The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean 9781803273303, 9781803273310, 1803273305

Citation preview

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Katerina Velentza

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Katerina Velentza

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-330-3 ISBN 978-1-80327-331-0 (e-Pdf) © Katerina Velentza and Archaeopress 2022 Cover: A drawing by Brandon Braun representing fishermen dragging a sculpture out of the sea. This drawing is directly inspired by the votive relief dedicated by C. Fulvius Salvis, found close to the temple of Hercules in Ostia (Ostia Archaeological Museum Inv.No.157).

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents

List of Figures and Tables����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii

Acknowledgements����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������v

List of Abbreviations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vi Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Ancient sculptures lost at sea������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Interpreting the maritime transport and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean Sea������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Aims, objectives and research questions of the project ���������������������������������������������������������������������2 Structure of this book�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4 Primary sources and literature review���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 Ancient sources and historical records on the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 The underwater deposition of the ‘Arundel collection’ �������������������������������������������������������������������10 The Mentor shipwreck�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 The HMS Colossus shipwreck������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 The SS Castor shipwreck�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12 The history of discovering ancient sculptures underwater�������������������������������������������������������������12 Approaches to the study of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures from under water�����������������35 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 Methodology of the research����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 The importance of archaeological contexts in the study of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������41 Macro-scale research������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������45 Micro-scale research�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������50 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean ��������53 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 Geographical distribution of underwater deposits����������������������������������������������������������������������������53 Chronological distribution of underwater deposits��������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Types of sculptures transported by sea�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������63 Possible reasons and patterns of transport�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 The packing and stowing of sculptures on board ancient merchant vessels��������������������������������70 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 75 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������75 History of the discovery and research�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 The ship remains�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 The shipboard artefacts and the non-sculptural cargo��������������������������������������������������������������������78 The sculptures�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 Interpreting the maritime transport of sculptures���������������������������������������������������������������������������83 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87

i

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap��������������88 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������88 Discovery and previous study of the Favaritx shipwreck�����������������������������������������������������������������90 The sculptural artefacts�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������91 The non-sculptural artefacts ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Interpreting the maritime transport of the Favaritx ship��������������������������������������������������������������103 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������106

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations������������������������� 107 Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������107 Discovery and previous research �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������108 Re-evaluating the Mahdia shipwreck material��������������������������������������������������������������������������������111 The ship remains ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������111 The sculptural artefacts�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������115 The other non-sculptural artefacts ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������120 Interpreting the maritime transport of the Mahdia ship���������������������������������������������������������������122 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������126

Discussion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������127 Where were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean?�������������������������������127 When were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean?��������������������������������129 Why were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean?�����������������������������������131 How were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean?�����������������������������������133 The maritime transport of sculptures in retrospect�����������������������������������������������������������������������135

Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 Results of the research�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������137 Future directions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139 References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141

Appendix 1 (Online) Database������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 Appendix 2 (Online) Finds not included in the Database������������������������������������������������������� 153 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154

ii

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: The porphyry sculptural group of the Tetrarchs, embedded in the façade of St Mark’s cathedral in Venice. © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Figure 2: Marble statue of Herakles from the Antikythera shipwreck. Now in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 3: The Youth of Antikythera, from the Antikythera shipwreck. Now in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 4: The medium-scale bronze sculpture found at the sea off Marathon. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author�����������������������������������������������������15 Figure 5: The god (Zeus/Poseidon) found off cape Artemission. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������16 Figure 6: The bronze sculptural group of the Horse and the Jockey found off cape Artemission. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author���������17 Figure 7: The large-scale marble female sculpture found in the sea off Rhodes. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Rhodes. © Author���������������������������������������������������������������������17 Figure 8: One of the sculptural reliefs retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author�������������������������������������������������18 Figure 9: Head of a large-scale marble statue, probably retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author�������������19 Figure 10: Unfinished small-scale marble sculpture, probably retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author������19 Figure 11: Bronze statue of a young boy found in the sea off Hierapetra, in Crete, Greece. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Herakleion. © Author���������������������������������������������������22 Figure 12: The under life-size bronze male sculpture found off Fano, Italy. Now in the Getty Villa, in Los Angeles, USA. © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Figure 13: Riace statue A, now in the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia. © Author������������������26 Figure 14: Riace statue B, now in the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia. © Author������������������26 Figure 15: The Northern Aegean sculpture, a fragment from a bronze equestrian statue with Julio-Claudian portrait characteristics. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������27 Figure 16: The Marsala 1980s sculpture, a large-scale marble statue of a warrior, displayed in the Museo Archeologico Regionale Lilibeo di Marsala – Baglio Anselmi. © Author������28 Figure 17: Three sculptures and a column capital from the Lixouri shipwreck. Now in the Building of Pasha in the castle of Pylos, Greece. © Author������������������������������������������������29 Figure 18: The Mazara del Vallo 1998 sculpture, also known as the bronze statue of the dancing satyr, displayed in the Museo del Satiro Danzante in Mazara del Vallo, Sicily. © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Figure 19: The Mazara del Vallo 1999 sculpture, fragment of the foot and leg of an elephant sculpture, displayed in the Museo del Satiro Danzante in Mazara del Vallo, Sicily. © Author������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Figure 20: The Marsala 2014 sculpture in the 2016 exhibition ‘Storms, War and Shipwrecks: Treasures from the Sicilian Seas’ of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, UK. © Author������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 21: Unknown sculpture (National Archaeological Museum Athens) or ‘Saarbrucken Ephebe’. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author������������������34 Figure 22: Map showing the geographical distribution of the database entries of this PhD and their classification according to the material of their sculptures. © Author�����������������60 Figure 23: Classification of the recorded entries according to the date of their underwater deposit. © Author���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Figure 24: Graph representing the frequency of centuries appearing in the dating of known underwater archaeological contexts with freestanding sculptural material, as suggested in the already existing scholarship. © Author��������������������������������������������������62 Figure 25: Visual representation of the dating of the database entries of this PhD with known underwater archaeological contexts as recorded in the already existing scholarship. © Author��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������62 Figure 26: Classification of the recorded entries, according to the type of the underwater deposit. © Author���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������63 Figure 27: A graph showing the recorded entries classified according to the material of the sculptures that they carried. © Author���������������������������������������������������������������������������������64 iii

Figure 28: The recorded entries classified according to the size of the sculptures that they include. Note that, due to the incomplete state of the academic scholarship, this classification is not absolute. © Author��������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Figure 29: The dating of the database entries in relation to the reasons and patterns for the transport of sculptures. © Author�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 Figure 30: The location of the Porticello shipwreck in the Straits of Messina between Southern Italy and Sicily. © Author���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Figure 31: Map showing the known provenance of shipboard items and transported cargo of the Porticello ship. © Author��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 Figure 32: Bronze statue head of an old, bearded man from the Porticello shipwreck, currently in the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy. © Author������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������82 Figure 33: Bronze statue head of a bearded youth from the Porticello shipwreck, currently in the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy. © Author����������������������82 Figure 34: The location of the Favaritx shipwreck off the coast of Menorca, Spain. © Author������88 Figure 35: Other Mediterranean underwater deposits transporting discarded bronze sculptures together with other metal objects with the intention to be recycled as scrap. © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������89 Figure 36: Bronze figurine of a male figure from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21567). © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������92 Figure 37: Anthropomorphic bronze figurine from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377). © Author����������������������������������������������92 Figure 38: Two small bronze objects, one sculptural fragment representing animal teeth and one bronze star polygon from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21832). © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������93 Figure 39: A small-scale bronze sculptural fragment of an animal foot from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21521). © Author�����������������94 Figure 40: Head of a small-scale bronze horse from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21543). © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������94 Figure 41: Hollow bronze object from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21849). © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������95 Figure 42: Bronze cross fragment, possibly attachment to a bronze vessel or lamp. From the Favaritx shipwreck, currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21575). © Author��96 Figure 43: Irregular metal ingot from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21534). © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 44: Three irregular metal ingots from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21596). © Author�������������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 45: Reconstructed bronze candelabrum from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21537). © Author�����������������������������������������������������������������100 Figure 46: Coarseware jug found in the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca. © Author�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Figure 47: Map showing the location of the Mahdia shipwreck off the coast of Tunisia. © Author����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������109 Figure 48: Map showing the provenance of material carried in the Mahdia ship. The size of the circles indicates only approximate geographical areas, from where the material could have originated, and not number of transported artefacts. © Author���������������124 Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:

List of the database entries�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 List of the artefacts transported as cargo in the Porticello ship���������������������������������������79 Comparison of the Favaritx archaeological remains to that of other shipwrecks from the same transport pattern�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������89 Comparison of the Mahdia archaeological remains to other shipwrecks from the same transport pattern����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������108 List of the identified sculptures from the Mahdia shipwreck�����������������������������������������116

iv

Acknowledgements This book is based on my doctoral research conducted at the Centre for Maritime Archaeology of the University of Southampton between 2016 and 2021. For this work, first of all, I would like to thank all of the funding bodies that supported me financially during this project: the Onassis Foundation that covered my living costs in the academic years 2016-2019; the Lawrence Arthur Burgess Scholarship from the University of Southampton that covered my tuition fees in the academic years 2016-2019; the Greek Archaeological Committee UK that provided research funding for the academic years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019; the Honor Frost Foundation that awarded me the ‘Small Grant Award’ in 2017 to conduct my research trip in Sicily; the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies that awarded me the ‘Hugh Last & General Fund’ in 2018 to conduct my research trip in Crete in the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno; as well as the British School at Athens that awarded me the ‘John Morrison Memorial Fund for Hellenic Maritime Studies’ in 2018 to conduct several research visits in museums of Greece with underwater sculptural discoveries. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the institutions that gave me access to their libraries and archives for my research: the Museum of Menorca in Spain; the Institute of Classical Studies (ICS) at the University of London, in the UK; the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the British School at Athens and the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno, in Greece; the Getty Research Institute and UCLA in California, USA. Furthermore, I would like to thank all of the scholars and colleagues, who very enthusiastically shared information or simply discussed with me various aspects of underwater sculptural discoveries from around the Mediterranean: Octavio Pons Machado from the Archaeology Department of the Museum of Menorca, Ouafa Slimane from the Institute National du Patrimoine in Tunisia, Winfried Held from the Philipps-Universität Marburg, Alexandra Sofroniew, curator of the exhibition ‘Storms, War and Shipwrecks: Treasures from the Sicilian Seas’ in the Ashmolean Museum, George Koutsouflakis from the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities in Greece, Kenneth Lapatin from the J. Paul Getty Museum, Jacob Sharvit, Ehud Galili and Danny Syon from the Israel Antiquities Authority, Brendan Foley from the Lund University, Federico Ugolini from the University of Haifa, all of the participants of the programme ‘Material Entanglements in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond’, part of the Getty Foundation’s Connecting Art Histories and organised by the Johns Hopkins University and the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens, and many others, who contributed with their answers and comments to my data collection. Above all, though, I am deeply indebted to my amazing PhD supervisor, Dr Julian Whitewright, who, from very early on, believed in me and supported me with enthusiasm throughout this research, as well as to Dr Dragana Mladenović and Professor Simon Keay, who both worked as my second supervisors and contributed with their insightful comments to the final form of this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank sincerely my family, my parents and my sister, who have always been there for me and encouraged me to follow my dreams, and, above all my husband, Brandon, who has been taking care of me and supporting me constantly through some really big obstacles. From this note I could not leave out my dogs, Lucky and Judy, who have spent hours and hours sleeping by me, while I have been working on this project. Thank you all for your love and support!

v

List of Abbreviations D.B. Database Entry Inv.No. Invention Number SCUBA Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus H. Height W. Width L. Length D. Diameter Th. Thickness P.H. Preserved Height P.W. Preserved Width P.L. Preserved Length P.D. Preserved Diameter P.Th. Preserved Thickness

vi

Chapter 1

Introduction Ancient sculptures lost at sea The waters of the Mediterranean Sea, similarly to the land around it, have been depositories of material remains of the human civilizations inhabiting this region for several thousand years. Submerged port and harbour structures, sunken settlements, shipwrecks of seagoing vessels with their cargoes and jettisoned objects are some examples of the Mediterranean underwater archaeological record preserved from the periods of ancient Greek and Roman Antiquity, also known as Classical Antiquity, a historical period during which the Mediterranean Sea was interconnected through extensive and complex maritime networks (Horden and Purcell 2000; Parker 1992). Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures found under water have been amongst the most evocative and engaging maritime archaeological remains of that time period. From the 16th century until today, hundreds of ancient sculptural artefacts, of various dates, types, sizes and materials, have been retrieved from the Mediterranean seabed by early underwater explorers, archaeologists, or simply by fishermen, sponge divers and recreational scuba divers (Arata 2005; Bass 1966; Diolé 1957; Koutsouflakis 2017; Mattusch 1997; Parker 1992; Tzalas 2007). The fascinating idea of discovering and recovering ancient sculptural works of art from the water has attracted over the years the attention of both academia and the press, while it has always stimulated local enthusiasm and pride (Bellingham 2014; Petriaggi 2005; Queyrel 2012; Rackl 1978; Stenuit 2002). More recently, the romanticism accompanying underwater sculptural finds has inspired modern artists, who choose to display their sculptural creations under water or use the idea of discovering ancient sculptures under water as part of their artistic narrative.1 Despite the large number of Mediterranean underwater sculptural finds, as well as their early discovery, long period of study and popularity, it has still been hard for scholars to determine with certainty the exact area, era, reasons and circumstances of their maritime transportation and consequent underwater deposition. Hence, ancient sculptures from underwater have yet to reach their potential as a dataset of artefacts. Interpreting the maritime transport and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean Sea The plethora of ancient sculptures found under water indicates that, under specific circumstances, these objects had been carried on ships sailing around the Mediterranean. However, the inaccessibility of the seabed to most of the academic community at least until the middle of the 20th century, as well as the insufficient recording of underwater archaeological contexts, where sculptures have been discovered, have restricted over the years the contextual archaeological information available for these artefacts. Therefore, scholarly research has turned to different methods of studying and interpreting the maritime transport and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean Sea. First of all, since the earliest underwater sculptural discoveries, scholars based their interpretations on relevant references preserved in ancient literary sources. The best recorded textual evidence on the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean comes from Hellenistic and Roman authors, and refers to maritime activities taking place during the last two centuries BC or in 1  Some recent examples are: Damien Hirst’s exhibition and film on ‘The Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable’, presented at Palazzo Grassi in Venice, Italy (Greene and Leidwanger 2017: 2-11; Hirst 2017a, 2017b); the underwater museum of art ‘Museo Subacuático de Arte’ in Cancún, Mexico; and the film Call Me By Your Name (2017) by Luca Guadagnino (Melnikova 2020: 387; Stevens 2018).

1

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean the 1st century AD. This time coincides with the expansion of Rome in the eastern Mediterranean and the consequent destruction of several Greek cities, including Corinth, Athens and Delos. According to ancient authors, the devastation of these cities involved the plunder of many works of art including sculptures, which were then transported to Italy on ships that sometimes wrecked or lost parts of their cargo in the sea (Dio Chrysostom, The Corinthian Oration 37.42; Lucian, Zeuxis 3; Polybius, Histories 39.2.1-2; Velleius Paterculus 1.13). In addition, a few ancient authors record the maritime transport of sculptures as part of an art collection market that developed in the same time period by wealthy elites, who ordered sculptural pieces for the decoration of their private houses and villas (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2; Cicero, Against Verres, act. 2.4.126). Influenced by these ancient literary sources, scholars have considered the maritime transport and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean Sea as a result of looting or art-collecting activities taking place in the Mediterranean world in the concise historical period described above (Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015; Rackl 1978: 15- 36; Tzalas 2007: 342-363; Wirth 1994). This idea of transporting sculptures by sea during and after the expansion of Rome in the Mediterranean has been further reinforced by various art historical examinations of well-known sculptural artefacts from under water (Fuchs 1963; Hemingway 2004; Mattusch 1997; Ridgway 1967: 329-334). This second methodological approach has brought to light stylistic features and sculptural details that could generally match the dates and areas of movement described in the ancient literary sources. Therefore, for years, any ancient sculpture found in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, in or out of archaeological context, has been straightforwardly interpreted as being transported for looting or art-collecting purposes during the late Hellenistic or Roman times, without necessarily pursuing confirmation in the archaeological site or the contextual data of the sculptural discovery (Boardman 1985: 53; Neer 2010: 86; Spivey 1996: 134-136, 219-221; Spivey 2013: 187-188; Stewart 1990: 228-229). Recent archaeological evidence, though, has revealed that the previously mentioned ancient sources and scholarly theories represent only a small fraction of a far wider maritime activity not yet fully explored (Bartoli 2008; Beckmann 2016; Lapatin 2018; Russell 2013a; Velentza 2016). The focus of previous scholars on the art historical and stylistic details of the sculptures rather than their archaeological context, as well as the interpretation of their maritime transportation and underwater deposition through possible speculations, based on ancient literary references, rather than actual archaeological data, have led to the repetition of early hypothetical theories and the obstruction of new academic results. The separate development of the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology and the dividing lines that still exist between scholars of each field, combined with the wide geographical spread of the relevant archaeological evidence and the unique research traditions and socio-political circumstances of each area, have led to a selective understanding of the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world. Therefore, up until now, there has not been an overall scholarly documentation, interpretation and understanding of where, when, why and how ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were carried on board ancient seagoing vessels in different periods of Classical Antiquity. Aims, objectives and research questions of the project The present research, through the lenses of both classical and maritime archaeology, attempts to move a step forward from the already existing academic scholarship and adopt a new scholarly approach in the examination of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This involves the research of ancient sculptures from under water as a group of transported artefacts, which had a specific function within their maritime setting. Similarly to other studies researching transported amphorae, stone cargo, glass or ceramics found in underwater deposits, the present research, with a focus on the underwater archaeological context of the sculptures, attempts to comprehend the reasons and the circumstances for sculptures of different types and materials being carried on board ancient seagoing vessels. 2

Introduction The main research question addressed is: where, when, why and how were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? To answer this question, the first aim is to collect and bring together all the existing underwater archaeological evidence about the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This has been carried out with a macro-scale research and the creation of a Mediterranean-wide database (Appendix 1) recording any known examples of ancient sculptures that have been lost under water in the sea, probably while in transit during Classical Antiquity. The sculptures for which this research is concerned are those, which were made as freestanding entities, namely sculptures carved in three dimensions, from small-scale figurines to over life-size statues, but also independently standing sculptural reliefs. All of the above types of sculptural artefacts were commissioned in Classical Antiquity for religious, funerary, honorific and, in some contexts, decorative purposes. The independently standing nature and the function of these artefacts make them different from architectural sculptures, sculpted sarcophagi and sculptural appliques, which constituted parts of larger entities, buildings or objects, and have been only found in distinct underwater deposits with well-understood functions in their maritime setting. Therefore, they have been excluded from the main focus of this research but they are still mentioned as contextual artefacts when they have been discovered in deposits with freestanding sculptures. The geographical extent that the research covers spreads throughout the Mediterranean world, including the whole Mediterranean Sea and its neighbouring regions, such as the area of Cadiz, at the west of the Strait of Gibraltar, and the Black Sea, at the north east of the Mediterranean, connected through the Strait of the Dardanelles, the sea of Marmara and Bosporus. It is important to note, though, that for the purposes of this research only sea deposits with sculptures have been examined and not underwater depositions of ancient sculptures in other aquatic environments, such as rivers.2 The chronology of the underwater material record examined for this research ranges from the Archaic period of Greek Antiquity, starting approximately in the 7th century BC, to the end of the Late Roman period and Late Antiquity, approximately in the 7th century AD. Thus, this research attempts to bring together all of the existing underwater archaeological data, from any geographical and chronological dimension of Classical Antiquity, in order to interpret as accurately as possible the overall maritime transport of freestanding sculptural objects in the Mediterranean. After the macro-scale research and the recording of any known examples of ancient sculptures that have been lost under water, the second aim of this study has been to conduct a micro-scale research and analyse closely specific shipwreck case studies with well-preserved underwater archaeological contexts. For this part of the research the Porticello (D.B.88), Favaritx (D.B.38) and Mahdia (D.B.67) shipwrecks have been examined. Through this study some more specific questions are addressed, clarifying, thus, details of the main research question. These are: What types of sculptures were transported and for what reasons? What types of ships were carrying the sculptures? Were the sculptures transported alone or were they part of a wider cargo? How were the sculptures packed and situated within the ship? From the existing archaeological record, are there any trading networks and/or shipping routes detected? Through this second level of research, this project attempts, first of all, to highlight the importance of archaeological context for the accurate interpretation of sculptures retrieved from under water. Additionally, it searches for evidence that prove how ‘special’ or common the maritime transport of sculptural artefacts was in Classical Antiquity and how incorporated this shipping activity was in the wider and already known Mediterranean maritime networks. 2  Two examples of ancient sculptures discovered in rivers are: the bronze head of the emperor Hadrian, discovered isolated in the river Thames, in London, UK (British Museum 2020); and the lead model sculptures of small temples, found in the first-century BC Comacchio shipwreck, discovered during maintenance of drainage canals in the outskirts of Comacchio, in the Valle Ponti, Italy (Berti 1990).

3

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Structure of this book In order to explain all of the conducted research and disseminate in a comprehensive way the results of this project, this book has been organised in nine chapters. Following the present introduction of Chapter 1, Chapter 2 commences with an outline of the available primary sources, literary and archaeological, as well as a review of the older academic approaches adopted for the study of ancient sculptures from under water. Through this review chapter the present research gets contextualized archaeologically and scholarly, while its original contribution is highlighted and explained. Subsequently, the methodology used to address the archaeological record and answer the set research questions is explained in Chapter 3. In this chapter, the importance of underwater archaeological contexts for the study and interpretation of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea is explained, as well as the methods of macro-scale and micro-scale research, which have been used for the collection, processing and interpretation of the respective data. Following that, Chapter 4 presents the results of the macro-scale research, which has been materialised through the creation of the database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. In this chapter observations regarding the general extent, frequency, nature and circumstances of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean are presented through the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the documented deposits and the studied underwater archaeological record. In Chapters 5, 6 and 7 the micro-scale research of three specific shipwreck case studies is presented. Chapter 5 revisits the data of the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88) and its maritime transport of bronze sculptures. Chapter 6 explores the Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38) and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap. Finally, Chapter 7 examines anew the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67) in an attempt to produce new observations and conclusions through the reconsideration of already retrieved and analysed shipwreck data. Following the examination of the three shipwreck case studies, Chapter 8 comprises a discussion that answers collectively the main research question of the research, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean. This discussion brings together the conclusions of both the macro- and micro-scale research generating, thus, a broader interpretation and understanding of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This leads to the conclusion of Chapter 9, which presents the results of this research, as well as possible future directions that could be undertaken on the subject. Overall, this scholarly research examines and enquires for the first time ancient sculptures from under water as a coherent dataset of transported artefacts that were deposited in the Mediterranean Sea. By merging approaches from the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology, this research studies comparatively any published or unpublished information available in order to interpret the different reasons and circumstances of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This scholarly approach does not aim at discarding any previous academic work. On the contrary, it attempts to complement, re-organise and update the previous research in order to understand better these artefacts as archaeological objects with specific contexts and functions in the deposits that they were found in. Finally, this work aims at raising awareness among archaeologists working in the Mediterranean, in order to preserve the underwater archaeological data and eliminate the retrieval of sculptures with no underwater information, a fact that has been encouraging the illicit trade of such antiquities.

4

Chapter 2

Primary sources and literature review Introduction The regular and, most frequently, accidental discovery of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures all around the Mediterranean Sea since the 16th century has always attracted antiquarian curiosity, scholarly interest, as well as local attention. Despite the large number of underwater sculptural discoveries and the enthusiasm accompanying them, the exact era and the circumstances under which these artefacts were transported by sea and deposited under water, have still been hard to determine. The conditions of discovery of ancient sculptures from under water combined with the various processes under which the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology developed in the course of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, have influenced deeply the study and interpretation of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. The wide geographical spread of the relevant archaeological evidence, scholarly trends of each time period, research interests, as well as environmental, scientific, socio-political and financial challenges, involved in the study of underwater archaeological contexts, have led to a selective understanding of the subject. Therefore, up until now, it has not been possible to establish a comprehensive overall scholarly interpretation for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This could only be achieved through the collective examination of the available primary sources and the holistic study of the existing underwater archaeological record, an approach that the present research has adopted. This chapter attempts to give, first of all, an outline of the available primary sources and, secondly, a comprehensive review of the available scholarship on the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. It starts by tracing ancient literary sources and historical records that report the maritime transportation and underwater deposition of sculptures. Through this process, literary evidence reporting various reasons and circumstances under which ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were transported in the Mediterranean Sea, from the period of Classical Antiquity all the way to the 19th century, are recorded. Thus, this chapter provides literary examples on known circumstances and time periods that ancient sculptures were carried on ships and got lost in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The chapter proceeds by presenting chronologically the history of underwater sculptural discoveries in the Mediterranean Sea. This account is based on information from the underwater depositions, which have been recorded in the database of this research (Appendix 1), and it provides a comprehensive overview of the conditions under which these artefacts have been detected and removed from the seabed. It, also, presents the overall underwater archaeological record studied in this research. The chapter closes with a concise history of the scholarly approaches to the research of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This analysis outlines the various studies carried out by archaeologists and art historians of different time periods for the analysis and interpretation of ancient sculptures from under water. Therefore, the current state of the existing scholarship and the previous academic work on the subject are explained. 5

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Overall, the presentation of the literary and archaeological primary sources, as well as the literature review in this chapter sets the scholarly foundation from where this project started. Additionally, it contextualizes academically the present research and highlights its original contribution. Ancient sources and historical records on the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures Classical Antiquity Sculptures have been transported, lost and recovered from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea continuously since Classical Antiquity. Various mentions in surviving Greek and Latin texts provide clear proof that people of the ancient Mediterranean world were transporting widely sculptural artefacts by sea in many different time periods. The same sources, also, indicate that people were aware of possible underwater losses of sculptures and had means for dealing with that event. The earliest incident of sculptures transported by sea comes from the Classical period. Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BC, records an event from the 4th century BC, when the Athenian general Iphikrates seized the ships, which were carrying gold-and-ivory statues that Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, had sent to be dedicated in the sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi (Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.57). Following that, several mentions for the maritime transportation of sculptural artefacts come from incidents dated in the last two centuries BC. More specifically, during the 2nd and the 1st centuries BC several Greek cities, including Corinth, Athens and Delos, were sacked in the course of warfare activities that took place in the eastern Mediterranean due to the expansion of Rome. According to ancient authors, the devastation of these cities involved the destruction and looting of many works of art, including sculptures, some of which were then transported by sea to Italy. The earliest reference of an incident like that comes from the first-century AD writer Dio Chrsysostom, who describes how Lucius Mummius looted statues from the city of Corinth in 146 BC, brought them to Italy and changed arbitrarily their subjects to represent mythical individuals (Dio Chrysostom, The Corinthian Oration 37.42). The transport of paintings and sculptures of famous artists from Corinth to Italy in 146 BC is also described by Velleius Paterculus, writing between the late 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD. This writer though gives another interesting insight into the subject of the transport of looted sculptures by the Romans in the 2nd century BC. He mentions that: ‘(Lucius Mummius) gave instruction to the (shipping) contractors that, if they lost the works of art they were transporting, they would have to replace them by new ones’ (Velleius Paterculus 1.13.4).1 This observation reveals that, first of all, contractors and hired ships conducted the maritime transport of plundered works of art on a trading basis rather than a military operation. Secondly, it shows that the loss of the works of art in the sea was quite common and, for that event, there were specific arrangements agreed on, in advance of the travel. Lucian, writing in the 2nd century AD, describes in his work Zeuxis the wrecking of a ship off the cape of Maleas, in Greece, while it was transporting looted art works from Athens to Italy after the sack of the city by Sulla in 86 BC: ‘There is a copy of the picture now at Athens, taken exactly from the original. The latter is said to have been put on shipboard for Italy with the rest of Sulla’s art treasures, and to have been lost with them by the sinking of the ship, off Malea, I think it was’ (Lucian, Zeuxis 3). This story has been an important inspiration for the scholarly interpretation of the transport of sculptures seen in the Antikythera shipwreck, which sank in the same geographical area and during the 1st century BC like the shipwreck described in Zeuxis. 1 

All the ancient textual sources in this section have been translated for this research by the author.

6

Primary sources and literature review Moreover, there are a few ancient sources recording the maritime transport of sculptures in the last two centuries BC as part of private trade and art collection rather than war booty. One of the earliest sources of this activity is the first-century BC letter of Cicero to his friend Atticus in Athens. Cicero, who was a wealthy Roman citizen and an art collector, mentions that: ‘I have paid L. Cincius the 20,400 sestertii for the Megarian statues in accordance with your earlier letter. I am already quite enchanted with your Pentelic herms with the bronze heads, about which you write to me, so please send them and the statues and any other things you think would do credit to the place in question and to my enthusiasm and to your good taste, as many and as soon as possible, especially any you think suitable to a gymnasium and colonnade’ (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2). In the same text Cicero says that if Atticus would not find available the ship of Lentulus, he could ship his order with any other cargo vessel. Cicero, also, in a different text (Against Verres, act. 2.4.126) describes how another wealthy Roman, called Verres, had decorated his private villa with ‘the ornaments of temples and cities’, namely works of art that were made with the intention to decorate public areas rather than private houses. The above details from the preserved ancient texts indicate that sanctuary dedications, warrelated events but also private art collection practices must have motivated actively the maritime transportation of sculptural artefacts around the Mediterranean during different periods of Classical Antiquity. As these primary sources indicate, the maritime transportation of sculptures took place mostly with the use of merchant vessels that carried the sculptures on a regular trade and transport basis. Therefore, as the above literary sources mention, when a ship was unavailable, the sculptures could be shipped in any other vessel that had space, too. The ancient author Cassius Dio, though, who lived during the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD, gives information about different shipping practices of sculptures, as well. More specifically, in his work Roman History, he mentions that the Roman emperor Caligula in the 1st century AD wished to transfer to Rome the chryselephantine statue of Zeus, from the temple of Zeus in Olympia, after remodelling it to resemble himself (Cassius Dio Roman History 59.28.3-4). For that purpose, he constructed a special ship that would conduct this maritime transport from Greece to Italy. However, this journey never took place since, according to Cassius Dio, the ship was shattered by thunderbolts. Another unique reference recording the maritime transportation of sculptures in the eastern Mediterranean comes from Philostratus’ work Vita Apollonii (5.20). The story comes from the 1st century AD, and it records clearly a mercantile transportation of freestanding statuary from Athens to Asia Minor. More specifically, Apollonius is at Piraeus starting his journey to Egypt and tries to travel as a passenger in a ship going to Asia Minor, but the captain did not allow him to embark. He claimed that the ship was carrying sculptures of gods ‘made of gold and stone, and others of ivory and gold’ and because of the represented subjects, as well as their prospective function as votive offerings in sanctuaries, he could only carry the sculptural cargo assigned to him: ‘I do not think it proper that they should have to share the voyage with so many people and be defiled by such bad company as you get on board ship’. This refusal led to a short argument with Apollonius, which revealed that the strictly sculptural trade and maritime transportation that this captain was conducting during the 1st century AD was uncommon and possibly newly established. The fact that this trading activity was fairly different, is understood when frustrated Apollonius claims that, in the past, sculptors travelled themselves to create sculptural works in other places instead of exporting their sculptures like any other traded goods: ‘The image-makers of older times behaved not in this way, nor did they go round the cities selling their gods. All they did was to export their own hands and their tools for working stone and ivory; others provided the raw materials, while they plied their craft in the temples themselves; but you are leading the gods into harbours and marketplaces just as if they were wares’.

7

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Except for evidence on the maritime transportation of sculptures, the preserved ancient literary sources provide, also, information on the underwater discovery and retrieval of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean. Strabo, writing his Geography in the 1st century BC, mentions the discovery of ‘a bronze Poseidon’ in the strait near the Greek city of Helice, in the Peloponnese, after its submersion due to an earthquake and a consequent tsunami wave in 373 BC (Strabo Geography 8.7). Pausanias, writing in the 2nd century AD describes the retrieval of the statue of Theagenes from the sea in Thasos with the help of fishermen (Pausanias 6.11.6-8). Such a retrieval of a statue from the sea with the help of fishermen is also depicted on a first-century BC sculptural relief from Ostia confirming, thus, clearly the existence of distinct provisions and techniques for the salvage of sculptural material from the Mediterranean seabed in case of an underwater loss (Museo Ostiense, Inv. No. 157; Boin 2010: 258-264 & figure 7; Kloppenborg 2018: 581, figure 4; Santangelo 2013: 78-79 & fig.3.1). From the above sources it becomes evident that there were many different circumstances that motivated the transportation and resulted into the underwater deposition of sculptures during Classical Antiquity. The incidents, though, that contributed to the underwater deposition of ancient sculptures do not stop only then. As it will be outlined in the next sections, there are several post-antique activities involving the maritime transportation and underwater deposition of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures. Medieval times and the Byzantine empire From the time of its foundation in the 4th century AD and throughout the Medieval times, the city of Constantinople, modern Istanbul, the capital of what modern historians call the Byzantine empire, boasted a large collection of ancient sculptures transported to the city as spolia (Bassett
1991: 87-88; Mango 1963: 55-75). The sculptural pieces included in this collection came from all over the Mediterranean world and had been constructed in many different time periods of Classical Antiquity. Textual sources surviving from this time period, such as the eighth-century AD Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai (in Greek ‘Παραστάσεις σύντομοι χρονικαί’, meaning ‘brief historical notes’), provide lists of the sculptural antiquities that had been brought to Constantinople as spolia from significant places of the ancient Mediterranean world in order to adorn public and private spaces of the city (Cameron and Herrin 1984: 31-34; Harris 2003: 14, 169, 186; Mango 1963: 60). In this text and other surviving historical records, earlier sculptural works have been mentioned as collected and repurposed by different emperors to be put on display (Nicetas Choniates Historia xxiv.181, 648.1751-655.1772). The fifth-century BC statue of Athena Promachos made by Phedias for the Athenian Acropolis, other Athenian statues of philosophers, Phedias’ chryselephantine statue of Zeus from the temple of Zeus in Olympia, the statue of Aphrodite from Knidos made by Praxiteles, Lyssipos’ statue of Herakles, the statue of the she-wolf with Remus and Romulus from Rome, Myron’s bronze cow, horse statues from the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, a statue group set up by Augustus at Actium, as well as other pagan deities and older imperial figures from Rome and other cities are just a few to mention (Cameron and Herrin 1984: 48-50, 167-277; Mango 1963: 55-59; Phillips 2005: 148; Queller and Madden 1997: 160, 195). Even though not explicitly specified in the preserved literary records, at least part of the transportation of these sculptures must have taken place by sea, with the use of seagoing vessels. So, given the type of the ships and the maritime conditions of travelling in the Mediterranean during this time period, it is reasonable to assume that this activity must have had resulted in some underwater losses (Greenhalgh 2009: 124-131). An incident like that is suggested in Chapter 43 of the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, where it is mentioned that a porphyry statue with three heads, 8

Primary sources and literature review representing Constantine and his sons, Constans and Constantius, was lost at sea in the time of Theodosius II and was later replaced by a golden cross (Cameron and Herrin 1984: 49, 265; Queller and Madden 1997: 138). Despite the large chronological span and the large scale of this recorded activity, unfortunately, this pattern and time period of transportation has not been taken into account by most scholars examining and interpreting sculptural artefacts found under water in unidentified archaeological contexts. Thus, so far there is no known shipwreck with ancient sculptures from this era. Medieval times and the Crusades According to the preserved historical records, the sculptural collection, gathered in Constantinople during the medieval times, stood largely undisturbed until the 13th century and more specifically around 1204, when the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade besieged and took over the city (Nicetas Choniates Historia xxiv.181, 648.1751-655.1772; Harris 2003: 14, 169, 186; Magoulias 1984; Mango 1963: 55; Phillips 2005; Queller and Madden 1997: 160, 195). As a result of this event, the crusaders melted a lot of the previously described sculptures, while a few pieces were looted and transported to Italy and mostly Venice. Two sculptural works incorporated today in Saint Mark’s cathedral in Venice have been recognised as ancient sculptural spolia removed from Constantinople during the Crusades and used as ornaments in Venice. The porphyry sculpture of the tetrarchs (Figure 1) representing the four imperial figures of the late Roman Empire and constructed at the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century AD, originally stood in Constantinople and was brought to Venice after 1204 as part of the crusader’s plunder (Madden 1992: 79; Rees 1993: 181-200; Şare-Ağtürk 2018: 411-426). Interestingly, the looting and maritime movement of this sculptural artefact is confirmed archaeologically with

Figure 1: The porphyry sculptural group of the Tetrarchs, embedded in the façade of St Mark’s cathedral in Venice. © Author. 9

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean the discovery of the missing left foot of one of the tetrarchs, in an archaeological excavation in Istanbul in 1965 (Kleiner 2018: 313). The bronze horses decorating the façade of Saint Mark’s cathedral is another sculptural group transported to Venice from Constantinople during the Crusades (Mango 1963: 68; Queller and Madden 1997: 160, 195). These bronze horses were supposedly brought from Chios to Constantinople by Theodosius II and were thought to have been works of the fourth-century BC Greek sculptor Lysippos (Freeman 2004: 92).2 Research on the bronze alloy and casting technique of the horses has produced various interpretations dating the sculptures any time between the Classical and the Severan periods, confirming that indeed they were constructed during Classical Antiquity (Freeman 2004: 223-240; Ridgway 1990: 70-71). An over life-size late-antique bronze statue, known as the ‘Colossus of Barletta’ belongs, also, to the archaeological record of ancient sculptural spolia transported probably in post-antique times (Kiilerich 2016: figure 1, figure 3; Koch 1926: 20-27, plates 20-21). This large-scale sculpture has been considered as found in a Medieval shipwreck in the Adriatic Sea (Johnson 1925: 20-25). Even though its exact origins and findspot are uncertain, the preserved local tradition indicates that the statue was brought to the harbour of Barletta at some time around 1309 and was supposedly found in a Venetian crusaders wreck that was bringing material to Italy after the sack of Constantinople in 1204 (Breckenridge 1979: 29-30; Kiilerich 2016: 55-56, 68-70; Mango 1963: 68). European Antiquarianism and the ‘Grand Tour’ The examples of post-antique maritime transportation and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean do not stop in the Medieval times. With the development of European Antiquarianism and the ‘Grand Tour’, a touristic movement of wealthy European elites in the lands of the Mediterranean to experience the world and see the monuments of the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations, the Mediterranean world saw a large-scale transport of ancient sculptures to northwestern Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries (Black 1985: 226-229; Coltman 2009: 117-158; Trunk 2003: 257). More specifically, one of the main elements of the ‘Grand Tour’ was the acquisition of ancient art from the visited places (Spivey 2013: 314; Sweet 2012: 2-3, 23-24). Architectural remains and sculptures were the most exciting pieces to acquire for the creation of ancient art collections exhibited in the houses of the wealthy European elites (Spivey 1996: 225; Sweet 2012: 59-61). This collection and long-distance movement of ancient works of art and sculptures occurred mainly by ships, which sometimes wrecked, taking with them the ancient artefacts that they carried (Coltman 2009: 119). A few shipwrecks and underwater depositions of antiquities from that era have been briefly assessed to understand their extent and possible repercussion on the underwater archaeological record. These are: The underwater deposition of the ‘Arundel collection’ The sculptures of the ‘Arundel collection’, exhibited today on the ground floor of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, have been brought to the author’s attention by the curator Alison Pollard and the maritime archaeologist Pat Tanner, who, during a digitisation project of the gallery, made some material observations and raised suspicions for some of the ‘Arundel’ sculptures having been part of a shipwreck in the Aegean Sea. The horses remained exhibited on St. Mark’s cathedral from the 13th century until Napoléon Bonaparte expropriated and kept them in Paris between 1797 and 1815. After the fall of Napoléon, the sculptures were returned to Venice. Currently the statues have been kept in a museum and replaced with replicas to prevent degradation from the open-air conditions (Freeman 2004: 199-222).

2 

10

Primary sources and literature review With a visit to the Ashmolean Museum, an in-person examination of the marble deterioration that Pollard and Tanner had observed, as well as some brief scholarly research, it was possible to confirm that indeed the marble sculptures of the ‘Arundel collection’ had spent some time under water during the 17th century. As Vickers (2006: 6-10; 2007: 29-32) records, since 1621 Thomas Howard, the Earl of Arundel, one of the first English art collectors and admirer of Mediterranean antiquities, attempted to collect ancient sculptures from the eastern Mediterranean. Finally, in 1625 he sent William Petty, to collect on his behalf ancient sculptures from Greece and Asia Minor and transport them to Britain (Angelicoussis 2004: 143-159). According to the surviving sources, Petty arrived in Istanbul in January 1625 and toured the west coast of Asia Minor and the islands of the eastern Aegean but was later shipwrecked and arrested as a spy (Vickers 2006: 8). The sculptures he had collected so far were lost in the shipwreck, but on his release from prison he set up salvage operations and recovered the sunken marbles with the cargo arriving finally in London in 1627 (Vickers 2007: 2932). The above story suggests that the ‘Arundel’ sculptures had spent at least a few months or one to two years under water, depending on the length of Petty’s imprisonment and the time it took him to salvage his wrecked cargo. This explains the distinctive marine deterioration seen on most of the marble sculptural examples and architectural pieces at the ‘Gallery 21: Greek and Roman Sculpture’ of the Ashmolean Museum. Moreover, this incident and its lack of cargo inventory, raises questions regarding any material from that shipwreck that could have been left on the seabed due to lack of advanced diving and salvaging equipment during the 17th century. The Mentor shipwreck Lord Elgin’s ship, the Mentor, was used to transport from Greece to England 17 crates of antiquities including architectural parts and sculptures from a number of Athenian monuments, as well as the Athenian Acropolis (Kourkoumelis and Tourtas 2014: 6-7; Lianos 1983: 25; Throckmorton 1970: 163168). On 17 September 1802, the Mentor sank off the island of Kythera, south of the Peloponnese, in Greece, with all of its cargo. All passengers and crew were rescued, but the antiquities went down in the hold of the Mentor. Immediately after the incident, an underwater operation was organised, under Lord Elgin’s orders, to salvage the ship’s cargo. After two years, the divers managed to retrieve most of the ship’s load, including the well-known Parthenon marbles, which were then shipped successfully to the United Kingdom (Lianos 1983: 26; Throckmorton 1970: 166-168). Recent excavations at the site of the Mentor revealed a large section of the surviving hull, shipboard and ship-related objects, personal belongings of the passengers and the crew, as well as some ancient coins, nine slates with embedded fossils and two fragments of Egyptian reliefs, which most probably constituted part of Lord Elgin’s antiquities collection that was not possible or important to recover from the seabed after 1802 (Kourkoumelis and Tourtas 2014: 6-7; Lianos 1983: 25-28). The HMS Colossus shipwreck The 18th century HMS Colossus wrecked off the Isles of Scilly in 1798 while carrying part of the Mediterranean antiquities collection of Sir William Hamilton, who evacuated his house in Naples during the Napoleonic Wars, at the end of the 18th century (Birchall 2004: 12-13; Camidge 2005; CISMAS 2019; Historic England 2019; Isles of Scilly Museum 2019; Morris 1979: 43-68; Woodford 2001: 1-7). In the 1960s Roland Morris, a marine salver, started searching for the material of the HMS Colossus (Morris 1979: 87-230). In the 1970s the site was detected and excavated with the involvement of archaeologists of the British Museum (Birchall 2004: 12-13).

11

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean During this investigation, large quantities of ancient Greek pottery, dated between 600 BC and 300 BC, were recovered and deposited in the British Museum (British Museum 2019). Local divers, though, continued recovering material from the shipwreck of the Colossus throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s. Hence, some of the shipwreck material is currently on display in the local museum (Isles of Scilly Museum 2019). The SS Castor shipwreck The late 19th-century wreck of the Dutch ship SS Castor sank on 28 July 1894 in the English Channel (Arata 2005: 153). At the time of wrecking the Castor was on her way from Turkey and Algeria to Amsterdam, while transporting valuable antiquities including some second-century AD marble sculptural artefacts. In 1994, local divers, who were exploring the 19th-century wreck site, found several of these sculptures together with five inscribed tombstones, which were all returned to Turkey in 1997, through the Receiver of Wrecks (Canterbury Divers 2019). Since the 1994 discovery, though, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has reported several attempts to plunder the shipwreck of SS Castor with the possible illegal removal of more crates carrying antiquities and sculptures (Canterbury Divers 2019). The case of the Castor and all of the above post-antique underwater depositions of antiquities indicate that non-ancient activities must have largely contributed into the existing underwater archaeological record of the Mediterranean and beyond. However, as it will be explained in the following sections, due to the conditions of discovery of ancient sculptures from under water, as well as the various processes under which the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology developed in the course of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, the existing scholarship has not been able to distinguish ancient and post-antique incidents in the preserved archaeological information. The history of discovering ancient sculptures underwater In order to fully understand the scholarly approaches, the challenges and the gaps in the existing scholarship, it is important to examine in more detail the available archaeological primary sources, as well as when and how the underwater entries included in the database of this study (Appendix 1) were actually discovered. This section is presented separately from the history of the archaeological scholarship for two reasons. First of all, most of the sculptures found in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea have not been retrieved in archaeologically organised operations, but they have been found accidentally by fishermen, sponge divers or recreational SCUBA divers. Secondly, the sources of information regarding the underwater sculptural material and their discovery have not always been academic, but our knowledge is based on unpublished sources and information from popular media. 16th – 19th centuries As described previously, sculptures have been salvaged from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea since Classical Antiquity. However, the first underwater discovery of an ancient sculpture with an antiquarian interest is not seen until the 16th century. This is the Livorno sculpture (D.B.62), a bronze male torso that was retrieved from the sea off Tuscany and got absorbed in the collection of the Medici family in Florence with no further contextual information (Arata 2005: 7, 170; Mattusch 1978: 101-104). Following that, in the 18th century, and more specifically in 1722, the Livorno assemblage (D.B.61) was retrieved from around the same sea area, consisting of four, bronze, portrait busts representing ancient Greek poets (Arata 2005: 7; Dillon 2006: 135; Ling 2007: 90-91; Parker 1992: 244).3 3  Even though, according to most sources, the Livorno bust portraits are considered to be Roman copies of ancient Greek originals, Ling (2007: 90) expresses the opinion that these sculptures were not ancient creations, but early modern casts inspired by antiquities.

12

Primary sources and literature review Another early find is the Piombino sculpture (D.B.82), usually known as ‘Piombino Apollo’, caught in the nets of a fisherman in the Golfo di Baratti in 1812 or 1832 with no other contextual material (Arata 2005: 180-182; Bass 1966: 70-72; Mattusch 1996: 139; Tzalas 2007: 342-343). Soon after its discovery, the sculpture was moved to France, where it is now exhibited in the Louvre museum in Paris (Louvre Museum 2017). Around the middle of the 19th century two more sculptures were found. The first one is the Eleusis sculpture (D.B.36), also known as ‘Ephebe of Sabouroff ’, which was salvaged from the sea between Salamis and Eleusis and was soon after taken to Germany in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Arata 2005: 9-10; Bass 1966: 80; Koutsouflakis 2017). The second one is the Brindisi sculpture (D.B.15), a small bronze sculpture of a philosopher that was found in the port of Brindisi during dredging activities and was sold to the British Museum in 1856 (Arata 2005: 150; Walters 1899: 153). Towards the end of the 19th century another bronze male sculpture was recovered from the waters of Greece. The Livadostra sculpture (D.B.60), also known as ‘Poseidon of Livadostra’ or ‘Poseidon of Kreusis’, was discovered next to its plinth in 1897 in shallow waters of the Corinthian Gulf at the beach of Livadostra in Boeotia (Arata 2005: 172; Kaltsas 2002: 86; Mattusch 1988: 4-5, 79-80; Tzalas 2007: 343-344; Koutsouflakis 2017). This medium-scale sculpture, now exhibited in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, was found out of context. Due to the location of this sculpture’s discovery, Bass has suggested that it could have been a transported object or a dedication from a local shrine, that was later deposited under water (Bass 1966: 79). 1900s – 1940s The discoveries of sculptures from under water from the 16th to the 19th centuries were scarce and accidental. All of the recorded examples were isolated finds retrieved out of their archaeological

context. In the first half of the 20th century, a period still before the invention and broad use of SCUBA, the discoveries of sculptures in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea became more frequent, but still mostly accidental. During this time single sculptures, but also larger assemblages of sculptural material, were found, some coming from shipwreck contexts. The first large concentration of sculptures was found off the east coast of the Greek island of Antikythera in 1900 (D.B.6). The sculptures were discovered accidentally by sponge divers, in what was later recognised and called the Antikythera shipwreck (Rackl 1978: 15-36; Throckmorton 1970: 113-168; Tzalas 2007: 344-346). This is the earliest case of sculptural material found within a datable shipwreck context, but also one of the first ancient shipwrecks found in the Mediterranean Sea (Muckelroy 1978: 12). Salvage operations were organised by the Greek government shortly after the discovery of the Antikythera shipwreck in order to retrieve the archaeological material. The operations were conducted by sponge divers, who recovered the artefacts from under water, the Greek navy that provided the ship facilities for the diving, but also archaeologists such as A. Oikonomou, professor of archaeology at the University of Athens, G. Byzantinos, Director of Antiquities, and G. Kritikos, clerk in the archaeology department, who recorded the material and supervised the salvage operations from the surface (Tsiropoulou et al. 2012: 18-28). This first salvage of the Antikythera shipwreck focused on the recovery of sculptural artefacts. So, large amounts of both bronze and marble sculptural material (Figures 2-3) were raised from the seabed and the underwater deposit was dated to the first half of the 1st century BC. Since then, the site has been revisited again and again, firstly by Jacques-Yves Cousteau with short surveys and excavations in 1953 and 1976, and, since 2014, by the team of the project ‘Return to Antikythera’ organised by the Hellenic Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (Arata 2005: 144-146; Foley 2016; Kaltsas et al. 2012: 14-15, 36; Parker 1992: 55-56). In 1905, in the port of Cadiz in Spain, a diver recovered a large headless marble male statue and a small-scale bronze sculpture from the seabed between the Bajo Moguerano and the island of 13

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 2: Marble statue of Herakles from the Antikythera shipwreck. Now in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. © Author.

Figure 3: The Youth of Antikythera, from the Antikythera shipwreck. Now in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. © Author.

14

Primary sources and literature review Sanctipetri (Arata 2005: 152). This is the Cadiz assemblage (D.B.17), which constitutes the first evidence of sculptures from under water in this area of the western Mediterranean world. The Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67) was the second earliest discovery of both bronze and marble sculptures found within a preserved and dateable underwater archaeological context. It was discovered in 1907, again by sponge divers, approximately five kilometers off the coast of Tunisia and it has been dated to the late 2nd or early 1st century BC (Arata 2005: 174-176; Fuchs 1963: 11; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: 5; Rackl 1978: 37-50; Parker 1992: 252). The shipwreck was firstly surveyed and salvaged right after its discovery in 1907-1913 by the Department of Antiquities in Tunis, but also in 1948/1949 by Philippe Tailliez and Jacques-Yves Cousteau, in 1954 and 1955 by the Club de Recherches Sous-Marine de Tunisia under the direction of Guy de Frondeville, and in 1987 by the Institut National du Patrimoine in Tunis and the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn (Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: 5-17; Winterstein 2000). Despite all these projects and the retrieval of hundreds of objects, the archaeological material from the Mahdia shipwreck has not been fully documented and there are still some unanswered questions regarding the sculptural material and the ship itself. Following the discovery of the Antikythera and the Mahdia shipwrecks another large shipwreck was located in Italy in 1908 (Bartoli 2008: 2-3). This is the Punta Scifo shipwreck (D.B.90), also known in scholarship as Punta Scifo A and dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD (Parker 1992: 361). Local people discovered the wreck 200 meters off the coast of Punta Scifo in approximately 4.5 meters depth (Bartoli 2008: 42, 74). The stone cargo it carried, was salvaged in 1908 and 1915 with the recovery of several stone artefacts including columns, basins, blocks, capitals and a mediumscale statuary group recognised as Eros and Psyche (Arata 2005: 159-160; Bartoli 2008: 128-131; Arata 2005: 174-176; Russell 2015: 193). The site was revisited and surveyed archaeologically

Figure 4: The medium-scale bronze sculpture found at the sea off Marathon. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author.

15

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean multiple times after that: in 1961-1978, in 1980s-1990s and more recently in 2005-2006 (Bartoli 2008: 42-57). However, the material is still dispersed in different locations of the region of Croton in Southern Italy or even totally lost (Bartoli 2008: 72-73). After the last discovery in 1908 there is no reported sculptural find from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea until 1925, when a bronze male medium-scale sculpture (Figure 4) was found in shallow waters at the bay of Marathon, in Greece (Bass 1966: 74, 169; Koutsouflakis 2017; Parker 1992: 259). The Marathon sculpture (D.B.68), also known as the ‘Marathon boy’, was an accidental out-of-context find that was quickly absorbed in the collection of the National Archaeological Museum at Athens with no substantial survey at the area (Arata 2005: 178; Mattusch 1997: 15-16; Tzalas 2007: 346-349). In the same year a bronze statue was found at Rompetimones, 200 meters from the island of Sanctipetri in Cadiz, Spain (Arata 2005: 152). The Cadiz sculpture (D.B.18) was found in a fragmentary condition, but with its stone base preserved. Shortly after the discovery of that last example, in 1926, more sculptural fragments were recovered accidentally from the Aegean Sea in Greece, close to the cape Artemission (Bass 1966: 169; Herbig 1929; Koutsouflakis 2017). This was the start of a series of discoveries and salvage operations from a potential shipwreck context termed here Artemission assemblage (D.B.9). The two bronze freestanding sculptures retrieved from the sea off Artemission, the God (Zeus or Poseidon) of Artemission and the Horse and Jockey of Artemission (Figures 5-6), were salvaged in fragments during the years 1926-1929 and in 1936 (Arata 2005: 146-147; Bass 1966: 72; Hemingway 2004: 3540; Parker 1992: 60; Rackl 1978: 57; Tzalas 2007: 350-353). The sculptures have been elaborately

Figure 5: The god (Zeus/Poseidon) found off cape Artemission. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author. 16

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 6: The bronze sculptural group of the Horse and the Jockey found off cape Artemission. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author.

Figure 7: The large-scale marble female sculpture found in the sea off Rhodes. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Rhodes. © Author.

17

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean restored and displayed in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens, but the exact site and the underwater archaeological context where the sculptural pieces came from has been forgotten. In 1929 a marble large-scale female statue was retrieved from the sea off the west coast of the city of Rhodes (Figure 7). The Rhodes sculpture (D.B.91), now in the Archaeological Museum of Rhodes, has been recognised by the archaeologists of the island as an Aphrodite ‘aidoumene’ type, and according to the existing sources it was an accidental find retrieved with no associated archaeological context (Bass 1966: 79). Arata (2005: 189) reports another sculptural find from the sea around Rhodes, a bronze head of Medusa, but with no information regarding the size, form or the museum where the sculpture could be. Some time in the 1930s a large-scale marble sculpture in the form of ‘Doryphoros’ was found somewhere in the Tyrrhenian Sea or in the Western Mediterranean (Arata 2005: 177-178). This Unknown 1930s sculpture (D.B.108) was found out of context and after it moved through several Italian, Swiss and Canadian private collections it ended up at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, where it is currently exhibited. In 1930, during dredging operations of the Piraeus harbour in Athens, a burnt flat-bottomed vessel was found with a cargo of sculptures (Bass 1966: 74; Parker 1992: 312). This site, termed the Piraeus shipwreck (D.B.83), could potentially answer a lot of questions regarding the maritime transport of sculptures in Classical Antiquity. However, the underwater site was never published due to the early date and the conditions of the discovery in the commercial harbour of Athens. So, there has been no exact information regarding the form of the hull remains or the number, material and type of the retrieved sculptures, even though some sculptural artefacts from the Archaeological

Figure 8: One of the sculptural reliefs retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author. 18

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 9: Head of a large-scale marble statue, probably retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author.

Figure 10: Unfinished small-scale marble sculpture, probably retrieved from a shipwreck in the harbour of Piraeus. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus. © Author. 19

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Museum of Piraeus have been recognised as possibly coming from this archaeological context (Figures 8-10). The Salerno sculpture (D.B.95), also known as ‘Apollo of Salerno’, was found in the same year, in 1930, by a fisherman in the Tyrrhenian Sea, but with no contextual information (Arata 2005: 191; Pacifico 2017). Some fragments of sculptural artefacts were retrieved from the sea off the shore of Ayia Galini, in the gulf of Messara in southern Crete in 1937 (Arata 2005: 143-144; Hood and Warren 1966; Parker 1992: 62; Sanders 1982: 165). These sculptural fragments that were brought to the surface by a fisherman were all bronze and probably part of a shipwreck carrying metal material and known as Ayia Galini shipwreck (D.B.13). The site was salvaged in archaeologically directed operations in 1938-1939, 1955 and 1960 and has been since dated in the Late Roman times (Parker 1992: 62). However, the underwater site and its sculptural material have never been properly researched. Only some of the bronze objects have been studied as part of a recent PhD dissertation (Brokalakis 2012, 2013, 2016). In 1949 a bronze sculpture of a panther was reported as retrieved somewhere in the sea off the Provençal coast, in Monaco during helmet-diving operations (Reymond and Dugand 1970). This Monaco sculpture (D.B.76) is briefly mentioned by Diolé (1957: 73, fig.14), who describes the artefact as a large bronze statuette while providing a picture of the find. Arata (2005: 179), Parker (1992: 280) and Bass (1966: 80) also report the find and mention that the sculpture came from the context of a potential shipwreck, but no further information is given regarding the underwater site. 1950s – 1990s As described above, in the first few decades of the 20th century the number of sculptures found in the waters of the Mediterranean increased. Discoveries like the Antikythera and the Mahdia shipwrecks highlighted to the contemporaries the archaeological potential of the underwater world and in many cases instigated the ‘archaeological salvage’ of sites for the recovery of mainly ancient sculptural artefacts of importance. However, still before the 1950s there was no consideration of using scientific archaeological methods on the seabed. The ancient artefacts found under water were thought to be suitable only for rescue recoveries and mainly helmet divers ran any diving operations, with the archaeologists supervising from the surface (Bass 1966: 15, 21-22; Green 1990: 2). The scenery changed radically after the 1940s. The post-war invention of SCUBA, and more specifically of the type known as ‘aqualung’, invented by Emile Gagnan and Jacques-Yves Cousteau in 1942, opened the underwater world to a wider audience (Bass 1966: 22; Bass 2011: 5; Muckelroy 1978: vii; Parker 1992: 2-3;). The introduction of recreational diving with the use of the much safer and lighter SCUBA equipment, without the life-threatening dangers of helmet diving, brought several new developments from the 1950s onwards (Green 1990: 2-3). First of all, pioneers of underwater exploration, like Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Peter Throckmorton, started revisiting already known archaeological sites, but also finding new ancient underwater deposits, a lot of them associated with the discovery of ancient sculptures. Secondly, the involvement of pioneer SCUBA divers in archaeological projects, as amateur archaeologists, resulted to the introduction of SCUBA diving to professional land archaeologists, like George Bass, who were willing to learn and apply their scientific archaeological techniques on the seabed. Therefore, by the 1960s we have the appearance of professional maritime archaeologists, who would attempt full-scale scientific underwater archaeological projects to investigate the sites of sculptures recovered by chance in the previous decades (Bass 1966: 47-48; Bass and Joline 1968:

20

Primary sources and literature review 9-12). Finally, a quite unfortunate development of this period was the fact that the seabed became available to looters and treasure hunters, who found in the waters of the Mediterranean the perfect depository of ancient works of art, which were retrieved out of context, and, therefore, were easy to sell in the antiquities market. Since more and more people had access to the Mediterranean seabed and were looking for antiquities under water, the number of sculptures discovered increased rapidly from the 1950s onwards. During the period 1950s - 1990s there were still a lot of sculptures found out of context and a lot of looted underwater sites with their sculptures ending up in the antiquities market. In the same time period, though, we have the first examples of archaeologically researched and published underwater sites with ancient sculptural artefacts. More specifically, during the 1950s the first-century AD Cavallo shipwreck (D.B.27) was discovered in Corsica (Corsi-Sciallano and Liou 1985: 128-129). This site, which was researched in the 1960s and 1970s, included a small-scale sculpture, a figurine representing a male, probably divine, figure usually recognised as Jupiter (Arata 2005: 156; Corsi-Sciallano and Liou 1985: 119). In 1953, another bronze statue was dragged from the seabed of the Aegean Sea, near Arap Adasi in Turkey. The Arap Adasi sculpture (D.B.8), a large-scale bronze statue of a female figure, also known as ‘the Lady from the Sea’ or ‘Demeter’, was found by sponge-draggers, who left the sculptural artefact at a beach near Bodrum (Arata 2005: 157-158; Green 2004: 2-3; Parker 1992: 57). The British archaeologist George Bean, who happened to be at the area, saw and examined the sculpture, which was later brought in the Izmir Archaeological Museum (Izmir Archaeology Museum 2017; Koutsouflakis 2017; Ridgway 1967: 329). In the period 1965-1969 George Bass surveyed the area off the coast of Turkey in an attempt to locate the wreck, where the Arap Adasi sculpture came from, and found some concentrations of amphorae in deep water, but with no certain association to the statue (Bass 1966: 44, 76). In 2004, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology of Texas A&M repeated a survey at the area, but no associated shipwreck was located (Green 2004: 8-11). In 1955, the first-century AD Planier shipwreck (D.B.84), also known as Planier 1, was discovered in the sea off southern France (Parker 1992: 315). This shipwreck, which was first looted and then researched archaeologically in the 1980s, must have included two wooden figurines, which were found accidentally in 1981 by a local diver. An underwater site known as the Spargi shipwreck (D.B.99) was discovered in 1957 off the northwestern coast of Sardinia with a small- or medium-scale sculpture reported within its archaeological context (Arata 2005: 196; Parker 1992: 409-410). The late-second or early-firstcentury BC Spargi shipwreck, even though heavily looted, was one of the first underwater sites to be archaeologically excavated in the Mediterranean under the direction of the archaeologist Nino Lamboglia, but no information regarding the exact material, size or form of the statuette has been available (Beltrame 2000: 155). In 1958 the Hierapetra sculpture (D.B.48; Figure 11) was found out of context next to a sarcophagus in shallow waters in Crete, Greece (Arata 2005: 166; Russell 2013b: 341). The site was never researched and since the sculptural artefact was recovered without contextual information it is still unclear whether its deposition was due to a shipwreck or the submersion of an ancient cemetery. In 1959, the Mykonos sculpture (D.B.77), also known as the ‘Artemis from the sea’, was retrieved by a fisherman from the waters around Mykonos (Koutsouflakis 2017). Since then, the smallscale bronze sculpture has remained unpublished and kept in the storerooms of the National Archaeological Museum at Athens with only some displays in temporary museum exhibitions that resulted in the appearance of this sculpture in the Greek news.

21

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 11: Bronze statue of a young boy found in the sea off Hierapetra, in Crete, Greece. Now in the Archaeological Museum of Herakleion. © Author.

In the 1960s a late-Roman shipwreck site, known as Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38), was salvaged and looted at 22 meters depth, near Es Capifort, in Menorca, Spain (Fernandez-Miranda and Belén 1977: 95-102; Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 175-188; Parker 1992: 176). The material from the site has been described in the sources as bronze objects scattered in concretions, including hundreds of plates, keys, chains, candelabra, statuettes, balances, coins, nails, part of a pump, bronze ingots, weights of brass, coarseware pottery and one amphora (Fernandez-Miranda 1977: 821-823; Keay 1984: 654; McCormick 2001: 51). Parker (1992: 176) noted that he had personally seen some of the scrap metal material, including some bronze sculptures, and observed that some ‘irregular ingots of bronze’ were made by scrap of different metals like the ones that existed on board. Therefore, he suggested that the ship carried a metal worker supplying liturgical items to the Balearic Islands. In the same decade the Lluchmajor sculpture (D.B.64), a small-scale bronze sculpture of Venus, was found out of context off the coast of Majorca, in Spain (Arata 2005: 176). In 1962/1963 two sculptural pieces were retrieved by sponge-draggers from the sea off the western coast of Asia Minor, in Turkey, close to Yalikavak. The Yalikavak assemblage (D.B.110) consists of a large-scale bronze statue of a young boy and a bronze female figurine representing probably Isis Fortuna (Arata 2005: 149-150; Koutsouflakis 2017; Ridgway 1990: 339, plate 177). George Bass attempted to locate the archaeological context, where these sculptural pieces came from, in 19651968 and he found a shipwreck that could fit with the general area of discovery, but with no strong evidence that could link the two (Bass 1966: 169; Parker 1992: 453-454). In 1963, the Pinedo sculpture (D.B.81), an under life-size bronze sculpture of Apollo, was found by chance off the coast of Pinedo, close to Valencia, Spain (Arata 2005: 199). 22

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 12: The under life-size bronze male sculpture found off Fano, Italy. Now in the Getty Villa, in Los Angeles, USA. © Author.

In 1963/1964 a bronze statuette of a youth was dragged out of the Adriatic Sea, off the coast of Fano in Italy (Parker 1992: 176; Arata 2005: 162-163). The Fano sculpture (D.B.37; Figure 12) is also known as ‘the Statue of a Victorious Youth’ or ‘the Getty Bronze’ because it has been part of the J. Paul Getty collection since 1977 (Mattusch 1997: 1-3). The sculpture was found out of context by fishermen, who hid their discovery for some time (Mattusch 1997: 20). Therefore, the statue’s exact findspot was never recorded properly and its archaeological context remains unknown. All of the information regarding the underwater deposition of this sculptural piece come mainly from conservation work and pictures available in the archive of the J. Paul Getty Museum. In 1964, an under life-size bronze male sculpture was found in the harbour of Agde, at the mouth of river Hérault, in southern France, by a diver of the local society for underwater archaeology (Tzalas 2007: 354). The Agde sculpture (D.B.2), also known as ‘the Alexander of Agde’ (l’Alexandre d’Agde) or ‘the youth of Agde’ (l’ephèbe d’Agde), was found as an isolated find, but in a very close proximity to a second-century BC and a second-century AD shipwreck, which cannot be clearly associated due to lack of systematic archaeological research during the salvage operations (Parker 1992: 46; Queyrel 2012: 5). In 1964 or 1969 the Hellenistic Megadim shipwreck (D.B.75) was discovered in the sea off the Carmel coast of Israel. The discovery was made by divers of the Israel Underwater Archaeological Research Society while surveying the shallow underwater zone adjacent to Nahal Megadim (Misch-Brandl and Galili 1985: 12-13; Syon et al. 2013: 1). The Marine Unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies of the University of Haifa excavated the site in 19821983. During this project, hundreds of artefacts were documented and recovered from the site including anthropomorphic and zoomorphic, larger than life-size bronze statue fragments (MischBrandl and Galili 1985: 12; Syon et al. 2013: 2). The excavation documents, as well as the majority of 23

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean the recovered artefacts have not been published in detail yet. So, the only available information on the form, material, dimensions and subjects of representation of the transported sculptures come from the preliminary report published by Misch-Brandl and Galili in 1985, as well as the study and publication of the coin hoards by Syon et al. in 2013. These publications provide pictures of two fragments of bronze sculptures and give some information about the possible packaging of the sculptural material from the shipwreck of Megadim. In 1967, a local fisherman found the Saintes Maries-de-la-Mer sculpture (D.B.94) off the mouth of the river Petite Rhône (Tchernia 1969: 492). According to Valaison and Valaison (1970: 179), Parker (1992: 377) and Arata (2005: 189-190), together with the Saintes Maries-de-la-Mer sculpture some amphorae and stone pieces were recovered, but with no further details for the existence of a shipwreck. In the same year the Elba sculpture (D.B.35) was found in the northeastern part of the Gulf of Procchio (Arata 2005: 161). This under life-size ivory sculpture, depicting Bacchus and Pan, was found in a possibly Roman shipwreck, but with no secure evidence. Still in the same year the Coltellazzo 1967 shipwreck (D.B.29) was found. In its archaeological context, which has been dated between the 4th and 2nd centuries BC, a larger than life-size terracotta head, known as the ‘Lady of Nora’, as well two male and two female heads and pieces of other terracotta figures have been found (Arata 2005: 179-180). Another survey conducted on the site in 1978 brought to light several amphorae containing animal bones and revealed evidence for the existence of possibly two different wrecks on the same area. The second shipwreck has been recorded as the Coltellazzo 1978 shipwreck (D.B.30), which has been described as containing terracotta sculptures scattered with other artefacts and nautical items on the seabed (Parker 1992: 151). In 1968 the Port Vendres shipwreck (D.B.86), classified elsewhere as ‘Port Vendres 3’ or ‘Port Vendres C’, was found off the coast of southern France. The underwater deposit, which has been dated to the 2nd century AD, contained a small figurine of an African black rhinoceros (Liou and Pomey 1985: 551-554; Parker 1992: 331). In the same year, in 1968, or according to Liou and Pomey (1985: 567-569) in 1978, the first-century BC Cap Camarat shipwreck (D.B.22), also known as ‘Cap Camarat 2’, was found in southern France carrying amphorae and some terracotta statuettes (Parker 1992: 100). Additionally, in 1968, the Stagira sculpture (D.B.100) was found out of context in the port of the ancient city of Stagira in northern Greece (Arata 2005: 196-197). The sculpture has been described as a large-scale marble piece representing a naked male figure, probably an archaic kouros. Despite the unique date of this sculptural find, the site around it has not been surveyed and the sculpture itself has not been published in detail (Petsa 1975: 251). In 1969, the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88) was discovered in the straits of Messina, in Italy, by a Calabrese fisherman and a diver, who looted systematically the site for months. Due to a dispute between the looters the local police became aware of the shipwreck and called the Superintendent of Antiquities of Calarbria, Dr Foti (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 3-4). Following that, a short archaeologically directed salvage operation was conducted to rescue the artefacts lying visible on the seabed, and then in 1970 a scientific systematic excavation took place under the direction of Professor David I. Owen of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 4-5). From this shipwreck, which has been dated to the late 5th or early 4th centuries BC, approximately 20 fragments of large-scale bronze sculptures have been retrieved (Arata 2005: 182-184; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63-106).

24

Primary sources and literature review In the same year, two more underwater sculptural discoveries were made. The first one is the Paros assemblage (D.B.79), consisting of fragments of stone sculptures dredged in the harbour area, off the bay of Paroikia in a possibly second-century AD underwater deposit (Papathanassopoulos and Schilardi 1981: 133, 137; Russell 2011: 148; Russell 2013b: 341). The second one is the Egnazia sculpture (D.B.33), an under life-size bronze sculpture representing a draped female figure, which was recovered from the port basin of the city of Egnazia, in Puglia, Italy (Arata 2005: 161). In 1970, the El Sec shipwreck (D.B.34) was found at the mouth of the bay of Palma de Majorca, in Spain (Arata 2005: 193-194). According to the limited sources available, among the diverse pottery finds on this fourth-century BC site, an under life-size marble sculpture of a female figure was found. According to Arata (2005: 173-174), in the period 1970-1985, during the excavations of the firstcentury BC Madrague de Giens shipwreck (D.B.66), in southern France, the arm of a small-scale marble sculpture was discovered among the amphorae. Liou and Pomey (1985: 563), also, describe the discovery of this small marble sculptural fragment in the cabin area of the ship, suggesting possibly the existence of a shipboard shrine with small-scale sculptures on the ship. In 1972, two large-scale bronze statues of male figures (Figures 13-14), recorded here as the Riace assemblage (D.B.93), were discovered off the coast of Riace Marina, off Porto Farticchio, in southern Italy (Lattanzi 1986: 13-14; Lombardi Satriani and Paoletti 1986). The Riace ‘bronzes’ were found accidentally by a recreational diver, who reported his discovery to the local archaeological superintendency (Arata 2005: 186-188; Gianfrotta 1986: 25). Following that, in the fear of potential looting, the Messina Diving Unit of the Carabinieri retrieved the statues quickly from the seabed without a specialized framework for underwater archaeological research (Lattanzi 1986: 15). However, a year after the discovery, an archaeological survey was organised on the site by Nino Lamboglia, director of the Institute of Ligurian Studies, and previously involved in other underwater archaeological projects in Italy. During this research, fragments fitting to the already retrieved sculptures were discovered, but according to Lamboglia they did not spot an actual wreckage under water. In the same year, in 1972, the wreck of an early second-century AD stone carrying ship was discovered in the Black Sea. This is the Şile shipwreck (D.B.98), found off Kumbaba beach in Turkey. Its cargo included marble unfinished portraits, which were salvaged in a rescue excavation and then transported in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Arata 2005: 195; Beykan 1988: 127-137; Parker 1992: 404-405). In the year 1973 two underwater deposits with sculptures were found off the coast of Lebanon and were reported by Robert F. Marx. The Tyre assemblage (D.B.106) contained six bronze sculptures, while the Tyre shipwreck (D.B.107) seven terracotta figurines (Arata 2005: 197-198; Marx 1974: 332; Parker 1992: 437-438). In 1973/1974, E. Linder and the University of Haifa found the Shave Ziyyon shipwreck (D.B.97) during an underwater archaeological survey. The late-fifth- or early fourth-century BC deposit consisted of a large number of terracotta small-scale figurines that have been associated with the Tyre shipwreck (D.B.107) above or have been explained as a ritual deposition (Arata 2005: 199; Jewish Virtual Library 2017; Parker 1992: 401; Seco Alvarez and Noureddine 2010: 7;). In 1974 the Pozzino shipwreck (D.B.89) was discovered in the gulf of Baratti near Populonia, in the north Tyrrhenian Sea, in Italy (Camporeale et al. 2012: 405-409; Kapitän 1990: 162; YellowleesBound and Bound 1990: 255). The exact circumstances of discovery are not well-documented, but the underwater survey and the excavations undertaken at the site in the 1980s by Professor Francesco Nicosia revealed the existence of a small late second- or early first-century BC vessel 25

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 13: Riace statue A, now in the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia. © Author.

Figure 14: Riace statue B, now in the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia. © Author. 26

Primary sources and literature review carrying pottery, amphorae, as well as a chest with medical equipment and wooden containers for medical supplies (Gibbins 1991: 241; Yellowlees-Bound and Bound 1990: 255). Fragments of a wooden or ivory-and-wood sculpture have been found associated with this medical chest (Gibbins 1997: 2; Spawforth 1990: 9). In the same year, 1974, the Benalmadena sculpture (D.B.14) was found off the coast of Spain. A recreational diver found accidentally this large-scale marble statue of Diana or Artemis in an underwater site with many other marble slabs (Arata 2005: 149; Russell 2011: 140; Russell 2013b: 340). Similarly to many other out-of-context sculptures from the Aegean Sea, two bronze sculptures were found in 1979. The first one, the Foça sculpture (D.B.39), is a bronze sculpture representing an athlete and was found off the coast of Asia Minor, in Turkey (Arata 2005: 160-161, 168; Izmir Archaeology Museum 2017; Tzalas 2007: 358-359). The second one, the Northern Aegean sculpture (D.B.78; Figure 15), is a large-scale bronze sculpture of a male figure with Julio-Claudian portrait characteristics which was found in an unknown location in the Northern Aegean Sea, somewhere between the islands of Euboea and Agios Efstratios (Koutsouflakis 2017). In the same year a bronze statue was found in the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey. This is the Cide sculpture (D.B.28), also known as ‘Bronze Youth From the Black Sea’, which was found during dredging activities in shallow waters and is now exhibited in the Samsun Museum in Turkey (Ridgway 2002: 187-188, plate 86).

Figure 15: The Northern Aegean sculpture, a fragment from a bronze equestrian statue with Julio-Claudian portrait characteristics. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author. 27

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean In the years between 1980 and 1987, the Marsala 1980s sculpture (D.B.70; Figure 16), a large-scale marble statue of a warrior, was retrieved from the sea off Marsala in Sicily (Sofroniew 2016). In 1980 the Lixouri shipwreck (D.B.63), also known as Cape Xi shipwreck, was found at the island of Kefalonia. The deposit was salvaged in operations by the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities that resulted in the retrieval of several marble sculptures with no head (Figures 17; Arata 2005: 172; Parker 1992: 245). In the same decade several bronze and terracotta sculptural artefacts were found in the seabed off Potquerolles in Hyères, southern France, from the possibly archaic Pointe Lequine shipwreck (D.B.85; Arata 2005: 166). In 1981 the Ai Stratis sculpture (D.B.3) was given to the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities in Greece. This is a bronze sculptural fragment from an equestrian statue that was reportedly found by a fisherman in around the same area as the Northern Aegean sculpture (D.B.78) mentioned above (Koutsouflakis 2017). In 1982 a large-scale bronze sculpture of a male figure was found in the sea off the coast of Karatas, in Turkey. The Karatas sculpture (D.B.55) is recorded only by Arata (2005: 168), who gives no further details regarding the sculpture’s conditions of discovery or archaeological context. In 1983 another out-of-context bronze sculpture, the Delos sculpture (D.B.32), representing probably a lion, was retrieved from the sea between the islands of Delos and Rheneia in Greece (Archibald et al. 2001: 289; Parker 1992: 161; Touchais 1984: 818).

Figure 16: The Marsala 1980s sculpture, a large-scale marble statue of a warrior, displayed in the Museo Archeologico Regionale Lilibeo di Marsala – Baglio Anselmi. © Author. 28

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 17: Three sculptures and a column capital from the Lixouri shipwreck. Now in the Building of Pasha in the castle of Pylos, Greece. © Author.

In the year 1986, the Ashqelon 1986 shipwreck (D.B.10), a late second- or early third-century AD stone carrying ship was found off the coast of Israel with a life-size porphyry statue (Parker 1992: 61; Russell 2011: 148). In the same year the second-century BC Apollonia shipwreck (D.B.7) was discovered off the coast of Libya with a collection of bronze furniture and bronze sculptures (Arata 2005: 147; Parker 1992: 57). In 1987 three shipwrecks with sculptural material were discovered in the Mediterranean. The first one is the Porticcio shipwreck (D.B.87), found at the sea off the bay of Ajaccio in Corsica. In this mid-third-century AD shipwreck site, which was excavated between 1988 and 1991, two over lifesize marble sculptures and several other sculptural fragments were found, depicting the Emperor Marcus Julius Philippus, known as Philip the Arab, and his family. The sculptures were found with different types of amphorae, African pottery, a window glass freight, glassware, millstones and coins and other artefacts. The second shipwreck of that year, the second-century AD Grado shipwreck (D.B.45), was found off the coast of Grado in Italy containing mainly amphorae, but also a bronze figurine of Neptune (Arata 2005: 164-165; Parker 1992: 197). The third deposit discovered in 1987 is the Rhone Delta shipwreck (D.B.92), that according to Parker (1992: 366-367) and Arata (2005: 188-189) was dated in the 1st century BC and contained amphorae, granite blocks, dolia fragments, but also a colossal head of Augustus in Luna marble. In 1988, the Gela shipwreck (D.B.42), known also as the archaic Greek ship at Gela, was found at the sea off Sicily. Even though not mentioned in the 2008 salvage reports, older sources mention that this sewn ship included terracotta figurines and fragments of small-scale wooden sculptures (Parker 1992: 189). 29

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean In 1989 the Camarina 1989 shipwreck (D.B.20), also known as Camarina B shipwreck, was discovered at the west end of the beach of Camarina in Sicily. Its main cargo was lamps of African type, but also a bronze sculpture of a dolphin has been reported within this first-century AD site (Di Stefano 1991: 127-134; Parker 1992: 95). Another out-of-context discovery was made in Italy in 1990. This is the Golfo di Baratti sculpture (D.B.43), a marble female statue discovered by chance with its head and feet missing (Arata 2005: 148; Russell 2011: 140; Russell 2013b: 341). In 1992, approximately 150-200 fragments of bronze sculptures were retrieved from a lateRoman underwater site in Punta del Serrone, in southern Italy, termed here as Brindisi shipwreck (D.B.16). Recreational divers discovered the shipwreck close to an area, where a bronze sculptural foot had been retrieved in 1972. The site was later excavated and recorded by the archaeological Superintendency of Puglia (Auriemma 2004; Mattusch 1997: 13-14). In the same year, very close to Brindisi, in Puglia, Italy, the Santa Maria di Leuca shipwreck (D.B.96) was found by a recreational diver (Arata 2005: 192-193). The shipwreck was mainly recognised by the fragments of bronze sculptures that it contained. A survey was conducted on the site in 1994 and 1995 discovering even more bronze sculptural fragments that have not been published yet, at least in the author’s knowledge. In 1994 a fragment of a large-scale bronze statue of a female figure was found in the sea east of Kalymnos, in Greece. The Kalymnos 1994 sculpture (D.B.49), also known as the ‘Lady of Kalymnos’, was the first of many bronze sculptural pieces that were retrieved out of context from the sea around this island of the southeastern Aegean (Arata 2005: 167-168; Koutsouflakis 2007). The reward given for the ‘Lady of Kalymnos’ from the Greek Ministry of Culture triggered the ‘discovery’ of several other bronze sculptures in the island of Kalymnos including: the Kalymnos 1997 assemblage (D.B.50) consisting of a large-scale bronze statue head of a mature bearded man and a bronze left lower leg of a large-scale bronze statue, the Kalymnos 1997 sculpture (D.B.51), a bronze fragment of a right leg and sandaled foot probably of a large-scale equestrian statue and the Kalymnos 1999 sculpture (D.B.52), another left leg and sandaled foot probably of a large-scale equestrian statue, all found and given to the archaeological services by local fishermen (Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017). In 1996 an over life-size bronze statue was found by a Belgian tourist in the sea of the Lošinj archipelago in Croatia, close to Vela Orjule. The Lošinj sculpture (D.B.65), also known as the ‘Croatian Apoxyomenos’ or the ‘Apoxyomenos of Vela Orjule’, was salvaged in 1996 by a team of underwater archaeologists, who investigated the seabed further in the same year, too (Arata 2005: 172-173; Museum of the Apoxyomenos 2017; Steinut 2002: 41-44). This underwater research resulted to the discovery of fragments of the statue’s base, some anchor stocks and amphorae in a deposit that could be dated between the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. However, during this time, the researchers thought that they did not find solid evidence confirming the existence of a shipwreck site. Thus, they came to the conclusion that the sculpture could have been jettisoned off its ship during a storm and thus ended up under water. In 1997, at the sea off the north of the Greek island of Leipsoi, or, according to different reports, the island of Leros, a fragment of a bronze dolphin, termed here Leipsoi/Leros sculpture (D.B.58), was found out of context (Koutsouflakis 2007: 48-49; Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: 74-75; Koutsouflakis 2017). In 1998 the Ashqelon 1998 shipwreck (D.B.11), or Ashqelon north Roman shipwreck, was found off the coast of Israel during a survey of the marine unit of Israel Antiquities Authority. In this first- or second-century AD site several ship related artefacts where discovered, such as a wooden 30

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 18: The Mazara del Vallo 1998 sculpture, also known as the bronze statue of the dancing satyr, displayed in the Museo del Satiro Danzante in Mazara del Vallo, Sicily. © Author.

Figure 19: The Mazara del Vallo 1999 sculpture, fragment of the foot and leg of an elephant sculpture, displayed in the Museo del Satiro Danzante in Mazara del Vallo, Sicily. © Author.

31

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean anchor, bronze nails with a square cross-section, lead sheathing fragments, lead pipes, but also three bronze figurines, one of a nude female, one of a naked bearded man and one of a zoomorphic figure. In the same year, in 1998, two more sculptural artefacts were retrieved from the sea around Italy. The first one is the Capo Linaro sculpture (D.B.25), a bronze male sculpture that was found in a fragmentary condition by a fisherman (Arata 2005, 157; Petriaggi 2005). The second one is the Mazara del Vallo 1998 sculpture (D.B.73; Figure 18), found at the sea off Sicily, between the island Pantelleria and the African coast (Arata 2005: 154; Petriaggi 2002: 74-76). This is a large-scale bronze statue representing a dancing satyr, very unique in form and style, but with no associated archaeological context that could help with the understanding of the date or purpose of its maritime transportation. A year after the discovery of the dancing satyr, in 1999, another bronze sculptural fragment was brought to the surface by local fishermen of Mazara del Vallo (Arata 2005: 154). This is the Mazara del Vallo 1999 sculpture (D.B.74; Figure 19), a sculptural fragment of a life-size bronze elephant foot, another unique find, which was also pulled out of the sea around Sicily with no contextual information (Lapatin 2018: 159-168). 2000s – In the first two decades of the 21st century, despite the scientific development of archaeology, as well as the solid establishment of maritime and underwater archaeology as academic subdisciplines, there is not much differentiation in the way that ancient Greek and Roman sculptures are discovered and removed from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Except for some rare scientific projects, most sculptures continue to be found by chance and out of context, while a few shipwrecks or potential shipwreck sites are only salvaged and surveyed briefly, but not fully excavated or extensively published. More specifically, in 2000, the Camarina 2000 shipwreck (D.B.21) was found off the coast of Camarina in Sicily. In this first- or second-century AD shipwreck site a bronze male figurine was found together with many other artefacts. The figurine represented probably the god Hermes or Mercury, giving thus to the shipwreck the local name Camarina ‘Relitto di Mercurio’ (Di Stefano 2004: 61). In 2001 or 2002, the Agde assemblage (D.B.1) was found off the cape of Agde in southern France (Arata 2005: 143). The assemblage consists of two under life-size bronze sculptures, one of an Eros or Cupid and one of a young boy, which were spotted on the seabed by a recreational diver (Kingsley 2002: 6-7). According to the above referenced sources, the sculptural artefacts were salvaged from the seabed and a short survey was conducted at the area, but no other material was found or retrieved. In 2004 a life-size bronze statue of a male figure was recovered from the sea west of Kythnos, in Greece (Arata 2005: 160; Koutsouflakis 2017). Even though the Kythnos sculpture (D.B.57) was retrieved out of context, a survey project was conducted shortly after in the area of discovery, but the sculpture’s underwater deposit was impossible to locate (Sakellariou et al. 2007: 373-380). In 2006 and 2009 two more bronze sculptural fragments were retrieved as isolated finds from the sea around Kalymnos, mentioned previously in this chapter. Both the Kalymnos 2006 sculpture (D.B.53) and the Kalymnos 2009 sculpture (D.B.54) are torsos of large-scale bronze equestrian statues (Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: 75-78; Koutsouflakis 2017). Even though they both constitute chance finds, the 2006 sculpture was retrieved with a Knidian amphora stuck in its

32

Primary sources and literature review

Figure 20: The Marsala 2014 sculpture in the 2016 exhibition ‘Storms, War and Shipwrecks: Treasures from the Sicilian Seas’ of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, UK. © Author.

hollow part indicating clearly the existence of some sort of associated underwater archaeological context (Koutsouflakis 2007: 42-46). In 2010, in the course of the excavation of test trenches on the late Hellenistic Styra shipwreck (D.B.101), in the southern Euboean Gulf, in Greece, several fragments of life-size bronze statues were found together with bronze furniture pieces, amphorae and tableware (Koutsouflakis 2017). In 2014 a large-scale bronze sculpture was reported as retrieved from the sea off the coast of Gaza. The Gaza sculpture (D.B.41), also known as ‘the Apollo of Gaza’ was found accidentally by locals, who tried to sell the artefacts on an auction on Ebay with the title ‘1500 Year Old Greek Statue Found in Mediterranean Sea’ and a starting bid of $500,000. After that, the sculpture featured briefly in some news websites, but since 2014 its location remains unknown (CNN 2014; The Independent 2017). In the same year, in 2014, the Marsala 2014 sculpture (D.B.71) was found at sea off Capo Boeo in Marsala, Trapani, Sicily (Sofroniew 2016). The sculpture, which is a fragmentary torso of the Aphrodite ‘pudica’ type (Figure 20), was found out of context. In the summer of 2015, a head from a bronze sculpture was given to the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities in Greece by a spear-fisherman (Koutsouflakis 2017). According to the existing information, the Kythera sculpture (D.B.56) was found in shallow waters in front of the village of Agia Pelagia in Kythera, in Greece, with no evidence of any shipwreck remains. In spring 2016 two recreational divers found some bronze sculptural artefacts in the ancient harbour of Caesarea in Israel. The divers removed and reported the finds to the Israel Antiquities Authority. Its maritime unit conducted immediately a survey and a salvage operation to assess the underwater site that was recorded as the Caesarea shipwreck (D.B.19) and was dated in the 4th century AD. The bronze sculptures and the other preserved material retrieved from the seabed on this operation were a highlight in local and international news before any official and thorough archaeological study took place (Archaeology Magazine 2017). 33

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean In February 2017, an under life-size bronze statue of a female figure was reported as found under water in Italy. According to the news sources recording the incident, the Cape San Vito sculpture (D.B.23) was found at the sea off Cape San Vito in Taranto by a recreational diver, who did not spot any other artefacts on the seabed. In the same year, 2017, two more underwater sculptural discoveries appeared in news sources. The first one is the female terracotta sculpture found in the Marmaris shipwreck (D.B.69), a seventhcentury BC underwater site excavated by the Aegean Research and Application Center (EBAMER) of the Marine Science and Technology Institute at Dokuz Eylul University, in Turkey (Ancient Origins 2017). The other one is the marble sculpted head found within a Roman shipwreck salvaged in the harbour of Alexandria. The last example, the sculpture from the Alexandria shipwreck (D.B.4) is described as a ‘head carved in crystal’, representing ‘Marc Anthony’ and constituting part of a ‘treasure’ found in a Roman shipwreck and it has not been published archaeologically yet (Archaeology Magazine 2017; Ancient Origins 2017). Recorded underwater sculptural depositions with unknown date of discovery Except for the underwater sculptural discoveries described above, there are many finds recorded in museums, archaeological services or archives but with no available details regarding the circumstances or date of their discovery. The Ashqelon sculpture (D.B.12), and the Haifa sculpture (D.B.47) in Israel, the Lemnos sculpture (D.B.59; Parker 1992: 242), the Crete sculpture (D.B.31; Arata 2005: 159) and the Unknown sculpture (National Archaeological Museum Athens) or ‘Saarbrucken Ephebe’ (D.B.109; Figure 21; Koutsouflakis

Figure 21: Unknown sculpture (National Archaeological Museum Athens) or ‘Saarbrucken Ephebe’. Now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens. © Author.

34

Primary sources and literature review 2017) in Greece, the Capo Boeo sculpture (D.B.24; Arata 2005: 169; Russell 2013b: 341) the Capraia assemblage (D.B.26; Parker 1992: 127; Arata 2005: 156), the Grado sculpture (D.B.44; Arata 2005: 165), the Pellestrina sculpture (D.B.80; Arata 2005: 200), the Syracuse assemblage (D.B.102), the Terracina sculpture (D.B.104; Parker 1992: 421; Arata 2005: 156-157) and the Antignano sculpture (D.B.5; Arata 2005: 144) in Italy, the Fos-sur-Mer sculpture (D.B.40; Diolé 1957: 82) and the Grau-duRoi sculpture (D.B.46; Arata 2005: 165) in France are all examples of out-of-context sculptures that have been found in dates and circumstances not possible to find and record in the current study. Similarly, the Torre Flavia shipwreck (D.B.105; Parker 1992: 427) in Italy, the fifth-century AD Mateille shipwreck (D.B.72; Parker 1992: 270-271) in France, as well as the Tarragona shipwreck (D.B.103; Parker 1992: 419-420) in Spain are some sites, which according to scholarly reports, have yielded sculptures. However, there is not much available information on the details of their discovery. Approaches to the study of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures from under water Early beginnings in the study of ancient sculptures The rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman Antiquity started as early as the medieval period through the copy, translation and study of ancient texts. However, the study of ancient Mediterranean artefacts and specifically sculptures is not seen until the period of western European Renaissance (Faedo 2015: 423-428). From the 15th century onwards, a big interest in the art and material culture of Classical Antiquity developed. Renaissance artists and intellectuals, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Michelangelo, Raphael, Albrecht Dürer, Giorgio Vasari and Rubens, studied both ancient texts and surviving ancient sculptures, available in Italy from contemporary excavations, in an attempt to understand the artistic methods used by ancient Greek and Roman artists to achieve a realistic rendering of the human body (Siapkas and Sjögren 2014: 21-22; Spivey 1996: 223-224, 2013: 307-310; Squire 2011: 10-13). This study, though, had no archaeological basis. It served mainly as inspiration and source of information for the creation of new art. In this very early period of studying ancient sculptures, there is no surviving scholarly reference about ancient sculptures discovered under water. However, as mentioned above in this chapter, it is known that a bronze sculpture, termed here Livorno sculpture (D.B.62), was found in the sea off Tuscany in the 16th century and was included in the Florentine collection of the Medici family, who funded the work of many influential leading Renaissance artists (Arata 2005: 7). The development of history of art The study of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures with the intention to comprehend details of the human past is not seen until the 18th century. The historian of art Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) was one of the first to analyse the material culture of Mediterranean Antiquity with an interest in understanding the ancient civilisations that produced it. In his 1764 work Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums (‘History of Art of Antiquity’) Winckelmann presented an art historical analysis of works of art created in ancient Greek and Roman times and tried to fit any surviving pieces of material culture within the already existing historical narrative of the Ancient Mediterranean, setting thus the basis for writing history of art (Siapkas and Sjögren 2014: 22-23). Sculpture had a special position in Winckelmann’s work, since he considered it the first form of art created by ancient people (Prettejohn 2012: 8-9, 38-39; Spivey 2013: 313; Squire 2011: 49-53; Winckelmann/ Mallgrave 2006: 111). According to the existing sources, in Winckelmann’s research there is no reference to any underwater sculptural discoveries. However, in Winckelmann’s time, in c.1720s, we have reports 35

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean for the retrieval of the Livorno assemblage (D.B.61), which has been since exhibited in the Museo Archaeologico Nazionale di Firenze (Bass 1966: 79; Dillon 2006: 135; Ling 2007: 90-91; Parker 1992: 244). Winckelmann’s work and the establishment of 18th-century history of art coincided with the development of European Antiquarianism and the ‘Grand Tour’. As described above, the ‘Grand Tour’ was largely accompanied with the acquisition of ancient art from the visited places and the movement of ancient artefacts to northern European countries (Sweet 2012, 2-3, 23-24; Spivey 2013, 314). One sculptural find from under water that was acquired in such way is the Piombino sculpture (D.B.82), which was discovered in Italy in 1832 but in 1834/1835 it was acquired by the Louvre Museum, where it has been exhibited since. The development of classical archaeology The ‘Grand Tour’ activity and the wave of exploration of the Mediterranean world by European antiquarians resulted in large-scale land excavations by the last decades of the 19th century. Explorers or early museum curators, like Heinrich Schliemann and Sir Arthur Evans, funded and directed excavations in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt and the Levantine coast with the aim of finding archaeological material for their museum or private collection from sites mentioned in the surviving ancient literary sources. Despite the quite unscientific character of these first excavations, the artefacts brought to light began to be studied by scholars and academics. At the same time foreign archaeological schools were founded in countries of the Mediterranean to supervise and provide the academic facilities for these first archaeological projects that spread very quickly by the first decades of the 20th century (Spivey 2013: 318-319). These circumstances, combined with the rising number of classics and archaeology departments in several universities around the world, led to the gradual development of the discipline of ‘classical archaeology’ (Siapkas and Sjögren 2014: 1517). In these early steps of classical archaeology, any study of ancient sculptures was mainly based on an art historical approach. The study of ancient sculptures by Heinrich Brunn and Adolf Fürtwangler in the late 19th century continued in the direction set previously by Winckelmann with a slight turn of the focus on the identification of ancient sculptural masterpieces and the recognition of the artists who made them, introducing the idea of Meisterforschung, meaning ‘search of the master’ (Siapkas and Sjögren 2014: 46; Spivey 2013: 6, 318; Vollkommer 2015: 107-111). This idea combined with the concept of Kopienkritik, the identification of Roman copies of ancient Greek originals, influenced the streams of studying ancient sculpture from the 19th century onwards and occupied most of the scholarship up until today. Throughout the course of the 20th century, the scholarship regarding ancient Greek and Roman sculptures continued to focus on themes introduced in the previous century. In addition, classical archaeology scholars started being interested in the development and evolution of stylistic forms of ancient sculpture, the typology of themes of sculptural representation in different periods of ancient Greek and Roman Antiquity, the clear distinction between Greek and Roman sculptures, as well as the function and construction techniques of either stone or bronze statuary. The large number of ancient sculptures discovered in the waters of the Mediterranean from the 1900s onwards, as described previously, had a significant position in these studies. The exciting, but also romantic idea of finding ancient sculptures in the sea, as well as the survival of some rare sculptural types under water made an impact on scholars of classical archaeology of the 20th century (Bass 2011: 3-4). The bronze and marble sculptures from the early shipwrecks of the Antikythera (D.B.6) and Mahdia (D.B.67), the God and the Horse and Jockey from the Artemission assemblage (D.B.13), the bronze statues from the Riace assemblage (D.B.93) and many other underwater sculptural discoveries, feature in most of the main classical archaeology ‘handbooks’ of ancient sculpture. However, so far, these sculptures have been mainly examined as works of 36

Primary sources and literature review arts and sculptural masterpieces of Classical Antiquity. As such, the focus has been on the subject of representation, the artist who sculpted them, their exact construction date and techniques, as well as the recognition of Greek originals and Roman copies rather than the type and date of their underwater archaeological context or the reasons and circumstances of their transport that resulted to their underwater deposition. For example, Boardman (1985: 53) discusses the style of the bronze sculptures of Livadostra (D.B.60), Artemission (D.B.13), Porticello (D.B.88) and Riace (D.B.93) in his book Greek Sculpture: the Classical Period, but with minimal reference to their underwater discovery. Similarly, Ridgway (1967: 329334) in her article ‘The Lady from the Sea: A Greek Bronze in Turkey’ introduces the circumstances of the discovery of the Arap Adasi bronze statue (D.B.8) in the sea off the coast of Asia Minor, but then, due to the lack of a secure underwater deposit, she focuses on the stylistic form, the theme of representation, the sculptural technique and the date of the creation of the bronze statue. Concurrently with the research approaches presented above, in the 20th century, there have been several site-specific studies. These examples have analysed for the first time ancient sculptural material with some consideration to the underwater archaeological context, where they had been found in. The publications of the Mahdia (D.B.67; Fuchs 1963; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994) and the Porticello (D.B.88; Eiseman 1979a; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987) shipwrecks are such attempts. In these very innovative publications, despite the coherent and thorough representation of all finds retrieved from the respective underwater sites, there is no direct cross-referencing between classical archaeology scholars examining the sculptural material and maritime archaeologists looking at the other details of the shipwreck sites. Therefore, the sculptures found in these underwater sites have been analysed and interpreted in isolation from the rest of their contextual material, losing consequently the notion that these sculptures constituted transported artefacts and lacking an interpretation of the reasons and circumstances for their maritime movement. Given the conditions of discovery of most ancient sculptures from under water, presented above, as well as the lack of a contiguous scientific archaeological approach to underwater deposits until the second half of the 20th century (Bass 2011), the art historical analysis of ancient sculptures from the Mediterranean seabed, seen in most academic research of the 20th century, has probably been the only possible scholarly approach so far. Therefore, it is understandable that suggestions regarding the reasons and circumstances for the maritime transportation and underwater deposition of sculptural material in the ancient Mediterranean have been very limited in this time and based on the information from the stylistic features of the sculptures, as well as the use of well-known references in ancient Greek and Roman texts of the last two centuries BC. As described in Chapter 1, the most widely accepted scholarly theories identify most ancient sculptures from under water as plunder taken by the Romans from destroyed Greek cities of the eastern Mediterranean or as parts of cargoes of decorative items, transported to be sold to wealthy Roman individuals for the embellishment of their villas and luxurious houses (Boardman 1985: 53; Stewart 1990: 228-229). Even though, these scholarly suggestions could be plausible for the historical circumstances of the last two centuries BC, as it will be presented clearly in the next chapters, they represent only a very small fraction of the overall time periods, when ancient sculptures have been transported and could have been deposited under water in the Mediterranean. Additionally, the preserved underwater archaeological record provides evidence for various more reasons and patterns of maritime transportation of sculptures in different periods of Classical Antiquity, something that the 20th-century scholarship had not picked up on as much, due to the limitations of the available archaeological sources, as well as the early beginnings of maritime archaeology at that time.

37

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Current state of research Today, despite the development of maritime and underwater archaeology as academic disciplines since the 1960s, there is still, unfortunately, a divide between classical and maritime archaeologists, especially regarding the research and interpretation of ancient sculptures from under water. George Bass’ early attempts to research the archaeological context of sculptures found in the Aegean Sea seabed (Bass 1966: 44-48), as well as Parker’s (1992) ancient Mediterranean shipwreck catalogue, which included, also, underwater sculptural finds, attempted an actual merging of classical and maritime archaeological research on the subject of sculptures discovered in the Mediterranean seabed. In the first decades of the 21st century, also, underwater sculptural finds have been included in some larger scale thematic scholarly studies, such as Russell’s innovative work The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade (2013a), which included any known pieces of stone sculptures found under water, but also Arata’s Opere d’arte dal mare (2005), which discussed several works of art that have been recovered from the sea of the Mediterranean, including several sculptures. However, still, systematic large-scale research or excavation projects in underwater sites with ancient sculptural material are very rare. Due to mainly financial limitations in the underwater archaeological services of Mediterranean countries, as well as political obstacles, most of the archaeological involvement in the recovery of ancient sculptures from underwater deposits comes usually after the actual discovery and it suffices in the salvage of any visible material remains and the short survey of the site. Therefore, it has not been possible for scholars to get straightforward indications regarding the underlying mechanism of the maritime movement of the sculptures, despite the recent date of the discoveries. There are still several recent studies and publications of classical archaeology, such as Spivey’s (2013) Greek Sculpture, Neer’s (2010) The emergence of the classical style in Greek sculpture or Koutsouflakis and Simosi’s (2015) ‘Hellenistic bronze sculptures from the Aegean Sea: Recent discoveries (19942009)’, which discuss underwater sculptural finds in the same lines as the previous 20th-century scholarship. The descriptions of the statues are mostly art historical, without direct and linked consideration of their underwater archaeological context, while any interpretation regarding the reasons and circumstances of the maritime transport of sculptures is mainly a reproduction of the earlier theories talking about the transport of Greek statuary after the Roman conquest of Greece or for art-collecting purposes (Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015; Neer 2010: 86; Spivey 2013: 187-188). This research approach is also encouraged by the wide geographical spread of the material, the distinct socio-political challenges of each Mediterranean region, as well as the different strategies seen in the policy of each Mediterranean country for the recovery, preservation and research of underwater sculptural discoveries and their deposits. All these facts have generally made the available underwater archaeological record disconnected and hard to access. In general, through the above scholarly review, it becomes obvious that despite the advancement of the methods of both maritime and classical archaeology, there has not been a single scholarly piece of work addressing critically and collectively the overall data of sculptures discovered under water in the Mediterranean Sea and studying them as a group of transported artefacts, which had a specific function in their maritime setting in the ancient Mediterranean world. This is the gap that the present research addresses for the first time.

38

Primary sources and literature review Conclusion This chapter, through the presentation of all available primary sources, literary and archaeological, and through the review of the existing scholarly approaches, outlines the context of this research and demonstrates the material record assessed for this study. The review of the literary sources and historical records provides a detailed chronology of all known eras when ancient sculptures must have been carried on ships and could have been consequently lost in the waters of the Mediterranean. This wide chronological range, which includes even post-antique maritime activities, has not been taken into full consideration in previous scholarly interpretations of ancient sculptures found in the Mediterranean seabed, but must have, indeed, contributed to the available underwater archaeological record. Moreover, the history of the discoveries of sculptures in the waters of the Mediterranean, as well as the review of the available scholarship, explain the current state of the existing research. The circumstances under which the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology developed, the limited archaeological research of underwater sites with sculptures, but, also, the wide geographical spread of the archaeological evidence in many different countries of the Mediterranean with distinct policies and practices on the preservation of underwater cultural heritage, has resulted to the absence of a collective research on underwater sculptural discoveries. Due to this fragmentary data and inconsistent research, so far, there have only been monocausal interpretations of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. These are mainly inspired by ancient literary references, but do not necessarily correspond to the overall information preserved in the underwater archaeological record. So, despite the recognition of the maritime movement of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean as an organised movement of goods, the previous scholarship has not been able to identify the exact extent, the underlying mechanisms, the exact reasons and the circumstances of this activity. This last conclusion can be seen very clearly if one compares the research conducted on ancient sculptures from the seabed of the Mediterranean to the study of other artefacts found under water. Amphorae, pottery, glassware and stone cargo of different types and time periods found under water have been treated by scholars as transported artefacts that were carried by sea either for trade or other transportation reasons. These objects have been extensively mapped, quantified, analysed, plotted and then interpreted, within the archaeological context where they have been found but also within their wider Mediterranean setting giving interesting conclusions about ancient trading maritime networks but also the maritime transportation of different products in distinct areas and periods of Classical Antiquity. However, nothing of that sort has ever been attempted for ancient sculptures discovered under water despite the existence of more than 110 known incidents, as recorded so far in this research (see Appendices 1 and 2). The systematic recording and study of underwater archaeological evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean will be the contribution of this research. By merging methodologies from the disciplines of both maritime and classical archaeology, by collecting all available underwater archaeological evidence from all around the Mediterranean and by researching ancient sculptures from under water as a group of transported artefacts that had a specific function within their maritime setting, it is hoped to prove the multivariate nature of the movement of ancient sculpture. Thus, it will be possible to shed light on the circumstances and underlying mechanisms of the maritime transportation of sculptures during different periods of Classical Antiquity. The exact approach, focus and methodology of this research are explained in detail in the following chapter.

39

Chapter 3

Methodology of the research Introduction After the presentation of all known primary sources and the review of the existing scholarly approaches on underwater sculptural discoveries of the Mediterranean, in the previous chapter, it becomes clear that ancient sculptures from under water have not been studied systematically or collectively before. The wide geographical distribution of the archaeological evidence, the limited archaeological research of underwater sites with ancient sculptures, the inconsistent and fragmentary documentation of the archaeological record, as well as the selective study of material have resulted in the absence of a methodical research on Mediterranean underwater sculptural discoveries. Therefore, despite the abundance of preserved evidence, there is no overall understanding of the reasons and circumstances for the maritime transport of sculptures and the consequent underwater deposition of these artefacts in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea in different periods of Classical Antiquity. The systematic recording and collective analysis of underwater archaeological evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean is the main objective and contribution of this research. By merging scholarly approaches from the disciplines of both maritime and classical archaeology, by collecting consistently all available underwater archaeological evidence from around the Mediterranean world and by researching ancient sculptures from under water as a group of transported artefacts that had a specific function within their maritime setting, this study sheds light on the underlying mechanism that initiated the maritime transportation of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. For this purpose, the present research has adopted a new perspective for the study of ancient sculptures from under water and for the interpretation of their maritime movement. Unlike the art historical analysis of sculptural artefacts conducted in the past, this project focuses on the archaeological context of the sculptures, namely the position and association of a sculptural artefact within the archaeological deposit where it has been found (Hurcombe 2007). This new focus is combined with the use of a dual methodology of research, which integrates a macro-scale and a micro-scale approach. The macro-scale research comprises a broad examination of underwater archaeological evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures during Classical Antiquity. It collects, classifies, quantifies and analyses a large amount of data retrieved from the already existing underwater archaeological record. This methodology has the intention to answer the overarching question of this research, namely comprehending where, when, why and how sculptures were transported on ancient ships sailing in the Mediterranean Sea. The micro-scale research involves the detailed, in-depth study of individual shipwreck case studies, where ancient sculptures have been discovered. This methodological approach aims at providing evidence that clarify more specific research inquiries, such as: the types of the transported sculptures, their function and packaging on board, the types of ships carrying sculptural cargo, the type of the wider cargo of these ships, as well as the existence of features indicating wider transport networks or shipping routes over certain periods of time. These two methodological approaches complement each other. Their combination assists in the study and interpretation of a big bulk of data, as well as the detection of connections within 40

Methodology of the research the material record of a wide chronological and geographical range, like the one available for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean (Hodder 1999: 32-33, 70-71; Leidwanger 2017: 595-598). This chapter starts by introducing the importance of the focus on underwater archaeological contexts for the study and interpretation of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The art historical analysis of sculptural artefacts from under water has been significant so far to understand the objects themselves, their construction, artistic value and primary function on land. However, as it will be illustrated, the dating and interpretation of the underwater deposition and maritime transportation of most ancient sculptures, has been based solely on their stylistic analysis and relevant references in ancient sources, instead of data from the sculpture’s archaeological context. This might have resulted into a series of misinterpretations and gaps in our knowledge of this maritime activity. These details are significant to identify in this research to avoid further interpretative errors. Thus, in the first section of this chapter, with the use of specific archaeological examples, the absolute necessity of the thorough study of underwater archaeological contexts of ancient sculptures is illustrated. Following that, the chapter proceeds with the presentation of the macro-scale research. This methodological approach has involved the systematic documentation of the available underwater archaeological record. This has been carried out with the creation of the project’s database (Appendix 1), recording any known incidents of sculptures deposited under water in the Mediterranean while in transit during Classical Antiquity. In this section, the rationale behind the creation of this database is explained, as well as its sources of information, contents, naming system and format. Finally, this chapter closes with the presentation of the micro-scale research. This methodological approach has involved the in-depth study of the archaeological evidence of three selected shipwreck case studies: the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88; Chapter 5), the Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38; Chapter 6) and the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67; Chapter 7). In this section, the reasons behind the choice of these sites are explained, as well as the methodology used for the detailed research of each one of them. Therefore, by the end of this chapter, the reader will be able to comprehend clearly how all the data and information, presented in the following chapters, were collected, processed and interpreted. The importance of archaeological contexts in the study of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea As mentioned above, the present research has focused on the archaeological context, where sculptures have been discovered. Through the research of any contextual data preserved from the underwater sites of the known sculptural discoveries, the present study has aimed at examining ancient sculptures from under water as a group of transported artefacts, which had a specific function within their maritime cultural setting, similar to the studies of other artefacts from underwater deposits that have been researched systematically (Parker 2008; Rice 2016), such as stone cargo (e.g. Bartoli 2008; Russell 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015), amphorae (e.g. Gibbins 2001; Keay 1984; Lawall and Graham 2018) or other ceramics (e.g. Lawall 1998). This research approach is based on one of the main guidelines of the discipline of archaeology, namely the consideration of archaeological contexts as vital for the understanding of the function of an artefact or activity in past societies (Schiffer 1972; Sease 1997: 49-58). This research perspective has been, also, following ideas developed carefully in the course of the scientific and academic establishment of maritime and underwater archaeology in the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries (Bass 2011: 3-24; Gibbs 2006: 5-6). The importance of methodologically 41

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean well-documented underwater sites, as well as the significance of the comparative study of materials and archaeological contexts has been highlighted by several maritime archaeologists (Muckelroy 1978: 248-253; Rönnby 2013: 9-10; Steffy 1994: 191-213, 235-250). With this approach, the complex archaeological sites that underwater deposits constitute, can reveal unique information regarding the artefacts they preserve, as well as wider past societies, cultures and human activities. The significance of the thorough analysis of underwater archaeological contexts of ancient sculptures, and how this approach can contribute significantly to the better understanding of the maritime transportation of the respective sculptural artefacts, can be attested in multiple levels through specific examples and incidents recorded in this research. To begin with, it is important to understand the benefits of even fragmentary contextual information to achieve more secure dating, but also a more accurate comprehension of the maritime function of an ancient sculpture discovered under water. The
 fragment of one of the bronze equestrian statues from
 Kalymnos (Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: figure 5.4), recorded here as Kalymnos 2006 sculpture (D.B.53), can provide such an example. This sculpture was recovered accidentally, without an associated archaeological context. It was caught in a 
fisherman’s nets together with an intact Knidian
 amphora, which was stuck within the hollow torso of the
 bronze statue, when retrieved (Koutsouflakis 
2007: 42, 45 and figure 3). The association of the two objects was confirmed beyond the fisherman’s reassurances during the conservation treatment of the artefacts. The Knidian 
amphora had 3⁄4 of its surface covered with a 1.5cm 
layer of calcareous deposits containing a
 high percentage of copper oxide (Grace 1979: 2122; Koutsouflakis
2007: 45 and figure 4; Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: 80). Hence, in this example, the Knidian amphora, as a contextual object, provided details regarding the underwater deposition of the sculpture that would be impossible to know otherwise. First of all, the discovery of the amphora within the statue indicates that the two artefacts were probably carried on a ship together. Moreover, the specific pot has been typologically recognised as a type of Knidian amphora dated between 78 BC and the end of the 1st century BC (Koutsouflakis 2007: 45-46; Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: 80). If this date indicates the approximate date when the possible ship carried it, then it gives us also information regarding the chronological span during which the bronze Kalymnos 2006 sculpture must have been transported by sea and deposited under water, something that could have not been confirmed just by the examination of the sculpture itself. Unfortunately, despite the high importance and great benefits of contextual analysis of artefacts from under water, the use of contextual material for the dating and interpretation of the underwater deposition of sculptures has been largely neglected. As described in Chapter 2, in the archaeological research and scholarship of the early parts of the 20th century, due to the challenging conditions that the underwater environment offered to archaeologists, but also due to the lack of wellestablished guidelines for underwater archaeological procedures, the examination of the seabed, where sculptures have been found, had been considered unimportant. The example of the Riace assemblage (D.B.93), described next, illustrates the consequences of the dismissal of underwater archaeological contexts and how that could lead to misunderstandings of the sculptural material itself. The two large-scale bronze sculptures, constituting the Riace assemblage (D.B.93), were discovered in 1972 off the coast of Riace Marina in Porto Farticchio, in southern Italy (Lattanzi 1986: 1314). A diver found accidentally the statues, which were salvaged shortly after by the Diving Unit of the Carabinieri without a specialized framework for underwater archaeological research (Arata 2005: 186-188; Gianfrotta 1986: 25; Lattanzi 1986: 15). An archaeological investigation on the site was organised only a year after the salvage of the sculptures. During this survey, more bronze fragments fitting to the already retrieved sculptures were discovered, but according to the archaeological reports of the director no actual wreckage. However, re-examination of the 42

Methodology of the research recovered archaeological material, survey reports and seabed photographs in a later stage has given to some scholars a different indication. As Lattanzi (1986: 16) and Gianfrotta (1986: 28-29) have observed, during the salvage and surveys of the site a large quantity of amphorae fragments had been found especially under the armpit of Statue A, as well as a fairly thick piece of amphora that was wedged between the arm and the torso of one of the statues. Additionally, small pieces of wood and some lead rings were found in the salvage operations. All of these contextual artefacts, data and information, even though included in the archaeological publications of the underwater operations, they had never been used for the methodological documentation and study of the underwater site or taken into account for the interpretation of the two bronze statues and their maritime transportation. Therefore, most scholars of classical archaeology, examining the Riace bronzes from an art historical perspective, consider until today the discovery of these sculptures out of context, without mentioning any details regarding the archaeological site of their discovery and the possible existence of a larger unexplored underwater deposit (Boardman 1985: 53; Busignani 1981; Mattusch 1997; Neer 2010: 148-155; Tzalas 2007). The same idea is promoted by the display of the statues in the gallery of the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia in Reggio Calabria, where the sculptures are exhibited on their own with no information about the archaeological site or conditions of their underwater discovery. Thus, most scholarly interpretations regarding the original land context, primary function, transportation and underwater deposition of these sculptural artefacts have been based on hypothetical theories that draw conclusions from the art historical analysis of the statues and references in the ancient literary sources. This practice has resulted to the creation of great misunderstandings and the spread of evidently inaccurate theories about the Riace sculptures, which are mostly seen as Greek statues taken as booty from a Greek sanctuary, probably Delphi, in the Roman times with the intention to be transported to Italy (Bellingham 2014: 209-219; Freeman 2004: 262; Jenkins and Turner 2009: 29-30; Mattusch 1988: 207-211; Mattusch 1996: ix-x, 47, 6465, 193-194; Mattusch 2002: 111-114; Neer 2010: 148-155;). In reality, though, there has been no documented archaeological evidence indicating any of the dates, places or activities mentioned above. The significance of securing details, such as the date of the underwater deposition of sculptures, through the examination of the contextual material and of the underwater archaeological site has become very apparent also because of the identification of several post-antique ships, which wrecked while transporting ancient sculptures and other antiquities. As documented in Chapter 2, the medieval and the ‘Grand Tour’ movement of antiquities must have contributed to the underwater archaeological record of ancient sculptures found in the seabed of the Mediterranean (Arata 2005: 117-132). However, scholarship of ancient sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea has not considered these later patterns of transport as actual possibilities that could explain the underwater deposition of ancient statuary. The question that arises now is how someone could identify sculptures that were lost under water in post-antique times rather than in Classical Antiquity. The answer is very simple and straightforward: with the detailed examination and study of the archaeological context of the sculptures and the information preserved in their underwater deposit. An example that highlights this significance of studying carefully data from the underwater archaeological contexts of sculptures is provided by the Lixouri shipwreck (D.B.63), found in 1980 off Cape Xi, at the island of Kefalonia, in Greece (Papathanassopoulos 1983: 18-19; Theodoulou 2011: 17). This deposit was salvaged in 1980-1981, in operations organised by the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities. During this project six broken up marble sculptures with no head were retrieved, together with five marble column drums, three column bases and two column capitals 43

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean (Arata 2005: 172; Parker 1992: 245). The official publications of the Greek Ministry of Cultures (2019), as well as a few archaeological reports, published shortly after the salvage operations, describe the underwater deposit as the wreck of a Roman ship, which carried Hellenistic sculptures, looted in the Roman times from a Greek temple, and sunk on its journey to Italy (Papathanassopoulos 1983: 18-19). On a first glance, this interpretation could seem corroborated. However, after the study of all available publications and a research visit in the Building of Pasha in the castle of Pylos, where the shipwreck material is kept, it became obvious that the shipwreck’s dating and interpretation have not been based on the analysis of any underwater evidence or archaeological data. On the contrary, the art historical details and the stylistic analysis of the sculptures in combination with the repetition of previously established scholarly theories regarding the Roman looting and transporting of works of art from Greece to Italy, provided an easy storyline that could explain the underwater deposition of these sculptural artefacts in Kefalonia. However, this interpretation and the Roman date of the Lixouri shipwreck could be challenged. First of all, through the study of the available archaeological reports it becomes clear that the underwater site of the Lixouri shipwreck was never excavated or thoroughly surveyed (Arata 2005: 172; Parker 1992: 245; Theodoulou 2011: 17). Unfortunately, it was only salvaged in poorly organised operations. The techniques for the removal of the sculptures from the seabed, as presented in the available pictures (Papathanasopoulos 1983: figures 5-8), suggest a fast archaeological operation lacking use of scientific underwater methodologies. Additionally, from the available publications, it becomes apparent that the 1980-1981 archaeological research recorded and retrieved only the bulky artefacts, sculptures and architectural fragments, that were laying on the surface of the seabed, while there is no indication for an intention to research and record any other data or archaeological material of the underwater deposit (Papathanassopoulos 1983: 18-19). This means that the underwater site was never fully explored or properly understood. Secondly, the close-up examination of the Lixouri shipwreck artefacts by the author in March 2019 produced some interesting observations. All sculptural and architectural pieces are made of stone. So, if we consider the Lixouri shipwreck as an antique underwater deposition, the material retrieved from the underwater site, could suggest a maritime transportation of solely stone objects or large-scale luxury goods intended for a public or private space embellishment. However, the condition of the sculptures brings up questions regarding the actual function of this cargo. As described above, all six sculptures discovered in the Lixouri shipwreck have no head preserved. Additionally, all sculptural artefacts feature severe breakages and wears all over their body, indicating that they had suffered intense blows. These severe damages of the material are not very likely to have happened at the time of the wrecking. On the contrary, it seems likely that they had occurred already before the objects were taken on board the ship. This indication becomes obvious by looking closely at the broken surfaces of the sculptures. All of the breakages seem to have had this form before they were smoothened and degraded further by their time under water. Hence, it seems possible that the sculptures could have been carried on the ship partially broken. These damages, though, that the sculptures must have had already, would make them unsuitable as ancient, traded cargo, as the official excavation reports suggest. In this condition, the sculpture would not have had any artistic or sculptural value in an ancient Mediterranean setting, and they could have only been carried as ballast or general stone cargo with the intention to be reformed and recycled. However, the damaged condition of the sculptures and architectural pieces and the lack of other contextual material, which could establish a secure dating of the underwater deposit, bring up another possible dating and interpretation of the maritime transportation and underwater deposition of the Lixouri material. More specifically, the type of marble artefacts salvaged from 44

Methodology of the research the Lixouri shipwreck, as well as their condition, resemble other material collected by wealthy elites during the ‘Grand Tour’, which are still seen in most museums of northern Europe and were previously described in Chapter 2 (Vickers 2007: 30). So, it is possible to suggest also a post-antique date for the Lixouri shipwreck. Overall, though, the date of this underwater sculptural deposition could not be confirmed or interpreted accurately, unless there is a more thorough survey and study of the site and its contextual data. The importance of archaeological contexts in the study of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea can be, finally, linked to the safeguarding of the sculptural artefacts themselves. The lack of contextual information for the majority of ancient sculptures retrieved from under water has been enabling and encouraging, even in recent years, the illicit trade of such antiquities. One of the most recent, known, incidents occurred in 2014 with the discovery of the Gaza sculpture (D.B.41). The large-scale bronze sculpture is thought to have been retrieved from the sea off the coast of Gaza. According to the news reports that covered this discovery, the bronze sculpture was found accidentally by locals, who tried to sell the artefact on an auction on Ebay. The auction featured the title ‘1500 Year Old Greek Statue Found in Mediterranean Sea’, had a picture of the sculpture lying on a blanket and offered the ancient artefact at a starting price of $500,000. Despite the recognition of this illegal sale and the mobilization of various archaeologists involved in the protection of underwater cultural heritage, it is still unclear what happened to the sculpture and since 2014 its location remains unknown. However, the Gaza sculpture has not been the only victim of this practice. Sculptures from several underwater deposits recorded in Appendix 1 have been easily promoted for sale in the antiquities market due to their lack of contextual information. Some of the most well-known are the statue heads from the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88), analysed in Chapter 5, the Brindisi sculpture (D.B.15), part of the British Museum’s collection since 1856, the Eleusis sculpture (D.B.36), now in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, the Fano sculpture (D.B.37), currently part of the J. Paul Getty Museum collection in California and the Unknown 1930s sculpture at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (D.B.108). Therefore, the present research promotes the necessity of the investigation and preservation of all data from underwater archaeological contexts for both the better understanding of underwater sculptural discoveries and their protection as assets of underwater cultural heritage. This approach could help scholars reach a more accurate interpretation of sculptures from under water and their maritime transportation. This research perspective could, also, raise awareness among archaeologists and local archaeological authorities, for the elimination of treasure hunting activities associated with the discovery of ancient sculptures in the Mediterranean Sea. The analysis of the macro-scale and micro-scale methodologies, which follows, outlines how the focus on archaeological contexts in the study of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea has been adopted in practice for this research. Macro-scale research From the outset of this research, it became clear that it would be impossible to select case studies, answer securely the set research questions, as well as fully comprehend and interpret the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean without having a good understanding of the overall archaeological record available. Scholarship in the past has usually focused on specific sculptures, sculptural assemblages or shipwrecks with sculptural artefacts, and drew generalised conclusions just from their data and the theories that had been already proposed. However, as Leidwanger (2017: 598) argues, only a few shipwrecks, or generally underwater deposits in our case, cannot individually amount to a comprehensive view of maritime distribution within the very complex world of the ancient Mediterranean. 45

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean To avoid the reproduction of older interpretations, not backed up with sufficient evidence from the preserved material record, and to move a step forward from the already existing scholarly view, this research started with a macro-scale approach to the underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures. This involved mainly the study of all available sources and the creation of a database, in the form of a standardized digital catalogue, recording systematically any known examples of sculptures deposited in the Mediterranean Sea while transported during Classical Antiquity (Appendix 1). Other ancient Mediterranean databases The concept of a macro-scale research was inspired by other archaeological studies and publications, which have recorded large number of sites and artefacts from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Parker’s 1992 book Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces was created ‘to gather together in a standardized form a catalogue raisonné of the shipwrecks of the Mediterranean region [...] so that the quality of our accumulated information can be judged and the inferences to be drawn from the material evaluated’ (Parker 1992: ii). This catalogue, which has been often characterised as a ‘landmark moment’ in Mediterranean maritime archaeology (Leidwanger 2017: 596), needed more than 20 years to be completed and included more than a thousand underwater sites with shipwreck remains or potential shipwreck remains of sea-going ships of the Mediterranean world dated before 1500 AD (Parker 1992: ii). As Parker mentions in his forward note, he did not just create a descriptive list of shipwrecks. On the contrary, he actually studied, quantified, classified and interpreted the data he recorded, creating thus a publication that is still considered the primary handbook and the starting point for any modern archaeological research concerning ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks, maritime transport or trade (Parker 1992: 548-555). In the years 2005-2010 the Faculty of Classics of the University of Oxford conducted the Oxford Roman Economy Project, which included many different databases of sites and archaeological remains from around the Roman Mediterranean world, all digitally accessible in the project’s online platform (Wilson 2011: 33-60). In this project, A.J. Parker’s 1992 shipwreck database was incorporated in a digital form, after being updated by Julia Strauss (Strauss 2013; Wilson 2011: 34). Part of the Oxford Roman Economy Project was also Ben Russell’s research on the ‘Economics of Roman Stone Trade’. The recent book and the several other scholarly publications, which derived from this doctoral research, feature an impressive inventory of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks carrying stone cargo, some of which included pieces of stone sculptures, too (Russell 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015). The entries included in Russell’s dataset were recorded after the thorough study of the already existing scholarship and from the research of the already preserved archaeological record. As Russell notes, the reason for the research on such a wide variety of data was to interpret ‘the observable heterogeneity’ in the stone trade during the Roman times (Russell 2013a: 6). Therefore, many diverse sites and types of evidence from all around the Mediterranean were recorded, quantified, classified and thoroughly interpreted (Russell 2013b: figure 1), giving thus previously unknown insights into the Roman production and transport of stone. All of the above research projects and publications, especially Parker’s shipwreck inventory, with its everlasting value, as well as the exemplary results of Russell’s innovative research, encouraged the adoption of a macro-scale research methodology and the collation of a dataset including any known ancient freestanding sculptures discovered under water in the Mediterranean in the context of shipwrecks or as isolated finds.

46

Methodology of the research The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean Following the methodological approaches described above, the first step was to form a database of any known incidents of ancient sculptures deposited under water in the Mediterranean Sea, probably while being transported on ancient ships. Sources of information for the material record of the database The information of the material record collected in this database was mainly retrieved from the research of books, academic publications and scholarly articles of both classical and maritime archaeology. However, since a large percentage of the known Mediterranean underwater sculptural discoveries have not been researched and/or published, a lot of news and popular media articles had to be used, as well as information from private communication with other scholars and colleagues, information from personal visits in museums and archaeological services around the Mediterranean, and of course, data from the study of archaeological archives, such as A.J. Parker’s original archive, currently housed in the Centre for Maritime Archaeology of the University of Southampton. The use of all of the above extremely varied resources was inspired by Parker’s (1992) own approach to his catalogue of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks. His research aimed at recording as many examples as possible, from all over the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, as Parker (1992: 3-4) explains in his chapter 1, references to shipwrecks had to be gathered from a great variety of sources, ranging from mere gossip through to specialised archaeological reports. This process had the goal of evening out inequalities in the level of archaeological research conducted at each underwater deposit by drawing on every possible source of information, looking critically at the dates and identifications proposed previously and presenting a summary of the known sites in a standardised form. The rationale and methodology described by Parker was adopted for the creation of the database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. The plethora and variability of the researched sources of information aimed at recording systematically, in a standardised and homogenous format, as many Mediterranean underwater deposits with ancient sculptures as possible. This method increased the chances of comprehending the overall extent of the available archaeological record, as well as the actual geographical and chronological span of this ancient maritime activity. However, as Parker (1992: 4) also acknowledges, dealing with a big corpus of data that includes non-excavated and largely unpublished information brings some implications and constraints for the interpretation of the recorded material. Therefore, due to the varied levels of reliability of the researched sources, as well as the inconsistent circumstances of discovery of the recorded underwater deposits, the list of Mediterranean underwater deposits with ancient sculptures, presented in Chapter 4 and Appendix 1, should not be considered definitive. New underwater sculptural discoveries or previously unknown cases from museums and archaeological services of the Mediterranean and around the world might be added in the future (Appendix 2). Additionally, re-assessments of already recorded underwater depositions of sculptures could provide adjusted information and improved data for specific entries of the database. The above implications have been identified and addressed in the present research by clearly recording the circumstances of discovery, seen in Chapter 2, the sources of information and any possible unanswered questions for each database entry, available all in Appendix 1. Thus, the present dataset with its analysis, seen in Chapter 4, preserves its validity because it represents collectively the underwater archaeological record for the maritime transport of ancient sculptures as currently known. 47

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Sources of information for other supporting data During the macro-scale research of this project, except for the material record, which was researched and recorded systematically, some textual sources and iconographic data were documented. The textual sources involved ancient literary texts, presented mainly in Chapter 2, as well as post-antique historical records, referenced also in Chapter 2. Additionally, one iconographic representation of an ancient sculpture being dragged out of the sea by fishermen was recorded from a Roman votive relief found at Ostia (Ostia Archaeological Museum Inv.No.157). Both the textual and iconographic data were found and recorded during the study of books, academic publications, and scholarly articles of both classical and maritime archaeology, as described above. These textual and iconographic pieces of information were recorded only on an ad hoc basis rather than an organised, consistent research, because this data was not included in the main interests of the present research. However, their recording was considered important as supporting information for the material record of the database and a possible future direction for scholars specialised in that area of research. Contents of the database The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, available in Appendix 1, includes 110 database entries (D.B.). These entries are underwater deposits from all around the Mediterranean Sea that include ancient freestanding sculptures of any: size (smallscale figurines or statuettes, medium-scale sculptures, large-scale and over life-size statues and free-standing sculptural reliefs), material (stone, bronze, terracotta, wood, ivory, wood-and-ivory) or date (early Archaic to late Roman times). The database entries themselves constitute: ancient shipwrecks with sculptures; assemblages of sculptures from an unidentified archaeological context; and single sculptures that have found out of archaeological context as isolated finds. Not included in this database are ancient sculptures known to have been discovered in submerged settlements, like the sculptures from the fountains of the submerged city of Baia in Southern Italy (Parco Archeologico Sommerso di Baia 2018), as well as identified post-antique deposits, like the late-antique statue of the ‘Colossus of Barletta’, which is known to have been lost in the Adriatic Sea during the Crusades, or the ‘Grand Tour’ shipwrecks described previously in Chapter 2 (Arata 2005: 5-6, 148-149; Johnson 1925: 22). These examples are excluded from this macro-scale research since they do not provide evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean and, thus, cannot answer the research questions of this project. Naming system In the process of creating the database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, one of the greatest challenges was distinguishing entries in the existing sources and literature due to the use of various names for the same shipwreck, assemblage or sculpture by different authors and scholars. This fact, as well as the lack of extensive publication or archaeological documentation for more than half of the entries recorded, necessitated the creation of a new, consistent naming system for this research. This system uses a known toponym, geographically close to the location of the sculptural discovery, and is followed by a characterisation that indicates the preservation of their underwater archaeological context: • shipwreck, if the entry is a recorded or identified shipwreck with sculptures, e.g. the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88), 48

Methodology of the research • assemblage, if the database entry is an underwater deposit with more than one sculptures but no associated research or strong evidence for the existence of a shipwreck, e.g. the Artemission assemblage (D.B.9), • sculpture, if the database entry is a single sculpture retrieved as an isolated find, out of context or from an underwater archaeological context where no shipwreck has been identified so far, e.g. the Rhodes sculpture (D.B.91). The geographical locations and toponyms chosen have not been arbitrary, but they have been largely based on names given in previous publications and scholarship, if they exist. Thus, the recorded database entries are still identifiable and linked to previous sources and scholarly work. Additionally, in the forms recording each database entry (Appendix 1), a section for ‘Other attributed names’ has been included to enable search of database entries based on their other naming systems. Moreover, when more than one entry has been found in the same geographical area, and in previous scholarship the same toponym has been used for all of them, the name assigned here includes the year of discovery before the characterisation shipwreck/assemblage/sculpture. For example, the Kalymnos 2006 sculpture (D.B.53) is different from the Kalymnos 1997 sculpture (D.B.51). Both incidents, though, involve the discovery of single sculptures, retrieved as isolated finds around the same geographical area, the island of Kalymnos, while their exact underwater deposit is unknown. Finally, when an entry, usually a single sculpture, has been discovered in a totally unknown location of the Mediterranean Sea and no close geographical association can be attributed, this database entry has been designated as ‘Unknown’ accompanied by its year of discovery, if known, and an indication of its current location. For instance, the name Unknown sculpture (National Archaeological Museum Athens) (D.B.109) is used for the statuette also known as ‘Saarbrucken Ephebe’, exhibited in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Additionally, the name Unknown 1930s sculpture (Minneapolis Institute of Art) (D.B.108) is used for the large-scale marble statue in the form of ‘Doryphoros’, found under water in an unknown location of the Mediterranean and currently exhibited in the Minneapolis Institute of Art. With this new consistent naming system, the hard decision of choosing, which name to follow for each database entry, has been avoided. Additionally, this method made possible the standardised registering of a big bulk of diverse data and the inclusion of new entries at any time during research or in the future. Format of the database For the further standardisation and the more accurate recording of the overall archaeological evidence in this research, specific consistent formats were used for the digital rendering of the database. In the first year of research, 2016-2017, the collated dataset existed in the form of a simple Microsoft Excel file with fields that recorded standardized information for all included entries. The fields were: name of entry, country of discovery, coordinates, date of discovery, date of context, number of sculptures, material of sculptures, size/type of sculptures, date of sculptures, hull remains, packaging evidence, presence of amphorae, coins, architectural pieces, domestic furnishing, fineware pottery, coarseware pottery, glassware, lamps, ingots, scrap metal, skeletal remains and other. The information registered in these fields allowed, first of all, the consistent recording of the sculptures and any preserved contextual data from under water. Additionally, it made possible a first quick overview and understanding of the existing archaeological record, a first classification of the recorded entries, as well as the recognition of some preliminary patterns and relationships between them. The Excel file of the first year of research was further complemented 49

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean by written reports for each recorded entry, distribution maps created in ArcGIS 10.4, as well as graphs quantifying and classifying the database entries according to their material and date of underwater deposition. In summer 2017, after the recording of approximately 75 entries, it became obvious that it was necessary to import the data in a more viable software that would allow adjustments, easy correction of information, addition of new entries, search-ability, as well as straightforward generation of statistical information. For this purpose, the software Microsoft Access was used, and a database was built to replace the Microsoft Excel file used in the previous year. The Microsoft Access database was used since September 2017 and had both ‘table’ and ‘form’ features containing all the recorded entries and their contextual information fields described previously for its Microsoft Excel version. Additionally, as it will be analysed further down in this chapter, the Microsoft Access database had also been supporting forms for the standardised recording of artefacts in the planned research visits for the micro-scale research of some shipwreck case studies. Processing the data After the recording of more than 100 entries, the information of the database was further classified, quantified, analysed and interpreted. This process moved the dataset a step forward from a simple selective and descriptive catalogue of sculptures found under water, as seen for example in the Appendix of Arata (2005), where there is no consistency or clear reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of several case studies of works of art discovered under water in the Mediterranean Sea. The close analysis, classification and quantitative study of archaeological data are methods commonly used in archaeology. Hodder (1999: 33) has described that process as part of the ‘wholepart relationship’ method, one of the first points of archaeological reasoning, while Leidwanger (2017: 597) has also emphasized the importance of a ‘fine-grained quantification and basic social network analysis’ as a method for the detection of patterns in bulk data of ancient shipwrecks. Indeed, the application of this type of analysis to the overall archaeological evidence of ancient sculptures discovered under water in the Mediterranean, with the use of maps and graphs, enabled the identification of similarities and differences between the various entries, as well as the detection of specific patterns over space and time, making, thus, this macro-scale research very fruitful. The results of this data processing are presented and interpreted thoroughly in Chapter 4. Sustaining and updating the database Obviously, the database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean can never be fully finished. Constantly, more relevant underwater deposits and incidents of underwater sculptural discoveries are surfacing either as newly discovered archaeological material or through new, previously unknown to the author, resources. Parker (1992: ii) had made the same observation about his own inventory of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks by saying that ‘no complete, authorized list of shipwrecks will ever be possible’. Therefore, the author has provided in Appendix 2 examples of other underwater sculptural discoveries recognised close to the completion of this project, indicating how future discoveries could be added in a later stage to this research. Micro-scale research The macro-scale research, described above, proved to be very efficient in collecting consistently the overall available underwater archaeological record for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. Following the results from the processing of the big bulk of data of the macro-scale research, presented in detail in Chapter 4, the micro-scale research, the second methodological approach of this project took place for the thorough contextual study of specific case studies. 50

Methodology of the research Choice of case studies In general, the micro-scale research, as an archaeological method, involves the qualitative study of single shipwreck case studies, as described by Leidwanger (2017: 597), with the accurate detailed recording of artefacts and archaeological remains retrieved from the underwater archaeological context. Obviously, it could not have been possible or useful to conduct a detailed micro-scale research for every single entry recorded in this project’s database, especially in the three years of funding available. Therefore, in this research, the close-up, micro-scale approach has been conducted for the examination of three selected shipwreck case studies. These are the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88; Chapter 5), found off the coast of Italy, the Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38; Chapter 6) found off the coast of Menorca, in Spain, and the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67; Chapter 7) found off the coast of Tunisia. The choice of the above case studies has been based on their features as archaeological sites, their level of preservation and documentation as underwater deposits, as well as the accessibility and availability of their resources and material for study by the author. More specifically, the Porticello, Favaritx and Mahdia shipwrecks are all well-preserved ancient underwater deposits with adequate evidence that prove securely the maritime transportation of sculptures in different periods of Classical Antiquity. The Porticello shipwreck has been dated in the Classical period, in the late 5th or early 4th century BC, the Mahdia shipwreck in the Hellenistic times, in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC, and the Favaritx shipwreck has been dated in the period of Late Antiquity, some time between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. Additionally, as it will be explained in the following chapters, each one of these selected underwater sites preserve evidence that indicate very distinct reasons and circumstances of sculptural transport, covering, thus, in more detail a wide variety of patterns detected during the macroscale research. Finally, all three deposits have been archaeologically investigated, prior to this research. Therefore, the archaeological information that has interested this project have already been, at least partially, studied and preserved in the form of reports, publications or museum inventories. Methods of research and recording of case studies Since this project could not involve any excavation procedures, especially since the material of interest had already been retrieved from the seabed, the documentation process for the microscale research took place either through the study of already existing publications and reports or through research visits at museums and archaeological services, where the archaeological remains have been stored. As it will be clear in the analysis of Chapter 5 and Chapter 7, for both the Porticello and Mahdia shipwrecks, which have been extensively published, the research of each shipwreck was carried out mainly through the study of existing archaeological archives, reports and publications. This process was very efficient, especially due to the difficulty in accessing directly the primary archaeological remains and artefacts. For the Favaritx shipwreck, though, an underwater deposit, which has remained largely nonresearched and not extensively published, a permit was requested from the archaeological service in charge to conduct a study of the material first hand. Therefore, a research visit was conducted in September 2017 at the Museu de Menorca, where the material is held, and the author studied directly all of the preserved shipwreck artefacts with the help of the curator of the archaeological material Octavio Ponsi. 51

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean For the recording of the archaeological material in the research visit the following two methods were used: 1. a form in the Microsoft Access database of the project that enabled the fast registering of information for each artefact, 2. photography,1 to create an image archive of the studied artefacts, facilitating, thus, the study of the material in a later stage if required. Additionally, archival research was conducted in the library and archives of the museum to find any further publications or unpublished data regarding the site as well as its salvage, survey or excavation in the past. Through the micro-scale research of the Porticello, Favaritx and Mahdia shipwrecks the aim has been to revisit the underwater deposits and the archaeological remains they included. Through this study the main objective has been to record the preserved material anew and collect evidence that could shed light on specific characteristics of each shipwreck, such as the type and number of sculptures transported, the type and date of the of the seagoing vessel itself, the number and features of other transported artefacts and cargo, the type of maritime transport and any information on its shipping route or network, namely details that can further clarify the answers for the main research questions of this project. Conclusion In this chapter the totally new methodological approach applied to the study of the underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean has been explained. The primary focus of the research on the archaeological context of the underwater sculptural discoveries, as well as the combination of a macro-scale and a micro-scale research have been used before by archaeologists but never all together for the study and interpretation of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. The unique academic profile and skillset of the author, who has worked both as a classical and maritime archaeologist, has contributed largely to the implementation of this new approach towards the study of ancient sculptures found under water. This new perspective manages to bridge the disciplinary divides between classical and maritime archaeological research on the subject by covering a wide range of archaeological evidence and making possible the systematic recording and comparative analysis of various data related to both classical and maritime archaeological subjects. This process has produced results suggesting that the maritime movement of sculptures contained more nuance and possibilities than previously thought, enhancing thus the scholarly understanding of this ancient maritime activity. Overall, this research, with the return to the primary sources of information, and the constant re-interpretation and confirmation of data, avoids the repetition of old theories, but represents accurately the variability of circumstances and reasons for the maritime movement of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world. All the new conclusions of this comprehensive study are presented thoroughly in the next chapters.

1 

Use of a Cannon PowerShot SX420 IS digital camera.

52

Chapter 4

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean Introduction As outlined in Chapter 3, the first methodological approach of this study is a macro-scale research involving the collection and broad scale examination of underwater archaeological evidence that prove the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This attempts to answer broadly the main research question, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported during Classical Antiquity? The macro-scale research has been carried out with the creation of a database that records any known examples of ancient sculptures deposited under water in the Mediterranean Sea, possibly while in transit during Classical Antiquity. This database is comprised of 110 underwater deposits, all of which are presented in Table 1 and the map of Figure 22. Further details for each recorded deposit are provided in Appendix 1. Through the creation of the database, as well as the study, comparative analysis, classification, quantification and interpretation of the underwater deposits collected in this research, the main aim has been to present the overall geographical and chronological extent of the associated archaeological record. Additionally, the macro-scale research has attempted to recognise the types, material and numbers of the transported sculptures and, therefore, detect evidence for distinct reasons, patterns and circumstances for the maritime transport of sculptures in different periods of Classical Antiquity. Finally, the issue of packing and stowing sculptures in ancient Mediterranean seagoing vessels has been explored. All of the above enquiries are addressed one by one in this chapter and they are answered not just through possible hypotheses, but through sufficient archaeological evidence and quantitative results that back up the presented arguments. Therefore, it has been possible to draw some accurate conclusions regarding the extent, frequency, nature and circumstances of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, despite the fragmentary archaeological research conducted in the majority of the recorded underwater deposits with ancient sculptures. Geographical distribution of underwater deposits In order to record and comprehend the extent of the archaeological evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world, but also to understand the scope of this maritime activity, it is important to start by looking at the geographical distribution of the underwater finds. A general overview of the region, as presented in the map of Figure 22, shows that sculptures of different materials have been found all around the Mediterranean Sea, from the coast of the Iberian Peninsula all the way to the Black Sea, Asia Minor and the Levantine coast.1

The geographical position of each recorded database entry, as presented in the maps of this research, is not exact. Due to the lack of primary archaeological research and subsequent academic publications on most of the underwater sites, where ancient sculptures have been found, approximate coordinates have been used. These approximate coordinates are either based on information provided by Parker (1992) or have been established by the author according to the descriptions of the geographical location of the sculptural underwater discoveries, as provided in other scholarship. In most cases, though, the location of database entries is accurate to within one nautical mile.

1 

53

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Table 1: List of the database entries. Database Number (D.B) 1

Agde assemblage

France

Date of underwater deposit unknown

2

Agde sculpture

France

unknown

3 4

Ai Stratis sculpture Alexandria shipwreck

Greece Egypt

unknown Roman

5 6

Antignano sculpture Antikythera shipwreck

Italy Greece

unknown 1st century BC

7

Apollonia shipwreck

Libya

8

Arap Adasi sculpture

Turkey

2nd century BC (?) unknown

9

Artemission assemblage

Greece

10

Ashqelon 1986 shipwreck Ashqelon 1998 shipwreck

Israel

11

Name

Country

Israel

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces 2 bronze Kingsley 2002; Arata 2005. 1 bronze Parker 1992; Tzalas 2007; Queyrel 2012. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 stone Archaeology Magazine 2017 [online]. 1 bronze Arata 2005. c. 62 bronze; Bass 1966; stone Throckmorton 1972; Rackl 1978; Parker 1992; Tzalas 2007; Kaltsas et al. 2012; Foley 2016. unknown bronze Parker 1992. 1

bronze

late 2nd – early 1st century BC

2

bronze

late 2nd – early 3rd century AD 1st – 2nd century AD

1

stone

3

bronze

1

stone

c. 13-14

bronze

12

Ashqelon sculpture

Israel

unknown

13

Ayia Galini shipwreck

Greece

3rd century AD (?)

14

Spain

Roman

1

stone

15

Benalmadena sculpture Brindisi sculpture

Italy

unknown

1

bronze

16

Brindisi shipwreck

Italy

3rd – 6th century AD (?)

c. 150-200

bronze

17

Cadiz assemblage

Spain

unknown

2

bronze; stone

54

Bass 1966; Ridgway 1967; Parker 1992; Green 2004. Herbig 1929; Bass 1966; Rackl 1978; Wünsche 1979; Boardman 1985; Parker 1992; Mattusch 1997; Hemingway 2004; Tzalas 2007. Parker 1992; Russell 2011; 2013a; 2013b. Oxford Roman Economy project 2019 [online]; Israel Antiquities Authority 2019 [online]. Israel Antiquities Authority 2019 [online]. Hood & Warren 1966; Sanders 1982; Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Brokalakis 2016. Arata 2005; Russell 2011; 2013a; 2013b. Walters 1899; Arata 2005. Mattusch 1997; Ruppe & Barstad 2002; Auriemma 2004; Arata 2005. Parker 1992; Arata 2005.

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean Database Number (D.B) 18 19

Name

Country

Cadiz sculpture Caesarea shipwreck

Spain Israel Italy

24

Camarina 1989 shipwreck Camarina 2000 shipwreck Cap Camarat shipwreck Cape San Vito sculpture Capo Boeo sculpture

25 26

Capo Linaro sculpture Italy Capraia assemblage Italy

27

Cavallo shipwreck

France

28 29

Turkey Italy

31 32

Cide sculpture Coltellazzo 1967 shipwreck Coltellazzo 1978 shipwreck Crete sculpture Delos sculpture

Greece Greece

33 34

Egnazia sculpture El Sec shipwreck

Italy Spain

35

Elba sculpture

Italy

36

Eleusis sculpture

Greece

37

Fano sculpture

Italy

38

Favaritx shipwreck

Spain

39

Foça sculpture

Turkey

40 41 42

Fos-sur-Mer sculpture France Gaza sculpture Gaza Gela shipwreck Italy

20 21 22 23

30

Italy France Italy Italy

Italy

Date of underwater deposit unknown 4th century AD

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces 1 bronze Arata 2005. unknown bronze Archaeology Magazine 2016 [online] 1st century AD 1 bronze Di Stefano 1991; Parker 1992. 1st – 2nd century 1 bronze Di Stefano 2004. AD 1st century BC unknown terracotta Liou & Pomey 1985; Parker 1992. unknown 1 bronze Archaeology and Arts 2017 [online]. unknown 1 stone Arata 2005; Russell 2013b. unknown 1 bronze Arata 2005. unknown unknown bronze; Parker 1992; Arata stone 2005. 1st century AD 1 bronze Corsi-Sciallano & Liou 1985; Arata 2005. unknown 1 bronze Ridgway 2002. 4th – 2nd unknown terracotta Parker 1992; Arata century BC 2005. unknown unknown terracotta Parker 1992; Arata 2005. unknown 1 bronze Arata 2005. unknown 1 bronze Touchais 1984; Parker 1992; Archibald et al. 2001. unknown 1 bronze Arata 2005. 4th century BC 2 bronze; Arata 2005. stone 2nd century AD 1 ivory Arata 2005. (?) unknown 1 bronze Bass 1966; Arata 2005; Koutsouflakis 2017. unknown 1 bronze Parker 1992; Mattusch 1997; Tzalas 2007. 5th- 7th century c. 6 bronze Fernandez-Miranda AD 1977; FernandezMiranda & Belén 1977; FernandezMiranda & RoderoRiaza 1985; Keay 1984; Parker 1992; McCormick 2001. unknown 1 bronze Arata 2005; Tzalas 2007. unknown 1 ivory Diolé 1957. unknown 1 bronze CNN 2014 [online]. 6th – 5th century unknown terracotta; Parker 1992; BC wood National Geographic 2008 [online].

55

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Database Number (D.B) 43

Name

Italy

Date of underwater deposit unknown

Italy Italy

unknown 2nd century AD

Country

44 45

Golfo di Baratti sculpture Grado sculpture Grado shipwreck

46 47

Grau-du-Roi sculpture France Haifa sculpture Israel

unknown 2nd century AD (?)

48

Hierapetra sculpture

Greece

unknown

49

Kalymnos 1994 sculpture

Greece

unknown

50

Kalymnos 1997 assemblage

Greece

unknown

51

Kalymnos 1997 sculpture

Greece

unknown

52

Kalymnos 1999 sculpture

Greece

unknown

53

Kalymnos 2006 sculpture

Greece

unknown (1st century BC ? )

54

Kalymnos 2009 sculpture

Greece

unknown

55 56 57

Karatas sculpture Kythera sculpture Kythnos sculpture

Turkey Greece Greece

unknown unknown unknown

58

Leipsoi/Leros sculpture

Greece

unknown

59 60

Lemnos sculpture Livadostra sculpture

Greece Greece

unknown unknown

61

Livorno assemblage

Italy

unknown

62

Livorno sculpture

Italy

unknown

63 64

Lixouri shipwreck Lluchmajor sculpture

Greece Spain

unknown unknown

56

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces 1 stone Arata 2005; Russell 2011; 2013a; 2013b. 1 bronze Arata 2005. 1 bronze Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Beltrame et al. 2011. 1 stone Arata 2005. 1 unknown Israel Antiquities Authority 2019 [online]. 1 bronze Arata 2005; Russell 2013b. 1 bronze Arata 2005; Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 2 bronze Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015; Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Arata 2005. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2017. 1 bronze Dramgoole 2006; Sakellariou et al. 2006. 1 bronze Koutsouflakis 2007; Koutsouflakis & Simosi 2015. 1 unknown Parker 1992. 1 bronze Bass 1966; Mattusch 1988; Kaltsas 2002; Tzalas 2007; Koutsouflakis 2017. 4 bronze Bass 1966; Parker 1992; Dillon 2006; Ling 2007. 1 bronze Mattusch 1978; Arata 2005. c. 6 stone Parker 1992. 1 bronze Arata 2005.

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean Database Number (D.B) 65

Lošinj sculpture

Croatia

66

Madrague de Giens shipwreck

France

67

Mahdia shipwreck

Tunisia

68

Marathon sculpture

Greece

69

Marmaris shipwreck

Turkey

70

Marsala 1980s sculpture Marsala 2014 sculpture Mateille shipwreck

Italy

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces 1 bronze Stenuit 2002; Arata 2005. 1 stone Liou & Pomey 1985; Parker 1992; Arata 2005. 2nd – 1st century c. 44 bronze; Fuchs 1963; BC stone Throckmorton 1970; Throckmorton 1972; Rackl 1978; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994; De Donato 2003. unknown 1 bronze Bass 1966; Parker 1992; Mattusch 1997; Tzalas 2007. 7th century BC 1 terracotta Ancient Origins 2017 [online]. unknown 1 stone Sofroniew 2016.

Italy

unknown

1

stone

Sofroniew 2016.

France

5th century AD

1

bronze

Italy

unknown

1

bronze

Solier et al. 1981; Parker 1992. Petriaggi 2002; 2003; 2005. Petriaggi 2005; Lapatin 2018. Misch-Brandl & Galili 1985; Raban & Galili 1985; Parker 1992; Syon et al. 2013. Diolé 1957; Bass 1966; Reymond & Dugand 1970; Parker 1992. Koutsouflakis 2017. Arata 2005; Tzalas 2007; Koutsouflakis 2017. Papathanassopoulos & Schilardi 1981; Russell 2011; 2013b. Arata 2005. Arata 2005. Bass 1966; Mattusch 1996; Arata 2005; Tzalas 2007. Bass 1966; Parker 1992. Parker 1992. Arata 2005.

71 72 73

Name

Country

Date of underwater deposit 1st century BC – 2nd century AD 1st century BC

Italy

unknown

1

bronze

75

Mazara del Vallo 1998 sculpture Mazara del Vallo 1999 sculpture Megadim shipwreck

Israel

100/99 BC

unknown

bronze

76

Monaco sculpture

Monaco

unknown

1

bronze

77 78

Mykonos sculpture Northern Aegean sculpture

Greece Greece

unknown unknown

1 1

bronze bronze

79

Paros assemblage

Greece

2nd century AD (?)

unknown

stone

80 81 82

Pellestrina sculpture Pinedo sculpture Piombino sculpture

Italy Spain Italy

Roman unknown unknown

1 1 1

bronze bronze bronze

83

Piraeus shipwreck

Greece

unknown

unknown

stone (?)

84 85

Planier shipwreck Pointe Lequine shipwreck Port Vendres shipwreck

France France

1-15 AD 6th century BC (?) 2nd century AD

2 unknown

wood bronze; terracotta bronze

74

86

France

57

1

Liou & Pomey 1985; Parker 1992.

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Database Number (D.B) 87

Porticcio shipwreck

Italy

88

Porticello shipwreck

Italy

89

Pozzino shipwreck

Italy

90

Punta Scifo shipwreck Italy

91

Rhodes sculpture

Greece

92

Rhone Delta shipwreck Riace assemblage

France

93

Name

Country

Italy

Date of underwater deposit 3rd century AD

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces unknown stone Cubells 2005; Russell 2013b. 5th – 4th century c. 22 bronze Eiseman 1973; 1979a; BC 1979b; Eiseman & Ridgway 1987; Gill 1987; Ridgway 1993; Lawall 1998; Ridgway 2004. 2nd – 1st century 1 ivory and/ Kapitän 1990; BC or wood Spawforth 1990; Yellowlees-Bound & Bound 1990; Gibbins 1991; Parker 1992. 2nd – 3rd 1 stone Parker 1992; Bartoli century AD 2018; Russell 2015. unknown 1 stone Bass 1966; Arata 2005. 1st century BC 1 stone Parker 1992; Arata 2005. 1st century AD 2 bronze Busignani 1981; (?) Foti & Nicosia 1981; Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Tzalas 2007. unknown 1 bronze Tchernia 1969; Valaison & Valaison 1970; Parker 1992. unknown 1 bronze Arata 2005; Pacifico 2017. unknown unknown bronze Arata 2005.

94

Saintes Maries-de-laMer sculpture

France

95

Salerno sculpture

Italy

96

Santa Maria di Leuca shipwreck Shave Ziyyon shipwreck

Italy Israel

5th – 4th century BC

98

Sile shipwreck

Turkey

2nd century AD

2

stone

99

Spargi shipwreck

Italy

2nd – 1st century BC

1

unknown

100

Stagira sculpture

Greece

unknown

1

stone

101 102 103

Styra shipwreck Syracuse assemblage Tarragona shipwreck

Greece Italy Spain

104

Terracina sculpture

Italy

Late Hellenistic unknown 3rd – 1st century BC Roman

105

Torre Flavia shipwreck Italy

106

Tyre assemblage

Lebanon

107

Tyre shipwreck

Lebanon

97

c. 100

unknown 5 1

terracotta

bronze stone terracotta

1

bronze

unknown

3

4th – 3rd century BC 5th century BC

6

bronze; stone bronze

7

terracotta

58

Linder 1973; Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Seco Alvarez & Noureddine 2010; Jewish Virtual Libary 2019 [online]. Beykan 1988; Smith 1991; Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Russell 2013a. Parker 1992; Beltrame 2000; Arata 2005. Petsa 1975; Arata 2005. Koutsouflakis 2017. Sofroniew 2016. Parker 1992. Parker 1992; Arata 2005. Parker 1992. Marx 1974; Parker 1992; Arata 2005. Marx 1974; Parker 1992.

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean Database Number (D.B) 108

109

110

Name

Country

Unknown unknown 1930s sculpture (Minneapolis Institute of Art) unknown Unknown sculpture (National Archaeological Museum Athens) Yalikavak assemblage Turkey

Date of underwater deposit unknown

Number of Material of Selected sculptural sculptures Bibliography pieces 1 stone Arata 2005.

unknown

1

bronze

Tzalas 2007; Koutsouflakis 2017.

unknown

2

bronze

Bas 1966; Ridgway 1990; Parker 1992; Arata 2005; Koutsouflakis 2017.

If we look at the map (Figure 22) in more detail, the most westerly deposit is seen at Cadiz, technically outside the Mediterranean Sea, but still within the borders of ancient Mediterranean maritime sphere. The distribution continues at the west around the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearic Islands and in southern France. Moving towards the east, underwater deposits with sculptures are seen all around Italy, the Dalmatian coast, the Ionian and Aegean Sea in Greece, then up north in the Black Sea. At the east the presence of underwater deposits with sculptures continues from Asia Minor in Turkey throughout the whole Levantine coast and all the way to Egypt, which together with one example from Libya and one from Tunisia comprise all the evidence that we have preserved from northern Africa. The overall geographical distribution of underwater sculptural finds in the Mediterranean, answers the first part of the main research question of this research, namely where were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? According to the evidence of the database, described above, the answer is: around all the shores, and between all the coastlines of the ancient Mediterranean world. This widespread geographical distribution of ancient underwater deposits with sculptures matches very well with the distribution of generally ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks presented by Parker (1992: 548). This observation is very interesting and important since it constitutes the first indication that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was not an isolated activity with a regional focus, as it was previously thought. On the contrary, it seems to have been further incorporated within the wider Mediterranean maritime networks of transport and trade of products in several different periods of Antiquity. The interest of previous scholars on material from specific regional areas or countries (Arata 2005; Koutsouflakis 2017; Tzalas 2007), as well as the constant reproduction of older theories regarding the plunder and transport of Greek sculptures from the eastern Mediterranean to Italy by the Romans (Boardman 1985: 53; Stewart 1990: 228-229), had given the impression of a localised phenomenon and an one-way maritime transport from east to west, starting from Greece, Asia Minor or the Levantine coast with a direction to southern Italy or Rome. However, the existing archaeological record, as documented in this database, suggests that this activity must have been far more complex geographically, than previously considered, and it must have involved multiple routes and directions around the Mediterranean world. Another detail that is significant to note is that the higher or lower density of underwater evidence detected in specific geographical areas of the Mediterranean Sea does not necessarily indicate places where ancient merchant ships with sculptures were moving more or less intensely. Similar to Parker’s shipwreck catalogue, the view of the geographical distribution of underwater deposits 59

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

 

Legend  

 Bronze  sculptures    Stone  sculptures    Terracotta  sculptures    Ivory/Wooden  sculptures    Bronze  &  Stone  sculptures    Terracotta  &  Wooden  sculptures    Bronze  &  Terracotta  sculptures    Unknown  material  

Figure 22: Map showing the geographical distribution of the database entries of this PhD and their classification according to the material of their sculptures. © Author.

with sculptural finds in the Mediterranean is subject to a series of distorting factors, caused mainly by the availability of academic, archaeological and financial resources in various regions (Parker 1992: 6-7). These results are affected by the modern political systems in place at each country and the availability of provisions for the documentation and preservation of underwater cultural heritage, too. Therefore, the areas of the Mediterranean, with no underwater sculptural finds, as seen for example along the coast of Northern Africa, should not be necessarily considered as excluded from the maritime transport of sculptures in Classical Antiquity. The case of the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67; Chapter 7) in Tunisia, for instance, should be considered representative of the currently invisible archaeological reality at the area rather than an exceptional or unusual find. In the same way, the higher density of underwater sculptural finds in some areas like Greece, Italy and Southern France should not be interpreted solely as a result of more intense maritime transport of sculptures in these regions. Some historical circumstances, geomorphological features and weather conditions could have certainly influenced the wrecking of ships in some areas more than others. However, the accumulation of more evidence in specific regions must be mostly considered as a result of modern-day factors, such as large-scale fishing development, recreational underwater activities and underwater archaeological research, all being conducted in some Mediterranean countries more than in others. Despite these distorting factors, as long as the above issues are taken into consideration and the density of finds are just thought to be indicatives of a larger archaeological record, not yet fully explored, the geographical evidence recorded in the database still have high validity. In short, the geographical distribution of the underwater deposits with sculptures from the database proves

60

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean clearly that sculptures were transported all around the ancient Mediterranean and this maritime transport was not restricted between exclusive regions or geographical areas. Chronological distribution of underwater deposits Continuing through the next parts of the main research question, the second detail to explore is, when were sculptures transported by sea in Classical Antiquity? This question of chronology concerns the date of the transport, but also of the consequent underwater deposition of the sculptural artefacts and points out the chronological extent through which this maritime activity was taking place in the ancient Mediterranean world. To retrieve the information about chronology, it is necessary to establish individually the date of the underwater archaeological contexts in which sculptures have been discovered, rather than the date of when the retrieved sculptures were constructed. Unfortunately, though, due to the fragmentary archaeological research and the lack of scholarly focus on the underwater deposits with ancient sculptures, described previously in Chapters 2 and 3, the date, when specific sculptural artefacts were transported and lost at sea is not very easy to reconstruct. As the graph of Figure 23 shows, for approximately 64 database entries, which is more than 58% of the recorded data, it is impossible to have even a potential date for their underwater deposit. This is due to the discovery of the sculptures as isolated finds and their recovery from non-dated and not archaeologically surveyed sites. However, for the rest 42% of the recorded incidents, scholars have used surviving archaeological information to provide or suggest some possible dates for the underwater deposition of the corresponding sculptures. These dates span from the 7th/6th century BC to the 7th century AD (Figure 23), making, thus, clear that the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures covered chronologically all of Classical Antiquity.2 More specifically, by looking at the graph of Figure 24, which depicts the frequency of centuries appearing in the dating of underwater archaeological contexts with sculptural material, according to the already existing scholarship, it becomes clear that there is an increase of archaeological evidence from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD with spikes in the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. The 5th and 4th centuries BC, as well as the period between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD show relatively high frequency, too. Similar chronological distribution with

Figure 23: Classification of the recorded entries according to the date of their underwater deposit. © Author. There is evidence that Bronze Age ships carried small-scale sculptures of different types and materials. One example is the female figurine retrieved from the Late Bronze Age ‘Uluburun shipwreck’, off the coast of Turkey (Pulak 1998). These Bronze Age examples have not been included in the present database because this research focuses on the period of Classical Antiquity and the Graeco-Roman world of the ancient Mediterranean.

2 

61

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean the frequency graph (Figure 24) is also given in Figure 25, which is simply a collective visual representation of the dating of the database entries with known, or at least partially researched, underwater archaeological contexts. This chronological range of underwater sites with sculptural material, presented in Figures 2325 highly resembles the chronological distributions and the peaks of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks in general observed by Parker (1992: 8-9, 2008: 187) and Wilson (2011: 33-39), only with a slight drop in the 1st century AD. The resemblance of this data to the chronological patterns of the wider ancient Mediterranean shipwreck evidence, mentioned above, provides a second indication that the shipping of sculptures must have been largely incorporated to the wider, already known, maritime trading networks of Classical Antiquity. Therefore, this maritime activity is proved again as a generalised phenomenon occurring in all centuries of ancient Greek and Roman Antiquity with spikes in most historical time periods, when there was an overall increase in the ancient maritime activities, but also from when there is more shipwreck evidence available for research.

Figure 24: Graph representing the frequency of centuries appearing in the dating of known underwater archaeological contexts with freestanding sculptural material, as suggested in the already existing scholarship. © Author.

Figure 25: Visual representation of the dating of the database entries of this PhD with known underwater archaeological contexts as recorded in the already existing scholarship. © Author. 62

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean

Figure 26: Classification of the recorded entries, according to the type of the underwater deposit. © Author.

Types of sculptures transported by sea As explained in Chapter 3, the underwater deposits recorded in the present database are: ancient shipwrecks with sculptures; assemblages of more than one sculpture coming from an unknown or not well-identified archaeological context; or single sculptures retrieved from the sea as isolated finds (Figure 26). The sculptures, that these database entries include, vary a lot in material, size, date of construction, type and subject of representation and numbers. The study of the above details, which is presented next, has been of core importance for answering the rest of the main research question, namely why and how sculptures were transported by sea during Classical Antiquity. The material of the transported sculptures To begin with, the recorded data indicates that sculptures of several different materials were carried on ships sailing the Mediterranean Sea during Classical Antiquity. As Figure 27 presents, the majority of the recorded underwater deposits, 67 in the number, have solely bronze sculptures. Then, there are 20 with only stone sculptures, seven with only terracotta, six with both bronze and stone sculptures, four with only wooden or ivory sculptures, one with both terracotta and wooden sculptures, as well as one with bronze and terracotta sculptures. Finally, there are four entries for which the scholars, who recorded or published the sites, have not reported the material of the sculptures. In these quantitative results the predominance of entries with solely bronze sculptures is very notable. However, similarly to the geographical distribution and the chronology of the documented underwater deposits, this number can be simply coincidental. Since most of the recorded underwater deposits are simply sculptures retrieved as accidental finds, with no recorded archaeological context, it is easy to understand that bronze as a material is far easier to be caught and lifted from the seabed by a fisherman, sponge diver or scuba diver because it is relatively light in comparison to stone for example, which is heavier and more prone to degradation by marine

63

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 27: A graph showing the recorded entries classified according to the material of the sculptures that they carried. © Author.

organisms and salt water. Additionally, the distinct colour and texture of bronze, makes sculptures of this material more easily spotted in the seabed, as well as better preserved in comparison to terracotta, wood, or ivory, which become more easily disintegrated or absorbed in the marine environments. Hence, the higher number of deposits with bronze sculptures cannot imply in any case that more bronze sculptures were carried on ships sailing around the ancient Mediterranean. The overall conclusion, though, is that the underwater archaeological record preserves evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures of all materials known to have been used for sculptural production in Classical Antiquity. The size of the transported sculptures Since the author, was not able to see in person every single sculpture recorded in the database, due to time and access constraints, it has been hard to determine the exact size of the sculptural artefacts only from the study of the available publications, unless exact dimensions are provided by previous scholars. Thus, from the scholarly descriptions available, it has only been possible to classify known sculptures carried on ancient Mediterranean ships into the broad categories of small-, medium- and large-scale sculptures. From the 110 sites recorded, 26 have sculptures of unknown size, while 11 are reported with under life-size sculptures, indicating probably either small- or medium-scale sculptures. From the rest, there are definitely 16 database entries with certainly small-scale, 10 with medium-scale and 39 with large-scale sculptures, but also eight with sculptures of multiple sizes reported (Figure 28).

64

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean

Figure 28: The recorded entries classified according to the size of the sculptures that they include. Note that, due to the incomplete state of the academic scholarship, this classification is not absolute. © Author.

The date of construction of the transported sculptures The date, when the sculptural artefacts from under water were produced, is another detail not easily recorded from the available publications, unless individual sculptures have been studied art historically and dated stylistically. However, from the overall information provided in the available scholarly sources, it is evident that sculptures dating from the Archaic to the Late Roman times have been found under water in the Mediterranean Sea. It is important to clarify, though, that this typological dating of the sculptures cannot be used for the dating of underwater sites, too. As it has been previously explained, the date of sculptural production does not always coincide with the date, when the maritime transportation and the underwater deposition occurred. For example, the Antikythera shipwreck (D.B.6) wrecked in the first half of the 1st century BC while carrying a large cargo of both bronze and marble sculptures, which were constructed in different periods between the 4th and 1st centuries BC (Karouzou 1967; Tzalas 2007: 342-363; Vlachogianni 2012: 62-115). Moreover, the Megadim shipwreck (D.B.75), which has been dated by its coins to approximately 100/99 BC, carried bronze sculptural fragments with a date of construction in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC (Syon et al. 2013: 2-4). The difference between the date of the sculptures and the date of the transport and underwater deposition has been observed in several recorded incidents and it signifies once more the importance of underwater archaeological contexts in the study of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, as it will be explained later in this chapter, the variation in the dating of the sculptures in comparison to their underwater deposits has been a significant clue for the detection of possible reasons and patterns of maritime transport of sculptures. The themes and subjects of representation of the transported sculptures The available scholarship and sources of information are not always very thorough with the recognition of the subjects of representation of the recorded sculptures from under water. Additionally, there are cases in which the seriously defaced condition of the freestanding sculptures makes the represented theme impossible to identify. 65

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean However, the overall database information from the researched underwater deposits indicates that in Classical Antiquity people carried on ships all known freestanding sculptural types produced in different periods and regions of the ancient Greek and Roman world (Boardman 1985; Smith 1991; Stewart 1990;). These types could be depicting: freestanding anthropomorphic figures (mythical or mortal), such as the reclining Apollo seen in the Pinedo sculpture (D.B.81; Museu de Prehistòria de València 2019) or the young boy represented in one of the sculptures of the Yalikavak assemblage (D.B.110; Bass and Joline 1968: 10); zoomorphic figures (animals and mythical/imaginary creatures), such as the dolphin seen in the Leipsoi/Leros sculpture (D.B.58; Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015: figure 5.2); sculptural groups, with combinations of the above, such as the medium-scale statuary group of the Punta Scifo shipwreck recognised as Eros and Psyche (D.B.90; Bartoli 2008); and freestanding sculptural reliefs, such as the examples retrieved from the Piraeus shipwreck (D.B.83; Figure 8). Moreover, the wide variety in the levels of finish of the transported sculptural products has been very noticeable. In the recorded underwater depositions, there are examples of roughly-cut sculptural pieces, such as the colossal statue of a cuirassed emperor retrieved from the Şile shipwreck (D.B.98; Russell 2013a: figure 8.4), finished sculptural works, such as the Hellenistic Agde sculpture (D.B.2; Queyrel 2012: 10), as well as dismantled sculptures that were most probably carried by sea while in disuse, such as the sculptural pieces found in the Brindisi shipwreck (D.B.16). Finally, a very interesting observation is the identification of copies or reproductions of earlier original sculptural works in the group of sculptures retrieved from the Mediterranean seabed. According to the existing scholarship, the phenomenon of copying and reproducing versions of wellknown sculptures made by renowned artists, mainly from the Classical and Hellenistic periods, was introduced for the first time during the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC by the Hellenistic kings of the eastern Mediterranean, who wished to collect famous works of art (Ridgway 2002; Stewart 1990: 63; Smith 1991: 14-16). This activity was adopted and developed further during the Roman times resulting to the existence of large numbers of sculptural examples with representations or adaptations of the same or similar subjects (Anguissola 2018; Gazda 2002; Ridgway 1984). From the deposits recorded here, some of the most obvious examples of sculptural copies are: the statue of Herakles from the Antikythera shipwreck (D.B.6; Figure 2), presenting an extremely close resemblance to the statue known as ‘Farnese Hercules’, currently in Napoli, Italy; the bronze Dionysiac herm from the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: tafel 14-15), resembling closely the herm exhibited currently in the J. Paul Getty Museum (Jeffrey 2017: figure 41.1); the Unknown 1930s large-scale marble statue, currently at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (D.B.108; Minneapolis Institute of Art 2019), which depicts a male figure in the well-known type of ‘Doryphoros’, considered to have been sculpted originally by Polykleitos during the 5th century BC (Mattusch 1994: 431-449; Vlachogianni 2012: 65). The numbers of the transported sculptures Finally, it has been important to look closely at the numbers of the sculptures found in each deposit. As seen in Table 1, within the overall dataset of 110 underwater deposits, there have been sites with one, two, three, or even a higher number of sculptures. Each site can include sculptures of one or multiple materials and of the same or different sizes, sculptural types and dates of construction (see Appendix 1). The study of all this information in an individual but also comparative level has permitted the comprehension and documentation of various reasons and patterns for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world.

66

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean

Figure 29: The dating of the database entries in relation to the reasons and patterns for the transport of sculptures. © Author.

Possible reasons and patterns of transport The classification, quantification, and careful recording of the data, described above, provided a good overview of the available underwater archaeological evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. The results from the study of this evidence permitted the comprehension of the function of sculptures on several recorded underwater deposits, as well as the clear detection of patterns and reasons of transport over the periods of Classical Antiquity (Figure 29). Shipboard items and personal belongings One of the first possible patterns detected has been the transport of small- or medium-scale sculptures of different materials as shipboard items or personal belongings. This type of transport, which is obviously not trade, has been recognised in several well-surveyed or excavated shipwrecks, where there is no material missing due to looting or lack of archaeological research. Most of the entries belonging to this pattern are shipwrecks with identifiable, non-sculptural, cargo, but they have included in their record a small number of under life-size sculptures of a single or multiple materials, dated in a time period contemporary or slightly older than the underwater deposit. The chronological range of this transport is quite widespread in Classical Antiquity. According to the database information it ranges from as early as the 7th century BC up to the 2nd century AD (Figure 29). However, this type of transport seems to have taken place since much earlier. The small figurine of a female deity retrieved from the Late Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck is one of the earliest examples preserved for this pattern of sculptural transport (Pulak 1998: 207, figure 20). Moreover, despite the lack of direct underwater archaeological evidence, the transportation of under life-size sculptural artefacts as shipboard items or personal belongings must have continued beyond the 2nd century AD, at least up to the period of Late Antiquity, given the widespread use of small-scale statuary in the private sphere during the Roman period (Madigan 2013: 1-38; Papantoniou et al. 2019; Trego 2004). For the identification of this pattern, it has been vital to know the number, size and type of the recovered sculptures, the main cargo of the ship, but also the location of sculptural discovery within the wider archaeological context of the shipwreck site. The Madrague de Giens (D.B.66) and the Pozzino (D.B.89) shipwrecks are some obvious examples of that sort. The first-century BC 67

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Madrague de Giens shipwreck, with its commercial cargo transported in thousands of amphorae, included a fragment of an under life-size sculpture probably from a shipboard shrine (Liou and Pomey 1985: 563). Similarly, the late second- or early first-century BC Pozzino shipwreck, with its cargo amphorae and pottery, included fragments of a small-scale wooden or ivory–and-wood sculpture representing probably the god Asclepios and found within a wooden chest with medical containers. This sculptural piece has been interpreted possibly as a belonging of a passenger, maybe a medical practitioner, travelling on board at the time of wrecking (Gibbins 1991: 241; YellowleesBound and Bound 1990: 255). Additional examples that could fall into this category of sculptural transport are the Camarina 1989 shipwreck (D.B.20), the Cavallo shipwreck (D.B.27), the El Sec shipwreck (D.B.34), the Grado shipwreck (D.B.44), the Planier shipwreck (D.B.84) and the Port Vendres shipwreck (D.B.86). Trade of stone sculptures as part of stone cargo Another pattern of sculptural transport that has been straightforwardly identified is the maritime movement of stone sculptures as part of wider stone cargo. This type of maritime activity had already been identified in past scholarship and considered as part of the wider stone trade, taking place during the Roman times (e.g. Bartoli 2008; Beykan 1988; Castagnino Berlinghieri and Paribeni 2011; Claridge 1988; Russell 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015). In the present dataset there are six identified shipwrecks and possibly one assemblage with stone cargo and stone sculptures that could be part of this activity. These examples are the Ashqelon 1986 shipwreck (D.B.10), the Porticcio shipwreck (D.B.87), the Punta Scifo shipwreck (D.B.90), the Rhone Delta shipwreck (D.B.92), the Şile shipwreck (D.B.98) as well as possibly the Piraeus shipwreck (D.B.83) and the Paros assemblage (D.B.79), too. These deposits all preserve evidence for stone blocks, architectural members and freestanding stone sculptures, usually contemporary to the date of the wreck but in different levels of finish (Anguissola 2018, 118). The dating of these deposits ranges from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD (Figure 29), a period, which coincides with the large development of the Roman stone trade, as presented and analysed previously by Russell (2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015). Trade of sculptures with other luxury objects Another pattern of sculptural transport with a mercantile character has been recognised in a group of shipwrecks, which were carrying large numbers of both bronze and stone sculptures of multiple sizes together with other luxury objects. The Antikythera (D.B.6) and Mahdia (D.B.67) shipwrecks are the two most notable examples of this pattern. These shipwrecks, dated in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC, transported both bronze and marble sculptures of different sizes, from smallscale to over life-size, but also a variety of other high quality, luxury, objects such as domestic furnishings, architectural parts, fineware pottery, glassware, large decorative vessels (Anguissola 2018: 116-117; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: vol.1-2; Kaltsas et al. 2012: 14-15, 36). Except for the well-known cases of the Antikythera and Mahdia shipwrecks, similar but less studied sites that could fall into this category are the Apollonia (D.B.7), Styra (D.B.101) and Torre Flavia (D.B.105) shipwrecks, whose suggested dating is also set in the last two centuries BC. The ships carrying such luxury cargo of high value have been associated with the transport conducted for the needs of the art collection market of wealthy elites during the late Hellenistic, late Republican and early Roman Imperial times (Anguissola 2018: 55, 121-122; Bartman 1994: 71-88). This has been the maritime activity mentioned in the orders that Cicero describes in his letter to Atticus (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2). As explained previously in Chapter 2, this has also been the interpretation that most scholars have suggested for explaining generally the maritime 68

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean transportation and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures found in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. However, as this research contends, the trade of sculptures together with other luxury objects is not the only reason for the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, as previous scholarship has claimed. On the contrary, as Figure 29 highlights, this pattern, which is archaeologically documented only in the last two centuries BC, is part of a far wider variety of reasons and patterns of maritime transport recognised for the long period of Classical Antiquity. Trade of bronze sculptures and other metals as scrap Another pattern of maritime transport of sculptures has been identified in several shipwrecks, which seem to have carried mixed cargoes of metal objects including a variety of bronze sculptural artefacts. The shipwrecks of Ashqelon 1998 (D.B.11), Ayia Galini (D.B.13), Brindisi (D.B.16), Caesarea (D.B.19), Favaritx (D.B.38) and Megadim (D.B.75), they all have transported bronze sculptures together with other metals with the intention to be recycled as scrap (Arata 2005: 143-144; Brokalakis 2016; Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 175-188; Mattusch 1997: 13-14; MischBrandl and Galili 1985: 12-13; Parker 1992: 62, 176). The sculptures discovered in these deposits have been mostly older than the suggested date of the shipwrecks and are usually preserved in a fragmentary condition, since they must have fallen in disrepair prior to their maritime movement. The chronology of this transport pattern, as seen through the date of the identified underwater deposits, ranges from the Hellenistic times to Late Antiquity (Figure 29). The geographical range of this maritime activity spreads from the Balearic Islands to the Levantine coast. The similarities in the material found in the above-mentioned sites, despite their chronological and geographical variation, indicate the existence of a consistent maritime pattern for the transport of bronze sculptures in disuse, from at least the 1st century BC to the end of Late Antiquity. Transport of solely terracotta sculptures A series of underwater deposits were detected in the database with only terracotta sculptures of different sizes. The Coltellazo 1967 (D.B.29), the Coltellazzo 1978 (D.B.30), the Tyre shipwreck (D.B.107) and the Shave Ziyyon assemblage (D.B.97) have been the best-preserved examples of this sort (Arata 2005: 179-180, 199; Marx 1974: 332; Parker 1992: 151, 401; Seco Alvarez and Noureddine 2010: 7). These entries, located mainly in Italy and along the Levantine coast, range chronologically from the 5th to the 2nd century BC (Figure 29). Despite the uniformity of data that these sites present, due to the poor recording of their underwater archaeological contexts and the lack of extensive publication of the archaeological material, it has not been possible to document accurately the number, condition, size and form of the relevant terracotta sculptural artefacts and their deposits. Thus, it has been unclear why the terracotta sculptures were transported by sea and deposited under water. The possibilities of trade or other religious purposes have been indicated. Unfortunately, though, due to lack of accurate evidence no further conclusions have been produced for the deposits with solely terracotta sculptures at this stage. Unknown reasons or other patterns of transport In the database there are also several entries, which do not fit in any of the patterns of transport presented above (Figure 29). Some of these deposits are well-identified shipwrecks with preserved archaeological contexts, such as the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88). These sites, due to their unique features, distinct chronology and geographical location, and sometimes the limited publication of 69

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean their materials, have not permitted the identification of specific transport patterns only through the macro-scale methodological approach of this research. Some other entries, which have not been identified with a specific reason or pattern, simply, have no adequate contextual artefacts to date and interpret their maritime transport of sculptures. As presented earlier, in the database of this project there are 58 single sculptures and 11 assemblages, with a totally unknown or generally not secure archaeological context (Figure 27). For most of these sites, it is impossible to understand with certainty why or when the respective sculptures were transported and consequently deposited in the Mediterranean Sea. Since these last database entries have no secure archaeological evidence to prove any of those possibilities, they cannot answer further any of the other questions of this research. However, their recording and use in the quantification and classification of data for the macro-scale research has been important because they are parts of the existing archaeological record. Therefore, they add valuable overall context from a chronological and geographical perspective. Their inclusion in the database is, also, important for their preservation and protection as assets of underwater cultural heritage and the encouragement of future research. The packing and stowing of sculptures on board ancient merchant vessels Evidence from the archaeological record After presenting the geographical and chronological extent of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, as well as the possible reasons and patterns of this activity, it is important to look for evidence that could explain in more detail how sculptures were carried on board ancient merchant vessels. The specifics of packing and stowing transported sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world have been one of the largest unanswered questions in scholarship so far (Anguissola 2018: 115-116; Fuchs 1963: 11-12; Vlachogianni 2012: 62-72). Archaeological research and modern comparanda suggest that the preparation and execution of the short- or long-distance transport of sculptures must have been a difficult process that could have taken several months or weeks to complete. Especially, medium- and large-scale freestanding sculptures made of marble, bronze or any other material, are considered to be very bulky and fragile objects, difficult to pack and move with no major wear. Therefore, it has been hard to understand the technical details and the exact logistics of how these artefacts could have been safely packed and situated within the hold or deck of ancient ships, which would have been moving in the open sea for days and sometimes even months. An example of preliminary sculptural packing prior to their maritime transportation is provided by some archaeological finds in a terrestrial site in the city of Piraeus, in Greece (Steinhauer 2007: 326-331). In 1959 several bronze and marble sculptures were found by accident in an ancient commercial building close to the main harbour of Piraeus. According to the available reports the sculptures were found grouped together in positions that indicated that they were getting ready to be packed and probably transported on ships at the Piraeus harbour (Papathanassopoulos 1983: 20; Steinhauer 2007: 327). However, no such direct evidence of sculptural packaging has been preserved or documented from the underwater archaeological record of the Mediterranean seabed. The incomplete recording of the underwater archaeological context of most sculptures, as well as the lack of preservation of extensive ship remains do not allow, unfortunately, any certain assumptions regarding the types of packaging and the exact situation of the sculptures within their respective ships. The only case, providing secure archaeological information for the packing and stowing of sculptural artefacts, is the shipwreck of Megadim (D.B.75), which transported, though, small 70

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean fragments of discarded large-scale bronze sculptures. This site, similarly to the cases of Favaritx (D.B.38), Ayia Galini (D.B.13) and Caesarea (D.B.19), offers an example of transport of sculptural goods not for their sculptural and artistic value but as reusable scrap metal material intended to be recycled. In this context the shipwreck of Megadim provides evidence for an unexpected type of sculptural packaging. The archaeological survey conducted on the site brought to light an intact Rhodian amphora that contained lots of metal objects, which weighted c. 100 kg and included pieces of bronze sculptures (Misch-Brandl and Galili 1985: 12-13; Syon et al. 2013: 1-2). Analysis on the inner walls of the amphora showed that there were remains of pine resin. Therefore, it has been suggested that this amphora was originally used for the storage and transport of wine, but it was later repurposed for the transport of scrap metal. This evidence, as well as the discovery of some of the other bronze sculpture fragments scattered on the seabed between large amphora sherds and smaller not ship-related nails suggests that the scrap metal and sculptural pieces on board the Megadim ship must have been generally packed into containers such as amphorae or maybe also a variety of baskets and boxes of perishable materials that did not survive (MischBrandl and Galili 1985: 12-13). Despite the lack of solid contextual evidence proving the packaging and situation of sculptural artefacts on ancient ships in most recorded cases, scholars working on specific sites have expressed some theories on how the packing and stowing of sculptures could have happened during their maritime transportation. Multiple studies on the material preserved from the Antikythera shipwreck (D.B.6) have produced interpretations of that sort. Even though, no actual evidence of sculptural packaging has survived from the underwater site itself, recent re-examination of the marble statuary has led to the suggestion that the sculptures could have been stowed upright at the ship’s hold, secured on orthogonal bases (Anguissola 2018: 116; Vlachogianni 2012: 43). Moreover, the results of the latest underwater research project ‘Return to Antikythera’ organised in the Antikythera shipwreck by the Hellenic Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, indicated that the ship could have been a grain-carrier that also transported the cargo of luxury objects, including the large numbers of both bronze and marble sculptures (Foley 2016). Therefore, it has been hypothesised that the sculptures could have been packed with the grain in the hold of the ship. The grain, probably packed in sacks, could have been used as dunnage and cushioning material for the large and fragile sculptures, protecting, thus, these sensitive items from any damage or wear while on board and ensuring their safe transport and delivery. As Foley suggested in his 2016 lecture at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, it is possible that the use of grain, which is not observable in the archaeological record, could have been a type of packaging of sculptures in a wider scale, too. If future research proves this idea to be true, certain underwater archaeological evidence from other sites, too, could be revised and better explained. One such example is the rodent nest that was found inside the hollow part of the bronze Losinj sculpture (D.B.65), also known as the Croatian Apoxyomenos, raised from the sea of the islet of Vele Orjule near Lošinj, in 1999 (Šoštarić et al. 2008; Stenuit 2002: 42). Even though, the existence of mice on ancient ships must have been quite common, the possible use of grain as dunnage could explain in this case the existence of a mouse nest inside the bronze statue of the Croatian Apoxyomenos. A similar hypothesis suggesting the use of hay and straw as dunnage, has been proposed for the packaging of the Marsala 2014 sculpture (D.B.71) in the 3D reconstruction video displayed in the exhibition ‘Storms, War and Shipwrecks: Treasures from the Sicilian Seas’ of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford in 2016.3 This 3D reconstruction video shows a large-scale marble statue of 3 

Full 3D Reconstruction video available in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXLHOlsoFc4

71

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Aphrodite being packed in the hold of a ship on a wooden platform, with the use of hay and straw underneath it, while being secured with ropes all around. According to the curator of the exhibition, Dr Alexandra Sofroniew, the 3D reconstruction video was made by the visual artist Stan Verbeek, who worked under her guidance and used a hypothetical scenario regarding the packing and stowing of this marble statue at the hold of an ancient merchant ship (Sofroniew 2016; VODAL 2019).  Art historical and other post-antique observations Outside the straightforward study and interpretation of archaeological evidence, there have been art historical observations and post-antique comparanda that demonstrate possible ways of packing and stowing sculptures on ancient seagoing vessels. For a long time, art historians examining large-scale Roman marble sculpture have considered the existence of struts4 as practical precautions for transport, but also evidence that a statue had travelled from its place of construction to the site of display (Anguissola 2018: xv-xvi, 114-116; Richter 1954: 31). However, as recent research has concluded, struts did not ensure the safeguarding of a statue during transport (Anguissola 2018: 206-207). On the contrary, there were other measures and techniques that could grant safety for sculptural shipping, such as the transport of a statue in an unfinished stage or as separate joining pieces to be assembled upon arrival (Anguissola 2018: 119-125; Claridge 1988: 148-151). The first method of transporting unfinished, roughly-cut sculptural pieces, has been observed in the maritime transport of stone sculptures together with other stone cargo, analysed previously, and sites such the Şile shipwreck (D.B.98; Russell 2013a: figure 8.4). The second method of shipping sculptures in joining pieces that would be assembled upon arrival seems very plausible and rational for the maritime transportation of sculptures of any material, marble, bronze or terracotta. Even though, the fragmentation of sculptures from under water is widely observed, gaps in the documentation of the relevant underwater deposits makes it hard to identify in which database entries this method could have been used. For example, Bol (1972: 94-96), Merker (1973: 8-9), Vlachogianni (2012: 39-41) and Anguissola (2018: 121) have observed that many of the over life-size marble statues from the Antikythera shipwreck were made of separate pieces and had joins for their outstretched extremities. However, since it is not clear from the preceding publications whether the statues were found in fragments in their archaeological context or if they were already joined, it is impossible to interpret accurately the relationship of the joins to the maritime transport of the Antikythera sculptures. This point brings back the importance of the thorough recording of the archaeological context and location of the sculptures on the seabed, analysed previously in Chapter 3. The exact primary state of sculptures on their underwater deposit could only give indications on whether the sculptures were shipped as a whole, or even if the fragmentation happened during the wrecking. Overall, though, as Anguissola (2018: 116) suggests, some sort of containers should have been used for the transportation of either fragmented or full-scale sculptures. Archaeological research at Kenchreai, one of the harbours of Corinth, in Greece, has provided evidence for the use of wooden crates with stuffing of straw or seaweed for the transport of opus sectile glass panels (Ibrahim et al. 1976: figures 9-12). Maybe similar arrangements could have been used for the packing of sculptural artefacts as well. 4  Struts are defined as structural supports in the form of masses of stone left in place to reinforce a point of potential weakness in the statue (Anguissola 2018: xv).

72

The database for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean The use of containers, such as boxes, chests and crates are seen as the most favourable means of packaging, for the maritime transportation of marble sculptures in post-antique time periods, too (Coltman 2009: 117-158). The earliest example recorded in the course of the present research comes from a 17th-century essay attributed to John Milton (Patterson 1938: 261; Vickers 2006: 8-9, 2007: 30). This text gives general advice to British elites on how to discover and acquire ancient sculptures in regions of the Ottoman Empire. Specifically for the transportation of large-scale marble sculptural pieces, the text suggests sawing the sculptures in smaller pieces with the use of iron saws and sharp sand and then packing them in boxes that would be given to the ‘masters of the ships’ to be then safely delivered to Britain. It is also suggested that until they are loaded on the ships, the antiquities should be kept in storage in wooden cases, which can be also used for packaging on the ship or they can be put the sculptures in the hold as ballast with the condition that the collector makes sure not to have oils spilt all over them. Several 18th- and 19th-century historical records, discussing the transport of marble sculptures from Mediterranean regions to northwestern Europe, mention also the use of boxes, crates and chests for the transportation of this precious and fragile cargo (McClellan 2012: 226-227; Ramage 2003: 142). In the beginning of the 19th century, Lord Elgin’s ship, the Mentor, was transporting from Piraeus to England 17 crates of antiquities (Lianos 1983: 25). An engraving, which depicts the triumphal arrival of works of art brought by Napoleon from Venice to Paris in 1798, shows again large wooden boxes in which most pieces were packed (Freeman 2004: 2). Additionally, the reports of the Dutch cargo ship Castor, mentioned before in Chapter 2, describe how the members of Folkestone BSAC found in 1994 a wooden chest in one of the holds of the ship and inside five inscribed tombstones and two marble sculptures of human heads (Canterbury Divers 2019). Despite though the packaging of sculptures in boxes and crates, as Coltman (2009: 113) and Ramage (2003: 144-146) observe, damages were expected on the transportation process, as well as during the packing and unpacking of the sculptural material. Thus, the European collectors had provisions for the restoration of ancient works of art in case of breakages during their maritime and terrestrial transportation. In terms of comparanda for the packing and stowing of specifically bronze sculptures, the 19thcentury example of the Statue of Liberty provides some interesting information that could be applied to ancient cases, too. The extremely large-scale Statue of Liberty was firstly built in France, where it was completed and given as a gift to the American Ambassador in 1884 (National Park Service 2019; Thompson 2015). Following that, the statue was deconstructed in around 350 wellmarked pieces, packed in more than 200 large wooden crates and shipped to America with the ship Isère, which, after nearly wrecking, arrived in New York in 1885 (Mitchell 2014). The practice of disassembling and packing pieces of bronze sculpture separately is very interesting and it could have been practiced in Classical Antiquity, too. Even though the above post-antique evidence for the packaging of sculptures for maritime transportation cannot be tracked securely all the way back to Classical Antiquity, these more historically recent packing and stowing solutions could give some indications regarding how sculptures could have been transported in ancient merchant ships. Conclusion The present chapter laid out the results from the study, analysis and data processing conducted for the macro-scale research. Through the systematic documentation, quantification, classification and comparative analysis of different information from the recorded database entries, this research managed to put together a dataset that has helped to interpret anew the overall underwater archaeological record that provides evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. 73

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Moreover, in this study, it has been, possible to, first of all, map and present the geographical distribution of underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. Secondly, this macro-scale research allowed the presentation of the chronological range of the recorded deposits. Thus, it has been proved that ancient sculptures of all known types had been transported on ships in all areas of the Mediterranean and throughout all time periods of Classical Antiquity. Furthermore, through the documentation and plotting of many different factors such as the details of the material, size, date of construction, type, number and condition of preserved sculptures from under water, it has been possible to provide evidence and corroborated examples for several different reasons and patterns for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world. Finally, through the study of the preserved archaeological information, as well as the observation from available art historical analysis and post-antique parallels the possible methods for the packing and stowing of sculptures on board ancient ships have been explored. With the above methodological approach and research, it has been possible to generally address the main research question of this project, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported in the ancient Mediterranean. Thus, with the presented evidence this study refutes the traditional scholarly interpretation that considers the maritime transport of sculptures to have been conducted solely by the Romans from east to west, as a result of looting and art collection. Overall, the preserved underwater archaeological record shows clearly that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was more complex than anticipated in the past. This maritime activity was not rare or unique. The sculptures lost in the waters of the Mediterranean were not necessarily a special cargo transported alone, only during distinct time periods and in specific regions. On the contrary, the present macro-scale research provides solid data, which suggest that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was very common and widespread, both chronologically and geographically. The sculptures seem to have been transported by sea as mixed cargo, on a regular mercantile basis and for many different reasons, all of which fit into the general trading activities and maritime networks of the various time periods. Thus, the maritime transport of sculptures should be considered as a common maritime transport, part of the already known commerce and connectivity of Classical Antiquity. This idea will be proved and explained further with the shipwreck case studies analysed in the micro-scale research presented in the three following chapters. These new results are hoped to create a new baseline that could facilitate in the future the more accurate scholarly study, understanding and interpretation of sculptural discoveries from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

74

Chapter 5

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck Introduction The Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88) is one of the few Mediterranean shipwrecks dated in the Greek Classical1 period, in the late 5th or early 4th centuries BC. It is one of the very few underwater deposits with sculptures that has been systematically researched and excavated by maritime archaeologists (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987; Owen 1970). Even though heavily looted prior to its archaeological investigation, the Porticello shipwreck constitutes a rare, well-recorded ancient underwater deposit with unique levels of preservation and archaeological documentation. Despite the very extensive research conducted on the Porticello shipwreck, the studies took place in the 1970s and 1980s, early on in the development of maritime archaeology, when there were a limited number of comparative underwater deposits. Thus, the sculptural material was examined in isolation from the rest of the cargo and ship remains, leaving a series of unanswered questions. The most significant question concerning the present research is: why were large-scale bronze sculptures transported on that ship and how does this transport fit in the wider maritime activities of the Classical period? This question is addressed in the present chapter that revisits the Porticello shipwreck through a micro-scale research on the preserved archaeological information and documented data. As the macro-scale research has clearly revealed in the previous chapter, the Porticello shipwreck belongs to a quite large category of underwater deposits with solely bronze sculptural material of different sizes, dates and forms. However, as the graph of Figure 29 suggests, the Porticello shipwreck stands out both chronologically and typologically from the rest of the sites included in this category and its transport pattern has not been easily discerned. More specifically, the Porticello shipwreck is the only identified underwater deposit from the time period of the late 5th or early 4th century BC that carried only bronze sculptures. At the same time, this underwater site does not show any consistent features with the other bronze carrying shipwrecks, most of which were evidently transporting bronze sculptures together with other metals to be recycled as scrap material (Appendix 1: D.B.11, D.B.13, D.B.16, D.B.19, D.B.38, D.B.75). Therefore, the exact reasons for the maritime transport of the large-scale bronze statues found in the Porticello site remain unknown. This chapter revisits the underwater deposit and material of the Porticello shipwreck by studying and reinterpreting the information recorded in previous scholarship. It starts with a brief history of the discovery and research of this shipwreck. Following that, the analysis proceeds with the examination of the preserved artefacts. This includes the ship remains, the shipboard artefacts, the non-sculptural cargo and of course the bronze sculptures. After revisiting all of this data, the chapter closes by exploring possible interpretations for the existence of large-scale bronze sculptures in the cargo of the Porticello ship. This is the main aim of this micro-scale research, which becomes possible with the aid of information from other comparable underwater deposits, relevant ancient literary sources, terrestrial archaeological data and inscriptions. Finally, this research gives more general insights into the reasons and circumstances for the maritime 1  The term ‘Classical’ here refers to the historical period of Classical Greece defined as: c.480-323 BC (Camp 1986: 218-219). Some other identified classical shipwrecks of the Mediterranean are: the Tektaş Burnu shipwreck, dated in 440-425 BC (Carlson 2003; Van Duivenvoorde 2014), the Phagrou shipwreck, dated in 480-425 BC (Simosi 1996: 724-725), the Alonnesos shipwreck, dated in 420-400 BC (Hadjidaki 1996), the Ma’agan Mikhael shipwreck, dated in c.400 BC (Kahanov 1998: 155), the Mazotos shipwreck dated in the third quarter of the 4th century BC (Demesticha 2011), the Kyrenia shipwreck dated in the later 4th century BC (Steffy 1985) and one of the recently discovered Black Sea shipwrecks dated in c.400 BC (MAP Black Sea 2021).

75

Figure 30: The location of the Porticello shipwreck in the Straits of Messina between Southern Italy and Sicily. © Author.

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

76

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck transportation of large-scale sculptural artefacts during the 5th and 4th centuries BC, a landmark time period for the production of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean world. History of the discovery and research The Porticello shipwreck is a late fifth- or early fourth-century BC underwater deposit that was firstly discovered in the Straits of Messina, Italy (Figure 30), in 1969 by local fishermen and divers, who looted the site extensively for months (Eiseman 1973: 13; Eiseman 1979a: 1-3; Eiseman 1979b: 339; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 3, 24-25; Lawall 1998: 16; Owen 1970: 25; Owen 1971: 119). Due to a dispute between the looters, their illegal underwater activities came to the attention of the police and the Italian archaeological services (Owen 1971: 120; Eiseman 1979a: 2-3; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 4). The superintendent of Antiquities of Calabria and director of the Museo Nazionale in Reggio Calabria, Giuseppe Foti, contacted archaeologists from the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to help salvaging and protecting any shipwreck remains still preserved in situ (Owen 1970: 25). The assistant curator of the Underwater Archaeology Section of the University Museum, David I. Owen, with a team that had been previously involved in other underwater archaeological operations undertook the project to systematically excavate and record the Porticello shipwreck and its artefacts (Eiseman 1979a: 3; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 4). In the summer of 1970, an underwater excavation took place followed by study seasons in 1971, 1976 and 1982, when all of the finds from the wreck were properly catalogued, studied and prepared for publication (Eiseman 1973: 13; Eiseman 1979a: 3-10; Eiseman 1979b: 339; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: i, 4-8; Owen 1970: 25-29). The discovery of the Porticello shipwreck, the underwater archaeological operations that took place at the site, as well as the outcomes from the study of the retrieved archaeological material have been extensively published by Cynthia Jones Eiseman, a member of the 1970 excavation team, who wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Porticello shipwreck (1973; 1978; 1979a; 1979b; 1987). Reports and articles regarding the Porticello shipwreck have been, also, published by the director of the underwater excavation David I. Owen (1970; 1971), Brundile Sismondo Ridgway, who studied the sculptures (1987; 1993; 2004; 2010), local archaeologists (Paribeni, 1984; Sabbione 2007) and other scholars (DeVries and Katzev 1972; Gill 1987; Lawall 1998; Paoletti 1991-1992; Parker 1992: 332-334). The above scholarly sources, as well as data recorded during a research visit of the author in the galleries of the Museo Nazionale in Reggio Calabria, Italy, have constituted the main sources of information revisited and reconsidered in this chapter. The ship remains The shipwreck of Porticello was found approximately 225 meters offshore at a depth of 33 to 37 meters (Eiseman 1979a: 3; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 5). In the very dynamic environment of the Straits of Messina and given the long history of looting at the site, it is evident that not much of the ship’s hull and structure was preserved on the seabed when the archaeological research took place (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 38; Ridgway 2010: 340). In the excavation of 1970 very sparse remains of the hull and the ship’s fittings were found. These ship remains and ship-related artefacts have been all presented, analysed and interpreted by Eiseman (1979a: 23-80; 1987: 10-25). In terms of the ship’s hull, there are seven preserved timber fragments, which provide evidence for a mortise-and-tenon construction (Eiseman 1979a: 23-25, 28-29; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 13, figures 2-1 and 2-2). Given this evidence, as well as due to the absence of any frame-based shipbuilding in the Mediterranean region until at least the 1st millennium AD, it is possible to presume that the Porticello ship was built with the standard shell-first method of ship construction, seen all around the ancient Greek and Roman Mediterranean world (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 49; 77

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Pomey et al. 2012: 235-237). Unfortunately, though, due to the condition of the preserved timber pieces, it has not been possible to provide any specific information regarding the dimension or form of each structural piece of the ship. For the same reasons, it has not been feasible to explore the type of decking or possibly the existence of a built galley on that merchant vessel (Eiseman 1979a: 29-30; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 8). With regards to the type of fastenings used in the Porticello ship’s structure, there is evidence for the existence of treenails, namely wooden pegs, which transfixed the tenons in place. Additionally, many copper nails were retrieved from the underwater deposit and have been considered as part of the ship’s fastenings, probably for attaching the frames to the planking. Most of these copper nails had square shafts and round heads, and some of them had been clenched (Eiseman 1979a: 2427, 29; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 11, 13-15). During the archaeological investigation of the site, pieces of the ship’s lead sheathing were retrieved (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 49). As Eiseman (1979a: 27) describes: ‘most pieces recovered were rectangular strips of pliable lead, with tacks or tack holes at irregular intervals along the edges’. The lack of a tidy pattern of nails on the preserved lead sheathing, known from other Mediterranean shipwrecks, suggests that the lead patches from Porticello did not cover the whole hull. They must have been small, possibly attached only on their four edges and applied in the exterior or the interior of the hull to stop leaks (Eiseman 1979a: 30; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 16). Other ship-related artefacts recorded in the underwater deposit include a wooden toggle, a cleat, anchor parts and an indeterminate lead ring, an object commonly found in other Mediterranean underwater deposits (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 49; Eiseman 1979a: 8, 28, 30-41; Eiseman 1979b: 339; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 16-24). From the distribution of the bronze nails and other finds in an area of approximately 26 meters on the seabed of the Porticello site, as well as from comparative information, retrieved during the process of the hull restoration conducted on the Kyrenia shipwreck (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 50-52; Steffy 1985: 100), the excavation team estimated the size of the Porticello ship firstly as approximately 20 meters (Eiseman 1979a: 29) and later as approximately 16.6 meters long (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 13). With similar considerations, the ship’s estimated capacity has been calculated at approximately 30 tons (Ridgway 2010: 340). The characteristics of the ship remains, mentioned above, indicate that the Porticello ship was a regular merchant ship of the Classical period, similar and comparable, in size and building technique, to other known contemporary Mediterranean shipwrecks (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 47; Hadjidaki 1996: 588-589; Trego 2004: 27-32, 50-52). Some examples of that sort are: the Tektaş Burnu shipwreck, a coastal trader approximately 14 meters long, which wrecked off the coast of Asia Minor (Carlson 2003; Van Duivenvoorde 2014: 10-12), the Ma’agan Mikhael ship, an approximately 13.5 meters long merchant vessel, that wrecked off the coast of Israel (Kahanov 1998: 155) and the approximately 25 meters long Alonnesos shipwreck (Carlson 2003: 582; Hadjidaki 1996: 564-587), probably the largest example recorded from this period. The shipboard artefacts and the non-sculptural cargo During the looting of the shipwreck, but also in the archaeological excavation of 1970, several shipboard artefacts were retrieved, mainly from the stern storage area, at the deepest and northern extremity of the underwater site (Eiseman 1979a: 7-8; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 8). These objects, which had been taken on board as personal belongings or shipboard items to be used by the crew on the ship, included utilitarian pottery, such as bolsals, an oenochoe, a skyphos and a chytra, a wooden bowl, lamps, an awl, fishing weights, pyriform weights, cake ingots and metallic nuggets of lead and silver, a metal box, a mortar, whetstones, as well as an oval wooden and metal object of 78

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck uncertain function (Eiseman 1979a: 81-117; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 26-36; Trego 2004: 19-23). Additionally, a mammalian fore-extremity bone of a sheep or goat was found and could constitute either remains of food for the ship crew or just an intrusive piece at the site (Eiseman 1979a: 90 & 92-93; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 33-36). Forward from the stern storage area, the cargo area of the ship was detected (Eiseman 1979a: 7-9). This is where the ship was transporting artefacts for trading purposes. Even though this material was heavily disturbed and removed by the looters, the subsequent archaeological excavation, as well as the careful study of the retrieved artefacts enabled the reconstruction and understanding of the ship’s cargo (Table 2). Except for the sculptural pieces, which are analysed in the following section of this chapter, the cargo of the Porticello ship consisted, first of all, of transport amphorae, which were concentrated in two midships areas of the wreck (Eiseman 1979a: 118-132; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 37-53; Owen 1971: 123-125). The amphorae types have been recognised as Mendean (Eiseman 1979a: 120122; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 37-42), Punic (Eiseman 1979a: 122-129; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 42-48), unattributed or west Greek (Eiseman 1979a: 129-130; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 48-50) and Solokha II (Eiseman 1979a: 130-131; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 50-51). Other objects that must have been part of the Porticello ship’s traded cargo are a group of lead ingots,2 coming according to the isotopic analysis, from the area of Laurion in Attica (Eiseman 1978; Eiseman 1979a: 132-142; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 53-60; Owen 1971: 123-125), as well as inkpots with ink in the form of either liquid or paste (Eiseman 1979a: 142-144; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 60-62). Due to the disturbance of the site prior to the archaeological investigation it is not possible to reconstruct the exact numbers of the shipboard artefacts and the non-sculptural cargo (Eiseman 1979a: 132). However, through their analysis, scholars have attempted to determine some indications regarding the Porticello ship’s last journey. More specifically, the shipboard bolsals and lamps, found in the stern storage area, have been typologically characterized as of Athenian manufacture (Eiseman 1979a: 88). From the cargo artefacts, the transport amphorae have been recognised as coming both from the northern Aegean, but also from places in the central Mediterranean. Furthermore, according to the isotopic analysis on several lead artefacts, it has been determined that all lead pieces found in the Porticello underwater deposit came from the area around Laurion in Attica, Greece, except those from the anchor stock that has not been determined (Eiseman 1979a: 139; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 57). Table 2: List of the artefacts transported as cargo in the Porticello ship. Artefacts Transport Amphorae Lead ingots Inkpots with ink (liquid or paste) Bronze sculptures

Type/Provenance Mendean, Punic, unattributed/ West Greek, Solokha II Laurio, Attica (Greece)

References Eiseman 1979a, 120-131; Eiseman & Ridgway 1987, 37-51 Eiseman 1978; Eiseman 1979a, 132-142; Eiseman & Ridgway 1987, 53-60 Eiseman 1979a, 142-144; Eiseman & Ridgway 1987, 60-62

unknown Greek sculptural workshop from the central or eastern Mediterranean

DeVries & Katzev 1972, 61; Eiseman 1979a, 145-152; Fiorentino et al. 1984; Paribeni 1984; Eiseman & Ridgway 1987, 63-92; Himmelmann 1994; Sabbione 2007; Schultz and von den Hoff 2007; Ridgway 2010

2  Approximately 20 lead ingots were looted from the site and sold for scrap but only two were retrieved during the archaeological excavation (Eiseman 1978; Eiseman 1979b: 339).

79

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean At first glance, the origins of the utilitarian shipboard artefacts, transported amphorae and lead objects presented in Figure 31 give the impression that the Porticello ship was sailing from the Aegean Sea, maybe Athens, towards the western Mediterranean with her ultimate destination perhaps being central Italy or southern France (Eiseman 1979a: 140; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 59, 107-113). However, as Eiseman (1979a: 88-89; 1987: 31-32) has noted, it would be problematic to determine the home port of a ship just from the provenance of a few shipboard utilitarian objects, especially because this material must have been reused widely, and also replaced quite frequently at any place and any time of the voyage. Additionally, the typology and provenance of the transport amphorae cannot necessarily indicate the origins of the products that they carried or the port in which the Porticello ship picked them up. Finally, the origins of where the lead material was extracted cannot be very indicative of the ship’s provenance, especially because according to ancient literary sources, in the historical period from 413 to 367 BC, around when the Porticello ship must have wrecked, the Laurion mines in Attica were not in full operation (Thucydides Histories 6.91.7; Xenophon de Vectigalibus 4.25). This was due to the repercussions of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), fought between the cities of Sparta and Athens, and the subsequent occupation of parts of Attica by the Spartans, who obstructed widely Athens’ supply and trade in the last years of the 5th century BC (Eiseman 1979a: 140-141; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 59-60; Kagan 2004). Even though the provenance of the transported objects cannot prove with certainty the starting point of the ship’s trading route or specific stops along its journey, this contextual data can give significant insights into the ship’s maritime activity and movement. In the time period of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, it is quite possible that a lot of material from around the Mediterranean was gathered in big harbours and trading stations and then redistributed by merchant ships through tramping, also known as cabotage, rather than carefully planned, long-distance journeys (Eiseiman 1979a: 155; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 99-100, 107; Horden and Purcell 2000: 137-143; Kowalzig 2018; Rice 2016). Hence, the variability of origins seen in the shipboard items and the non-sculptural cargo of the Porticello ship could imply the origins of the ship from a big harbour, possibly in the Aegean and maybe the area of Athens, where most material came from, with several stops in places, where other material could have been acquired, too.

Figure 31: Map showing the known provenance of shipboard items and transported cargo of the Porticello ship. © Author. 80

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck The sculptures Approximately 20 fragments of large-scale bronze freestanding sculptures were recovered from the underwater deposit of the Porticello shipwreck (DeVries and Katzev 1972: 61; Owen 1971: 128129; Ridgway 2010: 331).3 These include: a life-size head of an old bearded man (Figure 32), a lifesize head of a bearded youth4 (Figure 33), a left hand, parts of limbs and drapery, parts of lifesize buttocks and thighs, male genitals, feet fragments, pieces of drapery and pieces of flesh from undraped areas of a statue (for dimensions of fragments and pictures see detailed descriptions in: Eiseman 1979a: 145-152; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63-92). The oval wooden and metal object of uncertain function described by Eiseman (1979a: 91-92) has also been suggested as possible fragment from a transported sculpture. Most of these sculptural fragments were retrieved by the looters5 from the cargo area of the ship in close proximity to the amphorae (Eiseman 1979a: 7-8, 145; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 7). Therefore, it has been presumed that the bronze sculptures of the Porticello ship constituted transported cargo. Although some scholars have suggested otherwise, because of the date of the ship’s wrecking to approximately 400 BC, it is clear that the bronze sculptures transferred in the Porticello ship must have been constructed during the 5th century BC or in the first few years of the 4th century BC at the latest6 (Eiseman 1979a: 153; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 92 & 100-103; Paribeni 1984; Ridgway 2010: 337; Sabbione 2007). The bronze sculptural fragments of the Porticello shipwreck have been assigned to two or three large-scale male freestanding statues, at least one elderly and one youthful, and at least one draped and one undraped (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 99, 106). The exact identification of the iconographic representation of these statues is still highly debated by scholars. Questions of portraiture have been frequently expressed due to the very naturalistic elements seen especially in the face of the old, bearded man (Figure 32; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 68, 103-104; Himmelmann 1994: 74-79; Paribeni 1984; Ridgway 2010: 332, 336-340; Schultz and von den Hoff 2007: 6, figure 100; Sabbione 2007). However, due to the stylistic examination conducted on multiple occasions, Ridgway has interpreted the two bronze heads and the rest of the bronze sculptural fragments as likely representations of mythological beings, intended to be set up either as a single narrative sculptural group or independently (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 104-105; Ridgway 2010: 331, 338-340). In any case, large-scale bronze sculptures like the ones seen in Porticello, whether representing a mythological group like Ridgway suggests, or an early form of honorific portrait sculptures similar to the statues of the Tyrannicides known from the Athenian Agora (Camp 1986: 38-40, 47-48, 60), or the monument of the Eponymous heroes with the Athenian generals in Delphi (Themelis 1984: 19), were probably intended to stand in the context of a sanctuary or another prominent public space (Ridgway 2010: 340). This detail regarding the function of large-scale freestanding sculptures during the 5th and 4th centuries BC is of vital importance for deciphering the possible reasons for their maritime transport, as explored later in the chapter. Despite some scholarly disagreement, the technical report provided by the restorers suggests that the compositions of all bronze sculptural pieces from the Porticello shipwreck are very similar 3  Paribeni (1984) records 18 fragments in the official Italian publication, while Ridgway reports 22 bronze sculptural fragments in her research (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63). 4  The second male head, the life-size head of a bearded youth, was smuggled abroad almost immediately upon recovery from the underwater deposit and had remained unknown until it was returned to Italy from Basel, Switzerland, in 1993 (Ridgway 2010: 331-333). 5  The excavation team retrieved only the sculptural fragment listed as C49 by Eiseman (1979a: 145). 6  Paribeni (1984) is one of the scholars who dates stylistically the Porticello old bearded head to the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 3rd century BC and doubts its connection to the wreck site, which Ridgway argues against (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63, 100-101; Ridgway 2010: 338).

81

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 32: Bronze statue head of an old, bearded man from the Porticello shipwreck, currently in the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy. © Author.

Figure 33: Bronze statue head of a bearded youth from the Porticello shipwreck, currently in the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy. © Author. 82

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck and must have all been constructed in the same workshop (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 63, 92-98; Fiorentino et al. 1984). Ridgway has, also, suggested through stylistic analysis that the sculptural pieces from the underwater deposit of Porticello derive from the same primary context, the same workshop, and perhaps even the same sculptor and are probably of Greek manufacture (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 99-100; Ridgway 2010: 334-335, 340). However, she notes that it is impossible to distinguish, just from the stylistic analysis, whether the origin and place of manufacture of the bronze sculptures was in the central Mediterranean or in the eastern Mediterranean. In general, provenance from Taras or Syracuse would not be incompatible with the evidence from the sculptures or the non-sculptural cargo, but neither would be one from Athens or any city in Asia Minor. Interpreting the maritime transport of sculptures The excavation and the study of the archaeological material from the underwater deposit of Porticello has shown evidence for the existence of one regular, moderate-sized merchant ship that wrecked in the Straits of Messina at some point around 400 BC. It was carrying a mixed cargo of various artefacts, which originated from somewhere in the eastern and central Mediterranean and were probably picked up either in a big harbour or during several stops along the ship’s trading route. The estimated size, the evidence for mortise-and-tenon construction of the hull, the shipboard items and the non-sculptural cargo seen in the Porticello ship are not special and they resemble features seen in other contemporary Mediterranean shipwrecks of that period (Carlson 2003: 582; Demesticha 2011: 3-11; Hadjidaki 1996: 564-589; Kahanov 1998: 155; Trego 2004: 27-32, 50-52; Van Duivenvoorde 2014: 10-12). However, the discovery of the sculptural fragments at the cargo area of the ship is unique. The find spots of the sculptures, as described by the looters and the archaeologists (Eiseman 1979a: 145), as well as their large scale, indicate that most certainly these sculptural pieces were not personal belongings or ship-related artefacts, a transport pattern of small-scale sculptures explained in the previous chapter. On the contrary, the Porticello bronze sculptures were transported as cargo of some sort. Therefore, it is important to explore the possible reasons and circumstances of this transport, in order to comprehend what type of cargo these large-scale bronze sculptures were and why they were carried in the regular merchant ship that wrecked in the Straits of Messina. Maritime transport of sculptures as scrap? First of all, the existence of solely bronze sculptural material on the ship, as well as its fragmentary condition could suggest that the bronze statues were transported as scrap metal, a pattern that has been detected in several other underwater deposits recorded in the project’s database (see Chapters 4 and 6). The possibility has been previously discussed by Ridgway, Bass and Paoletti (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 99; Paoletti 1991-1992: 119-142; Ridgway 2010: 340). For Ridgway, the transport of scrap metal seems quite unlikely, because she argues that there were not such signs clearly visible during her stylistic analysis of the pieces. She, also, believes that during the 5th and 4th centuries BC, sculptures similar to the Porticello group would either have been removed and taken to a different place in their entirety to be reused as they are, or, if damaged, their metal would have been melted down on the spot and refashioned as property of the sanctuary or any other public space, where they were displayed (Ridgway 2010: 340). Bass, though, has said that he would not have a problem with the size of the ship, its cargo or date in accepting that it could have carried scrap metal (Ridgway 2010: 340). Paoletti, on the other hand, has suggested that the Porticello ship could have carried scrap metal from the sacks of Carthage in 406-409 BC, an idea that would require a lot more new archaeological information to even consider as a possibility (Paoletti 1991-1992: 119-142; Ridgway 2010: 340). 83

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Overall, the idea of the Porticello sculptures being transported as scrap metal, does not seem totally unlikely, even though this shipwreck is quite different from all the other database entries recognised in this pattern. First of all, the large pieces in which the sculptures have been fragmented are uncommon in wrecks of that pattern, except for the Brindisi shipwreck (D.B.16) that preserves bronze sculptural artefacts in similar fragmentation. The most significant difference, though, is the lack of other discarded metal objects in the Porticello ship’s cargo. This feature has been recorded very clearly in the Ayia Galini (D.B.13), Caesarea (D.B.19), Favaritx (D.B.38) and Megadim (D.B.75) shipwrecks. The only metal material from the Porticello shipwreck that could be associated with such a transport pattern are the lead ingots, which, though, are homogenous and likely extracted from the same mine, rather than being the result of metal recycling, as seen in other shipwreck cases. Nevertheless, due to lack of comparative examples of ships carrying scrap metal cargo from the 5th and 4th centuries BC, it would not be totally surprising if this unique classical wreck were the earliest discovered example of such transport. In that case the sculptural material must have been discharged somehow from their original setting of display and then transported to another harbour with the intention to be shipped and then reused and recycled. Despite Ridgway’s objection to the possibility of transportation as scrap metal, her close stylistic examination and analysis of the preserved bronze sculptural fragments have revealed quite a few features that could support such an idea and explain the discarding of the sculptures. First of all, evidence for difficult or faulty casting has been detected on several sculptural fragments. For example, Ridgway noticed evidence in one of the foot fragments that the casting was not entirely successful and required bronze patches to fill in cracks, thus a mass of molten metal had been poured through the hole in the sole to repair the leg (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 75). Additionally, in another sculptural piece (S11) the outer surface had been badly cracked and patched with many of the bronze patches fallen off (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 85). The above observations could theoretically indicate that the construction of these sculptures had not been successful and therefore the material was dismissed to be recycled as scrap, before it was even put up on display. However, the close examination of some other sculptural pieces disregards this possibility. Ridgway has noticed that in one of the foot fragments (S8) there is a narrow opening at the sole of the foot running in parallel to the base of the toes (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: figure 5.50), which is filled with a metallic, lead, mass, an attaching tenon, which retains the impression of tool marks such as those created by a rasp or a tooth chisel on a stone surface (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 78). This feature indicates clearly that the statue, to which the foot belonged, must have once been attached to a stone pedestal from which it was subsequently removed.7 The pedestal could have been set in the setting of a sanctuary or another prominent public space, namely areas where statues were commonly displayed during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The removal of displayed objects from such primary contexts and settings has not been considered common in classical archaeological scholarship. Some primary sources and early scholarly observations, though, provide rare examples that could help in the understanding of the Porticello case. Rouse (1902: 342-347), in his early study of votive offerings in Greek sanctuaries, wrote a chapter on the disposal of votive offerings. In his book he describes how offerings that were broken were sometimes repaired, but for the most part they must have been left alone until they fell to pieces or until there was need to make room for more, in which case the objects would have been either stored or buried in trenches within the limits of the sanctuary. Specifically for votive sculptural pieces, he says that they must have been less recently disposed from the sanctuary and he mentions as an example the large number of bronze statues, which were stored all together in the ‘Bronze House’ of the Athenian Acropolis (Rouse 1902: 346-347). In the same chapter, though, he says that Ridgway also mentions that the same lead tenon with the stone surface tool marks is very shallow and by itself would have been inadequate to fasten the bronze to a stone pedestal while 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 wrenched away and perhaps left behind in the stone base (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 99).

7 

84

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck the number of sculptural offerings must have been enormous and they must have been gotten rid of somehow, unless there was any special reason in the fineness of the object or the fame of its maker or dedicator, in order to leave it unmolested. This last observation that sculptures must have been disposed from display more frequently than most scholars tend to think, and for a variety of reasons, is also supported by epigraphic evidence. A fourth-century BC inscription found in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi records such an incident of removing already dedicated sculptures from the shrine (Corpus des Inscriptions de Delphes, Tome II, section 34, II.56-62). More specifically, the text of the inscription, which lists various payments to people for work conducted in the sanctuary, mentions that someone called Eucrates was paid eight drachmas and three obolus to evacuate the bases and the statues of Onymarchos and of Philomelos out of the sanctuary and someone called Kleon was paid seven drachmas to remove the horses and the figures and the water from the temple. The archaeologists analysing the text of the inscription mention that the removal of statues, for which Eucrates and Kleon were paid, was quite an unusual job (Bousquet 1989: 67). However, this removal of sculptural dedications out of the sanctuary makes sense if we take into consideration the historical context of the inscription, which was created in the middle of the 4th century BC and specifically in the year 343 BC. The owners of the removed statues, Onymarchos and Philomelos, were Phocian leaders. As Scott (2010: 126) explains, the Amphictyony of Delphi authorised the removal of their very recent sculptural dedications probably in an attempt to erase from the sanctuary any reminders of the Third Sacred War, a conflict, which took place in the middle of the 4th century BC between the Delphic Ampictyony and the Phocians in Greece. The main reason for that unusual removal of votive sculptures must have been that a few years beforehand, in 356 BC, during that same war, the Phocians, under the leadership of Onymarchos and Philomelos, melted down many dedications from the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi, including golden statues of a lion and of a woman (Diodorus Siculus Library 16.56.6). However, the epigraphic evidence and the ancient sources give us no information about what happened to the discarded sculptures after they left the sanctuary setting. Could they have been shipped as scrap to be recycled elsewhere? On that note, it is important to mention that Ridgway had noticed on a sculptural fragment (S10) a crescent-shaped indentation at the bottom of the groin line, which may be an accidental dent caused by a blow (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 83). However, in her conclusions she insists that she could not find any secure evidence of intentional dismantling and that no extant break is incompatible with the natural deterioration of bronzes or the process of wreck formation (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 98-99). Overall, though, the inscriptions and ancient literary sources above, suggest that sculptures must have been, indeed, removed from sanctuaries often, whether due to lack of space or just political and war-related activities. Thus, it is possible that the movement of the statues seen in the Porticello ship was a result of such practices. Maritime transport of sculptures for dedication? The second possible reason for the maritime transportation of the large-scale bronze sculptures in the Porticello ship could be their dedication in a sanctuary or city overseas. In the 5th and 4th centuries BC there was intense votive activity taking place in cities and Panhellenic sanctuaries of the Greek world, by both individuals as well as city-states especially due to the competition and rivalry between several powers of that historical period including Athens, Sparta and Thebes (Pedley 2005). Ancient sources and preserved inscriptions from some archaeological sites record the transportation of votive offerings, sent by either individuals or the people of a city, on seagoing vessels. Diodorus Siculus records such an incident from the middle of the 4th century BC. More specifically, he 85

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean describes a story, when the Athenian general Iphikrates seized the ships, which were carrying gold-and-ivory statues that Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse had sent to be dedicated in Olympia and Delphi (Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.57). Additionally, an inscription from Delphi (SIG 35 Bb8) talks about the war spoils that the tyrant Hiero sent from Sicily to Olympia and Delphi after his naval victory over the Etruscans in 474 BC but were lost in a shipwreck (Meiggs and Lewis 1969: 62). Even though this last source mentions simply the transportation of ‘ἀκροθίνια’, probably war spoils and thus indicating mainly pieces of armour, the existence of the inscription on a stone block in the context of the sanctuary, as well as the common practice of melting war spoils for the creation or commission of votive statues commemorating specific victories, could suggest the maritime transportation of sculptures that were simply made from war spoils. The above sources prove that during the 5th and 4th centuries BC dedicatory sculptures were commonly sent to their intended place of display by sea. If this is the type of transport seen in the Porticello ship, the fragmentation of the sculptures and the use of correcting patches could be simply interpreted as the method for the sculptures’ shipping. As it was discussed in Chapter 4, from the time of Classical Antiquity and up until more recent times, it has been common to cast bronze sculptures in individual pieces that were transported and put together later, at their intended place of display. This transport possibility is significant because it suggests that the sculptures would not have been shipped in any special sea-going vessels, as implied in some sources from the Roman period (Cassius Dio Roman History 59.28.3-4). On the contrary, they would have been transported in regular merchant vessels, which were also carrying other traded cargo. Unfortunately, though, due to the lack of more direct evidence, it will never be possible to know if this is the exact case for Porticello, or who would have been responsible for leasing the ship or the space in its cargo area. Maritime transport of sculptures for trade? The third possible reason for the maritime transportation of the sculptures in the Porticello ship would simply be the trade of bronze statues. If we look at the Porticello shipwreck material, excluding its sculptures, it is easy to recognise clear signs of a regular maritime trading activity of various products from different origins that were picked up in one or multiple stops. So, it is quite rational to think that somewhere along its route the Porticello ship could have picked up the largescale bronze sculptures with the intention to trade and redistribute them in a different region. The only ancient reference of that type of commercial maritime transportation of sculptures comes from a later source. This is Philostratus’ (Vita Apollonii 5.20) first-century AD story of Apollonius, who tries to travel as a passenger on a ship to Asia Minor from the harbour of Piraeus, but the captain refuses entry because the ship was carrying sculptures of gods exported to Ionia to be sold as dedications in sanctuaries. Could this be the case for the Porticello ship, too? Could it be carrying these fine large-scale bronze sculptures together with its other traded cargo to sell them in another port? If that is the case, this sort of maritime transportation of sculptures must have been part of the commercial production and market of sculptures that has been described for the Classical period by many scholars including Stewart (1990: 56-64) in his book Greek Sculpture. According to that theory, sculptures of any type of material could have been shipped from the city or workshop of production to another destination in the Mediterranean world. In that case, the fragmentation of the sculptural artefacts could again relate to the method of their construction and shipping. Unfortunately, there is not enough archaeological or literary evidence from that period to 8 

See: https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/241933

86

Revisiting the Porticello shipwreck comprehend better the outlining mechanism and the logistics of this trading practice. It is important to note again, though, that the preserved archaeological data do not suggest that this shipping activity was taking place with the use of any specialised ships or leasing conditions. On the contrary, the merchants and distributors must have been using average merchant vessels of this period, like the Porticello ship, which would then carry regular mixed cargo, and sculptures, too. Conclusion By revisiting the preserved data from the Porticello shipwreck, this chapter proves clearly that the Porticello ship was a regular moderate-sized vessel of the Classical period. The examination of the contextual material of the site showed that the ship and its crew possibly originated from the Aegean Sea and quite possibly the area of Athens. Their last maritime activities took place in the areas around the Aegean Sea, Sicily and southern Italy. According to the details of the underwater deposit, the large-scale bronze sculptures were taken on board the ship as transported cargo together with various other traded materials. This study explored three potential reasons that could explain the maritime transportation of the Porticello sculptures. With the help of textual, epigraphic and other archaeological evidence it is possible to conjecture that the fifth- or early fourth-century BC bronze sculptural pieces, representing mythological or mortal figures, could have been transported on the Porticello ship as scrap to be recycled, as dedications commissioned and sent to be dedicated in a specific sanctuary or simply as traded products to be sold and redistributed in a different region and market. These possibilities give a more narrow interpretation to the previously unanswered question of why bronze scale sculptures existed on the Porticello ship. Even though it will not be possible to know for sure, which of the above circumstances was truly the case, the maritime transport of these high-quality classical sculptures for dedication or simply trade seem the most likely, given the surge in sculptural production occurring during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Overall, this new collective investigation and the combined research of archaeological, epigraphical and literary evidence from the Classical period gave some more insights in the maritime activities of that time period in general. Firstly, it is now evident that the maritime transportation of sculptures for recycling, dedication or trade must have been happening already from the 5th and 4th centuries BC and it was not introduced only later, during the late Hellenistic and Roman times, as most existing scholarly theories suggest. Additionally, it seems that the transportation of sculptures for any of the above reasons must have been taking place with the already available means of shipping and not with the use of specialised ships or merchants. Thus, it is proved that the maritime transport of sculptures in the 5th and 4th centuries BC was highly incorporated within the rest of the Mediterranean maritime trading networks. The case of the Porticello shipwreck and its systematic contextual analysis is an excellent example of how the thorough recording of the exact location and underwater deposit, where sculptures have been found, can improve our understanding of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This cannot be said for other cases, for example the Artemission assemblage (D.B.9), a database entry with two impressive large-scale bronze sculptures, but which lacks contextual material from the underwater deposit due to inadequate archaeological research on the site of the discovery. This observation demonstrates once more the importance of archaeological contexts in the interpretation of sculptures from under water, which has been one of the main objectives of the present doctoral research.

87

Chapter 6

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap Introduction The Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38) is a late Roman underwater deposit discovered off the coast of Menorca, in Spain (Figure 34). This site is one of the shipwrecks identified in the database as transporting discarded bronze sculptures together with other metal objects, with the intention of recycling them as scrap (see Chapter 4 and Figure 29). Despite its poor archaeological investigation and fragmentary publication, this shipwreck, with its similarities to a series of other sites (Figure 35), attracted the attention of this research early on. Because academic sources were limited, direct access into the archive of the site was granted in 2017. Through the close study of the material retrieved from the underwater deposit of Favaritx it has been possible, first of all, to better understand the type and date of the site, as well as the maritime transport of sculptures seen on that ship. Secondly, it has been possible to compare this material from the western Mediterranean to the artefacts retrieved from similar underwater deposits in the central and eastern Mediterranean (Table 3; Figure 35), especially the Ayia Galini shipwreck (D.B.13) discovered off the coast of Crete, in Greece. Thus, this research brings to light new details into the maritime transport of bronze sculptures and other metals as scrap, a pattern of transport that must have been taking place since at least the Hellenistic times, according to the database

Figure 34: The location of the Favaritx shipwreck off the coast of Menorca, Spain. © Author. 88

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap

Figure 35: Other Mediterranean underwater deposits transporting discarded bronze sculptures together with other metal objects with the intention to be recycled as scrap. © Author.

Table 3: Comparison of the Favaritx archaeological remains to that of other shipwrecks from the same transport pattern. Database No. Attributed Date Hull remains/ ship-related artefacts Small bronze sculptures Large bronze sculptures Domestic furnishing Fragments of bronze vessels Amphorae Other pottery Coins Lamps Ingots

Favaritx 38 5th-7th century AD

X

Ayia Galini Brindisi 13 16 After 3rd century AD 3rd-6th century AD

Caesarea 19 4th century AD

Megadim 75 100/99 BC X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

89

X X

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean analysis, or possibly even earlier, as suggested from the research of the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88) seen in the previous chapter. This chapter revisits the preserved data of the Favaritx shipwreck with the aim to present the material retrieved from this underwater deposit, as known from the available publications and the author’s research visit.1 Additionally, this study attempts an interpretation of the circumstances and reasons for the transportation of bronze sculptural artefacts in the setting of that ship. The analysis starts with an overview of the discovery and previous research conducted on the Favaritx shipwreck, as a means to understand the existing information on the site. Following that, the examination proceeds by presenting any identified sculptural artefacts and possible sculptural fragments. It continues by outlining the non-sculptural artefacts found in the shipwreck and the information they can give on the date, aim and nature of the trading activities of the ship. Finally, the enquiry closes with an interpretation of the transport of bronze sculptural artefacts together with the rest of the metal cargo in the Favaritx ship. Through this last analysis, and specifically the comparison of the Favaritx material to that of other contemporary underwater deposits from the same transport pattern (Table 3), namely the Ayia Galini shipwreck (D.B.13), the Brindisi shipwreck (D.B.16) and the Caesarea shipwreck (D.B.19), this study deciphers more widely the maritime movement of discarded metals, including bronze sculptures, around the ancient Mediterranean. Discovery and previous study of the Favaritx shipwreck The Favaritx shipwreck was initially identified in Parker’s (1992: 176) publication, where it was described as a site found in the 1960s at 22 meters depth, at Cape Favaritx, near Es Capifort, off the north eastern coast of Menorca, Spain. Shortly after its discovery, the deposit was salvaged and looted extensively by locals. Parker described the material of the shipwreck as a cargo of mainly bronze objects scattered in concretions, including hundreds of plates, keys, chains, candelabra, statuettes, balances, coins, nails, part of a pump, bronze ingots, weights of brass, coarseware pottery and amphorae. Most of the bronze material were said to be ‘Byzantine bronzes’ with eastern origins, possibly from the areas of Egypt or Syria. Parker, who had personally seen some of the artefacts, observed that the ‘irregular ingots of bronze’ were made by melting scrap pieces of different metal objects, similar to the objects that existed on board. Therefore, he suggested that the ship could have been carrying a metal worker supplying liturgical items to the Balearic Islands at some point between the last half of the 5th century AD and the end of the 6th century AD (Parker 1992: 176). Parker referenced a few associated publications, including Keay (1984: 654), who briefly mentioned the existence of Type LIII amphorae in the wreck of Favaritx, which he described as a ‘sixthcentury AD site associated with liturgical metalwork’. Through Parker and Keay it was possible to track some local publications on the Favaritx shipwreck, including a paper by Fernandez-Miranda (1977: 821-823) found photocopied in the ‘A. J. Parker archive’, kept in the Centre for Maritime Archaeology at the University of Southampton. Two more publications, mentioned by both Parker and Keay, were only available in the library of the Museum of Menorca in Mahón. The first was a book by Fernandez-Miranda and RoderoRiaza (1985) and the second was the book Arqueologia Submarina en Menorca (Fernandez-Miranda and Belén 1977). Both sources have extensive sections on the Favaritx shipwreck, its discovery and its salvaged material. All information resembles the data given by Parker (1992: 176), but with more detail on the groups of material retrieved illegally by the locals of Menorca, some of which 1  More than 200 bags with Inventory Numbers from six storage boxes were examined during the research visit in the Museum of Menorca in Mahón in September 2017. Artefacts are identified and referenced with their museum Inventory Numbers (Inv.No.).

90

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap ended up in private collections in Majorca, London and elsewhere. Additionally, both of the above publications mention that, although archaeologists visited and surveyed the shipwreck following the looting of the site, it was never systematically excavated and, therefore, some material is still left under water. Finally, the Favaritx site has been noted in a more recent publication by McCormick (2001: 51), who presents the ship of Favaritx and its cargo as part of a wider late Roman network for metal extraction, production and distribution in the Mediterranean world. In a similar examination, the Favaritx shipwreck appears in a publication by Mundell Mango (2001: 95-100), who considers this deposit as part of a wider circulation of metalware that took place in regions of the Mediterranean during and beyond Late Antiquity. The sculptural artefacts From the preexisting scholarly publications, as well as the direct examination of the shipwreck material available in the Museum of Menorca, it has been possible to identify in total eight bronze sculptural artefacts from the site of Favaritx. Anthropomorphic figurines From the sculptural material that had already been published, the female bronze figurine, seen on the cover of the book Arqueologia Submarina en Menorca (Fernandez-Miranda and Belén 1977), is currently in a private collection and, thus, not accessible for further study. However, the male bronze figurine (Inv.No.21567; Figure 36) was photographed and recorded by the author in the Museum of Menorca along with another anthropomorphic bronze figurine (Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377; Figure 37). These three figurines are clearly representations of human figures, small-scale, with preserved heights not exceeding 10cm. Their surfaces are heavily eroded from the duration of submersion, making the identification of their exact subject difficult. In more detail, the figurine Inv.No.21567 (Figure 36) depicts a naked young male figure rendered in a naturalistic form. Most of the legs, feet, all of the right arm, the lower left arm and 2/3 of the head are missing. His right arm must have been raised and his head seems to have been tilted downwards and towards the left. His torso, even though heavily eroded, shows signs of a contrapposto stance, especially when observing the chiastic lines created by the movement of the muscles at his back and the position of his hips. These stylistic details of the figurine suggest a post-classical and a prelate-antique date. Application of general knowledge of the artistic sculptural styles and typology of small-scale bronze figurines from the ancient Mediterranean world can narrow down this broad dating into the era between the last two centuries BC and the 1st century AD. A sample of randomly selected comparative examples of male nude figurines from that time period that could resemble the original form of this sculptural artefact from Favaratix, are: a figurine of Herakles from the Athenian Agora dated to the 1st century BC (Thompson 1959: figure 57; ASCSA Digital Collections 2019: Agora Object B686); a nude male statuette from Pylaea, dated to the Hellenistic period (Sharpe 2006: 145, 343-344); a figurine of Zeus from Rhodes dated to the 1st century BC (Sharpe 2006: 242, 353); a figurine of Hermes from Maurolongos Nikopolis dated to the 1st century AD (Sharpe 2006: 262, 363). Despite the stylistic similarities with the examples referenced above, it would be impossible to guess the exact date or representation of this Favaritx figurine, due to its severely eroded condition. The representation of figurine Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377 (Figure 37) is, also, difficult to comprehend due to its poor condition. The thighs and upper legs of a human figure have been identified. Their form could suggest the depiction of a female figure, maybe a representation of Aphrodite, comparable for example to a figurine found in the Athenian Agora and dated between the late 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD (Sharpe 2006: 335; Sharpe 2014: 145, 154-157 91

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 36: Bronze figurine of a male figure from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21567). © Author.

Figure 37: Anthropomorphic bronze figurine from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377). © Author. 92

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap and 160-162; Thompson 1950: 332, Plate 106a). If that interpretation is correct, the figurine Inv. No.40747;CAP-05/377 could look similar to the female figurine from Favaritx, mentioned above, which is currently kept in a private collection (Fernandez-Miranda and Belén 1977). An interesting detail of the figurine Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377 is the existence of a 0.2cm hole pierced through its centre. Given the condition of this sculptural artefact, it is possible that this hole was a result of damage to the figurine due to the ship’s wrecking and long submersion. However, the examination of the object in person gave the impression of intentional drilling through the metal, probably suggesting a hole related to a repair or a later use of the figurine, perhaps several years or decades after having been discarded from its original function. Fragments of sculptural artefacts Apart from the three small-scale bronze anthropomorphic figurines mentioned above, five other pieces of potentially fragmented and distorted bronze sculptural artefacts have been recognized. The museum bag Inv.No.21832 (Figure 38) included two small bronze objects, one sculptural fragment representing animal teeth and one bronze star polygon, both of which could have been parts of fragmented sculptures. A bronze sculpted animal foot has been recognised in the object Inv.No.21521 (Figure 39), too. This sculptural fragment could belong to a freestanding animal figurine, but it could have also been simply a foot of a bronze vessel or a base, like some similar large-scale examples of zoomorphic feet mentioned later in the chapter. Furthermore, the head of a small-scale bronze horse has been identified in the object Inv.No.21543 (Figure 40). Similar to the object described above, this piece could have been part of a bronze horse figurine, in which the head would attach separately to the rest of the body, or it could be simply an insert decorative detail of another bronze artefact.

Figure 38: Two small bronze objects, one sculptural fragment representing animal teeth and one bronze star polygon from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21832). © Author. 93

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 39: A small-scale bronze sculptural fragment of an animal foot from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21521). © Author.

Figure 40: Head of a small-scale bronze horse from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21543). © Author.

94

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap

Figure 41: Hollow bronze object from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21849). © Author.

Finally, the hollow bronze object Inv.No.21849 (Figure 41) could have constituted a sculptural fragment. However, its form and condition has not allowed a secure identification. The object was most probably a sculptural fragment of a statuette, maybe part of a leg of a human or animal figure. At the same time, though, its form could be seen as part of a bronze base, a fragment from a piece of furniture or just as part of a small drain or pipe for a hydraulic device. In all of the above suggestions, there are problems in understanding the characteristics of this artefact. First of all, if this piece were a sculpture, it would have had a very linear form with extremely straight lines. Such a sculpture could possibly look like the late Roman statuettes of the Dioskouroi or athletes from Kyparissia, Greece (Museum of the Castle of Pylos 2019), depicting two male figures in a schematic form. Nevertheless, the preserved pieces of the object Inv.No.21849 from Favaritx in Menorca are not adequate to make such identification. On the other hand, if this bronze object were part of a base, piece of furniture or part of a hydraulic device, the irregular curve it has at one end would make the original shape of the object difficult to reconstruct. The importance of the sculptural artefacts Despite the difficulty in securely identifying the form and representation of the figurines and the potential fragmentary sculptural pieces described above, their close-up study has brought new insights into the shipwreck deposit. First of all, the stylistic dating of the three bronze figurines in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial times suggest that the late Roman ship at Favaritx transported sculptures of earlier periods, depicting types, which would normally be expected in private and domestic religious contexts (Sharpe 2014; Stähli 2014). Secondly, from a comparative perspective, the type and form of the sculptural material seen in Favaritx prove to be similar to the sculptures discovered in the nearly contemporaneous shipwrecks of Ayia Galini (D.B.13), in Greece and Caesarea (D.B.19), in Israel, currently unpublished. For the case of Ayia Galini, the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno has on display five small-scale sculptural 95

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean artefacts, four figurines and one statuette some very similar in form to the ones seen in Favaritx (Brokalakis 2016). Similarly, the pictures from the shipwreck of Caesarea (Archaeology Magazine 2017), show that a variety of sculptural types were retrieved from the seabed, including small-scale figurines and sculptural appliques, comparable to the ones from Menorca. The non-sculptural artefacts Other than the sculptural artefacts mentioned above, large quantities of a variety of metal objects, as well as some pottery have been salvaged from the underwater deposit of the Favaritx shipwreck. Metal crosses The first distinctive category of artefacts, which give information on the Favaritx deposit, is a group of bronze cross fragments (Figure 42), possibly attachments to bronze vessels or lamps (Inv.No.21542; Inv.No.21565; Inv.No.21791; Inv.No.21575; Inv.No.21570). The cross fragments range in size from P.H. 3.4cm and P.W. 2.6cm to P.H. 12.5cm and P.W. 7.4cm. One of the largest cross fragments (Inv.No.21542) is broken off at its base, indicating that it would have probably been attached upright to the top of a bronze artefact, maybe the lid of a bronze vessel. The other smaller cross fragments seem to have been broken off at one side only, possibly at the spot, where they would have been attached as a handle on lamps or other objects used for purposes of Christian worship or in some funerary and domestic contexts (Lafli and Buora 2014: 432-433, 435-436). Research on the characteristics and use of similar artefacts found in several sites of southern Anatolia and in the material record of the Athenian Agora, in Greece, gives information on the possible original form of the Favaritx cross fragments (ASCSA Digital Collections 2019: Agora Objects B579 and B11). Moreover, the majority of the comparative bronze crosses researched have been dated to the 5th century AD (Lafli and Buora 2014: 456-457). Interestingly, Lafli and Buora’s

Figure 42: Bronze cross fragment, possibly attachment to a bronze vessel or lamp. From the Favaritx shipwreck, currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21575). © Author. 96

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap (2014: 432) research observes that the use of most bronze vessels and lamps with crosses as handles commenced around the 5th century AD, but did not continue beyond the 7th century AD, due to changes in specific cult practices and mainly due to increasing use of wax candles, rather than oil lamps, in churches and private houses. This information from the comparative study of the bronze cross fragments could suggest a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem for the Favaritx shipwreck, especially because these metal cross artefacts should have been first used, broken off and then discarded as scrap for recycling (Cavallo 1997: 56). Therefore, it is possible to propose that, according to the dating of the metal crosses, the Favaritx ship must have travelled and wrecked at some point between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. Besides the bronze crosses described above, the symbol of the cross has been, also, recognised on a thick metal plaque (Inv.No.21546) salvaged from the Favaritx deposit. The condition of this decorated metal piece has not allowed further understanding of its use and purpose. However, it might be associated with the group of metal crosses, analysed above, or an inscribed metal plaque (Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 184), described further down. Metal ingots Another distinct category of artefacts retrieved from the Favaritx shipwreck is the group of 11 irregular metal ingots (Inv.No.21601; Inv.No.21597; Inv.No.21534; Inv.No.21598; Inv.No.21602; Inv. No.21596; Inv.No.21533; Inv.No.21600; Inv.No.21599; Inv.No.21603; Inv.No.21878). These ingots are not homogeneous in form, size, weight or material. In general, the metal ingots have the form of irregular discs with uneven surfaces. As it is obvious in the scaled pictures presented in Figures 43 and 44, their dimensions vary widely from D. 6.9cm and Th. 0.5cm to D. 17.6cm and Th. 1.6cm. Additionally, these ingots do not have homogenous colours. Some of them are dark brown (Inv. No.21601), some mostly green (Inv.No.21597), while some others are green with patches of darker brown (Inv.No.21534). The irregular form, the uneven surfaces, the size and colour differentiation, combined with a difference in their weights indicate that these ingots were not made uniformly, and they did not necessarily consist of one metal component. The direct examination of the Favaritx ingots in the Museum of Menorca gave the impression that some of them were made of solid bronze, iron or lead but some consisted of a mixture of metals. This observation immediately recalls and confirms Parker’s description about the ‘irregular ingots made of various metal scrap, similar to the rest of the metal cargo carried on board’ (Parker 1992: 176). Similar types of irregular ingots have been seen in the material of the Ayia Galini shipwreck. In the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno the author saw two large irregular ingots, with inconsistent size, uneven surfaces and heterogeneous metal contents. These ingots seemed to have been constructed through the same process of scrap recycling already suggested for the ingots from Favaritx. Additionally, in the storage boxes of the Ayia Galini shipwreck several miscellaneous unidentifiable metal pieces were found. They were metal slags, the by-products left over after the process of metal smelting. These artefacts from the Ayia Galini deposit, some unidentifiable lumps of metal from the Favaritx shipwreck, as well as Parker’s (1992: 176) observation regarding the creation of ‘irregular ingots’ from material similar to the transported cargo, raise the question of whether the recycling of scrap metal could have been taking place on the ship itself, an idea that will be investigated further in the interpretation of the ship’s transport.

97

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 43: Irregular metal ingot from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv. No.21534). © Author.

Figure 44: Three irregular metal ingots from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21596). © Author. 98

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap Coins Another large group of artefacts salvaged from the underwater site of Favaritx is a collection of approximately 130 coins (Inv.No.21593; Inv.No.21923; Inv.No.21924; Inv.No.21917; Inv.No.21916; Inv. No.21928; Inv.No.21929; Inv.No.21930; Inv.No.21925; Inv.No.21929; Inv.No.21918; Inv.No.21915; Inv. No.21914; Inv.No.21920; Inv.No.21922; Inv.No.21927; Inv.No.21926; Inv.No.21921; Inv.No.21932; Inv. No.21931; Inv.No.21913). Even though the majority of these coins have very corroded surfaces, a few have recognizable features including: one coin depicting a crowned male figure on one side and a bird on the other side; one coin with a portrait of a Julio-Claudian emperor; several Roman sestertii with the letters ‘SC’ on one side; one coin with the letters ‘ANT’ and the outline of the hull of a ship, possibly indicating a coin of Marcus Antonius, based on a similar artefact recognised from the Athenian Agora (ASCSA Digital Collections 2019: Agora Object N38377); one coin with a portrait of ‘Alexander the Great’ or of one of his successors, and two more with probable portraits of Hellenistic kings; one coin with the Greek letters ‘_ΑΟΔ(Ι)(Κ)ΕΙ_’ recognised, probably from the name ‘ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΙΑ’ (Laodicea in English), a Hellenistic city in Asia Minor. Research on the recognisable coins from the Favaritx shipwreck described above, has dated them to the Hellenistic and Roman imperial times, a chronological period much earlier than the late Roman date proposed for the Favaritx shipwreck. Studies on numismatics from late Roman Hispania suggest that, at least during the 6th century AD, in the coastal territories of the Iberian Peninsula, as well as in the Balearic Islands, like Menorca, there was a general continuation of the use of earlier bronze currencies, in combination with new production of coins (Mora Serrano 2016: 139-143). However, the earlier coins do not seem to have been issued before the 4th or 5th centuries AD, namely within the chronology of the late Roman times, in which the date of the Favaritx shipwreck falls. Therefore, it seems quite unlikely that a Hellenistic or Roman imperial coin would have had any monetary value in the Iberian Peninsula in the period between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. So, since the Hellenistic and Roman imperial coins identified in the Favaritx deposit could not have been in circulation at the time of the ship’s wrecking, they must have been carried on board as a hoard with personal value or just as part of the general scrap metal cargo of the ship. Similarly, a group of approximately 259 bronze coins has been reported in the Ayia Galini shipwreck, too (Brokalakis 2016: 128). Through the examination of these coins Brokalakis has set the date of the Ayia Galini shipwreck to the late 3rd century AD. However, the coin collection was not available for study during the author’s research visit in the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno. Thus, these artefacts could not be compared directly to the coins retrieved from the shipwreck of Favaritx to assess the possible phenomenon of hoarding coins from earlier periods for more than just the recycling of scrap metal. Bronze vessel fragments In the archaeological material salvaged from the Favaritx shipwreck there were around 56 fragments of bronze vessels, mainly bowls and cups, including pieces from the rims, bodies and bases, as well as sculptural appliques and other additional bronze vessel attachments. Some of the best-preserved examples include: a small, decorated bronze vessel (Inv.No.21864); a bronze vessel fragment with remains of a rim and a decorated handle (Inv.No.21564); two handle fragments with a lion head decoration (Inv.No.21544; Inv.No.21528); a bronze vessel or base foot sculpted in the form of a lion foot (Inv.No.21566); a bronze attachment with floral decoration (Inv.No.21561); a group of small bronze vessel handles (Inv.No.21520; Inv.No.21867). All of these fragments are generally small in size, and it is not always possible to reconstruct accurately the original form of the object that they would have been part of. Additionally, some pieces are very corroded with marine growth still on them (Inv.No.21859). 99

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Finally, a lid of a small, gilded metal lamp (Inv.No.21573) also belongs in this group of artefacts. It probably dates to the late Roman or early Byzantine times and typologically could be associated with some of the metal cross fragments presented earlier. Similar bronze vessel fragments including, sculptural appliques, and other bronze attachments, are also preserved and recorded in the material from the deposit of the Ayia Galini shipwreck (Brokalakis 2016), once more confirming the similarity of these two deposits. What is most important, though, is that the transport by sea of this type of artefacts has been recorded in literary sources, too. Mundell Mango (2001: 95-102), in her research on the circulation of metalware during Late Antiquity, mentions a story, recorded in the ‘Life of John Almsgiver’, in which a ship sailed from Alexandria with a mixed cargo that included objects of bronze (‘σκεύη χαλκά’ in Greek) and kitchen utensils (‘σκεύη μαγειρικά’ in Greek; see Festugière 1974). Very similar cargo of bronze objects has been recorded in the late antique Plemmyrion shipwreck, in Sicily (Kapitän and Fallico 1967: 9-10, figure 7), which Mundell Mango (2001: 100) has also included in her evidence of metalware circulation. Pieces of domestic furnishing From the underwater site of Favaritx several pieces of domestic furnishing were also recovered. These artefacts constitute: fragments of bronze candelabra, probably of Roman date (Inv.No.21537; Inv.No. 21858), one of which has been fully reconstructed (Figure 45); and several bronze furniture feet (Inv.No.21555; Inv.No.21553; Inv.No.21572; Inv.No.21552; Inv.No.21574; Inv.No.21848; Inv. No.21541; Inv.No.21536; Inv.No.21558; Inv.No.21540; Inv.No.21556), ranging in size from P.H. 3.6cm to P.H. 7.4cm.

Figure 45: Reconstructed bronze candelabrum from the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca (Inv.No.21537). © Author.

100

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap Bronze furniture bases and feet, as well as pieces from bronze candelabra of similar types and dates have been recorded in the material from the Ayia Galini shipwreck as well (Brokalakis 2016). Other metal artefacts Some other small metal artefacts from the Favaritx underwater deposit include: a group of small bronze spherical objects of different sizes, some with irregular surfaces (Inv.No.21594), which were probably used as weights; a bell (Inv.No.21590); a piece of a bronze buckle; fragments of bronze tweezers or surgical tools (Inv.No.21792; Parani 2010: 147-148); bronze pins, needles and tools for personal hygiene (Inv.No.21843; Inv.No.21826; Inv.No.21808; Inv.No.21523; Inv.No.21586; Inv. No.21788; Inv.No.21789); bronze spoons (Inv.No.21900; Inv.No.21560); a gilded metal attachment possibly for armour (Inv.No.21568); a small bronze zoomorphic object, maybe a decorated weight, representing a reclining lion (Inv.No.21529); a figurative metal fragment of a spout
or the nozzle of a hydraulic device (Inv.No.21517); a bronze spear head (Inv.No.21569) and an arrowhead (Inv. No.21535); a bronze hinge mechanism (Inv.No.21577); jewellery, including a gilded bronze bracelet (Inv.No.21517) and fragments of rings and earrings (Inv.No.21869); a bronze tool, maybe part of a mattock or a hammer (Inv.No.21588); and a group of small bronze objects, possibly whorls, bobbins or buttons (Inv.No.21823). Additionally, there Is a series of metal objects, which could have been transported as cargo, but also possibly as shipboard or ship-related items since they could have served a utilitarian function on the Favaritx ship. These include: a bronze cylindrical object (Inv.No.21554) with an open bottom, maybe a sounding weight and part of the ship’s equipment; a group of bronze chains with hooks attached at the end of some of them, possibly from a steelyard used on board (Inv.No.21547; Inv. No.21846); a group of bronze and iron hooks (Inv.No.21819) ranging from L. 3.4cm to L. 8.7cm; and a group of bronze and iron nails (Inv.No.21834; Inv.No.21838; Inv.No.21881; Inv.No.21583, Inv. No.21582; Inv.No.21581; Inv.No.21822; Inv.No.21524), the largest ones of which could be part of joints for the timbers of the ship’s hull. In the boxes of material from the Favaritx shipwreck, there was also a series of miscellaneous unidentifiable objects, which included: a bronze ring (Inv.No.21527) maybe a rim broken off from a bronze vessel; some bronze rings of unknown use (Inv.No.21516; Inv.No.21831); flat pierced bronze artefacts of unknown use (Inv.No.21877); metal slags, ingots or irregularly shaped weights made of lead (Inv.No.21519; Inv.No.21879); a group of small pieces of thick metal, maybe ingots or weights of different shapes and materials (Inv.No.21595; Inv.No.21878; Inv.No.21847); scrap metal pieces mainly of bronze but also some lead and iron, preserved in broken off sheets, maybe part of dismantled bronze vessels (Inv.No.21875); and a large bronze bar (Inv.No.21578). Finally, in the museum’s inventory catalogue there was a collection of indeterminate objects, which were preserved in a very poor and fragmentary condition. Pottery Regarding the pottery discovered in the underwater deposit of Favaritx, there was only one piece available for study in the collections of the Museum of Menorca. This was a coarseware onehandled jug with ridged decoration on the main body (Figure 46). This piece of pottery, even though conserved and reconstructed at the time of the author’s research, it still had marine growth and bronze concretions all over its body, handle and rim, thus securely proving that it was found together with the other bronze objects analysed above. The information available in the museum and the typological research of this coarseware pot suggested a date of use in the late Roman or early Byzantine times, most probably between the 5th and the 6th/7th centuries AD (Dark 2001: 31-35). This dating matches very well the date given to the wreck through the study of the metal crosses and confirms the previous scholarly suggestion that the Favaritx ship was lost at the sea at some point between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. 101

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 46: Coarseware jug found in the Favaritx shipwreck. Currently in the Museum of Menorca. © Author.

Additionally, through the study of the unpublished research report Ánforas bajo imperiales y de la antigüedad tardía hallados en las costas de Menorca (Baleares) provided kindly by Octavio Pons Machado, it was possible to record that the upper part of an amphora of the type Keay LIII / Late Roman 1 (Inv.No.41571), as well as another coarseware jar (Inv.No.21956) were retrieved from the Favaritx shipwreck. Non-preserved/ lost artefacts In the local publications of the Favaritx shipwreck, studied during the research visit in the Museum of Menorca, it was possible to record a few artefacts that have been lost or not preserved in the archaeological collections of the museum. The most interesting of those was a small Greek inscription on a metal plaque (Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 184; Fernandez-Miranda and Belén 1977: 96). This inscription is thought to be in a private collection and therefore only a detailed drawing of it has survived (Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 184). Through this drawing it is possible to see that the inscription is written on a rectangular bronze plaque, 30.7cm by 13.7cm in size. The Greek text has three lines, and it reads: ΤΕΡΕΝΤΙΟΙ ΜΑΣΙΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΣΤΟΣ ΚΟΙΝΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΘΙΒΗ ΛΟΥ ΗΛΙΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΑΙ ΗΡΓΑΣΑΝ 102

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap This text is fragmentary, but it mentions two individuals Masimos and Kastos, from a city called Helioupole, who made or constructed something or worked somewhere. The Greek letters and the characters used in the inscription suggest a late Roman or early Byzantine date, as well as an eastern origin, thus giving a better idea on the origins of the material transported in the Favaritx ship (Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 184). However, due to the lack of direct archaeological involvement in the recovery of this object from the seabed, it is impossible to understand exactly how this inscription relates to the rest of the cargo of the ship and why it was on board. The type of the bronze plaque, though, as described in the publications, might be associated with the bronze plaque fragment with the cross (Inv.No.21546), described above. Another non-preserved or lost artefact mentioned in the publications is a fragment of a large dolium, spotted in the underwater site of Favaritx attached to an accumulation of rocks and other material on the seabed (Fernandez-Miranda and Rodero-Riaza 1985: 186). However, no picture or further information regarding its exact size, condition, possible date or function has been provided. Interpreting the maritime transport of the Favaritx ship The study of the material retrieved from the underwater deposit of Favaritx reveals that the ship that wrecked off the northeastern coast of Menorca was most likely travelling at some point between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. Its cargo consisted mainly of metal objects, constructed mostly in earlier periods of Classical Antiquity and coming originally from eastern Mediterranean areas. Other artefacts, such as transport amphorae, not yet properly retrieved from the shipwreck site, must have been part of the ship’s cargo, too. Unfortunately, no hull remains from the ship were preserved. Eight fragments of small-scale bronze sculptures have been recognised in the assemblage of metal objects found in the Favaritx shipwreck. With the possible exception of one piece, the hollow bronze object Inv.No.21849, the rest of the sculptural fragments have been identified as being constructed during the Hellenistic and Roman times, and not at the time of the ship’s last journey, namely in the late Roman period. This dating of the bronze sculptural artefacts, as well as their fragmentary and very deformed condition, matches in general the features of the non-sculptural metal cargo found in the same deposit. The existence of a large quantity of other older, smashed and disfigured metal objects of different types on the Favaritx ship suggests that these artefacts must have already been in a poor condition at the time of their maritime transportation, and they would not have been carried on the ship for use on board or to be traded for their functional value. However, to prove this idea it is important to go through some other possible archaeological theories and interpretations that could be assumed for the Favaritx ship and its cargo. The question of shipboard items or cargo At first glance, the type and form of the Favaritx bronze sculptural artefacts could indicate a utilitarian role on the ship. As it was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the sculptural fragments recognised from Favaritx deposit were all small in scale and depicted sculptural types expected mainly in private and domestic religious contexts of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods (Sharpe 2014; Stähli 2014). Therefore, it could be proposed that, at least, the male figurine Inv. No.21567 (Figure 36) and the figurine Inv.No.40747;CAP-05/377 (Figure 37) could have been personal belongings of the people travelling on board or part of the ship’s shrine, similar to other examples of that sort recorded in the database analysis of Chapter 4. The idea of the maritime transport of small-scale bronze figurines as personal belongings has been expressed by Brokalakis (2012; 2016) in his interpretation of the small-scale sculptures found in the 103

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Ayia Galini shipwreck (D.B.13), a deposit, which closely resembles the site of Favaritx. In more detail, Brokalakis (2016: 132) has suggested that the series of Hellenistic and Roman small-scale sculptural artefacts found in the Ayia Galini shipwreck were part of a lararium, a shrine that existed on the ship. His argument is mostly based on the stylistic examination of the small-size sculptural objects, whose original intended function was associated with small personal religious spaces during the Hellenistic and Roman times. The identification of Isis, a deity considered to be the protector of sailors, in one of the Ayia Galini figurines reinforced further Brokalakis’ suggestion. However, the direct examination of the Ayia Galini sculptural material by the present author gave a different impression. Firstly, all sculptural objects seem to have suffered severe wear and deterioration prior to their transportation and underwater deposition. Especially, the examination of a bronze arm fragment, part of a medium-size statuette, showed that it was unnaturally bent as if someone attempted to fold it. This form seems very irregular for the sculptural type represented and could not have been a result of the wrecking because such a distortion surely required human intervention and must have been intentional. Hence, it is possible to think that this particular bronze statuette from the Ayia Galini shipwreck must have already been in disuse before it was taken as scrap and maybe folded for ease of transport, maybe in order to fit in a transport container. The same interpretation can be applied to at least six other fragments of large-scale sculptures, which were found in a poor condition in boxes of the storerooms of the Archaeological Ephoreia of Rethymno and might have not been examined by Brokalakis. Following the above observations, it seems likely that both the Favaritx and the Ayia Galini sculptures were not transported for use in their primary function, but that they must have been damaged and discarded from their original setting long before they were taken on board. So, even though the small-scale sculptures could have been typologically part of a lararium on the ship or personal belongings, the overall archaeological record of the underwater deposit and small details seen on the individual sculptures, indicate the transport of sculptural artefacts and other metals as pieces of scrap, rather than as functional objects. The significance of contextual and comparative data The query of the function of the sculptural artefacts on the ships of both Favaritx and Ayia Galini, could be easily resolved if the exact findspots of these objects were known within the wider archaeological context of each shipwreck. Since this information has not been preserved, due to the pillaging of the sites and the lack of primary underwater archaeological research, it is important to use comparative details from the database analysis to assist in the understanding of the maritime transport featured in these deposits. First of all, regarding the Favaritx shipwreck, it is clear that the Hellenistic to Roman Imperial date of its identifiable small-scale sculptures, as well as the chronological range from the 7th century BC to the 2nd century AD given to shipwrecks transporting small-scale sculptures as personal belongings and shipboard items (see Chapter 4 and Figure 29), do not match with the late Roman date of the Favaritx underwater deposit. Based on these observations, it would be anachronistic and highly unlikely for the fifth- to seventh-century AD Favaritx ship to have had a shipboard shrine with Hellenistic or Roman sculptures. A similar interpretation should be applied to the Ayia Galini shipwreck, dated to some point after the 3rd century AD (Arata 2005: 143-144; Hood and Warren 1966: 169; Sanders 1982: 165). From the 13 or 14 sculptural pieces retrieved from that site, the five small-scale sculptures displayed in the Archaeological Museum of Rethymno, including a figurine of Isis, could have typologically been shipboard items. However, this practice would have been quite anachronistic for the time period of the wreck and would not correspond to the rest of the archaeological evidence of the deposit, especially, the heavily damaged medium- and large-scale sculptural fragments mentioned above. 104

The Favaritx shipwreck and the maritime transport of bronze sculptures as scrap In general, there is no late Roman Mediterranean shipwreck recorded so far with evidence for the existence of a shrine with pagan features on board. This observation of the data fits well with the historical circumstances of the period, especially because after the 3rd century AD, and more intensely during the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries AD, Christianity became well-established throughout the Mediterranean world and started to transform widely people’s cult practices, moving them away from old pagan habits (Cameron 1993; Klauck 2000). In support of this idea, it is useful to look at two other underwater deposits with bronze sculptures recorded in this database, which have been also dated in the period of Late Antiquity (Figure 35; Table 3). These are the Brindisi (D.B.16) and the Caesarea (D.B.19) shipwrecks, both of which feature evidence for the maritime transportation of bronze sculptures with other discarded metal objects as scrap. The Brindisi shipwreck, dated between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD, had approximately 150-200 fragments of bronze sculptures in its deposit. These sculptural fragments belonged to more than 100 sculptures, which would have originally been under life-size, life-size and over life-size, and must have been constructed in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, namely several centuries before they were transported and wrecked off the coast of Southern Italy (Arata 2005; Auriemma 2004; Mattusch 1997). On the other hand, the Caesarea shipwreck, which has been tentatively dated to the 4th century AD, included hundreds of fragments from already discarded large-scale and smallscale bronze sculptures dated both to earlier periods but also to the late Roman times (Archaeology Magazine 2017). Despite the individual variations regarding the number, types, sizes and dates of the sculptural artefacts, it is quite clear that in all of the above late Roman shipwreck the majority of the transported sculptural pieces had been of earlier construction and already in disuse prior to their shipment. This same phenomenon has been recognised in the Hellenistic shipwreck of Megadim (D.B.75). Despite the earlier date of that underwater site, its deposit and material provide clear evidence for the maritime transportation of scrap metal cargo, including large-scale sculptural fragments, which were constructed at least a century or two before the wrecking (Syon et al. 2013: 1-4) and, which were packed on the ship inside Rhodian amphorae (Misch-Brandl and Galili 1985: 12-13). Looking at details of the maritime transport All of the above underwater deposits, with their consistent similarity of transporting discarded, usually older, bronze sculptures together with other disused metal artefacts, demonstrate a common Mediterranean-wide practice for transporting scrap metals and bronze sculptures by sea. This maritime activity must have been taking place from at least the Hellenistic times and seems to have occurred in all areas of the Mediterranean world. The lack of systematic archaeological research, the looting of many associated underwater sites of the Mediterranean, as well as the absence of a clear references of such practice in the ancient literary sources has prevented the straightforward recognition of this maritime activity by many scholars, who have inaccurately attributed underwater concentrations of metal artefacts to the transport of luxury goods or even to pirate and ravaging activities, especially related to the Vandal expansion taking place in the central and western Mediterranean during the 5th century AD (Codex Theodosianus IX 40, 24; Charles 2010). However, as this case study proves, and as Mundell Mango (2001) has previously suggested, there should have been a far wider and more elaborate network of metalware circulation and trade that deserves further study. If we accept the evidence proving that the Favaritx ship was carrying scrap metal objects of different types with the intention to be recycled, the next question that comes to mind is: where was the metal material coming from and what was the rationale behind what to collect for recycling?

105

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean The analysis of the sculptures and the metal artefacts carried on the Favaritx ship suggests that they most probably originated in the eastern Mediterranean. This information, though, should not necessarily mean that the whole ship with its cargo was sailing all the way from the eastern Mediterranean to the Balearic Islands, especially because long-distance shipment would have been very expensive and risky in that time period. Since the majority of the sculptures and the datable metal objects have a date of construction several centuries prior to their underwater deposition, it is possible to assume that the transported metal objects would have circulated in the central and western Mediterranean regions for actual utilitarian purposes long before they were picked up as scrap. Therefore, the Favaritx shipwreck and comparable sites give evidence for a practice mostly associated with the redistribution of discarded objects and with the intention to create raw material. However, such an activity would be difficult to track accurately and would require years of study of individual objects and their comparanda from terrestrial sites, where they would have been actually used. The question of whether the metal recycling happened on the ship or on coastal workshops is difficult to answer with certainty. The bronze tool, a mattock or a hammer (Inv.No.21588), which has been characterised as a bronze worker’s equipment, the chains and hooks possibly from a steelyard (Inv.No.21547; Inv.No.21846), as well as the irregular ingots and the pieces of metal slag found in the shipwrecks of Favaritx and Ayia Galini could suggest that some sort of smelting process could have been taking place on or around these ships. Obviously, though, there is not enough evidence to give more details on the circumstances of this process, especially because the metal slag remains could have been associated with the metal ingots, which might have, also, been produced from transported metal objects on coastal workshop, and then immediately shipped for further redistribution. Conclusion Parker’s (1992) publication of ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman provinces catalogues over one thousand sites, among which 11% are dated between the 4th and 10th centuries AD. From these shipwreck sites a wide range of cargo is reported including stone, glass, pottery, amphorae with commodities such as wine or oil and other goods (Castagnino Berlinghieri and Parabeni 2011: 67). However, so far very few scholars have recognised the transportation of scrap metals as part of a vessel’s trading activity and as a legitimate maritime practice that was not just associated with looting, war or other ravaging activities (Koutsouflakis 2017; McCormick 2001; Mundell Mango 2001). The detailed study of the material from the Favaritx shipwreck, as well as all the comparisons to the materials of other similar underwater deposits referenced above (Table 3), clearly demonstrate the existence of a common Mediterranean-wide practice for transporting scrap metals by sea. As the database entries of this research illustrate, this maritime activity must have been taking place from at least the Hellenistic times and is spotted in all areas of the Mediterranean world. Most importantly, though, this research on the Favaritx shipwreck brings to light a new perspective for the scholarly study of underwater deposits with solely bronze sculptures. Its importance lies in the fact that the archaeological reexamination of many underwater deposits with fragmentary bronze sculptures, which are not yet thoroughly researched, could also fall under this category of scrap metal maritime transportation, rather than other patterns. For example, the bronze statues of the Artemission assemblage (D.B.9) or the bronze sculptural fragment of an elephant seen in the Mazara del Vallo 1999 sculpture (D.B.74), were all found in fragmentary condition and without a dated underwater archaeological context and could have been easily transported as scrap (Lapatin 2018: 166-167). In the future, a close-up systematic study of additional underwater deposits with all of their contextual information will hopefully confirm this hypothesis and shed more light into the maritime transport of bronze sculptures in different time periods of the ancient Mediterranean world. 106

Chapter 7

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations Introduction The Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67) was discovered by sponge divers off the coast of Tunisia in 1907 (Parker 1992: 252). Dated in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC, it constitutes one of the largest underwater deposits with ancient sculptures, and also one of the earliest ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean (Bass 1966: 77-79; Diolé 1957: 33). Similar to the near contemporary Antikythera shipwreck (D.B.6), found in 1900, the Mahdia shipwreck carried a large cargo of diverse material, consisting mainly of luxury objects, including bronze and marble sculptures of different sizes, types and dates. Over the decades, the Mahdia shipwreck has attracted the interest of many underwater explorers, divers, amateur archaeologists, classical and maritime archaeologists, who have visited, salvaged, excavated, and examined the underwater deposit over and over again (Diolé 1957: 33-36; Fuchs 1963; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994; Parker 1992: 252; Rackl 1978: 37-50; Winterstein 2000). Despite the extensive research and the variety of publications available for the underwater deposit of Mahdia, there are still extensive gaps in our understanding of the shipwreck. The early date of its discovery, prior to the development of scientific maritime archaeology, combined with the dividing lines that persist between scholars of classical and maritime archaeology, who have studied the Mahdia artefacts, have left unanswered questions, especially in relation to the type and quantity of the ship’s cargo, the structural details of the ship itself, as well as the reasons, circumstances and conditions of the sculptural transportation. These questions have been addressed in this project with the conduct of another micro-scale research and an in-depth re-evaluation of the available data. By collecting and re-evaluating anew the preexisting archaeological data of the Mahdia shipwreck, with its large underwater site, its levels of preservation and archaeological documentation, as well as the wide variety and quantity of retrieved artefacts, this research attempts, first of all, to provide new insights into the Mahdia ship and its transport. As the macro-scale research has revealed, the Mahdia shipwreck belongs to a category of underwater deposits carrying both marble and bronze sculptural material together with other high quality, ‘luxury’, objects for trading purposes. As the graph of Figure 29 and Table 4 illustrate, this pattern of transport has also been recognised in the shipwrecks of Antikythera (D.B.6), Apollonia (D.B.7), Styra (D.B.101) and Torre Flavia (D.B.105), the suggested dating of which fall into the last two centuries BC. Thus, the second main objective of this research has been to understand better the details of the wider transport pattern, namely the trade of sculptures with other luxury objects. The analysis starts by briefly laying out the series of events, projects and scholarly research leading to the primary sources and the data currently available for the Mahdia shipwreck. Following that, the chapter continues by revisiting the primary sources and collecting, reexamining and critically re-recording details regarding the groups of artefacts found in the Mahdia shipwreck, including the ship remains, the sculptures (Table 5) and the non-sculptural artefacts, including both the nonsculptural cargo and the shipboard items. Through this process, and by taking into account all of the up-to-date data from other contemporary Mediterranean shipwrecks, comparative underwater deposits and information from the database analysis of this project, as well as relevant ancient literary sources and terrestrial archaeological 107

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Table 4: Comparison of the Mahdia archaeological remains to other shipwrecks from the same transport pattern. Database No. Attributed Date Hull remains & shiprelated artefacts Bronze sculptures Marble sculptures Architectural elements Domestic furnishing Amphorae Fineware pottery Coarseware pottery Coins Lamps Glassware Ingots Other

Mahdia 67 Late 2nd – early 1st century BC x

Antikythera 6 First half of 1st century BC

x x x

x x

x

x

x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x Inscribed slabs; millstones

Apollonia 7 Middle of 2nd century BC

Styra 101 Late Hellenistic

x

Torre Flavia 105 Roman period x x x x

x Human remains; jewellery; Antikythera mechanism

evidence, this chapter closes by presenting new observations, conclusions and interpretations regarding the type of the Mahdia shipwreck’s cargo, the structural and nautical details of the ship, as well as the conditions and circumstances for the maritime transportation of its sculptures. In this last analysis, the comparison of the archaeological evidence from Mahdia to that of other underwater deposits belonging to the same transport pattern contributes to the wider understanding of the maritime trade of sculptures as luxury objects. Discovery and previous research As mentioned in the introduction, sponge divers discovered the Mahdia shipwreck in 1907, five kilometers off the eastern coast of Tunisia and at a depth of approximately 36-37 meters (Figure 47; Bass 1966: 77; Diolé 1957: 33-36; Fuchs 1963: 11; Hellenkemper Salies 1994a: 5-6; Merlin and Poinssot 1930; Parker 1992: 252; Rackl 1978: 37-50; Throckmorton 1972: 69; Winterstein 2000). Following its accidental discovery, the shipwreck was surveyed and salvaged in projects organised by various teams during the 20th century: in 1907-1913 by the Tunisian Department of Antiquities and the director Alfred Merlin; in 1948/9 by Philippe Tailliez and Jacques-Yves Cousteau; in 1954 and 1955 by the Club de Recherches Sous-Marine de Tunisia, under the direction of the engineer Guy de Frondeville; in the 1980s and 1990s in a project organised by the Tunisian Institut National du Patrimoine and the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn (Bass 1966: 79, 119; Baumer et al. 1995: 7281; De Frondeville 1956; De Donato 2003: 38-41; Diolé 1957: 35-51 ; Gagsteiger et al. 1994: 37-46; Hellenkemper Salies 1994a: 5-17; Winterstein 2000). During these projects, the underwater site of Mahdia was excavated, salvaged and recorded according to the knowledge and underwater technology available in each time period. Numerous artefacts were retrieved from the seabed in these operations, including stone architectural members, bronze and marble sculptural artefacts, pottery, lamps, slabs with Greek inscriptions, some hull remains and other material (Bass 1966: 78-79; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994). 108

Figure 47: Map showing the location of the Mahdia shipwreck off the coast of Tunisia. © Author.

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations

109

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Nevertheless, according to the existing scholarship, more archaeological remains might still be lying under water (De Donato 2003: 39; Throckmorton 1972: figure 10 and figure 12). In the 1990s, after the underwater operations organised by the Tunisian Institut National du Patrimoine and the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, and due to the destruction of sections of the Bardo Museum in a fire, the recovered Mahdia shipwreck material was conserved and revisited in Germany by archaeologists of the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, the underwater archaeological unit of the Tunisian Institut National du Patrimoine and the Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Unterwasserarchäologie (De Donato 2003: 41; Winterstein 2000). This elaborate project involved the systematic study of the Mahdia shipwreck and its artefacts, but also the safe return, preservation and display of the archaeological material in the Bardo Museum in Tunis. The results of this project, published in a two-volume book (Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994), concluded that the Mahdia ship was a merchant vessel that sank at some time between the second half of the 2nd century BC and the middle of the 1st century BC, maybe sometime around 100 BC. It carried a variety of luxury goods, including architectural elements, as well as bronze and marble freestanding sculptures, that probably originated from Athens (De Donato 2003: 39; Fuchs 1963: 11; Hellenkemper Salies 1994a: 11; Wirth 1994: 727). Its date in the late Hellenistic times, as well as its sizable and luxurious cargo, immediately associated the Mahdia shipwreck with ancient literary references describing looting activities conducted by the Romans after the sack of Athens by Sulla in 86 BC (Plutarch The Life of Sulla 14), as well as with the demand of wealthy Roman elites of this time period for art collecting purposes (Diolé 1957: 42; Fuchs 1963: 11). An example is the ancient author Cicero, who ordered and acquired luxury objects from the eastern Mediterranean for the decoration of their houses and villas in Italy (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2; Cicero, Against Verres, act. 2.4.126). This scholarly association has had a crucial impact on the interpretations of the Mahdia ship, which has been thought to be transporting cargo from Athens to Italy based on the literary sources, despite the lack of adequate archaeological evidence confirming this route with scientific certainty (Bass 1966: 78; De Donato 2003: 38-43; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 15, 17-21). Overall, the previous studies on the Mahdia shipwreck, including its two-volume publication (Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994), tend to examine the non-sculptural material apart from the discovered sculptures. Similarly to the case study of the Porticello shipwreck, the lack of involvement of maritime archaeologists in aspects of classical archaeological analysis, as well as the inaccessibility of the underwater environment to the vast majority of classical archaeologists and art historians, have led to the analysis of the Mahdia shipwreck sculptures solely from an art historical perspective in isolation from the rest of the shipwreck deposit. Thus, in the sculptural examinations that are available there has never been a detailed reference to the underwater archaeological context and function of these artefacts on the Mahdia ship. As explained previously in Chapter 2, this scholarly practice has been observed quite extensively in the research of sculptures from under water and has created a disconnect between artefacts from the same deposit, a large challenge that had to be outweighed in the present research. Moreover, in all of the available publications regarding the Mahdia shipwreck and its material, the studies seem to be very selective in the data they present. In general, there is a lack of overall information regarding the retrieved archaeological artefacts, such as inventories with all of the material found within the archaeological context of the shipwreck, or descriptions with the total numbers of the objects retrieved, as well as consistent catalogues, invention or museum numbers for each piece. As it is obvious in the list of references for the Mahdia shipwreck sculptures collected and recorded in Table 5, scholars have generally neglected some artefacts from the Mahdia shipwreck or simply selected, which sculptural artefacts from the Mahdia shipwreck were interesting to present and analyse. This issue, combined with the inconsistent use of names and terms, according to the language and expertise of each researcher, has made the available 110

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations publications and reports on the Mahdia shipwreck material extremely challenging to organise, comprehend, use, and re-interpret. Re-evaluating the Mahdia shipwreck material In contrast to the previously examined shipwreck case studies, it has not been possible to visit the archaeological material of the Mahdia shipwreck in the Bardo Museum in the duration of this project due to travel restrictions based on the political situation of Tunisia. However, with the thorough study of all of the available publications, reports and articles on that shipwreck and its material, it has been possible to reconstruct quite extensively the groups and types of artefacts retrieved from this underwater deposit. The groups of archaeological material from the Mahdia shipwreck studied, recorded and presented in this chapter are the ship remains, the bronze and marble sculptural artefacts, and other nonsculptural artefacts, which were either cargo or shipboard items. The ship remains The salvage operations and the excavations conducted in the Mahdia shipwreck in the course of the 20th century brought to light evidence for the type, form, size and construction of the ship. As the available publications describe, especially from the underwater operations in 1954 and 1955, directed by Guy de Frondeville, dozens of timber planks were raised together with parts of the keel of the ship, all of which should be currently stored in the Bardo Museum, in Tunis (De Donato 2003: 39; Diolé 1957: 37; Höckmann 1994a: 53-56; Sakka 1994: 33-36; Throckmorton 1972: 69). Additionally, plans of the underwater site and the location of the ship remains (Throckmorton 1972: figure 14) were made by De Frondeville (1956: 195-228), who published the first analysis and reconstruction of the Mahdia ship’s hull in 1956 in his book Les visiteurs de la mer (Bass 1966: 79; De Donato 2003: 39). Through this work but also through shorter reports and observations made by other researchers (Bass 1966; Casson 1971; De Donato 2003; Gelsdorf 1994; Höckmann 1994a; Parker 1992; Throckmorton 1972; Winterstein 2000), it is known that the preserved or at least recorded ship remains from the underwater deposit of Mahdia consist of pieces of: planking, frames, bow, stern and keel, metal sheathing, fastenings and rigging (De Frondeville 1956: 221 and figure 7; Gagsteiger et al. 1994: figure; Höckmann 1994a: figures 1, 4 and 9; 13 Throckmorton 1972: figure 2). Finally, in the 1980s and 1990s, laboratory analysis of wood samples and pieces of caulking showed the provenance of the material from Campania, Italy (Höckmann 1994a: 55). Planking The surviving pieces of planking from the Mahdia ship suggest that it must have been built with the shell-first construction technique and with the use of carefully cut mortises and tenons, similarly to other Mediterranean ships of this time period (Gagsteiger et al. 1994: 44 and figures 13-14; Throckmorton 1972: 69). However, as Parker (1992: 252) mentions, unlike the single planking of the Antikythera ship, the Mahdia ship seems to have had double planking at least over the garboard strake. Each layer of this double planking must have consisted of long, edge-joined planks attached to each other with mortise-and-tenon joints (Gagsteiger et al. 1994: 44 and figure 13; Höckmann 1994a: figures 1 and 9; Throckmorton 1972: 69). De Frondeville (1956: 221 and figure 7), in one of his drawing reconstructions, gives some measurements for these two layers of planking. More specifically, he reconstructs the thickness of the garboard as 14cm and the outer layer of planking as 3.5cm. Höckmann (1994a: 60-61) has also observed that the exterior layer of planking must have been slightly thinner than the interior, while Throckmorton (1972: 75) suggests an approximate 2 inches (or 5cm) thickness for each layer of planks (De Donato 2003: 41). Additionally, both Parker

111

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean (1992: 252) and Höckmann (1994a: 61) mention that there must have been fabric between the two layers of planking. However, except for general reports, some underwater sketches, survey pictures and a scaled picture of some tested hull remains provided in Gagsteiger et al. (1994: figure 13), no consistent overall record, inventory or catalogue of any of the preserved planking elements have been available in the previous scholarly publications. Therefore, it has been hard to understand, which details of the planking’s form and size have been preserved, and which have just been suggested by the general shipbuilding experience of the scholars. Frames 
Some frames have been reported as retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck site. Unfortunately, no further details have been available except for the fact that the frames must have been situated in the interior of the hull after the creation of the ship’s exterior shell (Höckmann 1994a: 61). Bow, stern, keel & floor timbers As highlighted in the drawings of the wreck site by De Frondeville (1956: 204 and figure 6), Throckmorton (1972: figure 14) and Höckmann (1994a: figure 1), parts of the ship’s keel must have been found and retrieved from the underwater deposit together with some floor timbers (Diolé 1957: 47; Throckmorton 1972: 67-68). De Frondeville (1956: 221 and figure 7) gave a detailed drawing of the keel’s structure, shape and fittings in his publication. Inspired by this reconstruction, Casson (1971: 175), Throckmorton (1972: 68 and figure 2) and Höckmann (1994a: 56-57) have also mentioned that the hull remains of the Mahdia shipwreck suggest that the ship could have had a very sharp keel, with an almost flat floor and a narrow steep bilge. Parker (1992: 252) mentions that the Mahdia ship’s keel was made of elm, while according to Höckmann (1994a: 55-57, 60-61 and figures 7-8) the keel must have originally been longer than 26 meters, or 86 feet according to Throckmorton (1972: 75), and maybe around 30 meters in total. Metal sheathing Throckmorton (1972: 68), in his analysis of the Mahdia ship, mentions that the hull must have been covered on its exterior with lead sheathing. Some other scholars have also suggested that the hull was double sheathed with lead (De Donato 2003: 41). However, there are no exact descriptive or visual records in the available publications about the condition, type and form of the surviving lead sheathing fragments recovered from the underwater site. Some metal sheets, though, presented in the chapter of Päffgen and Zanier (1994: 111-130) on small metal finds from the Mahdia ship could be remains of the ship’s metal sheathing. However, since no secure evidence has been clearly documented, it is important to consider Throckmorton’s first interpretation of the Mahdia ship being lead sheathed as a result of the 20th-century scholarly impression that all Mediterranean vessels were sheathed in lead. Fastenings From the preserved hull remains there is evidence proving that the edge-joined planks of each layer of planking were attached to each other with carefully cut mortise-and-tenon joints (Gagsteiger et al. 1994: figure 13; Höckmann 1994a: figure 9). Additionally, De Frondeville’s (1956: 221 and figure 7) drawing reconstructing the keel of the Mahdia ship shows copper nails (clous de cuivre) fastening the outer layer of planking to the inner layer. Furthermore, Höckmann (1994a, 60-61) has suggested that the planking and the frames of the ship must have been attached to the keel with round bronze nails, many of which were taken for laboratory examinations after their recovery in the first half of the 20th century (Diolé 1957: 48-51). Some retrieved nails that could have been part of the hull’s fastenings are presented in Päffgen and Zanier’s (1994: 111-130) research on small metal finds. 112

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations Rigging Based on fragmentary archaeological evidence recorded in situ at the Mahdia wreck site and evidence from other contemporary shipwrecks, as well as information from ancient iconographic representations of seagoing vessels, the Mahdia ship has been reconstructed as a sailing ship with a central mast that held a square main sail and a smaller foresail, known as ‘artemon’ (Baumer et al. 1995: 78-79; Höckmann 1994a: 58, 67 and figure 4). Despite this rigging reconstruction, there is no direct evidence for the rigging arrangement of the ship in the preserved archaeological remains presented in the available publications. The only certain feature, documented in the archaeological record, is the mast step for the mainsail, which was discovered on some hull remains, laying on the seabed close to the column concentrations of the cargo area, but with no information regarding its exact location along the centreline of the ship (Höckmann 1994a: 62 and 67-69). Other surviving elements of the Mahdia ship The sponge divers excavating the shipwreck of Mahdia in the first decades of the 20th century described the discovery of a thin layer of timbers on which the transported columns were laid, and under which the sculptures and other pieces of pottery and domestic furnishing were discovered (Diolé 1957: 43). These timbers and their arrangement have been interpreted as the remains of the wooden deck of the Mahdia ship (Casson 1971: 178; Diolé 1957: 43; Höckmann 1994a: 62; Parker 1992: 252). However, from the existing data it is unclear if any of these potential deck beams have been actually documented, retrieved and carefully examined by archaeologists or if they have been left on the seabed. In addition to the potential deck remains mentioned above, the early diving operations recognised on the seabed several pieces of bricks and tiles, which have not been interpreted as transported cargo, but as remains of a roofed deckhouse that must have existed on board (Baatz 1994c: 109-110; Casson 1971: 178; Diolé 1957: 44; Höckmann 1994a: 62; Parker 1992: 252). Moreover, De Donato (2003: 41) has suggested that the ship, due to its potential size, must have been equipped with at least four or five anchors and a safety pump, elements of which were raised from the underwater site during the early salvaging operations at the beginning of the 20th century (Diolé 1957: 43). Höckmann (1994a: 54) and Gelsdorf (1994: 83-88) report that, indeed, five lead anchor stocks were found lying all together in a row on the seabed, approximately 2.5 meters south of the concentration of marble columns. However, one of the anchor stocks seems to be currently missing from the preserved archaeological record in Tunisia (Höckmann 1994a: 56; Gelsdorf 1994: 83- 88). Moreover, some bronze rings found on board the Mahdia wreck have been interpreted as part of the running-tackle of the ship (Diolé 1957: 48). Finally, components of a machine, possibly originally from a bilge pump or a catapult have been found within the Mahdia shipwreck (Baatz 1994d: 701-707; Höckmann 1994a: 65; Parker 1992: 252). Interpreting and reconstructing the Mahdia ship remains Through the research projects and scholarly studies mentioned above, the Mahdia ship has been recognised as a large merchant craft, probably a large freighter, rigged for sailing (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 167-173; Diolé 1957: 41). Its size has been estimated to be approximately 40.6 meters long and 13.8 meters wide with the central height of the hull estimated approximately as 6.5 meters and a hold approximately 4.2 meters high from the bottom of the keel (Baumer et al. 1995: 77-78; De Donato 2003: 41; Höckmann 1994a: 53, 57). 113

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean These suggested dimensions of the ship, some observations on the solid construction of the hull as well as the large cargo retrieved from the underwater site have made scholars propose that the Mahdia ship could have potentially carried a cargo of over 200-300 tons, with some estimating even a 400-500 tons cargo capacity (De Donato 2003: 41; Höckmann 1994a: 54; Throckmorton 1972: 75). This size and estimated tonnage urged scholars to consider the Mahdia ship as a ‘class of its own’, substantially larger than any other known ancient Mediterranean shipwreck (De Donato 2003: 41). However, in this exact point the previous scholarly analysis of the Mahdia ship and its structure stumbles upon several misconceptions and misinterpretations. First of all, due to the lack of overall catalogues and inventories of the excavated and retrieved ship-related artefacts in the scholarly sources, it is hard to distinguish with accuracy, which ship elements have been actually preserved and studied and which have been simply presumed. Not even in the most recent publications of the Mahdia ship do all of the retrieved pieces of the hull seem to have been properly recorded, photographed and analysed as recommended for most underwater archaeological sites, and especially for shipwreck assemblages (Steffy 1994). Based on this overall absence of fundamental and systematic archaeological study of the ship remains, the scholarly theories on the Mahdia ship’s measurements and size, mentioned above, can only be considered hypothetical. Therefore, further scientific investigation, recording and proof would be required in order to lead to secure interpretations. Despite this problem, the careful comparative analysis of the reports on elements of the Mahdia ship to those of other contemporary Mediterranean shipwrecks can provide some better understanding on how special or common the Mahdia ship was. To begin with, Throckmorton, in his 1972 chapter ‘Romans on the sea’ examines comparatively the Mahdia shipwreck with other ancient shipwrecks discovered in the Mediterranean by the third quarter of the 20th century (Throckmorton 1972: 67-68). In this work, he firstly compares the keel of the Mahdia ship to that of the Dramont A and Grand Congloué vessels and he observes that: ‘the Mahdia ship, though of much the same date as the Dramont vessel, seems definitely to have been of a different kind, sharper and lead-sheathed’ (Throckmorton 1972: figure 1). Additionally, he notes that the Grand Congloué ship, though resembling at a first glance the structure of the Mahdia vessel, it must have been probably earlier in date. Throckmorton also mentions that the Mahdia hull was tenoned in a similar way to the wrecks of Titan, Dramont and La Chrétienne (Throckmorton 1972: 69). Despite that, he notes that the Mahdia ship should have been a lot larger than the Titan and Dramont wrecks, which he describes as flat-bottomed ships with a keel and a keelson, carrying less than 150 tons and not lead-sheathed (Throckmorton 1972: 73). Thus, according to his judgment, the Mahdia ship, similarly to its Antikythera parallel, belongs to the category of the larger Mediterranean cargo ships, which had big single keels, could carry more than 150-200 tons, were difficult to beach and were always lead-sheathed (Throckmorton 1972: 74-75). This similarity between the almost contemporary Mahdia and Antikythera (D.B.6) shipwrecks and the fact that they must have been very large merchant vessels with large cargo capacity has also been fairly clear in previous research of the author (Velentza 2016: 104). In that research the comparative analysis of the hull remain characteristics and the cargo of the Mahdia and Antikythera ships, through the existing scholarship, had indicated that the two vessels possibly represent regional variations in Mediterranean shipbuilding of large ships of the same function and from the same time period. As explained above, the Mahdia ship seems to have had two layers of planking to make a shell thickness of approximately 10cm or more, while the Antikythera ship seems to have had a single thick layer of planking, which has been estimated as approximately 10cm thick (Bouyia 2012: 37; De Donato 2003: 41; Foley 2016; Höckmann 1994a: 60-61; Bouyia [section by Koutsouflakis] 2012: 40-43; Throckmorton 1972: 70; Velentza 2016: 85-90). Both vessels, though, even if built with 114

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations slightly different structural details and techniques, they must have had strong hulls, which made them capable of carrying out trading activities of quite substantial cargoes over long distances. The structural elements of a large freighter that could carry several hundreds of tons of cargo have also been recognised in the late Hellenistic shipwreck of Madrague de Giens which was carrying almost 400 tons of amphorae filled with wine from Terracina when it sank off the coast of France (Baumer et al. 1995: 74; De Donato 2003: 28-32; Pomey et al. 2012: 235-314; Tchernia et al. 1978: 15-17, 75-99, 101-107 and Plates XXVI-XXXVII). The careful study and documentation of the Madrague de Giens’ ship remains have shown a conserved length of approximately 35.1 meters, which could have originally been 40 meters in total, and a preserved width of approximately 9 meters (Pomey 1982: 145-146). These dimensions closely resemble the 40.6 meters length by 13.8 meters width suggested for the Mahdia ship, thus probably indicating a similar type of watercraft (Höckmann 1994a: 53, 57). This observation is reinforced further by the similarities seen in the keel shape and the double planking that both ships have (De Frondeville 1956: 221 and figure 7; Höckmann 1994a: figure 9; Pomey et al. 2012: figure 2 and figures 96-97). Overall, the Mahdia, the Antikythera and the Madrague de Giens shipwrecks have all been dated to roughly the same time period of the late Hellenistic times and the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC. Additionally, all three represent evidence of large seagoing vessels that were carrying great quantities of cargo. Therefore, through this comparative analysis it could be suggested that there was a category of large merchant ships, of course with regional structural differentiations, which were used for carrying large quantities of cargo of various types, materials and products around the Mediterranean during the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. Further evidence about the function of the Mahdia ship as a large trading freighter can be extracted through the analysis of the rest of its preserved archaeological remains and artefacts, which follows. The sculptural artefacts At the time of its wrecking, the Mahdia ship was carrying a large quantity of both bronze and marble sculptures of different sizes, forms and dates. It is hard to reconstruct with accuracy the exact number of the sculptural pieces due to the recording problems of the Mahdia shipwreck artefacts explained earlier. However, through the detailed study of the available primary sources, especially the scholarly analysis and pictures provided in Fuchs (1963) and Hellenkemper Salies et al. (1994), during this research it has been possible to create a detailed inventory table (Table 5) estimating the number of the retrieved sculptural artefacts to approximately 44, 15 bronze and 29 marble.1 Bronze sculptural artefacts 15 bronze sculptures of medium and small scale have been retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck, all of which have been dated to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (Table 5, ID.1-15). The first one has been recognised as a statuette of a male figure, depicting probably Agon or Eros (Table 5, ID.1). This is a sculptural piece approximately 1.20-1.40 meters tall, representing a young male naked figure rendered in a soft Hellenistic style normally employed for young athletes and boys (Smith 1991: 54). The second bronze sculptural artefact retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck is a freestanding Dionysiac herm (Table 5, ID.2) approximately 1m in height (Mattusch 1994: 431-449, figures 1-10 and figure 25). Its form closely resembles another bronze herm currently exhibited in the J. Paul The number of the preserved sculptures should not be considered definite. As it is visible in Table 5, the inventory of the Mahdia sculptures has been reconstructed by the author through the study of the texts and pictures of a variety of scholarly sources, a lot of which totally fail to mention sculptures that we know that exist from other sources, while some scholars use different names for the same sculptural pieces.

1 

115

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Table 5: List of the identified sculptures from the Mahdia shipwreck. ID

Sculptures

Material

Size

Date

References

1

Agon/Eros

Bronze

Medium scale H: 1.20-1.40 m

Hellenistic (3rd)- 2nd cent. BC

2

Dionysiac herm (F 107)

Bronze

Medium scale H: 1.00 m

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 3-4; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 12- 14 & fig.1-7; Bass 1966: 78; Smith 1991: 54 & fig.50; Söldner 1994: 399-423 & fig.1-4 & fig.9-10 & fig.21-24; De Donato 2003: 39.

3

Lyre-playing Eros Bronze (F 210)

Medium scale H: 0.42 m

Hellenistic Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 4-6; Diolé 1957: 3rd-2nd cent. 38; Fuchs 1963: 12- 14 & fig.8; Bass 1966: 78 & fig.20; Mattusch 1994: 431-449 & fig.1-10 & BC fig.25; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994, Tafel 14-15; Winterstein 2000.

4

Dancing Eros (F 218)

Small scale H: 0.13 m

Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

5

Bronze

Grotesque dancer Bronze 1 (F 213)

Small scale H: 0.30 m

Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

6

Grotesque dancer Bronze 2 (F 215)

Small scale H: 0.32 m

Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

7

Grotesque dancer Bronze 3 (F 214)

Small scale H: 0.315 m

Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

8

Clown (?)

Bronze

Small scale

10

Running Satyr 2 (F 222)

Bronze

Small scale H: 0.20 m

11

Running Satyr 3 (F 209)

Bronze

Small scale H: 0.35 m

12

Seated grotesque Bronze actor (F 225)

Small scale H: 0.13 m

Bronze

Small scale H: 0.10 m

Dog (F 267)

Bronze

Small scale L: 012 m

9

13 14

Running Satyr 1 (F 221)

Standing grotesque actor (F 220)

Bronze

Small scale H: 0.19 m

Late Hellenistic c.130-120 BC

Late Hellenistic c.130-120 BC

Late Hellenistic c.130-120 BC

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 8; Fuchs 1963: 16 & fig.14; Rackl 1978: 42; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994, Tafel 19; Böhm 1994: 505-509 & fig.1-6. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 9-10; Fuchs 1963: 21 & fig.21.5; Böhm 1994: 509-513 & fig.7-10.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 6-8; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 18 & fig.17; Bass 1966: 7778 & fig.19; Throckmorton 1972: fig.10; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994, Tafel 16; Pfisterer-Haas, 1994: 483-504 & fig.1-2, fig.4 & fig.13-15. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 6-8; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 17-18 & fig.16; Bass 1966: 78; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994, Tafel 17; Pfisterer-Haas 1994: 483-504 & fig.6-7 & fig.13-15.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 6-8; Fuchs 1963: 16-17 & fig.15; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 18; Pfisterer-Haas 1994: 483-504 & fig.10-12. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 7; Diolé 1957: 38.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 10; Fuchs 1963: 14 & fig.9; Bass 1966: 78; Klages 1994: 535-538 & fig.6-8.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 10; Fuchs 1963: 14 & fig.9; Bass 1966: 78; Klages 1994: 535-538 & fig.3-5. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 9; Fuchs 1963: 19 & fig.19; Bass 1966: 78; Rackl 1978: 46; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 22; Klages 1994, 531-535 & fig.1-2.

Hellenistic Fuchs 1963: 20-21 & fig.21.1 & fig.21.3; second half of Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 23; 2nd cent. BC Bauchhenß-Thüriedl 1994: 543-547 & fig.7-11. Late Hellenistic

Fuchs 1963: 21, fig.21.2 & fig.21.4; BauchhenßThüriedl 1994: 539-544 & fig.1-5.

Hellenistic

Fuchs 1963: 25 & fig.33; Barr-Scharrar 1994b: fig.16-17.

116

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations ID

Sculptures

Material

Size

Date

References

15

Hermes (F 208)

Bronze

Small scale H: 0.32 m

Late Hellenistic c.130-120 BC

16

Aphrodite/ Ariadne (C 1183)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.70 m

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 9; Fuchs 1963: 20 & fig.20; Bass 1966: 78 ; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 13; Höckman 1994b: 469-481, fig.1-5.

17

Niobe/ Head of female statue (C 1185)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.47 m

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

18

Niobide 1 / Head of female statue (C 1186)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.50 m

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

19

Niobide 2

Marble

Large scale

Hellenistic

21

Pan/ Fragment of Marble sculptural relief (C 1197)

Large scale H: 0.40 m

Hellenistic

20

22

(Girl) satyr (C 1189)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.65 m

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 11 & 35-36 & fig.54; Smith 1991: fig.107; Bernard 1994: 365-373; Geominy 1994: 339-343; Lehman 1994a: 345-353; Lehman 1994b: 357-361; Ouertani 1994: 289-299 & fig.1; Sölnder 1994: 399-423; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 303-328 & fig.1-4; Mattusch 1995: 431-448; Ridgway 2002: 200; De Donato 2003: 39; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 10 Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 36 & fig.55; Ouertani 1994: 292 & fig.5; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 311-312 & 323-324, fig.12-13 & fig.31-34.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 37 & fig.58; Ouertani 1994: 293 & fig.6; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 313-315 & fig.14-17. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 38 & fig.59; Ouertani 1994: 294 & fig.8; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 307-309 & fig.5-9. Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 35 & fig.53; Ouertani 1994: 291 & fig.3; Marquardt 1994: 329-337 & fig.3.

Garment of a Marble satyr or Herakles (C 1191)

Large scale H: 0.28 m

Hellenistic

Fuchs 1963: 40 & fig.64.1; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 310 & fig.10-11.

Artemis (C 1176)

Marble

24

Torso of Artemis (C 1177)

Marble

Medium scale H: 0.50 m Medium scale

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 13; Fuchs 1963: 40-41 & fig.64.2-3; Lehman 1994b: 357-361 & fig.1-4.

25

Torso of a male youth statue 1 (C 1174)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.95 m

Late Hellenistic

26

Pieces of a male statue (C 1184)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.59 m

Hellenistic

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12-13; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 39 & fig.61; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 9; Ouertani 1994: 296 & Fig.10; Lehman 1994a: 345-353 & fig.1-3.

Seated child 1 (C 1178)

Marble

Hellenistic

Seated child 2 (C 1179)

Marble

Medium scale H: 0.50 m

Seated child 4 (C 1181)

Marble

Medium scale

23

27 28 29 30

Seated child 3 (C 1180)

Marble

Late Hellenistic 2nd cent. BC

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 13; Lehman 1994b: 357-361 & fig.5-6.

Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 41 & fig.65.1; Geominy 1994: 339-343 & fig.1-2 & fig.5.

Fuchs 1963: 39-40 & fig.62-63; Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994: Tafel 12; Ouertani 1994: 295 & fig.9; Andrae 1994: 365 & fig.1-2.

Medium scale

Hellenistic Hellenistic

Andrae 1994: 365-373 & fig.5-6.

Medium scale

Hellenistic

Andrae 1994: 365-373 & fig.7-8.

117

Andrae 1994: 365-373 & fig.3-4.

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean ID

Sculptures

Material

Size

Date

References

31

Head of female statue (C 1190)

Marble

Medium scale H: 0.40 m

Hellenistic

Large scale H: 0.68 m

Hellenistic

Fuchs 1963: 42 & fig.65.3; Ouertani 1994: 292 & fig.4; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 316318 & fig.18-22.

Marble Head of female statue/ fragment of sculptural relief (?) (C 1187)

Large scale H: 0.35 m

Late Hellenistic

32 33

34

35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

Torso of a male youth statue 2 (C 1175)

Marble

Satyr (C 1188)

Marble

Large scale H: 0.47 m

Hellenistic

Lower arm and Marble hand of a male(?) figure (C 1195)

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 169 & fig. 3.

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168 & fig.1.

Sculptural fragment (C 1196 d)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Sculptural Marble fragment of right shoulder (Inv.No. 223?)

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 322 & fig.28.

Arm fragment (C 1193)

Marble

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Arm fragment (C 1194)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Arm fragment (C 1196 a)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Hand fragment (C 1196 b)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Foot fragment (C 1196 e)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169.

Sculptural fragment (Inv.No. 2270)

Marble

Large scale (?)

Large scale (?)

Hellenistic (?) Bauchhenß 1994: 169 & fig.4.

Legs of a seated figure (C 1192)

Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 38-39 & fig.60; Ouertani 1994: 296 & fig.11; Lehman 1994a: 345-353 & fig.7.

Fuchs 1963: 36-37 & fig.56-57; Ouertani 1994: 291 & fig.2; Marquardt 1994: 329-337 & fig.1-2.

Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 12; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 41 & fig.65.2; Ouertani 1994: 294 & fig.7; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 319321 & 325 & fig.23-27 & fig.35.

Getty Villa in Los Angeles (Maish 2017). The Mahdia bronze herm has been dated stylistically to the second century BC and preserves a unique inscription with the signature of the sculptor Boethos of Chalcedon (Bass 1966: 78; Mattusch 1994: 437 and figure 10). Approximately 13 more small-scale sculptures, statuettes and figurines (Table 5, ID.3-15), have been reported from the Mahdia shipwreck. Among them some grotesque dancers or dancing dwarfs, grotesque actors, a lyre-playing Eros, a dancing Eros, running Satyrs, a dog and the god Hermes have been recognised (Fuchs 1963).

118

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations Marble sculptural artefacts There are approximately 29 marble sculptural fragments reported from the underwater deposit of the Mahdia shipwreck (Table 5, ID.16-44). All of them have been identified as sculpted from marble from the quarries of Hymmettos and Penteli in Attica, close to Athens, Greece, and they were most probably constructed in the 2nd century BC (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 168; Bernard 1994: 365-373; Fuchs 1963: 11; Lehman 1994a: 345-353; Lehman 1994b: 357-361; Ouertani 1994: 289-301; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 303-328). Among the assemblage of the marble sculptures of the Mahdia shipwreck, several scholars have recongised the marble statue heads of Aphrodite (Table 5, ID.16), Niobe (Table 5, ID.17), and Niobide (Table 5, ID.18-19), as well as a satyr (Table 5, ID.34), a girl satyr (Table 5, ID.20), a Pan (Table 5, ID.21), the garment fragment of a satyr or Herakles (Table 5, ID.22), two statuettes of Artemis (Table 5, ID.23-24), four statuettes of seated children (Table 5, ID.27-30), some male figures (Table 5, ID.2526 and ID.32) and the head of a female figure (Table 5, ID.33). There are also several marble sculptural fragments (Table 5, ID.35-44) from the Mahdia shipwreck that are difficult to identify. Due to their fragmentary preservation, the heavy erosion on their surfaces and their generic character it has not been possible to determine whether they fit with any of the other marble sculptural fragments or if they feature any specific representations (Bauchhenß 1994: 168-169; Fuchs 1963: 36-37 and 42; Von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1994: 322). Interpreting the transported sculptures of the Mahdia shipwreck As it is obvious in Table 5, most of the sculptures from the Mahdia shipwreck have been dated to the Late Hellenistic times, and more specifically in the 2nd century BC. Some examples are: the Dionysiac herm (Table 5, ID.2), the statue head of Aphrodite (Table 5, ID.16), the statuettes of Artemis (Table 5, ID.23-24) and the statuettes of the seated children (Table 5, ID.27-30). Most scholars have recognised these sculptures as copies or reproductions of earlier original works, especially because they appear in multiple numbers and versions within the deposit of Mahdia, as well as in other terrestrial archaeological deposits (Bass 1966: 78-79) According to the available evidence in classical archaeological and art historical scholarship, the phenomenon of copying and reproducing versions of well-known Classical or earlier Hellenistic sculptural works was first introduced during the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC by sculptural commissions of Hellenistic kings of the eastern Mediterranean, who wished to collect copies or adaptations of famous works of art (Smith 1991: 14-16 and 258-261; Stewart 1990: 63). However, the interest in copying, reproducing and selling earlier works of art expanded further in the last two centuries BC, when wealthy elites and merchants in flourishing cities of the Hellenistic east, and also and in late Republican Italy developed the trend of acquiring and collecting copies of famous Greek sculptures for the decoration of their private dwellings (Stewart 1990: 228-229). Therefore, an intense private art collection activity was established together with an art production and trading network. The proximity of the date of most of the bronze and marble sculptures from the Mahdia shipwreck to the date of the ship’s wrecking, combined with the identification of several sculptural types as copies, suggest that the Mahdia ship could have participated in this art production and trade network. The overall mercantile character of the ship, as illustrated from the non-sculptural transported artefacts, analysed next, provides more evidence for maritime transportation related to the art collection market of the Hellenistic or Roman periods.

119

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean The other non-sculptural artefacts The salvage operations and excavations conducted on the underwater site have shown that the Mahdia ship transported a large variety of artefacts from many different origins (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 171). Unfortunately, as it was previously mentioned, there are no accurate catalogues or inventories of the retrieved material in the available publications. Therefore, it has been hard to clearly distinguish, which artefacts were part of the ship’s cargo and which were part of the ship’s equipment (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 167). However, from the scholarly analysis of some of the discovered material, it becomes obvious that the Mahdia ship, at the time of wrecking, was carrying a heterogeneous cargo and that it also carried some shipboard items (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 171; Winterstein 2000). More specifically, the non-sculptural transported cargo material of the Mahdia ship has been identified as: fragments of large architectural elements; pieces of luxurious domestic furnishing; lead ingots; bronze lamps; small figurines; sculptural attachments; a variety of amphorae and possibly some other pottery (Bauchhenß 1994: 167-174; Parker 1992: 340; Winterstein 2000). Architectural elements The architectural elements must have constituted part of the main cargo of the Mahdia ship. It consisted of approximately 60 - 70 pieces of columns, made of Attic marble, which were found lying side by side in six or seven rows on the surface of the seabed with an orientation from north to south (Bass 1966: 78; Diolé 1957: 36; Fuchs 1963: 11; Winterstein 2000). As Diolé (1957: 36-37, 3944) reports, all around them lay a mass of marble fragments piled up in no sort of order, including column capitals and bases, carefully squared blocks, unfinished blocks and other architectural elements of various types (Heinrich 1994: 209-237). Additionally, more columns and marble blocks were found under a deep layer of mud (Diolé 1957: 37, 43; Von Hesberg 1994: 175 and figure 1). Unfortunately, from the available reports and publications, it is difficult to determine the exact number of these artefacts, because a lot of data has been lost over the many different decades of underwater research and documentation (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 167). However, it is known that the architectural pieces from the Mahdia ship consist mainly of column shafts, with some pieces of column capitals (Hellekemper Salies et al. 1994: Table 5) and bases. They have various dimensions and do not necessarily fit together (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 167-168; Diolé 1957: 37; Ferchiou 1994: 195-208; Höckmann 1994a: 53; Von Hesberg 1994: 175-194). Another interesting fact is that the drums of the columns seem to have been mere rough-hewn cylinders without fluting or astragal and must have been shipped straight from the quarry (Diolé 1957: 44). Domestic furnishing The luxurious pieces of domestic furnishing found in the Mahdia shipwreck constitute another category of transported cargo. These objects of home decoration have been recognised as: marble basins; large-scale vases in marble and bronze and marble kraters some with figurative sculptural relief decoration; bronze and marble candelabra; figurative bronze lamps; sculptural appliques; luxurious furniture pieces such as klinai (‘κλίναι’ in Greek), namely reclining beds (Baratte 1994: 607-628; Barr-Scharrar 1994a: 551-558; Barr-Scharrar 1994b: 559-572; Barr-Scharrar 1994d: 657661; Bass 1966: 78; Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 168-171; Diolé 1957: 38; Fuchs 1963: 15-16, 19, 21-27, 32-35, figures 10-13, figure 18, figures 22-32, figures 34-36 and figures 48-53; Faust 1994: 573-606; Grassinger 1994: 259-283; Hiller 1994: 515-530; Hilscher-Ehlert 1994: 285-288; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 23143 and plates I-XL; Petrovszky 1994: 663-700; Winterstein 2000). The majority of the researched pieces have been dated towards the end of the 2nd century BC. Some scholars have expressed the opinion that, similarly to the architectural elements, some of the domestic furnishing pieces from the Mahdia shipwreck were not finished products. For example, Diolé (1957: 44) noted that 120

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations part of the candelabra and kraters might not yet have received their painted or gilded decoration and might have been products of a workshop engaged in supplying goods that could be further personalised and traded. Pottery A variety of pottery artefacts have been reported as retrieved from the shipwreck of Mahdia. The majority of them were found mixed with the architectural elements and especially concentrated at the northern end of the site (Bass 1966: 78; Diolé 1957: 37; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 16). Amphorae were also found under a deep layer of mud, under the architectural elements resting on the surface of the seabed (Diolé 1957: 37). Unfortunately, as Rotroff (1994: 133) observes, there are no records of the exact archaeological context and position of each piece, nor catalogues, lists or illustrations of them. Additionally, many pottery pieces are still not labelled and there are issues in matching the material in the storage of the Bardo Museum with the excavation reports. Despite this problem, some pottery artefacts have been safely recognised as coming from the Mahdia shipwreck. These are: eight pieces of fine blackglaze and red-slip tableware; four pieces of household pottery, including some lagynoi, coarseware cups and a lid; five transport amphorae, belonging to the Koan, Dressel 1/Will 4, Titan, Punic and Spatheion types; small fragments of four more amphorae; and one amphora stopper (Diolé 1957: 37 and 40). Rotroff (1994, 133-152) has suggested that these artefacts were objects of daily use and they did not constitute cargo of the ship. According to her research the pottery pieces must have originated from both Italy and the eastern Mediterranean, and they are dated towards the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st centuries BC. Inscriptions Five stone inscriptions with Greek texts have been also found in the Mahdia shipwreck (Diolé 1957: 41-42; Winterstein 2000). Research on those inscriptions revealed that at least two of them were in fact earlier Athenian decrees issued by the ‘Paraloi’, the Athenian citizens who formed the crew of the trireme ‘Paralos’, one of the city’s sacred ships (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 168; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 13-14). The Athenian origins of the ‘Paraloi’ inscriptions significantly influenced the interpretation of the Mahdia ship’s provenance by early researchers, who saw with certainty the ship starting from the port of Athens, Piraeus (Bass 1966: 79; De Donato 2003: 41; Fuchs 1963: 11). As it will be explained later in the chapter, modern research cannot agree with certainty that Piraeus was the starting port of the Mahdia ship. Nevertheless, these Greek inscriptions, as well as the Attic provenance of the marble sculptures and architectural pieces, mentioned above, could indicate that the ship might have at least stopped there. The reasons, though, why the inscriptions were taken on board, remain unclear. Diolé (1957: 41-42) and Fuchs (1963: 11) have expressed the opinion that the inscriptions could have been already damaged and loaded onto the ship at Piraeus to be used as ballast. Alternatively, they could have been considered as curiosities intended for the collector’s market, thus matching the transport purpose of the sculptures and other luxury items that were carried on the Mahdia ship. Other material on board the Mahdia ship Besides the above large categories of artefacts, several other objects have been retrieved from the underwater deposit of Mahdia. The objects could constitute either smaller groups of the ship’s cargo or shipboard items used on board by the crew.

121

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean First of all, a number of lead ingots have been retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck, all shaped in long bars with curved upper surfaces and flat under surfaces (Diolé 1957: 51; Eck 1994: 89-96; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 16-17). Each one of these measured roughly 40cm in length and weighed around 30-33 kilos and all of them were stamped with Latin characters probably indicating a Spanish source (Baumer et al. 1995: 80; Eck 1994: 94). These ingots could have been transported cargo, ballast or simply shipboard items, as seen in the shipwreck of Madrague de Giens (Tchernia et al. 1978: 69-72 and Plates XXIV-XXV). Moreover, abundant numbers of lamps, have been retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck. They have all been dated to the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, they were probably from the area of Knidos and, according to some scholars, they could have possibly been transported for trading purposes (Barr-Scharrar 1994c: 639-655; Bass 1966: 78; Diolé 1957: 40, 42). Additionally, some statue bases have been reported from the underwater archaeological record of the Mahdia shipwreck (Bauchhenß et al. 1994: 170, figure 7), as well as fragments of large sculpted cornices and other sculptural votive reliefs, which were almost certainly figurative (Diolé 1957: 38, 41-42). All these materials have been dated to the time before the date of the Mahdia ship’s wrecking (Bauchhenß 1994: 375-379; Fuchs 1963: 42-43, figure 65.4, figures 66.1-2 and figure 67). Four coins have been also retrieved from the Mahdia shipwreck: one Athenian tetradrachme of the 2nd or 1st centuries BC, two large bronze coins possibly with Italian origins and one depicting a head with a helmet that has been suggested as either Italian or Greek from the eastern Mediterranean (Zedelius 1994: 131-132). Furthermore, some bronze figural attachments have been found in the Mahdia shipwreck. These pieces have been interpreted as decorations that fitted on the exterior of the hull, just before the bow of the ship (Horn 1994: 451-467, figures 1-12). Other smaller groups of artefacts include: millstones (Baatz 1994a: 97-104; Diolé 1957: 40); stone weights (Baatz 1994b: 105-107); bone objects (Berke 1994: 709-713); mirrors and jewellery (Päffgen and Zanier 1994: 111-130); other small metal finds such as hooks, bells, hinges, cotter pins, fitting fragments, discs and pieces of pipes. Most of these latest artefacts must have been shipboard items and part of the ship’s equipment. Interpreting the maritime transport of the Mahdia ship After presenting the discovery of the Mahdia shipwreck and the archaeological remains preserved from it, as reconstructed through the study of all the available literary sources, it is possible to answer the questions set for the micro-scale research of this deposit. The reasons for the maritime transport of sculptures To begin with, through the study of the reports and publications on the Mahdia shipwreck, it has been possible to create a detailed reference inventory (Table 5) that collects for the first time all of the information regarding the sculptural pieces known to have been retrieved from that underwater site. Through the holistic, but also comparative study of this data, it becomes clear that the Mahdia shipwreck sculptures, both bronze and marble, have been largely dated to the Late Hellenistic times and mainly in the 2nd century BC. This observation combined with the dating of the Mahdia shipwreck to just before or after 100 BC, suggests that the sculptures were constructed just a few decades or a century at most before their maritime transportation, wrecking and underwater deposition. This observation is important especially if related to the several sculptural types, recognised as copies known, also, from several terrestrial sites and museums around the world. This clearly 122

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations suggests that the Mahdia sculptures could have been massively produced as traded products and could have been carried on that large ship to be further redistributed in new harbours and markets. Whether this maritime transport was part of a specific individual’s order, as illustrated by the texts of Cicero mentioned previously (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2; Cicero, Against Verres, act. 2.4.126), or simply an export from a specific city or sculpture workshop, is hard to determine just from the available data. However, it is significant to underline that all the existing archaeological evidence demonstrates the mercantile character of the maritime sculptural transport seen on the ship of Mahdia. The type of ships transporting sculptures in the last two centuries BC The reassessment of the preserved data on the Mahdia ship remains provided clear evidence for the existence of a large merchant vessel, probably a large freighter of the 2nd or early 1st century BC. As it was explained earlier, its structural characteristics did not indicate much difference from other contemporaneous large ships. Despite previous scholarly attempts to characterise the Mahdia ship as a unique seagoing vessel and a type of its own, its comparative analysis to the hull contruction, shipbuilding details and size of the Antikythera and the Madrague de Giens ships showed that it must have been one of many large and sturdy Mediterranean seagoing vessels, of which very few are surviving in the archaeological record. This conclusion provides evidence that the maritime transport of sculptures during the last two centuries BC must have occurred with the use of regular large merchant ships, which could also carry other types of cargo as well. As seen previously in the case of the fifth- or fourth-century BC Porticello ship (Chapter 5), the transportation of sculptural artefacts by sea seems to have been taking place with pre-existing shipping means rather than through the use of specialised ships or merchants. Type of transported cargo As explained previously, the transported sculptures of the Mahdia ship were part of a heterogeneous cargo of luxury items that would have probably been sold for decorative purposes, as described by Stewart (1990: 58) and Smith (1991: 259). In spite of the previous scholarly focus on the art historical analysis of these objects, the holistic re-examination of the present research revealed that the bronze and marble freestanding sculptures of the Mahdia shipwreck constituted only one of the several types of material that this large merchant vessel was carrying. In this mixed cargo, the transported artefacts, including the architectural elements, the pieces of domestic furnishing and of course the sculptures, seem to have been constructed slightly before the time of the ship’s wrecking, and some of them were in an unfinished condition and were probably intended for trade and export. This conclusion from the analysis of the overall cargo of the Mahdia ship manifests that the ship could not have been carrying booty from Roman conquests, such as from Sulla’s sack of Athens, as suggested by previous scholars (Fuchs 1963: 11). As also recognised by Diolé (1957: 43-44), on the Mahdia ship we most probably see a contractor’s consignment, rather than a collection of spoils from a conquered country. This idea is definitely reinforced by the general mercantile character of the cargo, the unfinished stage of some of the architectural elements and pieces of domestic furnishing, as well as the widespread origins of the transported artefacts (Figure 48). Situation and packaging of cargo on board According to Diolé (1957: 36-38), the 1907-1913 research director, A. Merlin, had reported that during the excavation the divers first came upon the previously mentioned large concentration of columns which were found lying on the seabed organised in rows. All around them the divers found other marble material and after they dug under and between the columns they came down 123

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean

Figure 48: Map showing the provenance of material carried in the Mahdia ship. The size of the circles indicates only approximate geographical areas, from where the material could have originated, and not number of transported artefacts. © Author.

on a layer of timber about eight inches thick and in the process of decomposition. Penetration through this timber brought to light objects of a more delicate type, such as bronze statuettes of fine workmanship and fragments of beautifully ornamented furniture. Therefore, it has been suggested that, when the vessel sank, she plunged straight to the bottom without breaking up having sustained a certain amount of damage. Thus, it is thought that the rotting timber discovered right under the columns, must have once been the ship’s deck. If that scenario is correct, the columns and some of the less fragile objects must have rested upon the deck of the ship and the columns must have been laid sufficiently apart to make movement between them possible and so as not to interfere with the handling of the vessel. The smaller more fragile and precious cargo must have been loaded in the hold, which would have been accessed through one or two large openings, possibly corresponding with the gaps in the stowing of the columns discovered in the wreck site. Fuchs (1963: 11) provides a similar description regarding the situation and packaging of the Mahdia ship’s cargo. He describes that the columns were laid on the ‘Mitteldeck’ and the works of art in the ‘Zwischendeck’. This arrangement seems to be inspired by a cross-section sketch of the seabed made by De Frondeville (1956: 223 and figure 8) showing in a simplified way, how the shipwreck material was found during the early 20th-century underwater excavations. The situation of all of the heaviest architectural elements on the deck, with the sculptures and the other more fragile objects situated under them, sounds both possible and a bit problematic. The placement of the large and cumbersome architectural elements on the deck of a ship sounds reasonable, especially when thinking of the circumstances of the loading and unloading of the cargo in the ports with the use of cranes. However, as known from other dedicated stone carrying vessels the heavy architectural elements were usually carried in the hold of the ship, where they also constituted ballast (Russell 2013a: 112-123). So, if in the case of the Mahdia ship the heaviest transported items were indeed on the deck, rather than in the hold, it would maybe mean that the vessel was not a stone carrier, but a regular large merchant ship that just happened to transport large and heavy cargo for this journey. In this case the ship would require some serious ballast 124

The Mahdia shipwreck: reconsidering old data, making new observations below to be able to sail. The large number of lead ingots from the Mahdia shipwreck, mentioned previously, could have actually been a heavy and dense enough ballast of that sort. Since, though, the exact number and weight of neither the architectural elements nor the ingots have been documented, it would not be possible to proceed with more secure conclusions. In contrast to the long discussion about the exact situation of the architectural elements within the Mahdia ship (Höckmann 1994a: 53-57), there have been no successful suggestions regarding the exact packaging of the sculptural cargo, in a way that would avoid serious damage to these very fragile objects. Höckmann (1994a: 54-55) has mentioned the possibility that the sculptures were laying in between the columns in the hold of the ship. However, no evidence for packing or cushioning material has been preserved to suggest how these fragile sculptures could have been protected from significant wear. In any case, though, it is certain that some sort of dunnage must have been used to prevent the objects from shifting. Maybe sacks of hay or grains, as proposed for the Antikythera ship (Foley 2016), could have been used as cushioning elements, none of which though could have survived in the underwater environment. Additionally, due to the fragmentation of at least the marble sculptural parts, Diolé (1957: 43) has suggested that the statues could have been loaded dismantled in sections waiting to be assembled upon arrival, a transportation technique discussed previously in Chapter 4. Provenance, destination and trading route As previously explained, the Mahdia ship has been considered by scholars as having departed from Athens, and specifically from the port of Piraeus, with a westward direction towards Italy. The Athenian provenance of the architectural elements and the stone sculptures (Figure 48), which were made of Attic marble, as well as the existence of older classical Athenian inscriptions on the ship led to the immediate scholarly hypothesis that this merchant vessel departed from Piraeus carrying either spoils after the sack of the city by the Romans or traded material that could be unloaded and sold in the big harbours of either Ostia or Puteoli in Italy (Bass 1966: 79; De Donato 2003: 41; Diolé 1957: 41-45; Fuchs 1963: 11; Hellenkemper 1994b: 153-164; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 15 and 17-21). The existence of Italian amphorae on board, as well as the test results on wood samples and caulking material in the 1980s and 1990s that showed a provenance in Campania, Italy, further reinforced this theory, even inspiring some scholars to call the Mahdia ship a ‘Roman’ freighter (Diolé 1957: 40; Höckmann 1994a: 55; Winterstein 2000). In reality, though, the exact origins and trade route of the Mahdia ship are hard to determine with scientific certainty. The Italian provenance of the hull material, mentioned above, suggests that the ship must have indeed been built somewhere in Italy. Of course, though, the ship could have been operating from a different place to where it was built, at the time that it sank. The wide range of origins seen in the artefacts carried on the Mahdia ship (Figure 48) gives evidence of tramping, cabotage, rather than carefully planned long-distance journeys, which can suggest a variety of trading routes and possibilities regarding the area, where this ship was moving during its last journey. As Diolé (1957: 42 and 45-46) and Bass (1966: 77-78) have expressed, it is equally plausible that the Mahdia ship could have been moving in any area of the Mediterranean with a destination to a northern African port, or it could have had an even more elaborate journey that involved multiple stops. Nevertheless, a stop at Piraeus, the harbour of Athens, from where a lot of the transported material came, or at least a movement at the area of the Aegean Sea must have occurred before the ship’s wrecking. Overall, though, the establishment of the specific trading route that led the Mahdia ship off the coast of Tunisia would be impossible to reconstruct with the current state of its deposit. Equally, the exact destination of the ship’s journey could not be determined even though Italy and the coast of northern Africa would be possible candidates, due to the geographical location of the site and the existence of material from these areas on board.

125

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Conclusion The re-evaluation and the detailed analysis of the data from the Mahdia shipwreck have brought to light several new results, as well as interesting queries and initiatives for future research. First of all, the reassessment of the underwater deposit of Mahdia with all of its retrieved artefacts from the perspectives of both classical and maritime archaeology has successfully provided a better understanding regarding the type of the ship’s cargo, the structural and nautical details of the ship itself, as well as the reasons, circumstances and conditions for the maritime transportation of the discovered sculptures. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Mahdia ship was a regular large merchant seagoing vessel of the late 2nd or early 1st century BC. It was carrying a large mixed cargo of mostly luxury objects, including bronze and marble sculptures, which were probably traded for decorative and art collection purposes in the respective markets of the late Hellenistic and/or late Republican world. Most of the transported items were constructed in a date close to the time of wrecking and could have been picked up from one central redistribution port or in several stops along the ship’s journey. No exact direction or specific route could be determined for the ship’s journey, although it is plausible to suggest that its last voyage included a stop in Attica, from where the marble artefacts originated. Moreover, from this re-examination of data, it becomes obvious that the maritime transport of sculptures together with other luxury objects was highly incorporated within the rest of the Mediterranean maritime trading networks of the period rather than a distinct isolated phenomenon, as previously thought. The challenge of dealing with the lack of overall inventories and artefact catalogues as well as visual records of the material from the Mahdia shipwreck in this micro-scale research has created a motivation for a future in-person examination of the Mahdia shipwreck deposit. A museumbased project, with access to the archives and preserved material in the Bardo Museum as well as the use of the state-of-art methods and techniques of maritime archaeology, would better confirm the conclusions and interpretations presented in this chapter, and ultimately improve the record of the Mahdia shipwreck artefacts by enhancing its accessibility and understanding. This future endevour, combined with a close-up systematic comparative study of more underwater deposits showing evidence of the maritime transport of bronze and marble sculptures as luxury objects in the Hellenistic and Roman times would hopefully shed light into more details of this transport pattern.

126

Chapter 8

Discussion Introduction The present research has been using the lenses of both classical and maritime archaeology to move a step forward from the already existing academic scholarship and adopt a new scholarly approach to the examination of ancient sculptures discovered in the Mediterranean Sea. With a focus on the archaeological contexts, where sculptures have been found under water, rather than the art historical details of the sculptures themselves, the main objective has been to detect archaeological evidence that provide secure information regarding the reasons and circumstances under which sculptures were carried on board ancient ships and were consequently deposited in the Mediterranean seabed. In order to accomplish that, this research has proceeded primarily with a macro-scale research and the creation of a Mediterranean-wide database. The data collected through this process and its respective analysis, have provided, first of all, general answers to the main research question, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean. Therefore, it has been possible to map the geographical distribution of underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures, present the chronological range of the recorded deposits and, finally, provide examples for different reasons and patterns of maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. On a second level, the micro-scale research, with the thorough study and analysis of three case studies, the Porticello, Favaritx and Mahdia shipwrecks, as allowed within the timeline, scale and prospectus of this project, has addressed some more specific inquiries, which fill in details of the main research question, such as: the types of the transported sculptures and their function on board, the types of ships carrying sculptural cargo, the type of the wider cargo of the ships and the existence of any wider trading networks and/or shipping routes detected over certain periods of time. Following the results of the macro-scale and the micro-scale research, summarised above, the present chapter returns and responds collectively to the main research question of this project, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean. Each part of the question is presented in a separate section and it is answered with the use of underwater archaeological evidence from a Mediterranean-wide scale, site specific data, as well as information from other examined sources. Finally, the chapter closes with some concluding thoughts on the examination of the maritime transport of ancient sculptures as a whole in the present study. This chapter does not introduce any new elements to the research. On the contrary, this is a final discussion that brings together the conclusions of both the macro- and micro-scale research, while generating a broader understanding and a concise, up-to-date, interpretation for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. Where were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? The area, where the maritime transport of sculptures took place in the ancient Mediterranean, has been mainly established by the geographical distribution of underwater deposits with sculptures. This distribution of sites, presented collectively in the map of Figure 22, has shown that ancient sculptures of different materials have been found all around the Mediterranean world from the coast of the Iberian Peninsula all the way to the Black Sea, Asia Minor and the Levantine coast. 127

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean According to this data, it is possible to argue that sculptures were transported by sea all around the ancient Mediterranean world. The variability of the recorded underwater deposits, the exact circumstances of discovery, as well as the higher or lower density of underwater evidence detected in specific geographical areas, highlight how the preserved sites indicate a far larger archaeological record, not yet fully explored. Such deposits have been recognised as ancient shipwrecks, assemblages of sculptures from an unidentified site or simply out-of-context sculptural finds. Modern day factors, such as historical circumstances, political systems in place at each country, development of large-scale fishing and recreational underwater activities in some areas, as well as the availability of provisions for the documentation and protection of underwater cultural heritage, have influenced the preservation of evidence in specific regions more than others. Overall, though, the geographical distribution of underwater deposits with ancient sculptures proves clearly that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was widespread and not restricted between exclusive regions or geographical areas, as previous scholarship has suggested. Ancient literary references on the maritime transport of sculptures, documented mostly from Hellenistic and Roman authors, had given previous scholars the impression of an isolated maritime activity taking place within a distinct geographical area of the eastern Mediterranean and with a direction from the areas of the Aegean Sea towards the west and more specifically Italy, always associated with historical events related to the expansion of Rome in the region (Boardman 1985: 53; Koutsouflakis and Simosi 2015; Rackl 1978: 15- 36; Stewart 1990: 228-229; Spivey 1996: 134-136, 219-221; Tzalas 2007: 342-363). However, the widespread existence of ancient underwater deposits with sculptures all around the Mediterranean, as documented thoroughly in the present research, indicates a more complex area of movement. Overall, the geographical distribution of underwater deposits with sculptures resembles highly the distribution of generally ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks presented by Parker (1992: 548) and updated more recently by Strauss (2013) and Wilson (2011: 33-60). This similarity has been identified from the first stages of this research and constituted a primary indication that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was not an isolated activity with a regional focus. On the contrary, the distribution identified in this research shows that the maritime transport of sculptures must have been fully incorporated within the wider Mediterranean maritime networks of transport and trade in several different periods of Classical Antiquity. These maritime activities were taking place in a variety of directions and routes, from east to west, west to east, north to south and vice versa. This evidence from the macro-scale research has been further confirmed by information from the micro-scale study of the three representative shipwrecks. Starting with the Porticello shipwreck, the origins of its shipboard items and non-sculptural cargo had given previous scholars (Eiseman 1979a: 140; Eiseman and Ridgway 1987: 59, 107-113) the impression that the Porticello ship was sailing from the Aegean Sea, and maybe Athens, with a direction towards the western Mediterranean, with her ultimate destination being perhaps central Italy or southern France. The current re-examination of the Porticello shipwreck material has shown that this ship was carrying a mixed cargo of various artefacts, which were constructed in the eastern and central Mediterranean, but with no strong evidence that they were all shipped from one place. The ship and its crew could have possibly originated from Athens with their last maritime activities taking place in the areas around the Aegean Sea, Sicily and southern Italy. The analysis of the preserved underwater information from the site of Porticello, combined with the most recent knowledge of Mediterranean maritime archaeology, have suggested a regular maritime transport of the Classical period with a cargo that had been, most probably, picked up either in a big Mediterranean harbour or during several stops along the ship’s trading route. Based on that data it is more secure to 128

Discussion suggest that the ship had been sailing in any possible route, which took it through the Straits of Messina, while carrying cargo with origins from the eastern and central Mediterranean. Similarly, evidence from the Favaritx shipwreck has shown that the ship that wrecked off the northeastern coast of Menorca was transporting a large quantity of metal objects, constructed in earlier periods of Classical Antiquity and originated from eastern Mediterranean sites. The origins of the transported items, though, could not indicate directly that the whole ship with its cargo was sailing all the way from the eastern Mediterranean to the Balearic Islands during the late Roman times. The examination of the Favaritx shipwreck material has shown that most probably this ship had been moving at a more local scale and that the transported metal objects, including its sculptures, would have circulated in central and western Mediterranean regions, for actual utilitarian purposes, long before they were discarded and picked up by this ship as scrap in the late Roman times. So, despite the wide geographical spread of shipwrecks carrying bronze sculptures and other metals as scrap, highlighted through the comparative analysis of Favaritx to similar underwater deposits (Figure 35), it is obvious that the actual transport and journey of these vessels must have taken place in a more local scale. Finally, the re-examination of the Mahdia shipwreck has shown that the exact shipping route and destination of the ship would be very hard to determine with scientific certainty. The Athenian provenance of the architectural elements and the marble sculptures it carried, the existence of older Athenian inscriptions, as well as the transport of Italian amphorae on the ship had previously led to the scholarly hypothesis that this merchant vessel departed from Piraeus, the harbour of Athens, in Greece, carrying either spoils, from the sack of the city by the Romans, or traded material that could be unloaded and sold in the big Italian harbours, such as Ostia or Puteoli (Bass 1966: 79; De Donato 2003: 41; Diolé 1957: 41-45; Fuchs 1963: 11; Hellenkemper Salies 1994b: 153-164; Merlin and Poinssot 1930: 15, 17-21). However, as the present research proved, this hypothesis has been based more on readings of preserved ancient literary sources, rather than solid archaeological evidence. Realistically, the wide range of origins seen in the material of the Mahdia ship gives evidence of tramping and not carefully planned long-distance journeys. Hence, it can suggest possibilities regarding the areas where this ship was moving in its last journey. The Italian provenance of the analysed hull material, indicates a Campanian construction of the ship, while the Attic provenance of many artefacts suggest at least one stop at the Aegean Sea, possibly at a large central port from where the high-quality products could have been picked up. Therefore, the geographical areas of the Aegean, Italy and northern Africa could have been part of the ship’s journey. The establishment, though, of a specific trading route would be impossible to confirm with our current knowledge of this underwater deposit. Overall, the data and results of this research have provided evidence showing that the maritime transport of sculptures took place all around the Mediterranean world, but in the context of a regular transport activity, rather than distinct, carefully planned, long-distance journeys with unique routes and geographical directions, as suggested by scholars in the past. The details of each route and shipping movement depended on the time period, as well as the reasons and patterns of maritime transport of sculptures, both of which will be discussed next. When were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? The macro-scale research established a chronology for the time periods of Classical Antiquity, when sculptures were transported by sea. Of the recorded underwater deposits, 42% preserve contextual information and an identifiable date of deposition. This shows that sculptures were transported by sea from the 7th/6th century BC to the 7th century AD. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures chronologically spanned throughout all of Classical Antiquity. The frequency of centuries appearing in the dating of underwater archaeological contexts with sculptural material (Figure 24) shows an increase of archaeological 129

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean evidence from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD with spikes in the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. This is also reflected in the collective visual representation of the dating of the current database entries with known, or at least partially researched, archaeological contexts (Figure 25). The 5th and 4th centuries BC, as well as the period between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD show relatively high frequency of this maritime activity, too. As was the case with the geographical distribution, the chronological range of ancient underwater archaeological contexts with sculptural material resembles highly the chronological distributions and the peaks of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks in general observed by Parker (1992: 8-9; 2008: 187) and Wilson (2011: 33-39), too. This generic resemblance provides another indication that the shipping of sculptures was not an isolated occurrence of a specific time period, but an activity that had been largely incorporated to the wider, already known, maritime trading networks of the ancient Mediterranean. Previous scholarly theories have presented the maritime transport of sculptures as an activity of the last two centuries BC, related to historical events taking place in the eastern and central Mediterranean due the expansion of Rome. However, the present approach provides evidence that prove how the shipping of sculptural artefacts was a generalised phenomenon, occurring in all centuries of Greek and Roman Antiquity with spikes in the eras, when there was an overall increase in the ancient maritime activities, but also from the time periods when there is more shipwreck evidence available for archaeological research. In this analysis, the availability of contextual information from each site of sculptural discovery has been vital for the establishment of a secure dating of the underwater deposits. As the analysis of Chapter 3 highlighted, the date of the archaeological contexts in which sculptures have been discovered under water, has been more enlightening than the date of when the retrieved sculptures were constructed. This has been especially important due to the recognition of various post-antique activities involving the shipping of ancient sculptural artefacts and which resulted to various underwater depositions of ancient material in the Mediterranean seabed and beyond. The contextual dating of sculptural underwater depositions has been, also, crucial for comprehending better significant details of the shipwreck case studies, as well as for detecting motivations and wider patterns of sculptural transport over distinct periods of Classical Antiquity. For example, the case of the Porticello shipwreck, with its dating in the late 5th or early 4th century BC, proves unquestionably that the maritime transportation of sculptures for the potential reasons of recycling, religious dedication or simply trade must have been happening in the Mediterranean already from the Classical period, 5th or 4th century BC, and it was not introduced only later, during the late Hellenistic and Roman times. This conclusion has been confirmed further by new observations in ancient literary references, such as Diodorus Siculus’ story about an incident from the middle of the 4th century BC, when the Athenian general Iphikrates seized the ships, which were carrying gold-and-ivory statues that Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, had shipped overseas as dedications in the sancturaries of Olympia and Delphi in mainland Greece (Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.57). Moreover, in the case of the Favaritx shipwreck, the analysis of the preserved material from the archaeological context of the sculptures enabled the establishment of a secure late Roman date for the shipwreck, which must have occurred between the 5th and 7th centuries AD. This information combined with the types, size (small-scale) and date (Hellenistic or Roman) of the sculptures indicates that the bronze sculptural pieces on board the ship had no utilitarian function. On the contrary, they must have been damaged and discarded from their original setting long before they were taken on board to be transported with the other metals as pieces of scrap rather than as useable objects.

130

Discussion Finally, the close dating of most bronze and marble sculptures from the Mahdia ship to the date of its wrecking, combined with the identification of several sculptural types as copies, have confirmed that this vessel could have, indeed, facilitated art production and sculptural trading networks of the last two centuries BC, as previous scholars had suggested. The mercantile character of the ship, as well as its dating in the late Hellenistic times, have correctly associated this deposit with ancient literary reference describing the art collection and demand of luxury goods by wealthy elites of this period, like the ancient author Cicero, who ordered and acquired luxury objects for the decoration of their private houses and villas (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2; Cicero, Against Verres, act. 2.4.126). However, the present shipwreck analysis has shown no evidence of looting associations that some past scholars have attributed due to the shipwreck’s date and its proximity to the sack of Athens by Sulla in 86 BC (Plutarch The Life of Sulla 14; Diolé 1957: 42; Fuchs 1963: 11). Generally, the current research has shown that the contextual analysis and secure chronology of underwater deposits with sculptures has improved the understanding of distinct reasons and patterns of sculptural maritime transport in different periods of Classical Antiquity. This relationship will be discussed further in the following section. Why were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? The systematic study of underwater deposits with ancient sculptures allowed the identification of the following distinct reasons and patterns of maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean (Figure 29). The first recognisable reason of sculptural transport by sea has been the movement of mostly small-scale sculptures of different materials as shipboard items or personal belongings. This type of movement does not have a mercantile character and it has been only identified with certainty in well-surveyed or excavated shipwrecks, where there is no material missing due to lack of archaeological research, looting or other circumstances. The chronological span of this type of transport covers most of Classical Antiquity, ranging from as early as the 7th century BC up to the 2nd century AD, even though later examples of this activity might be recognised in the future. Most of the underwater deposits falling into this category have been identified in the western Mediterranean, mostly around Italy and France. These sites are shipwrecks with identifiable, non-sculptural, cargo, that include in their material record a small number of under life-size sculptures of single or multiple materials, dated in a time period contemporary or slightly older to the underwater deposit. The exact number, size and type of the recovered sculptures, the main cargo of the ship and its quantity, but also the location of the sculptural discovery within the wider archaeological context of the underwater site have been crucial data for the recognition of this type of maritime transport. The second identified pattern of sculptural transport is the maritime transport of stone sculptures as part of wider stone cargo, a trading activity developed widely in the Mediterranean world during the Roman times (Russell 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015). The shipwrecks recognised in this pattern are found in both the western and eastern Mediterranean, as well as in the Black Sea. These underwater sites preserve evidence of stone blocks, architectural members and marble freestanding sculptures, some of them in an unfinished stage, shipped for trading purposes during the period of the large development of the Roman stone trade from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD. The third pattern detected for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean has been the trade of sculptures with other luxury objects. This pattern has been archaeologically documented only for the last two centuries BC and in underwater sites off the coasts of Greece, Italy and northern Africa. The Antikythera (D.B.6) and Mahdia (D.B.67) shipwrecks, dated both in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC, are the two most notable examples of this pattern. They were both carrying large numbers of bronze and stone sculptures of multiple sizes together with a 131

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean variety of other expensive high quality, luxury, objects such as domestic furnishings, architectural parts, fineware pottery, glassware, large decorative vessels (Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994; Kaltsas et al. 2012). This shipping, due to its date and type of transported cargo, has been associated with activities taking place for the needs of the art collection market of wealthy elites during the late Hellenistic, late Republican and early Roman Imperial times (Anguissola 2018: 55, 121-122; Bartman 1994: 71-88). As previously mentioned, this has been the maritime activity identified also in surviving literary sources by Cicero. The geographical location and dating of the underwater sites classified into this maritime transport of sculptures match these literary accounts and confirm that this activity occurred in the ancient Mediterranean but in a certain socio-historical context rather than broadly. Evidence specifically from the study of the Mahdia shipwreck (Chapter 7) suggests that the Mahdia sculptures could have been mass-produced as traded products and could have been carried on that ship to be further redistributed in new harbours and markets. Whether this maritime transport was part of a specific individual’s order, or simply an export from a specific city or sculpture workshop is hard to determine just from the available data. However, all of the existing archaeological evidence demonstrates clearly that this maritime sculptural transport had a mercantile character and included a heterogeneous cargo of luxury items that would be redistributed and sold probably for decorative purposes. The fourth identified pattern for the maritime transport of sculptures comprises a less welldocumented reason, which is the trade of bronze sculptures and other metals as scrap. The case of the Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38; Chapter 6) and its comparative analysis to the Ayia Galini shipwreck (D.B.13), as well as available information from the deposits of Brindisi (D.B.16), Caesarea (D.B.19) and Megadim (D.B.75) showed the consistent existence of a transport of discarded bronze sculptures, constructed in earlier time periods, together with a variety of other scrap metal artefacts. This maritime activity, which seems to have been related to a wider circulation of metalware and the redistribution of non-functional metal objects with the intention to create raw material (McCormick 2001; Mundell Mango 2001), has been observed from at least the Hellenistic period to Late Antiquity and in all areas of the Mediterranean world, in Spain, Italy, Greece and Israel. However, despite this wide geographical spread, the actual shipping of such metal products as scrap must have been taking place in a local level with short-distance maritime movements. The fifth pattern of sculptural transport is related to underwater deposits with only terracotta sculptural pieces. These sites, located mostly around Italy and along the Levantine coast, must have been the result of the maritime transport of solely terracotta sculptures of different sizes for either trade or other religious purposes between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC. The poor recording of their underwater archaeological contexts, though, has not permitted a better documentation of this activity. Finally, in the researched dataset, there were several sites that would not fit in any of the reasons and patterns of transport described above. These were mostly out-of-context underwater sculptural discoveries, which lack adequate contextual information to interpret their underwater deposit and their respective maritime transport. Some others, though, were well-identified shipwrecks with preserved archaeological contexts, but with unique features, distinct chronology and geographical location, which have not permitted a straightforward identification of a transport pattern. One of these examples is the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88), the transport pattern of which has not been easily discerned. The present re-examination of its material in Chapter 5 from the lenses of both classical and maritime archaeology, as well as from various textual, epigraphic and archaeological evidence allowed to suggest that this late fifth- or early fourth-century BC ship could have been carrying bronze sculptural pieces for three possible reasons: as scrap to be recycled; as sculptural dedications commissioned and sent to be dedicated in a specific sanctuary or city 132

Discussion overseas; or simply as traded sculptural products sent to be sold and redistributed in a different region and market. This narrower interpretation of the maritime transport of the Porticello ship adds two more reasons explaining the maritime movement of sculptures by sea in the ancient Mediterranean world. The first one is the shipping of sculptures for religious dedications, which has been known to classical archaeologists only from terrestrial archaeological evidence so far (Scott 2010: 29-40) but has been also recognised in the previously mentioned Diodorus Siculus’ story (Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.57). The second one is the maritime transport of sculptures for purely trading purposes, a commercial transportation presumed already by classical archaeologists (Stewart 1990: 56-64), and referenced clearly in Philostratus’ work Vita Apollonii 5.20, but without recognised underwater archaeological evidence. As highlighted clearly in the above summary, the identification of reasons and patterns of sculptural transport by sea has been highly dependent on the study of contextual data and underwater site information along with art historical details of the sculptures, comparative analysis of material from similar underwater deposits, as well as any other available sources from the ancient literature or the terrestrial archaeological record. Unfortunately, in the present research, and with the current state of research in the respective underwater deposits, it was not feasible to discern clearly detailed shipping routes, precise transport networks, or specific shipping orders and sculptural exports from individual cities or workshops. However, tracking the reasons and patterns of sculptural transport by sea and their corresponding date as well as areas of movement has been an important scholarly advancement that generally proves the complexity and variability of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. This improved understanding has also provided insights into the underlying mechanisms and the exact circumstances, under which the maritime transport of sculptures must have taken place during Classical Antiquity, which is discussed next. How were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean? Sculptures were transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean for a variety of reasons including personal belongings and shipboard items, stone cargo, luxury goods traded for the decoration of private spaces, scrap metal, religious dedications, general sculptural trade and other. As the geographical and chronological distribution of underwater deposits indicated, this maritime transportation must have been highly incorporated in the already known Mediterranean maritime networks. Additionally, according to the results of both the macro-scale and the microscale research, the maritime transport of sculptures, for any of the above reasons, seemed to have clearly had a mercantile character. This involved mostly the shipping of a heterogeneous, mixed, cargo, including sculptures and other materials, which were picked up and redistributed by merchant ships through tramping, cabotage, on a regular trading basis. The agents involved in these commercial activities, such as the individuals, who organised the shipping and the various transport details, were not possible to identify just from the study of the underwater archaeological record. However, references in the ancient sources, such as Cicero’s mention of ‘Lentulus’ ship’ (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.8.2), Velleius Paterculus’ (1.13) shipping contractors and Philostratus’ (Vita Apollonii 5.20) ship captain transporting sculptures to Asia Minor, suggest that regular sea merchants and ship contractors must have been involved in this maritime transport. Moreover, the present research provided strong evidence indicating that the maritime transport of sculptures occurred in the ancient Mediterranean with the use of the already available shipping means and with regular merchant ships of each time period, rather than any distinct arrangements or special seagoing vessels, as implied in some ancient sources from the Roman period (Cassius Dio Roman History 59.28.3-4) and hypothesised previously by some scholars (De Donato 2003: 41). The case studies of the Porticello and Mahdia shipwrecks, which preserved adequate ship remains in their underwater deposit, have illustrated clearly this conclusion. 133

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean The re-examination of the preserved archaeological evidence from the underwater deposit of Porticello showed that this ship was a regular, moderate-sized merchant vessel of the Classical period, comparable, in size and shipbuilding technique, to other known contemporary ships, such as the Tektas Burnu (Carlson 2003), the Ma’agan Mikhael (Kahanov 1998: 155) and the Alonnesos shipwreck (Hadjidaki 1996: 588-589). It was carrying a regular mixed cargo including, though, the unique large-scale bronze statues, which were shipped as scrap or as sculptures for religious dedication or simply for sculptural trade and redistribution. Similarly, the study of the hull remains from the Mahdia shipwreck has shown that the ship was a large merchant vessel, probably a large freighter. Despite previous scholarly attempts to characterise the Mahdia ship as a unique seagoing vessel and a type of its own, its comparative analysis to the Antikythera and the Madrague de Giens ships showed that it must have simply been a large and sturdy Mediterranean seagoing vessel of its period. The comparative analysis of all three cases indicates that during the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, there was generally a type of large merchant ship used for the transport of substantial cargoes of various types, materials and products including most probably sculptural artefacts, too. This proves again that the transportation of sculptural artefacts by sea must have been taking place with the available shipping means in the ancient Mediterranean and within the already existing maritime networks. Finally, the packing and stowing of sculptures on board ancient merchant vessels has been one of the most difficult subjects to investigate in this research. Especially sculptures of medium or large scale, made of marble, bronze or any other material, are very bulky, but also delicate objects. The size, irregular shape, but also fragility of these artefacts must have made them difficult to pack and move with no major wear. Unfortunately, no underwater deposit or ancient literary source has preserved exact information regarding the technical details and the logistics of how these artefacts could have been safely packed and situated within the hold or deck of ancient ships, which would have been moving in the open sea for days and sometimes months. The only underwater deposit providing some direct archaeological information for the packing and stowing of sculptural artefacts on board the ship is the Megadim shipwreck (D.B.75), which transported small fragments of discarded large-scale bronze freestanding sculptures together with other metal objects to be recycled as scrap. The archaeological survey conducted on the site revealed that Rhodian amphorae, and maybe a variety of baskets and boxes of perishable materials that did not survive, had been used to carry lots of metal objects, including the pieces of discarded bronze sculptures (Misch-Brandl and Galili 1985: 12-13; Syon et al. 2013: 1-2). Additionally, the Mahdia shipwreck preserves some evidence for the stowing and situation of its sculptures within the vessel. Data from the archaeological research and excavations that took place in the early 20th century have shown that the sculptural artefacts could have been loaded in the hold of the ship together with the smaller and most fragile objects of the transported cargo, while the columns and some of the less fragile objects must have rested upon the deck (De Frondeville 1956; Diolé 1957: 36-38; Fuchs 1963: 11). Beyond these examples, though, not much direct evidence for the packing and stowing of sculptures on board ancient merchant vessels has been documented from the archaeological record of the Mediterranean seabed. The incomplete recording of the underwater archaeological contexts of most sculptures and the lack of preserved stratigraphy in most shipwreck sites has been the main reasons for that. Nevertheless, the study of various other archaeological data, together with art historical and post-antique observations, suggested some packing and stowing solutions that could have been used for the maritime transport of sculptures in Classical Antiquity. As analysed previously, sculptures from an ancient commercial building or storage space close to the main harbour of Piraeus, in Greece, have indicated how ancient sculptures could have been 134

Discussion prepared and grouped prior to their shipping (Papathanassopoulos 1983: 20; Steinhauer 2007: 326-331). Additionally, several recent art historical re-examinations of the marble statuary from the Antikythera shipwreck (D.B.6) has led to the scholarly hypothesis that the sculptures could have been stowed upright at the ship’s hold, secured on orthogonal bases (Anguissola 2018: 116; Vlachogianni 2012: 43). This theory, combined with the latest conclusions of the project ‘Return to Antikythera’ recognising the ship as a potential grain-carrier, could suggest the possible use of grain, probably packed in sacks, as dunnage and cushioning material for the protection of the fragile sculptures in the hold of the ship. This type of packing and dunnage has been, also, hypothesized for the Losinj sculpture (D.B.65), which was found with small rodent teeth and a potential mouse nest inside its hollow part (Šoštarić et al. 2008; Stenuit 2002: 42). The Marsala 2014 sculpture (D.B.71) has been also presented in a 3D reconstruction video as being packed in the hold of a ship on a wooden platform with hay and straw as dunnage and ropes all around to secure the packaging (Sofroniew 2016; VODAL 2019).  Moreover, art historical observations and post-antique comparanda have demonstrated some other possible solutions for packing and stowing sculptures on ancient seagoing vessels. One of these possibilities has been the transport of sculptures in an unfinished stage or as separate joining pieces to be assembled upon arrival (Anguissola 2018: 119-125; Claridge 1988: 148-151; Vlachogianni 2012: 39-41). The bronze sculptures of the Porticello shipwreck and some sculptural pieces from the Mahdia shipwreck, found in a fragmentary condition of possibly joining pieces could have been transported with this practice. Even in this case though, some type of containers, such as boxes or crates, should have been used for the transportation of either fragmented or full-scale sculptures. This practice has been archaeologically documented for the transport of other works of art in Classical Antiquity (Ibrahim et al. 1976: figures 9-12), but also for the maritime transportation of sculptures in post-antique time periods (Coltman 2009: 117-158; Patterson 1938: 261; Vickers 2006: 8-9; 2007, 30). Hence, it seems likely that during their actual maritime transport sculptures, which were especially transported on their own value as traded goods, must have been carried as whole pieces or in fragments, to be assembled upon arrival, with the use of some sort of containers, such as boxes or crates. Overall, the present research has proved that the maritime transport of sculptures was a normal commercial activity that took place with the use of regular means of mercantile transport existing in the ancient Mediterranean world. Its preparation and execution must have been a long process that would have involved careful planning and probably several months or weeks to complete. More thorough recording of the archaeological context and position of ancient sculptures on the seabed, in the future, could give some more specific data on the exact logistics of how these artefacts were transported by sea. The maritime transport of sculptures in retrospect The present research has demonstrated that ancient sculptures from under water are an outstanding dataset of artefacts with high potential for new scholarly conclusions. The systematic recording and analysis of underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures proved that ancient sculptures from the Mediterranean seabed constitute a unified and solid archaeological record with a significant meaning within their maritime setting. Except for the individual function of each sculptural object as a sculpted image and work of art, analysed in past scholarship, the collective examination of all known underwater sculptural discoveries as a group of transported artefacts, put together in this research, shows how this unique material record tells a larger story of objects moving around the Mediterranean world in different time periods of Classical Antiquity and beyond.

135

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean The combination of the macro-scale and micro-scale methodological approaches of this study provided an amalgamation of secure evidence for the various reasons and circumstances under which ancient sculptures were transported by sea and were consequently deposited in the Mediterranean seabed. Hence, the multivariate nature of the maritime movement of ancient sculptures has been proven. Ancient sculptures from under water feature a wide range of possibilities and countless stories to tell, from the transport of personal belongings and the shipping of traded goods or recyclable material during Classical Antiquity, to the movement of antique objects during the Medieval times and the period of the European ‘Grand Tour’. The key to decipher and understand the story of each underwater sculptural deposition lies on the data preserved in the archaeological context of each site on the Mediterranean seabed. The preservation and recording of data from the archaeological contexts of discovery have been also important for the protection of sculptures from under water as assets of underwater cultural heritage that have often been prey of commercial exploitation and treasure hunting. Except for the significance of information from the underwater archaeological sites of the sculptures, the comparative study of various deposits around the Mediterranean, as well as the use of other textual, iconographic and terrestrial archaeological data as supporting evidence have all been essential for achieving an advanced understanding of this subject as a whole. Hence, this study has demonstrated that for the period of Classical Antiquity, the regular nature of this maritime transport cannot be denied. Sculptures of different materials were transported by sea throughout the centuries of Classical Antiquity, in a fully integrated manner and with a regular mercantile character, within wider ancient Mediterranean maritime networks of transport and trade, which were taking place in a variety of directions and routes, from east to west, west to east, north to south and vice versa. Thus, it is possible to confirm that the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean was not an isolated or extraordinary shipping phenomenon that took place scarcely in specific historical periods with a regional focus. This maritime activity represents general uniformity and continuity in practice, but it seems also fitted to the cultural circumstances, needs and available markets of each era of the ancient Mediterranean world. Overall, the interdisciplinary approach of the present research has managed to advance our understanding of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. Additionally, this study highlights the potential of sculptures from under water as a material record, while also advocating for the significance of preserving, recording and researching under water information from the sites, where ancient sculptures have been discovered.

136

Chapter 9

Conclusion Results of the research In the course of the previous eight chapters, different aspects of the maritime transport of sculptural artefacts in the ancient Mediterranean world were examined. Through the study of mainly archaeological evidence from preserved underwater deposits but also relevant literary records and modern scholarship, it has been possible to bridge the disciplines of classical and maritime archaeology and fill in gaps in the knowledge regarding the maritime shipping and underwater deposition of ancient sculptures in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. After introducing in Chapter 1 the subject of the research as well as the main inquiries, aims and objectives of the project, in Chapter 2, a thorough literature review was set out. Thus, all of the available sources of information, literary and archaeological, were presented together with a comprehensive overview of the history of discovering and studying ancient sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The literature review and the history of the discovery of sculptures from Mediterranean underwater deposits laid out the availability of data for the present research as well as the scholarly approaches adopted previously. The latter can be summarised as interpreting the underwater deposition of sculptures as a result of a maritime movement taking place during the late Hellenistic, late Republican and early Imperial Roman periods from east to west, in the course of events related to the expansion of Rome in the Mediterranean. Chapter 2 highlighted also how the limited accessibility to the seabed, the fragmentary underwater archaeological research but also the wide geographical spread of the archaeological evidence in many different countries of the Mediterranean has affected the study and interpretation of ancient sculptures from underwater, a material record that has never been studied collectively before. Hence, as explained in Chapter 3, given the state of the existing scholarship, this research adopted a new perspective in the study of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. By taking into account for the first time the underwater archaeological context of ancient sculptures, across the full extent of 110 identified sites, and with the use of a combined macro-scale and micro-scale methodological approach, this project recorded systematically and researched consistently any available evidence for the maritime transport and underwater deposition of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. The macro-scale research comprised a broad-scale examination of underwater archaeological evidence with the creation of an extensive Mediterranean-wide database (Appendix 1) recording more than 100 known incidents of freestanding sculptures found all around the Mediterranean Sea. The data gathered in this part of the research was collected, classified, quantified and presented thoroughly in Chapter 4. Through the comparative analysis, and interpretation of the database entries, as described above, this study was able to give a first overall answer to the main research question of this project, namely comprehending where, when, why and how sculptures were transported on ancient ships sailing in the Mediterranean Sea. So, as presented in Chapter 4, through this dataset it was possible to map successfully and present the geographical distribution of underwater evidence for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. From that, it became clear that sculptures of different materials have been found all around the Mediterranean Sea, from the coast of the Iberian Peninsula to the Black Sea, Asia Minor and the Levantine coast, making thus the maritime transport of sculptures a Mediterranean-wide activity and a not regionally focused phenomenon, as previously 137

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean understood. Additionally, with the macro-scale research it was possible to record accurately the chronological range of the known deposits and prove that freestanding sculptures of all known types were transported on ships throughout all of Classical Antiquity, from the 7th/6th century BC to the 7th century AD. Finally, through the plotting of many different factors such as time, number, material, type and condition of the sculptures together with information from other contextual accompanying artefacts, it was possible to provide evidence for different reasons and patterns for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean. Thus, it has been identified that sculptures were transported by sea during Classical Antiquity as shipboard items and personal belongings, for trading purposes as part of stone cargo, or cargo of luxury objects, as scrap metal with the intention to be recycled, as part of terracotta sculpture assemblages with a ritual or trading purpose, but also for dedicatory or other reasons. The similarity of the geographical and chronological distribution of underwater sculptural finds with those of generally ancient shipwrecks, as well as the recognition of the existence of a mixed cargo in ancient ships transporting sculptures for trading purposes, indicated clearly that the maritime transport of sculptures was not an isolated or specialised activity. On the contrary, there is secure evidence that it was further incorporated within the already known ancient Mediterranean maritime networks of transport and trade. The second part of this research carried out the micro-scale approach of the project. This involved the detailed, in-depth qualitative study of three individual shipwreck sites, where sculptural artefacts have been discovered as traded cargo. This stage of research enquired details, such as the types of sculptures transported in each case and for what reasons, the types of ships carrying sculptures, whether the sculptures were transported alone or were they part of a mixed cargo, how were the freestanding sculptures packed and situated within the ships and the existence of any wider trading networks and/or shipping routes detected. These targeted inquiries allowed the better understanding of the examined shipwreck case studies, but also clarified particular aspects of the main research question contributing to the interpretation of the wider picture. More specifically, the re-assessment of the Porticello shipwreck (D.B.88) in Chapter 5 proved that this ship was a regular Mediterranean merchant vessel of the Classical period that was carrying commonly traded products but also large-scale bronze statues in its cargo area. The renewed study of the available archaeological data, through the lenses of this project’s approach, provided evidence that could suggest that the bronze sculptures could have been transported on the Porticello ship as bronze scrap, as dedications commissioned and sent to be dedicated in a specific sanctuary, a city or simply as traded products intended to be sold and redistributed in a different region and market. The close study of the Favaritx shipwreck (D.B.38) in Chapter 6, combined with some research visits and comparative analyses of other similar deposits, provided a better understanding of the maritime transport of already discarded bronze sculptural artefacts. Additionally, through this research it was possible to get new insights into the wider pattern of maritime transport of bronze sculptures and other discarded metals as scrap, an activity, which, according to the database analysis, must have been taking place at least since the Hellenistic times and was part of a wider circulation of non-functional metalware in the ancient Mediterranean world. The re-evaluation of the data available from the Mahdia shipwreck (D.B.67) in Chapter 7 provided a better understanding of the number and the type of the ship’s cargo, especially through the creation of an extensive inventory recording all of the known sculptural pieces from that deposit. Additionally, through this study it was possible to get a more accurate understanding of the structural and nautical details of the ship itself, as well as the reasons, circumstances and conditions for the maritime transportation of sculptures featured in this case.

138

Conclusion The importance of the two methodological approaches described above, as well as the extensive utilization of the underwater archaeological contexts in the study and comprehension of Mediterranean deposits with ancient sculptures, was pointed out in Chapter 8, too. This final chapter, with the use of data from both the macro-scale and the micro-scale research discussed the results of this project and responded collectively to the main research question of this project, namely where, when, why and how were sculptures transported by sea in the ancient Mediterranean. Therefore, the up-to-date interpretation for the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean and the contribution of this research were presented concisely. Overall, the present research concludes that the maritime transport of sculptures occurred extensively in all regions of the ancient Mediterranean, throughout Classical Antiquity and beyond. This maritime activity took place with the already available shipping means and not with the use of specialised ships or merchants as hypothesised by scholars in the past. Thus, this transport was highly incorporated within the rest of the Mediterranean maritime trading networks and was not an isolated phenomenon occurring only in the last two centuries BC as a result of the Roman expansion in the eastern Mediterranean. The conclusions of this research have helped to fill in extensive gaps that existed in the scholarly understanding of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean, while also providing new insights, secure archaeological observations, reasonable conclusions and improved interpretations regarding specific shipwreck case studies. This way, modern classical and maritime archaeological scholarship can move beyond interpretation omissions or repetitive reproductions of older theories on that research subject, which had been expressed in the past before the development of academic maritime and underwater archaeology. On a larger scale, this project has brought together knowledge, approaches and methodologies from two different disciplines of archaeology and proved thus the benefits of joining classical and maritime archaeology together. Additionally, the present research and its results have illustrated the benefits of archaeological revision and re-examination of reports, data and older scholarship even without the direct access to the primary information and the already disturbed archaeological deposits. Future directions The advancements that the present research provides on the subject of the maritime transport of sculptures in the ancient Mediterranean comes along with some challenges and limitations as well as some necessary future directions that need to be addressed. First of all, this research has been dealing with a big corpus of mostly non-excavated and largely unpublished data in an attempt to comprehend the wider picture of this ancient maritime activity. Material salvaged from under water with no contextual information, fragmentary research and publication of underwater sites, inconsistency in the description of finds, lack of thorough, holistic and comparative study of material from the same or similar deposits, as well as unavailability of archaeological material for research by scholars outside museums and archaeological services in charge, resulted in the 58% of database entries being recorded with no underwater contextual information. This fact in combination with possible description, dating and scholarly interpretation errors that could be discovered in the future for the rest, 42%, of the database entries, shows the necessity for a constant update and renewal of the dataset information. Hence, especially, for the quantitative results of this research it is important to take into consideration that in the future there might be more sculptures from under water discovered in museums, archaeological services and institutions of the Mediterranean and around the world, which have been previously unpublished or ignored (Appendix 2). Furthermore, there might be more re-assessments of already recorded underwater depositions of sculptures, which could give new information and improved data for 139

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean specific database entries (see examples of: Foley 2016; Lapatin 2018). Finally, new discoveries of sculptures from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea could occur at any time in the future. In any of the above future developments, the recorded sites of this dataset will need to be updated. Even though, according to the time limitations and programme requirements of this project, the research had to be completed at this stage, the information recorded, the methodology used for the analysis, as well as the consequent results and conclusions produced can facilitate in the future study, understanding and interpretation of more sculptural discoveries from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, this research becomes the first step in a larger future direction that could be continued by any maritime and classical archaeology scholar from Mediterranean regions and beyond. In conclusion, this project should be considered the first step in a research field that has endless approaches and possibilities for expansion and further academic study. Ultimately, it is hoped that the methodology, approach and conclusions of this research will change the way researchers and scholarship think of underwater deposits with sculptures.

140

References American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Digital Collections, viewed 25 March 2019, . Ancient Origins, Τhe Alexandria shipwreck, viewed 14 December 2017, . Ancient Origins, Τhe Marmaris shipwreck, viewed 14 December 2017, . Angelicoussis, E. 2004. The collection of classical sculptures of the Earl of Arundel, ‘Father of virtue in England’. Journal of the History of Collections 16: 143-159. Anguissola, A. 2018. Supports in Roman Marble Sculpture: Workshop Practice and Modes of Viewing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arata, F.P. 2005. Opere d’arte dal mare: testimonianze archaeologische subacquae del transporto e del commercio marittimo di prodotti artistici. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Archaeology Magazine, The Caesarea shipwreck, viewed 5 December 2017, . Archaeology Magazine, The Alexandria sculpture, viewed 13 December 2017, . Archibald, Z., J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen and G.J. Oliver 2001. Hellenistic Economies. London and New York: Routledge. Auriemma, R. 2004. Salentum a Salo. Lecce: Congedo Editore. Baatz, D. 1994a. Die Handmühlen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 97-104. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Baatz, D. 1994b. Gewichte aus Stein, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 105-108. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Baatz, D. 1994c. Die Ziegel, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 109-110. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Baatz, D. 1994d. Die Katapultteile, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 701-707. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Baratte, F. 1994. Les candélabres, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 607-628. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Barr-Scharrar, B. 1994a. Five Decorative Busts, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 551-558. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Barr-Scharrar, B. 1994b. The bronze appliques, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 559-572. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Barr-Scharrar, B. 1994c. The bronze lamps, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 639-655. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Barr-Scharrar, B. 1994d. Rolling Brazier, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 657-661. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Bartman, E. 1994. Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm, in E. Gazda (ed.) Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Decor of the Domus, Villa and Insula: 71-88. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bartoli, D. G. 2008. Marble Transport in the Time of the Severans: A new Analysis of the Punta Scifo A Shipwreck at Croton, Italy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University. Bass, G. 1966. Archaeology under water. London: Thames and Hudson. 141

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Bass, G. 2011. The Development of Maritime Archaeology, in B. Ford, D.L. Hamilton and A. Catsambis (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology: 3-24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bass, G. and L. Joline 1968. Problems of Deep Wreck Identification, Expedition Magazine 11.1: 9-12. Bassett, S.G. 1991. The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 87-96. Bauchhenß, G. 1994. Die Fracht, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 167-173. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Bauchhenß, G., von Prittwitz, und Gaffrom H.& Ouertani, N. 1994. Die Fracht, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 167-173. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Bauchhenß-Thüriedl, C. 1994. Zwei Schauspielerstatuetten, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 539-549. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Baumer, U., M. Bound, F. Ghelbi, D. Grosser, O. Höckman and J. Koller 1995. Neue Forschungen zum antiken Schiffsfun von Mahdia (Tunisien). In Poseidons Reich: Archäeologie unter Wasser: 7281. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Beckmann, S.E. 2016. Statuary Collections in the Late Roman Villas of Hispania and Southwestern Gaul. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Bellingham, D. 2014. The Underwater Heritage of the Riace Bronzes: Ethics, Provenance and the Art Market in Ancient Rome and Today, in V. Vadi and H.E.G.S. Schneider (eds) Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market: Ethical and Legal Issues: 209-220. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. Beltrame, C. 2000. A Review of the Roman Wreck of Spargi (Sassari / Italy): an Evidence of the Commerce of Luxurious Furniture during Late-Republican Age, in H. von Schmettow (ed.) Schultz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser: Veränderungen erupäischer Lebenskultur durch Fluß und Seehandel: Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongreß für Underwasserarchäologie (IKUWA ’99), 18-21. Februar 1999 in Sassnitz auf Rügen. Lübstorf: Beiträge zum IKUWA 1999. Berke, S. 1994. Mit Knochen verziertes Kästchen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 709-713. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Bernard, A. 1994. Statuetten eines sitzenden Kläbneis, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 365-373. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Berti, F. 1990. Fortuna Maris: La Nave Romana di Comacchio. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale. Beykan, M. 1988. The Marble Architectural Elements in Export-Form from the Şile Shipwreck, in N. Herz and M. Waelkens (eds) Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade: 127-138. Kluwer: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Birchall, A. 2004. Colossus Revisited: Greek Pottery from the Sea: Minerva 15.4: 12-13. Black, J. 1985. The British and the Grand Tour. Kent: Croom Helm Ltd. Boardman, J. 1985. Greek sculpture: The Classical period. London: Thames and Hudson. Böhm, S. 1994. Zwei Erotenstatuetten, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 505-513. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Boin, D. 2010. A Hall for Hercules at Ostia and a Farewell to the Late Antique “Pagan Revival”. American Journal of Archaeology 114.2: 253-266. Bol, P.C. 1972. Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera. Berlin: Gebr. Mann (Athenische Mitteilungen. Beiheft 2). Bousquet, J. 1989. Corpus des Inscriptions de Delphes, Tome 2. Paris: Boccard. Bouyia, P. 2012. The ship, in N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouyia (eds) The Antikythera shipwreck: the ship, the treasures, the mechanism: 36-56. Athens: National Archaeological Museum. Breckenridge, J.D. 1979. Colossal Statue of Marcian, in K. Weitzmann (ed.) Age of spirituality: late antique and early Christian art, third to seventh century; catalogue of the exhibition Nov. 19, 1977 - Feb. 12, 1978: 29-30. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. British Museum, Head of Hadrian, Museum number 1848,1103.1, viewed 15 May 2020, .

142

References British Museum, Collection Online, HMS Colossus, viewed 8 August 2019, . Brokalakis, Y. 2012. The Aghia Galini shipwreck. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Rome, “La Sapienza”. Brokalakis, Y. 2013. Το ναυάγιο της Αγίας Γαλήνης. Abstract, Third Meeting for Archaeological Work in Crete. Brokalakis, Y. 2016. The use of bronze on Roman ships and the shipwreck of Agia Galini, in A. Giumlia-Mair and C. Mattusch (eds) Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Izmir, Autumn 2016 (Monographie Instrumentum, 52): 127-139. Autun: Editions Mergoil. Busignani, A. 1981. Gli Eroi di Riace; Daimon e techne. Firenze: Sansoni Ed. Cameron, A. 1993. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: AD 395-700. London and New York: Routledge. Cameron, A. and J. Herrin 1984. Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Camidge, K. 2005. HMS Colossus: CISMAS Debris Field Survey 2005, viewed 18 November 2019, . Camp, J.M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London: Thames and Hudson. Camporeale, G., G. Cianferoni, G. De Marinis, F. Shiavo, F. Martini, A. Patera, A. Pessina and A. Poggesi 2012. Francesco Nicosia. L’archeologo e il soprintendente. Scritti in memoria. Supplemento I al n.8/2012. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. Canterbury Divers, Paul Oliver, SS Castor, viewed 11 August 2019, . Carlson, D. 2003. The Classical Greek Shipwreck at Tektaş Burnu, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 107.4: 581–600. Casson, L. 1971. Ships and seamanship in the ancient world. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Castagnino Berlinghieri, E.F. and A. Paribeni 2011. Byzantine Merchant Ships and Marble Trade: New Data from the Central Mediterranean. Skyllis, Zeitschrift für Unterwasserarchäologie 11.1: 64-75. Cavallo, G. 1997. The Byzantines. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Charles, M.B. 2010. Ramming the Enemy in Late Antiquity: Galleys in the Fifth Century A.D. Latomus 69. 2: 479-488. CISMAS, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Maritime Archaeology Society, viewed 8 August 2019, . CNN archive, N. Robertson and T. Abu Rahma, 2014, Gaza fisherman hooks statue of ancient Greek god Apollo, viewed 7 December 2017, . Claridge, A. 1988. Roman Statuary and the Supply of Statuary Marble, in J.C. Fant (ed.) Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade: 139-152. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Limited. Coltman, V. 2009. Classical Sculpture and the Culture of Collecting in Britain since 1760. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corsi-Sciallano, C. and B. Liou 1985. Archaeonautica 5: Les épaves de tarraconaise à chargement d’amphores Dressel 2-4. Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherché scientifique. Dark, K. 2001. Byzantine Pottery. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. De Donato, G. 2003. Mare Nostrum: The Roman sea. London: Periplus. De Frondeville, G. 1956. Les Visiteurs de la Mer. Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse Demesticha, S. 2011. The 4th-Century-BC Mazotos Shipwreck, Cyprus: a preliminary report. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 40.1: 39-59. DeVries, K. and M.L. Katzev 1972. Greek, Etruscan and Phoenician ships and shipping, In G. Bass (ed.) A history of seafaring based on underwater archaeology: 32-64. London: Thames and Hudson. Di Stefano, G. 1991. Antichi relitti nella baia di Camarina, in P.A. Gianfrotta (ed.) Atti, IV rassegna di archaeologia subacquea: 127-134. Messina: Edizioni P&M Associati. Di Stefano, G. 2004. Archeologia Subacquea a Camarina. Bari: Casa Editrice Edipuglia. Dillon, S. 2006. Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture: Contexts, Subjects and Styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

143

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Diolé, P. 1957. 4000 Years under the Sea: Excursions in Undersea Archaeology. London: Pan Books Ltd. Eck, W. 1994. Die Bleibarren, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 89-96. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Eiseman, C.J. 1973. Amphoras from the Porticello shipwreck (Calabria). International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2.1: 13-23. Eiseman, C.J. 1978. Lead Ingots from the Porticello Shipwreck. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Eiseman, C.J. 1979a. The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415 – 385 BC. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Eiseman, C.J. 1979b. The Porticello shipwreck: lead isotope data. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 8.4: 339-340. Eiseman, C.J. and B.S. Ridgway 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 BC. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Faedo, L. 2015. The post-antique reception of Greek and Roman art and architecture, in C. Marconi (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture: 417-439. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faust, S. 1994. Die Klinen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 573-606. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Ferchiou, N. 1994. Recherches sur les éléments architecturaux, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 195-208. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Fernandez-Miranda, M. and M. Belén 1977. Arqueologia submarina en Menorca. Madrid: Fundación Juan March. Fernandez-Miranda, M. and A. Rodero-Riaza 1985. El yacimiento submarino de Favaritx (Menorca, España). XVI Congreso Internacional de Arqueología Submarina. Cartagena, 1982. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Direccion General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Fernandez-Miranda, M. 1977. Arqueologia submarina en la isla de Menorca; Campaña de 1975. XIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Vitoria, 1975. Zaragoza: Universidad Seminario de Arqueología, Secretaría General de los Congresos Arqueológicos Nacionales. Festugière, A.J. 1974. Léontios de Néapolis, Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Fiorentino, P., M. Marabelli and M. Micheli 1984. Indagini e intervento di conservazione sui reperti bronzei di Porticello, BdA 6.24: 15-24. Foley, B. 2016. New Underwater Research at Antikythera. Seminar talk in the American School of Classical Studies at Athens on 19th February 2016, viewed 10 August 2019, . Freeman, C. 2004. The Horses of St. Mark’s: A Story of Triumph in Byzantium, Paris, and Venice. New York: Overlook Press. Fuchs, W. 1963. Der Schiffsfund von Mahdia. Stuttgart: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth Tübingen. Gagsteiger, G., U. Müller and A. Woehl 1994. Neue Untersuchungen am Wrack von Mahdia, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 37-46. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Gazda, E. 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gelsdorf, F. 1994. Die Anker, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 83-88. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Geominy, W. 1994. Eine Jünglingsfigur, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 339-343. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Gianfrotta, P.A. 1986. Il naufragio/The shipwreck, in L.M. Lombardi Satriani and M. Paoletti (eds) Gli Eroi Venuti dal Mare; Heroes from the Sea: 25-37. Rome: Gangemi editore. Gibbins, D. 1991. The Roman wreck of c. AD 200 at Plemmirio, near Siracusa (Sicily): Third Interim Report. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20.3: 227-246.

144

References Gibbins, D. 1997. More underwater finds of Roman medical equipment, The Free Library, June, 1, viewed 16 July 2016, . Gibbins, D. 2001. Shipwrecks and Hellenistic trade, in Z. Archibald, J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen, and G.J.Oliver (eds) Hellenistic Economies: 273-312. London and New York: Routledge. Gibbs, M. 2006. Cultural Site Formation Processes in Maritime Archaeology: Disaster Response, Salvage and Muckelroy 30 Years on. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 35.1: 4-19. Gill, D. W. J. 1987, The date of the Porticello shipwreck: some observations on the Attic bolsals. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 16: 31-33. Grace, V. 1979. Amphoras and the ancient wine trade. New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Grassinger, D. 1994. Die Marmorkratere, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 259-283.Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Greek Ministry of Culture, The shipwreck of statues in Cape Xi, Lixouri, Cephalonia, viewed 17 August 2019, . Green, J. 1990. Maritime archaeology: a technical handbook. London: Academic Press Limited. Green, J. 2004. Report on the Demeter side scan sonar search and the Aslan Burnu site survey, Turkey, Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, No.188. Fremantle: Western Australian Maritime Museum. Greene, E. and J. Leidwanger 2017. ‘Damien Hirst’s Tale of Shipwreck and Salvaged Treasure’. American Journal of Archaeology 122.1: 2-11. Greenhalgh, M. 2009. Marble Past, Monumental Present: Building with Antiquities in the Medieval Mediterranean. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Hadjidaki, E. 1996. Underwater Excavations of a Late Fifth Century Merchant Ship at Alonnesos, Greece: the 1991-1993 Seasons. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 120.2: 561-593. Harris, J. 2003. Byzantium and the Crusades. London: Bloomsbury. Hellenkemper Salies, G., H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenss 1994. Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfun von Mahdia, Vol.1 & 2. Köln: Rheinland- Verlag GmbH. Hellenkemper Salies, G. 1994a. Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 5-29. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Hellenkemper H. 1994b. Der Weg in die Katastrophe: Mutmaßungen über die letzte Fahrt des Mahdia-Schiffes, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 153-164. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Heinrich, H. 1994. Die Chimärenkapitelle, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 209-237. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Hemingway, S. 2004. The Horse and jockey from Artemission. Berkeley: University of California Press. Herbig, R. 1929. Neues zu den Bronzen vom Kap Artemision. Gnomon 5: 636-637. Hiller, H. 1994. Zwei bronzene Figurenlampen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 515-530. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Hilscher-Ehlert 1994, Beobachtungen zu den Ranken der Marmorkratere, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 285-288. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Himmelmann, N. 1994. Realistische Themen in der griechischen Kunst der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Jdl-EH 28. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hirst, D. 2017a. Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable. London: Other Criteria. Hirst, D. 2017b. The Undersea Salvage Operation: Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable. London: Other Criteria. Historic England, HMS Colossus, viewed 22 October 2019, . Höckman, O. 1994a. Das Schiff, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 53-81. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. 145

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Höckman, U. 1994b. Die Hermesstatuette, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 469-481. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Hood, S. and P. Warren 1966. Ancient Sites in the Province of Ayios Vasilios, Crete. The Annual of the British School at Athens 61: 163-191. Horden, P. and N. Purcell 2000. The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Horn, H.G. 1994. Dionysos und Ariadne: Zwei Zierbeschläge aus dem Schiffsfund von Mahdia, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 451-467. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Hurcombe, L. 2007. Archaeological Artefact As Material Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Ibrahim, L., R. Scranton and R. Brill 1976. Kenchreai Eastern Port of Corinth, Vol.11: The Panels of Opus Sectile in Glass. Leiden: Brill. Isles of Scilly Museum, Maritime History, The loss of man o’war Colossus 1798, viewed 17 August 2019, . Izmir Archaeology Museum, viewed 12 December 2017, . Jeffrey, M. 2017. The Getty Herm of Dionysos: technical observations, review, and interpretation, in J.M. Daehner, K. Lapatin and A. Spinelli (eds) Artistry in bronze: The Greeks and their legacy. XIXth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, viewed 15 May 2019, . Jenkins, I. and B. Turner 2009. The Greek Body. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Jewish Virtual Library, Archaeology in Israel: Underwater Exploration Along Israel’s Mediterranean Coast, viewed 10 December 2017, . Johnson, F.P. 1925. The Colossus of Barletta. American Journal of Archaeology 29.1: 20-25. Kagan, D. 2004. The Peloponnesian War. London: Penguin Books. Kahanov Y. 1998. The Ma’agan Mikhael ship (Israël). Archaeonautica 14: 155-160. Kaltsas, N. 2002. Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Athens: Kapon Editions. Kaltsas, N., E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouyia 2012. The Antikythera shipwreck: the ship, the treasures, the mechanism. Athens: National Archaeological Museum. Kapitän, G. and A.M. Fallico 1967. Bronzi tardoantichi del Plemmyrion presso Siracusa. Bottetino d’Arte 52: 90-97. Kapitän, G. 1990. Newsletter from Sicily, November 1989. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 19: 161-163. Karouzou, S. 1967. Εθνικόν Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείον. Συλλογή Γλυπτών. Περιγραφικός Κατάλογος. Athens: Εκδόσεις Γενική Διεύθυνσις Αρχαιοτήτων. Keay, S.J. 1984. Late Roman amphorae in the western Mediterranean. A typology and economic study: the Catalan evidence. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Int. 196. Kiilerich, B. 2016. The Barletta Colossus Revisited: The Methodological Challenges of an Enigmatic Statue. Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 38: 55-72. Kingsley, S. 2002. Pompeian-Style Bronze Statues Recovered Off Southern France. Minerva 13.3: 6-7. Klages, C. 1994. Die Satyrstatuetten, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 531-538. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Klauck, H.-J. 2000. The Religious Context of Early Christianity; A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions. London & New York: T & T Clark Ltd. Kleiner, F.S. 2018. A History of Roman Art. Boston: Cengage Learning. Kloppenborg, J. 2018. Jesus, Fishermen and Tax Collectors: Papyrology and the Construction of the Ancient Economy of Roman Palestine Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 94.4: 571-599. Koch, H. 1926. Bronzestatue in Barletta. Antike Denkmäler III: 20-27. Kourkoumelis, D. and A. Tourtas 2014. Excavations on the Mentor Shipwreck. Nautical Archaeology, Summer 2014: 6-7. Koutsouflakis, G. and A. Simosi 2015. Hellenistic bronze sculptures from the Aegean Sea: Recent discoveries 1994-2009, in J.M. Daehner (ed.) Power and pathos: bronze sculpture of the Hellenistic world. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. 146

References Koutsouflakis, G. 2007. Bronze torso of equestrian statue from the sea of Kalymnos’. Enalia 10: 4257. Koutsouflakis, G. 2017. Bronzes from the Aegean Sea: A Reassessment of old and new finds, in J.M. Daehner, K. Lapatin and A. Spinelli (eds) Artistry in bronze: The Greeks and their legacy. XIXth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, viewed 15 May 2019, < www.getty.edu/publications/artistryinbronze/large-scale-bronzes/3-koutsouflakis/>. Kowalzig, B. 2018. Cults, Cabotage and Connextivity: Experimenting with Religious and Economic Networks in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, in J. Leidwanger and C. Knappett (eds) Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World: 93-131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lafli, E. and M. Buora 2014. Roman, Early Byzantine and Islamic Bronze Lamps from Southern Anatolia. Archiv Orientální 82: 431-458. Lapatin, K. 2018. A Puzzling Pachyderm, in C. Draycott, R. Raja, K. Welch, and W. Wootton (eds) Visual Histories of the Classical World Essays in Honour of R.R.R. Smith: 159-168. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. Lattanzi, E. 1986. I Bronzi nel Museo di Reggio C./The Bronzes in the Museum at Reggio C, in L.M. Lombardi Satriani and M. Paoletti (eds) Gli Eroi Venuti dal Mare; Heroes from the Sea: 13-24. Rome: Gangemi editore. Lawall, M.L. 1998. Bolsals, Mendean amphoras, and the date of the Porticello shipwreck. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27.1: 16-23. Lawall, M.L. and S. Graham 2018. Netlogo simulations and the use of transport amphoras in antiquity, in J. Leidwanger and C. Knappett (eds) Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World: 163-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehman, S. 1994a. Zwei männliche Torsen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 345-353. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Lehman, S. 1994b. Zwei Marmarostatuetten der Artemis, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 357-361. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Leidwanger, J. 2017. From Time Capsules to Networks: New Light on Roman Shipwrecks in the Maritime Economy. American Journal of Archaeology 121.4: 595-619. Lianos, N. 1983. Έρευνα στο ναυάγιο ΄ ΜΕΝΤΩΡ’. Αρχαιολογία 8: 24-28. Ling, E.C. 2007. Francois Duquesnoy and the Greek ideal. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Liou, B. and P. Pomey 1985. Informations Archeologiques. Directions des recherches archaeologiques sous-marines. Gallia 43: 547-576. Lombardi Satriani, L.M. and M. Paoletti 1986. Gli Eroi Venuti dal Mare; Heroes from the Sea. Rome: Gangemi Εditore. Louvre Museum, Apollo Piombino, viewed 13 October 2017, . Madden, T.F. 1992. The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople. 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment. Byzantinishe Zeitschrift 84-85, Issues 1-2: 72–93. Madigan, B. 2013. The Ceremonial Sculptures of the Roman Gods. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Magoulias, H.J. 1984. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Chroniates. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Maish, J. 2017. The Getty Herm of Dionysos: Technical Observations, Review, and Interpretation, in J.M. Daehner, K. Lapatin and A. Spinelli (eds) Artistry in bronze: The Greeks and their legacy. XIXth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, viewed 15 May 2019, . Mango, C. 1963. Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17: 55-75. Maritime Archaeology Project (MAP) Black Sea, viewed 18 October 2021, . Marx, R. 1974. News. Lebanon. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 3: 332. Mattusch, C. 1978. The Bronze Torso in Florence: An Exact Copy of a Fifth-Century B.C. Greek Original. American Journal of Archaeology 82: 101-104. Mattusch, C. 1988. Greek Bronze Statuary: From the Beginnings through the fifth century BC. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

147

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Mattusch, C. 1994. Bronze herm of Dionysos, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 431-449. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Mattusch, C. 1996. Classical Bronzes; The Art and Craft of Greek and Roman statuary. Ithaca and London: Cornell Univerity Press. Mattusch, C. 1997. The victorious youth. Los Angeles: Getty Museum Studies on Art. Mattusch, C. 2002. In Search of the Greek Bronze Original, in E. Gazda (ed.) The Ancient Art of Emulation: 99-106. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. McClellan, A. 2012. Musée du Louvre, Paris: Palace of the People, Art for All, in C. Paul (ed.) The First Modern Museums of Art: The Birth of an Institution in 18th- and early 19th-century Europe: 213-236. Los Angeles: The J.Paul Getty Museum. McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European economy: communications and commerce AD 300900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis 1969. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Melnikova, I. 2020. Nostalgia, Adaptation, and (Textual) Identity: Luca Guadagnino’s ‘Desire Trilogy’. Adaptation 13.3: 378–396. Merker, G. 1973. The Hellenistic Sculpture of Rhodes. Gothenburg: Åström. Merlin, A. and L. Poinssot 1930. Cratères et Candélabres de Marbre Trouvés en Mer près de Mahdia. Tunis and Paris: Tournier nd Vuibert. Minneapolis Institute of Art collection, The Doryphoros (after Polykleitos), viewed 12 December 2019, . Misch-Brandl, O. and E. Galili 1985. Finds from the Hellenistic period, in O. Misch-Brandl (ed.) From the depths of the sea Psalms 68:22, cargoes of ancient wrecks from the Carmel coast: 12-16. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Mitchell, E. 2014. Liberty’s Torch: The Great Adventure to Build the Statue of Liberty. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Mora Serrano, B. 2016. Old and New Coins in Southern Hispania in the 6th Century AD, in J. Chameroy and P. Guihard (eds) Produktion und Recyceln von Münzen in der Spätantike: 139154. Mainz: Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. Morris, R. 1979. HMS Colossus: The Story of the Salvage of the Hamilton Treasures. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. Muckelroy. K. 1978. Maritime archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mundell Mango, M. 2001. Beyond the Amphora: Non-Ceramic Evidence for Late Antique Industry and Trade, in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds) Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity: 87-106. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Museu de Prehistòria de València, Escultura d’Apollo en bronze (Platja de Pinedo, València). Segles I-II d. C., viewed 12 December 2019, . Museum of the Apoxyomenos, viewed 5 December 2017, . Museum of the Castle of Pylos, viewed 15 March 2019, . National Park Service, Creating the Statue of Liberty, viewed 20 August 2019, . Neer, R. 2010. The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Ouertani, N. 1994. Remarques à propos de la collection en marbre, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 289-301. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Owen, D.1970. Picking up the pieces: the salvage excavation of a looted fifth century BC shipwreck in the Straits of Messina. Expedition 13.1: 24-29. Owen, D.1971. Excavating a classical shipwreck. Archaeology 24.2: 118-129. Pacifico, S. 2017. The Apollo from Salerno: Hellenistic influences in southern Italy, in J.M. Daehner, K. Lapatin and A. Spinelli (eds) Artistry in bronze: The Greeks and their legacy. XIXth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, viewed 15 May 2019, .

148

References Päffgen, B. and W. Zanier 1994. Kleinfunde aus Metall, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 111-130. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Paoletti, M. 1991-1992. La nave di Porticello: Una rotta siciliana. Klearchos 33-34: 119-142. Papantoniou, G., D. Michaelides and M. Dikomitou-Eliadou 2019. Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Papathanassopoulos, G. and D. Schilardi 1981. An Underwater Survey of Paros, Greece: 1979. Preliminary report, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10: 133-144. Papathanassopoulos, G. 1983. Η Υποβρύχια αρχαιολογία και η σημασία της. Αρχαιολογία 8: 16-23. Parani, M. 2010. Byzantine cutlery: An overview. Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 139-164. Parco Archeologico Sommerso di Baia, viewed 1 February 2018, . Paribeni, E. 1984. Le statue bronzee di Porticello. BdA 6.24: 1-14. Parker, A.J. 1992. Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman provinces. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Limited. Parker, A. J. 2008. Artifact distributions and wreck locations: the archaeology of Roman commerce, in R. L. Hohlfelder (ed.) The Maritime World of Ancient Rome, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Supplement 6:177–196. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Patterson, F. 1931-1938. Essays from the Columbia manuscript perhaps by John Milton: Of Statues and Antiquities. The Works of John Milton 18: 258-261. Pedley, J. 2005. Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World. New York: Cambridge University Press. Petriaggi, R. 2005. Il satire danzante di Mazara del Vallo: il restauro e l’immagine. Roma: ICR Istituto Centrale per il Restauro. Petrovszky, R. 1994. Die Bronzegefäße, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 663-700. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Petsa, F. 1975. Χρονικά Αρχαιολογικά 1968-1970. Μακεδονικά 14: 171-355. Pfisterer-Haas, S. 1994. Die bronzenen Zwergentänzer, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 483-504. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Phillips, J. 2005. The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. London: Pimlico. Pomey, P., Y. Kahanov and E. Rieth 2012. Transition from Shell to Skeleton in Ancient Mediterranean Ship-Construction: analysis, problems, and future research. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 41.2: 235–314. Pomey, P. 1982. Le navire romain de la Madrague de Giens. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 126e année, 1: 133-154. Pons Machado, O. 2017. Ánforas bajo imperiales y de la antigüedad tardía hallados en las costas de Menorca (Baleares), Unpublished report, Museu de Menorca. Prettejohn, E. 2012. The Modernity of Ancient Sculpture: Greek sculpture and modern art from Winckelmann to Picasso. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Pulak, C. 1998. The Uluburun shipwreck: An overview. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27.3: 188-224. Queller, D.E. and T.F. Madden 1997. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Queyrel, F. 2012. L’Alexandre d’Agde: un porte-plateau ou un porte-flambeau, in De l’Ephèbe à l’Alexandre d’Agde, ouvrage publié à l’occasion de la nouvelle restauration: 61-69. Agde: Musée de l’Ephèbe et d’Archéologie sous-marine. Rackl, H. 1978. Βουτιά στα Περασμένα: Υποβρύχια Αρχαιολογία. Athens: Gutenberg. Ramage, N.H. 2003. Vincenzo Pacetti and Luciano Bonaparte, in J. Burnett Grossman, J. Podany, M. True (eds) History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: 137-148. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. Rees, R. 1993. Images and Image: A Re-Examination of Tetrarchic Iconography. Greece and Rome 40.2: 181-200. Reymond, G. and Dugand, J.E. 1970. Monaco Antique. Monaco and Nice: Association des Publications de la Faculte des letters et sciences humaines de Nice. 149

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Rice, C. 2016. Shipwreck cargoes in the western Mediterranean and the organization of Roman maritime trade. Journal of Roman Archaeology 29: 165-192. Richter, G.M. 1954. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Catalogue of Greek Sculptures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ridgway, B. 1967. The lady from the sea: a Greek bronze in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 71: 329-334. Ridgway, B. 1984. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ridgway, B.S. 1990. Hellenistic sculpture I: The styles of ca.331-200 BC. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Ridgway, B.S. 1993. Nuove Considerazioni sui bronzi di Porticello. Magna Graecia 28.1.3: 1-4. Ridgway, B.S. 2002. Hellenistic sculpture III: The styles of ca. 100-31 B.C. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ridgway, B.S. 2004. The Bronzes from the Porticello Wreck, in B.S. Ridgway (ed.) Second Chance: Greek Sculptural Studies Revisited: 350-364 & 759-760. London: The Pindar Press. Ridgway, B.S. 2010. The Porticello Bronzes Once Again. American Journal of Archaeology 114.2: 331-342. Rönnby, J. 2013. The Archaeological Interpretation of Shipwrecks, in J. Adams and J. Rönnby (eds) Interpreting Shipwrecks; Maritime Archaeological Approaches: 9-24. Southampton: Highfield Press. Rotroff, S. The Pottery, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 133-152. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Rouse, W.H.D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell, B. 2011. Lapis transmarinus: stone-carrying ships and the maritime distribution of stone in the Roman empire, in D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds) Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean: 139-156. Oxford: OCMA Monographs. Russell. B. 2013a. The economics of the Roman stone trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russell, B. 2013b. Roman and late-antique shipwrecks with stone cargoes: a new inventory. Journal of Roman Archaeology 26: 331-361. Russell, B. 2015. Transport and distribution, in E.A. Friedland, M.G. Sobocinski and E.K. Gazda (eds) The Oxford handbook of Roman sculpture: 189-204. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sabbione, C. 2007. Archeologia Subacquea, in E. Lattanzi (ed.) II Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria: I tesori della Magna Grecia: 178-206. Rome: Gangemi. Sakellariou, D., P. Georgiou, A. Mallios, V. Kapsimalis, D. Kourkoumelis, P. Micha, T. Theodoulou and K. Dellaporta 2007. Searching for Ancient Shipwrecks in the Aegean Sea: the Discovery of Chios and Kythnos Hellenistic wrecks with the use of marine geological-geophysical methods, International Journal for Nautical Archaeology 36.2: 365-381. Sakka, H. 1994. La Galère de Madhia: Temoignage d’un plongeur, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 33-36. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Sanders, I.F. 1982. Roman Crete. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. Santangelo, F. 2013. Divination, Prediction and the End of the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Şare-Ağtürk, T. 2018. Tetrarchic Embrace: A New Roman Relief from Nicomedia. American Journal of Archaeology 122.3: 411-426. Schultz, P. and R. von den Hoff 2007. Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Scott, M. 2010. Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searchable Greek Inscriptions, The Packard Humanities Institute, viewed 16 October 2, . Sease, C. 1997. Conservation and the Antiquities Trade. Journal of the American Institute of Conservation 36.1, Article 4: 49-58. Seco Alvarez, M. and I. Noureddine 2010. Shipwreck investigations in the waters of Tyre, BAAL 14: 103-129.

150

References Sharpe, H.F. 2006. From Hieron and Oikos: the Religious and Secular Use of Hellenistic and Greek Imperial Bronze Statuettes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University. Sharpe, H.F. 2014. Bronze Statuettes from the Athenian Agora: Evidence for Domestic Cults in Roman Greece. Hesperia 83: 143-187. Siapkas, J. and L. Sjögren 2014. Displaying the Ideals of Antiquity: The Petrified Gaze. New York and London: Routledge. Simosi, A. 1996, Εφορεία Ενάλιων Αρχαιοτήτων. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 51: 724-725. Smith, R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson. Sofroniew, A. 2016. Notes from the Ashmolean Museum Exhibition ‘Storms, War and Shipwrecks: Treasures from the Sicilian Seas’. Söldner, M. 1994. Der Sogennante Agon, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 399-423. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH. Šoštarić, R., D. Kovačić and M. Ćaleta 2008. The Croatian Apoxyomenos as a luxurious rodent nest: archaeobotanical and zoological analyses of organic material found inside the classical bronze statue. Veget Hist Archaeobot 17:289–295. Spawforth, A. 1990. Roman medicine from the sea. Minerva 1.6: 9-10. Spivey, N. 1996. Understanding Greek Sculpture: Ancient Meanings, Modern Readings. London: Thames and Hudson. Spivey, N. 2013. Greek Sculpture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Squire, M. 2011. The Art of the Body: Antiquity and Its Legacy. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Stähli, A. 2014. Roman Bronze Statuettes: Copies of Greek Sculpture, in S. Ebbinghaus (ed.) Ancient Bronzes through a Modern Lens: Introductory Essays on the Study of Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Bronzes: 133-145. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Steffy, J.R. 1985. The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction. American Journal of Archaeology 89.1: 71-101. Steffy, J.R. 1994. Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. Steinhauer, G. 2007. Τα χάλκινα αγάλματα του Πειραίως, in P. Valavanis (ed.) Μεγάλες Στιγμές της ελληνικής αρχαιολογίας: 326-331. Athens: Kapon Editions. Stenuit, M.E. 2002. The Apoxyomenos of Vele Orjule, A Greek Bronze Statue discovered off Croatia. Minerva 13: 41-44. Stevens, B.E. 2018. Classical Desires in Call Me by Your Name (dir. Luca Guadagnino 2017), in F. Bièvre-Perrin Antiquipop (ed.), viewed 28 April 2021, . Stewart, A. 1990. Greek sculpture: An exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press. Strauss J., Oxford Roman Economy Project, Shipwrecks Database, 2013, viewed 31 January 2018, . Sweet, R. 2012. Cities and the Grand Tour: The British in Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Syon, D., C. Lorber and E. Galili 2013. Underwater Ptolemaic coin hoards from Megadim. Atiqot 74: 1-8. Tchernia, A. 1969. Recherches archeologiques sous-marines. Gallia 27: 465-499. Tchernia, A., P. Pomey, A. Hesnard, M. Couvert, M.-F. Giacobbi, M. Girard, E. Hamon, F. Laubenheimer and F. Lécaille 1978. L’épave romaine de la Madrague de Giens, Gallia 34. Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique. Themelis, P.G. 1984. Delphi: The Archaeological Site and the Museum. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon. S.A. Theodoulou, T. 2011. Συνοπτική αναδρομή στην υποβρύχια αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην Ελλάδα. Ariadne 17: 13–84. Thompson, H. A. 1950. Excavations in the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 19: 331-335. Thompson, D.B. 1959. Miniature Sculpture from the Athenian Agora. New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Thompson, H. 2015. The Statue of Liberty Arrived in New York in 350 Pieces. Smithsonian Magazine, viewed 20 August 2019, . Throckmorton, P. 1970. Shipwrecks and archaeology: The unharvested sea. London: Victor Gollancz. 151

The Maritime Transport of Sculptures in the Ancient Mediterranean Throckmorton, P. 1972. Romans on the sea, in G. Bass (ed.) A history of seafaring based on underwater archaeology: 66-86. London: Thames and Hudson. Touchais,G. 1984. Chronique des fouilles en 1983. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 107: 745838. Trego, K.M. 2004. Life on Board: A Comparative Study of the Shipboard Items from Four Classical to Early Hellenistic Merchantmen. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Cincinnati. Trunk, M. 2003. Early Restorations of Ancient Sculptures in the Casa de Pilatos, Seville, in J. Burnett Grossman, J. Podany, M. True (eds) History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: 255-264. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. Tsiropoulou, M., M. Antoniou and S. Massouridi 2012. The 1900-1901 investigations, in N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouyia (eds) The Antikythera shipwreck: the ship, the treasures, the mechanism: 132-145. Athens: National Archaeological Museum. Tzalas, H. 2007. Χάλκινα αγάλματα από τα βάθη της θάλασσας, in P. Valavanis (ed.) Μεγάλες Στιγμές της ελληνικής αρχαιολογίας: 342-363. Athens: Kapon Editions. Valaison, F. and M.C. Valaison 1970. Une statuette de bronze decouverte au large des SaintesMaries-de-la-Mer. Revue archeologique de Narbonnaise 3: 179-185. Van Duivenvoorde, W. 2014. The 5th-Century BC Shipwreck at Tektaş Burnu, Turkey: evidence for the ship’s hull from nail concretions. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43.1: 10-26. Velentza, K. 2016. The Transport of Sculptures in the Eastern and Central Mediterranean during the Hellenistic and Roman Times. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Southampton. Vickers, M. 2006. The Arundel and Pomfret Marbles in Oxford. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. Vickers, M. 2007. The Arundel & Pomfret marbles in Oxford. Minerva 18: 29-32. Vlachogianni, E. 2012. Sculpture, in N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouyia (eds) The Antikythera shipwreck: the ship, the treasures, the mechanism: 62-115. Athens: National Archaeological Museum. VODAL, Heritage: Aphrodite animation, viewed 10 August 2019, . Vollkommer, R. 2015. Greek and Roman artists, in C. Marconi (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture: 108-135. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Von Hesberg, H. 1994. Die Architekturteile, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 175-194. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Von Prtiiwitz und Gaffron, H. 1994. Die Marmortondi, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 303-337. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Walters, H.B. 1899. Catalogue of the Bronzes: Greek, Roman and Etruscan, in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: British Museum. Wilson, A. 2011. Developments in Mediterranean Shipping and Maritime Trade from the Hellenistic Period to AD 1000, in D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds) Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean: 33–59. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology. Winckelmann, J. 1764. History of the Art of Antiquity, translated by H.F. Mallgrave, 2006. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Winterstein, P., 2000, The ancient ship find of Mahdia, viewed 1 July 2019, . Wirth, G. 1994. Die Mittelmeerwelt um 100 vor Christus, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenss (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfun von Mahdia, Vol. 2: 727749. Köln: Rheinland- Verlag GmbH. Woodford, S. 2001. Tischbein and the fragments of vases recovered from HMS “COLOSSUS”. Notes in the History of Art 20.2: 1-7. Yellowlees-Bound, J. and M. Bound 1990. Underwater archaeology in Italy. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 19: 253- 255. Zedelius, V. 1994. Die Münzen, in G. Hellenkemper Salies, H. von Prittwitz und Gaffron and G. Bauchhenß (eds) Das Wrack: Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia: 131-132. Köln: RheinlandVerlag GmbH.

152

Appendix 1 (Online) Database

http://doi.org/10.32028/9781803273303-database

Appendix 2 (Online) Finds not included in the Database

http://doi.org/10.32028/9781803273303-non-database-finds

153

Index Adriatic 10, 23, 48 Aegean 10, 11, 16, 21, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 57, 59, 79, 80, 87, 125, 128, 129 Agde 23, 32, 54, 66 Ai Stratis 28, 54 Alexandria 34, 54, 100 Antignano 35, 54 Antikythera 6, 13, 14, 15, 20, 36, 54, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 107, 108, 111, 114, 115, 123, 125, 131, 134, 135 Apollonia 29, 54, 68, 107, 108 Arap Adasi 21, 37, 54 Artemission 16, 17, 36, 37, 49, 54, 87, 106 Arundel 10, 11 Ashqelon 29, 30, 34, 54, 68, 69 Asia Minor 7, 11, 22, 27, 37, 53, 59, 78, 83, 86, 99, 127, 133, 137 Athens v, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 27, 34, 49, 59, 71, 80, 83, 85, 87, 110, 119, 121, 123, 125, 128, 129, 131 Ayia Galini 20, 54, 69, 71, 84, 88, 89, 90, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106, 132 Barletta 10, 48 Benalmadena 27, 54 Brindisi 13, 30, 45, 54, 66, 69, 84, 89, 90, 105, 132 Cadiz 3, 13, 15, 16, 54, 55, 59 Caesarea 33, 55, 69, 71, 84, 89, 90, 95, 96, 105, 132 Camarina 30, 32, 55, 68 Cap Camarat 24, 55 Cape San Vito 34, 55 Capo Boeo 33, 35, 55 Capo Linaro 32, 55 Capraia 35, 55 Castor 12, 73 Cavallo 21, 55, 68, 97 Cide 27, 55 Colossus 10, 11, 12, 48 Coltellazzo 24, 55, 69 Constantinople 8, 9, 10 Crete v, 20, 21, 22, 34, 55, 88 Delos 2, 6, 28, 55 Delphi 6, 43, 81, 85, 86, 130 Egnazia 25, 55 Elba 24, 55 Eleusis 13, 45, 55 El Sec 25, 55, 68

Fano 23, 45, 55 Favaritx 3, 4, 22, 41, 51, 52, 55, 69, 71, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 127, 129, 130, 132, 138 Foça 27, 55 Fos-sur-Mer 35, 55 Gaza 33, 45, 55 Gela 29, 55 Golfo di Baratti 13, 30, 56 Grado 29, 35, 56, 68 Grau-du-Roi 35, 56 Haifa v, 23, 25, 34, 56 Helice 8 Hierapetra 21, 22, 56 Istanbul 8, 10, 11, 25 Izmir 21, 27 Kalymnos 30, 32, 42, 49, 56 Karatas 28, 56 Kythera 11, 33, 56 Kythnos 32, 56 Leipsoi 30, 56, 66 Lemnos 34, 56 Leros 30, 56, 66 Livadostra 13, 37, 56 Livorno 12, 35, 36, 56 Lixouri 28, 29, 43, 44, 45, 56 Lluchmajor 22, 56 Lošinj 30, 57, 71 Madrague de Giens 25, 57, 67, 68, 115, 122, 123, 134 Mahdia 3, 4, 15, 20, 36, 37, 41, 51, 52, 57, 60, 66, 68, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138 Majorca 22, 25, 91 Marathon 15, 16, 57 Marmaris 34, 57 Marsala 28, 33, 57, 71, 135 Mateille 35, 57 Mazara del Vallo 31, 32, 57, 106 Megadim 23, 24, 57, 65, 69, 70, 71, 84, 89, 105, 132, 134 Menorca v, 22, 51, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 129 Mentor 11, 73

154

Index Monaco 20, 57 Mykonos 21, 57

Riace 25, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43, 58 Rome 2, 6, 7, 8, 59, 128, 130, 137

Olympia 6, 7, 8, 86, 130 Ostia 8, 48, 125, 129

Saintes Maries-de-la-Mer 24, 58 Salerno 20, 58 Sardinia 21 Shave Ziyyon 25, 58, 69 Sicily v, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 76, 86, 87, 100, 128 Şile 25, 66, 68, 72 Spargi 21, 58 Stagira 24, 58 Styra 33, 58, 68, 107, 108 Syracuse 6, 35, 58, 83, 86, 130

Paros 25, 57, 68 Pellestrina 35, 57 Pinedo 22, 57, 66 Piombino 13, 36, 57 Piraeus 7, 18, 19, 20, 57, 66, 68, 70, 73, 86, 121, 125, 129, 134 Planier 21, 57, 68 Pointe Lequine 28, 57 Porticcio 29, 58, 68 Porticello 3, 4, 24, 37, 41, 45, 48, 51, 52, 58, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 110, 123, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138 Port Vendres 24, 57, 68 Pozzino 25, 58, 67, 68 Punta Scifo 15, 58, 66, 68 Pylos 29, 44, 95 Rhodes 17, 18, 49, 58, 91 Rhone 29, 58, 68

Tarragona 35, 58 Terracina 35, 58, 115 Thasos 8 Torre Flavia 35, 58, 68, 107, 108 Tyre 25, 58, 69 Tyrrhenian 18, 20, 25 Venice 1, 9, 10, 73 Yalikavak 22, 59, 66

155