento: Scavi nell'area a sud del tempio di Giove," MonAnt

1:10. JC

46 (1963): 151, fig. 66a.

I am grateful to Professor Parker for permission to examine the amphoras he found in Sicily and to Gerhard Kapitän for arranging for

me to see them. Stoop says that other examples have come from the Athenian Agora and Epizephyrian Locri, but I have not seen them.

“I owe this information to Michael Mensun Bound. “Grace, "Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century," pp. 104—105. ®Virginia Grace mentioned this theory to me in conversation some years ago but advised against publishing it, since evidence from

Locri is lacking. Nevertheless, it has crept into print: Stoop, "Un re-

cinto," and Parker, "Sicilia e Malta" and "Methods and Madness." Parker designates it as Marzamemi H type, from the name of a site in southern Sicily where a number of examples were found, and he is followed by Munn, "Corinthian Trade." I have chosen not to use this term, feeling that it may cause confusion. #I. B. Zeest, "Keramischeskaia tara Bospora (Ceramic Containers from the Bosporus)," MIA 83 (1960): 96 and pls. XVIII-XX. My thanks to Arcadia Kocybala for translating sections of this article for me from Russian.

THE

CARGO

51

The late Joseph B. Brashinsky confirmed Zeest's

texts dating to the late fifth or early fourth century B.c.

findings and advised me that this type is called Solokha II Type.“ Both Brashinsky and B. N. Grakov observed that amphoras of this type and of similar clay from

Other finds from the wreck suggest a closer date for the sinking of the ship.

Solokha have dipinti or stamps on the handles with a Byzantine variant of an archaic beta. Brashinsky felt that this is additional evidence for assuming a Byzantine origin of the type. He also maintained that the type belongs to the fourth century alone.

Since we have only thirty-three whole or partial amphoras, the sample is not large enough to indicate the relative numbers in the original cargo. Time permitted the analysis of only one of the amphora linings, although several samples were taken, and the sample analyzed was chosen randomly (see Table 5).

Much more systematic work needs to be done on the SUMMARY

identification of amphora linings, not only the Porticello

Of the four basic amphora types represented in the cargo of the shipwreck, two come from the northern Aegean area— Mende and Byzantion—and the other two are of western Mediterranean traditions— Greek and Punic. Parallels for all four have been found in con-

vated.* Resin is usually regarded as a water-proofing device that also flavored the wine contained in the jars; the occurrence of resin in jars that carried salt fish raises the

ones but as a matter of course when amphoras are exca-

question of the resins flavoring the fish also.”

Amphora Capacities The capacities of all intact and restored jars were measured using small polystyrene beads and a method devised by Virginia R. Grace and modified by Carolyn G.

Koehler and Malcolm B. Wallace.* Jars with intact or restored necks and rims were filled to the very top; others were filled to the break in the neck or rim. One Mendean amphora (C9) was measured twice with water,

and an attempt to do so was made with the small Punic jars, but all proved to have leaks.* Water was not used to measure the single complete Byzantine or West Greek jars, for fear of damaging them.” The raw data are presented in Table 6. 5 Personal communication with J. B. Brashinsky. “See Anthony J. Parker, “The Evidence Provided by Underwater Archaeology for Roman Trade in the Western Mediterranean,” Marine Archaeology, ed. D. J. Blackman, Colston Papers 23, pp. 361-81. See also Carolyn G. Koehler, “Handling of Greek Transport Amphoras,” BCH

Supp.

13 (1986): 49-67.

Koehler informs me that this paper,

which she read at a colloquium on amphoras held in Athens in 1984, deals with amphora linings (resinous and otherwise), stoppers, stands, carrying, storing, and emptying. “The Punic amphoras carrying salted fish, recently discovered at

The two water measurements of Mendean jar C9

enabled us to calculate the equivalent value of a cup of polystyrene beads for the Mendean jars as being 905 ml.‘ This value was applied to the measurements of

polystyrene beads before stirring to obtain the water equivalents of the jars (Table 7). The Mendean jars range from 19,255 to 23,930 ml,

or 4.675 |; this is 22 percent of the mean. This range appears somewhat greater than that seen among groups of Rhodian amphoras,* leading one to wonder whether

wider ranges were tolerated at the time of the Porticello ships sinking than in the Hellenistic era. The size of the sample from Porticello is so small, however, that I am * Method 2, Water Volume, described by Johnson et al., "Mea-

suring Amphora Capacities,” with the only difference being that the jar was not placed in a vat of water but simply set in a tripod on the floor. *'There is a long-held notion that terracotta vessels that have been recovered from the sea and allowed to dry out will fall apart if they are wetted again. The one Mendean

jar that I measured with

Corinth, had a resinous lining.

water suffered no ill effects from rewetting. I was emboldened to try water measurement on it because I had used water to measure some twenty-five amphoras from the eleventh century shipwreck at Serge

* Method 3, as described in B. L. Johnson, C. G. Koehler, P. M.W. Matheson, and M. B. Wallace, "Measuring Amphora Capaci-

Limani in 1981, and only one had broken apart in the process. I was unwilling to take the same risk with the unique Byzantine and West

ties," submitted to JFA. Koehler demonstrated the method to me in 1981, at which time she recommended recording capacities both before stirring the beads and after stirring them and adding more beads. Now,

Greek jars. None of the small Punic jars was harmed in my effort to

however, she tells me that the unstirred values have proven repeatable in more cases than the stirred readings. Nevertheless, I publish both

sets of numbers. The measurements given here were all taken on a single occasion in 1982. Cynthia Eiseman was the measurer, and James Eiseman, Jr., recorded the data. Readers are urged to ignore the measurements published in Eiseman, "Amphoras from the Porticello Shipwreck,” which were taken with a minimum of attention to any established methodology.

measure them with water, but then all their holes proved to be close to their bottoms. Carolyn Koehler informs me that she used water to measure dried-out jars from the Serge Limani Hellenistic Wreck, without ill effects. It may be that jars will be damaged only when rewetted with salt water. *'The necessity of establishing this equivalent is described in

Johnson et al., "Measuring Amphora Capacities,” and in P. M. Wallace Matheson and M. B. Wallace, "Some Rhodian Amphora Capacities,” Hesperia 51 (1982): 311-18, Appendix 3.

*See Capacities.”

Matheson

and

Wallace,

"Some

Rhodian

Amphora

52

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

TABLE 6. Capacity Measurements of Transport Amphoras.*

Polystyrene Beads

Additional Beads

Condition of Jar

before Stirring

after Stirring

Mendean Cl C2

Handle and part of rim restored Incomplete; measured to break

21C + 400

1C + 400

25C + 500

1C + 300

C3

Intact

24C

1C

C4 C5 C6

Neck and rim restored Intact Incomplete; measured to break at neck

21C + 250 26C + 400

1C + 450 1C + 500

21C + 400

1C + 300

C7

Intact

23C

1C

C8

Incomplete; measured to break at neck

23C — 25

1C + 300

C9

Intact

21C

1C

Catalog Number

at rim

+ 500

+

150

+ 700

+

Water

150

+ 200

+ 600

Large Punic C14

Incomplete

70C

C15

Incomplete

65C

1C

C22

Intact

35C

500

Small Punic C23 C26

Intact Intact

21C + 1100 31C + 400

not recorded 1C — 300

C27 C28

Intact Intact

24C 23C

+ 300 + 975

400 400

West Greek C29

Intact

29C + 500

650

Byzantine C32

Intact

23C + 500

475

23C

475

23C

+ 500

23C

+ 350

2C

+ 500

* Measurements were recorded in cups (C), and residue and differences were recorded in milliliters. In water, the cups capacity was measured at 839 ml.

TABLE 7. Water Equivalents of Mendean Jars. Catalog Number

Water Equivalents

Actual Water

(ml)

Capacity (ml)

Cl C2

19,405 23,125

C3

22,220

C4 C5

19,255 23,930

C6

19,405

C7 C8 C9

20,965 20,744 19,705

TABLE 8. Equivalents in Milliliters of Polystyrene Beads for Punic Amphoras. Capacities (ml) Catalog Number

Before Stirring

After Stirring

C14 C15

58,730 54,535

60,408 55,374

C22

29,365

29,865

Large Punic

Small Punic 19,797 19,647

more comfortable not drawing any conclusions from these data. Rather, the information is presented here in the hope that it may somehow be of use to others studying amphora capacities in the future.

C23

20,397

not recorded

C26 C27 C28

26,409 20,436 20,272

26,948 20,736 20,672

larger and smaller sizes. Equivalents in milliliters are given in Table 8.9 Again, with such a small sample, and with only one of the three largest jars being intact, it would be foolish

It was hoped that the capacities of the Punic amphoras might reveal some clear relationship between the

“The cup is reckoned at 839 ml.

THE

Fic. 4-17.

CARGO

Lead ingot C34. 1:2. DAF

Fic. 4-18. Lead ingot C34. 1:2. JC to draw firm conclusions. Although the numbers might one-third of what the largest held, and the middle-sized jar (C22) would hold almost half of what the largest jar

It may well be that for capacities larger and smaller jars belong to tions. Possibly, future studies will of measurement that can make

would, it remains that C26 does not fit this pattern at all.

numbers.’

suggest that the smallest Punic jars would hold about

as well as shapes, the entirely separate tradireveal Punic standards some sense of these

Lead Ingots The informant told us that the looters removed some two dozen lead ingots from the wreck and sold them for scrap. The excavation team found one partial ingot, C34, at the site, in the cargo area. The other, C35, was confiscated from the looters at the time of their arrest.* See Table 9 for lead isotope ratios.

C34. Plan IV.

“The equivalent in milliliters for the West Greek jar is 23,992 before stirring and 24,642 after stirring. For the Byzantine jar, which

®] have learned from G. Clement Wittick of a lead ingot in the collection of the museum in Saint Germain-en-Laye. Professor Wittick has seen two catalogs of this museum, both edited by Salomon Reinach; one, dated about 1898, mentions (p. 85) “objets en plomb . . .

was measured 20,272.

twice, the figures are 19,797 and 20,247;

19,797 and

FN 86. Figs. 4-17, 4-18.

L. 0.27; w. 0.095; h. 0.060 m.

Oblong in shape, with one end tapering to a blunt point and the other end flattened, where it appears to have been cut off. One face, the resting surface, is flat; the other face, the back, is curved.

54

THE

Fic. 4-19.

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Lead ingot C35. 1:4. DAF

Fic. 4-20. Lead ingot C35. 1:4. JC

All surfaces are covered with marine concretions, and it is impossible to see the original surfaces of the ingot.

C35.

FN ML. Figs. 4-19-4-21.

L. 0.519; w. 0.125; h. 0.06 m. Weight 25.7 kg+ 50 kg.

Elliptical in shape, with both ends rounded; the resting surface is flat, but with some slight irregularities. The back is quite smooth and regular, although lightly encrusted with marine deposits. On the back, a stamp of letters, sigma, iota, and eta, in a ligature, was impressed in the metal in six places at irregular intervals and with varying degrees of clarity. Between and just below the

provenant des anciennes mines d'argent de Laurion en Grece . . . des saumons de plomb." The other catalog, published in 1926, mentions only “un saumon de plomb." In the late 1930s the museum sent Wittick a drawing of one ingot, whose elliptical shape closely resembles that of Porticello ingot C35 and Cordella and Ardaillons ingot. Its dimensions are: l. 0.41, w. 0.10, h. 0.062 m, and its weight is 15 kg. I have not been able to lay hands on these catalogs and do not know why Reinach felt the Saint Germain ingot was from Laurion,

two left-most impressions are five short, straight,

shallow incisions. Owen 1971a, p. 7; Owen 1971b, p. 127; Owen 1971d, p. 57; Eiseman 1978. The large number of datable lead ingots recovered from shipwreck sites, harbors, roads, and mines of Roman era attests to the brisk maritime and overland trade in that commodity from Republican and Imperial times in the western Mediterranean, Europe, and Britain.^ Roman writers are generous with supporting information, and much has been learned from remains of the mines themselves. We are less fortunate for the Greek period. Ancient authors seldom consider the question of lead in Greek times. To learn about sources of lead we must read about silver, inherently more precious and presumably more interesting to Greek writers, because lead and silver occur together in argentiferous galena ores. Important * Standard works on the Roman lead industry include the follow-

unless it is because of its resemblance to Cordella and Ardaillons ingot. I do not believe, however, that similarity of shape is sufficient evidence

ing: M. Besnier, "Le commerce du plomb à l'époque romain aprés les lingots estampillés," RA, 5éme sér. 12 (1920): 211-14; 13 (1921): 36-74; 14 (1921): 98-130; William Gowland, "The Early Metallurgy of Silver and Lead: Part I, Lead," Archaeologia 57, no. 2 (1901): 359-422; Oliver Davies, Roman Mines in Europe. Although these are old, they are fundamental. Newer but of limited usefulness is Jean David C. Boulakia, "Lead in the Roman World," AJA 76 (1972):

for provenance.

139-44.

Fıc. 4-21.

Lead ingot C35, detail. DAF

galena deposits exploited in the period concerning us include those in Siphnos, at Laurion in Attica, the Pangaeum district in Thrace, numerous deposits in Asia Minor, and Spain.” But information, either literary or archaeological, is very uneven. Only the mines at Laurion have enjoyed extensive investigation by modern scholars.* Techniques of mining and smelting have been learned from remains at Laurion, but direct evidence of a lead industry in the form of lead ingots from datable contexts or with datable foundry stamps is all but lacking. The ingots from Porticello may begin answering some questions.

One lead ingot, of a shape comparable to one of ours, was found by French miners reworking the mines and litharge at Kamareza, in the Laurion mining region, *' M.

Cary, “Source of Silver for the Greek World,"

Mélanges

Gustav Glotz I, 133-42; R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology VIII, 193-259.

in the nineteenth century.” Similar in shape to C35, it bears a single foundry stamp in the form of a stylized vegetal motif. It does not seem to have come from a datable context, but is believed by A. Cordella, who found it, to be ancient. A number of lead objects, described as either rods or bars, were excavated at Olynthus.*' Of particular interest to us is no. 2530, described as a lead bar, “semicircular in cross section.” The accompanying photograph

shows that it has rounded ends like C35, but is somewhat longer and thinner than ours.‘ It was found in House E.S.H. 4% and can be dated close to 348 B.c.* The other bars or rods from Olynthus appear to be rectangular or tetragonal in section, for the most part, and range in length from 0.08 to 0.20 m. Three or four are inscribed with Greek names. It is difficult to say whether or not these are ingots, but it seems unlikely. By contrast, Roman lead ingots are relatively well

** Also old, but not improved upon yet is Edouard Ardaillon, Les mines du Laurion dans l'antiquité, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises

d'Athènes et de Rome, Fasc. 77. More recent scholarship includes R. J. Hopper, “The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B.c.,” BSA 48 (1953): 200-54, and R. J.

The ingot is now in the Laurion Museum. Cf. Constantin E. Conophagos, "Une méthode ignorée de coupellation du plomb argentifere utilisée par les anciens Grecs," Annales géologiques des pays hélléniques 11 (1960): 137—49, where results of spectrographic analy-

Hopper, “The Laurion Mines: A Reconsideration,” BSA 63 (1968):

ses on this ingot and other leads associated with Laurion are published.

293-326. These contain useful bibliography. Current excavations by Belgian archaeologists at Thorikos are resulting in important new infor-

Conophagos does not mention the ingot's size or weight. I am grateful to Prof. H. F. Mussche for this reference. * Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus X, 447-81. *' Dimensions are given as "L. 0.056 m., Th. 0.045 m., W. of the flat (bottom) side 0.08 m." The figure given for the length is obviously incorrect; it must be 0.56 m. ®Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus VIII, 135—37, and pls. 48, 49, and 106. *' [bid., p. 14.

mation; cf. H. F. Mussche et al., Thorikos I-VI. ® Discrepancies exist in the publication of this object. Cordella, who seems to have found it, gives its dimensions as: 1. 0.41, w. 0.10, h. 0.06 m, weight 15 kg, in A. Cordella, Le Laurium; Ardaillon, Les mines du Laurion, pp. 87, 118, fig. 25, gives approximate dimensions in the illustration as: |. 0.53, w. 0.13, h. 0.04 m. Weight is also given as

15 kg, but this seems light if the dimensions are correct.

56

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

TABLE g. Lead Isotope Ratios. Publication Number

Object Description

NBS Sample Number

Pb'"/pb»»

Pb?*/pb*»

V31 C35 C34

Hull sheathing Whole ingot Half ingot

Pb 1384 Pb 1385 Pb 1386

0.8325 0.8330 0.8314

2.064 2.064 2.0603

0.05300 0.05309 0.05298

v39

Anchor stock

Pb 1387

0.83736

2.0723

0.053441

G21 G20

Nugget Cake ingot

Pb 1389

0.83196 0.83349

2.0607 2.06178

0.052984 0.05306

Pb*'/pp»*

Note: G20 was analyzed by Noel Gale, Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Oxford University; the remaining samples were analyzed by I. Lynus Barnes and his associates at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Washington, D.C. Robert H. Brill of the Corning Museum of Glass, and Stuart Fleming of the University Museum arranged for the tests and assisted in the interpretation of the results.

known, being either semicylindrical in shape or taking the form of truncated pyramids.“ Claude Domergue has

argued persuasively that the semicylindrical form is typical of lead ingots from Spain during the Republic, whereas ingots shaped like truncated pyramids are characteristic of both Britain in the first and second centuries after Christ and Spain in Imperial times (Augustan through Flavian).5 In all cases, the primary stamp appears on the ingot's back. A group of eight lead ingots, whose shape has been described as plano-convex, has come from an underwater site in southern France, the so-called gisement E at Agde, but unfortunately without clear archaeological context.“ They are of concern to us here because their

shape is closer to that of Porticello C34 than to Roman ingots and because each has been marked with what may be a Greek letter pi (>). It is significant to note that the mark occurs on the resting surface, and each one was incised freehand, not with a die.” “In addition to those mentioned by Besnier, Gowland, and Davies (see note 56, this chapter), there are some new additions:

Finally, an object described as a lead ingot has been recovered from a looted wreck site at Bon Porté, in southern France near Saint-Tropez. The wreck has been dated by Etruscan amphoras and small finds (apparently Greek) to the second half of the sixth century B.c.* Unfortunately, the site has not yet received satisfactory publication, and the only illustration of the so-called ingot to have appeared offers no scale and does not really show the objects shape; it possibly takes the form of a truncated pyramid.* To my knowledge, the Olynthus, Bon Porté, and Agde ingots have not undergone lead isotope analyses, but the Porticello ingots have been tested, and the results are given in Table 9. They show that the lead of the ingots resembles leads from other objects believed to have come from Laurion, and Laurion lead ores as well.” recherches sous-marines d'Agde," RStLig 30 (1964): 269, where it is suggested that they come from the island of Capraria in the Balearics; the reason given here, which receives support in LaubenheimerLeenhardts Recherche sur les lingots is that the waters of this island abound in pinna nobilis shells, and some of these ingots appear to have been cast in these shells.

But I have seen many

such shells in the

Antonio Beltran, "Objectos romanos de plomo en el Museo de Cartagena y sus inscripciones," Memorias de los Museos Arqueologicos

waters of southwestern Turkey, so I cannot credit this theory. *'Laubenheimer-Leenhardt notes in Recherche sur les lingots,

Provinciales 8 (1947 or 1948): 200—209. I have not seen this. C. Domergue, "Les Planii et leur activité industrielle en Espagne

however, that one of the ingots the resting surface, cf. 155.

(No. 30) is marked on both the back and

Mélanges de la Casa Velasquez I, 191-219;

*].-P. Joncheray, “1974 Excavations on the Wreck of Bon Porté

F. Laubenheimer-Leenhardt and B. Liou, "Les lingots L. Carulius Hispallus,” RAN 7 (1974): 119-37; F.

(Sixth Century B.c.)," IJNA 5 (1976): 88-89, with a photograph of the

Laubenheimer-Leenhardt, Recherches sur les lingots de cuivre et de plomb d'époque romaine dans les régions de Languedoc-Roussillon et

étrusques (Bon Porté et Pointe du Dattier),” CAS 3 (1974): 7-19; J.-P.

sous la republique," C. Domergue, de plomb de

ingot; Bernard

Liou, "Note

provisoire sur deux gisements

greco-

de Provence-Corse, RAN, Supplement 3; A. Tchernia, “Hyéres (Var),"

Joncheray, "Le plus ancien navire de Provence," Rencontre d'archéologie sous marine de Fréjus-Saint-Raphael (1975), pp. 21—24. I have

IJNA 3, no. 2 (1974): 326; C. Veny, "Diecisiete lingots de plomo de una

not seen this.

nave romana de Ses Salines (Mallorca)," Ampurias 31-32 (1969-70): 191-219. 5'Domergue, "Les Planii.”

* Joncheray, “1974 Excavations,” fig. 3. Particularly useful for our purposes is I. L. Barnes et al., "Isotopic Analysis of Laurion Lead Ores," Archaeological Chemistry, ed. Curt W. Beck. Robert H. Brill and J. M. Wampler, "Isotope Studies of

*Laubenheimer-Leenhardt, Recherches sur les lingots, pp. 146-61 and 169-72. The deposit, described as “un contexte très melé," may have amphoras of Dressel Types 10 and 45 associated with it. See also: A. Bouscaras, "Recherches sous-marines au large d'Agde,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique de Béziers (1961), p. 17 and fig. 15. I have not seen this. H. Gallet de Santerre, "Informations archéologique, circonscription de Montpellier," Gallia 20 (1962) 622; A. Bouscaras, "Note sur les

Ancient Lead," AJA 71 (1967): 63-77, serves as an introduction to the

study of lead isotope ratios for archaeological purposes, but the ratios published there were measured differently. More recent introductions to the procedures are in N. H. Gale, "Some Aspects of Lead and Silver Mining in the Aegean Area," Thera and the Aegean World Il, Papers

and Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, Aug., 1978. pp. 161-95. See also Robert H. Brill

THE CARGO Since my original discussion of these ingots, additional research on lead isotopes has been undertaken, and a

clear distinction has been made between

leads from

Laurion and others, which fell into Brill and Wamplers original “Group L.” Group L is a much larger field than

what is now recognized as the more closely defined Laurion field. Furthermore, additional analyses of ores

and artifacts have shown that Laurion lead worked in antiquity falls into the same isotopic field as do modern ores from Laurion." Consequently, we can now say with even greater certainty that all the leads from Porticello, except those from the anchor stocks, had their origin at Laurion.”

The stamp on C35 supports this suggestion, as the letters are Greek

(Fig.

4-21).

Of the six impressions

made with a stamp along the back of the ingot, only two are clear and complete, and these were made from the same matrix. The letters are in intaglio; thus they were

made either by a die stamp cut in relief and impressed on the ingot after it had been removed from the mold, or

57

stamps.)

On

Roman

ingots,

primary

stamps

appear

neatly and regularly formed on the back of the ingot, while secondary stamps occur randomly on the sides. The randomness or irregularity is comparable to that seen on the Porticello ingot and argues in favor of their being secondary stamps. In both instances of clear impression of the stamp on C35, the orientation of the stamp is the same. Only one reading of the stamp makes sense for this period of time: a sigma over an iota, with an eta to the right of the iota.”

Concerning the meaning of the stamp, several possibilities suggest themselves, some of which are seen on

Roman lead ingots: the name of a person, a mine, or other establishment associated with the production of the final products at Laurion; the weight or price of the ingot; or the sign of the metronomos authenticating the

ingots weight.” If it is accepted that the stamp was impressed on the ingot after it was turned out of the mold, it could have been put there by anyone involved in the trading network, from manufacturer to purchaser. The

by a relief impression made in the mold by a die stamp cut in intaglio. Roman ingots exhibit stamps of both types. It has not been possible to determine with the naked eye which method was used on the Porticello ingot, and in the absence of other examples a definitive

fact that the stamp is a ligature suggests that whoever made the mark did a good bit of dealing in lead, and may have been founder, metronomos, or trader in lead on a large scale.

conclusion cannot be drawn, as has been done with some Roman ingots, but some insight may be gained from Ro-

Let us consider the question of the ingots weight first. If the letters represent acrophonic numerals” they

man examples.” These are ordinarily impressed on their backs with their founders mark incorporated into the mold in which the ingot was cast. Ingots of Imperial Ro-

can stand for one stater (2), one obol, or simply one of something (I), and one hundred (H), thus 101 staters. If

man date are marked,

ingot in staters, however, we would expect the sign to be instead HX.” Moreover, using the standard of 105 coin

in addition, with a die after the

ingot was removed from the mold, and surviving examples read IMP : CAES and vESP : AUG.” (For the sake of convenience, let us call stamps made in the mold primary stamps, and those made after casting secondary and William R. Shields, "Lead Isotopes in Ancient Coins," Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigations of Ancient Coinage, ed. E. T. Hall and D. M. Metcalf, Royal Numismatic Society, Special Pub-

the stamp were meant to represent the weight of the

drachmas per weight mina, the Solonian standard which was probably in use in this period,” the modern equivalent of 101 staters would be some 92,475 g,* which far

exceeds the 25,700 g weight of the ingot. Thus it seems Ingots from a Roman 147-50.

H. Brill, William R. Shields, and J. M. Wampler,

"New

Directions in Lead Isotope Research," Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art," ed. W. J. Young. Gale, "Some Aspects of Lead."

#Ibid., pp. 169-70. “These measurements establish that the isotopic composition of lead from Laurion is well defined and unlike that for any other ancient mining region so far sampled. To the extent that this is true, any artefact which proves to have a lead isotope composition falling within the Laurion field may be assumed to contain lead derived from Laurion." RC. Domergue, "Les lingots de plomb romain du Musée Archéologique de Carthagéne et du Musée Naval de Madrid," ArchEspArq 39 (1966): 41-72, determined, by measuring the distances between the two or three cartouches that made up the foundry stamp, that certain Roman lead ingots were cast in the same mold. “On the significance of the secondary stamps, see especially Veny, "Diecisiete lingots," pp. 191—219, and Anthony J. Parker, "Lead

Majorca," IJNA 3 (1974):

™The letter W with a dash and a zeta will not work because

lication No. 8, pp. 279—303, esp. figs. 1 and 2, where ratios are plotted; and Robert

Ship at Ses Salines,

Greek lacks the letter W, and zeta with vertical strokes shorter than

the horizontals is not attested.

A mu or san with a dash and a zeta

below is equally senseless, for both mu and san take different forms at

the time period in question. An eta with an iota or a tau and a retrograde sigma below, though somewhat more plausible, is undesirable because sigma in that form in unattested in the late fifth and early fourth centuries.

? For secondary stamps or graffiti indicating the weight of the ingot, cf. Parker, "Lead ingots," p. 149. T Marcus N. Tod, (1911-12): 98-132.

“The

Greek

Numerical

Notation,"

BSA

18

® That the stater was the weight unit in use at this time has been shown in Mabel Lang and Margaret Crosby, The Athenian Agora, vol. X, Weights, Measures, and Tokens, pp. 2-3.

*Ibid., p. 4. ®The conversion factor is 915.6 g per weight stater. 915.6 x 101

= 92,475 g.

58

THE PORTICELLO SHIPWRECK

unlikely that the stamp signifies the ingots weight in

gion; of workshops, smelting furnaces, and lessee or pur-

staters.

chaser of the mine; and even of the registrar of the lease.” But since the leases refer to a period some twenty to eighty years later than our ingot, it does not seem worthwhile to seek a correlation between the names in the inscriptions and the letters on the ingot.

Leaving aside the question of the stamp for a moment, if we apply the other weight standard in use for the period," 6,000 weight drachmas per weight talent, and the modern equivalent of 4.36 g per drachma, we up with an intriguing figure, a talent weighing

A final word about the ingots weight. Literary and

26,160 g.* This figure is remarkably close to our ingot's weight and suggests that we have an ingot of lead which was deliberately cast to weigh about a talent.” One ingot alone does not afford sufficient evidence for a standard practice, but for the sake of argument, let us accept the

come

epigraphical references to lead usually refer to it as being available for purchase by the talent (see note 85).* An exception occurs in the accounts for the construction of statues for the Hephaisteion.* Metals purchased for the sculptures are listed, the amounts purchased are indicated by the talent and mina, and the prices paid are given in drachmas per talent. This is the case, at least, for copper or bronze and for tin. In the case of lead,

practice as standard for the time being.“

If Porticello ingot C35 is accepted as weighing a talent, the sign cannot represent 101 coin staters as the price of the ingot, for lead sold at much lower rates at

however, the unit is given as a kparevrns. A kparevrns

that time.* The stamp must have another significance. It may well authenticate the ingot's weight without indicating it, but we can only speculate whether the stamp is a founder's or a metronomos's. tion or shorthand indication of the mine that produced

is generally taken to be a pig or ingot of a certain size,” but we do not know the size. Unfortunately, the price paid for the twelve xpatevrai purchased for the Hephaisteion sculptures is not preserved to give us a clue. Quite possibly the Porticello ingot is a «parevrns, although there is no way of demonstrating this.”

the ore, the washery or workshop where ore was dressed, the furnaces where smelting was done and lead and silver were cast in ingots for distribution, or a combina-

Regardless, the Porticello ingot, with its stamp, may be the oldest lead ingot from Laurion with a dated context,” although I have no doubt that the mines were

tion of these. The fourth-century mine lease inscriptions carry innumerable names of mines (named for a divinity,

valued for their lead as early as they were for their

Alternatively, the stamp may simply be an abbrevia-

hero, operator, or deme); of towns or villages in the reLang and Crosby, The Athenian Agora X, 4.

86,000 x 4.36 g = 26,160 g

* Lang and Crosby, The Athenian Agora X, 1, note that " . . . the metric system which the modern student uses to express ancient metrological values admits of far finer distinctions than any ancient system contemplated, at least for general and practical commercial purposes. For we are dealing . . . with the ordinary units of weight and capacity used in daily commerce for the great bulk of commodities which were bought and sold." “It would be particularly valuable to know the exact dimensions and weight of the ingot published by Ardaillon (Les mines du Laurion) and Cordella (Le Laurium) (see note 59, this chapter) even though we

do not know its date of manufacture. In the Erechtheum inscriptions, two talents of lead for fastening figures to the frieze went for ten drachmas. Cf. IG I*, 374, and James Morton Paton, The Erechtheum I, 396-97, No. XVII, Col. II, lines 38—40, and p. 408, the accounts for the year 408/7. An inscription of 359 B.c. gives the price of 2 dr., 4 obols per talent (CIA II, 834 b, col. II, line 40). And in his Economics, Aristotle relates a story about Pythocles, a contemporary of Demosthenes, who suggested cornering the market on lead by buying it up at the going rate of 2 dr. the talent and selling it at 6 (Economics 1353 a 15).

“Margaret Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia 19 (1950): 189—312, and "More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 26 (1957): 1-23.

"But Lang and Crosby,

silver.* It is curious that the other ingot from the wreck, C34, is of a different shape and surface finish from C35. #1G 1%, 370/371.

For discussions on the three fragments which

make up this inscription, see Wesley Thompson, "The Inscriptions in the Hephaisteion," Hesperia 38 (1969): 114—18. Evelyn B. Harrison, "Alkamenes' Sculptures for the Hephaisteion," AJA 81 (1977): 137-78, 265-87, and 411-26, passim, discusses the meaning of this difficult and poorly preserved inscription. See also R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, vol. III, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, p. 101, no. 293.

*Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III, 101, and Harrison, "Alkamenes' Sculptures," p. 144. 9 Naphthali Lewis, Greek Historical Documents, the Fifth Century B.C., has taken the other view that xparevrai are some part of the structure of the sculpture, in this case "supports." I believe that "ingots” makes more sense in the context and structure of the inscription, where the amount of metal is given in the case of copper or bronze and tin. Admittedly, however, building accounts are notorious for inconsistency of style.

*' Oscar Broneer found a lead pig among the ruins of a Mycenaean house on the northeast slopes of the Acropolis in Athens, but to my knowledge

this has not undergone isotopic analysis. Oscar Broneer,

"Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens," Hesperia 2 (1933): 352, and "A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis,” Hesperia 8 (1939): 415-16.

“Lead

samples of archaeological objects of Bronze Age

Archaic dates have been found to belong to Group

and

L, cf. Brill and

The Athenian Agora X, 3, note that

Wampler, "Isotope Studies," pp. 75-77, items 6, 39, 46, 66, 70, 167, 1,

"there seems to be some evidence that raw materials were bought by

and 4. The provenance of these objects ranges from Etruria to Lycia to Egypt.

the stater and finished products by the mna. . . .”

THE CARGO It is generally agreed that Roman lead ingots were cast in terracotta molds, although to my knowledge no mold has ever been found.“ The smooth surface of the back of C35 certainly suggests that it was cast in such a mold. C34 may have been made differently, as its back surface is very rough; in fact it seems quite similar to the surface on the plano-convex ingots from gisement E at Agde, and it has been suggested that they were cast in sand molds.” It is hard to believe that a foundry at Laurion would have produced two such totally different ingots, but it is possible that the ingots come from two different foundries in the Laurion region, which used

different kinds of molds. There has been some disagreement in the past as to how Roman lead ingots were cast. Scholars have argued that some ingots are so large that they must have been cast piecemeal, with discrete batches of molten lead being poured into a mold in successjon until the mold

was full. The basis of this contention has been the strata or laminations visible on the side and end surfaces of Romano-British lead ingots, and the piecemeal theory of casting has been used to draw inferences about both Roman metallurgical capabilities and the weight system used by the Romano-British lead industry. G. Clement Wittick has shown that striations or lamination visible on British lead ingots may be more a factor of the temperature of the lead when poured than of intermittent pouring.” It seems that the best results are obtained when temperatures and techniques, such as the rate of pouring, are such that an ingot of maximum solidity is the result, that is, one with a minimum of striations and contractions, caused by uneven cooling of the metal. Porticello ingot C35 exhibits a smooth back surface unmarked by strata or lamina, and a flat resting surface with only slight irregularities, suggesting a considerable level of technical competence at the foundry where the ingot was cast. It has already been mentioned that the other ingot from the wreck may have been cast at a different foundry, and concretions covering the surfaces of this object obscure details such as striations and

contraction marks. The silence of ancient authors has led some modern scholars to conclude that lead played only a small part in the mining effort at Laurion, and others believe, by contrast, that it was the sole source of lead for the Greek ™Gowland,

world. The evidence is not in, but I am inclined to believe that just as Laurion was not the only galena ore

mine worked for silver in Greek times, so it was not the only source of lead. We have indications that two and perhaps three sources of lead were being exploited in the classical period in the Mediterranean. Nearly a thousand lead objects, including at least one ingot, were excavated at Olynthus, and Robinson has argued that lead was obtained nearby and worked locally, before that city’s destruction in 348 B.c.”

Lead objects excavated in Sicily and Italy, dated in the seventh,

sixth,

and

second

centuries

B.c.,

have

affinities with a galena ore from Campiglia Marittima in Italy.“ We

must be cautious with the information,

for

many more data must be obtained before a true picture will emerge. It seems evident at the very least, however,

that the Greek town of Morgantina did not get all its lead from Laurion. The third source is, of course,

Laurion,

and the

Porticello ingots indicate that lead was exported from Attica to the western Mediterranean, to some extent at least, and not simply in manufactured form but as a raw material. But what justification can there be for transporting lead over a great distance to an area which itself abounded in numerous sources of the metal? Some will undoubtedly say that the problem can be explained only if the ingots are seen as ballast on the ship. This is a favorite explanation for the awkward or otherwise inexplicable presence of any heavy object or objects in a shipwreck. But we need not resort to it here. Conclusive evidence for the date when lead and silver mines in Spain, Sardinia, Britain, Italy, and central Eu-

rope began to be worked is not available. The Phoenicians are supposed to have been working argentiferous galena ores in Spain from as early as the eighth century B.C. if not earlier, but we do not know what role lead played in their efforts, as again the ancient sources

speak only of the silver.” The extent to which Phoenicians or their western cousins traded with Greeks in the

western Mediterranean is also uncertain. If Phoenicians controlled mines in Spain and other sources in the west were not yet exploited, it may have been simpler, cheaper, or necessary for western Greeks to import lead from mainland Greece.” Another problem about the Laurion mines that has

"The Early Metallurgy," p.399 and G. Clement

Wittick, "The Casting Technique of Romano-British Lead Ingots," JRS 51 (1961): 105-11.

%Laubenheimer-Leenhardt, Recherche sur les lingots, p. 171. SWittick, "Casting Technique,” and references therein.

“Ibid.

59

“Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus VIII, pp. 135-37, pls. 48, 49, 106. See also Gale “Some Aspects of Lead," pp. 162-67, 183-92. Brill and Wampler, "Isotope Studies," Group X. 9 Sabatino Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians, pp. 230—32. Y? bid., p. 233.

60

THE

PORTICELLO

plagued generations of scholars deserves mention here.

This is the question of whether mining operations at Laurion diminished or ceased with the occupation of Decelea by the Spartans in 413 B.c. and with the en-

suing escape of twenty thousand slaves from the mines, and at what time after that mining resumed.” The traditional attitude is that mining ceased in 413 B.c. and silver resources were so depleted by 407 that the state was forced to melt down the gold nikai on the Acropolis for coins.'* Nothing is said about lead reserves. We do not hear about the mines again until 367 B.c., when the mine leases begin, although the leases imply that mining had been going on for at least a year previous.

Belgian archaeologists working at Thorikos have been concerned with this question, and discoveries at their washery no. 1 have led them to conclude that the mines continued to be worked after 413, to a degree at least, and that it was probably not until 406/5 that operations ceased altogether for a time.'? Work at Thorikos has not produced evidence to suggest a date for the resumption of mining in the fourth century, and debate on this question continues.'™ Our ingots offer no solution to the problem, and their presence on the wreck may in fact argue in favor of dating the ships sinking in the late fifth century B.C., when mining was still going on, rather

than in the early fourth, when it presumably had been stopped for some years. An accurate picture of lead trade and industry in

Greek times in the Mediterranean will be available only from more evidence, in the form of ingots from datable contexts, isotope analyses performed on the leads we al-

SHIPWRECK ready have, and isotope analyses performed routinely on new finds. It would be useful to have analyses on the plano-convex ingots from gisement E at Agde, un-

dated but perhaps with a Greek pedigree, and the truncated pyramid ingot from Bon Porté, dated to the second half of the sixth century but lacking evidence for its source, and the fourth-century ingot from Olynthus, whose source may well have been someplace other than Laurion. As it is, it would be foolish to make too many generalizations about the lead industry based on only a handful of ingots. There is good evidence, however, from the Roman world, that lead ingots changed shape over time, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that they did so in Greek times; this is important for nautical archaeolo-

gists to recognize, for just as transport amphoras and anchors can, by their shapes, provide approximate dates for wreck sites discovered as surface finds during surveys, so too may lead ingots one day, when sufficient evidence exists. The Porticello lead ingots, with C35 weighing one talent and bearing a ligature stamp, and their presence on a merchant vessel traveling in the west, suggest a lead industry and trade which hitherto have only been suspected in Greek times.'"5 Many details are needed to flesh out these bare bones, not the least of which is the relative importance of silver and lead mines in Thrace, Siphnos, Laurion, and others under Greek control, and Spain and Sardinia under Phoenician control. Such lacunae can be filled only by the discovery of as numerous and diverse an assortment of Greek and Punic ingots as are known from the Roman world.

Inkpots These

objects all take the shape of slightly flattened

spheres. They have no bases but rest on their rounded bottoms without rolling over. The mouth consists of a circular outer rim, within which is set a secondary, smaller mouth. Clay is rough and not well cleaned. Clay and surface range in color from dark brown to light reddish brown. Thuc. 6.91.7 and 7.27.5; Aristophanes Frogs 720; Xenophon de Vectigalibus 4.25. Aristotle Economics 2.1350 a; Ardaillon, Les

mines du Laurion, pp. 149-58; Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," pp. 190, 203-204; Hopper, "The Attic Silver Mines,” pp. 24849, and Hopper, "The Laurion Mines," p. 304; Mussche et al., Thorikos II, 62; Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, p. 249. 1 As in J. B. Bury and Russell Meiggs, A History of Greece, 4th edition, pp. 305, 494. 18 Mussche et al., Thorikos II, 48-62.

There is no trace of paint, glaze, or other decoration. Walls are thin. C36. Plan IV. H.

0.06;

FN diam.

0.09;

55. Fig. 4-22, 4-23.

diam.

mouth

0.037

and

0.023 m. Surface is yellowish red (SYR 5/6). Eiseman 1975,

pl. 70, figs. 1-3. C37. Plan IV.

FN 74.

'*H, F. Mussche, P. Spitaels, and F. Goemaere-De Poerck, Miscellanea Graeca, vol. I, Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Clas-

sical Times, pp. 53-58. Thorikos, of course, is only a part of the Laurion mining region, and excavations there do not necessarily reflect what might have been going on in other parts of the area.

‘®t is hoped that more will be learned about a lead foundry at Ischia; cf. A. di Stefano, "Ischia Lead 383—84, dated to the third century B.c.

Foundry,"

IJNA 4

(1975):

THE

Fic. 4-22.

Inkpot C36. 1:2. DAF

CARGO

61

Fic. 4-23.

Inkpot C36. 1:2. JC

Fic. 4-24. Inkpots. 1:2. DAF

H.

0.063; diam.

0.09; diam.

mouth

0.044 and

0.029 m. C38. Plan IV.

FN 75.

0.095; diam.

mouth 0.042 and

Surface is reddish gray (5YR 5/2). C39. Plan IV.

C41. Plan IV.

0.092; diam.

FN 78.

0.093; diam.

mouth 0.041 and

0.028 m. FN 76.

mouth 0.033 and

Surface is red (2.5YR 5/8). C42. Plan IV.

H. 0.067; diam.

0.021 m.

Surface is pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2).

C40. Plan IV.

Surface is between reddish yellow (SYR 6/6) and yellowish red (5YR 5/6). Fabric is red (2.5YR 5/8). H. 0.063; diam.

0.023 m.

H. 0.065; diam.

mouth 0.034 and

0.023 m.

Surface is reddish brown (5YR 5/4). H. 0.063; diam.

H. 0.069; diam. 0.096; diam.

FN 79.

0.096; diam.

0.019 m.

FN 77.

Surface is brown (7.5YR 5/2).

mouth 0.038 and

62

THE

PORTICELLO

C43. Plan IV.

SHIPWRECK The

FN 80.

modern

sources

imply

that

Greek

ink was

Priene'™ and Delos’ are very similar in form and have, in turn, been compared with Roman examples, which are widely known from museum collections.'* The form

the same substance as the black used by painters, perhaps because the word atramentum is used for both.'” This is troubling, because the properties of a good ink might differ appreciably from those which make a good paint. The wine lees or soot was mixed with gum. Whether this product was shaped into sticks, like India ink, or took the form of a thick paste is not actually known, although the former notion is preferred by most modern scholars. Regardless, when put to use, it had to be mixed with water or other liquid. Our inkpots are not especially suited to ink in

seems to have developed from a spherical, baseless pot

sticks, but would have been useful for ink in paste or

Pres. h. 0.055; diam. and 0.02 m.

0.085; diam.

mouth

0.04

Bottom and parts of rim missing. Surface is reddish brown (5YR Owen

1970,

5/4), and fabric is red (2.5YR 5/8).

p. 28;

Owen

1971a,

p. 124;

Owen

1973, p. 8. These pots are the earliest examples known to me of vessels intended to carry ink. Hellenistic inkwells from

with a double mouth (Porticello), to a spherical double-

mouth or single-mouth vessel with a flat base (Priene and Delos), which was contemporary with a flat-based,

straight-sided pot with a single circular mouth, often set in a concave top (Delos). Roman examples took a wide variety of forms and were executed in both terracotta and assorted metals.'® Some particularly fine and important examples came from excavations at Corinth. ''?

Wiegand observed that the double mouth of the Priene vessels prevented them from being completely emptied, and their broad, flat base kept them from tipping over and spilling their contents. The Porticello examples rest, somewhat unsteadily, on their rounded bot-

toms without rolling around, but when they are tipped, liquid does spill out rather easily if they are quite full. We know virtually nothing about ink of this period, our only information coming from Pliny (Natural History

35.42), who tells us that Polygnotos and Mikon preferred black made made from about ink in the science

from wine lees, while Apelles used black burned ivory. Other textual information antiquity is of Roman or later date," and of determining ink composition through

chemical analysis is still in its infancy."* Nor do we have any information about centers of ink production, which might shed light on the source of the Porticello ink. **Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schrader, Priene, pp. 426 and 430, no. 98, Abb. 540, 4 and Schnitt Abb. 549; no. 99, Abb. 540, 6. V' W. Déonna, Exploration archéologique de Délos XVIII, 255-56

and pl. LXII, no. 683—84. Cf. also pl. LXXI, nos. 679—80. '®Déonna,

Délos XVIII, 255n6.

DarSag I, 528-29,

liquid form. If they carried liquid ink, the double mouth may have been designed to mitigate spilling, but if they contained paste, spilling would have not been a problem. An alternative explanation for the configuration of the mouth is that it facilitated sealing the vessel. We know that in Roman times ink was expensive, twelve denarii a pound for solid ink.''* The high price was due not so much to the cost of the main ingredients— soot, less, or gum, which in themselves are not costly—but to

other ingredients that improved the ink's quality and to the fact that recipes were kept secret." We know that rare and expensive coloring agents, such as red ochre from

Lemnos,

were

sold in sealed containers

(Pliny,

Natural History 14.33). If the space between the inner and outer mouths were filled with wax and impressed with a seal, the closure could not be removed without destroying the seal. Sealing containers might have been necessary as a guarantee of the ink's authenticity and purity. Whether

our pots contained paste or liquid ink,

their very presence in the cargo area of a merchant vessel demonstrates that these were indeed the containers in which ink was packaged for trade. Their small size argues in favor of the notion that, as in Roman times, the

Greek-era ink was fairly costly. !? Monique de Pas, "Recherches sur les encres noires manuscrites," La paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, No. 559, pp. 55-60.

s.v. "Atra-

mentarium, " fig. 619. 1® DarSag I, 528-29. Examples in terra sigillata, with the double mouth, are said to be in the Rómisch-Germanisch Central Museum in Mainz, but I have not seen them published; cf. Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, p. 430 note.

!! Oscar Broneer, “Excavations in Corinth, 1934," AJA 39 (1935):

72-73 and fig. 17.

!! DarSag I, 529-30, s.v. "Atramentum librarium"; RE Supp. 7 (1958): 1574-79, s.v. "Tinte."

Viktor Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, vol. I, Das Buchwesen im Altertum und in byzantinischen Mittelalter, pp. 202—17; Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin

Palaeography, pp. 41-42; Mary Hamilton Swindler, Ancient Painting, from the Earliest Times to the Period of Christian Art, pp. 426-27. '^Diocletians Edictum de maximis pretiis of A.D. 301 lists the price, cf. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, p. 192 and 2-3. "SOne process of making ink, described in Vitruvius 7.10, was quite involved and required specialized equipment. This would have added to the expense.

THE SCULPTURE BRUNILDE

SISMONDO RIDGWAY

Photographs by Donald A. Frey

My discussion of the Porticello bronzes is based on two examinations of all pertinent pieces. The first was conducted in March, 1982, and the second in July, 1983, when one new join (to piece S2) had been discovered by the Reggio museum authorities. The basic text on the Porticello sculptures was completed in 1984. In April, 1985, E. Paribeni, P. Fiorentino,

M. Marabelli, and M. Micheli produced the official Italian publication of the bronzes.’ Paribeni catalogs only eighteen fragments, in contrast to my twenty-two, and assigns them to only two statues, one elderly and one youthful. In addition, he dates the Porticello head to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C., doubting the connection between the sculptures and the wreck. Because of the considerable differences in opinion and description, it seems best to retain the present text as written and to refer to Paribeni's article for a different interpretation. Of considerable importance, however, is the tech-

nical report, which includes the analyses of the alloy of all the bronze fragments recovered. The Italian restorers conclude that the composition of the bronze is similar enough to support the suggestion that the statues were cast in the same workshop. They postulate indirect casting in relatively small sections, and confirm through x-ray examination the presence of bronze armature within some of the hair strands. Traces of a wooden nucleus have also been detected inside the now-hollow bars still in place within the two feet and lower legs. I mention these points because they are based on laboratory findings beyond my competence.

S1.

FN MT. Figs. 5-1-5-12. 17096. Max. 1. (front) 0.42, (back) 0.20; h. of head 0.39; l. of beard 0.20; of mustache and beard 0.22; max.

w. 0.19; th. of bronze at neck 0.007-0.0045 m. Greenish patina. Male bearded head, approximately life size. Broken off at neck join, approximately along the original cast edge except for an irregular section on the left side of the neck and a squarish tongue on the right, which represents a point of welding between neck and torso and which tore away from the body when the welding held. The break on the left side may be assumed to have occurred just above the welding spot, for the same reason. The head seems to have been cast in two sections: neck and face with beard, and crown of head (Fig. 5-7);

the join of the cranial calotte is visible at the nape (Fig. 5-6), where some curls are missing. Over the forehead the join is more difficult to trace, but the oval ring of a welding spot can be seen just above the left eyebrow (Fig. 5-8), and another may occur at a slightly higher level over the right (Fig. 5-9). The join, partly coinciding with one of the horizontal frown lines, seems then to rise above the right temple to a level above the ear (Fig. 5-5)

and presumably followed a similar direction on the opposite side. The interior of the head is now inaccessible because of its modern setting, but, looking through the opening of the left eye, one can detect a seam running from above the right ear toward the nape and around the interior cavity.

Regarding inter-

pretation of the casting phases, which differ somewhat from my reconstruction, I refer once again to the Italian publication, preferring to leave my text as written.

! Enrico Paribeni, "Le statue bronzee di Porticello," BdA, ser. 6, 24 (1984):

1-14; and P. Fiorentino,

M.

Marabelli, and M.

Micheli,

“Indagini e intervento di conservazione sui reperti bronzei di Porticello," BdA, ser. 6, 24 (1984): 15-24.

Fic. 5-1.

Head, S1, front view.

Fic.

Head,

5-4.

view, left.

Sl,

three-quarters

Fıc. 5-2.

Head, S1, left profile.

Fic.

5-5.

view, right.

Head,

Sl,

Fic. 5-3.

Head, SI, right profile.

three-quarters

Fic. 5-6.

Head, S1, rear view.

THE SCULPTURE

65

Fic. 5-8. S1, detail, left eye. Fic. 5-7. Head, S1, schematic drawing showing construction

technique. KH The separately cast calotte exhibits an unusual technique. Long strands of hair hang past the line of join.

When in place, they would have fallen over the nape and ears, thus serving two purposes: covering and hiding the point of connection to face and neck, and creating a con-

tinuous and luxuriant coiffure. This hair fringe is preserved almost entirely over both ears and the left half of the neck; it has broken off at the join line over the right half of nape and neck, revealing two flat projections, per-

haps excess metal from the welding process (Fig. 5-10). The hair of the fringe divides into individual groups of

strands, finely engraved, which taper and twist at the end. In at least three cases it can be seen that the closely

engraved surface overlies a bronze wire, often faceted and of uniform thickness except for the narrow tip (Fig. 5-10: first long curl on left half of nape; first and second curl on right side, just behind right ear; cf. Fig. 5-3).

These wires provide a kind of armature for the freely moving strands; similar wires can also be detected in front of the left ear and in other, less obvious, places.

They were probably part of the upper calotte, inserted into the wax of the model, and each in turn surrounded with a thin layer of wax for the individual curls, which

was then tooled to obtain the hairlike texture. This technique is used also for some curls of the beard, specifically the longer, outer one on the right, but the wax around the wires was thicker and held better. The beard and the face were cast as one piece; the beard is hollow down to the last 0.06 m of its tip. The back of

Fic. 5-9.

S1, detail, right eye.

the beard is flat and undetailed (Fig. 5-10), and only the curls that stood relatively free of the neck, and of each other, and could be visible from the sides have been given an engraved undersurface. From the front, the curls of the beard are seen to be engraved all over, even in places that could not have been reached by a chisel.

The detailing must therefore have been done on the original model (wax), and not later as part of the cold

work.

Moreover,

the tips of some curls are fused to-

gether (Fig. 5-11).

The interior of the head is smooth, except for the cavity corresponding to the nose; all other details of the upper surface, including the mouth, have no corresponding traces in the interior. Even the ears were

66

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

modeled on the outside, since no trace of a join can be felt in the interior of the head, except perhaps for a slight bulge in correspondence to the left ear. Since neither chin nor jawline is marked in the interior, the manufacturing process could be reconstructed as follows. A clay core was modeled in the most rudi-

mentary fashion—as an irregular oval terminating in a stunted point, with only the nose projecting from the smooth surface. A thick layer of wax was then added, on

which all details were marked: openings were cut (and cored)

for the

eyes,

and

mouth

and

mustache

were

modeled and engraved (especially since so little of the lips is exposed, only the lower one being partly visible). Curls, some with a wire armature, were twisted in thick

wax and applied individually to the “beard” portion of the core.

The

ears were

undoubtedly

modeled

sepa-

rately and attached from the exterior since they are completely formed despite the locks covering them, which would have concealed them even more in their original conditions. If this technical reconstruction is correct, the head can only have been cast by the direct method. The calotte with its armature of wires for the long locks was cast separately, almost like a wig. It was then joined to the head, with the “fringe” hiding the ears and spreading over the nape. The strands over the temples are part of the separate fringe, but the whiskers, although clearly distinguishable from both hair and beard, must have been cast with the beard, as part of the modeled wax. Cold work may have sharpened the engraving of the beard at the points where it merges into the cheeks. It was also used for the detailing of the eyebrows. The cast seems excellent, since only one patch, still in place, is visible behind the right ear, at the level of the tragus. The eyes were inserted from the inside, encapsulated in metal lids that must have terminated in eyelashes, although these are broken off in the surviving right eye. The eye itself had an iris of different material from that of the cornea, with inset pupil in the center. The filling for the left eye is now missing, and the empty eye socket reveals the fairly wide shelf of bronze on which the encapsulated eye rested. The head as a whole is in a good state of preservation, although in places the surface is peeling. A pronounced vertical depression in the center of the fore-

head may have been made deeper or more irregular by a blow, but the feature was certainly part of the original modeling. Except for a few tips of curls, the right por-

tion of the nape curls, and the left eye, which are missing, the head can be considered intact. The neck itself was attached to the body by fusion welding; the bronze on the lower left side of the interior has coagulated into a

pile as wide as 0.032 m and as much as 0.011 in thick-

Fic. 5-10.

$1, detail of nape near right rear.

ness; it has run down into the hollow inside the beard, where it has left a web approximately 0.032 m thick.? As a technical feature, the hole in the center of the beard should be mentioned. It probably held a strut to help support the wax while the face was cast. The cavity is oval in contour and pierces the bronze along a slanted plane from front to back, so that daylight is visible through it; it occurs at the level of the fourth wave from the top (Figs. 5-10, 5-11). This life-sized head depicts an elderly man whose hairline has begun to recede. His fairly long strands of thin hair are combed across the balding forehead from left to right, originating from a vertical part over the left temple, and from another, horizontal part, at the top of the cranium where other male heads more often exhibit a whirligig (Fig. 5-12). Directly over the forehead, six strands combed forward form bangs overlapping at the

tips. (The tip of the sixth strand, over the left eyebrow, is broken off, but its traces can still be seen on the bronze

surface.) Areas of smooth bronze in between locks are not caused by damage; rather, they realistically convey

the effect of bare patches of cranial skin. * Cynthia Jones Eiseman, “The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.c.," Ph.D. diss., University of

Pennsylvania, 1979, p. 147.

THE SCULPTURE

67

tinues diagonally above the ears toward the forehead (Fig. 5-2): it probably marks the point where a wreath or other similar ornament, now lost, once encircled the head. No fastening for this crown is now visible, al-

though a hole might have been pierced through the mass of missing back curls.

The ample forehead is crossed by four engraved frownlines descending at a slight angle from right to left (Fig. 5-1), so that the lowest one almost touches the left

eyebrow.

Additional, shorter lines are marked in the

areas left uncovered by the receding hairline: two on the right, one on the left side. Plastic details are fewer: a deeper vertical depression in the approximate center, from bangs to nose, creates the effect of frontal lobes,

but these are not marked by additional modeling; even the temples are not truly indented, although the forehead appears to turn virtual corners, from frontal to pro-

file planes. The eyebrows are rendered as the thickened edges of two planes slanting toward the orbital cavities; their somewhat artificial curves are further marked by fine engraving, the strokes apparently going in one direction

only, across the plastic arc and ending at the bridge of the nose.

No

true modeling

of the orbital muscle

is

present, although the eyes are set within a crease that follows the curve of the upper lid. In compositional terms, eyebrows and eyes create a sort of set-back slashing across the face and almost separating it in two. It is not that the eyes are deeply sunk, but rather that the entire area has been recessed at an angle, so that the forehead overhangs the eyes and does not slope un-

interrupted into the bridge of the nose, as is common in “Greek profiles.” This rendering alters the appearance of the face according to the viewpoint; disturbing when seen from above or from below, it is most effective when viewed at eye level or slightly lower, so that the widearching eyebrows lend the face a quizzical expression.

The eyes themselves are small in proportion to the face, the right perhaps smaller than the left. The eyelids are relatively thin, and the lachrymal duct is marked Fic. 5-12. $1, detail of top. The longish hair overlies both ears and the nape, ending in loose spirals. It is rendered as thin—as well as thinning—although still lively in its plastic overlapping at extremities and over the dome. Undulation is irregular, more clearly expressed by the waving of individual strands than by the rhythmic modeling of the head surface. The skull is wide and low, sloping gradually to a low

both in the orbital cavity and in the capsule containing the eyeball. No distinction is made between the lids at the outer corner, so that the opening has the appearance

of a buttonhole. A sharper angle is, however, described by the casing of the surviving eye. Despite their size, the eyes have a wide-open and penetrating look, perhaps

enhanced by the recession from the frontal plane. The strongly aquiline nose juts forward from a clear indentation at its base to a pronounced tip, which dis-

peak approximately on a line with the back of the ears;

tinctly overhangs the mouth. The nostrils—thin, low,

the center of gravity thus seems misplaced toward the back of the head. A deep indentation at the nape con-

narrow—give the face a somewhat pinched look, although the wings of the nose flare against the cheeks.

68

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

The nasolabial folds, the right more pronounced than

according to L. Schneider's formula, when the statue was

the left, are rendered as continuations of the grooves outlining the wings of the nose, but modeling differenti-

whole, the head would have been slightly turned toward the figures right, and its proper left side would have been more exposed (cf. Fig. 5-4, perhaps with less turn.) The massive neck would have been partly visible only from the back or side views, since the beard entirely obscures it from the front. The exposed areas show

ates them from the area of the wide cheekbones, so that an effect of hanging, loose skin is conveyed. The cheek-

bones themselves, however, are not strongly defined and can be inferred rather than seen. The lower part of the face is entirely hidden by the

no anatomical modeling except for a certain angularity

luxuriant beard, which rises into the cheeks and merges with the whiskers at the level of the earlobes. The transition from cheek to facial hair is effected along an irregu-

where the back turns into the sides. The total head has a cubic structure with deep profiles and could almost be defined as quadrifacial in conception and rendering.

lar and understated line negotiated by fine engraving. At mustache merges with the beard and follows the fleshy

S2. Fragment of right leg and buttock, with drapery; recomposed from three joining fragments. Figs. 5-13-

grooves almost to the nose. Its thick strands part in the center of the upper lip but cover it totally, so that only

A.

the outer end of the nasolabial folds the voluminous

5-21.

17082. Max. d. 0.19; max. w. 0.28; max. h. 0.305 m.

the dividing line between beard and mustache suggests

the horizontal course of the mouth. Directly below the part in the mustache a small section of the lower lip appears as a tiny island in a sea of facial hair. The mustache is asymmetrically divided into three curls on the proper left and two on the proper right, but on both sides the

Portion of leg at knee with small portion of drapery. B.

outermost curl is considerably longer and overlaps the

beard with a curving tip. The artificiality of the pattern is hidden by the apparent naturalism of the detail. The unusually long beard is composed of wavy locks in three different dimensions: the shortest below the lip,

a few of medium length, and the greatest number extending the full course, from cheeks to tip. The beard is further articulated into four plastic waves, with individual curls continuing in free patterns below the lowest one. Despite the overall naturalism of the rendering, a

FN M29.

FN M24. 17095. Max. w. 0.37; max. h. 0.42; depth front to back 0.37 m.

Large section of drapery. C.

FN M37. 17077. Max. l. 0.24; max. h. 0.04; max. d. 0.06 m.

Fragment with two folds of drapery, joining upper front margin of mantle, not shown as joining in the photographs. Green patination.

in the face, so that the tragus is approximately on a line with the outer corner of the eye. Each ear has a small

Right leg, broken in front just below the knee muscle, in back just below the knee, covered at midthigh by a mantle wrapped horizontally across the body and reaching approximately to hip/buttock level. The fragments are broken on all sides except where now joined (the breaks appear to have occurred mostly away from original joins). The surface is peeling and cracked in many places. Several patches exist, some of them no longer in place (above the left knee muscle, for example), thus exposing cavities prepared to receive them;

narrow lobe and prominent helix which runs parallel to

a large hole (for a vent or an armature?) is exposed at the

an unnaturally pronounced antihelix, almost as if split by a groove. The ears seem to have been attached to the head at slightly different levels and distances from the

upper edge of the drapery fragment still connected with

central part is marked by a widening space between the strands; in addition, the total mass of the beard can be

seen to turn from frontal into side planes, along some prominent strands.

Distinct from hair and beard are the strands of the whiskers, more clearly articulated and more numerous on the proper left than on the right side of the face. They occupy the space in front of the ears, which are set high

back of the skull. This last feature is only one of several asymmetries already noted in the head. In addition, the eyes slant down toward the proper right, the mouth tilts down to-

ward the proper left, and the nose forms a curve. The entire right half of the face is narrower than the left;

the leg (Fig. 5-15). No clear traces of joins are visible

from the exterior. At the very edge of a flat ridge of drapery, toward the rear of the body, a chaplet protrudes in both directions (in and out). The interior surface of the

drapery reproduces, in negative, the forms of the exte?L. Schneider, Asymmetrie griechischen Köpfe vom 5. Jh. bis zum Hellenismus. pp. 12-23.

Fic. 5-13. S2A and S2B, joined, leg and drapery, front view.

Fic. 5-14.

Fic. 5-15. left rear.

S2A and S2B, joined, leg and drapery, right view.

S2A and S2B, joined, leg and drapery, seen from

70

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-16. S2B, detail of interior. Fic. 5-17.

Fic. 5-18. S2B, detail showing ends of rods. The top of the object is in the foreground.

rior folds, with a few differences. Long vertical lines are apparent, cutting through the various ridges and valleys. Although the longest line is straight (Fig. 5-17, center), another line to the right is more irregular (Fig. 5-17 extreme left, Fig. 5-15). These lines are in definite relief and create small bridges of metal from inner ridge to inner ridge. A third line, to the right of the central one, is fainter but straighter (Fig. 5-16). One more, at the upper left (front) end of the fragment, exists only as a

Fic. 5-19.

S2B, detail of interior.

S2B, detail of interior.

bridge spanning two horizontal folds, while the folds just above and below it have broken on a straight line with the ridge. This rendering could suggest the straight line

of a join if the feature were more clearly visible from the exterior. Alternatively, these inner ridges could have been produced by cracks in the core. Several chaplets protrude on the interior surface of the drapery, but their arrangement does not constitute a definite pattern, although they seem to be used in the

THE SCULPTURE

Fic. 5-20.

S2C, drapery fragment, exterior view.

71

Fic. 5-21. S2C, drapery fragment, interior view.

areas of greatest thickness. As many as three chaplets are irregularly spaced along the same fold, horizontally (second ridge from top, Figs. 5-17 and 5-15, only two of them visible; the third can be seen—together with the second—on Fig. 5-16). On the ridge immediately below the third chaplet, a square hole may have accommodated a now-lost pin; its ridges are rimmed as if the spike had been pushed into a soft medium from the exterior. The cavity does not

flat horizontal ledge almost without modeling, rimmed by a “molding” where it turns the corner. This edging originates as an extension of the lowest fold touching the leg in the rear, but continues for only part of the drapery; it seems to have broken off at the one end where it appears in the round, but no trace of its continuation remains on the flat areas. Since this molding is not re-

pierce the entire wall of bronze, and this may mean that the exterior surface of the wax was smoothed over after the insertion of the chaplet and before the casting took

and 5-19, bottom; cf. Fig. 5-15 for the position in relation to the leg).

place. In such a case, however, the function of the chap-

the fragment to which the leg belongs, presents a lumpy accretion or buildup of bronze, yet the join between the leg and the drapery is quite clean (Fig. 5-15, lower left). The leg does not continue beyond the area where the garment begins; it was probably cast separately and then

let could not have been to hold the core in suspension within the mantle. Another possibility is that the hole left by a fallen chaplet was carefully plugged from the exterior, after the cast. One more chaplet, surprisingly, protrudes just below an inner ridge, where its function is not immediately obvious (Fig. 5-15, bottom left). In section, each fold of drapery appears as a thick bar of metal, as if the upper part of the garment had been built up from individual rods of wax. One fold, which on the exterior is fairly flat and rounded at the edges, in the interior has a very sharp, knife-like edge (Fig. 5-18, fourth “rod” from top). Other folds exhibit similar sharpness, as if a ledge had been cut at the top to receive the next rod (cf. Fig. 5-18, second fold from top). Viewed from the interior, one of the hollow folds (third

from top, Fig. 5-18; cf. Fig. 5-15) ends at present in a lump perforated by a cavity, as if for an inner armature, since the hole is larger than those for chaplets. The newly joined fragment (S2C, Inv. 17077) is remarkably hollow despite the protrusion of a subsidiary fold in its center (Figs. 5-20 and 5-21). The inward turn of its

flected by a depression in the interior, it must have been applied as a solid bar of wax from the exterior (Figs. 5-17

The fold that joins this “ledge” of drapery, as part of

joined to the drapery at the point where the “ledge” indicates the original casting floor of a cast by the direct method. The visible portion of the leg rises higher toward the interior (left side) than toward the exterior, where the drapery dips. The inner surface of the leg retains at least two dribbles of metal; one of them, in correspondence to the ridge of a tendon on the outside, has a smooth vertical area in its center that may have been created by the ad-

herence of an inner support; alternately, a wax dribble may have been smoothed over with a blunt instrument. In the latter case, the leg must have been cast with the

indirect method. Four chaplets protrude in its interior, one shorter than the others, another clearly visible also from the outside. They occur near the upper edge of the leg.

upper edge suggests that the top of the mantle has been

The leg has broken off just around the contour of

reached; that the bronze may have been bent after the wrecking seems unlikely because the wider end of the fragment shows a thickening of the metal which may in fact have been responsible for the break. Corrosion has perforated the narrower end of the piece. At the lower edge of the garment, where the cloth bends inward to adhere to the leg, the bronze creates a

the patella and below the knee muscles in front, but the rear retains the bend of the knee. The knee muscle is quite prominent on the proper left, less noticeable on the right. The lateral aspects of the leg toward both interior

and exterior are carefully modeled; the interior (proper left) side shows the beginning of a sharp ridge, either a

tendon or a stylized rendering of the saphenous vein.

72

THE

Fic. 5-22.

PORTICELLO

S3, drapery fragment, exterior view.

Fic. 5-24.

sion (Fig. 5-14).

Because of the present state of this fragment, it is unclear whether this leg supported the weight of the body. FN

M26.

Fic. 5-23.

S3, drapery fragment, interior view.

S3, drapery fragment, end view.

The drapery wraps around the thigh and stretches horizontally toward the left leg, rising slightly as if to be supported by the left arm. The material is rendered as being thick, gathering in wide ridges of doughy consistency, some of them flat, others narrower but rounded. Some ridges are subdivided by depressions ending in rounded “eye folds” which convey the effect of a leathery material hard to bend. The course of the folds is somewhat illogical, but it attempts to model the body underneath, especially toward the rear, where a flat expanse of cloth may suggest the adherence of the mantle to the gluteus, perhaps even to the trochanteric depres-

S3.

SHIPWRECK

Figs. 5-22-5-24.

17078. L. 0.24; w. 0.16; d. 0.06 m.

Dark patination. Large fragment of drapery, probably belonging with S2. Group of folds, running horizontally; one vertical edge may correspond to a join; the opposite edge may also correspond to a join where even, but becomes irregular for half its length. The exterior surface is peeling and pitted; one large, rectangular patch near one of the edges has fallen off; others have held, especially some intended to close a crack at one edge, where an interior

buildup of metal also smooth and reflects the fashion; the inner ridges simplification results in folds.

occurs. The interior surface is exterior modeling in simplified have some sharp edges, but this a thickening of the metal at the

The fragment consists of at least four folds, one of

which is articulated by an inner depression into two ridges that rise and merge toward the line of the proper join. The fragment was obviously part of a larger context, such as the garment in S2. The folds suggest the same heavy material and, for all their irregularity, are fairly linear and doughy. The total fragment, when held with folds running horizontally, curves gently from right to left. S4.

FN

M34.

Figs. 5-25-5-29.

17091.

Fragment of limb with drapery, of difficult interpretation: left arm and shoulder? Max. l. of arm 0.21; max. h. 0.19; max. w. 0.12; thickness of bronze 0.0035— 0.006 m. Green

patination.

Roughly L-shaped fragment broken on all sides; the cylindrical "arm" is broken along one side so that the bronze wall does not go around. Some drapery folds are joined separately to the cylindrical portion but are modeled in one piece with the opposite end of the fragment having a smooth surface, therefore suggesting hu-

e à THE SCULPTURE

Fic. 5-25.

S4, arm (?) and drapery fragment.

Fic. 5-27. S4, arm (?) and drapery fragment.

Fic. 5-29. chaplet.

Fıc. 5-26.

S4, arm (?) and drapery fragment.

Fic. 5-28. S4, arm (?) and drapery fragment.

$4, arm (?) and drapery fragment, detail showing

73

74

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

mately in line with the little finger, the outer edge of the break preserves one side of a small and shallow rectangular indentation within the thickness of the bronze wall, perhaps the trench for a bronze patch now lost (Fig. 5-32). The entire surface of the hand is corroded and peeling; a corrosion hole perforates the palm (Fig. 5-30). On the right side of the wrist, near the distal extremity of the radius, a rounded bronze projection occurs (not reflected by any marking in the interior of the wrist). The upper surface is flat and the edge toward the interior side of the wrist seems broken, while the curving end toward the dorsal surface of the wrist appears finished (Figs. 5-30 and 5-33). This feature may have served to attach the hand to drapery or to the body, perhaps as a flow of molten bronze between two previously cast pieces. Whether the minute hole in the center of this flat round projection is intentional or the result of corro-

man flesh. One end of the drapery folds terminates abruptly in a smoothed plane against which other folds would have been joined (Fig. 5-28) both vertically and horizontally. A round hole below the folds and near the joining edge is of unclear function. At the opposite end (Fig. 5-27), the section of drapery swinging over the “biceps” seems to be a separate piece, marked by an interior ridge of irregular thickness, and on the exterior by a straight line (Fig. 5-25). Another such line and ridge occur farther toward the edge, as if a very small section of

drapery had been built up separately (Fig. 5-26). The outer surface is cracked and patched in places; one large patch has fallen off. The interior surface is smooth, with

folds reproduced in negative before they join the cylindrical portion, but one section of drapery is cast solid against the “flesh.” One sharply pointed chaplet protrudes for about 1 cm (Fig. 5-29).

sion is difficult to state, but the latter case seems more

This piece had been first described as a human arm with drapery, but this identification is not positive. If

likely.

the drapery is interpreted as hanging vertically, as if

producing the venous details of the exterior; the fingers, however, are solid. Some lead, perhaps from the joining

The

caught between biceps and forearm (Fig. 5-27 and Fig. 5-26), the area of the elbow (not rendered plastically)

of the wrist,

should also be visualized as wrapped in cloth, which creates a wide ledge. The forearm may have been slightly raised, thus increasing the bulge of the biceps. If the folds are placed horizontally (Fig. 5-25), the fragment could be seen as a leg bending at the knee, with drapery stretched just before the bend and across the thigh, but this explanation is not entirely satisfactory because of the small scale. The vague modeling in the parts of exposed “flesh” and their present amount of deformation

is hollow,

with

a smooth

interior re-

has trickled inside the hand,

leaving a

whitish stain. Some buildup of lead is preserved inside the piece near the fingers. At least three chaplets protrude into the interior, at the base of the hand.

The hand is loosely curled around a sticklike object, now lost, which once rested against the skin stretching between the thumb and the index finger. Although this area is rendered realistically, with depressions and folds

of skin indicated, the presence of the object is confirmed by a concave bedding across the palm, especially visible near the base of the little finger (Fig. 5-32). The thumb is extended for its total length, the index finger bends toward the tip of the thumb, and the other three fingers curl toward the palm, the ring finger touching the fleshy base of the thumb and fused with it. A network of veins and tendons is modeled in relief on the dorsal and lateral

increase the difficulty of reading the piece.

Stylistically, the rendering of the folds corresponds to S2. The wide ridges are often subdivided by wide furrows ending in stunted curves; even the ridges bend as if with difficulty, conveying the impression of a leathery or thick material. The flat ledges forming the underside of the folds at their point of attachment to the “flesh” recall the comparable treatment on fragment S2.

S5.

hand

areas of hand and wrist (Fig. 5-31); a long vein waves

across the hand, from wrist into index finger, forking be-

FN M23. Figs. 5-30-5-34.

fore reaching the latter. Two more veins, cutting across

17094.

the tendons of the fingers, produce a realistic effect,

Max. I. 0.205; max. w. 0.085; max. d. 0.065 m (life size).

which is not, however, true to nature. The fingers are

the interior surface of the bronze retains a flat shiny area

long and slender in proportion to the rest. Fingernails and knuckles are clearly indicated, though not engraved; the palm is undetailed, as is the anterior surface of the wrist. The hand was therefore probably held in a pendent or horizontal position, with the anterior or palmar surface of the forearm directed toward the body (semi-

extending from the edge toward the fingers for about

pronated). It is unlikely, from the visual appearance, that

0.01 m (Fig. 5-34). On the left side of the wrist, approxi-

the hand was held vertically, with the arm raised.

Black patination. Left hand, broken just above the wrist along an irregular line that corresponds, for the most part, to the

original join. On the (dorsal) posterior side of the wrist,

_

THE

Fic. 5-30.

S5, left hand, front view.

Fic. 5-32.

S5, left hand, side view.

Fic. 5-33.

S5, left hand, side view.

S6.

SCULPTURE

FN M33. Figs. 5-35-5-42.

17092. Rear portion of a life-sized left foot and front part of leg. Max. h. 0.25 (without tenon: 0.215); max. l. (front to back) 0.175; max. w. 0.075 m. Black patination. This fragment seems to be broken on all edges (except perhaps bottom right), since they are too irregular to correspond to original joins. Adhering to the underside of the heel and followings its curve is a bronze

tongue that probably served as a tenon to fasten the foot to a stone base; it differs in color from the foot, and an inner buildup of metal at the heel indicates that it was joined to it separately (Fig. 5-40). Even this tenon has a broken lower edge, although the two vertical edges are clean surfaces. The underside of the foot is open at the heel (following the outer contour of heel and tenon), but the edges move progressively closer toward the center of the foot before splaying out again, presumably to follow the contours of the ball of the foot (Fig. 5-41). This treatment seems markedly different from that of foot S7/8 and the heel tenon indicates that a different method was used for securing the statue to the base. The surface of the bronze is corroded and peeling; the casting seems

«pu

Fic. 5-31.

S5, left hand, back view.

Fic. 5-34.

S5, left hand, detail.

75

less successful than that of foot S7/8 since several imperfections required patches, which have fallen off: two rectangular cavities remain at the upper edge of the leg toward the inner side and the rear; a large square patch has fallen from the area above the calcaneus; a large rectangular "trench" occurs on the outer edge of the foot near the beginning of the tenon (Fig. 5-37) and two more regular depressions appear around the inner malleolus. One more patch remains near the edge of a jagged crack that forms an approximate right angle on the inner (right) face of foot and ankle, reaching from edge to edge of the fragment on that side (Fig. 5-38). This crack may derive from a casting fault, and the patches be an attempt to close it. In addition, a mass of molten metal seems to have been poured through the hole in the sole into the leg to repair it further: the bronze has flowed into the foot, adhering to its relatively smooth interior and forming almost a second skin, visible now that part of the original foot is lost (Fig. 5-42). This mass of metal, although relatively hollow within the foot, fills the ankle and the beginning of the leg as a solid, lumpy bulk which may have incorporated an original armature: a reddish

misshapen rod appears in fact in its interior, closer to the outer bronze wall on the rear side of the leg. When viewed from the front of the foot, at the break, this inte-

Fic. 5-35.

Fic. 5-36.

S6, S7, and S8, right and left feet, right view.

S6, S7, and S8, right and left feet, left view.

THE SCULPTURE

Fic. 5-37. S6, rear part of left foot and leg, left view.

77

Fic. 5-38.

S6, rear part of left foot and leg, right view.

rior mass incorporates two “teeth” which run parallel to the right wall of the foot; they could be two chaplets bent at right angles by the pouring of the molten metal (Fig. 5-42). The leg was cast in one with the foot, with

8: Max. l. (front to back) 0.16 (including welding “tongue” 0.18); max. w. (side to side) 0.105; max. h. 0.085 m.

armature

Black patination.

and chaplets; the forepart of the foot was

Forepart of foot, from mid-vault to tips of toes.

probably cast separately. Only the rear portion of the foot and the beginning of the lower leg remain; little can be said therefore about the treatment of the anatomy of the foot as a whole. The anklebones are clearly articulated, the outer one accompanied by a deep depression in the rear. The edges and

protrusions of the calcaneus are more pronounced than in foot S7/8, and what remains of the arch shows that it had a high curve. Although the treatment of these features seems realistic as a whole, the forms are stylized and do not correspond to nature. No modeling can be

discerned at the point where the leg joins the foot. (Figs. 5-35 and 5-36 show both feet together.) S7/8.

FN

M32 and M31.

Figs. 5-35, 5-36, 5-43-5-51.

17093 and 17083.

Life-sized right foot and leg, in two joining pieces: 7 and 8. 7: Max. h. 0.23; h. incl. armature 0.265; 1. 0.12; w. 0.095 m.

Rear portion of foot, from vault (mid-instep) to well break line is lower toward higher toward front and

posterior half of above the ankle; the rear of the sides (mid-shin).

the the leg, An

inner armature projects above the line of break.

Fragment 7: Besides an irregular break at the mid-

point on the lower leg, several cracks occur in the heel and on the inner side of the ankle (Fig. 5-43). A major

break appears on the exterior of the heel below the anklebone (Fig. 5-44); the consequent deformation of shape keeps the two edges apart. The edge at mid-foot is the original join surface, except toward the center of

the underside, where the two sections were welded together. The wedge-shaped fragment adhering to the forepart of the foot (S8) represents the area of fusion between the two parts of the foot. The surface is corroded and peeling. The leg and part of the foot were cast hollow, with an interior armature consisting of an iron bar, hollow and rectangular in section (Fig. 5-45) and held suspended above the foot (at the level of the anklebone) by a flat ledge of molten metal (Fig. 5-46). The undersurface of the heel (sole) follows the outer contour of the foot but is open in the center, forming a somewhat irregular oval opening (Fig. 5-47). The “rim” around the opening is now broken in two places, but originally was

uninterrupted and wider along the join line, where forefoot S8 was fastened.

In the interior of the heel, just

below the end of the armature bar, are several chaplets at the level of the anklebones.

On the front of the leg

78

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-40. S6, rear part of left foot and leg, detail of underside.

Fic. 5-39.

S6, rear part of left foot and leg, rear view.

Fic. 5-41.

S6, rear part of left foot and leg, bottom view.

and foot, a vertical flow of metal corresponds to an interior ridge, as if for the filling of a crack. Fragment 8: Forepart of the foot, cast hollow in one piece, except for the third toe, now missing; this was cast separately and attached to a small ledge which extends under the adjacent toes, suggesting the spreading of the fleshy ball of the foot (Fig. 5-48). The tip of the big toe is chipped. The remaining toes seem cast solid together with the hollow foot; the interior is filled with a whitish substance (Fig. 5-49). The sole of the forefoot is continu-

Fic. 5-42. S6, rear part of left foot and leg, detail of front.

ous, except for a narrow opening that runs parallel to the base of the toes, without, however, reaching the edge of the foot on either side; this opening is filled with a metallic mass (lead), which has also spread over the rest of the sole and retains the impression of tool marks, such as

those created by a rasp or a tooth chisel on a stone surface (Fig. 5-50). This feature suggests that the statue to which the foot belonged may have once been attached to a stone pedestal, from which it was subsequently removed. As mentioned under S7, the edge at mid-foot corresponds to the ancient join except for a small tongue

Fic. 5-43. S7, rear part of right foot and leg, three-quarters rear

Fic. 5-44. $7, rear part of right

view.

foot and leg, rear view.

Fic. 5-45. S7, rear part of right foot and leg, top view.

Fic. 5-46. S7, rear part of right foot and leg, front view.

Fic. 5-47. S7, rear part of right foot and leg, view of underside.

80

THE

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

of metal (representing the area of the spot welding) which broke off from S7 when the two halves separated. The entire foot would have rested flat on a base, attached by tenons (in lead?) corresponding to the openings in the sole at the ball and heel. The lower leg and foot recomposed from the two fragments (Fig. 5-51) have suffered some deformation, such that the ankle twists in an unnatural manner when the foot rests on a level surface. The heel is well modeled, but the projection of the calcaneus is simplified, flowing into the surface of the leg without clear demarcation. The anklebones are properly differentiated, and the curve at the point where the leg joins the dorsal (vault) of the foot shows some modeling, suggesting perhaps that the weight of the body rested on this side. The foot is relatively long and narrow, with distinctively high arch and long second toe, curving downward. The fourth and fifth toes are proportionally shorter and equally bent, so that their carefully marked nails almost touch the ground; the little toe is virtually tucked under its neighbor. The dorsal surface of the foot is crossed by tendons and/or veins, which do not continue into the individual toes, except for that leading to the big one; a large vein curves almost from side to side. A small wrinkle of flesh rims the area where the missing third toe would have been fastened, thus probably hiding the join. S9.

FN M19. Figs. 5-52-5-54. 17090. Max. l. 0.105; max. h. 0.10; max. w. 0.095; max.

Fic. 5-48. S8, forepart of right foot, top view.

Fic. 5-49.

S8, forepart of right foot, rear view.

Fic. 5-50.

S8, forepart of right foot, view of underside.

d. 0.075 m.

Black patination.

Life-sized male genitals, cast in two pieces, both hollow: scrotum with portions of pubic hair, and penis inserted into rounded opening below the curls, perhaps with rebated edge on the interior surface. The piece seems to have become detached from the torso along the joins, except for the broken and irregular edge to the proper side of the penis and the pubic hair. The distinctive beak formed by the metal below the scrotum (ending in featheredge thickness) would have ensured proper adherence between the thighs. The piece was probably

welded to the torso in only two places, one on each side of the pubic hair, where metal buildup has occurred. The hollow interiors of both scrotum and penis reproduce the approximate shape of the exterior, but no traces of the pubic curls are visible on the interior surface, which is totally smooth. Since the penis terminates in a solid tip, the elaborate montage and the tubelike arrangement are not functional but must reflect casting concerns with the rate of cooling of the molten bronze or

THE SCULPTURE

81

right leg perhaps forward or trailing, but with knee bent. Tension lines between the two testicles, below the penis, suggest the loose skin of the scrotum stretched by the

stance. These wrinkles are also naturalistic and far from the abstract pattern of striations seen, for instance, on the Riace Warriors (see footnote 5, this chapter). The genitals probably belonged to the statue of a youthful person, since the pubic hair covers only a short arc above the penis. That this rendering obtained also in the com-

plete statue is shown by the two expanses of “bare skin” visible on either side of the genitals. The pubic curls are short and lively, with inner striations for detail and curving tips. It is, of course, possible that additional curls

appeared on the portion of the pubes cast in one with the torso. $10.

FN M25.

Figs. 5-55-5-69.

17088.

Max. h. (outer side) 0.405; max. h. (inner side) 0.14; max. w. 0.25; max. th. (outside to inside)

0.165; max. d. 0.18 m. Fic. 5-51.

Black patination. Life-sized left buttock and thigh. The roughly cylin-

S7 and S8, right foot.

drical fragment appears broken both above and below,

an interest in keeping the walls thin to conserve metal. A ridge in the interior of the “beak” of the scrotum, on the proper left side, runs only a short length and is not reflected on the exterior. It may have been produced by a modeling instrument used to create a rounded channel

at the bottom of the scrotum. The anatomical rendering of the various parts is quite realistic. The penis is not uniformly cylindrical, but swells around its midpoint before tapering to a nar-

row tip. The testicles are uneven in size and alignment, the right one being bigger and lower than the left. This

difference may reflect the pose of the statue to which the genitals belonged: weight supported by the left leg,

although on line of the the join for Perhaps the

the interior side of the thigh (Fig. 5-56) the rectangular cutting seems to correspond to attachment to the right leg and to the torso. entire upper margin represents the edge of

a separately cast section which may have been prepared to a featheredge thickness. The lower break, at midthigh, is more irregular, and the interior side of the thigh presents two diagonal cracks, of uneven length, forming

an

approximate

V

(Fig.

5-56).

Minor

cracks,

pits, and dents occur throughout the surface. A long rectangular patch has fallen from the rear of the leg, a short distance above the lower break (Fig. 5-55). A square patch is still in place on the front of the leg (Fig. 5-57). The surface of the bronze is peeling.

Y

Fıc. 5-52.

S9, genitals, front view.

Fic. 5-53.

S9, genitals, side view.

Fic. 5-54. S9, genitals, rear view.

82

THE

Fic. 5-55.

clude

PORTICELLO

$10, left buttock and thigh, left view.

Other technical details on the outside surface inmany horizontal striations, probably caused by

tooling with a chisel, over the interior face of the thigh (Fig. 5-56) where it would have touched the opposite leg. These marks may suggest that the bronze (or the wax, or the mold itself) was shaved or scraped and that the traces were not smoothed over because final montage would have rendered them invisible. The division between thigh and buttock is rendered through a sharp groove which outlines only the inner halfof the gluteus and seems to have been produced by a sharp instrument (Fig. 5-58); it is not clearly reflected by the interior surface, which in general is fairly rough and

uneven. When the interior of the fragment is examined, several technical features are visible. A double line of what appears to be excess bronze forms two ridges that delineate a sort of uneven collar all around the piece (Figs. 5-60, 5-61, 5-62).

It begins at the top of the ver-

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-56.

$10, left buttock and thigh, right view.

tical edge marking the line of attachment between the two glutei (Figs. 5-56 and 5-57) and continues around the cylinder, sloping down toward the front of the thigh until it reaches the level of the horizontal join in between the legs (Fig. 5-62). Below this collar, at mid-gluteus, a rectangular projection (a “dowel”) appears, about 2 cm on a side (Figs. 5-61 and 5-63); no traces of this dowel occur

on the outside surface of the buttock. Directly above this projection but on the upper side of the collar, a more irregular buildup of metal may represent another such dowel, but in this case the flow of metal has assumed peculiar shapes, featheredge thin in places. Finally, a short distance above the level of the lower break, toward the front of the thigh, a horizontal line curving for part of its course isolates a portion of the leg, forming a step with the adjacent area; this section is also divided vertically by a similar step, perhaps indicating the limits ofa wax slab (Figs. 5-64, 5-65). No traces of this technique appear on the exterior. Although no certainty exists, this

THE

Fic. 5-57.

SCULPTURE

S10, left buttock and thigh, front view.

Fic. 5-58.

S10, left buttock and thigh, rear view.

portion of a male figure could correspond to a singlepiece casting, as seen, for instance, in the Antikythera Youth (see footnote 13, this chapter). The fragment corresponds to the area just below the iliac crest, follows the outline of the groin in front, the division between the buttocks in rear, and that between the thighs along the interior surface of the leg. The lower edge corresponds approximately to mid-thigh, well above the knee.

Fic. 5-59.

the thigh.

$10, left buttock and thigh, view from break across

The anatomy is well modeled, with a deep cavity in the gluteus marking the trochanteric depression. The sharp angle between buttock and thigh suggests that this was the weight leg, and a good comparison for the rendering of the groove which stops at mid-gluteus is again provided by the Antikythera Youth, in the corresponding leg. Toward the front of the thigh, the

crescent-shaped indentation almost at the bottom of the groin line may correspond to the point of overlap for separately cast genitals and pubic hair, or it may be an accidental dent caused by a blow (Figs. 5-56 and 5-57).

Fic. 5-60. S10, left thigh, interior detail.

buttock

and

Fic. 5-61. detail.

$10, left buttock and thigh, interior

Fic.

5-64.

$10,

Fic. 5-62. detail.

S10, left buttock and thigh, interior

left buttock and thigh,

interior

detail of thigh.

Fic. 5-63. detail.

S10, left buttock and thigh, interior

Fic. 5-65. $10, left buttock and thigh, interior detail of thigh.

THE

Fic. 5-66.

SCULPTURE

S11, right buttock and thigh, exterior view.

S11.

FN

M36.

Figs. 5-66-5-69.

17087.

Max. h. 0.47; max. w. (front to back) 0.30; max. th. (inside to outside) 0.165; max. diam. 0.12 m. Greenish

patination.

Right buttock and upper thigh fragment broken so that the entire circumference is not preserved. Some deformation has also occurred in the rear. The fragment is broken on all sides, with no clear edges preserved, although in some points the metal tapers to featheredge thickness, as if in preparation for a join. The outer surface is badly cracked and patched; many patches have fallen off, but a few are still in place (Fig. 5-66). Such an abundance of faults indicates difficulty in the casting process. One square hole, for a chaplet, in the center of a round discoloration of uncertain cause, pierces the entire thickness of the bronze wall. Another similar hole occurs farther to the rear. The remaining surface is pitted and peeling. The relatively thin wall of bronze increases in thickness toward the back (of the human form). The interior surface retains seams for at least two large irregular sections and parts of others (Fig. 5-67); since such seams create steps in the bronze, they must represent the limits of slabs of wax from the lining of a negative mold, rather than joins. They cannot be de-

Fic. 5-67.

S11, right buttock and thigh, interior view.

tected from the outside.

One

section seems to corre-

spond to the lower limit of the hip muscle, but continues beyond the modeled feature (Fig. 5-67). Another section seems to curve with the line of the buttock, at midfeature; in some places its edges are higher, in others, lower than the surrounding area. Both sections mentioned display a rectangular projection or dowel, which is not centered; the boss of the hip-muscle section is smaller than that of the buttock section. The larger dowel has been patched from the exterior, approximately in its upper edge (Figs. 5-69 and 5-67). From the interior, numerous chaplets are visible, some arranged along or near the edges of a "step."

86

THE

Fıc. 5-68.

PORTICELLO

S11, right buttock and thigh, view from top.

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-69.

S11, right buttock and thigh, detail of exterior.

The fragment preserves the right hip muscle, most of the outer side of the gluteus, and the beginning of the thigh. The transition from buttock to leg is so gradual that the thigh must have been held forward, knee bent and lower leg perhaps trailing or slightly advanced. All anatomical indications are given by modeling, with soft transitions from feature to feature. The trochanteric depression is clearly indicated. Color, technique, and possibly thickness contribute to suggest that this is the counterpart to buttock $12.

Toward one end of the fragment, the thickness of the bronze is approximately double that of the other end.

$12.

would make it the companion piece for $11. If the asso-

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-70-5-72.

17089. Max. h. 0.27; max. w. 0.20; max. d. 0.04 m. Greenish patination. Irregular fragment of human anatomy, probably from the outer side of a buttock. Roughly square fragment, broken on all sides along irregular lines. An occasional stretch of join may be preserved at irregular intervals. The outer surface shows patches of discoloration, a layering of the bronze as if from concretion, and many cracks. Along one edge, a rectangular patch has fallen off, revealing the trench prepared for it. One square hole, for a chaplet, pierces the entire thickness of the bronze wall. The interior surface (Fig. 5-71) shows many curving seams, forming distinct steps, which probably correspond to sections of wax slabs applied to the interior of molds; at least three large sections are clearly visible, and a fourth one is preserved in part. Two rectangular cavities, as if for patches, are visible only from the interior and do not seem to correspond to any exterior feature. At least one chaplet, possibly more, are preserved.

This large curving fragment is most likely from a male buttock, broken off just below the iliac crest and

above the thigh, since a distinctive depression modeled in the outer surface must represent the hollow of the trochanter. Since, however, it is difficult to determine the direction of the piece, it is impossible to state whether the left or the right buttock remains; I am inclined to think it may be the left. If so, color and size ciation is correct, by analogy the increased thickness of the bronze would occur toward the rear of the leg and

buttock, and would therefore confirm that the left gluteus is preserved. $13.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-73, 5-74.

17080. Max. 1. 0.25; max. w. 0.11; max. d. 0.03 m. Irregular, roughly rectangular fragment of human (?) anatomy (limb). Dark patination. The edges are uneven but may retain segments of original joins, most probably along the sharply curved end at right angles to the curvature of the surface. The bronze surface is pitted and peeling on the exterior, more or less similar in the interior, which follows, in negative, the curvature of the outer face. Along one of the edges, a crack seems to have been mended by pouring molten metal into it; from the interior, the repair looks as if a lump of clay or wax had been pushed into place and pressed down with a large thumb, which caused the edges of the lump to rise under the pressure.

Fic. 5-70.

$12, anatomical fragment, exterior view.

Fic. 5-71.

$12, anatomical fragment, interior view.

ub. alb Fic. 5-72. S12, anatomical fragment, end view.

Fic. 5-73.

From left, $13, S15, S18, exterior views.

Fic. 5-74.

$13, anatomical fragment, detail.

88

THE

Fic. 5-75.

PORTICELLO

$14, anatomical fragment, exterior view.

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-76.

$14, anatomical fragment, interior view.

Fic. 5-77. S14, anatomical fragment, detail.

Although the surface of this addition has been smoothed over, some lines and pores may still be visible, although certainly not the typical whorls of a single fingerprint. A chaplet at one edge has been bent by the added metal. On the external surface below the crack (lower left edge in Fig. 5-74), modeling has been achieved by two (or even three) similar depressions or “fingerprints” and one more occurs on the opposite edge of the fragment, almost at the same level. At one end, a squarish area contrasts, because of its opaque finish, with the surrounding shiny surface; the same square zone appears on the inte-

rior surface as reddish and contrasting in color with the rest of the piece. Although smooth on both sides, the feature does not seem to be a normal patch. One chaplet remains on the interior surface; others may be irregularities of the bronze. Because of the “fingerprints,” this piece may imply direct casting. The pronounced curvature of the surface suggests

underlying tendons or muscles, as in a human leg or an arm. The high swinging curve of one possible join may correspond to the large opening at the top of a thigh, for connection at the groin with a matching piece and a torso. In this case, the “fingerprints” may have been left because they would have been invisible after the montage. S14.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-75- 5-77.

17081. Approximately rectangular fragment of human anatomy (with ribs). Max. l. 0.22; max. w. 0.215; d. 0.045 m. Dark patination. The piece seems broken all the way around, along irregular lines, except for the right side (Fig. 5-75; from the interior, cf. Fig. 5-76, the side at the readers left), which seems to follow a join or marks the edge between two molds. The small projection at the top presumably

THE SCULPTURE

Fic. 5-81.

$^

89

S16, drapery fragment, exterior view.

Fic. 5-82. S16, drapery fragment, interior view.

Left, Fic. 5-78. S15, drapery fragment, exterior view. Middle, Fic. 5-79. S15, drapery fragment, interior view. Right, Fic. 5-80. S15 and S16, drapery fragments, joined.

broke off from the adjacent piece because the join held, perhaps at the welding point. Another possible join is represented by the finished edge on a curve, at bottom right, which appears beveled and retains traces of tooling, as from a tooth chisel, over a short area (Fig. 5-77). But these traces may be of relatively recent date. A crack runs vertically from bottom left; a smaller hairline fracture appears farther left. The exterior surface is fairly well preserved. One chaplet is clearly outlined at the upper left, near the modeled surface, but does not penetrate the bronze wall into the interior and could be a nail to patch a fault. The interior face has at least five chaplets, irregularly spaced, and a square cavity where a chaplet probably fell off. Approximately in the center of the interior surface, a large mass of accretions looks almost like metal drippings. This hard-to-identify fragment shows several gentle swellings that suggest muscular projections, and the curvature of the surface may indicate that the piece comes from the side of an approximately life-sized male torso. In this case, the modeling at top left may correspond to the epigastric arch, and the three oblique swellings to-

Fic. 5-83. S16, drapery fragment, end view.

ward the lower right would indicate the digitations over the left ribs of a male torso. This interpretation, however, is advanced with extreme reservation, and all that can be stated with certainty is that the modeling of the surface must correspond to some part of a human body. S15, S16. Plan II. FN M27 and 49. Figs. 5-78-5-83 and 5-73 (center). 17079 and 19149.

Two joining pieces of drapery. S15: max. l. 0.23; max. w. 0.065; max. d. 0.05 m. S16: max. l. 0.095; max. w. 0.06; max. d. 0.035 m. The larger fragment of drapery is elongated and has a small joining, tapering section broken at the narrower end. The piece consists of four major folds, varying in width and projection, which wave slightly and curve under at the edges. The greater curve at the tapering end may suggest that this part of the drapery was hanging free, vertically, as part of a mantle swag, but a hori-

zontal arrangement is also possible. The edge of the break at the wider end is corroded and does not exhibit

90

-

Fic. 5-84.

THE

PORTICELLO

S17, drapery fragment, exterior view.

clear traces of a join, but its straight line differs from the accidental break of the smaller fragment and could indicate an artificial division, intentionally tapered. The in-

wr

SHIPWRECK

Fic. 5-85. S17, drapery fragment, interior view.

S18.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-86—5-88 and 5-73 (right). 17076.

terior surface corresponds in negative to the treatment of the exterior, but the ridges are sharper and show faint

Long, bar-like fragment, perhaps from drapery. Max. l. 0.32; max. w. of "shaft" 0.031; max. w. at top 0.075; depth of cavity at widest point

traces of tooling. One external fold touches the adjacent ridge at two points that seem fused together. Corrosion

The bronze surface is darkened and peeling. The

has produced a cavity along one of the outer folds. The smaller fragment preserves a chaplet at its proper right edge (Fig. 5-83, seen from below). The adjacent smooth surface may have rested on another. A line visible on both the interior and the exterior may indicate that this small piece extended considerably far-

ther and was thus not a tip. The interior of the smaller fragment shows lumps of excess metal comparable to some of the inner bridges spanning the interior of folds in S2. S17.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-84, 5-85. 17075.

Fragment of drapery. Max. l. 0.15; max. w. 0.09; depth 0.03 m. Dark patination. Peeling surface, smooth on both sides. This peculiarly shaped fragment looks almosts like the blade of a chopper with a tongue for a handle, but it must come from a portion of drapery between two folds,

with a relatively flat expanse of cloth in between. The bronze wall is very thin, thickening along the horizontal edges, especially the lower, which is emphasized by a depression running the entire length of it, almost like the "casting floors" of S2 and S4. A depression at the approximate center of the left vertical edge suggests the beginning of a wide fold. Perhaps even the peculiar "handle" is simply the continuation of a fold that appears as a curving edge along the main body of the fragment.

0.025 m.

ll Left, Fic. 5-86. S18, drapery fragment, interior view. Middle, Fic. 5-87. S18, drapery fragment, side view. Right, Fic. 5-88. S18, drapery fragment, end view.

THE SCULPTURE edges are broken at the narrower end, straight at the wider end, as if for a joining surface. This thin bar has undulating course and uneven width, although it is approximately rectangular in section. One end widens at

right angle to the "shaft" forming almost a cavetto or a hawksbeak profile. The wider end appears formed by two layers of bronze, as if a sheet of wax had been folded over and fused together (Fig. 5-88) into a tapering point, creating a socket of limited depth. The narrow end terminates in a stunted point, along an irregular curve. It is impossible to identify this fragment. Its shape seems too irregular for it to have belonged to a piece of furniture or

Fic.

5-89.

SI9,

to be the scabbard of a sword. It could, if turned with wider end downward, be the thin edge of a piece of cloth

qm mp anatomical

fragment,

91

exterior

view.

folded over. $19.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-89, 5-90. 17071. Small, irregular fragment, perhaps from naked male body. Max. dimensions 0.08 X 0.055; max. d. 0.015 m. Dark patination.

Fic. 5-90.

S19, anatomical fragment, interior view.

Fragment broken along irregular lines, of which perhaps only the top edge

may

represent an original

join. The surface is discolored and peeling at various points.

The interior has a depressed

red surface that

looks almost like a large patch but does not appear clearly on the exterior. The lower tip of the fragment has a buildup of metal that may be the extra thickness of a welding spot, which has created a faint marginal line. The fragment is not flat but curves from side to side. On the exterior a small depression, almost the size of a thumbprint, occurs on the right near the edge, just opposite the triangle formed by the peeling surface. The fragment is likely to come from a human body, although it cannot be more precisely identified. $20.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-91, 5-92. 17074.

Dimensions 0.12 X 0.07; d. 0.025 m. Dark patination. This small triangular piece, perhaps from a naked human body, is broken on all sides but perhaps along two lines of join. A strong bulge in the approximate center of

one surface corresponds to a deep depression in the opposite surface, but it is difficult to tell which was meant to be the interior and which the exterior face. For cataloging purposes, the face shown in Fig. 5-91 will be taken to be the exterior and Fig. 5-92 the interior. The exterior surface shows some patches still in place, barely visible at present, which do not correspond

Top, Fic. 5-91.

$20, anatomical fragment, exterior view. Bot-

tom, Fic. 5-92. $20, anatomical fragment, interior view.

to any marking in the interior. The interior surface displays a triangular outline, with regular contours slightly

depressed in relation to its vertical border and with a pit next to it, perhaps unintentional. The entire fragment undulates from tip to tip and in more than one direction. It is impossible to identify it precisely, but it probably belongs to a human body.

92

THE

S21.

PORTICELLO

SHIPWRECK

S

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-93, 5-94.

17073. Dimensions 0.10 x 0.055; d. 0.015 m.

Dark patination. Small, irregular fragment,

possibly from a human

body. The fragment seems broken all around, perhaps along a seam on its longest straight side. The horizontal edge of the bottom tapers sharply in thickness, while the wall is thicker along its curved contour. On the exterior, an area of discoloration seems to surround a patch, which cannot, however, be otherwise detected.

This small fragment

is slightly curved,

Fic. 5-94.

B-

but not

enough of it is preserved to venture identification. S22.

Uncataloged. Figs. 5-95—5-97. 17072.

Dimensions 0.085 x 0.05; d. 0.025 m. Dark patination. Small, irregular fragment, possibly from a human body. Broken all around. Surface rough and peeling. At its narrowest point, the thickness of the bronze comes almost to a featheredge; the opposite edge is considerably thicker and lumpier, with gaseous holes. The surface of the fragment curves in both directions. Its original location cannot be identified.

S21, anatomical fragment, interior view.

Fic. 5-95.

$22, anatomical fragment, exterior view.

Fic. 5-96.

$22, anatomical fragment, interior view.

— Fic. 5-93.

Fic. 5-97.

S21, anatomical fragment, exterior view.

S22, anatomical fragment, end view.

Technique The Porticello bronzes, through datable wreck, have a terminus 385 B.c. Their technical features ined for their own importance, the dating of the statues. This helpful in that two different

their connection with a ante quem of ca. 415can therefore be examrather than as clues to situation is particularly casting techniques are

represented among the pieces: although all items can be safely assumed to have been cast by the lost-wax

method, some were obviously made with the direct process, others with the indirect. Technical details are still open to varying interpretations, however, and the account that follows must be considered tentative.

THE SCULPTURE

DIRECT

METHOD

The clearest example of direct casting is the left hand (S5) as its interior reproduces, in negative, the veins ridging the exterior, and the fingers are solid. A clay core, with the exclusion of the fingers, was modeled in

93

attachment of drapery or other separate pieces to the hand itself. Another form of direct casting seems to have been used for the drapery and is especially noticeable in the rather sizable piece S2. The clay core was still modeled

to a considerable extent, but the wax was not simply ap-

considerable detail and was then covered with a thin

plied uniformly in a thin layer. In the upper roll, it was

layer of wax, whereas the fingers were added in solid wax. The piece was then encased in the casting mantle, chaplets were inserted to secure the core, and the wax was melted away and replaced by molten bronze. Finally, the core was removed before the piece was attached to a separate arm, at the wrist. The attachment method was probably a combination of lead soldering and patches since an accumulation of lead is visible inside the wrist and a rectangular trench at the edge remains from the original patch. A comparable procedure has been noted by Steinberg on a much later statue, the Polykleitan Youth in the Toledo Museum, dated by Zanker around 50 B.c. or later.‘ Another parallel, at least in terms of the position of the join, has recently been provided through a gamma-ray photograph of the left wrist of Warrior B from Riace, in Reggio. Separately cast hands are also attested in the Ugento Zeus and Houston Ruler. Finally, a hammering join of the hand is perhaps illustrated by the well-known Foundry Cup in Berlin.’ The Porticello hand may have been cast by pouring bronze through a wax gate at the wrist, which has created the rounded protrusion on its right side; it was not filed away after casting, either because it was invisible when the hand was mounted or because it served for the

built up in rods of some thickness, horizontally placed

‘Arthur Steinberg, “Joining Methods on Large Bronze Statues:

one upon the other, and perhaps wedged into corresponding indentations in the core, since the interior surface of the rods in places appears sharp and angular in section. This procedure seems risky, since the different rates of cooling of the bronze according to the varying thicknesses of the folds could have created tensions and stresses, and resulting breaks; yet here it was obviously carried out without serious problems. The three vertical lines visible in the interior of the drapery are difficult to explain. It would be tempting to suggest that they correspond to panes of drapery cast separately in sections, and indeed a similar process has been outlined by Steinberg to explain the making of the Athena

and

the Artemis

from

the

Piraeus.°

However,

the folds run horizontally, not vertically, in the Porticello piece, and therefore the lines cut across them at right angles instead of coinciding with valleys and troughs that could hide the join. The webs of metal stretching from ridge to ridge in the interior surface indicate a corresponding depression in the core, perhaps cracks produced during the baking or the casting process. Alternatively, they may correspond to the length of each wax rod as applied; the exterior wax surface, smoothed over before investing and casting, would not have retained

Some Experiments in Ancient Technology,” in Application of Science

bronze of the hand when first made. It therefore seems logical to as-

in Examination of Works of Art, ed. W. J. Young, pp. 103-38. For the join in the upper arm of the Toledo Youth see p. 121n20 and caption to fig. 40. For the date of the Toledo Youth see P. Zanker, Klassizistische

sume that the armature was simply meant as extra support for the join. An extensive technical discussion of both Riace statues, mentioning the separate casting of their hands and their method of attachment (by

Statuen, p. 37, no. 33. The suggestion has been made, however, that the Youth may come from Bubon, in which case it could date as late as

spot welding), appears in Due bronzi da Riace, BdA s.s. 3, vol. 1,

the second century after Christ. For the Bubon group see J. Inan, “Der Bronzetorso im Burdur-Museum,” IstMitt 27-28 (1977-78): 267-96. For the alleged provenance and further explanation of the joining procedure in the Toledo Youth see P. Oliver-Smith, “The Houston Bronze Spearbearer,” AntP 15 (1975): 95-109, esp. p. 107n70. Note, however, that the joining by patches is often carried out by placing the rectangular plaques diagonally across the line of join, not parallel to it as in the Porticello hand; for an extreme example of this type of patch-joining

see the bronze head from Soloi: L. Kahil, “Téte de bronze de Soloi (Chypre)," AntK 19 (1976): 41-48, pls. 8-12, and accompanying technical note by K. Faltermeier, pp. 49-50, pl. 13. *Warrior B from Riace, in the National Museum of Reggio Calabria: J. Alsop, “Glorious Bronzes of Ancient Greece. Warriors from a Watery Grave,” National Geographic 163, no. 6 (June, 1983): 822, lower right. The caption to the photograph explains the iron armature coming from the arm as extending "into a core around which the hand was cast,” but this explanation is hardly in keeping with the piece cast-

ing technique, since the core would have been baked hard by the hot

henceforth cited as Due bronzi. Ugento Zeus: N. Degrassi, Lo Zeus stilita di Ugento, p. 139. Houston Ruler: Oliver-Smith, “The Houston Bronze,” p. 98; both hands are attached at the wrist. The so-called Foundry Cup, in Berlin, is illustrated in virtually every article or book on bronze casting methods. For a quick reference see Steinberg, “Joining Methods,” p. 104, figs. 1-2; Carol C. Mattusch, “The Berlin Foundry Cup: The Casting of Greek Bronze Statuary in the Early Fifth Century B.c.,” AJA 84 (1980): 435-44, pls. 54-55. To be sure, what is being hammered is not clear; it could be a patch. Separately cast hands have also been found among the bronzes from the Antikythera wreck, some to be joined close to the hand itself, some at mid-wrist, some higher up along

the forearm: see Peter Cornelius Bol, Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes

von Antikythera,

NM

15108,

p. 28, pl.

p. 33, pl. 17.3-4; NM 15095, p. 36, pl. 16.3.

12.2-3;

NM

15107,

$ Steinberg, “Joining Methods," p. 108 and fig. 8 on p. 107; Steinberg suggests that such panels were of cloth dipped in wax, following an initial theory by Bearzi based on sixteenth-century Venetian casting methods: see Steinbergs note 15.

94

THE

PORTICELLO

traces of this sectioning, but the less carefully finished interior, inaccessible because of the presence of the core, might reveal the extent of each successive piece. Theoretically, one more possibility could be envisioned: the drapery could have been built—entirely in wax, both rods and sheets—over a largely amorphous clay core meant solely as a support, in a process comparable to the draping of cloth over a mannequin in dressmaking. The wax could then have been cut into panes to remove it from the core, provided with a backer for mantle, and filled in the interior with a liquid or semi-

SHIPWRECK

rate and added from the bottom. In the Porticello bronze the leg was probably attached to the drapery section by fusion welding; the overheating of the entire area may eventually have resulted in the crack that has left a piece of garment still adhering to the leg but has separated the limb from the rest of the mantle (fragment S2A). All preserved pieces of drapery appear to have been made with the direct process, even when pieces of the body were cast in one with them. The difficult fragment S4, which shows folds in contact with human flesh, clearly suggests that the core was highly modeled and

liquid core. This process would combine features of both direct and indirect casting: of the former it would retain

then covered with wax, since the flesh is missing where

the articulated interior corresponding to the exterior; of

overlap reveals that a wax rod was cut, cast in bronze,

the latter it would utilize the method for creating the inner core. Any trace of the piece-mold casting would then have been eliminated from the exterior together

and then applied to create a garment tip adhering to the "flesh" by joining (Fig. 5-28). The most complex form of direct casting is that re-

the folds are present. On the other hand, one area of

with the casting skin, while the interior retains the webs

vealed by the technique used for the bearded head (S1),

noted above. The drapery portion of this statue was cast separately from the body; not only does the leg terminate just above the point covered by the garment, but the flat, ledgelike fold at right angles to the course of the main draping probably represents the casting floor for the piece. A similar casting floor occurs at the bottom of the long garment worn by the Delphi Charioteer.’

which has been detailed in the catalog entry. The quantity of wax used for what amounts to virtually solid casting may be unusual (both ears,? mustache and mouth,

There, the folds extend beyond this flat surface and hide it effectively, as well as disguising the join between the

separately cast feet and the costume. In the Porticello bronze, the feature appears a more natural part of the short mantle, although the foundryman has either reinforced or disguised the sharp turn from vertical to horizontal by means of a small rod of wax running the length of the turn. This casting floor obviously extended only to the point where the leg was to be inserted. A slightly different method was followed for the Arringatore,® where no casting floor is apparent but where the leg is equally sepa?F. Chamoux, Fouilles de Delphes IV, pt. 5, L'Aurige, p. 59, and pl. 20; F. Roncalli, "Il Marte di Todi," MemPontAcc 11, no. 2 (1973): 35-36, and fig. 50 on p. 38, makes the same suggestion for the cuirass

of the Mars. ® Arringatore, in the Florence Archaeological Museum, dated ca.

60 B.c.: T. Dohrn, "L'Arringatore, capolavoro del Museo Archeologico di Firenze," BdA 49 (1964): 97-116; see esp. pp. 103-104 and figs. 9-12; fig. 33 on p. 113 gives a sketch of the left leg, reproduced in Steinberg, "Joining Methods," fig. 37 on p. 120. Dohrns text appears, in German, also in AA 1965: 123-42. *Contrast the more detailed appearance of the ear, from the interior, in the Chatsworth Apollo: D. E. L. Haynes, "The Technique of the Chatsworth Head," RA 1968: 101-12, esp. fig. 7 on p. 107. The Chatsworth Apollo, in the British Museum, from Cyprus, is traditionally dated around 470—460 B.c.; a much later, classicizing date has, however, been suggested by P. C. Bol on the basis of its technique, especially the lining of the lips: Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia,

and all the visible curls of the beard), but the result was

highly successful. This extensive use of wax for modeling purposes has already been noted in the building up of the drapery roll in fragment S2. A different, and surprising, procedure was used for the hair proper. The separately cast calotte is not unparalleled; it occurs in the Delphi Charioteer, for instance, and a similar arrangement was used in the Mars from Todi and the “Lady from the Sea," although helmet and veil, respectively, rather than the head dome, served the purpose. I suspect that the Chatsworth Apollo may

also have been similarly pieced because there is a marking on the nape which resembles that on the Porticello head. In the Apollo the tresses over the forehead would have been an ideal place to hide a join (as is the fillet in the Delphi Charioteer), but, if so, the connection has gone undetected.'? pp. 21-22. Although the face of the Mars from Todi was cast with the indirect method, the ears, perhaps because of their strong projection, were solid; Roncalli, "Il Marte di Todi," fig. 57 and pl. 6.

? Delphi Charioteer: Chamoux, Aurige, pp. 57-66 for comments on technique; for the separate calotte see esp. p. 60; Mars from Todi: Roncalli, “Il Marte di Todi," p. 38; Lady from the Sea: Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, "The Lady from the Sea: A Greek Bronze in Turkey," AJA 71 (1967): 329—34; see esp. drawings by R. De Puma, figs. 12-13,

also reproduced in Steinberg, "Joining Methods," p. 116, fig. 31; Chatsworth Apollo: Haynes, "Chatsworth Head," p. 103, figs. 2, 4. The tresses, moreover, are said to appear hollow on the inside, although the central knot was probably added separately; a greater dependence on the clay core is therefore to be assumed for the British Museum head, as contrasted with the Porticello one. Prof. Carol Mattusch tells me, however, that she believes the Chatsworth head to be in one piece. Riace Warrior B has a separate calotte; see E. Formigli, in Due bronzi, p. 130, fig. 28, and note 84 with additional examples.

THE SCULPTURE But the armature of wires within the beard and the hair curls of the Porticello head is, to my knowledge, unique, and the coating of each wire with an engraved layer of wax—besides being difficult per se—must have created considerable problems in the making of the outer mantle. Yet, once again, the bronze caster seems to have succeeded in his goal, and the procedure would not have been suspected had it not been for the damage to the bronze. The great skill of the master who made the head is also shown by the daring join of the calotte to the face through the forehead, accomplished by flow weld-

ing. Spot welding was also used to connect the complete head to the neck; this technique has now been noted in the Artemision Zeus, the Marathon Boy, and the Antikythera Youth as well as in Roman bronzes." Direct casting produced the genitals (S9). The con-

nection between the penis and the scrotum seems to

95

then sectioned in two parts, to ensure proper proportions and correlations between the halves. The forepart was then sheared of its toes and the clay was built up

under the ball of the foot to provide an opening in the bronze; a similarly placed cavity occurs on the right sole of the Antikythera Youth, whose foot trails and therefore

touches the ground only at the front. In building the wax toes, a peculiar procedure was followed: the third toe was omitted and a short ledge was prepared to receive it as a separately cast piece. Although the technical

need for this arrangement is not immediately obvious, the procedure is not unparalleled. It has been noted in the Riace Warriors,'5 and there is a Hellenistic example from Olympia in combination with the sectioning of the foot in two halves.'* Quite possibly other examples exist

and have not been noted, since the join is not easily de-

were then connected to the body by spot welding, while edges seem to have been prepared by making them especially thin. Genitals were often cast separately in antiquity; there are several extant examples from Olym-

tected when it has held. As for the practice of casting the forepart of the foot separately, besides the companion piece to the Porticello foot (S6), the Riace Warriors, and the aforementioned foot from Olympia, there are also two Roman feet (one from Bubon) in the Getty Museum, which expand the chronological range of the practice from the fifth century B.c. to the second century after Christ. In female figures the separate casting of the front of the foot is made easier by the fact that the long drap-

pia," and the technique has been noted in the Anti-

ery both hides the join and eliminates the need for con-

kythera Youth.” The last item for which direct casting can be postulated is the forepart of foot S8. The toes are solid and were therefore modeled in wax over a clay core correassume that the foot was completely modeled in clay and

tinuing the foot when out of view." In the Porticello feet, the assembling of the halves was accomplished by spot welding. This cedure is most obvious in the case of foot S7/8, since of the area of fusion broke off from the rear half still adheres to the front half, in coincidence with

"See Remarks.” “Bol,

SE. Formigli, "Note sulla tecnologia nella statuaria bronzea greca del V sec. a.C.," Prospettiva 23 (1980): 61-66, esp. 62 and fig. 4 on p. 64; Due bronzi, p. 121.

have been mechanical; a circular rim at the wider end of the penis was pushed through the bronze wall below the pubic curls and probably locked in by hammering from the interior. The genitals, with a portion of pubic hair,

sponding to the front half of the foot. We can perhaps Steinberg, Olympia,

“Joining cat. nos.

Methods,”

132-33,

p. 136,

“Additional

pl. 23, dated Late Archaic/

Early Classical; cat. no. 244a, pl. 51, dated to the Hadrianic period; cat. nos. 254-56, 257-60, pl. 53, probably Roman.

® Antikythera Youth: Ch. Karusos, “Chronikon tes anasystaseos tou chalkinou Neou tön Antikytherön,” ArchEph 1969 (publ. 1970): 59-79, esp. p. 77 for a list of separate pieces and ancient joins. See also the technical comments in Bol, Antikythera, 18-24, esp. p. 19. The limited extension of the pubic hair may be partly conditioned by technical requirements, to facilitate joining to the torso; note, for instance, a comparable rendering in the Houston Ruler, Oliver-Smith, "Houston Bronze," figs. 3-4. Also, the Riace Warriors had separately cast geni-

tals: Due bronzi, fig. 18 on p. 122, and p. 127. “For an illustration see Karusos, “Chronikon,” p. 75, fig. 11. The left foot, which lies flat on the base, is not illustrated, but it was also cast in two sections: Karusos, "Chronikon," p.77, and Bol, Anti-

kythera, p. 19. A similar procedure may have been followed in the feet of the Selinus Youth, which strongly resemble the Porticello ones in technique: see A. M. Carruba, "Der Ephebe von Selinunt. Untersuchungen und Betrachtungen anlässlich seiner letzen Restaurierung,” Boreas 6 (1983): 44-60, pl. 7.6-7. Although both Riace Warriors have similarly built feet, including the separately cast toe, Formigli argues that the indirect process was used for their manufacture: Due bronzi, pp. 107-42, esp. 107—108; see also 87-88 and figs. 60-63.

two propart and the

'5Bol, Olympia, cat. no. 200, pl. 36, although there the second, not the third, toe was made separate. "Roman foot from Bubon in J. Paul Getty Museum: see, most recently, Inan, "Der Bronzetorso," pp. 284-85, no. 14 and pl. 96.2; the Getty Museum believed that the foot belonged to a torso from Bubon now in the Burdur Museum (Inan, "Der Bronzetorso," p. 285 no. 15; pls. 93-94), whose left leg shows that its foot was built in two

halves. Professor Inan, however, believes that the connection is made impossible by the different stance of the figure, since the torso stood with feet flat on the ground, while the Getty foot touches only with the ball: Inan, "Der Bronzetorso,” pp. 285-86 and pls. 96-97. For present purposes the connection is irrelevant; what matters is that one, and possibly two, examples of feet cast in separate halves are attested; other statues from Bubon may have featured the same technique.

The Getty Museum has provided the Burdur Museum with a cast of the head and foot in their collection in return for a cast of the torso; the construction of this modern cast in bronze has been detailed by D. Rinne and J. Frel in The Bronze Statue of a Youth, a booklet which gives a useful account of modern procedures that, in many ways, do not differ from the ancient ones. For the second Getty foot see Cornelius C. Vermeule, Catalogue of the Ancient Art in the J. Paul Getty Museum, p. 36, no. 79, ca. second century after Christ. For a

96

THE

PORTICELLO

welding spot. The same process may have been used for foot S6 as well, since the break has occurred at the approximate level of the join in the companion piece, but the fusion of the two separate halves must have been stronger, so that they parted roughly along the welding line, in some places just above it, in others just below. The join might have been unintentionally strengthened by the additional metal poured inside the foot and leg, perhaps to repair a casting fault that created the crack along the inner side. The rear half of each of the Porticello feet was cast in one with the lower leg. In this case, it is more difficult to determine whether the direct or the indirect process was used, since the interior of both pieces is now filled with metal accumulation. The presence (or traces) of armature in both would initially suggest that the legs were

SHIPWRECK cast in one piece with the direct process." Yet some of

the armatured bronzes mentioned above are known to have been cast in several pieces, and further evidence may be supplied by the draped fragment from Porticello (S2), where one of the folds of drapery retains a large cavity, presumably for one bar of an armature. Whether the leg joining the draped fragment was cast with the direct or the indirect process is at present uncertain.

Finally, armatures can be visualized as part of the indirect method: after the molds taken from the original model are lined in their interior with wax plates, they are reassembled for the final casting around a core, partly poured in and partly built around a central arma-

ture. This procedure has been postulated for the Riace bronzes and for the fragments of nude figures from Porticello, as diagrammatically explained by Formigli.”

cast directly on the original core, but it is also possible INDIRECT

that the armature was introduced later, when the whole

statue was being assembled from various pieces that were

separately cast; chunks

of core,

not necessarily

baked, could be put inside to keep the armature in position, or bronze could even be poured in (through the sole opening) to secure the frame. Armatures have been noted in a number of bronzes from different periods: the Ugento Zeus, the Delphi Charioteer, the Selinus Youth, the Plataian Tripod Snake, the Piraeus Apollo (whose date is variously given within a range from the sixth to the first century B.c.), the horse in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Riace

Bronzes, and, definitely within the Roman Imperial pe-

METHOD

In the Porticello bronzes the indirect process just described seems to have been used only for parts of the nude bodies, especially for the large fragments of buttocks and thighs (S10-12). It may seem surprising that two techniques should be used according to the type of representation,

especially

since

both

included

piece

casting, yet not enough evidence exists to divide the fragments made by different methods between two different workshops. It is becoming increasingly evident, through the discovery of additional ancient bronzes and the refined modern techniques of analysis, that Greek, Etruscan, and Roman statuary could be assembled from

pieces cast with different processes and even from differ-

riod, the Marcus Aurelius on horseback that once stood on the Capitoline.^ In the Getty Youth (dated late fourth/early third century B.c.) the armature is said to have been made by reeds and the statue to have been

ent alloys.” Yet it remains true that our interpretation of technical features is still tentative and open to debate.

similarly joined foot in the Antikythera Youth see note 14. I cannot be entirely sure, because the procedure is not mentioned in the publica-

seum horse (variously dated from the fifth to the first century B.C.) see, most recently, K.C. Leffert, L. J. Majewski, Edward V. Sayre, and Pieter Meyers, “Technical Examination of the Classical Bronze Horse

tion, but I believe that a similar join at midfoot can be detected in the

from the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Journal of the American Insti-

two bronze statues of local rulers from Yemen recently restored in Germany: K. Weidemann, Könige aus dem Yemen. See esp. pp. 27-29 for

tute for Conservation 21 (1981): 1-42, esp. pp. 2-4 and fig. 3 on p. 5; see also comments on p. 10 for the armature as proof of direct casting. The armature of the Riace Warriors was also hollow and rectangular in section, perhaps for extra strength; Formigli, in Due bronzi, pp. 11215, and figs. 6-7, with wooden core. Getty Youth: J. Frel, The Getty Bronze, pp. 8-9. ?See Formigli, "Note sulla tecnologia," p. 63 for discussion of the iron bar within Riace Warrior B, and fig. 8 on p. 65 for a diagram of the casting method for the Porticello bronzes. See also Due bronzi,

comments on the modern restoration. The two over-life size bronzes can be dated at the turn from the third to the fourth century after Christ, and certainly before 319 on inscriptional evidence. Besides the names of the individuals they represent, the statues also carry the signatures of the Greek sculptor (Phokas epoiei) and of the South Arabian bronze caster (in Arabic): cf. Weidemann, Könige, p. 18. Their provenance (Nakhlat al-Hamra, near Sana, where they are now housed)

shows how widespread and long-lasting provincial technical practices

pp. 112, 115.

could be in the classical world. For a bronze female foot from the Athenian Agora (Hellenistic?) see R. Ross Holloway, “Exploration of the Southeast Stoa in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 35 (1966): 84-85, pl. 29. See also the Athena and the Artemis from the Piraeus, Steinberg, “Joining Methods,” figs. 7 and 23, respectively. For the armature within the Ugento Zeus and for pertinent

A good explanation appears also in M. Leoni, "Techniques of Casting,” in The Horses of San Marco, Venice, pp. 170-77. Different explanations are suggested by J. M. Hemelrijk, "Piece Casting in the Direct Process," BABesch 57 (1982): 6-11. ? See, e.g., the comments by Degrassi, Lo Zeus, p. 136 and note 552, p. 139 and note 571; see also Leffert et al., "Classical Bronze Horse," pp. 9-10, 15 and passim, where, however, a different lead

comments

on other statues with

similar inner supports

see

Degrassi,

Lo Zeus, p. 138 and notes 564-69. For the Selinus Youth see Carruba, “Der Ephebe von Selinunt,” pp. 44-60. For the Metropolitan Mu-

content in one of the legs is taken as proofof later repair; but cf. Leoni, "Techniques of Casting," p. 180, initial comments.

THE SCULPTURE

Typical of the naked parts from Porticello (interior

97

ment S10, would allow the removal of whatever part of the core was not properly baked by the heating pro-

surfaces) are the stepped outlines in $10, S11, and S12, and the bosses or dowels in S10 and S11. Since no bosses

cess to eliminate the wax and by the subsequent con-

appear on S12, different procedures could be assumed

tact with the molten bronze. The lack of bosses in Por-

even within this grouping.

ticello $12 and the presence of only one clear boss in

According to one theory, the stepped sections correspond to plates of wax applied to the interior of molds

S10, but not in combination with a stepped surface, would seem to require a different reconstruction of the casting procedure. Stepped areas within the Getty Youth resemble, in photographs, those of Porticello fragment S12. Yet they are explained as part of the direct process; only the outside joins between wax plates would have been smoothed over during the modeling process to achieve the final

taken from the original model. Since the seams between wax plates would have shown only in the interior of the statue, once the latter was assembled, the foundryman

did not spend time smoothing them over. In addition, the presence of dowels within the limits of such panels has been tentatively explained as a means for allowing the removal and reapplication of the wax panels around the inner core: according to Formigli, difficulty was encountered in having the inner (secondary) core of ancient statues dry properly and uniformly when covered with wax. A technique was therefore devised, by which the molds were lined in their interior with wax plates, each

provided with a boss in the center. An inner core was then prepared inside the reassembled molds and around an armature—a core which would reflect, in negative, cavities for each of the bosses created on the wax plates. With the removal of the outer molds, the wax plates

could be exposed, and each could in turn be removed to ensure the proper drying of the exposed core. The dovetailing of bosses and cavities would then allow the

safe recomposing of the wax around the dried core by eliminating possible difficulties in locating the exact position of each panel.” Two possible criticisms of this hypothesis may be

made: (1) in drying, the core would shrink and alter the contour of each cavity, thus eliminating the precise correspondence of clay cavity and wax boss; (2) the true advantage of the indirect method is the potential for controlling the thickness of the wax (and ultimately of the bronze wall), to the extent that wax could be poured into or even brushed on the interior of the negative molds. If these layers of wax were to be subsequently peeled away from the molds, or even from the core, deformation and tearing of various kinds could occur, thus endangering the whole process.” Moreover, piece casting in relatively small sections, as exemplified by Porticello frag-

appearance of the statue. The core itself seems to have been made in successive strata, progressively finer as they reached the outermost level, so that the final layer was "from two to six millimeters of considerable density, a black clay almost as fine-grained as slip."** If such refined surface could be obtained immediately below the wax layer, it would be reflected by the inner structure of the finished bronze, thus making it virtually impossible to distinguish between direct and indirect castings. This

distinction has hitherto been largely based on the more irregular appearance of the inner surfaces in bronzes cast directly from thick but highly modeled wax over

relatively rough, only approximately modeled clay core. Conversely, it was alone would allow ated levels of core beginning with the

surmised that the negative process the building up of highly differentiwithin the wax-lined, open molds, finest layer of clay probably poured

in at the liquid state of a slip, and continuing with progressively coarser strata.?? The Getty Youth has a large rectangular plaque at the base of the nape, interpreted as the wax plug for an opening necessitated by a supporting bar used during the making of the clay core.” Several such supports, presumably all external, would have held the clay figure upright during its making and been removed and plugged with wax in the final precasting stage. A similar rectangular mark on the back of the neck is said to occur on the Marathon Boy and the Antikythera Youth. Large oval

plaques are said to appear on the back of the Agde Youth, perhaps from spot-welding of a join or a repair; a

2These theories are advanced by Formigli, "Note sulla tecnologia," pp. 64-65 and fig. 8 with caption; they have also been re-

8] note, however, that the removal of the outer molds is mentioned both by K. Faltermeier (see note 4, this chapter) and by Rinne

peated by the author, in German, in Boreas 4 (1981): 15-24.

and Frel, Bronze Statue of a Youth, p. 19, in the modern making of

In note 18 of the Italian version,

Formigli considers two addi-

tional explanations for the bosses, but discards them both: (1) they could be bronze fillers for cored openings in be made before casting to connect the inner to serve as a form of chaplet; (2) the bosses plied from the outside to close openings in been cut to facilitate the drying of the core.

the wax; the latter would core with the mantle and would be wax fillers, apthe wax plates which had

the Getty cast. See also Leoni, “Techniques of Casting,” p. 174 and fig. 215, where, however, tenons and mortises are established between sections of molds and not between wax and core. “Frel, Getty Bronze, p. 9 and fig. 4. SFor a discussion of the two processes see, e.g., Haynes,

“Chatsworth Head,” pp. 101-12, and also AA 1962: cols. 803-807. *Frel, Getty Bronze, pp. 9-10, figs. 4-5.

98

THE

PORTICELLO

rectangular one is visible on the Houston Ruler.” Many rectangular areas appear, moreover, on the interior of the Lady from the Sea. Steinberg has been able to explain several of them as repairs and as lock-in welds for separately cast folds that were applied to the torso from the exterior and fastened in its interior. But to other rectangular outlines in different areas this explanation is not applicable; nor can they be considered vents or gates for the pouring of the molten bronze. Although these features are not identical to the dowels apparent on the Porticello fragments, they are similar enough to deserve consideration in this context.” A clue is perhaps provided by fragment S10, a left buttock including part of the thigh. Beside the “collar” noted running around the interior surface at mid-gluteus, which includes excess metal perhaps from a fusion welding, cast edges occur on the interior side of the thigh and perhaps on the whole upper margin. The entire fragment, therefore, would correspond approximately to a single piece casting, later joined to the lower leg, the second buttock, and the upper torso of a complete human figure. It seems improbable that a special outside support would be required to hold the core of this separate piece; it is equally improbable that special provisions should be made to remove the covering wax from a secondary, slow-drying core, since both the upper and lower sections through buttock and leg would have provided ample exposure to the air. By the same token, however, it is unlikely that such a relatively small portion of the human body should be cast by the direct process, which does not lend itself to extensive piecing. Yet corroboration for the sectioning is provided by the Antikythera Youth, which was cast in many parts that were later assembled. Two of them form the buttocks and thighs and correspond to the extent of the Porticello fragment.” The indirect process of the latter is further suggested by the gassy casting with many flaws, typical also of S11 and S12. By exclusion, it can only be surmised that the dowel in S10 (and, by extension, those in S11 as well) is the remnant of a gate, originally built in wax and later replaced by the metal, for the immission of the molten bronze. The outside projection was filed T Marathon Boy and Antikythera Youth: mentioned by Frel, Getty Bronze, p. 11. Agde Youth: Steinberg, "Joining Methods," figs. 39, 47, note 21. Houston Ruler: Steinberg, "Joining Methods," figs. 43, 52; Oliver-Smith, "Houston Bronze," p. 98, pl. 46 (bracing for support).

# Lady from the Sea: Ridgway, "Lady from the Sea," pp. 329-34; for Steinbergs explanation see "Joining Methods," p. 119 and caption to fig. 33. 9 Antikythera Youth: Karusos, "Chronikon," p. 77; Bol, Antikythera, p.19. A similar sectioning occurs in the Houston Ruler: Oliver-Smith, "Houston Bronze," p. 98 and pl. 43. In addition, other bronzes from Bubon may have followed the same procedure; this is

SHIPWRECK

away, as was traditionally done, thus eliminating all traces of the pouring channel. The collar join at mid-gluteus occurs above the dowel and seems unnecessary. A comparable collar ap-

pears, however, in the neck of the Lady from the Sea, and yet another may be inferred from the statement that additional wax sheets were put inside the neck of the Getty Youth to raise it a little.” Perhaps areas with pronounced curvature were cast on either side of a fixed hinge, as it were; but this comment must remain a description rather than an explanation. In the Porticello fragment S10 it is unlikely that the "hinge" was originally a wax ring in between wax plates since the excess metal suggests welding of bronze to bronze. Note, finally, that the complete statue would have consisted of pieces made with both processes, since feet,

hands, and most certainly genitals produced by the direct method would have been added to the torso, which was made by indirect casting. MOUNTING

THE

STATUES

Also in fragment S10, chisel marks on the right side of the thigh, at the point where it would have come into contact with the adjacent right leg, suggest that the bronze was shaved down, perhaps to provide a better fit. Such mechanical treatment of invisible surfaces is also attested in the Delphi Charioteer, whose sleeves were made thinner by chiseling from the interior, to secure the attachment of the separately cast arms. A comparable procedure has been noted by Steinberg in the interior of the Piraeus Athena.” Some contours in the

Porticello bronzes appear to have been made featheredge thin, perhaps for better joining (for example, S9—- 11). Tool marks have been noted on some of the Porticello fragments (for example, the hand S5, the "flesh" fragment $14), but at present it is impossible to state whether these are ancient or, as more probable, modern markings made either when the pieces were removed from the wreck by clandestine diggers, or in the laboratory, for the collection of samples. It has been rumored, from time to time, that the Porticello bronzes display traces of ancient hacking and were therefore being transattested at least for the separately cast leg of the Youth in Burdur: Inan, "Der Bronzetorso," pls. 93, 97, and p. 267nl. The Burdur torso, through connection with an inscribed base, is dated precisely between A.D. 254 and 268: Inan, "Der Bronzetorso,” pp. 285-87. *Lady from the Sea: Ridgway, "Lady from the Sea," fig. 12; Getty Youth: Frel, Getty Bronze, p. 10. ? Delphi Charioteer: Chamoux, Aurige, p. 60; Piraeus Athena: Steinberg, "Joining Methods," fig. 8 on p. 107. The tool markings could also be on the mold itself, see Carol C. Mattusch, "Bronze- and Iron-Working in the Area of the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 46 (1977): 340—79, esp. p. 362 no. H4 and pl. 90 for a late fourth-century B.c. example.

THE SCULPTURE

ported on board as scrap metal rather than as complete statues. I could find no evidence of intentional dismantling and believe that no extant break is incompatible with the natural deterioration of bronzes or the process of wreck formation. Yet one detail may suggest that at least one statue

was provided with a stone base from which it was later removed. Foot forepart S8 was filled with lead for attach-

99

required that the weakened ankle be filled with bronze, thus preventing the pouring of an adequate lead tenon. The bronze tongue around the contour of the heel might then have been added to provide a different form of fastening. Color, approximate size, and general appearance correspond closely enough to those of foot S7/8 to make it unlikely that foot S6 belongs to a different statue. PATINA AND

NUMBER

OF STATUES

PRESERVED

ment to a stone base; the molten metal expanded beyond the cavity provided for the purpose in the area of the ball of the foot and covered part of the sole away from the

Some of the Porticello fragments, notably the bearded

arch. It is this thin layer of lead which has retained fine

and S12, have a greenish appearance. The majority of

markings, like those made by a tooth chisel on a stone

the fragments, however, and especially both feet, the single hand, the genitals, and gluteus S10, have a darker,

surface, presumably the top of the base on which the statue once stood. On the other hand, the lead tenon is

head (S1), the arm with drapery (S4), and buttocks $11

black coloring, while the colors of the draped pieces

very shallow and by itself would have been inadequate to fasten the bronze to a stone pedestal. In addition, the rear half of the same foot (S7) does not seem ever to have been attached to a base, unless one assumes that the deformation of the opening in the sole and the breaks at its edges were produced when the original lead tenon was

range in between the two. Yet gluteus $10 cannot be connected with draped fragment S2 since what is preserved of the mantle shows that it covered the buttocks. On the basis of these fragments alone, therefore, it is possible to state that at least one draped male and two undraped male figures were on board when the ship foundered. It

wrenched away and perhaps left behind in the stone

is also known that a bearded but more youthful head from the same wreck was sold on the illicit antiquities market before the Italian authorities could intervene. Since technical methods alone are inadequate to de-

base. It should also be noted that comparable tenons and open soles occur in the feet of the Delphi Charioteer that was fastened to a metal chariot, and of the Ugento

Zeus, attached to a metal base.*

termine association of fragments, it is impossible to at-

beyond its surface. It is unlikely that the tenon served to keep the heel raised off the base since no bending is

tribute both feet and the hand to the draped body, although that the last went with the bearded head is a plausible assumption. Therefore, the value that should be attached to the different colorations remains an open

visible in what is preserved of the foot. Perhaps a crack

question.

Foot S6, of which only the rear part remains, has a

wider opening within the sole, and a tenon projecting

produced by imperfect casting on the proper right side

Style and Chronology The technical analysis has shown that the bronze fragments from the Porticello wreck cannot be grouped by

method of manufacture, coloration of the bronze, or other objective criteria. In terms of quantity, a minimum of three male figures can be postulated, one draped and two nude, but theoretically a larger number

of figures could be assumed, if each fragment came from a separate image. Suggestions that the fragments represent statues already dismantled in antiquity and being shipped abroad either as ballast or as scrap metal cannot ® Delphi Charioteer: Chamoux, Aurige, pl. 20; for a photograph taken before modern installation of the statue see Charles Picard, Manuel d'archéologie grecque, La sculpture II, pt. 2, p. 907 and fig. 365. Ugento Zeus: Degrassi, Lo Zeus, p. 137. See also the Selinus Youth, Carruba, “Der Ephebe von Selinunt,” and the Mars from Todi: Roncalli, I! Marte di Todi, p. 40, figs. 54-55. A view of the bottom of

be corroborated by a technical analysis of the pieces, and a certain stylistic unity among them may confirm that

they all belonged to a coherent group, perhaps commissioned from a single master or workshop. It is impossible to determine whether the origin of the bronzes ought to be sought in Magna Graecia or in Greece proper; certainly the cargo and the vessel itself yield no unified picture of their own affiliations, let alone that of the bronzes, which could have been transported as part of a general system of tramping within the Mediterranean. Because of the findspot within the Straits of Messina the left foot of the Marathon Boy is published in K. A. Romäos, "Die Bronzestatue von Marathon," AntDenk 4 (1929): 54-56, pls. 30-37.

For the Riace Warriors see Due bronzi, pp. 77-81, figs. 46-51 and diagram on pl. XXXV. For a general discussion of fastening methods for

bronze statues see Bol, Olympia, pp. 85-87 and diagram on p. 86.

100

THE

PORTICELLO

and the literary references to famous bronze casters in Rhegion—Klearchos and Pythagoras (once of Samos) "— it is tempting to suggest a connection between the Porticello bronzes and these late sixth/early fifth century masters; yet such temptations must be sternly resisted. The location of the wreck should therefore not be taken as indicative.

Provenance from Taras or Syracuse would

not be incompatible with the evidence from the cargo, but neither would be one from Athens or Asia Minor. After having listed all the kinds of evidence which prove useless for our assessment, the task remains to consider what positive information can be derived from the excavational context. Of paramount importance here is the fact that the wreck can be fairly narrowly dated around 415-385 B.c., thus providing a definite terminus ante quem for the sculptural fragments, which stylistic judgment would place around 450-430 B.c. To be sure, this chronology is based on comparison with dated works from Greece proper; yet a second positive datum in dealing with the Porticello bronzes is that they closely reflect Greek stylistic trends and manifestations, thus suggesting Greek manufacture. For diagnostic purposes, the most helpful fragment is that of a draped right leg and buttock (S2). The doughy appearance of the cloth, the wide flat ridges, the narrower rounded folds furrowed by shorter grooves ending in stunted curves, all strongly recall renderings of the Severe style. Yet comparison with the marbles from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (470-456 B.c.) is only partly satisfactory. The closest similarities can be found in the drapery of the River God A, the mantle of Zeus (especially over the left arm), and the Seer N, all from the east pediment.* But in all three figures the folds appear wider,

more

irrational

in their course,

“lazier,” if the

term may be allowed, and almost ready to subside into flatness. To be sure, no draped bronze in large scale has survived from the Severe period, and the Delphi Charioteer wears an entirely different costume, which does not lend itself to close comparison. Even among the smallscale bronzes, no parallels are readily apparent, but there the size of the pieces may have prevented the possibility of elaborate detail.” Nonetheless, the impression ®On Klearchos of Rhegion and Pythagoras of Samos see, e.g., Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture, pp. 83-84 and references on p. 91. “For ease in reference, see the excellent photographs by A. Frantz in Bernard Ashmole and Nicholas Yalouris, Olympia: The Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus: River God A: fig. 2; Zeus: figs. 13-14; Seer N: detail, fig. 40. * A convenient photographic corpus of early classical bronzes can be found in two recent publications: R. Tolle-Kastenbein, Frithklassische Peplosfiguren: Originale, and L. O. K. Congdon, Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient Greece.

SHIPWRECK

remains that the Porticello drapery represents a more advanced stage of the Olympia drapery and that differences are due more to time than to medium. In fact, better analogies can be found in the Parthenon, especially among the renderings of the frieze. On the west side, slab III shows figure 5 as a bearded man with himation wrapped around the lower body and over the right arm; the bunched folds have comparable furrows and areas of adherence to the body. On west slab IX, figure 16, the rider in the background, wears a short chlamys like a shawl, whose folds resemble the split ridges of the Porticello bronze. On the north side, the first standing hydrophoros from the right on slab VI, the marshal behind the chariot on slab XIV, and the helmeted rider at the left edge of slab XXXVIII show similar folds in himation and chlamys. Finally, on the east side, Poseidon, Apollo, and Artemis can all be compared for the treatment of the mantle as it wraps around their hips.* It is obviously the gathering of the heavy cloth around a curved surface and toward a point of support that produces the typical effect of an almost leather-hard material bending into abrupt nicks and forking into ridges and furrows. Since renderings close to the folds of the Porticello bronze occur on three sides of the Parthenon frieze (the south side is less well preserved for proper analysis), the

entire chronological range of the building should be taken into account, even without entering into the controversy over whether certain slabs, or all of them, were carved on the ground or in situ. The blocks were certainly in position on the temple by 438 B.c., and work on the Parthenon seems to have terminated by 433/2. Even admitting that some carving was begun in the 440s, a span from 447 to 432 should accommodate even the most specific dating of the frieze and provide a useful bracket for the Porticello fragment. Perhaps, given the lesser angularity of the ridges, and the width of some of the lower folds, the bronze garment should be placed closer to the upper than to the lower chronological margin.” A highly important piece, the impressive bearded head S1, is here considered second in terms of diagnostic usefulness because its very quality makes it hard to classify. Indeed, initial reactions to this masterpiece *F. Brommer, Der Parthenon-Fries: W III: pl. 11; see also pl. 12 for cast;

W IX: pl. 27, and detail of left arm on pl. 29; N VI: pl. 58; N

XIV: pl. 70; N XXXVIII: pl. 102; E VI (Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis): pls. 178, 180-81.

*The various theories on the dating of the Parthenon frieze are summarized in Brommer, Fries, pp. 171-72; see also the review of his book by E. B. Harrison, AJA 83 (1979): 489-91. Nothing in the other fragments of extant drapery from the Porticello wreck serves either to refine or to disprove the chronological suggestion here advanced.

THE SCULPTURE have hailed it as an example of portraiture and, in recognition of its individuality, have attempted to place it within the history of realistic likenesses, disregarding the terminus ante quem provided by the wreck.* Before the ship was excavated and the head cleaned, suggestions were made that the piece might represent a Homer

of the Epimenides type (in consideration of the long beard). Later assessments focused on the philosopherlike appearance of the features and therefore on a possible fourth century/early Hellenistic dating. It has even been orally queried whether the head might belong to a later wreck superimposed on the earlier vessel by the vagaries of the currents. Here it might be useful to recapitulate the basis for connecting this extraordinary piece with the rest of the Porticello bronzes. Not only were the looters’ reports unanimous in identifying the location from which all bronze fragments were recovered,

101

from the back to the sides, but the beard retains similar angularity, and the forehead curves abruptly at the temples. In the beard, particularly noticeable is the use of long strands that run the entire course from cheek to tip; this rendering can be found in the early fifth century, but occurs also in Classical times, perhaps as a result of Lingering Severe." Besides the front curls in the beard of the bronze Zeus from Cape Artemision, note also those of two pedimental centaurs from the Temple of

Zeus at Olympia: west P and west S." Among the Par-

piece of drapery (S16) which joined a larger fragment sequestered from the looters (S15). This recomposed

thenon sculptures, only the south metopes provide possible comparisons: the centaur on S26, the masklike centaur on S31, and that on the following metope, S32.* Gravestones and votive reliefs from the fifth, or even from the fourth century provide no valid parallels, largely because beards are shorter. The only approximate similarity, in terms of length and treatment, occurs in the beard of the Homer/Epimenides type, known through several replicas of Roman date. The original has usually been considered the portrait of the poet dedi-

group of folds compares well with all other remnants of

cated by Mikythos at Olympia around 450 B.c. No as-

drapery, especially with the largest, S2. The latter, in turn, shows a heavy dependence on wax modeling for the making of the costume, which finds strong technical

surance, however, exists that votive offerings at the Panhellenic sanctuaries could be copied.“ Moreover, even in cases where the Greek origin of the prototype seems certain, changes in the translation from bronze to marble and from century to century make direct comparison between Greek original and Roman copy methodologically dangerous for dating purposes.

but the systematic excavation of the wreck produced a

affinities in the procedure used for casting the bearded head. Although technique cannot be used as a definite argument, this similarity is worth noting. Stronger arguments include the fact that no evidence for another wreck was found during the systematic surveying of the area by professional underwater archaeologists and, last but not least, the fact that the style of the bearded head is in keeping with a date within the fifth century B.c.” The structure of the head is remarkably blocklike; not only does the neck form virtual corners in turning % Most comments on the Porticello head have appeared in news-

The Parthenon centaurs also provide comparisons for the long hair, the protruding forehead and the aqui-

line nose of the Porticello head. Of those previously cited, the centaurs on S31 and S32 also have long hair, while both metopes S31 and S26 have centaurs with

hooked noses. The monster on S30 resembles the Porticello head in the shape of the nose as well as that of the forehead. But perhaps the best general parallel is the formidable centaur on S1, whose partly hidden face still

paper or magazine articles, or have been made orally. The wreck, and

indirectly the head, have been discussed by David I. Owen in several publications, for which see Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture p. 127, bibliography for p. 120; the head it-

“For the term “Lingering Severe" see Ridgway, The Severe Style, pp. 93 and 97-105, with several examples. The choice of an

self is there discussed on pp. 120-21 and 180 (as a portrait). Cataloging and discussion of the head as a portrait are given also by Cynthia Jones Eiseman, “The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.c.," Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1979, pp. 145-47 (C36) and 153-58. See also Claudio Sabbione, “Il ritrova-

earlier style on the part of a later sculptor may have been influenced by the subject matter, especially if mythological and monstrous in nature, and not necessarily by the masters regional (not to say provincial)

mento di Porticello," in I Bronzi di Riace, pp. 36-37, figs. on pp. 38-39—an abridged version of an article on the Porticello wreck

and M. Hirmer, Greek Sculpture, color pl. VI opp. p. 24. centaur P,

which had previously appeared in Atlante magazine. ®] was consulted on the possible date of the head in 1970, when the University of Pennsylvania was first approached by the Italian authorities with the proposal to conduct a systematic excavation of the Porticello wreck. My response, addressed to Dr. Owen on April 2, 1970, suggested a date toward the end of the fifth century, although at the time I had only seen a photograph of the piece before cleaning.

taur S, West Pediment: Ashmole and Yalouris, Olympia, figs. 136-39.

affiliations. * For a good frontal view of the Artemision Zeus see R. Lullies West Pediment: Ashmole and Yalouris, Olympia, figs. 82, 86, 89; cen“Frank Brommer,

Die Metopen des Parthenon: centaur on S 26:

pl. 212, centaur on S 31: pls. 233-34. 1; centaur on S 32: pls. 236-39.3. “Homer/Epimenides type: G. M. A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks I, 47-48, figs. 2-16. For the statement that the dedications at Olympia may not have been accessible for copying see Bol, Olym-

pia, p. vi.

102

THE

PORTICELLO

reveals a bulging forehead and a prominent aquiline nose as realistic in their appearance as those of our bronze. Some Parthenon centaurs, and the Olympia monsters before them, can also be compared for incipient or advanced baldness.* One last detail of the Porticello face may be considered stylistically significant: the shape of the eyes. Although relatively small by Classical standards, they are enclosed within a continuous orbital rim, rather than having the overlapping lids typical of the 420s. The rendering begins earlier, but its first appearances are sporadic, and few originals remain as dated evidence.* The Severe eye form is closer to a buttonhole, and the Porticello head seems transitional between the Severe

and the advanced Classical form, once again suggesting a date around 440 B.c. In the bronze head the flatness of the orbital muscles and of the area below the eyebrows may also be significant. In a simplified form, it can be paralleled in some Early Classical heads from the east

SHIPWRECK the same is true of the entire facial structure, which is, however, rendered lifelike through deliberate asymmetries. The Zeus from Cape Artemision and the old seer from the east pediment at Olympia are also built on the same principles of stylization, but their patterns rely on the individual rendering as well as on the general scheme; they are therefore more pronounced, hence immediately brought to our consciousness. In the Porticello bronze, the actual rendering looks natural and therefore hides the underlying design of its arrangement. The two feet recovered from the Porticello wreck are more difficult to date on stylistic grounds. They seem more naturalistic and slender than those of the Delphi Charioteer, less tense but reasonably close to those of the Artemision Zeus, quite different from the feet of the Antikythera Youth, especially in the distance between

the toes. A study by U. Kron has provided useful photographic juxtaposition of foot renderings in the Severe period, but she investigates both Greek originals and Ro-

pediment of the Temple of Aphaia on Aigina.* An earlier

man copies in order to date the latter.“ Not many marble

bronze, the warriors head from the Athenian Akropolis, still late Archaic, is also somewhat comparable,” but I have found no convincingly close parallel, perhaps because of the mixture of stylization (the flattened surface, the high-swinging superciliary arc) and realism (the groove surrounding the upper lid and sinking the eye into the head). It is this infusion of realism, in fact, that is responsible both for the portraitlike impression the Porticello head conveys and for disguising the artificial elements in its construction. There is a definite pattern to the arrangement of mustache and beard, but it is lost from sight in the apparent naturalism of the individual strands;

feet, especially unshod, have survived from Greek origi-

“For the Olympia and the Parthenon centaurs already cited see notes 41-42, this chapter. See also Brommer, Die Metopen, pls. 229, 231 (centaur on S 30); pls. 155-58, 160 (centaur on S 1). For baldness in Parthenon centaurs see S 9, Brommer, Die Metopen, pl. 195; S 29, Brommer pls. 224-26. “Some, but by no means all, eyes among those of the Parthenon sculptures have the upper lid overlapping the lower at the outer corner; see, e.g., the Lapith and the centaur on metope S 9 (Brommer, Die Metopen, pls. 195-96) and Artemis, Apollo, and Poseidon on the east frieze, slab E VI (Brommer, Fries, pls. 180.1, 182). “Sculptures from east pediment, Temple of Aphaia, Aigina: D. Ohly, Die Aegineten I, pls. 1-3 (Athena), pls. 27-28 (Right Helper, E IV), pls. 31-32 (Herakles Archer E V), pls. 36-38 (Dying Warrior E VI), pls. 59-61 (Left Archer, E X). “Warrior bronze head from the Akropolis, Athens Nat. Mus. 6446: Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, p. 76, fig. 12. “U. Kron, "Eine Pandion-Statue in Rom,” JdI 92 (1977): 139—68; see her figs. 5—6, for the feet of an Early Classical terracotta warrior in Olympia; figs. 7-8, for the feet of the Delphi Charioteer; fig. 10, feet of the Artemision Zeus; fig. 9, feet of Aristogeiton, replica in Rome, Conservatori Museum; figs. 1—4, right foot on base inscribed Pandion, in Capitoline Museum, considered copy of a Severe original made in the late first century B.C. In general, the feet of the Riace Warriors

nals.” In general terms,

the Porticello feet do not con-

tradict a date within the second half of the fifth century. Notable are the high arches, the veins,? the long second toe at a distance from the first, the twisted little toe that almost underlies its neighbor, the downward curve of all toes, and the understated tendons leading to them. All

these details can be found in the above cited parallels, in various degrees of similarity. The rendering of veins and tendons on the Porticello feet appears quite natural at first glance, yet does not duplicate anatomical reality; in this respect it therefore corresponds to the treatment of the single hand (S5) and, on more theoretical grounds, to that of the bearded head. Anklebones and calcaneus are resemble those of the Porticello group, but individual effects differ; since the date of the Riace Warriors needs further clarification, a stylistic comparison has here been omitted. For detailed photographs see A. Busignani, Gli eroi di Riace: Daimon e techne, color pls. XVIII, XX and figs. 36-37. For the feet of the Antikythera Youth see Karusos, “Chronikon,” p. 77 and figs. 10-11, which indicate also the method of attachment to a base. For a discussion of the various ways to fasten a bronze figure to

a stone base see Bol, Olympia, pp. 85-87 and diagram on p. 86. ® Feet in the round from the Parthenon (metopes and pediments) are in general too weathered to be useful. Much better preserved are several feet from the Early Classical east pediment at Aigina, and they usually appear squatter and stumpier; see, e.g., Ohly, Die Aegineten, pls. 8 (Athenas feet), 24 (E III), 40 (E VI), 47 (E VIID), and 58 (E IX). Some among these examples seem to have longer, more rippling toes than the Porticello feet. YA. Della Seta, Il nudo nell'arte, p. 130, notes that two main veins are rendered on the Aigina feet: the dorsal arc of the metatarsus and the inner saphenous vein; by contrast (p. 217), no veins are marked on the Olympia sculptures. That this difference has no chronological implications is shown by the occasional example on the Parthenon frieze: see, e.g., Brommer, Fries, pls. 178 (Poseidon, E VI) and 183 (third figure from left, also E VI).

THE SCULPTURE well observed but simplified. Neither feet nor single hand are veined enough to suggest that they belong to an elderly person, but it is impossible to determine now whether this is an iconographic or a chronological distinction.” Finally, of the preserved buttocks, only S10 is complete enough to be examined stylistically, but does not retain the diagnostically revealing hip muscle. The pro-

nounced trochanteric depression attests a date within the Classical period, but the chronological range of the feature is too wide to be meaningful. The short groove incised between gluteus and thigh recurs on the weight

leg of the Antikythera Youth and may have been a standard feature of male

athletic statuary.

The

Porticello

thigh seems narrow and compact, but retains no significant anatomical detail. Gluteus S11 preserves the right hip muscle, but the gentle curve between buttock and thigh shows that the weight of the body did not rest on this leg and therefore the compression of the hip is not pronounced. In both this and the smaller fragment S12, all modeling is done by gradual transitions, thus confirming only the most general of dates within the Classical period. The leg connected with the largest drapery fragment is preserved only in the portion of the lower thigh but shows careful modeling, especially in the soft rendering of the rear of the knee. The beginning of a sharp

103

may be the rendering of a tendon or of the saphenous vein, a stylized detail present in the east pedimental sculptures from Aigina.* In

total analysis,

although

the

naked

fragments

could allow a chronology close to the time of the final wreck, the drapery and the style of the bearded head suggest a higher dating, approximately contemporary with the Parthenon sculptures. Should allowances be made for conservatism or deliberate retention of Severe traits, the range involved could go from ca. 450 to ca. 420

B.C., but I believe that the preserved sculptures fall closer to the upper than to the lower margin, perhaps around 440—430. Were the second head looted from the wreck to be located and identified with certainty, perhaps a more precise chronology could be reached. If the bronzes are correctly dated during the third quarter of the fifth century, their watery burial might have occurred as much as twenty-five years after their manufacture. I cannot explain this interval, unless the

statues had once before been set up, as possibly suggested by foot S7/8, and were being removed to a new location. On the other hand, I would consider it difficult to lower their date as far as the end of the fifth century,

on stylistic grounds. Suggestions that they belong to the Severe period, therefore ca. 460 B.C., seem, on the other

hand, improbable, despite the realism of the bearded head.®

ridge on the left (inner) side of the leg above the break

Iconography It is indeed the realism of the bearded head which is at once responsible for its fame and for the difficulties scholars have expressed about the date of the wreck.

were possible during the Severe period but were discon-

Were the head a true portrait, as usually believed, then

tinued during the later fifth century in favor of greater

the history of portraiture should be rewritten. Two lines

idealization and character study.* The other line of reasoning assumes that our knowledge has been based on imperfect evidence; had the various monuments mentioned by the literary sources survived, we would be able to insert the Porticello head within a series that in-

of argument have so far been followed. One, accepting

that the Porticello man is a philosopher or poet, points to such early portraits as the Themistokles from Ostia or 5'Veins on the hand are only occasionally rendered among the Parthenon sculptures, but some of them occur on young men. See, e.g., the Lapith on metope S 31 (Brommer,

Die Metopen, pl. 234.1),

the often mentioned Poseidon on the east frieze (Brommer, Fries, pl.

the so-called Pausanias (now perhaps to be identified as Pindar) and maintains that true likenesses and realism

pable of a characterization later abandoned by the Classical period was the theme of a lecture delivered by N. Himmelmann at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., on March 31, 1981. See also

178), and the second marshal from the left on East VII (Brommer, Fries, pl. 186).

J. Frel, "The Greek View of Individual Physiognomy," in Greek Por-

“Also in this case the sculptures of the Parthenon are too weathered to provide proper parallels. For Aigina see Ohly, Die Aegineten, pls. 13 (Attacking Warrior E II) and 71 (Dying Warrior E XI). ®For a Severe dating see, e.g., O. Palagia, review of Ridgway's

Greek Archaic vases.

traits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, pp. 4-9, with examples taken from Themistokles from Ostia: extensive discussion and illustration by Andreas Linfert, "Die Themistokles-Herme in Ostia," AntP 7 (1967):

Fifth Century Styles in AJA 86 (1982): 456-57.

87-94, pls. 39-46. See also additional bibliography in Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles, pp. 179, 190-191. So-called Pausanias: Richter, Por-

#]t is here necessary to repeat that most of these comments were made orally rather than in publications. The approach, however, is exemplified by Eisemans dissertation. That the Severe period was ca-

found at Aphrodisias in Karia shows the Pausanias type with an inscription identifying it as Pindar: AJA 86 (1982): 568.

traits of the Greeks I, 99-101,

figs. 413-25.

A tondo bust recently

104

THE

PORTICELLO

cluded the old priestess Lysimache for the fifth century, and a satyrlike Sokrates in the early fourth.* But is the Porticello head a true portrait? If the term is meant to imply the representation of a specific individual in such a way as to be readily identifiable, then the answer should be negative. If by portrait, instead, we mean portraitlike—the kind of depiction that is realistic in features to the point of suggesting that, were we to meet the subject in the street, we could recognize him, although no such person need exist—then yes, the bronze could qualify for the title. But naturalism,

verism,

realism,

are not synonymous

with por-

traiture, and a head can be made convincing, in human

terms, without representing a specific individual, or even a type. Nor is the bronze a character portrait.” Some details ofthe Porticello head suggest that it depicts a mythological being. The most significant element in this respect is the excessively long beard. Not even the Homer/Epimenides type commands such a beard, and yet that “portrait” is an inspired reconstruction of a legendary figure that could almost rank as mythological and whose lengthy beard is an attribute not only of longevity, but also of wisdom and great antiquity,” almost like the “blind” eyes. ®For the amount of likeness included in a Classical portrait (fifth

SHIPWRECK

By the fifth century, however, contemporary human beings were given shorter beards, and similar fashions were used for gods; witness the Artemision Zeus or the Poseidon on the Parthenon east frieze. Even the Parthenon centaurs, which provided the closest parallels for many of the features on the Porticello head, could be compared for individual renderings rather than for lengths of beard, yet it is in this sphere of semihuman creatures that the bronze seems to fit best. In addition to the abundant beard, the Porticello face has a voluminous mustache that entirely covers the upper lip. So full is this mustache that even the lower lip is minimally exposed, and the mouth can be more readily suspected than seen. No true parallels exist for this

rendering, but if Roman copies are also taken into account, a remote resemblance can be found in the socalled Kapaneus of Neo-Attic reliefs that copies images from the shield of the Athena Parthenos. Whether the stricken man in his original context represented Erechtheus or simply an Athenian contemporary of Theseus at the time of the Amazons’ attack on the Athenian Akropolis, the figure is legendary, and its features are imaginary.* tity we cannot fathom. Although this possibility cannot be entirely excluded, neither can it be proven, and the relative lack of popularity of

M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art, pp. 504-506. Sokrates: Richter, Portraits of the Greeks, pp. 110-12, figs. 456-82, believes

philosophers' statues during the last third of the fifth century makes me prefer the mythological interpretation. On the possible reasons for the "astonishingly few" recognizable portraits of philosophers in the

that Type A reproduces a statue set up ca. 380-360, probably by the

fifth century (which I would not even consider acceptable examples)

century) see Frel, Greek Portraits, pp. 14-18. On the Lysimache, see

philosopher's friends. Ironically, a bronze head of this type in Munich,

see D. Metzler, Portrát und Gesellschaft. Über die Entstehung des

figs. 476-78, which resembles the Porticello bronze in the rendering of eyes, eyebrows, and hair, is considered "not ancient" by Richter. See

griechischen Porträts in der Klassik, pp. 288-89. For a preliminary mention of Stewart's theories, see, for example, AJA 87 (1983): 262. The issue of realism versus likeness is central, of course, to the prob-

also W. Gauer, "Die griechischen Bildnisse der klassischen Zeit als politische und persönliche Denkmäler,” JdI 83 (1968): 118— 79. I need not take into account here the third line of argument men-

tioned supra, that the bearded head does not belong with the Porticello wreck and is therefore not bound by its date, but should be considered Hellenistic. A brief comparison between the Antikythera “philosopher” (Lullies and Hirmer, Greek Sculpture, fig. 250 and color pl. X opp. p. 40) and the Porticello head is enough to show how much earlier the latter truly is. %] take "character portrait" to mean that the character, that is, the essence, of an individual is expressed in the sculpture, rather than his physiognomic traits. In the case of the Porticello head, the charac-

ter expressed would be that of a wide-browed thinker who neglects his unkempt appearance because he is concerned only with matters of the mind, or one whose very length of beard is meant to convey wisdom.

However, interest in philosophers as thinkers, whose portraits would

lem of Etruscan "portraits" on sarcophagi, which are now generally considered types rather than true representations of individuals; see, for example, R. Bianchi-Bandinelli and A. Giuliano, Etruschi e italici

prima del dominio di Roma, pp. 306—309. On the main issue of idealization, see the important comments by G. Kleiner, "Das hellenistische Herrscherbild," in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology, pp. 129-37. The earlier historical periods. and especially the notion that Lycian and Persian coinage depicted specific local rulers, have been discussed by Cynthia Harrison, “Coins of the Persian Satraps,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Her conclusions are that all such veristic representations of heads on

coins should not be considered portraits, on sound historical grounds. * Another example of an imaginary portrait endowed with an overly long beard as virtual attribute is the Alkaios so labeled on a

were more or less personalized versions of standard types: Themistokles

kalathos psykter in Munich, by the Brygos Painter (ca. 480—470 B.c., therefore over a century after Alkaios’ floruit ca. 595 B.C.): Richter, Portraits, p. 69, fig. 252. On representations of poets see also the many illuminating comments (and good bibliography) in Karl Schefold, “Die Überlieferung der griechischen Bildniskunst,” in Praestant Interna, pp. 79-90. * Kapaneus, especially in the Neo-Attic relief in Chicago: G. Becatti, Problemi fidiaci, fig. 202; Th. Stephanidou-Tiveriou, Neo-Attika

from Herakles, Perikles from the mature citizens of the Parthenon

pl. 42. For the identification and the possible position of the figure on

frieze, Sokrates Type A from a satyr, and this suggestion carries conviction. Yet it would still not apply to the Porticello head, unless we admit that a “wise centaur” type was adapted for a philosopher whose iden-

the shield of the Athena Parthenos see Evelyn B. Harrison, “Motifs of the City-State on the Shield of Athena Parthenos,” AJA 85 (1981):

therefore be worthy of displaying, does not seem to arise until after Sokrates, and many extant busts of earlier sages are imaginary cre-

ations of later times, from the fourth century B.c. to the Roman period. The early date of the Porticello head would therefore exclude it from this category.

Andrew Stewart has suggested that many Classical “portraits”

300-301.

THE SCULPTURE But the extreme amount of facial hair in the Porticello head goes beyond the characterization of an-

105

a horse's hindquarters are grafted at mid-waist, even the two feet could be associated with the head.* Statues of Chiron are mentioned in antiquity, and a

tiquity; in combination with the hiding of the lips, it suggests the monstrous, understood as the nonhuman rather than the beastly, since the countenance is digni-

vived from Roman Imperial times. We have no definite

marble group of Chiron and (perhaps) Achilles has sur-

fied and venerable. The aquiline nose is also a feature of

information,

nonhumans, which appears so real because it alters the

the time span considered possible for the Porticello

straight line of the so-called Greek profile, but is not used in other fifth-century representations, and therefore, far from increasing the probabilities of true like-

bronzes. In vase painting, the myth of Peleus bringing

ness, it decreases them, in favor of characterization. The small, penetrating eyes, the incipient baldness, the long,

uncombed hair over the ears and nape, are all in keeping with a nonhuman depiction.” A further consideration may be the optimal point of

view for looking at the head. At its present installation level, the work

seems

most effective,

yet this height

would require either a seated figure or one of no considerable stature. Were we to visualize an imaginary creature, the body of a snake-legged giant, a ketos-like Triton, or a centaur could qualify. Because the head is impressive in its humanity and the beastly characterization is so toned down as to require special arguing, the personage depicted must be a civilized monster. It would be attractive to recognize

Chiron in this elderly face remarkable for his apparent wisdom. A wreath in the indentation around the head would be in keeping with the human ways of the teacher of heroes, while the hand (S5), if it belongs with the head, could be holding a stick from which beasts of prey

however,

about

such

monuments

during

the child Achilles to Chiron, known already from a Proto-Attic example, seems especially popular in the late Archaic period, but it becomes virtually obsolete after 480. The centaur is usually depicted wearing a short costume that effectively hides the join between the human and the equine torso. Since, however, the draped fragment from the wreck curves around the right buttock without making allowance for any possible rear appendage, the idea that it might connect with the bearded head into a depiction of Chiron must be abandoned.“ Should the head belong to Triton, or to the Old Man

from the Sea, no other extant fragment could be joined to it. One more possible suggestion is that the total group represented the capture of Proteus by Menelaos

and his comrades, as mentioned in the Odyssey and as depicted on the Amyklai Throne.

In this case, Proteus

would appear fully human, although with a clinging costume perhaps suggestive of his watery habitat.” The way in which the garment wraps around the human leg is in fact remarkable, since a mantle flung across the front of

hang, as often depicted on Attic vases. Since Chiron is

the body onto the left arm should not contour the right leg toward its interior, as the Porticello fragment does.” This peculiar short costume is iconographically dis-

commonly shown with an entire human body onto which

tinctive; rare in its occurrence, it seems to be connected

with the need for speed and action, or to typify younger %The shape of the ears may also deserve to be considered; although without clear animal features, the elongated and pointed lobes may be significant. * On representations of Chiron see LIMC 1 (1981) s.v. “Achil-

leus," pp. 40—55. Cf. also B. Schiffler, Die Typologie des Kentauren in der antiken Kunst vom 10. bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Ch. In Roman times even Chiron was depicted as a "normal" centaur, with full

horse body. Were the Porticello head still thought to represent a philosopher, special pleading would be necessary to connect the bare feet with it, since they would be unusual for a thinker. That the "philosopher" might be a barefoot Cynic has been rendered improbable by the date of the wreck, before the proper establishment of the philosophical school (its founder, Diogenes of Sinope, lived ca. 400—325 B.c.). To be sure, the feet could equally well belong to other statues on the ship. * For depictions of Chiron known from literary sources, see LIMC, loc. cit. The latest Greek example seems to be a stamnos by the Berlin Painter, no. 41 in the LIMC catalog, except for no. 43, a cari-

catural depiction on Kabiran ware. The next representations seem to belong to the Roman period. For the Greek examples, see illustrations on pls. 58-68, and note in particular the long beard and the wreath often given to Chiron, in contrast with the shorter beard of Peleus. The costume worn by the centaur is peculiar because of the oddity of his anatomy, but it is generally short even when it is a mantle and not a

chiton or a fitted tunic. Only one vase, a Nikosthenic amphora by Oltos, LIMC no. 42, ca. 520-510 B.c., gives the full outline of a buttock against the horse body, as if the human portion of the figure were clothed separately. But what is admissible in vase painting (twodimensional and allusive) may be impossible in sculpture in the round. For a Roman centaur probably teaching Achilles how to box, see Henry S. Robinson, "Chiron at Corinth," AJA 73 (1969): 193-97 (time

of Caracalla). *] owe this suggestion to Prof. Evelyn B. Harrison. For the Homeric mention see Odyssey 4.450—61 (entire episode: vv. 384—570). For the mention on the Amyklai Throne see Pausanias 3.18.16 (note

that also Chiron appears on the Throne). On Triton and the Old Man from the Sea see R. Glynn, "Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens," AJA 85 (1981): 121—32, and G. Ahlberg-Cornell, Herakles and the Sea-Monster in Attic BlackFigure Vase Painting. * Contrast, for instance, the statue of the so-called Striding Poet,

discussed at some length by W. Gauer, "Die griechischen Bildnisse,” pp. 169-75 and fig. 37; Gauer dates it contemporary with the Ana-

kreon, ca. 440, although it is quite different in style and probably by a Boiotian master. On this type, the mantle is being pulled up by the right hand, yet it does not ride as high on the leg as on the Porticello piece, nor does it contour the body as closely.

106

THE

PORTICELLO

personages. Its closest parallel can be seen, in sculpture, on figure 10 among the various depictions from the base of Agorakritos’ Nemesis at Rhamnous. The base, as described by Pausanias and reconstructed by V. G. Kallipolitis, showed Helen being introduced to her real mother Nemesis by Leda and Tyndareos, in front of the

SHIPWRECK

Achilles, Hippeus, and two more heroes, brothers of Oinoe. The scene, despite Pyrrhos's anachronistic pres-

Chiron, could Porticello S2 then belong te the young ward of the centaur, perhaps in a group with two more athletic youths? If identikit sketches of the second head found on the Porticello wreck and never seen by the authorities are reliable, it depicted a younger man with a considerably shorter beard, but bearded nonetheless. At the present state of our knowledge, it would be futile to venture additional identifications and suggestions, although several come to mind. It should perhaps be

ence, may represent Helens engagement to Menelaos

added, however, that the genitals recovered among the

before the Trojan War. Among the extant fragments, figure 10 preserves the all-important lower torso, with short mantle wrapped around hips and thighs; the upper body is reconstructed as having the garment descend in front from the left shoulder. The figure wearing it is identified as Pyrrhos.* In discussing the piece, Kallipolitis points out its few iconographic parallels. In addition to the base it-

fragments seem also to belong to a younger person, perhaps a hero, given the small size of the penis, which was reputedly considered a standard of beauty and nobility

self, dated around 410 B.c., the costume recurs on the

garment, unless this last should be connected with the

so-called Gandy Deering relief from Rhamnous, commemorating a torch race and probably carved toward the

bearded head. Whether the total group depicted Chiron and the young Achilles, perhaps also in the presence of Peleus and other youthful charges of the wise teacher, it is now impossible to state. It may even be helpful to repeat that no assurance exists as to the connection of all fragments, which may well belong to independent statues rather than to a single narrative group. Be that as it

Dioskouroi,

Menelaos,

Agamemnon,

Pyrrhos

son

of

end of the fourth century. Ashmole believes the short

mantle may indicate a trainer or suggest a person who needs to disrobe quickly. A third example is provided by another fourth-century relief, to Asklepios, where the

garment is worn by one of the healing god's sons.5 The

among Classical Greeks.* On strictest evidence, it can only be stated that the

Porticello sculptures depicted an elderly and probably mythologico/monstrous creature, at least two young men in athletic nudity, and perhaps a third wearing a short

Porticello bronze provides a fourth, earlier instance of

may,

the fashion. If the youth on the Rhamnous base is Pyrrhos, could the garment be typical also of his father? If not to

fragmentation, represent one of the most exciting archaeological finds of recent years and are superior examples of Classical Greek art.”

“Nemesis base: V. G. Kallipolitis, “Hé basé tou agalmatos tés

Asklepios relief: Athens National Museum 1426; N. Svoronos, Das Athener Nationalmuseum, pl. 69, first son from left. See, for example, K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, pp.

Ramnousias Nemesés," ArchEph

1978 (publ. 1980): 1-90, pls. 1-32;

for figure 10, see p. 65 and pl. 13. A different reconstruction has been suggested by Basile Petrakos, "La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite (Rapport préliminaire),” BCH

105 (1981): 227—53, but his comments

concern the arrangement of the slabs rather than the individual figures and do not affect this particular issue of identification and costume. ®Gandy Deering relief: Bernard Ashmole, "Torch-Racing at Rhamnus," AJA

66 (1962): 233—34

fig. 59; the relief is in two frag-

ments, one in Athens, one in the British Museum.

the Porticello bronzes,

even

in their tantalizing

125-29.

*' See also Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, “The Bronzes from the Porticello Wreck,” Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plastik, Acts of an International Colloquium in Athens, April 22-25, 1985 (Mainz am Rhein, 1986), II, 59-69.

VI

CONCLUSIONS

final voyage involves identification of the source or sources of the items in the cargo and determination of the cargo’s lading; this information may show the order in which the cargo items were put into the hold and thus possibly the order of the different ports where the ship called before sinking. It is only occasionally, however, that the ideal method produces the desired results. Sometimes the source or sources of cargo items cannot be firmly established. Often the cargo is virtually homogeneous, indicating that the ship made only one stop. A shipwreck may not have been excavated with sufficient

and bronze sculpture from unidentified sources. Several different courses are suggested by this cargo; the ship may have begun her voyage in Byzantion and proceeded to Mende and then to Athens, where the lead ingots and perhaps the sculpture, the amphoras of Type 3, and the ink were taken aboard. Sailing to a western port—Taras, Syracuse, and Rhegion all seem likely possibilities—she acquired the salt fish that had been shipped there on another vessel. Making her way through the Straits of Messina toward a port or ports farther west or north, she sank. A second alternative is that she started her trip at Athens, a likely entrepót for both those parts of the

care to reveal the cargo lading. Too often a wreck is

cargo from the northern Aegean region and those from

so poorly preserved, for one reason or another, that the deposit does not give up the hoped-for information. Ships undoubtedly took on cargoes brought from several

Attica itself. A third and distinct possibility is that she was a ship of purely western connections, and picked up the entire cargo at a single major western city where the various items had been carried by the other ships and left for further distribution. Whether cabotage was the normal maritime trade procedure in antiquity is still the subject of considerable

THE ideal method for determining the course of a ships

sources to an entrepét such as Athens or Syracuse. In such cases, the archaeologist must rely on the informa-

tion afforded by finds in the galley or storage areas for clues to the nationality of the captain and crew, and any passengers; possibly the hull and fittings can provide additional information. At Porticello, the looting of the site

destroyed any evidence of lading that might have existed and also probably had some effect on the personal belongings of the crew. Nevertheless, the wreck offers considerable information about maritime trade in the western Mediterranean around the year 400 B.c. The Porticello ship was carrying a mixed cargo of ) wine from Byzantion,

Mende,

and one other city; salt !

fish from a Punic site; lead ingots from Laurion; and ink I ‘Keith DeVries, "Greek, Etruscan, and Phoenician Ships and / Shipping," p. 39, and Michael L. Katzev, "The Kyrenia Ship," p. 50, both in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, ed. George F. Bass; Susan W. Katzev and Michael L. Katzev," Last Harbor for the Oldest Ship," National Geographic 146, no. 5 (Nov.,

1974): 618-25; Helena Wylde Swiny and Michael L. Katzev, "The

discussion.' The evidence is equivocal, and it is reason-

able to imagine that several practices were followed contemporaneously. It is clear, for example, that ships carrying only grain from the Black Sea or Sicily to Athens sailed directly to Piraeus without stopping to buy or sell

along the way.* On the other hand, in a speech of Demosthenes, several alternate routes between Pontus and

Athens involving stops at various ports and the on- and off-loading of goods are brought forth as evidence in court proceedings and so must have had some ring of Kyrenia Shipwreck: A Fourth-Century B.c. Greek Merchant Ship," Marine Archaeology, ed. D. J. Blackman, Colston Papers 23, pp. 35355, 357-58.

*This was clearly the plan of the merchant Protus, who had borrowed money from Demo to purchase a cargo of grain in Sicily and bring it to Athens, in Demosthenes 32, Against Zenothemis.

|

108

THE

PORTICELLO

truth to them.‘ Even so, the remains of the Porticello

wreck provide no clear indication as to which was the case with our ship. We must ask whether the Porticello ship was capable of sailing the considerable distance between the Bosporus and the Straits of Messina and farther. Very little indeed is known about the size of merchant vessels

prior to the third century B.c., and from that time forward the evidence is difficult to interpret and to convert to a single, convenient unit of measure, owing to the diversity of units of capacity used in antiquity. H. T. Wallinga has shown that there was no single unit used for ancient ships, just as there is none for today’s vessels.* Modern scholars normally try to measure ancient merchant ships by their length or their capacity in metric tons (= 1,000 kg), rather than the weight of the vessel itself (its register). This is both legitimate and necessary because of the need to reduce as much as possible the confusion already inherent in this problem. Lionel Casson has argued that in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds the smallest capacity found generally useful for merchant vessels making long overseas voyages was about 70 or 80 tons; a popular size was 250 tons.* Ships preferred for the transport of grain during the Roman empire ranged from 340 to perhaps 1,300 tons burden. He believes that the estimates of earlier scholars are much too low, Torr, for example, having argued that 250 tons was the largest and 150 tons the average capacity.® These numbers, however, refer to periods later than Porticello. The only evidence we have for Greek merchant vessels of the late fifth century occurs in Thucydides 4.118, a passage describing the terms of a truce made between Sparta and Athens in 423 B.c. Here the Spartans were limited to cargo ships having a capacity of five hundred talents, or about thirteen metric tons. Yet this passage is of little use for our purposes because it refers to rowed merchant vessels “which could be transformed at a moments notice into more or less serviceable men-of-war."* The discovery by archaeologists of more merchant vessels and their cargoes in undisturbed conditions will eventually make up for the lack of historical data. For

SHIPWRECK

now, we must proceed with some caution in discussing the several sizes of merchantmen. The Kyrenia ship, as we have seen, was about 14 m long and had a capacity of about twenty-five tons.?* The Porticello ship may have been on the order of 16 or 17 m 'and had perhaps a capacity of thirty tons (see supra 'p. 13). Again, it must be emphasized that the figures for , Porticello are very approximate. Determining where these two vessels fit in the range of sizes commonly in use during the fifth and

fourth centuries B.C. is easier for the Kyrenia ship than for Porticello. Casson has argued that, "from the fifth century B.C. on, carriers of from 100 to 150 tons burden were in common use while those of from 350 to 500 tons,

though obviously considered big, were by no means rare."? In fact, however, evidence exists only for vessels of the late fourth century, contemporaries of the Kyrenia ship. Although small in comparison with some other merchantmen of the time, the Kyrenia ship, it is clear, was capable of sailing from Samos to Cyprus and had enjoyed a very long life of overseas trading. The much earlier and much smaller ship from Cape Gelidonya (9 to 10 m in length, cargo of one ton) had the potential for trading anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean." Consequently, I see no difficulty in imagining that the Porticello ship was technically capable of undertaking the lengthy voyage from the Bosporus to the Tyrrhenian Sea. Whether she did, in fact, make that voyage, or whether those cargo items from the east were transshipped to a western entrepót by another, perhaps larger, vessel, must remain a mystery. By taking a different approach to the question of Porticellos size, that taken by Pomey and Tchernia in their discussion of the maximum tonnage of Roman merchant vessels, might one shed some light on the question of its typicalness? Pomey and Tchernia have shown that size depends less on a knowledge of building techniques than on economic considerations." The size of a vessel must be appropriate to the size of the market it serves, not just to the length of the voyage. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine small vessels like Porticello operating contemporaneously with 100-ton grain carriers sailing, for example, between the Black Sea and Piraeus.

3Demosthenes 35, Against Lacritos. *H. T. Wallinga, "Nautika (I). The Unit of Capacity for Ancient Ships," Mnemosyne 17 (1964): 1-40.

*Lionel Casson, "The Size of Ancient Merchant Ships," Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, pp. 231-38.

*Cecil Torr, Ancient Ships, p. 25. *Wallinga, "Nautika (D," pp. 36-37. *J. Richard Steffy, “The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction," AJA 89 (1985): 100.

*Lionel Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, pp. 111-12 and 182-84. "George F. Bass et al., Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck, TAPS 57, no. 8 (1967): 142, 163. ! Patrice Pomey and André Tchernia, "Le tonnage maximum des navires de commerce romains,” Archeonautica 2 (1978): 233-51. Thanks are due to Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., for bringing this article to my attention.

CONCLUSIONS

There are additional economic considerations. What little we know of merchant ventures in the tury suggests that they were undertaken on small scale.'? This seems to have been the case with prises, such as building projects and silver

fourth cena relatively

109

preferred to have the capability of calling at the many small ports as well as at the few large ones. Conse-

quently, what modest-sized ships sacrificed in speed and

in overseas merchant ventures, include the lack of capi-

economies of scale they made up for in versatility and practicality. Two ships excavated at Yassi Ada, Turkey, together with information from the Rhodian Sea Law, focus our attention on the importance of small merchant vessels in the Byzantine era. Ships of about 20 m length like the two from Yassi Ada gradually replaced the

tal in the hands of any one individual interested in un-

340- to 1,300-ton

dertaking an enterprise on a large scale. In the case of maritime trade, the reasons for small-scale operations can be understood even more easily. The dangers and

Alexandria-to-Rome trade." Several factors, outlined by van Doorninck, were responsible for the change: When the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople, the grain trade from Egypt had a shorter run; the population had decreased in size; and the statesubsidized merchant fleets of large ships were gradually replaced, for economic reasons, by vessels of smaller di-

other entermining, for

which we have direct evidence in the form of inscriptions. A. W. Gomme pointed this out long ago." The reasons behind the modest scale of these undertakings, as

risks involved in maritime trade were even greater than

those in other forms of investment. This has often been the reason cited to explain the very high interest rates charged for maritime loans. There are, however, further manifestations: the investment in cargo and the investment in the ship itself. It was necessary for a shipowner or captain to obtain loans from several investors in order to raise the necessary capital to finance a voyage; because of the risks involved in maritime trade, this practice protected the investor from losing a great deal of

money if the ship sank. In other words, several investors shared the risk of a single trading venture. But what about the investment in the ship itself? Little has been made of this aspect of the risks of sea trade. If the ship sank, her owner lost an asset of no small proportions, one which was not cheaply—or quickly—replaced. If the ship was very large, the loss was even greater than if the ship was of modest size. Undoubtedly, shipowners recognized that there was a point of diminishing returns,

and this knowledge contributed to determination of the size of the smallest vessel practical for international trade. The largest size would have been determined not only by market considerations mentioned above and by the wealth of a shipowner or owners but also by the capabilities of the harbors where the ship planned to call. In Hellenistic and Roman times, there were more and larger harbors available in the Mediterranean, and this fact may explain in part a great increase in the size of the merchant ships that we learn of in the texts. In the fifth and fourth centuries, however, the situation may have been considerably different, and captains may have Lionel Casson, “Traders and Trading: Classical Athens,” Expedition 21, no. 4 (1979): 25-32.

monsters

that had been

used for the

mensions.'5 Although the owners of these ships played an important role in the empires economy and in the religious and secular life of the state, they were men of relatively modest means. For many of the same reasons,

the merchant ships of the Classical era must also have been small. All this indicates that there is no very good reason to suppose that the Porticello ship was anything but a

typical merchant vessel of the Classical period, modest in size but capable of sailing considerable distances when conditions were good. It is equally possible that her voyages were confined to the western Mediterranean. We encounter several constraints in trying to determine the port or ports where she was bound. It is equally likely that she was planning to stop at several places as at only one. What does seem certain is that her possible goals were somewhere along the coasts of western Italy, southern France, northeastern Spain, or the

islands of Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearics. It is improbable that she was heading back to the Aegean or even to the shores of the Ionian Sea with this cargo,

much of which had already passed that way. The cargo does provide some clues about the vessel's destination. We have seen in chapter IV that, while

Mendean amphoras (Type 1) enjoyed wide distribution from

the

farthest

reaches

of the

Black

Sea to Motya,

their documented appearance in the west is so far limited to Motya. The type is not well understood, however,

BA. W. Gomme, “Traders and Manufacturers in Greece," Essays in Greek History and Literature, pp. 42-66. J. Richard Steffy, "Nautical Archaeology Construction Tech-

eight-ton cargo when she sank but was capable of carrying sixty tons. See also George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., Yassi Ada, vol. I, A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, pp. 86, 163. Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., "Byzantium, Mistress of the

niques of Ancient Ships," Naval Engineers Journal Oct., 1975, p. 87, has calculated that the Yassi Ada Byzantine ship was carrying a thirty-

ology, ed. George F. Bass, p. 139.

Sea: 330-641," A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archae-

110

THE

PORTICELLO

and further study would undoubtedly reveal additional examples in the west. As is expected, Punic amphoras (Type 2) enjoy a much greater distribution in the west:

Sicily, Sardinia, the Egadi Islands, the littorals of Narbonne and Catalonia, and Metauros in southern Italy. With the exception of the examples found in Corinth, the distribution of Type 3 jars (West Greek) is more circumscribed; these have been documented at Megara Hyblaea, Motya, Francavilla Marittima, Lipari, Marza-

memi, Selinunte, and Agrigento. Those from Byzantion (Type 4) have hitherto not been found in the west. Other trade items from the wreck could conceivably have found a market virtually anywhere in the west: sculpture, ink, lead. What we need to determine, if we can, is where those objects were most likely slated to go and if they were all destined for the same place. One of the difficulties in making these determinations is that the Porticello ship sailed at a time when, according to archaeologists and historians studying the western Mediterranean, there was a gap in imports from mainland and East Greece in some areas. As a result, evidence normally relied on for dating the local pottery and events is limited." Another difficulty in determining the Porticello ships ports of call is that the kinds of items in the cargo constitute exactly the sorts of objects which either are not preserved on land sites (e.g., the metals, lead ingots, and bronze sculpture) or, until recent years, have not enjoyed the careful attention of archaeologists (e.g., coarse pottery of the sort that amphoras and inkpots are made from) unless the vessels are complete. A third difficulty is that the years we are dealing with, the last fifteen years of the fifth century and the first fifteen years of the fourth, were a time of great change in the political fortunes of Mediterranean states, a time when political alliances were undergoing change or experiencing inter-

ruptions. A few of these events are: the Athenian expedition to Syracuse; the resurgence of Carthage as a military power in the west; the siege and destruction of the city-states of Sicily by the Carthaginians; the rise to power of Dionysius I of Syracuse, his expedition to Etruria, and his destruction of Motya; the invasion

SHIPWRECK of Massalia, Etruria, and Rome by the, Gauls; and the continuing decline of Attic imports to Etruria. The degree to which trading alliances or commercial practices echoed political vicissitudes is still the subject of considerable debate." The number of places listed above, where Mendean, Punic, and our West Greek amphoras have been found, suggests that the Porticello ship might have been a vessel engaged in a coastal trade circumnavigating Sicily. Yet the possibility exists that she was heading farther afield, to Etruria, to the southern coast of France, or to

the Mediterranean coast of Spain. There is no doubt that she could have found markets for her cargo in one or more of these regions. Admittedly, Etruria and Spain may have been well supplied with their own lead, although in fact we do not know for certain whether lead and silver mines at Campiglia Marittima and on Sardinia were being exploited at this time; we do not know the status of the mines in Spain; and we do not know whether trade in lead and silver from these regions crossed national boundaries. If not, it may have been necessary for Greeks in the west to import lead from Laurion or other Greek-controlled mines in the Aegean. As for the products that came in jars, pickled or salt fish was a dietary staple, and, like wine, the products of different regions had different properties and flavors. Fish and other foodstuffs carried in Punic jars enjoyed a considerable vogue around the western Mediterranean littoral; the evidence for the popularity is particularly good in the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. and later, in southern France and to a lesser degree in Greek Spain. Evidence for the latter part of the fifth century B.C. is very slight or completely lacking, but most scholars believe that the trade was continuous nevertheless. The Porticello wreck appears to confirm the belief in continuity, if one accepts the possibility that the ship was

bound for France or Spain." We are on less firm ground for the destination of the Greek wine on the ship; nothing can be said for certain about the wine in our Type 3 and Type 4 jars. Mendean wine, however, is one of the few vintages which has made its way into the written record, a cargo of it being

‘°F. R. Hodgson and R. M. Rowlett, "From 600 B.c. to the Ro-

man Conquests," in France before the Romans, ed. S. Piggott, G. Daniel, and C. McBurney, pp. 158, 188; Peter S. Wells, "West-Central Europe and the Mediterranean: The Decline in Trade in the Fifth Century B.C.," Expedition 21, no. 4 (1979): 18-24; John Boardman,

"The Athenian Pottery Trade: The Classical Period," Expedition 21, no. 4 (1979) 33-39. "See, for example, Fernand Benoit, "Relations commerciales en-

tre le monde ibéro-punique et le midi de la Gaule de l'époque archaique à l'époque romaine," REA 63 (1961): 321-30; H. Gallet de

Santerre, “La diffusion de la céramique attique aux Vé et IVè siècles avant J.-C. sur les rivages francais de la Méditerranée," RAN 10 (1977): 33-57; Gilbert Picard, Carthage, pp. 85, 92-93. As Jacques Heurgon has so succinctly said, "The phenomena of civilization do not trot so obediently at the heels of political events," in The Rise of Rome to 264 B.C., trans. James Willis, p. 159. "Yves Solier, "Céramiques puniques et ibéro-puniques sur le littoral du Languedoc du VI siècle au debut du II siècle av. J.-C.." RStLig 34 (1968): 148; Benoit, "Relations commerciales,” pp. 321-30.

CONCLUSIONS

the subject of one of Demosthenes’ lawsuits." Mendean wine jars traveled far: well up into the Black Sea and as far west as Motya.™ It is not difficult to imagine that there was a demand for it in Spain, France, or central

Italy, either because it was very good or because it was very cheap. Finally, we must try to imagine where the bronze sculpture was destined. A monumental bronze statue is the sort of item that must have been commissioned, its

cost being so great that no sculptor would have undertaken to produce it unless he had a buyer. The presence of three or more bronzes on the ship raises the question of whether they formed a group or were separate works with separate buyers; we cannot answer this question now, nor can we make definite suggestions about the ul-

timate destination of the sculptures. Both Inez Scott Ryberg and Einar Gjerstad have observed that it was about the year 400 B.c. that commercial relations be-

tween Rome and Athens, which had been in decline since about 450, began. to revive, and that about the same time Attic imports to Etruria were even more se-

verely limited than had been the case in the preceding fifty years.” Populonia® and Pyrgi,? however, are two Etruscan cities that recent excavations have shown were flourishing in the fifth and fourth centuries B.c.,

and Maja Sprenger has shown that Greek influence on Etruscan sculpture was continuous.“ The expedition of Dionysius I of Syracuse against Pyrgi in 384 certainly bears out the notion that that city offered some form of

political or economic threat to Syracusan interests.* In Greek colonial sites in southern France and in Catalonia on the northeastern coast of Spain, the period of our concern, 415-385 B.c., has been part of consid-

erable discussion for some time now. Since 1960, when Villard theorized that Massalia suffered economic decline, which manifested itself in a decrease of Greek imports in the entire area during the course of the fifth century,” others have directed their efforts to testing the theory, and most recently Gallet de Santerre has made a review of the evidence turned up.” His study shows that a gap or hiatus in Greek pottery imports (including not Demosthenes 35, Against Lacritos. 9Joseph B. Brashinsky, "Amphori Mende),"

Akademiia

Nauk

SSSR

(1976):

Mendi 67-74.

(Amphoras See

also

from supra

pp. 39-42. "Inez Scott Ryberg, An Archaeological Record of Rome from the Seventh to the Second Century B.C., pp. 51-81; Einar Gjerstad, Early

Rome IV, pt. 2, 599.

* Anna Marguerite McCann, Joanne Bourgeois, and Elizabeth Lyding Will, "Underwater Excavations at the Etruscan Port of Populonia," JFA 4 (1977) for the bibliography on p. 277, notes 4 and 5.

© Pyrgi, NSc 24 (1970) Supp.

111

only red figure but also black figure and black glaze) does not occur in the first half of the fifth century at most sites, and in the second half of the century imports of red figure increase almost everywhere, except at Emporion and Massalia. Gallet de Santerre also offers us a convenient review of several theories of trade patterns in the western Mediterranean for this period. Benoit theorized that Massalia served as broker for Attic imports to a reduced number of dependent cities; recent archaeological finds, however, do not support his ideas. J. Jehasse and L. Jehasse sketched an elaborate and ever-changing string of commercial alliances for Aleria, finding its strongest ties in the long period 500 to 340 to be with cities on the Iberian peninsula other than Emporion; before 415 it had strong, direct ties with Athens.” Afterward, Aleria's

trade passed through Taras or Syracuse. Trias de Arribas continues to support the thesis of slackening imports from Attica to Massalia, in contrast to Emporion, where imports increased after 480. He envisions a trade route between Athens and Emporion with a necessary stag-

ing point or intermediary in southern Italy, perhaps Neapolis, and possibly another at Aleria; the importance of this route was that it bypassed Massalia and the Gulf of Lyon. Jully stressed the economic independence of Emporion and Massalia, each having its own sphere of influence in the neighboring oppida; he further felt that Bessan, the oppidum at La Monédière, and other op-

pida were dependent on Emporion in a commercial circuit that strictly excluded Massalia.? This circuit may have included Aleria, Etruria, and the Greek cities on the Straits of Messina. This review has the merit not only of showing the complexity of commercial relations and economic ties which might have existed at the time the Porticello ship sailed but also serves to point out how very little we actually know about how trade was conducted. The Porticello ship contributes little to a solution of these uncertainties. There is no difficulty in imagining that she could have been a part of any of the commercial scenarios described above. This possibility serves as a reminder that trade between the eastern and western ^ Maja Sprenger, Die etruskische Plastik des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und ihr Verhältnis zur griechischen Kunst. S Diodorus Siculus 15.14.3. * Francois Villard, La céramique grecque de Marseille, VI-IV siècle. “Gallet de Santerre, “La diffusion," pp. 33-57. Jean Jehasse and Laurence Jehasse, La nécropole pré-romain d'Aléria (1960-68), Gallia Supp. 25.

* Jean Jacques Jully, La céramique attique de la Monédière, Bessan, Hérault, Collection Latomus, vol. CXXIV, passim.

112

THE

PORTICELLO

ends of the Mediterranean was not restricted to Attic pottery. The Porticello ship gives us a sampling of some of the kinds of articles sent west from other parts of Greece: wine, ink, lead, bronze sculpture. As mentioned earlier, these articles are the kinds which are not

preserved on land sites, have not enjoyed the full attention of land archaeologists until recent times, or have not

been blessed by discovery. Gallet de Santerre made this observation with regard to red figure pottery in the west: early in the fifth century, red figure was a luxury

SHIPWRECK

rivets in pottery mends; roof tiles, floors, cistern and vat linings, iron clamp fixtures; sling bullets; lamps, pots, cinerary urns and sarcophagi; statuettes and as an alloy with bronze; traces in silver coins and other silver objects; solder; seals, stamps, tablets, tokens, and tickets;

white and red coloring agents, and weights; on ships, hull sheathing and patches, anchor parts, fishing weights, brailing rings and scuppers. We are moving rapidly toward a better understand-

ing of the morphology of Punic amphoras; many have recently been found at Corinth, suggesting that salt fish

product likely to have been found primarily in graves; the sites which have produced the most red figure are those whose necropoleis have been excavated.” The

from the west was appreciated in mainland Greece and that fish from the Black Sea enjoyed no monopoly

same sort of situation may be true of transport amphoras;

there.* The Punic amphoras at Corinth and those from

although they are not luxury items (nor were their contents) most found complete have come from cemeteries. Ships such as that of Porticello might have engaged in coastal trade or served to supply one port only; this is the advantage that merchant vessels of modest propor-

assemblages of contemporary Punic jars from single deposits outside of Motya and provide direct evidence that Punic peoples had something to offer Greeks other than

Porticello, although of different types, form the largest

the metals and luxury items that are prominent in the

tions have over large ships. Gallet de Santerre, furthermore, has postulated that the commerce which developed along the Mediterranean coasts of France and

written record. The presence of Punic amphoras in the same cargo

Catalonia is more diversified than previously supposed.” The great metropoleis such as Massalia and Emporion must not have been the only settlements engaged in the activity. Other coastal towns and those on rivers and streams penetrating the interior must also have played a part, as did towns on the marshes of Languedoc. If ves-

in the period of Carthaginian retirement from foreign relations that characterized the years between the battle

sels such as the Porticello ship engaged in this trade, we

can easily imagine that our ship called at one port after another, selling a few jars of wine, an ingot or part of one, and a pot of ink, before moving on to another place where the captain knew from experience that he would be able to sell some of his merchandise. The likelihood of a single amphora or inkpot acquired in this way turning up in a habitation is very slight indeed. Perhaps the only

town where the ship captain definitely intended to call was the city where the bronze sculpture had been commissioned. The Porticello ship serves as a reminder that greater vigilance is needed in seeking evidence for trade in items other than durable, easily recognizable Attic pottery. Admittedly, bronze statuary cannot be expected to turn up on land sites. Lead in ingot form is virtually unknown, but small quantities enjoying everyday use can be tested for their isotope makeup, and eventually a large enough body of data will be available to permit a better understanding of the lead trade: uses include lead

with items essentially Greek in origin reminds us that,

of Himera and the invasion of Sicily by Himilco, com-

merce between Punic and Greek peoples was not at a complete standstill.? André Jodin has postulated that between the fifth and second centuries B.c. the predominant foreign influence in Punic sites was Greek.* The mixture of Greek and Punic products on the

ship also emphasizes the absolute necessity that we cease assuming that trade items of one city-state or nation were necessarily carried on ships of the same nationality. This in turn raises the question of the nationality of the Porticello ship and her crew, a point we cannot determine with any degree of certainty, however. The hull and fittings correspond to what we know of Greek naval construction, but we know nothing of Punic shipbuilding for this period, and nothing about Etruscan merchant vessels. The only exception to the Greekness of the Porticello ship fittings is the lead of the anchor stocks, which may be of Italian or Levantine origin or may be a mixture of leads from different sources. Those items from the stern storage area whose origins can be ascertained also point to the Greek world, but, as has

been mentioned, the lamps and cups are the sort of Attic pots that enjoyed wide popularity in the Mediterranean letter of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Spring,

%Gallet de Santerre, "La diffusion,” p. 50. #]Ibid., p. 56.

* Charles K. Williams, "Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest," Hesperia 47 (1978): 1-39; Charles K. Williams, "Corinth 1978-79,” News-

1979): 4.

* Picard, Carthage, pp. 85, 92-93. * André Jodin, "Note préliminaire sur l'établissement pré-Romain de Mogador," Bulletin d'Archéologie Marocaine 2 (1957): 9—40.

CONCLUSIONS and could have been obtained by the captain virtually anywhere on his voyage. The mix we see on the Porticello ship— Greek, Punic, possibly West Greek, possibly Italian—encourages us to consider the truly international character of maritime trade. We must also ask why the ship sank. In the Straits of Messina at Porticello there are no deadly reefs such as

that which spelled doom for the ships at Yassi Ada. The Straits, nevertheless, were notorious throughout history as hazardous waters for sailors, and it may be that the ship got caught in currents or a storm—or both—that proved too much for her timbers to bear; this might particularly have been a problem if the hull was old. Foul

113

such as that at Kyrenia, that the ship met her demise at

the hands of pirates. Another possibility must also be considered: we know from the speeches of Demosthenes that unsavory characters engaging in maritime ventures occasionally scuttled a ship in order to profit financially

from multiple loans that they had taken out for the voyage.” The Straits ered an especially cause its waters perpetrators of the

of Messina might have been considgood spot to scuttle a ship simply bewere notoriously treacherous. The crime had only to be certain that they

did the deed near enough to shore that they could make it to safety themselves, either by swimming or by taking the ship's boat, and in deep enough water that the cargo

play—at the hands of pirates or commercial rivals—par-

could not be recovered by divers. Again, the Straits,

ticularly in the Straits, with their long history of everchanging control, certainly is a likely cause for her destruction. We do not, however, have direct evidence,

with their steeply sloping seabed, met these two criteria ideally. * Demosthenes 32, Against Zenothemis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations used here are those recommended in “Notes for

Contributors and Abbreviations,” American Journal of Archaeology 82 (1978): 3-10. See the list of abbreviations, under References, for full titles. Abubakr, Abdel Moneim,

and Ahmer Youssef Mustafa.

“The

Funerary Boat of Khufu.” Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. Vol. XII. Wiesbaden, 1971.

Ahlberg-Cornell, G. Herakles and the Sea-Monster in Attic Black-Figure Vase Painting. Stockholm, 1984. Alsop, Joseph. “Glorious Bronzes of Ancient Greece. Warriors from a Watery Grave.” National Geographic 163, no. 6 (June, 1983): 821-27.

Anderson, J. K. “Excavations on the Kofina Ridge, Chios.” BSA 49 (1954): 123-82.

Ardaillon, Edouard.

Les mines du Laurion dans l'antiquité.

Bass, George F., and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr. Yassi Ada. Vol. I, A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck. College Station, Tex., 1982. Bebko, W. Les épaves antiques du sud de la Corse. Corsica, 1971.

Bastia,

Becatti, G. Problemi fidiaci. Milan and Florence, 1951. Benoit, Fernand (1955a). “Amphores grecques d'origine ou de provenance marseillaise.” RStLig 21 (1955): 32-43. . "L'archéologie sous-marine en Provence.” RStLig 18

(1952): 266— 70.

. (1961a). Fouilles sous-marines, l'épave du Grand Con-

gloué à Marseille. Gallia Supplement 14. Paris, 1961. . (1955b). “Jas d'ancre et pièces d'outillage des épaves de Provence." RStLig 21 (1955): 117-26. . "Nouvelles épaves de Provence." Gallia 16 (1958): 5-39.

. “Nouvelles épaves de Provence

(III)"

Gallia

20

Paris, 1897. Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athenes

(1962): 147-76.

et de Rome, Fasc. 77.

. (1961b). "Rélations commerciales entre le monde ibéro-punique et le Midi de la Gaule de l'époque archaique

Ashmole, Bernard. “Torch-Racing at Rhamnus.” AJA 66 (1962): 233-34.

à l'époque romaine." REA 63 (1961): 321-30.

Ashmole, Bernard, and Nicholas Yalouris. Olympia: The Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus. London, 1967. Bailey, Donald M. A Catalogue of Lamps in the British Museum. Vol. I, Greek, Hellenistic, and Early Roman Pottery Lamps. London, 1975.

Bernabd-Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier. MeligunisLipara. Vol. II, La necropoli greca e romana nella contrada Diana. Palermo, 1965. Besnier, M. "Le commerce du plomb à l'époque romain après les lingots estampillés.” RA, 5ème sér., 12 (1920): 211—44;

Barnes, I. L., W. R. Shields, T. J. Murphy, and R. J. Brill. “Iso-

13 (1921): 36-74; 14 (1921): 98-130. Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., and A. Giuliano.

topic Analysis of Laurion Lead Ores.” Pp. 1-10 in Archaeological Chemistry, edited by Curt W. Beck. Advances in Chemistry 138. Washington, D.C., 1974. — Basch, Lucien. “Ancient Wrecks and the Archaeology of Ships.” IJNA 1 (1972): 1-58.

Bass, George F. Archaeology under Water. London and Baltimore, 1970.

. “A Byzantine Trading Venture.” Scientific American 225 (August, 1971): 22-33.

Bass, George F., Peter Throckmorton, Joan du Plat Taylor, J. B. Hennessy, Alan R. Shulman, and Hans-Ginter Buchholz. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. TAPS 57, no. 8 (1967).

Etruschi

e italici

prima del dominio di Roma. Milan, 1973. Bisi, Anna Maria. “Anse di anfore con lettere puniche da Selinunte.” Oriens Antiquus 6 (1967): 245-57.

. “La ceramica ellenistica di Lilibeo nel Museo Nazionale di Palermo.” ArchCl 19 (1967): 269-92.

. La ceramica punica, aspetti e problemi. Napoli, 1970. . “Erice (Trapani). Scoperta della necropoli punica e ricerche archeologiche nell’agro ericino.” NSc 25 (1971): 640-61.

. “Lilibeo (Marsala). Nuovi scavi nella necropoli punica (1969- 1970)." NSc 25 (1971): 662—762.

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY . “Recenti scoperte puniche in Sicilia.” Oriens. Anti-

quus 9 (1970): 249-58. Bivar, A. D. H. “A Hoard of Ingot-Currency of the Median Pe-

riod from Nush-I-Jan near Malayir." Iran 9 (1971): 97-112. Blackman, D. J. "Further Early Evidence of Hull Sheathing." IJNA 1 (1972): 117-19. Boardman, John. "The Athenian Pottery Trade: The Classical Period." Expedition 21, no. 4 (1979): 33-39. Bol, Peter Cornelius. Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia.

Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles. Vol. I, American Studies in Papyrology. New Haven, Conn., 1966.

. "Traders and Trading: Classical Athens." Expedition 2], no. 4 (1979): 25-32. Chamoux, F. Fouilles de Delphes. Vol. IV, pt. 5, L'Aurige. Paris, 1955. Cintas, Pierre. Céramique punique. Paris, 1950. Congdon, L. O. K. Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient Greece. Mainz,

OlForsch 9. Berlin, 1978. . Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera.

Conophagos,

AthMitt BH 2. Berlin, 1972. Bon, A. M., and A. Bon. Études thasiennes. Vol. IV, Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos. Paris, 1957. Boon, George C. “A Greco-Roman Anchor-Stock from North Wales." Antiquaries' Journal 57 (1977): 10—30.

Grecs."

Boulakia, Jean David C. "Lead in the Roman World." AJA 76

(1972): 139-44.

Bouscaras, A. "Note sur les recherches sous-marines d'Agde." RStLig 30 (1964): 267-87. Braemer, Frangois, and Jean Marcadé. "Céramique antique et piéces d'ancre trouvées en mer à la pointe de la Kynosoura (Baie de Marathon)." BCH 77 (1953): 139-54. Brashinsky, Joseph B. "Amfori Mendi (Amphoras from Mende)." Akademiia Nauk SSSR 1976: 67—74. Brill, Robert H., and William R. Shields. "Lead Isotopes in

Ancient Coins." Pp. 279-303 in Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigations of Ancient Coinage, edited by

E. T. Hall and D. M. Metcalf. Royal Numismatic Society, Special Publication No. 8. London, 1972. Brill, Robert H., and J. M. Wampler. "Isotope Studies of An-

cient Lead.” AJA 71 (1967): 63-77.

Brill, Robert H., William R. Shields, and J. M. Wampler. "New

Directions in Lead Isotope Research." Pp. 73-83 in Application

of Science

in Examination

of Works

of Art,

edited by W. J. Young. Boston, 1973. Brommer, Frank. Die Metopen des Parthenon. Mainz, 1967. . Der Parthenon-Fries.

Mainz,

1977.

lation

1981.

Constantin.

du

"Une méthode

plomb

argentifére

Annales

geologiques

(1960): 137-49.

ignorée de coupel-

utilisée des

par

pays

les anciens

helléniques

11

Corbett, Peter E. "Attic Pottery of the Late Fifth Century from

the Athenian Agora." Hesperia 18 (1949): 298—351. Cordella, A. Le Laurium. Marseille, 1869. Cosma, Vasile. "Anchor Stocks from Tomis." IJNA 2 (1973): 235-41. . "Anchors from Tomis. 2." IJNA 4 (1975): 21-26. Crosby, Margaret. "The Leases of the Laureion Mines."

Hesperia 19 (1950): 189—312.

. "More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora." Hesperia 26 (1957): 1-23. Davies, Oliver. Roman Mines in Europe. Oxford, 1935. Defant, Albert. Physical Oceanography. 2 vols. New York, 1961. de Franciscis, A. “METAYPO.” AttiMGrecia 3 (1960): 21-67. Degrassi, N. Lo Zeus stilita di Ugento. Rome, 1981. Della Seta, A. Il nudo nell'arte. Milan and Rome, 1930. de Miro, Ernesto. "Agrigento. Scavi nell'area a sud del tempio di Giove." MonAnt 46 (1963): 81—198. Déonna, W. Exploration archéologique de Délos. Vol. XVIII, Le mobilier délien. Paris, 1938. de Pas, Monique. "Recherches sur les encres noires manuscrites.” Pp. 55-60 in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, No. 559. Paris, 1977. —DDeVries, Keith. “Greek, Etruscan, and Phoenician Ships and Shipping.” Pp. 38-64 in A History of Seafaring Based on

Underwater Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass. Lon-

Broneer, Oscar. “Excavations in Corinth, 1934." AJA 39 (1935): 53- 75. . "Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens." Hesperia 2 (1933): 329-417. . "A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis."

don, 1972. di Stefano, A. “Ischia Lead Foundry.” IJNA 4 (1975): 383-84. Dohrn, T. "L'Arringatore, capolavoro del Museo Archeologico

Bury, J. B., and Russell Meiggs. A History of Greece. 4th edi-

Domergue, C. "Les lingots de plomb romain du Musée Archéologique de Carthagéne et du Musée Naval de Madrid.” ArchEspArq 39 (1966): 41-72.

Hesperia 8 (1939): 317-433.

tion. New York, 1975.

Busignani, A. Glieroidi Riace: Daimonetechne. Florence, 1981. Carrazé, Frangois. "L'ancre de misericorde dans la marine antique." Archéologia 61 (August, 1973): 13-19. Carruba, A. M. "Der Ephebe von Selinunt. Untersuchungen und Betrachtungen anlässlich seiner letzen Restaurierung." Boreas 6 (1983): 44-60. Cary, M. “Sources of Silver for the Greek World." Pp. 133-42 in vol. I, Mélanges Gustav Glotz. Paris, 1932.

Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton, N.J., 1971.

. "The Size of Ancient Merchant Ships." Pp. 231-38 in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni. Milano, 1956. . "Studies in Ancient Sails and Rigging." Pp. 43—58 in

di Firenze." BdA 49 (1964): 97-116.

. "Les Planii et leur activité industrielle en Espagne sous la republique."

(1965): 9-25. Domergue,

C.,

F.

Mélanges de la Casa

Laubenheimer-Leenhardt,

Velásquez and B.

1

Liou.

"Les lingots de plomb de L. Carulius Hispallus." RAN 7

(1974): 119-37.

Dover, K. J. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Due bronzi da Riace. BdA s.s. 3. Vols. 1 and 2. Rome, 1984. Dumas, Frederic. "Exploration sommaire de certaines zones côtières d’iles de Marseille." CAS 1 (1972): 109-13. Ebert, Max. "Ausgrabungen auf dem Gute Maritzyn, Gouv. Cherson (Süd-Russland)." PZ 5 (1913): 1-80. Edwards, G. Roger. "Gordion: 1962." Expedition 5, no. 3 (1963): 42—48.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Eiseman, Cynthia Jones. “Amphoras from the Porticello Shipwreck (Calabria)." IJNA 2 (1973): 13-23. ——. (19753). "Classical Inkpots." AJA 79 (1975): 374-75.

. "Lead Ingots from the Porticello Shipwreck.” Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1978. . (1975b). "The Porticello Shipwreck." AINA Newsletter 2, no. 1 (1975):1-4.

. "The

Porticello

Shipwreck:

Lead

Isotope

Data."

MASCA Journal 1 (December, 1978): 18.

. "The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean

Mer-

chant Vessel of 415—385 B.c." Ph.D. diss., University of

Pennsylvania, 1979. Fiorentino, Paola, Maurizio Marabelli, Mario Micheli. "Inda-

gini e intervento di conservazione sui reperti bronzei di Porticello." BdA ser. 6, 24 (1984): 15-24.

Forbes, R. J. Studies in Ancient Technology. Leiden, 1964. Formigli, E. "Note sulla tecnologia nella statuaria bronzea greca del V sec. a.C." Prospettiva 23 (1980): 61—66.

Foti, Giuseppe. "Attività della Soprintendenza alle antichità della Calabria nel 1969." Klearchos 41—44 (1969): 137-46.

. "Attività della Soprintendenza alle antichità della Calabria nel 1970." Klearchos 47-48 (1970): 157-67. Frel, J. The Getty Bronze. Malibu, Calif., 1978.

113-64. /———.. "The First Season of Excavation on the Punic Wreck in Sicily." IJNA 2 (1973): 33-49.

‘ Frost, Honor, et al. "Lilybaeum (Marsala). The Punic Ship. Report." NSc Supplement

Gianfrotta, P. A. “Ancore ‘Romane.’ Nuovi materiali per lo studio dei traffici marittimi.” In “Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome.” MAAR 36 (1980): 103-16.

. “Un ceppo di C. Aquilo Proculo tra i rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini a Punta Licosia nel Cilento.” In Forma Maris Antiqui 1973-1974 10. Bordighera, 1980. . “First Elements for the Dating ofSome Anchor Stocks.”

IJNA 6 (1977): 285-92.

Gianfrotta, P. A., and Patrice storia, tecniche, scoperte Gjerstad, Einar. Early Rome. . The Swedish Cyprus

Pomey. Archeologia subacquea, e relitti. Milan, 1980. 6 vols. Lund, 1953-1973. Expedition. Vol. II. Stockholm,

1935.

Glynn, R. “Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens.” AJA 85 (1981): 121-32. Gomme, A. W. “Traders and Manufacturers in Greece.” Pp. 4266 in Essays in Greek History and Literature. Oxford, 1937.

Gowland, William. “The Early Metallurgy of Silver and Lead: Part I, Lead.” Archaeologia 57, no. 2 (1901): 359-422.

Grace, Virginia R. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book No. 6. Princeton, N.J., 1961.

. "The Greek View of Individual Physiognomy." In Greek Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu, Calif., 1981. Frey, Don, Faith D. Hentschel, and Donald H. Keith, "Deepwater Archaeology: The Capistello Wreck Excavations, Lipari, Aeolian Islands." IJNA 7 (1978): 279—300. : Frost, Honor. “The Discovery of a Punic Ship." IJNA 1 (1972):

Final Excavation 1976.

117

to Vol. 30.

Gale, N. H. "Some Aspects of Lead and Silver Mining in the Aegean Area." Pp.161-95 in Thera and the Aegean World. Vol. II, Papers and Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August, 1978. London, 1980.

. Gallet de Santerre, H. “La diffusion de la céramique attique aux V et IV siécles avant J.-C. sur les rivages francais de la Méditerranée." RAN 10 (1977): 33-57.

———. “Informations archéologique circonscription de Montpellier." Gallia 20 (1962): 622.

Gardtausen, Viktor. Griechische Palaeographie. Vol. I, Das Buchwesen im Altertum und in byzantinischen Mittelalter.

Leipzig, 1911.

Gargallo, P. N. "Anchors of Antiquity." Archaeology 14 (1961): 31-35.

Gauer, W. "Die griechischen Bildnisse der klassischen Zeit als politische und persönliche Denkmäler.” JdI 83 (1968): 169-75.

Gentili, Gino V. "Megara Hyblaea (Siracusa)— Tombe arcaiche e reperti sporadici nella proprietà della ‘Rasioni’ e tomba arcaica in predio Vinci." NSc 8 (1954): 80-113.

Gentner, W., O. Müller, G. A. Wagner, and N. H. Gale. "Silver Sources of Archaic Greek Coinage.” Die Naturwissenschaften 65, no. 6 (1978): 273-84.

. “The Canaanite Jar.” Pp. 80-109 in The Aegean and the Near East, Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, edited by S. S. Weinberg. Locust Valley, N.Y., 1956. . “Standard Pottery Containers of the Ancient Greek World.” Hesperia Supplement 8 (1949): 175-89. . “Wine Jars.” Pp. 101-10 in Cedric Boulter, “Pottery

of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora." Hesperia 22 (1953): 59-115. Grace, Virginia R., and Maria Savvatianou-Petropoulakou. “Les timbres amphoriques grecs.” Pp. 277-382 in Exploration archéologique de Délos. Vol. XXVII, L'ilot de la maison des comédiens. Paris, 1970. Haldane, Douglas. “The Wooden Anchor,” submitted to AJA. Harrison, Cynthia. “Coins of the Persian Satraps.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Harrison, Evelyn B. “Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion." AJA 81 (1977): 137-78, 265-87, 411-26.

. “Motifs of the City-Siege on the Shield of Athena Parthenos.” AJA 85 (1981): 281-317.

Haynes, D. E. L. “The Technique of the Chatsworth Head.” RA 1968: 102-12.

Hemelrijk,

J. M.

“Piece

Casting in the

Direct

Process.”

BABesch 57 (1982): 6-11.

Heurgon, Jacques. The Rise of Rome to 264 B.c., translated by James Willis. Los Angeles and Berkeley, 1973. Hodgson, F. R., and R. M. Rowlett. “From 600 B.c. to the Roman Conquests.” Pp. 157-91 in France before the Romans, edited by Stuart Piggott, Glynn Daniel, and Charles McBurney. London and Park Ridge, N.J., 1973. Holloway, R. Ross. “Exploration of the Southeast Stoa in the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 35 (1966): 79-85. Hopper, R. J. “The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B.C." BSA 48 (1953): 200-54.

. “The Laurion Mines: A Reconsideration.” BSA 63

(1968): 293-326.

Inan, J. “Der Bronzetorso im Burdur-Museum.” IstMitt 27-28 (1977-78): 267-96.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Isserlin, B. S. J., W. Culican, W. L. Brown, and A. TusaCutroni. “Motya 1955.” BSR 26 (1958): 1-29. Isserlin, B. S. J., E. MacNamara, J. N. Coldstream, G. Pike, J. du Plat Taylor, and A. M. Snodgrass. “Motya—A Phoenician-Punic Site near Marsala, Sicily. Preliminary Report of the Leeds-London-Farleigh Dickinson Excava-

tion, 1961-1963.” The Annual of Leeds University Orien-

tal Society 4 (1962-63): 84-131.

Austin, Tex., 1978.

Jacopi, G. “La necropoli di Pontamo.” Clara Rhodos 2 (1932): 117-64. Jehasse, Jean, and Laurence Jehasse. La nécropole pré-romain

d Aléria (1960-1968). Gallia Supplement 25. Paris, 1973. Jodin,

André.

“Note

préliminaire

Koehler, Carolyn G. Corinth. Vol. VII, pt. 5, Corinthian Transport Amphoras. American School of Classical Studies, forthcoming. . "Evidence around the Mediterranean for Corinthian Export of Wine and Oil." Pp. 232-39 in Beneath the Waters of Time. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, edited by J. Barto Arnold III.

sur l'établissement

pré-

romain de Mogador." Bulletin d'Archéologie Marocaine 2.

(1957): 9-40.

Johnson, B. L., C. G. Koehler, P. M. W. Matheson, and M. B. Wallace. "Measuring Amphora Capacities," submitted to JFA. Joncheray, J-P., et al. "Découverte d'une ancre en bois à jas de plomb sur une épave gréco-italique." CAS 1 (1972): 121-23. . “1974 Excavations on the Wreck of Bon Porté (Sixth Century B.c.)." IJNA 5 (1976): 88-89.

. "Handling of Greek Transport Amphoras." BCH Supplement 13 (1986): 49-67. Koehler, Carolyn G., and M. B. Wallace. “The Transport Amphoras: Description and Capacities.” Appendix to Cemal

Pulak and Rhys Townsend, “The Hellenistic Shipwreck at Serge Limani, Turkey:

(1987): 30-57.

Preliminary Report,” AJA

91

Kron, U. "Eine Pandion-Statue in Rom." Jdl 92 (1977): 139-68. Lamboglia, Nino. "Ricerche e scoperte d'archeologia sottomarina in Liguria dal 1959 al 1961." Pp. 176-92 in Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Sottomarina. Bordighera, 1971. Landstróm, Bjórn. Ships of the Pharaohs. Garden City, N.Y., 1970. Lang, Mabel, and Margaret Crosby. The Athenian Agora. Vol.

. "L'épave grecque, ou étrusque, de Bon Porté." CAS 5

X, Weights, Measures, and Tokens. Princeton, N.J., 1964.

(1976): 5-36. Jully, Jean Jacques. La céramique attique de la Monédiere, Bessan, Hérault. Collection Latomus. Vol. CXXIV. Brus-

Laubenheimer-Leenhardt, F. Recherches sur les lingots de cuivre et de plomb d'époque romaine dans les regions de

sels, 1973. Kahil, Lily. "Téte de bronze de Soloi (Chypre)." AntK 19

chéologique de Narbonnaise Supplement 3. Paris, 1973. Laures, E. Foerster. "Un ceppo de ancla romana, con decoration, frente a Taimiru." CRIS 152 (1976). Laviano, A., and F. Colosimo. "La testa del filosofo." Mondo Sommerso (January, 1970): 22-27. Lawn, Barbara. "University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XV." Radiocarbon 15, no. 2 (1973): 368-69.

(1976): 41—48.

Kallipolitis, V. G. "Hé basé tou agalmatos tés Ramnousias Nemesés.” ArchEph 1978: 1-90. Kapitän, Gerhard. "Ancient Anchors— Technology

fication.” IJNA 13 (1984): 33-44.

and Classi-

Languedoc-Roussillon et de Provence-Corse.

Revue Ar-

Delphin

Leffert, K. C., L. J. Majewski, Edward V. Sayre, and Pieter

(March, 1968): 14-16, 32. ——. “Explorations at Cape Graziano, Filicudi, Aeolian Islands, 1977.” IJNA 7 (1978): 269-77. ——. “Greco-Roman Anchors and the Evidence for the

Meyers. "Technical Examination of the Classical Bronze Horse from the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 21 (1981): 1—42. Leoni, M. "Techniques of Casting.” Pp. 170-77 in The Horses of San Marco, Venice. Milan and New York, 1979.

—.

(1968b).

"Der

Ankerfund

von

Syrakus."

One-armed Wooden Anchor in Antiquity.” Pp. 383-95 in Marine Archaeology, edited by D. J. Blackman. Colston Papers 23. London, 1973. . “Meeresarchäologie in Bulgarien—Ankerfunde im Schwarzen Meer." Das Logbuch 16 (1980): 45—58.

. (19683). "A New Type of Ancient Anchor Stock." Archaeology 21 (1968): 63. Karusos, Ch. "Chronikon tés anasystaseos tou chalkinou Neou tón Antikytherön.” ArchEph 1969: 59-70. Katzev, Michael L. "The Kyrenia Ship." Pp. 50-52 in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass. London, 1972. Katzev, Susan W., and Michael L. Katzev. "Last Harbor for the Oldest Ship." National Geographic 146, no. 5 (November,

1974): 618-25.

Keith, Donald H., with Donald A. Frey. "Saturation Diving in Nautical Archaeology." Archaeology 32 (1979): 24—33. Kleiner, G. "Das hellenistische Herrscherbild." Pp. 129-37 in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology, Festschrift P. H.

von Blanckenhagen. Locust Valley, N.Y., 1979. Knigge, Ursula. Kerameikos. Vol. IX, Der Südhügel. 1976.

Berlin,

Lewis, Naphthali. Greek Historical Documents, the Fifth Century B.C. Toronto, 1971. Linfert, Andreas. "Die Themistokles-Herme in Ostia." AntP 7 (1967): 87-94. Liou, Bernard. "Note provisoire sur deux gisements grecoétrusques (Bon Porté A et Pointe du Dattier)." CAS 3 (1974): 7-19. Lullies, R., and M. Hirmer. Greek Sculpture. New York, 1960. McCann, Anna Marguerite, Joanne Bourgeois, and Elizabeth

Lyding Will. "Underwater Excavations at the Etruscan Port of Populonia." JFA 4 (1977): 275-96. Mania, J. M. "Sobre tipologia de anforas punicas.” Cronica del VI Congresso arqueologico do sudeste Espanól, Alcoy 1950. Cartagena, 1951. '. Maniatis, Y. et. al. “Punic Amphoras Found at Corinth, Greece: An Investigation of Their Origin and Technology." JFA 11 (1984): 205-22. Marsden, Peter. "A Boat of the Roman Period Discovered on the Site of New Guy's House, Bermondsley, 1958." Trans-

actions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 21 (1965): 118-31.

BIBLIOGRAPHY . A Roman

Ship from Blackfriars, London.

London,

1966.

Matheson, P., M. Wallace, and M. B. Wallace. “Some Rhodian Amphora Capacities.” Hesperia 51 (1982): 294-320. Mattusch, Carol C. “The Berlin Foundry Cup: The Casting of Greek Bronze Statuary in the Early Fifth Century B.c.”

AJA 84 (1980): 435-44.

. “Bronze- and Iron-Working in the Area of the Athe-

nian Agora.” Hesperia 46 (1977): 340-79.

Metzler, D. Portrat und Gesellschaft. Uber die Entstehung des griechischen Porträts in der Klassik. Münster, 1971. Monte Sirai, Rapporto preliminare della missione archeologica dell'Università di Roma e della Soprintendenza alle antichita di Cagliari. 4 vols. Rome, 1964-1967.

Moscati, Sabatino.

The World of the Phoenicians.

London,

1968. Mozia, Rapporto preliminare della missione congiunta con la

Soprintendenza alle antichita della Sicilia occidentale. 9 vols. Rome, 1964-1978. Munn, Mary Lou Zimmerman. “Corinthian Trade with the West in the Classical Period.” Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1984. Münzen und Medaillen, A. G. Auktion 51. Basel, 1975.

Mussche, H. F., P. Spitaels, and F. Goemaere-De Poerck, eds. Miscellanea Graeca. Vol. I, Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times. Ghent, 1975. Mussche, H. F. et. al. Thorikos I, 1963 through Thorikos VI, 1969. Brussels, 1968-73. Ohly, D. Die Aegineten. Vol. I. Munich, 1976. Oliver-Smith, P. “The Houston Bronze Spearbearer.” AntP 15 (1975): 95-109.

Orlandini, Piero. “Impianto greco di bagni pubblici presso l'Ospizio." In P. Orlandini and D. Adamesteanu, “Gela— Nuovi Scavi." NSc 14 (1960): 67-246.

. "Vassallaggi, Scavi 1961, I. La necropoli meridionale." NSc 25 (1971): Supplement, 186-88. Orsi, Paolo. "Camarina. Campagne archeologiche del 1899 e

1903." MonAnt 14 (1904): 757-956.

. "Gela. Scavi del 1900-1905.” MonAnt 17 (1906): 1-766. Owen, David I. (1971b). "Archeosub nello Stretto di Messina." Magna Graecia 6 (1971): 6-8. . "Ausgrabung eines Schiffswracks aus dem 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in der Strasse von Messina." Antike Welt 4 (1973): 2-10. . (1971c). "A decade of underwater archaeology in the Mediterranean” (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot 4 (1971): 55-61. . (1971a). "Excavating a Classical Shipwreck." Archae-

ology 2A (1971): 118-29. . "Picking Up the Pieces: The Salvage Excavation of a Looted Fifth Century B.c. Shipwreck in the Straits of Messina." Expedition 13 (1970): 24—29. . "Straits of Messina (at Porticello)." IJNA 1 (1972): 197-98.

Paribeni, Enrico. "Le statue bronzee di Porticello." BdA, ser. 6, 24 (1984): 1-14. Parker, Anthony J. "The Evidence Provided by Underwater Archaeology for Roman Trade in the Western Mediterranean." Pp. 361-81 in Marine Archaeology, edited by D. J. Blackman. Colston Papers 23. London, 1973.

119 . "Lead Ingots from a Roman ship at Ses Salines, Ma-

jorca.” IJNA 3 (1974): 147-50.

. "Methods and Madness: Wreck Hunting in Shallow Water." Progress in Underwater Science 4 (1979): 7-27. . "Sicilia e Malta nel commercio marittimo dell'anti-

chità." Kokalos 22-23 (1976-77): 622-31.

Pascual Guasch, Ricardo. “Un nuevo tipo de anfora Punica.” ArchEspArq 42 (1969): 12-19. Paton, James Morton. The Erechtheum. Cambridge, Mass., 1927.

Pease, M. Z. “A Well of the Late Fifth Century at Corinth.” Hesperia 6 (1937): 257-316. Perez, J. Bravo, and J. Bravo Soto. “Vestigos del pasadao de Ceuta.” Immersiön y ciencia 4 (1972): 5-39. Petrakos, Basile. “La base de la Nemesis d’Agoracrite (Rapport préliminaire).” BCH 105 (1981): 227-53. Picard, Charles. Manuel d'archéologie grecque. Vol. II, pt. 2, La sculpture. Paris, 1939.

Picard, Gilbert. Carthage. London, 1964. Piepers, Wilhelm. “Teile römischer Schiffsanker vom Niederrhein.” BonnJbb 174 (1974): 561-66. Pomey, Patrice, and André Tchernia. “Le tonnage maximum des navires de commerce romains.” Archeonautica 2 (1978): 233-51. Ponsich, Michel, and Miguel Tarradell. Garum et industries antiques de salaison dans la Méditerranée occidentale. Paris,

1965.

Pyrgi. NSc 24, Supplement. (1970). Ralph, Elizabeth K. "Carbon-14 Date for the Antikythera Shipwreck." In Gladys Davidson Weinberg et al., The

Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered.

TAPS

55, no. 3

(1965): 48.

Ralph, Elizabeth K., H. N. Michael, and M. C. Han. "Radiocarbon Dates and Reality." MASCA

(1973): 1-20.

Newsletter 9, no. 1

Richter, G. M. A. Portraits of the Greeks. 3 vols. London, 1965.

Ridgway,

Brunilde Sismondo.

The Archaic Style in Greek

Sculpture. Princeton, N.J., 1977.

. Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Princeton,

N.J., 1981.

. "The Lady from the Sea: A Greek Bronze in Turkey."

AJA 71 (1967): 329-34.

. The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture. Princeton, N.]., 1970.

Rinne, D., and J. Frel. The Bronze Statue of a Youth. Malibu, Calif., 1975.

Robertson, Martin. A History of Greek Art. Cambridge, 1975. Robinson,

David M.

Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. XI, Nec-

rolynthia. Baltimore, 1942. . Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. XIII, 1934 and 1938.

Baltimore,

Vases Found in

1950.

Robinson, David M., and J. Walter Graham. Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. VIII, The Hellenic House. Baltimore, 1938. Robinson, Henry S. “Chiron at Corinth.” AJA 73 (1969): 193-97. Romäos, K. A. "Die Bronzestatue von Marathon.” AntDenk 4

(1929): 54—56.

Roncalli, F. “Il Marte di Todi." MemPontAcc 11, no. 2 (1973).

Ryberg, Inez Scott. An Archaeological Record of Rome from the Seventh to the Second Century B.C. London and Philadelphia,

1940.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY Tchernia, A., P. Pomey, and A. Hesnard. L'épage romaine de la

Sabbione, Claudio. “Il ritrovamento di Porticello.” In I Bronzi di Riace. Novara, 1981. Schefold, Karl. “Die Überlieferung der griechischen Bildniskunst.” Pp. 79-90 in Praestant Interna, Festschrift U. Hausmann. Tübingen, 1982. Scheibler, Ingeborg. Kerameikos. Vol. XI, Griechische Lampen. Berlin, 1976. Schiffler, B. Die Typologie des Kentauren in der antiken Kunst vom 10. bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Ch. Frankfurt, 1976. Schneider, L. Asymmetrie griechischen Köpfe vom 5 Jh. bis zum Hellenismus. Wiesbaden, 1973. Shear, T. Leslie, Jr. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1973-1974.” Hesperia 44 (1975): 331-74.

Madrague de Giens (Var). Gallia Supplement 34. Paris,

1978. Thompson, Edward Maunde. An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography. New York, 1912. Thompson, Wesley. "The Inscriptions in the Hephaisteion."

Hesperia 38 (1969): 114-18.

Throckmorton, Peter. "Romans on the Sea." Pp. 67-73 in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass. London, 1972. . "The Antikythera Ship." In Gladys Davidson Weinberg, et al, The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered.

TAPS 55, no. 3 (1965): 40-47.

Smith, Arthur A. The Sculpture of the Parthenon. London,

Tod,

Marcus N. “The Greek Numerical Notation.” BSA 18 (1911-1912): 98-132. Tölle-Kastenbein, R. Frühklassische Peplosfiguren: Originale.

1910. Solier, Yves. “Céramiques puniques et ibéro-puniques sur le littoral du Languedoc du VI&me siècle au debut du II&me siècle avant J.-C.” RStLig 34 (1968): 127-50. Soriano, M. B. “Los hallazagos arqueologicos submarinos ingresados en el Museo Arqueologico de Tarragona.” Boletin arqueológico de Tarragona 69-70 (1969-70). Sparkes, Brian A., and Lucy Talcott. The Athenian Agora. Vol. XII, Black and Plain Pottery of the Sixth, Fifth, and Fourth Centuries B.c. Princeton, N.J., 1970. Sprenger, Maja. Die etruskische Plastik des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und ihr Verhältnis zur griechischen Kunst. Rome, 1972. Steffy, J. Richard. “The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction.” AJA 89 (1985): 71-101. . “Maximum Results from Minimum Remains.” Pp. 5354 in Beneath the Waters of Time. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, edited by J. Barto Arnold III. Austin, Tex., 1978. . “Nautical Archaeology Construction Techniques of Ancient Ships.” Naval Engineers Journal (October, 1975): 85-91. Steffy, J. Richard, and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr. “New Drawings of the Yassi Ada Byzantine Ship.” AINA News-

Mainz,

Pp. 263-95 in Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Sottomarina. Bordighera, 1971. Ucelli, Guido. Le navi di Nemi. Rome, 1950. U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic Center. Sailing Directions (en route) for the Western Mediterranean. Publication No. 131. Washington, D.C.,

van Doorninck,

edited by W. J. Young. Boston, 1973.

Mistress of the

191-219.

Stephanidou-Tiveriou, Th. Neo-Attika. Athens, 1979. Stoop, M. W. “Un recinto e un gruppo di anfore.” AttiMGrecia 15-17 (1974-76): 156-67. Svoronos, N. Das Athener Nationalmuseum. Athens, 1908. Swindler, Mary Hamilton. Ancient Painting, from the Earliest Times to the Period of Christian Art. New Haven, Conn., and London, 1929. Swiny, Helena Wylde, and Michael L. Katzev. “The Kyrenia

Vermeule, Cornelius C. Catalogue of the Ancient Art in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu, Calif., 1973. Villard, Francois. La céramique grecque de Marseille (VI-1V siécle). Paris, 1960. Wallinga, H. T. “Nautika (I). The Unit of Capacity for Ancient Ships.” Mnemosyne 17 (1964): 1-40. Weidemann, K. Könige aus dem Yemen. Mainz, 1983. Wells, Peter S. "West-Central Europe and the Mediterranean: The Decline in Trade in the Fifth Century B.c.” Expedi-

Shipwreck: A Fourth-Century B.c. Greek Merchant Ship.”

Pp. 339-59 in Marine Archaeology, edited by D. J. Blackman. Colston Papers 23. London, 1973. Talcott, Lucy. "Attic Black-glazed Stamped Ware and Other Pottery from a Fifth Century Well." Hesperia 4 (1935):

477-523. Ida. “Palermo—Necropoli:

Frederick H., Jr. “Byzantium,

Sea: 330-641.” Pp. 133-58 in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass. London, 1972. . “The Fourth Century Wreck at Yassi Ada. An Interim —— > Report on the Hull.” IJNA 5 (1976): 115-31. . “The Seventh Century Byzantine Ship at Yassi Ada: Some Contributions to the History of Naval Architecture.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1968. Veny, C. “Diecisiete lingots de plomo de una nave romana de Ses Salines (Mallorca).” Ampurias 31-32 (1969-70):

letter 1, no. 2 (1974): 1-5.

Tamburello,

1975.

Vallet, G., and F. Villard. Mégara Hyblaea. Vol. II, La céramique archaique. Paris, 1964. Vanderpool, Eugene. “The Rectangular Rock-cut Shaft.” Hesperia 15 (1946): 265-336.

Steinberg, Arthur. “Joining Methods on Large Bronze Statues: Some Experiments in Ancient Technology.” Pp. 103-38 in Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art,

—

1980.

Torr, Cecil. Ancient Ships. Chicago, 1964. Tusa, V. “I rinvenimenti archeologici sottomarini nella Sicilia nord-occidentale tra il II e III congresso internazionale.”

L'esplorazione 1953-

54." NSc 20 (1967): 354-78.

Tchernia, A. “Hyères (Var).” IJNA 3, no. 2 (1974): 326.

tion 21, no. 4 (1979): 18-24.

\

Whitaker, Joseph I. S. Motya, A Phoenician Colony in Sicily. London, 1921. Wiegand, Theodor, and Hans Schrader. Priene. Berlin, 1904. Williams, Charles K. “Corinth 1978: Forum Southwest.” Hesperia 48 (1979): 105-44.

. "Corinth

1978-1979.”

Newsletter of the American

School of Classical Studies at Athens (Spring, 1979): 4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY . “Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest.” Hesperia 47 (1978): 1-39. Wittick, G. Clement. “The Casting Technique of RomanoBritish Lead Ingots.” JRS 51 (1961): 105-11. Wycherley, R. E. The Athenian Agora. Vol. III, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia. Princeton, 1957.

121

Zanker, P. Klassizistische Statuen. Mainz, 1974. Zeest, I. B. “Keramischeskaia tara Bospora (Ceramic Containers from the Bosporus).” MIA 83 (1960).

INDEX

Agde, gisement E at, 56, 59, 60 Agrigento, West Greek amphoras at, 49 amphoras: alignment of (absence of), 8, 37; capacities of, 51-53; contents of, 48; dates of, 31-32; excavation of, 8;

lining of, 37-39, 43, 48, 49, 51, 63; pile of (absence of), 7; provenance of, 3, 7, 8, 51; stamps on, 41-42; stoppers of, 47 — Byzantine (Solokha II), 41n.8, 50-51, 110; capacity of, 52 — Corinthian,

bronze anchor teeth.

41

—Mendean, 33, 36, 37-42, 109-11; capacity of, 51-52; coin type on, 41; stamps on, 36, 39n.2, 40-42; wine in, 110-11

—Punic, 42-48, 110, 112; capacity of, 52-53; contents of, 48 — West Greek, 48-50, 110; capacity of, 52; identified as Chian, 50; identified as Locrian, 50 —Samian,

41

analyses: of amphora lining, 43, 48; of bronze, 63, 99; of ink, 62; of lead, 56; limitations of, 99 anchors: arms of, 23; collars of, 17; development of, 20-22; distribution of, at Porticello, 18-20; hook, 22; intrusive, 20-22; of iron, 19, 20; and looters, 3, 17-19; manufacture of, 23; provenance of, 3, 8, 17-19; sale of, 17; shanks of (absence of), 23; stocks of, 7, 19, 56; of stone, 22; teeth of, 7, 19, 23; types of, 20, 22-23; as votives, 22; weights of, 17; wood in, 17, 19, 22-23

animal rhyta, 3n.2 Anse Saint-Gervais,

See anchors, teeth of

bronzes (as scrap metal), 98-99 bronze sculpture, structural elements of: armature, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 75-77, 95, 96; beard, 65-66, 68, 101,

buoy, 5, 6

Aprile, Antonio, 4n.5, 7

armature: for body, 68, 71, 75-77; in casting, 96; for hair, 63, 65, 66, 95

asymmetry (of head), 68 Asyut hoard, 36 Athenian Agora, 28 Athens: bolsals from, 28; Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 atomic absorption analysis, 36 Attic black figure amphora, 17 awl, 7, 26, 33

cabin, 9 cabotage, 107—108, 112 cake ingot, 7, 33, 35-36, 56 calotte, 63, 65, 66, 94 Camarina, Punic amphoras at, 46 Campiglia Marittima, 59 Carabinieri. See police cargo: area, 8; bronzes in, 98-99, 107; fish in, 107; ink in, 107; lading of, 8, 107; lead in, 59, 107; metallic nuggets as, 36; scrap metal in, 98-99; size of, 51; wine in, 107. See also

amphoras; ink; lead objects; sculpture (from Porticello) Carswell, George C., III, 7n.12 casting floor, 71, 90, 94

ballast, 59 68,

104;

calotte, 63, 65, 66, 94; dowel, 82, 85, 97, 98; supporting bar, 97; tenon, 75, 99; tongue, 63 bronzeworking, techniques of: direct casting, 66, 71, 88, 93-95, 98; cold-working, 65, 66; engraving, 65, 66, 67; fastening, 99n.32; flow welding, 95; fusion welding, 66, 94, 98; hammering, 9, 95; indirect casting, 63, 71, 94, 96-98; joining, 98; lead soldering, 93; lost wax, 92; patching (as joining method), 93; piece casting, 77, 82-83, 96, 97; solid casting, 94; spot-welding, 95-96; welding, 63. See also bronze sculpture, structural elements of; sculpting, evidence of bronzeworking, workshops for, 63 bullion, 32

16

antiluffing device, 17 antiquities, market in, 3-4, 53, 99

beard, 65-66,

bends, 6 Berlin Foundry Cup, 93 bolsals, 7, 26-28, 32-33 bone, 33, 36 boss. See dowel (in bronzeworking) brazier, absence of, 8 bridges (of metal), 70 bronze, analysis of, 63, 99

101,

104

centaur, 101-102

124

INDEX

C-14. See radiocarbon analysis chemical analysis: of amphora lining, 48; of nugget, 35, 36 Chios: amphoras from, 50; Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 chisel marks, 82, 98, 9

informant, 3-4, 35

ingots. See lead objects—ingots ink, 62, 107, 110

chytra, 26, 30

inkpots, 8, 60-62, 110 iron anchor, 19

cleat, 7, 10-11, 16

isotope analysis, 56-57

cold work, 65, 66 Colosimo, Franco, 4, 7 compressor, 5, 7 Cook, Jane, 8

Italy (as destination of ship), 109

cooking ware, 8, 31-32 copper nails, 7, 11, 13, 16

Corinth: amphoras from, 48; inkwells at, 62; Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3; West Greek amphoras at, 49 crew, personal belongings of, 33

Jones, Cynthia, 7n.12

Kamareza, lead ingot from, 55 Kerameikos, Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 Klearchos, 100 Kparevrns, 58

Kyrenia. See shipwrecks

cups, 112-13. See also bolsals; cup-skyphos cup-skyphos, 9, 29, 31, 32-33 currency, 36 current, 6, 7, 8, 101, 113

lading, 8, 107

Dei, Egidio, 4n.5 Delos, inkwells at, 62

lead: mining of, 55, 59, 60; trade in, 54, 58, 59, 60, 110; uses

diet. See food diving, 5-7 dowel (in bronzeworking), 82, 85, 97, 98

lead objects. See also anchors

ears, 66-68 Edelman, Chiya, 7 Elizavetovskaya, Mendean amphoras at, 40nn.2,3

LaGreca, Beniamino, 4n.5, 7 lamps, 26, 28-29, 31, 32-33, 35, 112-13 Laurion mines, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 of, 74, 99, 112 —cake

ingots, 33

—fishing weights, 33 — ingots, 53-60; at Agde, 60; analysis of, 56; as ballast, 59; at Bon Porté, 56, 60; date of, 60; destination of, 110; discovery of, 7; isotope analysis of, 11, 56-57; at Kamareza, 55; at Olynthus, 55, 60; origin of, 8, 112; price of, 58-62; prove-

Epizephyrian Locri, 50

nance of, 7, 53, 56-57; sale of, by looters, 53; shapes of,

Etruria,

55-56, 60; stamp on, 54, 56, 57-58; trade in, 54, 58, 59, 60, 110; weight of, 57-58

110

excavation, 7, 8, 19, 20, 53 eyes, 66, 67, 102

—nuggets,

featheredge thickness, 80, 81, 82, 85, 92, 98 fingerprints, 88 fish, trade in, 48, 51, 110, 112 fishing weights, 33-34, 35

33

—patches, 7, 11-13, 16 —pyriform weight, 33 —ring, 23-24 —sheathing, 16 Levant, as origin of lead, 57, 112

food, 33-35, 36

lidded chytra. See lopas

fore-and-aft rigging, 17

lifting balloons, 7

Foti, Giuseppe, 4, 8 Foundry Cup, 93 Francavilla Marittima, West Greek amphoras at, 49 France, 109, 110; Punic amphoras in, 46 Freeman, Alan, 7n.12 fresh-water jar, 3n.2, 35 Frey, Donald A., 9

Lilibeo, Punic amphoras at, 46 Lipari, West Greek amphoras at, 49

galley, 8, 9 Gander, Owen,

7n.12

garum, 48 gate, 98

Gela, Punic amphoras at, 46 Gray, John T., 7n.12

lopas, 30-31 Mannhein, Attic black figure amphora at, 17 Marion (Cyprus), Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 maritime trade, 109 Maryinskaya, Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 Marzamemi, West Greek amphoras at, 49 Mavilla, Giuseppe, 4, 9 Megara Hyblaea: Punic amphoras at, 46; West Greek amphoras at, 49

Mende, 107. See also amphoras—Mendean

Greek profile, 67 group sculpture,

Locri, amphoras from, 50 looters, 3-4, 7, 8, 9, 17-19, 20, 53, 107

105, 106

Hacksilber, 35-36 hearth tiles, absence of, 8 hull; construction of, 13; overall length of, 13; preservation

and remains of, 10; sheathing of, 16

merchant ships, size of, 109 metal bases, for statuary, 99 metal box, 33

metal detector survey, 7 metallic nuggets, 7, 35-36, 56 Metauros, Punic amphoras at, 46

INDEX mold, 82, 85 Monte Sirai, Punic amphoras at, 46 mortar, 26, 31

mortise-and-tenon joints, 13 Motya: Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3; as origin of Punic amphoras, 47; Punic amphoras at, 46; West Greek amphoras at, 4

Museo Nazionale, Reggio Calabria, 4, 8, 63 nails, 11, 13 nitrogen narcosis, 6

Nucleo Sommozzatori Carabinieri di Messina. nuggets, 7, 35-36,

See police

56

125

78-80, 99; date of, 63, 92, 99-103; discovery of, 7; destination of, 103, 110, 111, 112; iconography of, 103-106; identity of, 66-67, 101, 104-106; mounting of, 98-99; number of, 22n.19, 63, 99, 106, 111; origin of, 99-100; as portrait, 100, 102, 103-104; pose of, 72, 81, 83, 86; present location

of, 4, 8, 22n.19, 105; provenance of, 3, 8, 9; quadrifaciality of, 68, 101; realism of, 102, 103; as scrap, 98-99; sculptor(s) of, 99; style of, 99-103; youthful head, 22n.19, 103, 106 sculpture, bronze. See bronze sculpture, structural elements of sculptures, other: Agde Youth, 97; Antikythera Philosopher, 104 n.55; Antikythera Youth, 83, 95, 97, 98, 102, 103; Arringatore, 94; Artemision Zeus, 95, 101,

ochre, 62 oinochoe,

26, 31-33

Olynthus: lead ingot at, 55, 60; Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3, 41 Owen, David I., 4, 7n.12, 8

102, 104; Askle-

pion relief (Athens National Museum), 106; Chatsworth Apollo, 94; Chiron and Achilles (Roman), 105; Delphi Charioteers, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102; Gandy Deering relief, 106; Getty Youth, 96, 97; Homer/Epimenides, 100, 101, 104; Houston

Ruler, 93, 95n.13, 98; Lady from the

Sea, 94, 98; Lysimache, portrait of, 104; Marathon Boy, 95, Pangaeum, 55

97, 99n.32; Marcus Aurelius, 96; Metropolitan

patina, 99 Pavlidis, Jack A., 7n.12

Horse, 96; Nemesis at Rhamnous, base of, 106; Parthenon, 101; Parthenon frieze, 104; Parthenon metopes, 101, 104; Pausanias, portrait of, 103; Pindar, portrait of, 103; Piraeus Apollo, 96; Piraeus Artemis, 93; Piraeus Athena, 93, 98; Plataian Snake Tripod, 96; Polykleitan Youth (in Toledo), 93;

photography, 7 Picci, Antonio, 7n.11 Piercy, Robin C. M., 7n.12 piracy, 113 pitch, 3n.2. See also amphoras, lining of police: salvage of site by, 4, 9, 26; sketch plan of site by, 4, 7-8,

19

Porticello: bay at, 22; town of, 3 Porticello ship(s): destination of, 109; final voyage of, 107; lading (absent) of, 8, 107; nationality of, 31, 32, 112; number of, 22, 101; size of, 13, 108, 109. See also shipwreck (at Porticello) Priene, inkwells from, 62 Proteus,

105-106

pyriform weight, 33 Pythagoras (sculptor), 100 qualitative spectrographic analysis, 36 radiocarbon analysis, 24-25 recompression chamber, 6 resin, 51

Rhodes, Mendean amphoras at, 40n.3 Rhodian Sea Law, 109 rhyta, 3n.2 rigging, 16-17 Romano, Vincenzo, 4n.5, 7 rouletting, 28

Riace Warriors, 81, 93, 94n.10, 95n.13, 96, 99n.32; Selinus

Youth, 95n.14, 96, 99n.32; Sokrates, portrait of, 104; Temple of Aphaia at Aigina, 101, 103; Temple of Zeus at Olympia, 100, 101, 102; Themistokles from Ostia, 103; Todi Mars, 94, 99n.32; Ugento Zeus, 93, 96, 99; Warriors Head

(from Athenian Akropolis), 102 Selinunte, West Greek amphoras at, 49

shipwreck (at Porticello): age of hull in, 113; cause of, 113; date of, 24, 31-33, 46-47, 51; depth of, 5; discovery of, 3; disposition of, on seabed, 7; location of, 3, 5, 7, 101; name

of, 3n.1. See also hull; Porticello ship(s) shipwrecks, other: Antikythera, 16n.8; Bon Porté, 22n.18, 56, 60; Cape Gelidonya, 108; Capistello, 13n.5, 22; Cavallo I, 17n.9; Colonia de Sant Jordi, 16; Giens, 48; Grand Congloué, 16n.8; Kyrenia, 8, 13, 16, 22, 41, 108, 113; Lake Nemi barges, 13n.5, 17n.8, 23; Punic ship at Marsala, 13n.5, 17n.8; Serge Liman Hellenistic, 16; Yassi Ada fourth-century, 8n.16, 17n.9, 109, 113; Yassi Ada seventhcentury, 8n.16, 8n.18,

Sicily, 110

13n.2,

109, 113

silver-and-lead nuggets, 33 Siphnos, 55, 60

Solokha II amphoras. See amphoras— Byzantine Spain, 55, 109, 110; Punic amphoras in, 46 stepped areas (on bronze), 97

rubber boats, 5

stern storage area, 8, 9, 26, 33 stone anchor, 19

Sabbione, Claudio, 9 Samos, amphoras from, 41 Schiefele, Stephen, 7n.12

stopper (for amphora), 47 Straits of Messina, 3, 6n.8, 113

scrap: bronze cargo as, 98-99; lead sold for, 17, 53

supporting bar, 97

sculpting, evidence of: casting floor, 71, 90, 94; fingerprints,

Syracuse,

strut (in beard), 66 100

88; stepped areas, 97; tool marks, 82, 89, 98, 99. See also

bronze sculpture, structural elements of sculpture (from Porticello): asymmetry of, 102; base for,

Museum

tacks, 11 Taras, 100, 107, 111

126 teeth, 7, 19, 23 tenon: in hull, 10, 13; in sculpture, 75, 99 teredo worms, 10

Thorikos, 60 Thrace, lead mine at, 60

toggle, 7, 13, 16-17

tongue, on head, 63 tool marks (on sculpture), 89, 98 trade routes, 111

triangulation, 7 Triton, 105

INDEX

warships, 17 wax: bars of, 71; panes of, 94; plates of, 96, 97; rods of, 71, 93, 94; sheets of, 91, 94; slabs of, 82, 85, 86 webs, bronze, 93-94 weights. See fishing weights welding, 77-80

whetstones, 26, 33 wine, 48, 107, 110-11. See also amphoras

wood: in anchors, 17, 19, 22-23; armature of, in statue, 63 wooden objects: belaying pins, 11; bowl, 7, 26, 33; cleat, 10-11, 16; hull, fragment of, 13; shim, 16; tenons, 10, 13; toggle, 13, 16-17; treenails, 10, 13; wedge, 10, 16

U.S. Navy Air Support Facility, 7n.12 U.S. Navy decompression tables, 6 Vassallaggi, Punic amphoras at, 46 votives, anchors as, 22

workshops, 63 wreath, 56, 105 wreck formation, 8, 37, 99