1 00:00:04,890 --> 00:00:06,090 [Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.] Okay. Good evening everybody. 2 00:00:06,600 --> 00:00:15,630 Before we start, I'd like to thank Franck Goddio and his team from the IEASM, as well as our sponsors in the Hilti Foundation, 3 00:00:16,110 --> 00:00:21,060 for giving me the opportunity to talk about the work that's going on on this fantastic little boat. 4 00:00:21,630 --> 00:00:26,380 As you can see, I hope from the names on the screen, this isn't my excavation. 5 00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:35,250 And it's a complete team Event and I thank them all for giving me access to their work and the thoughts about this boat 6 00:00:35,430 --> 00:00:41,459 to sit alongside my own on it. And I'd also like to thank all of our colleagues from the Central Department for 7 00:00:41,460 --> 00:00:45,660 Underwater Antiquities and the staff at the Maritime Museum in Alexandria, 8 00:00:45,660 --> 00:00:54,750 which are both part of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and who are instrumental in helping our work there. 9 00:00:56,540 --> 00:01:04,819 So off we go. The image that you get from the archaeological evidence of Roman ships and 10 00:01:04,820 --> 00:01:09,020 boats is predominantly associated with the amphora carrying merchant vessel. 11 00:01:10,070 --> 00:01:17,780 Indeed, the visibility of the merchant ship in the archaeological record has largely overshadowed the smaller boats, the fishing boats, the tugs, 12 00:01:17,780 --> 00:01:25,190 the lighters, the dredgers, the pleasure craft and other multi-purpose vessels that would have crowded ancient harbours and made them work. 13 00:01:26,380 --> 00:01:32,860 Largely these would have been made in local shipyards with materials that are close at hand in tried and tested designs. 14 00:01:33,610 --> 00:01:41,720 So here we have this example of this mosaic from Rimini, and we can see what would likely have been a locally made tugboat. 15 00:01:41,770 --> 00:01:48,380 So that's this thing here, which is carefully shepherding a large freighter into the port. 16 00:01:48,740 --> 00:01:52,610 Past this lighthouse, where 17 00:01:52,610 --> 00:01:57,650 another ship, which you can see just off to the side here, is sort of patiently awaiting its turn. 18 00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:04,010 It's an actual occurrence that would have been replayed countless times in the Portus Magnus of Alexandria. 19 00:02:05,370 --> 00:02:11,879 Fortunately, when we're looking at small ships and boats rescue work in other large Roman harbours in recent years, 20 00:02:11,880 --> 00:02:18,750 it's gone some way to redress this imbalance, particularly in places such as Ostia, Pisa and Naples and of course, in 21 00:02:18,750 --> 00:02:20,880 Yenikapi in Istanbul for the Byzantine period. 22 00:02:21,690 --> 00:02:28,410 Now, unsurprisingly then, if we're interested in looking for smaller boats, then it's in the sediments of harbours that we need to look. 23 00:02:29,070 --> 00:02:34,470 It's here that small boats were often discarded and abandoned at the end of their working lives, 24 00:02:34,650 --> 00:02:41,790 in infrequently used and often silty areas of the port. Or else they were wrecked in storm events and rapidly buried. 25 00:02:42,150 --> 00:02:46,170 Or deliberately sunk and reused in harbour infrastructure. 26 00:02:47,550 --> 00:02:54,209 But this isn't the picture entirely for J3, which I hope to demonstrate in the seminar, 27 00:02:54,210 --> 00:03:01,500 is related more closely to the world of long distance trade and exchange than to the small world at the Portus Magnus, where it was found. 28 00:03:02,250 --> 00:03:09,360 J3 is in all probability an incredibly rare example of a ship's boat. 29 00:03:10,110 --> 00:03:18,540 So in terms of this mosaic that we're looking at, it's this little vessel here that's being trailed behind the larger merchant ship, 30 00:03:18,540 --> 00:03:26,160 rather than the local tug boat, even though, as I hope to show you, both of them can do similar things in terms of moving boats around harbours. 31 00:03:28,460 --> 00:03:35,300 Now prior to its discovery, such vessels, which are relatively commonplace in the archaeological record and also in the literature from the period, 32 00:03:35,720 --> 00:03:39,020 are seldom found, simply because in the event of a shipwreck, 33 00:03:39,410 --> 00:03:45,320 the ship's boats would have been used as a lifeboat, as the crew and the passengers would have abandoned the stricken vessel. 34 00:03:46,220 --> 00:03:54,020 Um, which is one of the things you can see here in this passage from a shipwreck that occurred in Paul's journey to Rome. 35 00:03:54,020 --> 00:03:56,930 So that's the one at the bottom that's published in Acts. 36 00:03:57,860 --> 00:04:03,980 It's clear in this case that the ship's boat had been brought aboard the large vessel, perhaps because of the storm. 37 00:04:04,730 --> 00:04:11,810 But there's plenty of literary evidence and also artistic evidence, like you can see here of the ship's boat being trailed behind. 38 00:04:12,350 --> 00:04:18,590 And that's what you can see in the quote from Statius Above. Here, 39 00:04:18,920 --> 00:04:24,620 this is a prayer to wish Maecius Celer a safe voyage aboard an Alexandrian grain ship. 40 00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:30,950 And Statius in this prayer goes through a whole sequence of actions through which this vessel is made ready to set sail. 41 00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:36,560 And these include the instructions that you see on the screen to "make fast the skiff that will follow behind". 42 00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:42,640 Also, in the event that the ship's boat does go down with the main ship we're then 43 00:04:42,910 --> 00:04:49,330 reliant upon it entering into the archaeological records. So it typically being covered by the main wreck or debris from it. 44 00:04:49,840 --> 00:04:56,620 And then from maritime archaeologists to recognise the likely few disarticulated pieces 45 00:04:56,620 --> 00:05:00,730 of plank as being part of something different from that of the larger merchant ship. 46 00:05:01,570 --> 00:05:07,750 So overall, I think the ship's boats aren't easy to find or to recognise in the archaeological record. 47 00:05:15,100 --> 00:05:20,570 J3, though, was discovered completely buried in the sediments of the Portus Magnus. 48 00:05:20,590 --> 00:05:23,860 It's out in the middle of a harbour. 49 00:05:23,860 --> 00:05:26,740 So it's in the Royal Harbour, as you can see here. 50 00:05:28,210 --> 00:05:35,950 There were no telltale timbers sticking out from the sediments or mounds of debris, on the surface that might have hinted at its presence. 51 00:05:36,550 --> 00:05:47,080 And instead, it took a new phase of geophysical survey in the eastern port by the IEASM using a new parametric shallow multibeam surveying instrument, 52 00:05:47,410 --> 00:05:51,879 of which there's a picture, both of the output results from this 53 00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:54,970 and also the vessel that did it. 54 00:05:56,020 --> 00:06:02,640 While Franck Goddio and his team had previously done sub-bottom profiling work across the Portus Magnus, 55 00:06:02,650 --> 00:06:08,230 the new equipment enabled us to get a much more detailed look into the Sediments. 56 00:06:09,130 --> 00:06:13,810 In order to ground truth what it was that Franck and the team were looking at, 57 00:06:14,110 --> 00:06:23,530 he decided to excavate this particular site, to look at this small boat shaped anomaly in the data, 58 00:06:24,490 --> 00:06:27,819 that appeared to be around 5 m long by about 2.5 m wide. 59 00:06:27,820 --> 00:06:34,800 So it's a very small boat. Now, as will become apparent from this 60 00:06:34,830 --> 00:06:39,719 obviously, we found what we were looking for 61 00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:46,440 in this term of this small little boat that is termed J3. 62 00:06:48,860 --> 00:06:54,380 So J3 was excavated during the summer mission in the Portus Magnus in 2018. 63 00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:59,120 It's currently being written up by a team from the IEASM and the University of Oxford. 64 00:06:59,570 --> 00:07:04,870 And here on the screen you can see Alexander Belov and David Honore excavating the boat. 65 00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:09,650 And these are the same colleagues who are also responsible for writing up its nautical architecture. 66 00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:14,470 As far as progress goes, we've nearly finished the first draft of the monograph, 67 00:07:14,470 --> 00:07:22,510 which will then be sent out to peer review, and we hope to have it published towards the end of 2022, ideally. 68 00:07:22,990 --> 00:07:28,270 So consequently, what I'm presenting here is our initial interpretations of this little vessel. 69 00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:39,320 So this is what it looks like. And as you can see from this photo mosaic, is it's remarkable level of preservation, 70 00:07:39,620 --> 00:07:49,710 especially on its port side where there's a complete section of the boat from the keel, which is down here through to the guard rail up here. 71 00:07:49,730 --> 00:07:58,760 So particularly on this side of the boat. And of particular interest is the transom, which is this squared off bit at the back 72 00:07:58,760 --> 00:08:03,610 of the boat, and also the two rowing benches here and here, 73 00:08:03,610 --> 00:08:13,239 or thwarts as they're also known, which come complete with the 3 associated thole pins against which the oars would have pivoted. 74 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:20,140 There is one here, there is one here, and this one up here. And then there's also a now missing third rowing bench here. 75 00:08:22,540 --> 00:08:27,250 What you can also see in this image is the large disassembled iron anchor. 76 00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:31,810 So that's this thing here. 77 00:08:33,010 --> 00:08:36,320 And that's its shank and its stock there. 78 00:08:37,570 --> 00:08:43,780 And the stock obviously has been disassembled from the anchor and placed neatly next to the shank. 79 00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:53,660 Again, I'll return to the significance of this for its interpretation of the function of the boat and its particular or potential region of origin. 80 00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:56,090 a bit later in this service seminar. 81 00:08:56,600 --> 00:09:03,620 But first, though, I think it probably would be useful to give a brief insight into elements of J3's nautical architecture. 82 00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:12,140 To demonstrate its method of construction and the care also with which its timbers were selected for their mechanical properties. 83 00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:23,920 So we can start with the keel. I think it's at this point good to have a bit of sort of semi hardcore nautical architecture in this. 84 00:09:24,340 --> 00:09:30,040 So the keel itself is made from ash and is preserved for a length of 4.4 m. 85 00:09:30,610 --> 00:09:33,970 Now in this ash is a particularly act choice of wood. 86 00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:37,840 It's a hard wood that also can be bent quite readily. 87 00:09:38,380 --> 00:09:44,770 Um, and this is what would be needed in a small boat where there's a strong degree of curvature towards what we think is the bow. 88 00:09:45,930 --> 00:09:54,750 So as you can see in this image, particularly in the section of it here, it's roughly rectangular in section. 89 00:09:55,260 --> 00:10:02,610 And from the schematic diagram, you can see that the inner edges of the first line of whole planks were set flush 90 00:10:02,730 --> 00:10:06,930 against the side of the keel and fastened with closely set mortise and tenon joints. 91 00:10:11,610 --> 00:10:20,910 I should say here that the wood identification was done by Tina Roushannafas from the Institute of Archaeology and Alexander Belov from the IEASM. 92 00:10:21,300 --> 00:10:26,430 Alex is currently out in Alexandria at the moment working on more wood samples 93 00:10:26,430 --> 00:10:29,670 from this boat and lots of the others that have been excavated. 94 00:10:31,340 --> 00:10:39,740 So turning now to the planking. As is common in Roman period vessels, while the keel of the boat may have been in a hard wood, 95 00:10:40,160 --> 00:10:46,760 its planking was made from soft wood. In this case it's Pine, and these were thin, very thin boards. 96 00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:58,610 They're about 8 mm thick, and we have 14 of them preserved on the port side, with only about six on the starboard side. 97 00:10:59,720 --> 00:11:10,320 They're roughly the same width. In this part of the boats about 9 to 10 cm, and this tapers to 6 to 7 cm towards the end of the vessel. 98 00:11:11,390 --> 00:11:15,320 So the planks themselves are between 3 and 4.5 m long. 99 00:11:15,560 --> 00:11:23,030 And as you can see in this reconstruction, every single plank or every single strake is an individual plank. 100 00:11:26,300 --> 00:11:29,390 In terms of its construction, then J3 is carvel built, 101 00:11:29,420 --> 00:11:34,880 which means that the lines of the strakes are set flush against each other to create a smooth outer hull. 102 00:11:35,780 --> 00:11:40,310 They're fastened using mortise and tenon joints, with the tenons being made from hornbeam, 103 00:11:40,550 --> 00:11:44,450 which is a finely textured, dense hardwood that's resistant to splitting. 104 00:11:44,450 --> 00:11:57,640 And you can see one of the tenons here. These are rectangular roughly 4.6 cm long, 3.3 cm wide and about 2 mm thick 105 00:11:57,730 --> 00:12:04,560 on average. The tenons fitted tightly into their corresponding mortises and were secured by tapering pegs, 106 00:12:05,020 --> 00:12:08,820 uh, which were also of hornbeam, and these have a sort of 107 00:12:09,250 --> 00:12:18,640 average diameter of 5 mm. The pegs go through the thickness of the planking and were inserted from the outside of the hull. 108 00:12:25,170 --> 00:12:29,370 The gunwale of J3 is the last of the lines of planks. 109 00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:33,660 It's thicker than all the others and projects significantly outward. 110 00:12:34,560 --> 00:12:40,650 Now, the purpose of this is to protect the boats from damage during berthing or as it goes alongside other boats, 111 00:12:41,340 --> 00:12:44,460 but it would also have added considerably to the stiffening of the hull. 112 00:12:45,330 --> 00:12:48,330 Now, unlike the softwood pine planks, 113 00:12:48,810 --> 00:12:55,950 the gunwale was made of elm as it's a tough hardwood that's not prone to splitting and also has a good surface hardness, 114 00:12:56,280 --> 00:13:01,500 so you could take the wear and tear that's associated with the life of a little boat like this. 115 00:13:02,730 --> 00:13:08,340 But also given the shape of the boat, elm is again a good choice for the gunwale because it can be bent into shape. 116 00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:16,489 Directly over the top of the gunwale is the guard rail, which was made from Cypress and Cypress, is a durable, 117 00:13:16,490 --> 00:13:21,530 moderately strong wood that has a high surface hardness and could also take a really good polish. 118 00:13:22,430 --> 00:13:26,510 Now these qualities make it particularly a suitable timber for guard rail. 119 00:13:26,810 --> 00:13:33,290 It combines the ability to resist wear and tear again while also being potentially decorative. 120 00:13:34,640 --> 00:13:41,240 The guard rail is installed directly over the top of the frames, which, like the keel, is also made of ash. 121 00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:44,780 And you can see all of this, uh, going on again in this reconstruction. 122 00:13:49,510 --> 00:13:54,340 In the centre of central area of the guard rail 123 00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:58,959 two soul pins were inserted with another one further forward. 124 00:13:58,960 --> 00:14:05,050 So you can see here, um, the schematic drawing of the insertion of thole pins. 125 00:14:05,770 --> 00:14:14,970 These are made of hornbeam, which is an unusual shipbuilding timber, but it's a tough hardwood that can take a high surface polish. 126 00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:21,780 And this high surface polish is quite useful because it would reduce the friction between the thole-pin and its oar. 127 00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:29,400 Now, while this might be something of a marginal gain, it demonstrates the care with which the timber species were selected for J3. 128 00:14:30,920 --> 00:14:36,590 Associated with the thole pins are the two remaining pine thwarts 129 00:14:37,190 --> 00:14:40,730 and these are the rowing benches, as I said. 130 00:14:41,890 --> 00:14:49,900 And then again, there's also the remains of a now missing third rowing bench, which is associated with the third thole-pin. 131 00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:58,250 As you can also see here in this image along the line of the keel was also a mast step 132 00:14:58,470 --> 00:15:05,070 which this here with the hole for the mast, which is overlaid by the the anchor. 133 00:15:08,910 --> 00:15:19,260 This would obviously indicate therefore that J3 could be propelled by sail as well as oars, but there was no evidence for a mast in the excavation, 134 00:15:19,740 --> 00:15:25,230 and the only rigging elements that were discovered were other size that would have been unnecessary for the rig of a small boat. 135 00:15:26,190 --> 00:15:31,050 Here, though, I think it should be noted that no oars were found either, 136 00:15:31,410 --> 00:15:36,270 but it's more likely that J3 was under all power at the time of its loss, 137 00:15:36,330 --> 00:15:42,900 as ors would obviously have offered a greater ease of manoeuvrability in the confined spaces of a crowded harbour. 138 00:15:43,980 --> 00:15:51,720 Now when wrecking these oars would have floated away during the accident or perhaps later as their binding cords rotted away, 139 00:15:52,380 --> 00:15:58,590 whereas the hull itself remains pinned to the bottom of the harbour through the weight of the anchor 140 00:15:58,590 --> 00:16:02,479 that it was transporting. 141 00:16:02,480 --> 00:16:07,940 Also, the weight of the anchor seems to have pushed the port side of the boat deeper into the sediments, 142 00:16:07,940 --> 00:16:12,110 which obviously results in the better preservation of this side of the vessel. 143 00:16:14,140 --> 00:16:20,080 Okay, so much for nautical architecture. What can we see? 144 00:16:21,070 --> 00:16:27,850 I suppose at the stern of the vessel, next to the transom is a platform on which the helmsman would have stood. 145 00:16:27,910 --> 00:16:34,780 And if we look at this image of a tugboat from the Isola Sacra in Ostia, 146 00:16:34,930 --> 00:16:40,090 this could also be something. It's got three rowers like ours. 147 00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:46,570 It's got a fairly squared off transom stern, you know. So does it have a sailing, a steering oar with it? 148 00:16:47,170 --> 00:16:49,300 Well, we don't actually have any evidence for this. 149 00:16:49,630 --> 00:16:58,780 Um, and its presence on J3 is rather conjectural or perhaps even unlikely, uh, given the small size of the platform. 150 00:16:58,780 --> 00:17:01,960 So we're not necessarily dealing with something quite this large. 151 00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:11,610 But when we start to discuss, uh, Roman boats with a transom and use the types of artistic evidence that you can see here 152 00:17:11,610 --> 00:17:18,270 on the screen, we wander into a surprisingly acrimonious debate in the literature about which way they go. 153 00:17:18,840 --> 00:17:27,719 Either pointy end first, as you can see here in this ceramic plaque or flat end first, transom first, 154 00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:33,960 as you can perhaps see here in this mosaic of a fishing boat from Uttica in Tunisia. 155 00:17:35,050 --> 00:17:39,040 As you can see, both of these are running boats with transom ends. 156 00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:47,349 They're a type which is referred to in the literature as an horeia, thanks to this mosaic here from the, 157 00:17:47,350 --> 00:17:52,540 from the frigidarium of the bath house of the House of the Muses in Althiburus. 158 00:17:53,050 --> 00:18:00,760 It's a fantastic mosaic which has lots of ships being depicted on it with their names associated with it. 159 00:18:00,760 --> 00:18:09,430 So as you can see here. Equally, the bundles that you can see here and this here and here. 160 00:18:09,700 --> 00:18:19,270 Now, these are typically interpreted as fishing nets, which in conjunction with the mosaic, such as that from Uttica. 161 00:18:19,570 --> 00:18:25,480 This has resulted in the idea that this type of small boat was used for fishing. 162 00:18:26,110 --> 00:18:31,230 And it's also resulted in the idea that this type of small boat, goes transom end first, 163 00:18:31,240 --> 00:18:43,310 so flat end first. While several depictions of boats with transoms in Ancient Art are associated with fishing, 164 00:18:43,730 --> 00:18:50,000 there are examples that aren't, which has led to some authors broadening the definition of the horeia. 165 00:18:50,690 --> 00:18:56,059 For example, this is the Torlonia relief that you can see here, and it depicts two small boats. 166 00:18:56,060 --> 00:19:01,670 So we can see one here and another one over here. 167 00:19:04,690 --> 00:19:09,940 These are associated with larger merchant ships, and both of the small boats have transoms. 168 00:19:10,660 --> 00:19:14,350 Now, it's been argued that these are carefully and accurately depicted. 169 00:19:14,860 --> 00:19:22,540 Um, and what they're showing is the ships boats can have a transom bow so that they can nose up to wharfs easily, 170 00:19:22,540 --> 00:19:29,410 which is certainly the case with, well, with what seems to be, being portrayed with this particular vessel here. 171 00:19:31,550 --> 00:19:37,910 Now, if we're going to be pedantic about this, I suppose the first issue is whether these boats should be called horeia. 172 00:19:38,090 --> 00:19:44,330 Uh, particularly, when the ancient literature would suggest that ships boats would have been known by specific terms such as 173 00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:51,890 lembus, skaphus and phaselus. And these are seen in Plautus, Caesar, Statius, and so on. 174 00:19:52,520 --> 00:20:02,660 But we'll see. Now, our particular contribution to this debate, and where J3 comes in really handy, 175 00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:11,300 is that it provides explicit archaeological evidence of the rowing system itself and the position of the thole-pins in the rowing benches. 176 00:20:12,170 --> 00:20:16,670 So consequently, J3 demonstrates the position of three lines of rowers. 177 00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:24,800 So you've got a rower here. Pulling on an oar here a rower here with an oar here and a rower here. 178 00:20:25,520 --> 00:20:34,070 All of whom therefore sits with their backs towards the pointed end of the vessel. 179 00:20:34,940 --> 00:20:42,770 The stroke of the oars would thus propel the boat forwards, with the fine voluted end as the bow and the transom at the stern. 180 00:20:43,640 --> 00:20:48,470 So this is what's depicted on both the Rimini ship mosaic and in the plaque from the Isola Sacra. 181 00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:58,270 Now, the second way into this debate comes from the digital reconstruction of this model, which is being of a ship, but sorry, 182 00:20:58,750 --> 00:21:05,410 which is being undertaken by Nesreen Elgaly. Nesreen's using a powerful nautical architecture program called Orca 3D, 183 00:21:05,860 --> 00:21:11,020 which is used to design and test modern ships and boats to understand their working parameters. 184 00:21:11,560 --> 00:21:19,630 It's effectively a design programme. At present, though, she's having great difficulty in persuading the software that the boat should go 185 00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:27,790 transom end first. And these results are also echoed in another set of computer tests for a transom end boat from Naples, 186 00:21:28,540 --> 00:21:33,640 which demonstrated that it's not an ideal design for a bow, particularly in waves. 187 00:21:34,990 --> 00:21:43,030 So consequently, what we would suggest is that from the surviving archaeological evidence, J3 is a transom stern boat. 188 00:21:43,420 --> 00:21:46,420 And it goes, as you might expect, pointy end first. 189 00:21:47,110 --> 00:21:53,110 But this doesn't mean that all boats of this type in the Mediterranean were arranged in this manner. 190 00:21:53,470 --> 00:21:58,600 This, the sheer uncertainty in the iconographic record and the debate surrounding it, 191 00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:01,900 means that we simply cannot present this as any sort of hard and fast rule. 192 00:22:02,350 --> 00:22:12,100 It's just what it seems to suggest for J3. And equally, it's clear that if you really wanted to, you could probably row J3 in either direction. 193 00:22:19,060 --> 00:22:25,720 Finally. Then, uh, before we move on from the boat and its excavation towards its interpretation, we just need to say a little more about its dating. 194 00:22:26,590 --> 00:22:30,440 Now, unfortunately, we don't have high precision radiocarbon, 195 00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:38,950 and instead are dating it at this moment using the ceramic evidence from the material recovered in context with the boat during its excavation. 196 00:22:39,760 --> 00:22:43,780 This was undertaken by the IEASM's ceramicist Catherine Grataloup. 197 00:22:44,140 --> 00:22:45,550 And it's her work here. 198 00:22:47,370 --> 00:22:55,890 The ceramics which were not part of cargo or even, well, were not part of a cargo from J3 or even were on J3 at the time of its sinking. 199 00:22:56,610 --> 00:23:01,950 These would have been washed into the boats during its incorporation into the harbour floor. 200 00:23:02,520 --> 00:23:12,330 The ceramics, though, do come from sealed archaeological contexts associated with J3 next to the hull and in the excavations closely around it. 201 00:23:12,810 --> 00:23:18,480 Um, and consequently they do provide us with a group with which we can consider a 202 00:23:18,480 --> 00:23:23,550 broad date range into which the sinking and burial of the vessel should be fitted. 203 00:23:24,660 --> 00:23:31,050 It should be noted, however, that the majority of the assemblages are braided and shows evidence of marine concretion 204 00:23:31,080 --> 00:23:34,500 that would indicate that it wasn't rapidly buried within the seal contexts. 205 00:23:35,490 --> 00:23:43,020 Now this temporal lag in becoming incorporated will obviously result in relatively mixed and potentially long lived assemblages. 206 00:23:44,180 --> 00:23:48,140 The diagnostic pottery, however, dates are largely consistent, 207 00:23:48,530 --> 00:23:58,160 even if they do have a relatively large date range from early Roman Alexandria and its Augustan beginnings through to about the 3rd century AD. 208 00:24:02,920 --> 00:24:10,240 Given that we've seen small boats with transoms used for fishing and as tugboats, and also as ship's boats in the archaeological record. 209 00:24:10,570 --> 00:24:16,420 Well, in the artistic record, I suppose what makes us believe that J3 is related to the ship's boat? 210 00:24:17,740 --> 00:24:23,290 For this, we need to think about what a ship's boat is and does for an ancient merchant ship, 211 00:24:23,290 --> 00:24:30,910 and then go back and revisit the large anchor that we found disassembled in its hull, and the types of wood species that the boat is made from. 212 00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:38,230 Now, what you're looking at is perhaps one of the most famous depictions of a merchant ship from antiquity. 213 00:24:38,230 --> 00:24:46,750 And it's this graffito from of the ship Europa from Pompeii, which clearly depicts at the back here, a small little boat. 214 00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:54,400 Um, perhaps there is debate about this in the record, with a crew member sat in it. 215 00:24:55,390 --> 00:24:59,530 We know this from the literary sources that often a crew member is stationed 216 00:24:59,530 --> 00:25:08,530 in the ship's boat, and it's fixed here by a cable to the stern of the vessel. 217 00:25:09,130 --> 00:25:16,990 Um, interestingly, you can see that it is perhaps being towed transom first, with the voluted bow at this end, 218 00:25:16,990 --> 00:25:21,580 but also with what has been depicted here is, uh, what looks like a steering oar. 219 00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:29,150 Which we don't have any evidence for with J3. 220 00:25:32,570 --> 00:25:37,729 So, from the orations of Demosthenes for example, through to an epistle of 221 00:25:37,730 --> 00:25:43,220 Paulinus of Nola ship's boats feature occasionally in the literature of travel. 222 00:25:43,310 --> 00:25:48,860 Most particularly they appear in tales of merchants of shipwreck 223 00:25:49,310 --> 00:25:54,140 and of escaping from danger, and these go across the whole long history of the classical world. 224 00:25:55,910 --> 00:26:01,250 So for a merchant ship like the Europa, a small auxiliary boat was a practical necessity. 225 00:26:01,610 --> 00:26:04,640 They would have been used to carry out a whole range of different tasks. 226 00:26:05,630 --> 00:26:13,730 These would have included supplying the ship with food and water, perhaps during the voyage when the ship was simply calling into a port to revictual, 227 00:26:14,450 --> 00:26:18,200 or when it was at anchor waiting for a space at the quayside to unload. 228 00:26:18,860 --> 00:26:23,930 You could also use them for transporting passengers and crew to and from the shore, or to move the ship, 229 00:26:24,260 --> 00:26:30,710 particularly when there's no wind or when it's operating in the confined conditions, such as inside a harbour. 230 00:26:31,520 --> 00:26:34,820 Now it's in this latter case where, 231 00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:42,440 we can see a sort of tangible link between the ways in which a ship's boats would have been used in ancient seafaring, 232 00:26:42,770 --> 00:26:51,560 and the archaeological remains that we have from J3. So notably, we have a small boat with a large anchor found within the confines of a port basin. 233 00:26:52,100 --> 00:27:00,770 And for me, this is sufficient to examine the possibility that J3 could have sunk while carrying out work associated with this anchor. 234 00:27:05,110 --> 00:27:10,090 So while it might seem self-evident from this image, particularly the top one, 235 00:27:10,120 --> 00:27:15,280 it has to be said that the anchor that J3 was carrying was not used to anchor it. 236 00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:19,780 It's a plainly ship sized anchor rather than a boat sized one. 237 00:27:20,770 --> 00:27:26,770 Unfortunately, however, we didn't find any evidence for small anchor during the excavations of J3, 238 00:27:27,340 --> 00:27:35,290 that would have been its own anchor. But it also may well be that like lots of small ships boats documented during the age of sail, 239 00:27:35,560 --> 00:27:40,480 that J3 was never equipped with one. So turning first to the anchor itself. 240 00:27:40,990 --> 00:27:48,490 The morphology of the curved arms would indicate that it most closely resembles Greg Votruba's lunate anchor form, 241 00:27:48,970 --> 00:27:53,110 which is part of an iron anchor typology that he developed here in Oxford for his DPhil. 242 00:27:54,400 --> 00:28:03,729 The arms of the anchor, which are here, you can see it's quite heavily concreted, but from this drawing, 243 00:28:03,730 --> 00:28:09,460 as you can see, they gently narrow towards what appears to be simple pointed tips. 244 00:28:10,360 --> 00:28:13,630 Equally, both of the arms are different lengths. 245 00:28:14,020 --> 00:28:20,980 And this would indicate that one of the original tips broke during its use at some point. 246 00:28:21,370 --> 00:28:26,009 Um, they're both roughly chisel shaped as well. 247 00:28:26,010 --> 00:28:31,750 Although it's heavily concreted, the shank of the anchor from J3 appears to project beyond the crown. 248 00:28:31,800 --> 00:28:39,150 That's this little bit here. This is what's called the crown stub, and it's likely to have ended in a crown ring, 249 00:28:39,480 --> 00:28:43,770 which would have gone around here, which is now corroded away. 250 00:28:45,140 --> 00:28:51,050 The purpose of this was to attach a trip rope and a buoy that would have been tied to it, 251 00:28:51,530 --> 00:28:57,590 and this buoy would have marked the position of the anchor and would have facilitated its safe removal from the seabed. 252 00:28:58,430 --> 00:29:05,930 Now, the removal of an anchor with a trip buoy is often done through the use of a ship's boat. 253 00:29:06,830 --> 00:29:12,470 The crew row out to the buoy, and then hold on the attached rope to remove the arm from its set. 254 00:29:14,800 --> 00:29:20,980 So from the form of the arms, the stock and its fitting aperture at the top of the shank and also the crown. 255 00:29:21,340 --> 00:29:27,910 We can use all of these different elements of the anchor to propose a relative date for the one for J3. 256 00:29:28,990 --> 00:29:36,940 So firstly, the lunate form of the arms or the anchor, which suggests that it was from the Roman period between the Early and Middle Imperial periods. 257 00:29:37,570 --> 00:29:44,330 And this can be further narrowed down due to a consideration of the rectangular form of the stock and its aperture in the shank. 258 00:29:44,350 --> 00:29:48,730 So this is the rectangular form here. And this is the aperture. 259 00:29:51,170 --> 00:30:00,040 This head type is in use from at least the 2nd century BC until the 5th century AD. 260 00:30:00,130 --> 00:30:08,710 It's a very broad range for that particular element. But then finally, the presence of the crown stub down here, and probably the crown ring, 261 00:30:08,740 --> 00:30:13,150 would suggest a date between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD. 262 00:30:14,230 --> 00:30:22,300 So for our anchor, then, I think what we're likely looking at is a date from the Augustan period to the 2nd century AD. 263 00:30:23,710 --> 00:30:30,490 Now, it should also be noted that similar iron anchors have also been found off Alexandria in two of the anchorages, 264 00:30:30,490 --> 00:30:35,650 located about 500 m north of the entrance to the Eastern Harbour and Qaitbay Fort. 265 00:30:36,160 --> 00:30:44,230 And there's another example a little further along the coast on the El-Hassan reef, which is located 500 m northeast at promontory of Cape Lochias. 266 00:30:45,280 --> 00:30:47,259 Now, from a consideration of these anchors, 267 00:30:47,260 --> 00:30:55,150 it's suggested that the example from J3 is most closely paralleled by those dating from the early to mid Roman imperial periods, 268 00:30:55,540 --> 00:31:05,240 that is, prior to the end of the second century A.D. Now, for me at least comfortingly, this all fits well with the ceramics excavated from the boat. 269 00:31:09,500 --> 00:31:10,969 When we look at on, because in the ancient world, 270 00:31:10,970 --> 00:31:18,050 there's a very broad correlation between the size of the anchor and the carrying capacity of the ship on which the found. 271 00:31:18,770 --> 00:31:24,660 For example, morphologically similar anchors to that from J3 have been found on Dramont E and the Lardier 4 shipwrecks. 272 00:31:25,070 --> 00:31:35,840 Dramont E was suggested to have been a ship around 60 m long, 5 to 6 m wide, and carrying a cargo of about 40 tons, 273 00:31:36,470 --> 00:31:46,580 and this has an anchor of about 1.65 m long um, whereas Lardier 4 was slightly smaller and had a slightly smaller anchor. 274 00:31:46,910 --> 00:31:51,800 So it's that is about 1.46 m long. 275 00:31:52,870 --> 00:31:59,860 So consequently, it can safely be assumed that in the ancient world, as in the age of sale, where we have much better documentation, 276 00:32:00,310 --> 00:32:03,520 the the size of the anchor relates to the size of the ship. 277 00:32:03,940 --> 00:32:12,070 And it can also be safely assumed that an anchor of a size found on J3 would normally not be recovered 278 00:32:12,280 --> 00:32:20,640 from a small boat. So the approximate size of the vessel, we can hopefully get at that, 279 00:32:20,880 --> 00:32:27,900 by plotting the dimensions of the anchor on Votruba's distribution graph of well preserved iron anchors from shipwrecks of known sizes, 280 00:32:27,900 --> 00:32:29,940 which is what you can see here on the screen. 281 00:32:30,690 --> 00:32:36,450 Um, this uses a combination of the total length of the anchor in centimetres, plotted against the cross to arm end length, 282 00:32:36,450 --> 00:32:46,260 which for J3 is 276 cm and 87 cm for the unbroken arm of the anchor. 283 00:32:47,040 --> 00:32:52,710 So what this kind of indicates is when you plot all of this out, it comes to about there, 284 00:32:53,160 --> 00:33:04,140 and would indicate that it would have come from a ship around 20 to 25 m long, with a carrying capacity of maybe 60 to 100 tons, something like that. 285 00:33:04,770 --> 00:33:11,790 These are roughly the dimensions of kind of standard sized freighter, I think, from the regular period. 286 00:33:16,740 --> 00:33:20,820 We can now turn to the issue of where the small boat came from. 287 00:33:21,120 --> 00:33:26,910 And in the introduction to this seminar, I suggested that the majority of small boats would be made in local shipyards, 288 00:33:27,390 --> 00:33:31,440 which could suggest that J3 was a native Alexandrian vessel. 289 00:33:32,310 --> 00:33:41,360 Its interpretation as a ship's boat, however, brings this into question and raises the possibility that it was made somewhere else. 290 00:33:41,370 --> 00:33:44,490 So how can we resolve this now? 291 00:33:44,700 --> 00:33:47,730 An initial way in could be with the anchor again. 292 00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:58,030 The idea that morphologically similar anchors to that found in J3, and um, where they're distributed, 293 00:33:58,220 --> 00:34:01,360 and this is simply because the research into ancient anchors 294 00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:06,280 has demonstrated that there are clear regional patterns to the distribution of different anchor types, 295 00:34:06,940 --> 00:34:13,090 and as we might expect, different regions at different times construct topologically different types of anchor. 296 00:34:13,900 --> 00:34:21,250 On the screen here, you can see the distribution of other examples of lunate anchors which have a clear western Mediterranean distribution. 297 00:34:22,150 --> 00:34:24,970 Now added to this should also be the the other similar anchors found 298 00:34:25,980 --> 00:34:33,750 in the anchorages of Alexandria, which were published after Greg Votruba created this map for his DPhil. 299 00:34:34,470 --> 00:34:39,810 So consequently, this not only provides us with a possible home region for the production of this anchor, 300 00:34:40,380 --> 00:34:45,240 but also a potential trade route between the western Mediterranean and Alexandria. 301 00:34:52,540 --> 00:34:57,150 J3 sank carrying an anchor probably made in the western Mediterranean then. 302 00:34:57,160 --> 00:35:00,550 But what about J3 itself? Where do we think it was made? 303 00:35:01,670 --> 00:35:10,100 It could, for example, have been made in Alexandria and used not as a ship's boat, but as a general purpose working vessel within the harbour. 304 00:35:11,390 --> 00:35:19,490 We can get some way towards identifying its production region, however, through an examination of the wood species with which it was made. 305 00:35:20,600 --> 00:35:26,900 Now, what's notable from the outset is that the small boat wasn't constructed in native Egyptian woods. 306 00:35:27,680 --> 00:35:32,450 Therefore, it could easily be suggested that this could imply that it wasn't of Egyptian origin. 307 00:35:32,990 --> 00:35:36,410 But this is far from certain, given its discovery in Alexandria. 308 00:35:36,890 --> 00:35:44,270 Coupled with the long standing and well-developed timber economy of Egypt that would have been centred on the Portus Magnus in the Ptolemaic period. 309 00:35:44,720 --> 00:35:51,410 Alexandria sat at the centre of an eastern Mediterranean empire, in which timber for its warships was a vital strategic resource. 310 00:35:52,250 --> 00:35:57,440 The importance of securing territory with heavily forested hinterlands continue to be an 311 00:35:57,440 --> 00:36:01,580 important part of Ptolemaic foreign policy through to the final years of the dynasty, 312 00:36:02,150 --> 00:36:08,810 with Strabo noting that Antony assigned the cities of Syedra and Hamaxia in Cilicia to Cleopatra VII, 313 00:36:09,170 --> 00:36:14,360 due to them being, I quote, "capable of furnishing materials for the construction of her fleet". 314 00:36:15,320 --> 00:36:21,080 So consequently, within this we can start to build up a picture of regional timber supply in the Ptolemaic period. 315 00:36:22,440 --> 00:36:28,139 And a similar picture comes from the wider Mediterranean during the Roman period, with Theophrastus, for example, 316 00:36:28,140 --> 00:36:34,680 stating that timber imports into Greece came from Macedon, from Pontus, and the river Rhyndakos. 317 00:36:35,640 --> 00:36:41,100 It's also been suggested archaeologically from the analogical and design, 318 00:36:41,100 --> 00:36:46,830 the logical studies undertaken in the harbour sediments, and the ship timbers from various sites along the training coast. 319 00:36:48,250 --> 00:36:54,600 So when taken together, this evidence implies that the trade in timber was undertaken on a local basis. 320 00:36:54,610 --> 00:36:58,750 If there were good suppliers nearby and regionally when they were not, 321 00:36:59,680 --> 00:37:04,870 what is generally uneconomical to import from distance unless it was an exotic 322 00:37:04,870 --> 00:37:08,890 or prized species that's needed to make statements of wealth and luxury. 323 00:37:10,190 --> 00:37:16,790 Now, given this pattern, it's notable and not entirely unexpected that there are also similar patterns that are 324 00:37:16,790 --> 00:37:20,720 observable regionally in the use of wood in shipbuilding around the Mediterranean, 325 00:37:21,800 --> 00:37:25,220 while timber resources around the region are generally similar. 326 00:37:25,700 --> 00:37:29,870 Look, if we look here. 327 00:37:30,290 --> 00:37:37,400 In the map. Oh, let's just go back in this map of forest species. 328 00:37:38,870 --> 00:37:50,010 What's more, sort of local differences can be seen that are that can be sort of teased out from the evidence. 329 00:37:50,280 --> 00:37:57,179 And these local sources are essentially that the reflect choices that are made, 330 00:37:57,180 --> 00:38:02,910 based upon the availability of resources, based upon shipbuilding traditions and how these change with time. 331 00:38:03,660 --> 00:38:05,830 So consequently, it's possible that, 332 00:38:05,850 --> 00:38:13,589 this kind of observation could be used to suggest the provenance for J3 to a particular construction region based upon its range of timbers, 333 00:38:13,590 --> 00:38:17,610 the extent to which they were used, which is where this image comes in. 334 00:38:18,660 --> 00:38:25,770 So while J3 is built in the very typical Roman style of using hardwoods for the keel and frames and soft woods for the planking, 335 00:38:26,220 --> 00:38:29,160 the combination of timbers used is significant. 336 00:38:29,880 --> 00:38:37,290 Firstly, there's the use of Cypress for the cap-rail and the beams at the stern platform of the boat, and it's notable that it's, 337 00:38:37,290 --> 00:38:44,370 been suggested in the literature that this timber isn't used for shipbuilding in the eastern Mediterranean until the late Roman or Byzantine period. 338 00:38:45,270 --> 00:38:51,360 It's also conspicuously absent in, as a ship, timber in the wrecks from southern France. 339 00:38:52,170 --> 00:39:00,690 So consequently the use of Cypress in J3 would perhaps point towards an origin somewhere in the Tyrrhenian sea region, 340 00:39:00,900 --> 00:39:04,650 where it's seen in ships and boats from Naples, Pisa and Ostia. 341 00:39:06,140 --> 00:39:11,180 The second element that links the construction of J3 to this coastline is its 342 00:39:11,180 --> 00:39:14,810 extensive use of ash as timber for the keel and for the frames in the vessel, 343 00:39:15,140 --> 00:39:22,820 as well as for its transom. Ash was not a preferred material for the construction of the axial structure in general, 344 00:39:23,210 --> 00:39:27,650 and is rare from ships originating from the eastern Mediterranean. 345 00:39:28,520 --> 00:39:34,610 Similarly, the wrecks from the south of France. Ash is utilised in a similar way to that in the East Mediterranean. 346 00:39:34,910 --> 00:39:42,650 It's not used consistently as a main shipbuilding timber, but it's in the vessels of the Mediterranean coast, where ash is used more consistently. 347 00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:47,750 Um, and it's used in ships from Pisa, from Naples and from Ostia. 348 00:39:48,760 --> 00:39:55,480 So while ash is an unusual choice of wood for the keel of J3, it's entirely understandable given its mechanical properties, 349 00:39:55,960 --> 00:40:00,040 um, and notably its surface hardness and its high elasticity. 350 00:40:00,640 --> 00:40:02,970 In combination with its use in the Frames, 351 00:40:02,980 --> 00:40:09,700 this would have allowed the creation of a strong axial structure for the vessel, with the necessary bends to create the shape of a small boat. 352 00:40:12,910 --> 00:40:24,590 All together that the evidence points towards the interpretation of J3 as a boat made somewhere on the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea, 353 00:40:24,980 --> 00:40:28,910 which sank carrying a large anchor that was also likely made in the region. 354 00:40:29,920 --> 00:40:33,130 This would suggest that J3 was indeed a ship's boat, 355 00:40:34,180 --> 00:40:39,070 and its evidence that would seem to fit with the picture that we get from Papyrus Bingen 77, for example, 356 00:40:39,340 --> 00:40:43,900 which records the arrival of a ship on the Ostia-Alexandria route. 357 00:40:44,740 --> 00:40:50,590 This large vessel would have returned to Italy, taking grain and luxuries from the east to the heart of the Roman Empire. 358 00:40:51,870 --> 00:40:57,030 J3 most likely reached the Portus Magnus either aboard or towed behind one of these trading vessels. 359 00:40:57,720 --> 00:41:03,030 And based on the size of the anchor, and assuming that the anchor that we have is the main one from the ship, 360 00:41:03,600 --> 00:41:07,169 it's possible that the ship that it arrived on was not one of the largest super 361 00:41:07,170 --> 00:41:11,340 freighters of the Alexandrian grain fleet that we hear about in the literature, 362 00:41:11,970 --> 00:41:12,570 but instead, 363 00:41:12,570 --> 00:41:19,890 J3's mothership was an average sized trading vessel of a form that would have been very familiar in the larger Mediterranean mercantile harbours. 364 00:41:21,080 --> 00:41:24,050 But what if it's a loss? Can we say anything more about that? 365 00:41:25,190 --> 00:41:31,160 Now, it's perhaps significance for the overall interpretation of J3 to note the uneven lengths of the arms of the anchor, 366 00:41:31,700 --> 00:41:36,020 which would suggest that at least the port tip had broken at some point in antiquity. 367 00:41:36,870 --> 00:41:45,510 Now, this may well have required the removal, uh, from its vessel for repairs and may perhaps form a reason for its final location on J3. 368 00:41:46,110 --> 00:41:51,120 We can imagine a scenario where the anchor broke while the boat crew were trying 369 00:41:51,120 --> 00:41:55,740 to remove it from its sets in the rocky anchorages of Alexandria's Portus Magnus. 370 00:41:56,520 --> 00:42:04,770 This would have resulted in the need for repairs on land and its final voyage neatly disassembled and stowed in J3 when disaster struck, 371 00:42:04,800 --> 00:42:08,190 as it was rowed across the harbour in the shadow Anirhodos Island. 372 00:42:09,350 --> 00:42:14,450 Whatever accident befell it, the weight of the anchor shifted to the port side of the vessel, dooming it, 373 00:42:15,020 --> 00:42:20,000 but then pressed this side of the boat into the soft harbour clays, so preserving it for us. 374 00:42:24,670 --> 00:42:33,490 Now, finally, J3 also says something about the changes that are taking place in the Royal harbour of Antirhodos in the Roman period. 375 00:42:33,940 --> 00:42:39,550 And we visited this island several times during the course of this seminar series. 376 00:42:40,150 --> 00:42:44,799 So we know that Strabo, 377 00:42:44,800 --> 00:42:49,180 who visited the city provides us with an eyewitness account and contained within 378 00:42:49,180 --> 00:42:53,080 this is his description of the island of Antirhodos as the private property of kings, 379 00:42:53,350 --> 00:43:00,669 which is both the royal palace and a small harbour. Now it's here in these waters the J3 was discovered, 380 00:43:00,670 --> 00:43:05,530 so consequently the small boat can be set alongside other finds from the excavations in the harbour basin, 381 00:43:05,950 --> 00:43:10,450 and together they allow us to say a little more about the development of this region of the Portus Magnus, 382 00:43:10,450 --> 00:43:17,800 and its transition from a harbour associated with the Ptolemaic royal palace into part of the great commercial infrastructure in the Portus Magnus. 383 00:43:19,020 --> 00:43:23,790 A second shipwreck was also excavated by the IEASM in the Royal Harbour. 384 00:43:24,700 --> 00:43:30,370 This was the remains of a large commercial freighter dating from around the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd century AD. 385 00:43:30,910 --> 00:43:34,060 This one was roughly 31 m in length, 11 m wide. 386 00:43:34,090 --> 00:43:43,720 It had a cargo capacity of around 250 to 260 tons, so much larger than the boats that would have used the anchor from J3. 387 00:43:45,210 --> 00:43:48,720 The entrepreneurship, therefore, would have been one of the large vessels in the port. 388 00:43:49,380 --> 00:43:49,560 Now, 389 00:43:49,560 --> 00:43:56,610 the wood used in its construction included a piece of native Egyptian timber and other species that could have been sourced in the eastern Mediterranean. 390 00:43:57,700 --> 00:44:03,880 Couple with this are the construction details that are regionally specific and indicate that this was perhaps an Egyptian vessel, 391 00:44:04,360 --> 00:44:08,170 or certainly one that was from the East Mediterranean and repaired in Egypt. 392 00:44:13,780 --> 00:44:19,830 Let's go back. So together 393 00:44:21,650 --> 00:44:25,670 Antirhodos wreck demonstrates that the former Royal Harbour had 394 00:44:25,670 --> 00:44:29,390 undergone something of a transformation in the years of the early Roman Empire, 395 00:44:29,810 --> 00:44:34,610 and it was being used as a commercial harbour for ships coming from Italy and the local vessels. 396 00:44:35,240 --> 00:44:39,290 And we can see a similar pattern of regional and longer distance seafaring in the remains 397 00:44:39,290 --> 00:44:43,160 of complete and broken amphora that abounded in the excavations of these shipwrecks. 398 00:44:44,810 --> 00:44:49,040 These range from Cnidian amphora dating from the the 2nd half of the 1st century BC, 399 00:44:49,460 --> 00:44:53,390 with the majority of the evidence coming from from 2nd into the 4th century AD, 400 00:44:53,390 --> 00:44:57,740 with imports from the Aegean, Asia minor, North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. 401 00:44:58,520 --> 00:45:01,159 So notably, given the origin and date of J3, 402 00:45:01,160 --> 00:45:08,420 there's also evidence for italic imports in the form of mortaria and finewares dating from the mid 1st to the 3rd century AD. 403 00:45:10,260 --> 00:45:15,760 Intriguingly, the excavation of J3 also brought to light these elements over here. 404 00:45:15,780 --> 00:45:19,860 These parts of pulley blocks and a sheave. 405 00:45:20,220 --> 00:45:24,690 Now, these are of a size that wouldn't have been compatible with the rig of a small boat like J3. 406 00:45:25,110 --> 00:45:30,270 Well, they could have been lost in accidents from other large commercial sailing ships. 407 00:45:31,140 --> 00:45:41,370 We should also bear in mind that an Africana 2A amphora would have had a capacity of about 68-litres and would have weighed around 82, 83 kg in total, 408 00:45:41,520 --> 00:45:46,680 which would have made it very difficult to handle by a single stevedore without some sort of hoist or crane. 409 00:45:47,820 --> 00:45:53,010 So there's evidence for the expansion of the quayside during the first decades of Roman control. 410 00:45:53,010 --> 00:45:57,660 And this would have provided larger expanses of wharfage where the ships could tie up to. 411 00:45:58,580 --> 00:46:05,989 Perhaps as part of these redevelopments, we may also envisage the construction of cranes and other lifting devices to aid in the 412 00:46:05,990 --> 00:46:09,710 unloading and loading of ships that would have crowded the quayside at this time. 413 00:46:12,850 --> 00:46:21,700 J3 then is but a small but I'd say highly illustrative symptom of the wider changes affecting the Portus Magnus in the Roman period. 414 00:46:22,150 --> 00:46:30,970 Which, Franck will talk about in his large lecture on the entire harbour area at the end of this term. 415 00:46:32,020 --> 00:46:39,819 What it does is it speaks of long distance commercial contact between Italy and Alexandria and its fine spot in the former Royal Port, 416 00:46:39,820 --> 00:46:46,360 talks about the increasing dominance of commerce that's also seen in the extensive developments on the western side of the port at this time. 417 00:46:49,660 --> 00:46:55,310 The significance of the discovery of a small ship's boat also needs to be reiterated at the beginning of the seminar. 418 00:46:55,330 --> 00:47:02,500 I talked about the overwhelming disparity in the archaeological record towards large trading ships and the lack of smaller craft. 419 00:47:03,400 --> 00:47:11,860 J3 consequently reminds us of the vital role that such small vessels would have played in harbours all around the Roman world as fishing boats, 420 00:47:11,860 --> 00:47:21,760 as tug boats, as lighters and other general hovercraft, as well as being towed behind larger trading ships in the way that brought J3 to Egypt shores. 421 00:47:22,810 --> 00:47:29,530 A hint of this can be seen in the quotes from Synesius of Cyrene that's on the screen, 422 00:47:29,980 --> 00:47:37,660 and his description of a bustling harbour scape full of ships and boats of all sizes together. 423 00:47:38,860 --> 00:47:44,890 They helped to make Roman Alexandria, as Strabo saw it, the greatest emporium in the whole world. 424 00:47:45,970 --> 00:47:49,600 Thank you very much. 425 00:47:49,630 --> 00:47:52,840 (Andrew Wilson) Thank you, Damian. That was wonderfully clear, 426 00:47:53,260 --> 00:47:58,540 remarkably, detailed and insightful view into 427 00:47:58,630 --> 00:48:06,460 what a small boat like that can tell us about the working lives of harbours and the ships that are attached to it. 428 00:48:07,150 --> 00:48:15,969 I've got loads of loads of questions, but how heavy is that anchor? 429 00:48:15,970 --> 00:48:20,440 It was, what, 2.76 m Long iron with its stock 430 00:48:20,710 --> 00:48:27,040 that's going to weigh quite a bit, isn't it? (Damian Robinson) Yeah. That's one of the things that we want to calculate. 431 00:48:27,070 --> 00:48:31,750 Um, at the moment it's still underwater. So we've never lifted it. 432 00:48:32,650 --> 00:48:34,809 Um, so we need to do that to, to do it properly. 433 00:48:34,810 --> 00:48:40,840 But I've tried to do some rough calculations based upon, you know, the weight of iron and the amount there is. 434 00:48:41,350 --> 00:48:47,440 Um, but at the moment, I'm not entirely confident about my abilities with maths in this area. 435 00:48:48,010 --> 00:48:51,400 So I'm going with "relatively heavy". (Andrew Wilson) Okay. 436 00:48:51,770 --> 00:48:57,009 I mean, I'm wondering really whether anchors like that and larger 437 00:48:57,010 --> 00:49:02,590 big ships actually themselves needed a pulley or some kind of mechanical device to help raise them. 438 00:49:03,100 --> 00:49:08,799 Um, and, you know, could you have raised it from the small boat, 439 00:49:08,800 --> 00:49:14,360 or did you have to raise it from the large boat and then transfer it down into the small boat, as it were? 440 00:49:15,580 --> 00:49:23,500 (Damian Robinson) I mean, for in the the way that we can get at this is from the, the literature from the Age of Sail, 441 00:49:23,500 --> 00:49:26,649 which is much more detailed what was later in the Roman literature and, 442 00:49:26,650 --> 00:49:31,870 and their the kind of the use of how the use of anchors is uh, is quite nicely set out. 443 00:49:32,230 --> 00:49:36,820 So one of the ways that you can have a capstan that raises the anchor, um, 444 00:49:36,820 --> 00:49:40,930 and I certainly think, um, some of the, you know, the larger Roman merchant ships, 445 00:49:40,930 --> 00:49:45,549 this is what's happening, whereas on your medium sized vessels 446 00:49:45,550 --> 00:49:49,930 with anchors that aren't necessarily as heavy, that's where the ship's boat comes in. 447 00:49:50,320 --> 00:49:58,090 So you anchor it, and then the ship's boat rolls out and you can pull it onto the ship's boat and then sail back. 448 00:49:58,630 --> 00:50:02,830 Uh, equally, you can use the anchor to move the ship's boat around the harbour. 449 00:50:02,830 --> 00:50:07,000 So, you can put the anchor into the boat. The boat goes to where you want to do it, 450 00:50:07,000 --> 00:50:13,420 and then you throw the anchor overboard and the ship drags itself towards the anchor, and then you repeat the process. 451 00:50:13,840 --> 00:50:20,319 Um, so there's a whole series of things that small boats can do with anchors, imports and I think 452 00:50:20,320 --> 00:50:25,530 we don't necessarily think about that too much when we're thinking about Roman Harbour's. 453 00:50:26,440 --> 00:50:33,429 (Andrew Wilson) I mean, I found your general argument that it's probably western Mediterranean 454 00:50:33,430 --> 00:50:42,830 that was quite persuasive. But with the distribution of the anchors, those lunate anchors, your sample size is not terribly large. 455 00:50:42,880 --> 00:50:46,960 And to what extent is that an investigation or publication bias 456 00:50:47,380 --> 00:50:54,580 that most of them are Italy and so on? (Damian Robinson) I think there is a certain amount of that's going on within it. 457 00:50:54,670 --> 00:50:59,630 Um, obviously the greater areas of investigation have a great concentration of anchors. 458 00:50:59,920 --> 00:51:05,110 So it is all it's a result of the kind of the shipwreck distribution map 459 00:51:05,110 --> 00:51:07,840 as well as you have lots of the problems that are inherent with with that coming up in in this. 460 00:51:07,990 --> 00:51:13,840 What I would say is that Greg Votruba's study of the anchors, 461 00:51:13,840 --> 00:51:20,110 you know, he looked at 1,500 published anchors from the, you know, as many of them as he could. 462 00:51:20,530 --> 00:51:24,880 And they do actually show quite regional, distinct regional distribution patterns, 463 00:51:25,000 --> 00:51:28,899 um, across all of these different ones and also temporal patterns as well. 464 00:51:28,900 --> 00:51:37,630 So I do think there is something going on there that is purely beyond, you know, that's where we find everything. 465 00:51:38,530 --> 00:51:44,469 (Andrew Wilson) I'll throw the interrogation open to the floor. 466 00:51:44,470 --> 00:51:49,120 I'm sure people have questions that do raise your electronic zoom hand. 467 00:51:49,690 --> 00:51:53,440 But if people are still thinking of questions. 468 00:51:53,440 --> 00:51:56,110 I just wanted to follow up with, I mean, 469 00:51:57,730 --> 00:52:05,650 You showed us that this is probably the type that appears on the Althiburus mosaic as a horeia. 470 00:52:06,790 --> 00:52:16,420 Um, is it helpful to use the ancient names, or does that lead us down various avenues of presupposition? 471 00:52:16,660 --> 00:52:20,950 Rather like names of rooms in Roman houses? 472 00:52:21,830 --> 00:52:24,850 (Damian Robinson) To a certain extent it does. 473 00:52:24,850 --> 00:52:30,880 There's a whole literature on whether you should call this horeia or not. 474 00:52:31,390 --> 00:52:33,459 Um, and the alternative names for it. 475 00:52:33,460 --> 00:52:40,840 And there are authors out there with surprisingly vitriolic opinions about the whole thing. 476 00:52:41,290 --> 00:52:48,550 Um, so I use the term with a great deal of, with many caveats, I suppose. 477 00:52:49,090 --> 00:52:55,000 You know, as far as I'm concerned, it's just a small boat, whether we call it a skyphus or a hoereia. 478 00:52:56,000 --> 00:52:59,130 Yeah. It's a small boat. 479 00:53:00,650 --> 00:53:10,580 (Andrew Wilson) Questions. Still no electronic hands that I can see. 480 00:53:10,580 --> 00:53:15,830 But tell me if I've missed something. What are the similar things that we know? 481 00:53:16,010 --> 00:53:19,550 I mean, are there excavated comparanda? 482 00:53:19,850 --> 00:53:30,829 Or is this the first one? I mean, you showed us lots of iconography about these things, but have we got other excavated ships? 483 00:53:30,830 --> 00:53:36,220 (Damian Robinson) The number of ships boats that we have is incredibly small. 484 00:53:36,790 --> 00:53:42,500 Simply because of the difficulty of finding them. 485 00:53:42,590 --> 00:53:44,840 You know that they turn into a lifeboat. 486 00:53:45,360 --> 00:53:52,970 So consequently, from the archaeological records, you know, there's hints of a couple, 487 00:53:53,450 --> 00:53:59,330 It's in harbours where you get much more evidence of small boats being discovered. 488 00:53:59,450 --> 00:54:10,490 And Giulia Boetto has amassed an extensive set of material to look at these small boats in Roman harbours. 489 00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:14,630 And they, you know, there's a whole series of different functions 490 00:54:15,670 --> 00:54:21,750 that they do, but in terms of a small ships boat, you know, I don't think that there are that many out there. 491 00:54:23,530 --> 00:54:26,670 Giulia might tell me I'm wrong at this point, but, 492 00:54:32,570 --> 00:54:35,900 there was a question in the chat. Oh, there is Giulia. 493 00:54:36,050 --> 00:54:41,540 (Andrew Wilson) Yeah. Are you going to tell him he's wrong? 494 00:54:41,960 --> 00:54:46,700 (Giulia Boetto) Hello to everybody. Yes, I have some questions, 495 00:54:47,060 --> 00:54:53,510 So thank you very much for this presentation is very interesting. 496 00:54:53,990 --> 00:55:04,160 And I completely agree with you about the different type of shape and that we cannot speak only, 497 00:55:04,550 --> 00:55:09,800 about transom bow because there are many different type. 498 00:55:09,800 --> 00:55:20,150 And now with this escalation, like this one. But, uh, there's also now we, we really understand that there are a lot of things that we don't know, 499 00:55:20,150 --> 00:55:24,590 a lot of shape and types that are completely unknown. 500 00:55:24,590 --> 00:55:33,260 And this is a perfect example. So, it's about horeia. 501 00:55:33,260 --> 00:55:40,790 This big discussion, now we have to go forward. 502 00:55:41,300 --> 00:55:50,450 And of course, we have now this example of stern transom. 503 00:55:50,960 --> 00:55:56,300 And we have another example in Naples, because in Naples we found two ships. 504 00:55:56,570 --> 00:55:59,570 One is the Napoli C. Sorry. 505 00:55:59,780 --> 00:56:04,009 And this one, I think is a transom bow. 506 00:56:04,010 --> 00:56:11,390 But okay is in discuss about this and the second one is Naples G 507 00:56:11,570 --> 00:56:16,310 is a transom stern. 508 00:56:16,850 --> 00:56:27,979 And we have to look at the transom and how this is within the general structure of the ship and 509 00:56:27,980 --> 00:56:32,330 and not just to say what to look on to these elements. 510 00:56:32,330 --> 00:56:40,639 We have to look to the general Show perfectly. I have so many things, 511 00:56:40,640 --> 00:56:48,740 in Naples C, for example, which is a big, is not so big but easy sailing. 512 00:56:49,100 --> 00:56:54,260 We were thinking that this is really a transom bow. 513 00:56:54,710 --> 00:57:02,750 Um, of course the, the, the quality of sailing quality is not, uh, not, uh, extraordinary. 514 00:57:02,750 --> 00:57:08,030 But this was a ship used locally in the bay. 515 00:57:08,420 --> 00:57:19,670 It is not to have perfect performance for sailing and we show that if you put your cargo in the stern part, 516 00:57:19,670 --> 00:57:25,940 in the curved part, okay, that we think, you can navigate not so bad. 517 00:57:25,940 --> 00:57:32,810 And then we have also the thing that the performance for antiquity are not really the same as we think today. 518 00:57:33,440 --> 00:57:39,380 And it is a small boat, a local coaster, locally and in the arbour too. 519 00:57:39,740 --> 00:57:49,220 And as a very, very long life it was used Maybe around 100 years and there's a lot of repairs. 520 00:57:49,520 --> 00:57:52,640 So it was fitted well for working. 521 00:57:53,030 --> 00:58:02,059 And in one moment of his life it they take out the mast and it was just a pontoon and 522 00:58:02,060 --> 00:58:12,560 just pulled towed by other ships and used for, we don't know for what, but some working elements. 523 00:58:13,250 --> 00:58:19,370 So, this is one of the, the consideration that I have. 524 00:58:19,820 --> 00:58:27,410 And I would like just to ask you, your transom is a vertical, is fitted vertically in teh ship? 525 00:58:28,760 --> 00:58:36,230 (Damain Robinson) Yes, I think so. (Giulia Boetto) Yes, and this is not so big is not so thick. 526 00:58:36,770 --> 00:58:41,780 Is like a plank, is done by one, one piece or more than one? 527 00:58:42,440 --> 00:58:47,360 (Damain Robinson) I think one piece, I think. 528 00:58:47,720 --> 00:58:52,910 And all of the planking is actually really quite fine, I suppose. 529 00:58:52,910 --> 00:58:58,340 (Giulia Boetto) Well, yeah, in Toulon, we have two ships with the transom, 530 00:58:58,520 --> 00:59:03,350 in that case, again, is a transom bow. 531 00:59:03,470 --> 00:59:15,320 But it is a huge piece and is more in respect of the ship because it's very large and this is put in high in the, 532 00:59:15,320 --> 00:59:22,850 in the when you reconstruct the shape is not at the level of the floating set. 533 00:59:22,850 --> 00:59:30,560 Water level is a little bit higher. So it's a different shape, completely different type of boat. 534 00:59:31,520 --> 00:59:34,650 But it's interesting. So thank you very much. 535 00:59:35,050 --> 00:59:44,120 (Damain Robinson) Thank you, Giulia. (Andrew Wilson) We've got a question in the chat from Hadley Sharman, asking how the team preserved the ship in situ. 536 00:59:44,130 --> 00:59:48,000 And then we've got a question from David Blackman. Let's take Hadley's question first. 537 00:59:48,450 --> 00:59:53,580 Did you simply cover it back up again or what? (Damian Robinson) Yeah, it's just been reburied. 538 00:59:54,120 --> 00:59:57,810 You know, carefully, obviously, but reburied. 539 00:59:57,970 --> 01:00:02,770 If we obviously want to go back to it, then we know where it is. 540 01:00:03,460 --> 01:00:07,120 (Andrew Wilson) So a question from David Blackman. 541 01:00:09,790 --> 01:00:13,110 (David Blackman) I guess I'm invisible. 542 01:00:13,270 --> 01:00:17,800 (Andrew Wilson) No it's okay it's I can make you visible. 543 01:00:17,860 --> 01:00:23,980 It's okay. 544 01:00:24,340 --> 01:00:29,550 (David Blackman) It was good that Giulia was there, because I was going to say I thought Naples was really 545 01:00:30,010 --> 01:00:34,920 the only other site that we have. 546 01:00:35,440 --> 01:00:39,280 That was good to hear from her. 547 01:00:39,880 --> 01:00:46,350 I don't know if you've recent comments from Greg Votruba on the anchor? 548 01:00:46,490 --> 01:00:54,040 (Damian Robinson) I passed everything about the anchor by Greg (David Blackman) Right, the transom bow, 549 01:00:54,070 --> 01:01:01,780 I find this difficult. If everybody's pointing out that this seems a very odd thing way around why would, 550 01:01:02,740 --> 01:01:11,280 is there any evidence that of the transom being the front end? 551 01:01:11,290 --> 01:01:14,290 (Damian Robinson) There is for certain ships yes, 552 01:01:14,290 --> 01:01:22,000 or certain boats, simply because, you know, as Giulia was saying, one of them from Naples seems to have a transom bow, 553 01:01:22,030 --> 01:01:29,320 and it is so that it can get right up sort of nose on first for the dockside, to help in unloading it. 554 01:01:29,770 --> 01:01:38,950 And so I absolutely think that there are both boats and ships with transom bows and transom sterns. 555 01:01:39,490 --> 01:01:43,000 And you know, that's just how they were built. 556 01:01:44,350 --> 01:01:51,720 (David Blackman) Yes, clearly the transom enables the ship to come right flush to the quayside, 557 01:01:51,730 --> 01:01:57,490 but you could have if it was much more difficult to row 558 01:01:59,110 --> 01:02:06,569 with the transom at the front, you could always swing it around as you came into the quaiside. 559 01:02:06,570 --> 01:02:17,190 (Damian Robinson) Well, the ones from Naples are seem to be specifically designed like that, but that's because they're quite large vessels themselves. 560 01:02:17,190 --> 01:02:21,360 So I mean, they are just for transporting ships around, they're sort of like lighters as well. 561 01:02:22,020 --> 01:02:26,150 So it is a specific design feature on some of them. 562 01:02:26,960 --> 01:02:30,080 (David Blackman) Interesting. 563 01:02:30,950 --> 01:02:38,080 (Damian Robinsonn) Thank you David. (Andrew Wilson) Further questions. 564 01:02:38,110 --> 01:02:42,660 Yes, it might be Franck hiding behind the acronym IEASM. 565 01:02:44,940 --> 01:02:48,490 Please. Unmute yourself and speak. 566 01:02:48,520 --> 01:02:51,820 It is Franck. (Franck Goddio) Yes. Hello. 567 01:02:52,540 --> 01:02:56,440 (Damian Robinson) Good evening. Franck. (Franck Goddio) Thank you for your excellent presentation. 568 01:02:56,740 --> 01:03:06,490 I think we can also say that as the Island of Antirhodos has been struck by an earthquake around 50 AD, 569 01:03:07,300 --> 01:03:11,950 we could refine, of course, the datation of that shipwreck 570 01:03:12,340 --> 01:03:18,640 as most probably such a service boat I would say a tender, such a tender, 571 01:03:18,820 --> 01:03:22,740 would have not been allowed in the Royal port 572 01:03:23,080 --> 01:03:27,970 for a freighter before that date, of course. 573 01:03:28,300 --> 01:03:32,700 (Damian Robinson) Yeah, I absolutely think so. 574 01:03:33,990 --> 01:03:40,240 So I think that it's the interesting thing is that it helps us to talk about it in the terms of the transition of the harbour, 575 01:03:40,890 --> 01:03:46,830 um, from being the Royal Port to being this kind of commercial port, well, part of the bigger emporium, isn't it? 576 01:03:47,670 --> 01:03:56,579 (Franck Goddio) Yes. And that the small port which used to be a Royal port has a very narrow entrance and, 577 01:03:56,580 --> 01:04:04,980 and the facility we not for such very big freighters, as mentioned in the fleet going to Ostia, of course. 578 01:04:05,040 --> 01:04:14,250 (Damian Robinson) So within that, that it is the necessity of having the small boats to as either, as tugboats to, to move them into place or 579 01:04:14,790 --> 01:04:20,820 I also wanted to talk to you about warping the ships around the harbour as well at some point. 580 01:04:20,940 --> 01:04:23,970 Uh, so. Yeah. 581 01:04:27,170 --> 01:04:33,620 (Andrew Wilson) Damien, thank you again for a really clear, fascinating and insightful talk. 582 01:04:34,490 --> 01:04:39,620 (Damian Robinson) Thank you very much. And thank you very much to everybody else for watching.