THE KITTEN SHIPWRECK:
ARCHAEOLOGY AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF A
BLACK SEA
MERCHANTMAN
A Dissertation
by
KROUM NICKOLAEV BATCHVAROV
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2009
Major Subject: Anthropology
THE KITTEN SHIPWRECK:
ARCHAEOLOGY AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF A
BLACK SEA
MERCHANTMAN
A Dissertation
by
KROUM NICKOLAEV BATCHVAROV
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved by:
Chair of Committee,
Committee Members,
Head of Department,
Kevin J. Crisman
Cemal Pulak
Donny Hamilton
William Bryant
Donny Hamilton
August 2009
Major Subject: Anthropology
iii
ABSTRACT
The Kitten Shipwreck: Archaeology and Reconstruction of a Black Sea Merchantman.
(August 2009)
Kroum Nickolaev Batchvarov, B.A., Park University;
M.A., Texas A&M University
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Kevin J. Crisman
In the early 1980s Bulgarian archaeologists of the newly established Centre for
Underwater Archaeology at Sozopol discovered the remains of a post-medieval ship in
the southern Bay of Kitten, in the lee of Cape Urdoviza. Between 2000 and 2003, the
Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University and a team from the
Bulgarian Centre for Underwater Archaeology returned to the site to complete the first
excavation of a post-medieval shipwreck in the Black Sea. The well-preserved vessel,
lost in the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Selim III (1789-1807), featured constructional
characteristics seen in Iberian shipbuilding tradition, such as scarfed floors and futtocks
and filling pieces between the frames.
Analysis of the Kitten ship permitted the author to reconstruct the whole-molding
process used by the shipwright to build the vessel. The futtock-floor hook-scarphs
appear to be the identifying part of the molding process. Morphologically identical scarfs
have also been observed on Mediterranean wrecks such as Culip VI (14th century),
iv
Yassiada (16th century) and Sardineax (17th century), which suggests that the Kitten ship
is a very late example of a Mediterranean-wide shipbuilding tradition that developed in
the Middle Ages and from which the Atlantic vessel descended. It also points that the
Black Sea maritime culture was an integral part of Mediterranean seafaring tradition.
The dissertation offers an overview of the artifact assemblage raised from the Kitten
shipwreck. Fragments of an iconostas prove that at the time of sinking the vessel was
operated by Christians. The smoking paraphernalia found on the wreck provides
opportunity to correct the dating of some pipe bowl types proposed by previous scholars.
Personal belongings open a window into the life of the crew of a Black Sea
merchantman. Although the ethnicity of the crew cannot be determined at this time, a
group of copper galley ware suggests that they may have been Bulgarian. An unsolved
mystery is presented by the presence of a navigational instrument, probably an octant, on
board.
v
DEDICATION
To my daughter Mariana for all the joy she has brought into my life! To my mother for
being the greatest friend and in loving memory of my father!
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Kevin Crisman, Chair of my Committee, was – as always – a mountain of support
and encouragement throughout the different stages of this project. Without him, the
excavation of the Kitten shipwreck would never have happened. I am much the richer for
having met Dr. Crisman and for having studied under him! Without the educational
experience of the 1998 field season in Lake Champlain, I would not have been able to
undertake the Kitten shipwreck excavation. He and Dr. Fred Hocker taught me not only
the techniques of hull recording and reconstruction, but, much more importantly, taught
a philosophy, an approach to this field of research. My debt to them is immense and can
only be acknowledged, never repaid. I was extremely lucky to have had the opportunity
to study under professors of their caliber. My time at the Nautical Archaeology Program
was not only among the happiest times of my life, but also the most enlightening period
of it, thanks to Dr. Crisman, Dr. Hocker and last, but certainly not least, Dr. John
McManamon. These gentlemen enriched me beyond what words can describe. Their
friendship is very dear to me!
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Cemal Pulak, Dr. Donny
Hamilton and Dr. William Bryant for their generous help and encouragement. I am
particularly grateful to Dr. Pulak for all he has done for me over the years. This
dissertation is the better for his corrections.
vii
I am very grateful to my friends Dr. John McManamon, Dr. Fred Hocker, Mr. Mark
Polzer and Mr. Troy Nowak for joining me in this adventure. I thank them for their trust
in me, for their contributions and advise. I sincerely hope that one day we shall excavate
another shipwreck together! Dr. McManamon suffered through reading an early draught
of this dissertation. I cannot thank him enough for this act of heroism! He has been the
greatest of friends over the years.
The late Dr. Ivan Ivanov, Director of the Varna Museum of Archaeology, was a gracious
host to our reconnaissance crew in 1999. My co-director, Dr. Kalin Porozhanov,
Research Secretary of the Institute of Thracology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
was a gracious and deeply respected colleague. His great good humor, encouragement
and authority were greatly beneficial to the expedition. Through the unrelenting efforts
of Ms. Hristina Angelova, a small museum opened in Kitten, where most of the finds
from the expedition are now displayed! There are not many projects that end up having
their own museum!
A big Thank You is due to Dr. Georgy Mavrov for conserving the artifact assemblage
from the wreck, practically donating most of his labor and time! Mr. Milen Marinov, a
conservator with the Varna Museum of Archaeology, joined us in the 2003 season and
undertook all our field conservation, donating his time. I am very grateful to him and
only wish he had joined us earlier. Through the campaign seasons, Captain Petar Petrov
was a great friend and a good colleague. Thank you, Pepi! In the 2001-2003 excavation
viii
campaigns Mr. Rumen Zhelezarov, a NAUI instructor, served as our Diving Safety
Officer and trained nearly half the Bulgarian participants in this project. Mr.
Zhelezarov’s diving school is now located on the helicopter landing pad, where once
stood our base. Rumen was one of the most reliable and steady participants in this
project.
Most of the work force for the project was provided by archaeology students from New
Bulgarian University, Sofia. The contribution of Stanislav Bonev, Anita Dotzeva, Mr.
Yavor Ivanov, Ivelina Petkova, Miroslav Todorov, Dimiter Vassilev is gratefully
acknowledged. Here is the place to acknowledge also the participation of three
Macedonian students in the project: Valentina Todorovska and Sarita Karpuzova and
Goran Sanev. The bulk of the research presented below, was undertaken in the years
2005-2008. Many people generously shared their knowledge and time with me, and
helped me in many other ways. Meglena Parvin found, copied and sent me enormous
quantity of articles, of the existence of which, I was blissfully unaware. Debbie Cvikel
arranged for the successful reading of the stamps on pipe bowls raised from the Kitten
shipwreck.
I am very grateful to the Institute of Nautical Archaeology! The INA Archaeological
Committee took a risk in entrusting me with this project and I thank them for the trust!
The financial support of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology in the first two seasons
was crucial. The late Mr. Harry Kahn generously supported the Kitten Shipwreck. He is
ix
remembered with gratitude. RPM Nautical Foundation was an extremely generous
sponsor of the Kitten Shipwreck Excavation. Thank you! The National Geographic
Council for Exploration has always been a generous supporter of INA projects. The
Kitten Shipwreck Excavation benefitted from the Council’s generosity and vision, too,
through their grant #7385-02. Thank you!
My vocabulary is too poor to properly thank Mr. John De Lapa for his exceptional
generosity towards me, for his trust in me and my work. Maecenates like the Medici
made the Italian Renaissance possible. If the world is ever to live through a new
Renaissance era, it would be through the generosity of patrons like Mr. De Lapa. The
completion of the excavation and, now, the analysis of the Kitten shipwreck made
possible only through his exceptional, unparalleled bigheartedness! My obligation to Mr.
De Lapa is enormous and I shall never be able to properly thank him! Only through his
generosity have I been enabled to complete my doctoral studies. Here I would like also
to thank Dr. Robert Walker who helped facilitated the administering of the fellowship.
Last, but far from least, I want to thank my family. My parents taught me to love the sea,
archaeology and history and were the best possible friends. I want to thank Theodora for
teaching me what little I know of Photoshop and photography, for helping with
scanning, for the encouragement and friendship. Mariana is a treasure!
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................
x
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................
xii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION................................................................................
1
Initial Investigations of the Kitten Ship Wreck in 1982-1986 .............
The Bulgarian Black Sea Project, 2000-2003 ......................................
General Conditions in the Bay .............................................................
Organization and Methodology............................................................
3
8
11
15
II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.........................................................
32
III
DESCRIPTION OF THE HULL REMAINS ......................................
71
The Ship’s Backbone: Keel, Stem and Sternpost.................................
Framing Timbers ..................................................................................
Keelson, Sister Keelsons and Mast Step ..............................................
Stringers and Ceiling Planks ................................................................
Deck Beam ...........................................................................................
Planking................................................................................................
Materials...............................................................................................
Conclusion............................................................................................
74
83
91
95
103
105
106
107
IV
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE KITTEN SHIP .................................. 109
Longitudinal Profile ............................................................................. 112
Hull Sections ........................................................................................ 120
xi
CHAPTER
Page
Hydrostatical Analysis .........................................................................
Measurement System ...........................................................................
Designing the Kitten Ship ....................................................................
Further Research ..................................................................................
Conclusion............................................................................................
V
HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RIG.................... 169
Literature Overview .............................................................................
Archaeological Evidence for the Rig of the Kitten Ship......................
Basis for the Reconstruction of the Rig ...............................................
Spar Dimensions ..................................................................................
Standing Rigging..................................................................................
Running Rigging ..................................................................................
Handling of the Lateen Rig ..................................................................
Conclusions ..........................................................................................
VI
169
170
181
195
198
200
205
220
ARTIFACTS FROM THE KITTEN SHIPWRECK ........................... 223
Ceramics...............................................................................................
Copper Utensils ....................................................................................
Wooden Spoons....................................................................................
Coins and Tokens .................................................................................
Carved Wooden Plaques ......................................................................
Personal Effects....................................................................................
Clay Pipes and Smoking Paraphernalia ...............................................
Navigational Equipment.......................................................................
Miscellaneous.......................................................................................
Conclusions ..........................................................................................
VII
132
140
144
161
165
226
233
249
251
255
259
264
286
289
294
CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 299
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 316
VITA ......................................................................................................................... 326
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Page
1
Map of Bulgaria with the locations of Sozopol and Kitten........................
1
2
Map of the Bay of Kitten............................................................................
2
3
Location of the Kitten shipwreck, the Early Bronze Age settlement and
the base camp .............................................................................................
10
The dark areas show the Bow square and Trench F at the end of the 2000
season .........................................................................................................
19
5
The Bow Square, 2000. ..............................................................................
20
6
Site Plan at the end of the 2001 season ......................................................
22
7
Site plan, 2002............................................................................................
24
8
The site plan at the end of the 2003 season................................................
26
9
Diver recording timber scantlings ..............................................................
29
10
Map of the Balkan Peninsula and the Bulgarian coastline.........................
33
11
Plan of the intact hull structure ..................................................................
72
12
External reinforcing timber, notched for the frame overlaps .....................
76
13
The remains of the stem with a deep rabbet along the side........................ .
79
14
The Sternpost..............................................................................................
80
15
Y-shaped floor timber in the bow...............................................................
84
16
Futtocks with hook notches, probably from the collapsed port side..........
85
17
Hook-scarfs between the floor timbers and the first futtocks on the Kitten
wreck ..........................................................................................................
86
4
xiii
FIGURE
18
Page
The Midship frame consists of a large floor timber and futtocks fastened
to either side of it........................................................................................
88
19
Notch in adjacent timber for fastener of a toptimber .................................
90
20
The top of the keelson in the bow section ..................................................
92
21
Stanchion mortise with square imprint visible...........................................
93
22
Sister keelsons and mast step .....................................................................
95
23
Crenelated timbers with filling pieces between the futtocks......................
96
24
Starboard side with stringers and filling timbers........................................
99
25
A part of the outer footwaling strake which may have formed part of a
breasthook .................................................................................................. 100
26
Transversal ceiling planks in center right of the photograph. .................... 101
27
Deck beam.................................................................................................. 103
28
Reconstructed lines of the Kitten Ship....................................................... 117
29
Longitudinal section of the hull. ................................................................ 119
30
Frame 26 as recorded ................................................................................. 120
31
Frame E as recorded ................................................................................... 121
32
Frame at section 13, as recorded ................................................................ 123
33
Midship frame as recorded. ........................................................................ 124
34
Reconstructed midship frame..................................................................... 125
35
Narrowing and rising of Frame M.............................................................. 151
36
Narrowing and rising of Frame 13 ............................................................. 153
37
Narrowing and rising at Frame E ............................................................... 154
xiv
FIGURE
Page
38
Narrowing and rising at Frame 7................................................................ 155
39
On the left is an experimental mezzaluna based on different numbers
of frames included in the calculation ......................................................... 158
40
Aft mezzarola ............................................................................................. 159
41
This mezzarola fits the rising forward........................................................ 160
42
One of the dried out blocks, recovered in the 1980s .................................. 171
43
The mast step, supported by the sister-keelsons ........................................ 172
44
Small block recovered from the Bow square in 2000 ................................ 174
45
Double block .............................................................................................. 175
46
One of the larger single blocks................................................................... 176
47
Toggle in situ.............................................................................................. 179
48
Leather pieces with traces of sewing.......................................................... 181
49
Extreme mast rake on a lateen-rigged vessel ............................................. 184
50
Fishing boats from Sozopol, c. 1912.......................................................... 185
51
Sefer boats and a mauna at the quay in Sozopol, c. 1912 .......................... 186
52
A mahone from the early 20th century........................................................ 187
53
A lateener with heavily raked mast ............................................................ 192
54
Detail from an engraving by Melling, showing a two-masted
lateener c. 1819 ......................................................................................... 193
55
Detail from a Melling engraving, c. 1819 .................................................. 194
56
Reconstruction of the Kitten vessel’s rig ................................................... 198
57
A detail from Plate 53 in The Greek Merchant Marine ............................. 203
xv
FIGURE
Page
58
Diagram of a lateen rig............................................................................... 206
59
Settee rig as carried by Alexandrian feluccas ............................................ 209
60
Sketch of a ghaissa rig, sailing on a wind.................................................. 210
61
A passenger alamana, with a stub mast and almost gunter-like lateen sail 211
62
A mahone with lowered yard for passing under bridges............................ 212
63
Small lateeners on the starboard tack ......................................................... 216
64
KT050......................................................................................................... 227
65
Inkpots. KT079 on the left and KT080 on the right................................... 229
66
KT112, an oinochoe-type jug from the stern cabin.................................... 230
67
Ceramic tiles from the stern cabin.............................................................. 231
68
KT082 Coffee cup ...................................................................................... 232
69
KT006 Sahan.............................................................................................. 236
70
KT067 Sahan with hatched decoration on the rim .................................... 237
71
KT065 A shallow and thin-walled plate .................................................... 239
72
KT066 A tava............................................................................................. 240
73
KT007 Tas or tazza .................................................................................... 242
74
KT063 Lid, probably of basin KT064........................................................ 243
75
KT064 Basin .............................................................................................. 244
76
KT011 Siniya or carrying tray.................................................................... 245
77
KT119 Copper brazier................................................................................ 247
78
KT115 Two-part candlestick...................................................................... 248
xvi
FIGURE
Page
79
KT026 Type I spoon with hexagonal handle ............................................. 250
80
KT101 An accounting token struck by Ernst Lauer................................... 252
81
KT102 An accounting token struck by Johan Christian Reich .................. 254
82
KT099 An Ottoman parah coin from the reign of Selim III ...................... 255
83
KT068 Front and back sides of the gilded plaque...................................... 257
84
KT069 Carved plaque with cross decoration ............................................. 258
85
KT070 on the left and KT072 on the right................................................. 259
86
KT036 A comb found in a wicker basket in the bow................................. 260
87
KT035 A comb found in the stern cabin .................................................... 261
88
KT061 Upper part of a man’s shoe, tzarvul ............................................... 262
89
KT060 Sole from a child’ shoe .................................................................. 263
90
KT056 This artifact is tentatively identified as a toy sword ...................... 264
91
KT087 Disc-based pipe .............................................................................. 270
92
KT092 Disc-based pipe with stamp on shank............................................ 271
93
KT093......................................................................................................... 272
94
KT094 has seen extensive use.................................................................... 273
95
KT095 has the stamp pressed in three places............................................. 274
96
KT096......................................................................................................... 276
97
KT105 An hourglass-shaped pipe .............................................................. 278
98
KT097 Ivory mouthpiece ........................................................................... 280
99
KT098 Stem with amber mouthpiece from the Kitten shipwreck ............. 282
xvii
FIGURE
Page
100 KT117 Mirror from a navigational instrument .......................................... 287
101 KT118 Possibly an ocular from the same navigational instrument
as KT117 ................................................................................................... 288
102 KT113 Marble mortar ................................................................................ 290
103 KT012 Grain scoop .................................................................................... 291
104 KT085 A small cask found in the stern cabin ............................................ 292
105 KT058 Shepherd’s bell from the neck of the goat ..................................... 293
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Page
1
Table of Proportions of Mediterranean vessels.......................................... 114
2
Measurements in Ottoman units................................................................. 143
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the early 1980s Bulgarian archaeologists of the newly established Centre for
Underwater Archaeology (CUA) at Sozopol (fig. 1) discovered the remains of a postmedieval ship in the southern Bay of Kitten, under Cape Urdoviza (fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Map of Bulgaria with locations of Sozopol and Kitten. Drawing: K. N.
Batchvarov.
____________
This dissertation follows the style of the American Journal of Archaeology.
2
Fig. 2. Map of the Bay of Kitten.1 Drawing: Dr. M. Georgiev.
Over three seasons Dr. Kalin Porozhanov directed a limited excavation of the site which,
came to an abrupt halt when an Early Bronze Age settlement was discovered beneath the
1
In Bulgarian the town’s name is spelled with a single “T” and is transcribed into Latin alphabet verbatim.
However, as such it tends to be pronounced in English as “kite”, when it should be pronounced “kitten”.
To avoid confusion in pronunciation, therefore, I adopted a second “t” in this work.
3
ship. Since the Bronze Age settlement was threatened by the building of a marina, it
required immediate archaeological attention. The construction of the marina and the
absence of nautical specialists in Bulgaria led the excavators to rebury the ship and
concentrate their efforts on the settlement.2 The three seasons of excavation, in 1982,
1984, and 1986, however, yielded some noteworthy clues to the importance of the ship.
In 2000 a joint Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) and Centre for Underwater
Archaeology (CUA) team returned to the wreck to initiate a full-scale excavation and
recording.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KITTEN SHIPWRECK IN 1982-1986
The vessel was lay at a depth of eight to twelve meters, with the longitudinal axis of the
ship oriented NE–SW. The CUA opened seven three-meter excavation grid squares. The
grid followed the length of the vessel. Squares I, II, III, V, VI, VII were in line
overlaying a row of exposed frame tops; square IV was opened immediately to the east
of square III. Unfortunately no site plan from that excavation survives, although
Porozhanov has managed to save the field notes of the expedition from the numerous
floods, closings, restructurings and other disasters that have befallen the CUA over the
years. Based on these logs, Dr. Porozhanov published a brief preliminary report on the
work undertaken in the 1980s. The present introduction is based on this article, the field
2
Porozhanov 2000.
4
notes themselves, which he kindly allowed me to study in 2002, and personal
conversations.
The CUA did not find any cargo on the wreck. A large quantity of branches and tree
trunks were discovered, some of which still had bark. The reported pieces varied in
length between one and three meters. It was supposed that this may have been cargo or
firewood for the galley. In light of later observations, it is even more probable that the
material was deposited secondarily on top of the wreck and was not part of the wreck
itself. The Karaagatch River, in the southern end of the bay, to the present day tends to
carry timbers.
In the northern part of the wreck the CUA discovered five dark green-glazed jugs with
pinched mouths. Identical jugs from nearly the same location were also recovered in
2003. Ceramics in the area were covered with a black coating which at the time of the
first excavation was assumed to be evidence of burning. During the joint expeditions of
2000-2003, however, we found no trace of fire on board the ship. The black coloring
appears to be the result of the interaction between salt water, iron fastenings and oak
timber. A few copper utensils, described in the article as cauldrons, were raised by the
CUA from the same area of the hull and are now stored in the Sozopol Museum of
Archaeology. None of them are large enough to be a true cooking cauldron and they are
all better described as skillets or saucepans. All are heavily eroded and have not been
conserved. Similar items were also discovered off the port bow in 2003. They were in
5
equally poor condition, so were not recovered. Items that were recovered in the 1980s,
but are no longer to be found in the Museum, include a wooden plaque of 20 cm by 5 cm
with St Andrew crosses incised on it, a broken wooden spoon (17 more were recovered
between 2002 and 2003), pieces of a pigskin, fruit stones, pieces of a rush mat, rope and
an iron ring. In square IV (to the east of the main line of the excavation grid), two barrels
with iron hoops were discovered. On one of the barrels was incised the letter “X” (In
Cyrillic this letter is read as “H”). In the same square with the barrels two bronze inkpots
(divits) a copper cauldron with two handles, two clay smoking pipe bowls and, what is
described as two wooden “spades” were found. In 2002, we were able to identify the
“spades” as filling boards from between the futtocks, placed at the level of the turn of the
bilge. Since no specifically diagnostic artifacts were discovered, the wreck was broadly
dated to the 16th -19th centuries.
Even in the 1980s it was recognized that the most important find of the assemblage was
the hull itself. Porozhanov documents that only the eastern portion of the hull was
excavated to a length of 22 meters and width of three meters, but he concluded that the
width of the actual surviving coherent structure was probably at least six meters,
allowing a maximum beam for the vessel of about 7-8 meters. In 2002 and 2003 we
proved his inferences on both accounts to be correct. The expeditionary logs suggest that
the excavation reached a depth into the site of between one and one and a half meters.
This may be an overestimate, as we reached artifacts in-situ at a depth of about one
meter below the surface, implying that the previous work on the site did not attain such
6
depth. A coherent “deck” structure was found within the excavated area. The report does
not make it clear, but it appears that the archaeologists (or rather the commercial divers
who worked under them) uncovered part of the bottom ceiling planking of the ship, as
they are the sole surviving part that can reasonably be described as “deck” or “cabin
sole”. In that same area seven small and four “large” blocks from the rigging of the ship
were discovered. It is not clear whether they were stored there, or deposited there
through the wrecking process. Lack of evidence for internal division of the hull in the
area suggests that the blocks probably were in use at the time of sinking.
A Bulgarian ship modeler identified a disarticulated timber discovered in the southern
part of the wreck, corresponding to the stern, as the sternpost. However, the
identification has since been proven incorrect. In 2003 we discovered the sternpost
(unmistakable with its long, curving pintle) under the starboard quarter of the ship, in a
place where excavations had not been undertaken in the 1980s.
In his preliminary report, Porozhanov correctly assumed that the ship was steered with a
tiller. He hypothesized an overall length for the vessel of around 24-25 meters and a
beam of about 7-8 meters. The larger blocks (actually modest in dimensions) were
tentatively identified as part of the shroud tackles for a lateen rig. Porozhanov expressed
the opinion that the ship had a single mast with a lateen sail. Although the blocks are too
small for shroud tackles, the conclusions appear to be correct, based on the discoveries
of 2002 and 2003. In fact, it is worth noting that most of Porozhanov’s assumptions and
7
deductions were confirmed by the joint 2000-2003 expedition. This is a notable
achievement, as ship reconstruction and archaeology were at the time unknown in
Bulgaria; our joint effort was the first complete excavation and recording of a postmedieval Black Sea merchantman.
Artifacts suggested the wreck dated to the Ottoman Period in Bulgaria (1396-1878).
Taking into account the type of pottery discovered and the smoking pipes, a 17th- or
early 18th-century date was proposed. The two bronze inkpots implied that there were
literate people aboard the vessel, not a common occurrence among the population in the
Ottoman Empire in those days. The piece of pig’s hide and the small plaque with St.
Andrew crosses suggested that the ship had an Orthodox Christian crew at the time of its
loss. Samples were taken from the wooden structure of the ship and sent to Associate
Professor Elena Chakalova from the Biology Department of St. Kliment Ohridski
University in Sofia for identification. All structural hull timbers were identified as made
of oak. The decorative plaque was made of sycamore (Platonus orientalis). The fruit
stones found on the wreck were of cornel-tree berries (cornus sp.). All identified species
grew and still grow in the mountainous parts of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast.
In the 1980s a heavy airlift, powered by a large capacity low-pressure compressor, was
used for the removal of overburden from the site. The spoil was brought to the surface
and screened through a monitored sieve. The mapping of the site was based on the grid
squares. For more precise drawings, the archaeologists built a movable one square meter
8
frame divided with thinner welded rods into 10 cm by 10 cm squares. Unfortunately the
drawings produced in the 1980s were not found in the archives of the Centre in 2002 and
2003. Between seasons, the site was reburied by covering it with sandbags. Most of
these bags were removed during the joint expeditions of 2000-2003.
Although the work in the 1980s was interrupted and the excavation could not be
completed, archaeologists came to the conclusion that the ship could offer valuable
insights into the maritime history of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, a hitherto
understudied subject.
THE BULGARIAN BLACK SEA PROJECT, 2000-2003
The Bulgarian Black Sea Project came into being in the fall of 1998 as result of a
conversation over pints of Guinness among Dr. Fred Hocker, Dr. John McManamon,
Mr. Troy Nowak, a student at the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M
University at the time, and myself. We discussed the potential of the Bulgarian Black
Sea coast for nautical archaeology, considering the length of human occupation along its
shore. From these shores comes the oldest golden treasure in the world, the Varna
treasure (c. 4800 BC), numerous late Neolithic and Early Bronze age inundated
settlements (at last count more than 15 were known, although not excavated), the
extensive and well-attested maritime traffic since the dawn of Greek colonization (7th
century BC for the Bulgarian coast) to the present day. The four participants in the
9
conversation decided to undertake a reconnaissance trip to Bulgaria, as the Institute of
Nautical Archaeology (INA) had long demonstrated interest in the region. It fell to the
lot of the present writer to have the pleasure of organizing the expedition and ultimately
direct both the reconnaissance and the following excavation at Kitten.
The reconnaissance trip took place in the first week of June 1999 and proved to be a
great success, largely thanks to the efforts and logistical genius of the late Dr. Ivan
Ivanov, director of the Varna Museum of Archaeology and principal investigator both of
the famous Neolithic Varna necropolis and the 13 inundated settlements discovered in
Lake Varna. His untimely death in 2001 was a significant loss to Bulgarian archaeology
and to those who knew and respected him.
During the trip, the participants in the survey were introduced to Ms. Hristina Angelova,
Kalin Dimitrov and Petar Petrov, colleagues from the Centre for Underwater
Archaeology, based in Sozopol, who became our guides for the Southern Bulgarian
Black Sea coast. Mr. Dimitrov and Captain Petrov showed the expedition the site in the
southern bay of Kitten. Very little of the ship was observable, as only the tips of the
framing timbers were protruding from the bottom. The little that was visible suggested
that the hull remains were in good condition. The ship and other nearby wrecks lay in the
middle of the inundated Early Bronze Age settlement (Fig. 3).
10
Fig. 3. Location of the Kitten shipwreck, the Early Bronze Age settlement and the base
camp. Drawing: Dr. M. Georgiev.
It was believed that during previous work on the site, all notable artifacts had been
raised. The assumption subsequently proved incorrect, but it had influence on the
decision to resume work on the site.
After the end of the reconnaissance trip of 1999, it was decided to excavate this wreck. I
thought that thanks to the previous work, the resources needed to complete the
excavation would be more limited than what would be necessary if a different site was
chosen. Since no other ships from this period have been excavated in the Black Sea, any
data recovered from the remains of this vessel would be a significant contribution to our
knowledge of shipbuilding. With the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 the
11
Black Sea region became almost completely isolated from the rest of the Mediterranean
world until the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardja of 1774. The isolation caused technological
stagnation, it was assumed, that the vessel would yield information relevant to much
earlier periods. Furthermore, it was hoped that it might offer comparative information
for the 16th-century Ottoman wreck from Yassiada, excavated by INA in the 1980s. The
expeditions of 2000-2003 proved the assumption correct and yielded even more
information on ship construction and seafaring in the region than I had hoped. In the late
fall of 1999 was decided to return to Bulgaria in 2000 and begin the complete excavation
of the wreck. In accordance with Bulgarian law it was necessary to have a Bulgarian
organization to partner with in order to apply for a permit. The logical choice for a
partner institution was the CUA with its base in Sozopol, 30 km from the site in the
southern bay of Kitten.
GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE BAY
The small resort town of Kitten is located at the base of the promontory which ends with
Cape Urdoviza, a name believed to be of Thracian origin. The cape protects the southern
bay from the northern and north-northeasterly winds fairly well, but once the wind veers
further to the east, the bay becomes an open lee shore with breaking seas. The mouth of
the bay is narrowed by two reefs, which present significant navigational hazards. Only
the more dangerous, southern, reef has a name – Marmalyata. The smaller, northern reef
is closer to the cape. The danger that they present in foul weather was brought to our
12
attention in a brutal way in 2001, when a fishing boat capsized while attempting to cut
across the northern reef and one of the two fishermen on board drowned. That the
anchorage could easily become unsafe is also well-attested by the presence of five or six
postmedieval wrecks, most of them in very close proximity to the ship that we
excavated.
During subsequent years of work on the wreck we learned more about the composition
of sediments on the bay floor. Three distinct levels of overburden were observed during
the excavations. The uppermost consists of shells and pebbles, mixed with sand and
extends down to 50-70 cm depth. This level is disturbed as the previous work on the site
certainly reached this deep. It also appears that, because of the shallowness, this level of
the bottom is regularly churned by storms. For these two reasons, artifacts found in the
uppermost half meter of our trenches were considered of uncertain provenience and may
not have been associated with the wreck under investigation. The second level is readily
differentiated from the upper one because it consists of heavy, tightly packed fine
sediments – mud, which could almost be cut with a knife. The vast majority of finds
were recovered from this level, which extended down for nearly two meters. The dense
matrix ensured anaerobic conditions, and organic material recovered from the stratum
was found to be in excellent condition. The final level consists of large-sized gravel,
which slowed down the excavation considerably. The gravel was found mostly in the
middle part and after parts of the wreck. Among the gravel were observed numerous
pieces of flint, which does not occur naturally on the sea bottom in the bay of Kitten.
13
Therefore, this gravel was almost certainly part of the ship’s ballast, a notion
strengthened by the fact that the level was in direct contact with the ceiling planking of
the hull bottom. It is notable that this gravel level was observed only from about
midships to the after hold, where more of the hull structure survived and probably
prevented the gravel from getting dispersed. However, the quantity of gravel appears
insufficient to ensure the stability of a ship of this size, but no attempts were made to
quantify this impression. In this level, virtually no artifacts were found, which also tends
to argue in favour of ship’s ballast, rather than overburden. Tiny shards of glass were
found mixed with the gravel.
The present-day shoreline is a product of the extensive building activity of the 1980s. A
helicopter landing pad (no longer used as such) built on top of concrete tetrapods, a
breakwater and the Marina Hotel and Restaurant were constructed. These manmade
features have undoubtedly changed the hydrodynamics of the bay significantly, even
without taking into account the construction debris spread all around the bay. The wreck
site lies between the landing pad and the breakwater at a depth of about 8.5 meters (Fig.
3). The incoming waves hit the quay, the withdrawing water then encounters the
tetrapods of the landing pad and thus cause confused ground swells on the bottom.
Because of these conditions, once waves reach Force 2 it was virtually impossible,
especially for less experienced divers, to work on the seabed. Even moderate winds from
the NE and E (which are dominant during the summer and early fall) can bring about
powerful enough waves to make excavation impracticable, so finding the right window
14
of weather conditions was difficult. To our further annoyance, waves, even if small
enough to permit excavation, brought seaweed to the site and quickly filled the
excavation trenches. It was virtually impossible to see the wreck through the seaweeds,
and nearly every day we had to begin our work by having to clear them from the site.
More significantly, the dynamic conditions on the bottom meant that shards and small
artifacts could easily shift if not properly secured with sand bags. The entire bottom was
covered with pottery fragments from different eras, which happily coexisted with our
shipwreck material even at some depth into the bottom. Thus, the stratigraphy of the site
proved to be of less use than one would expect. As an example, it is sufficient to mention
the discovering of a perfectly preserved Early Bronze Age oil lamp inside a late 18th- or
early 19th-century copper cauldron. The presence of other wrecks nearby added to the
bottom dynamics, also made it uncertain whether finds from the upper level of the site
were necessarily from the ship under excavated or represented intrusive material from
one of the other wrecks. That this is a legitimate concern is demonstrated by our finding
of modern cups and saucers from the Marina Hotel within the top level of the site. Slabs
of dumped concrete from the construction work of the 1980s may be seen in different
places in direct proximity to the wreck. During the excavation concrete was also
uncovered within the wreck itself.
From the point of view of diving, operations were easier in comparison to most
Mediterranean projects undertaken by INA because of the shallow water. The most
15
challenging part of the work was the surface swim from the base camp on the helicopter
pad to the site, a distance of some 100 meters. A modest depth of 8.5 meters over the
wreck meant that the duration of the dives was limited only by air consumption and
water temperature. On average most of the crew, once they gained diving experience,
made two dives per day, each of about 1 hour and 40 minutes duration. I averaged about
2.5-hour dives. In general, the crew was favoured with mild temperatures of around 18
degrees Celsius, except during the last season, in 2003, when water temperatures
dropped unseasonably to about 6 degrees Celsius, dramatically cutting into the length of
the dives. Happily, not once in four seasons of diving operations were any injuries
suffered by any of the crew members.
Generally, visibility in the Black Sea compares unfavorably with that in the
Mediterranean and Caribbean, but it is certainly superior to that in many lakes, rivers
and temperate coastal zones. It averages between 2 and 6 meters, but on especially good
days (i.e., when the water is freezing cold!) it can reach 10-12 meters. Conversely, after
storms, when the sea is unsettled visibility quickly deteriorates down to a few
centimeters. Coupled with the carpet of seaweeds, the situation becomes disorienting and
usually we aborted diving in such conditions. No strong bottom current was discernible
during the four seasons of excavation.
ORGANIZATION AND METHODOLOGY
The expedition was technically a joint venture between the Institute of Nautical
16
Archaeology, based at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, USA and the
Bulgarian Centre for Underwater Archaeology (CUA) in Sozopol. In accordance with
Bulgarian law, permission for international archaeological excavations was granted by
decision No. 536/28.07.2000 of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers. Annual clearances
were issued by the Archaeological Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences upon
receipt of a satisfactory report for work in the previous season.
Administratively, the expedition was directed by a triumvirate consisting of Dr. Kalin
Porozhanov, Research Secretary of the Institute of Thracology and project director, Ms.
Hristina Angelova, director of the Centre for Underwater Archaeology, who served as
his assistant project director on the Bulgarian side, and myself as project director on
behalf of INA. Because of the lack of prior ship-recording and reconstruction experience
in Bulgaria, the burden of directing the physical work under water and recording of the
site was undertaken by the author. Recording and cataloging the artifacts was Ms.
Angelova’s responsibility.
Our excavation seasons lasted about a month each. In the first two seasons, 2000 and
2001, the INA participants consisted of Dr. John McManamon of Loyola University, Mr.
Mark Polzer and Mr. Troy Nowak, students in the Nautical Archaeology graduate
program at Texas A&M University, and myself. Dr. Fred Hocker visited the site and
offered much appreciated guidance, advice and support. In 2001 an additional nautical
archaeology student from Texas A&M University, Lauren Lancaster, participated in the
17
project. In 2002 and 2003 I was the sole INA representative. For this reason the main
labor force was provided by Bulgarian Students from New Bulgarian University, who
had taken Dr. Porozhanov’s introductory course in nautical archaeology. Divemaster for
the expedition in 2000 was Dr. McManamon, and from 2001 onwards Mr. Rumen
Zhelezarov, a NAUI dive instructor and owner of a diving school. In general, the
Bulgarian students demonstrated both enthusiasm and willingness to work. Although the
weather was unpleasant, cloudy, rainy and chilly the entire month, this did not dampen
the spirit of the crew at all, making the season by far the most successful and efficient of
all the campaigns.
By agreement with the Bulgarian colleagues leading the expedition, the hull recording
and ultimate publishing was the author’s responsibility. The artifact assemblage was to
be documented and studied by the Bulgarian team. Dr. Porozhanov and I had agreed to
offer students the opportunity to work with the material and publish it, a rare practice in
Bulgaria as I was told. At the time of writing the bulk of the work is still in progress, but
the rigging elements (see Chapter V) and the smoking paraphernalia (see Chapter VI),
have been completed.
We originally intended to use water dredges to excavate the site. By the end of the first
season we came to the conclusion that the small 2-inch (5 cm) 5-HP Briggs and Stratton
pumps could not power the large diameter waterdredges that we had. Their diameter of
10 cm (4 inches) was too large for the available pumps and we ought to have built
18
smaller heads. During the second season, at the insistence of Ms. Angelova, the water
dredges were supplemented with the Centre’s old extremely powerful air lift, a
throwback to the days of Cape Gelidonya and the early seasons of the Yassiada
excavation, as its design was based on descriptions and photographs in Dr. George
Bass’s Archaeology under Water, translated into Bulgarian. To describe the unwieldy
beast, it is best to quote Dr. Bass’ nickname for that type of airlift: the “Monster”. From
my experience it was a fully justified nickname. Despite the claims of the Centre’s
archaeologists that they could set the airlift up in such a way as to make it “controllable
with a single finger,” the reality was different. From a distance, working with it looked
like an epic battle between Man and the Loch Ness Monster, generally ending with the
victory of the latter. One thing that can be said in its favor, though, is that it had plenty
of power - that is why Ms. Angelova suggested its use - as it was driven by a road air
compressor, and no stone was too heavy for it to lift. On the negative side, that same
just-lifted stone was almost invariably deposited promptly on top of the diver. Despite
the high entertainment value provided by the “Monster”, for the third and fourth seasons
(2002, 2003), we reverted to INA-style airlifts made of PVC pipes. Due to the
shallowness of the site, had water pumps of sufficient size been easily available, we
would have been better off building and deploying new water dredges. However, taking
into account that much of the seabed was covered with large shells and that hand-picking
each small stone would have cost too much time, we had to accept that the powerful
airlifts were the best readily available equipment for moving huge quantities of
overburden covering the site.
19
Fig. 4. The dark areas show the Bow square and Trench F at the end of the 2000 season.
Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
For the first four-week season in 2000, the plan was to excavate a single trench across
the longitudinal axis of the ship in order to get information on the extent of the wreck.
This idea was based on the assumption from the 1980s work that only a small part of the
bottom of the ship survived (Fig. 4). As it turned out, this was an optimistic approach. At
the beginning only the tops of some frames on the starboard side were visible above the
bottom sediment. We therefore chose the location of the 3-meter wide trench randomly,
more or less at the middle of the line of visible frames. We were not destined to see the
bottom of the ship in this location until the fourth season, by which time we had dug 3
meters into the bottom sediment. During the same season Dr. McManamon and I opened
20
an additional three-meter square in the bow of the ship, as the stem was discovered
protruding from the bottom, amid oak posts from the Early Bronze Age settlement (Fig.
5).
Fig. 5. The Bow Square, 2000. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
During the second four-week season, in 2001, we established the length of the wreck at
about 20 meters and covered it completely with a line grid. The trench from the first
season was designated F, and the letter designation extended to the bow square, which
became row K. The numbering of the grid squares started with 3 and extended to 6,
moving from east to the west. We chose again to use the three-meter squares, thus nearly
mirroring the grid from the 1980s. Our column number 3 corresponds to the location of
the old grid square IV, which appears to have been more or less covered by our I3. Our
grid square K4 was close to the location of the old square I. In the second season no
21
trace was found of the stern itself, but we were able to establish that square F4 covered
the stern cabin of the ship. Grid square in column 3 proved to be to the outside of the
starboard side of the wreck.
In the last week of the 2001 season, the archaeological excavation in area F started
uncovering a heavy concentration of finds, beginning with a large marble mortar (fig. 6).
By the end of the week, a decorated copper teapot and three plates (sakhans) were raised
in addition to a sounding lead and a broken, but complete, ceramic plate. A few more
copper utensils were observable, but left in situ to await the following season. Rows G,
H, and I which corresponded to the central section of the ship yielded only the fragile
remains of a treble block, a couple of sheaves from medium-sized blocks and large
quantities of small softwood fragments that were too heavily eroded to yield any
information. A close examination of the pieces suggested that they may be remains of
deck beams and planking.
22
Fig. 6. Site Plan at the end of the 2001 season. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
23
The third season, 2002, was the glory season of the Kitten expedition. The timing –
September – of the excavation meant that neither Mr. Polzer nor any other INA
members, except for myself, were able to return. The season began late, as the boat had
not been prepared beforehand. Because of this delay, only three weeks of inclement
weather, rather than four, were available to the crew to excavate. During the season the
entire length of the site was under excavation, but progress was especially satisfactory in
Rows F, I, J and K (the bow). Between rows H and K, the ceiling planking of the ship
was reached and the mast step buttresses were discovered (fig. 7). The season ended
before we reached the mast step itself.
During the fourth and final season, June 2003, the remainder of the site was excavated
and numerous artifacts raised (fig. 8). At the very end of the season we also discovered
the remains of the stern post, with the iron pintle still attached to it. Although the
weather was mostly fine throughout the five weeks of the season, the water was
unexpectedly cold; sometimes the temperature dipped to 5-6 degrees Celsius.
Fig. 7. Site plan, 2002. Drawing: K. N.Batchvarov.
24
25
This slowed the progress of the excavation, because it forced the crew to make shorter
dives. Additionally the divers discovered that much of the wreck was filled with, or at
least surrounded by concrete. The irregular distribution pattern of the concrete suggested
strongly that it was intrusive. Among the more noteworthy finds were items that we
believe to have been part of a navigational instrument, such as a sextant or an octant – a
most uncommon instrument for the region - a few ceramic jugs, three brass accounting
tokens, a silver coin from the reign of Sultan Selim III (1789-1807), rigging elements,
smoking pipe bowls and even a complete pipe stem with a mouthpiece – a very rare find,
indeed. The most important find, however, was an almost complete beam, which appears
to have been a mast-partner component. As we were able to determine its exact position
on the ship, the find permits us to establish the overall breadth of the vessel. The end of
the season signaled the completion of the first excavation of a post-medieval Black Sea
ship.
26
Fig. 8. The site plan at the end of the 2003 season. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
27
Throughout the 2000-2003 excavation, the site was mapped with Direct Survey
Measurement (DSM) as described by Nick Rule and used by the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology at Bozburun, Turkey.3 The gathered data was entered into WEB, a
triangulation computer program developed by Rule on the Mary Rose site and licensed
to INA. DSM depends on a set of control points from which distances to datum points
are measured. A computer calculates positions relative to each other and provides XYZ
coordinates for each point. For accuracy to be achieved, the positions of the control
points must be constant. In order to attain this, we followed Mr. Troy Nowak’s idea and
had four “pyramids” built from iron rebar and covered with chicken wire. These
pyramids were lowered to the seabed, positioned and filled with stones to secure them to
the bottom. The stones and the form stability of the pyramids made it certain that the
control points would not move. Although the chicken wire was completely corroded by
the second season, the pyramids themselves survive to the present day and served their
purpose well enough.
The DSM control pyramids were placed in what we optimistically thought were the best
possible positions to provide mutually opposing measurements to each datum. In the
end, we realized that one of the pyramids was too far off the site to be useful and another
one was too close to the site, probably positioned on top of loose ship timbers. During
the second season we added two more pyramids along the centerline of the site, outside
the known location of the bow and stern. Additional control points were established
3
Rule 1989.
28
along the hull itself once we started penetrating deeper into the wreck, as most of the
pyramids no longer had a clear line of sight to the timbers being mapped.
Lack of properly trained personnel and shortness of time limited the extent to which
DSM could be utilized. I decided to map no more than about three points on each frame
timber and a sufficient number of points on the longitudinal timbers (stringers, keelson,
planks, etc.) to fix their location, but not necessarily to record their shape. For recording
the shapes of the frames, we used a goniometer; a tool utilizing a digital level, that has
been employed to great advantage on a number of projects in the Great Lakes and
elsewhere.4 The same tool was also used for recording the keelson.
Although the DSM ought to have provided sufficient data for mapping the site,
additional manual measurements between the timbers were routinely taken while
recording the features and scantlings of individual timbers (fig. 9). In the process of
reconstruction, this redundancy in the gathered data proved of great value, as it permitted
running a check for correcting errors in the DSM measurements.
4
Cozzi 1998.
29
Fig. 9. Diver recording timber scantlings. Photo: L. Klissurov.
From the second season onward, the crew built a rope grid. Its purpose was mostly to
simplify one’s orientation on the site and the allocation of tasks. It was also used to
identify concentrations of artifacts found. Because of the way we set up the site in the
first season, the lettering of the site ran from south to north, with the southernmost row
being designated D. No coherent hull structure was found in D, but began to appear in
30
row E. The stern cabin of the ship was located in row F and the bow in row K. The
numbers ran from east to west, beginning with 3 and ending with 6. The wreck was
mostly situated in column numbers 4 and 5.
Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying that no plan survives the beginning of the
battle. In some ways this statement holds true also of the Kitten shipwreck excavation. I
planned the excavation on the assumption that no more than the bottom of the ship
survived as a coherent structure. By the end of the 2000 season it became obvious that
this was not the case and at least part of the ship’s starboard side was also preserved
intact. Thus, the data the wreck yielded is so much more than was originally anticipated,
and the return on the modest resources invested in the project surpassed the most
optimistic expectations.
Based on the artifactual assemblage, the wreck is dated to the end of the 18th century or
the early years of the 19th century (see Chapter VI for the artifacts and their dating). The
constructional features of the wreck indeed indicate design and construction practices
typical for earlier periods: 15th-17th-century practices (see Chapter III and Chapter IV)
observed in the ship’s construction, which supports the original hypothesis of
technological backwardness in the region. The good preservation of the hull offers the
opportunity to develop a better understanding of the practical aspects of design and
construction practices that hitherto were known mostly from written sources (Chapter
31
IV). As expected, the Kitten wreck exhibited similarities to the late 16th-century Ottoman
wreck from Yassiada, Turkey.
The limited funds available for the project had a direct bearing on many of the decisions
made. It would have been much more efficient to have one or two long campaigns of
excavation, rather than four seasons of about a month length each. This caused a
significant waste of time in setting-up at the beginning and reburying the site at the end
of each season. Thus, the actual productive work time was on average between two and
three weeks. Inclement weather made further inroads into the working time. The limited
funding meant that few students from the Nautical Archaeology program at Texas A&M
University could participate in the project, which dramatically increased my workload as
I was the sole participant with any knowledge of ship structures and understanding of
timber recording. Finally, the lack of funds forced early closing of the final season.
Because of this, the bottom of the keel in the stern could not be reached. One more week
of recording would have been beneficial, but in the circumstances was not available.
Fortunately, the discovery of the lower sternpost, answered many of the remaining
questions for the hull construction of that area.
Despite these frustrations and inconveniences, the project proved to be very successful.
It is the first complete excavation of a post-medieval Black Sea sailing ship and provided
much new information on shipbuilding and design for an area and period of which
hitherto we knew very little.
32
CHAPTER II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Despite reverses suffered since the failed siege of Vienna in 1683, the Ottoman Empire
entered the 18th century with a record of military success. However, by the time Sultan
Selim III ascended the throne in 1789, Ottoman imperial fortunes had reached their
lowest point. In hindsight, the Siege of Vienna in 1683 was the highwater mark of the
Imperial expansion. Each of the 18th-century wars that the Empire fought was a step
down from the height of its power. The artifactual assemblage from the Kitten vessel
provides a terminus post quem date for the loss of the ship in 1789. Thus, the ship
appears to have conducted its trade at a time when the Empire was staggering from
political weakness, military defeats and a shaken economy. A brief overview of Ottoman
18th-century history may help place the vessel in context.
On September 11, 1697, at the battle of Zenta, the greatest general of the period, Prince
Eugene of Savoy, destroyed the army of Sultan Mustafa II (1695-1703) and left the
Empire completely defenseless. Austria, however, was not in a position to follow up the
great victory. Although the War of the League of Augsburg had just ended, it was clear
that a new conflict with France was unavoidable. The Ottoman Empire, unable to
continue the war, was forced to accept the fairly generous peace of Karlowitz in which
both sides retained the territories they held at the time. Thus, Transylvania was freed
33
from Ottoman rule and was added to the Habsburg Empire, Temesvar remained in
Ottoman hands (fig.10).
Fig. 10. Map of the Balkan Peninsula and the Bulgarian coastline.
The Sava and Tisza rivers became the new borders. Venice retained Morea and
conquests in Dalmatia. Peter I of Russia was allowed to retain his conquests around the
34
Sea of Azov but agreed to destroy his forts along the border. A clause in the treaty with
Austria provided for free trade of both sides’ merchants within the territory of the other.
This agreement had important repercussions for the growth of the Balkan merchant
class. Politically, the Treaty of Karlowitz represented the Ottoman transition from the
offensive to the defensive and marked the beginning of the withdrawal from Europe. The
treaty also marked the beginning of the rapid decline of the Ottoman Empire, even if this
was not completely obvious at the time. After the defeat, the Empire embarked upon a
program of limited reforms mostly aimed at restoring the military establishment to the
old state of efficiency and glory. Among the most important reforms of the last years of
the 17th century was the switch from oar-powered to sail-powered vessels for the navy.
Organizationally, the sailing fleet was divided into squadrons under separate
commanders or deryabeys.5
The early years of the 18th century, coincided with the rule of Ahmet III (1703-1730),
whose Grand Vezir, Corlulu Ali (1670-1711) continued the program of limited reforms.
He eliminated much opposition by executing thousands of opponents and confiscating
their properties which were then utilized to fund the reforms. For most of the period he
wisely kept the empire out of European conflicts raging at the time, the War of the
Spanish Succession and the Great Northern War, despite strong pressure to join one or
the other side. This wise policy, however, became harder to follow after Swedish King
Karl XII was defeated at Poltava (July 8, 1709) by the numerically overwhelming
5
Shaw 1987, 223-26.
35
Russian army of Peter I (1682-1725). A strong war party in Istanbul, spurred on by Karl
XII (1697-1718), who had escaped to the Ottoman capital, clamored to avenge the
Treaty of Karlowitz. The reforms had built an exagerated confidence in the strength of
Ottoman forces. Peter, aware of the feelings in the Ottoman capital, anticipated them by
rebuilding his forts around the Sea of Azov in direct violation of the treaty that he
himself had signed. It was neither the first, nor the last time that Russia would violate a
treaty.6
War began late in 1710, and, in the following spring, Peter invaded. However, the
Russian army soon ran out of supplies and, while trying to recross the Pruth River, was
surprised and surrounded by the Ottoman army under Grand Vezir Baltaci Mehmet. The
Russians suffered heavy casualties in their fortified camp, were short of supplies, and
unable to break through; so Peter had no choice but accept whatever conditions were
offered him. Unfortunately for the Ottoman Empire and the future of Europe, Mehmet’s
army was not in a much better state, and he was afraid that it might disintegrate at any
moment, so he did not push for unconditional surrender. The Treaty of Pruth (July 23,
1711) stipulated that Russia would return the occupied territories and destroy its forts.
Free trade agreements were reached between the two sides. Since the Moldovan and
Wallachian rulers had supported the Russians in the campaign, they were supplanted by
Greek rulers from the Phanariote class; thus the Greek language and cultural presence
6
Shaw 1987, 226-28.
36
were strengthened in the European parts of the empire, at the expense of those of the
native population.7
Success on the Russian front strengthened the Ottoman war party and the next action
taken, was to reconquer the Morea. The feeling of satisfaction, however, was illusory, as
the ensuing conflict with Austria proved. At Peterwaradin on the Danube River, Prince
Eugene yet again trounced an Ottoman army that outnumbered him possibly by as much
as two or three to one. The success was followed up at the Battle of Belgrade, where
Eugene’s 40,000 veterans crushed another Ottoman force nearly 180,000 men strong.
The Austrians captured 166 guns and the entire baggage train in the process. Belgrade
fell soon after, and the two sides signed the Peace of Passarowitz on July 21, 1718. The
main stipulation of the treaty was that both sides agreed to keep the territories they held
at the conclusion of the peace. Thus, the Ottoman Empire lost Temesvar, their last
foothold in Hungary, and parts of Serbia around Belgrade.8
There is evidence that after the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718), the upper echelons of
Ottoman society experimented with Western European models and considered some
steps towards modernization. Evidently, the Grand Vezir, Damat Ibrahim Pasha, was
aware that knowledge of Europe did have some importance and relevance to the wellbeing of the Empire. Among the more important innovations of the years immediately
following the Treaty of Passarowitz was the introduction of the printing press, some of
7
8
Shaw 1987, 231.
Morris 1886, 92.
37
the earliest products of which were maps of the Sea of Marmara (1720) and the Black
Sea (1724-25). To supply the press, a paper factory was opened at Yalova on the shores
of the Sea of Marmara. In 1732 the water supply system of the capital was expanded and
remained untouched until the reign of Abdulhamitt II at the end of the 19th century.9
Although parts of the ruling classes realized that the Ottoman state was falling behind
their European counterparts, not enough momentum could be built for the far-reaching
reforms needed to bring the empire on par with its potential opponents. Harem pressure
from above and popular pressure from below usually were sufficient to strangle attempts
at modernization. A strong Vizier, backed by the Sultan, could resist the pressure, but
any weakness in either of the two key figures meant that the Ulema (body of Muslim
scholars) would join the Agha (commander) of Janissaries and block any reform
movement that might threaten the status quo from which they benefitted.10 Thus, even in
such vital areas as the army and navy, the reorganization never aimed at anything more
than an attempt to restore the corps to their earlier state of efficiency. Therefore, when
war with Austria and Russia broke out again in 1736, the Ottoman army was no better
than it had been in 1717. After a slow start, the Russians invaded in their traditional way
of ravaging, destroying and slaughtering all that they encountered, but – equally
traditionally – their inability to create a functioning logistics system made their offensive
falter after the taking of Azov. The following year, they tried their luck by invading
Moldova, but the poorly supported invasion met surprisingly fierce Ottoman resistance
9
Shaw 1987, 233-36
McGowan 2005, 640
10
38
and was repulsed. Although the Austrian offensive was more concentrated and better
organized than the Russian, after initial successes such as the taking of the Bulgarian
border town Nish (now in Serbia), it, too, ran up against strong Ottoman opposition. In
1739 the Treaty of Belgrade was signed, in which the Empire recovered some of the
earlier losses to Austria. The treaty with Russia stipulated that Russian goods exported to
Ottoman territories could be shipped only in Ottoman ships on the Black Sea. Some
territorial losses were also recovered. On the surface, the war had been extremely
successful. Yet, there was another, less visible, side to it. The countryside was ravaged
both by the armies of the Allies and by the Ottoman army. Peasants ran from their lands.
The private armies of local derebeys grew rapidly from the abundant manpower left after
demobilization, and further strengthened the local notables at the expense of the central
government.11
The limited success in this war created a sense of security and self-satisfaction that was
out of proportion to the actual achievements, notable as they were. The Ottoman Empire
entered what may well be the longest period of peace that it had enjoyed since the
conquest of Constantinople. The long peace and the satisfactory results from the last war
destroyed any stimulus for further reforms, and gradually the little that had been
achieved was reversed.12 The following war in 1768-1774 showed just how illusory
Ottoman strength was. It began over Russian involvement in Poland and started slowly,
as neither side was really prepared for it. The Russian Empress, Catherine II, sent part of
11
12
Shaw 1987, 244-46.
Shaw 1987, 246.
39
her Baltic fleet to the Mediterranean, where Admiral Orlov took command. At Cheshme,
July 6-7, 1770, the Russians eliminated the Ottoman navy with a surprise attack. If a
Russian squadron was capable of defeating the numerically superior Ottoman fleet, the
situation was indeed desperate. Less than a month later, the Ottoman Empire suffered
another severe blow: at the Battle of Kartal, August 1, 1770 its army was defeated with
casualties amounting to two-thirds its strength. In 1771, Orlov and his squadron stirred
up a rebellion in the Morea, which ultimately they failed to reinforce and supply, thus
causing it to fail. In 1772 Russia occupied the Crimea, Moldova and Wallachia. In 1774,
the famous general Alexander Suvorov led an army across the Danube, cut the road to
Varna and routed the Ottomans at Kozluca, establishing his reputation as the foremost
Russian soldier of the century. The same year the peace treaty of Kucuk Kainardja in
Nothern Bulgaria was signed, breaking Ottoman control over the Black Sea and opening
it to navigation by other nations. Among the clauses of the treaty was the provision that
Ottoman Orthodox Christian subjects were permitted to sail under the Russian flag.13
After this sobering defeat, Sultan Abdulhamit I (1774-1789) launched the traditional
round of attempts to rebuild the military might of the empire. For the first time European
advisors were invited without the necessity of converting to Islam or being isolated from
the general population. Gazi Hasan Pasha, the sole person to come out of the Cheshme
debacle with credit, was entrusted with the task of rebuilding and modernizing the navy.
In terms of vessels he registered some success thanks to the employment of French
13
Shaw 1987, 248-50.
40
shipwrights Le Roi and Durest. By 1784 the number of nearly serviceable vessels had
increased to 22 ships-of-the-line and 15 frigates. The building of 37 large vessels in 10
years implies that materials such as timber and iron, skilled labor and shipwrights were
not lacking. An attempt was also made to improve the officer corps, but in this Hasan
Pasha was significantly less successful, despite the positive development of establishing
a Naval Engineering school. Appointments continued to be made mostly on the basis of
bribery and politics.14
The next war against Russia and Austria began in 1787. In 1788 Austria occupied
Moldova and Bosnia. The death of Abdulhamit I brought to the throne the first true
reforming Sultan, Selim III (1789-1807). This, however, did not stem Ottoman military
misfortune. In October, Belgrade fell yet again to the Austrians, whose advance reached
the Bulgarian town of Nish. Meanwhile, the Russian commander, Prince Potemkin
captured Bucharest in Wallachia. At sea, Gazi Hasan Pasha led the Ottoman fleet to
prove its increased fighting capacity. At the siege of Ochakov, a series of small craft
engagements in June 1788 was one of only two actions of the war that the Russians,
albeit led by Scotsman and American navy officer John Paul Jones, could reasonably
claim as victories. A month later, in July 1788, the main fleets met at sea off the island
of Fidonisi, Ukraine, but the fleets disengaged without a decisive result. Two years later,
in July of 1790, the Russian Admiral Fyodor Ushakov engaged the Ottoman fleet near
Kerch, but failed to defeat it. In September of the same year, Ushakov fought a two-day
14
Shaw 1987, 251-52.
41
battle, which ended with the surrender of the Ottoman 66-gun Melike Bahri with little
resistance and the heroic defense offered by the flagship of Vice-Admiral Said Bey. It
took four Russian ships and five hours to force Said Bey at last to haul down his flag.
The flagship, however, caught fire at the end of the battle and blew up. The battle of
Kerch was Ushakov’s greatest success in the Black Sea. The battle of cape Kaliakra,
Bulgaria, fought in August 1791, was the last naval engagement of the war. Although
Russian propaganda attributes legendary status to the battle and claims that at the Battle
of the Nile Admiral Nelson copied Ushakov’s tactics used at Kaliakra, the truth is far
less heroic. Unlike Nelson, Ushakov not only did not annihilate the Ottoman fleet, but
actually failed to capture, sink or even seriously damage a single enemy ship. At the end
of the day, the Ottomans withdrew unmolested to Istanbul.15
Earlier that same month (August 4, 1791) the war with Austria on land ended with the
Treaty of Svishtov, a small town on the Danube River in northern Bulgaria,
advantageously for Austria. Luckily for Selim III, the Austrians were concerned about
the French Revolution and were willing to terminate the war without following up their
successes, despite the defenseless state of the Ottoman Empire. The Russian war also
ended with a defeat for the Ottomans and peace was signed at Jassy on January 8, 1792.
The Ottomans recognized the loss of the Ukraine and the expansion of Russian presence
on the Black Sea littoral.16
15
16
Anderson 1952, 318-47. Despite its age, Anderson’s account remains the best account.
Shaw 1987, 259-60
42
Upon conclusion of peace, Selim III launched the most comprehensive program of
reforms of any sultan up to this time. Although ultimately he did not succeed, his
attempts paved the way for the later changes instituted by his successors. As was
traditional, Selim attempted to reform the Janissary (elite infantry corps) and Spahis
corps (elite cavalry, supported by fiefs), but with no success. He established a parallel
army, the Nizam-i-Cedit (New Order), organized, uniformed, armed and trained on
European principles. By 1806 the new corps numbered 22,685 men and 1,590 officers.
In campaigns of the Napoleonic wars, such as the siege of Acre, the Ionian campaign,
Egyptian campaign and the Anatolian battles against armed bands, the corps acquitted
itself well. Its ultimate failure and disbandment was more a product of Selim’s weakness
and miscalculation than the corps’ inefficiency. Simultaneously, attempts were made to
bring support industries such as cannon foundries and musket manufactures up to date.
With the involvement of Great Britain and France, at least partial success was achieved
on this front. Under Kucuk Hussein Pasha the naval reforms were continued. The new
technical schools were expanded.17
By far the most successful part of Selim’s reforms was the rebuilding of the navy, where
less resistance to change was met, possibly due to the virtual annihilation suffered at
Cheshme. Until recently, the only study of these important developments in Ottoman
military history was published by historian Stanford Shaw, a renowned researcher of
17
Shaw 1987, 263.
43
Selim III’s reign.18. Unfortunately, his mastery of Ottoman archives is in contrast to his
understanding of matters nautical and especially naval terminology. As an example,
Shaw uses the term “galleon”- probably a direct transliteration of the Turkish “kalyon,”
which means a three-masted, ship-rigged warship – instead of “ships-of-the-line”.
Progress was made in refurbishing the materiel of the navy. In the summer of 1793, an
expansion and repair of the Imperial Arsenal at Istanbul began and most shipbuilding
was placed under the control of the French master shipwright, Jacques Balthasard Le
Brun. Other foreigners invited to build ships for the Sultan included British and Swedish
nationals. Turkish, Greek and, apparently, Bulgarian shipwrights (see below) of the
Empire continued to build ships as well. Under the leadership of Hussein Pasha, the
arsenals at Sinop and Sohum on the Black Sea and Silistra (Bulgaria) and Galatz
(Wallachia) on the Danube were revived. Shaw mentions “new shipbuilding forms”
established at Haskoey. As the expression makes no sense, it is likely that Shaw
mistranslated or misunderstood a Turkish term. Most probably it refers either to building
new slips (Le Brun built there the first masonry dock in this period) or lofting floors and
moulds.19
Under the leadership of the French shipwrights the navy expanded rapidly to the extent
the finances of the Empire permitted. To this period dates the beginning of coppersheathing the ships in the Ottoman navy. In the decade between 1789 and 1798 45
18
19
Shaw 1969
Shaw 1969, 223-24.
44
warships were built, of which 3 were three-deckers. In 1806 the Ottoman Navy had 20
ships of the line and 15 frigates, mounting 2,156 cannon and crewed by 40,000 sailors
and soldiers.20
Other parts of the reforms were less successful: the attempts to rebuild the scribal system
(central state bureaucracy) mostly failed. No overall budget existed. The problem of
abandoning the land and migrating to Istanbul was addressed, but not solved by closing
hotels, taverns, coffeehouses and forcefully returning the peasants to their places of
origin, regardless of whether or not they had anything to return to. To relieve fiscal
pressures, the coinage was debased, merchant’s properties were confiscated and taxes
increased with little regard for the ability of the population to pay them.21
The first 60 years of the 18th century saw the introduction of glass, soap, sugar,
gunpowder and paper industries. The Empire exported raw materials such as cotton and
imported finished goods. After the 1760s, with the worsening political and military
situation of the Empire, these efforts faltered and even disappeared. Trade continued to
expand through the 1760s, but its value and content did not remain progressive.22
Throughout the century the Janissary corps gradually transformed from a full-time
regular military unit into a part-time militia, intermarried within the populace, and
20
Shaw 1969, 225-26.
Shaw 1987, 264-65.
22
McGowan 2005, 639.
21
45
involved itself in commercial activities. Janissaries kept their military status solely as a
source of privileges. The corps’ abilities deteriorated as a fighting force to the point that
it became useless and expensive, both in political and financial terms. Ironically, it was
more dangerous to the central power of the Sultan than to any of his enemies. The
decline and commercialization of the Janissary corps and its mixing with the populace
aided the rift between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of the Sublime Porte (the
Ottoman Government, the Sultan). The defeats that the Austrians handed the Ottomans
with regularity, increased the consciousness of Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians that they
were conquered, subjugated nations. It is hardly a coincidence that the first Bulgarian
history, which did so much to bring about the Bulgarian Revival, was written by Father
Paisii in the 1760s just as a new war with European powers was beginning. Bruce
McGowan saw three major issues as contributing to the decline of the Ottoman Empire
in the 18th century: The development of what he called a “colonial” pattern of trade
(exportation of raw materials and importation of finished goods), the alienation of the
minority (non-Muslim) merchants and the diversion of capital and energy from industry
to trade.23
Through careful fiscal practices and luck for a large part of the peaceful years in the
middle of the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire was able to put away significant
amounts of money, which were welcome at times of war. The failure to develop central
23
McGowan 2005, 641.
46
banking and credit operations left the state without the financial staying power that its
main war-time opponents had.24
In the period when European states were developing educated, competent bureaucracies,
that of the Ottoman Empire lagged behind on the curve and was unable to face the new
challenges. As the central cadres declined in efficiency and competence and were rotated
through the provincial offices, they developed dependency on local knowledge which
inevitably transferred power into the hands of the neighbouring notables – the ayans.
The power in the hands of the ayans was not always used to the benefit of the central
power. Ironically, in the 18th century, the extreme centralization of the state was leading
the empire into an essentially feudal anarchy and decentralization. The interference from
the central government, such as it was, brought mostly a stifling of free enterprise and
technical progress, not stability.25
Crucial for the break-up of the central power and the rise of the warlords, sometimes
erroneously also called ayans, was the war of 1768-1774. As result of the war, Morea
(Peloponnesos in Greece) was nearly lost to the Ottomans. The ayans were called upon
to raise troops for its retaking. Often these troops were undisciplined Albanian
mountaineers. They laid the area to waste, and it took nearly a decade to rein them in. In
other places the same story was repeated. The following war against Russia, 1788-1792,
no less disastrous in its outcome than the previous one, proved yet again the inability of
24
25
McGowan 2005, 541.
McGowan 2005, 642.
47
the Janissaries to cope with European infantry. The war forced the rapid expansion of
general levies, which, although unreliable on the battlefield, outperformed the Janissaries
and swelled the retinues of the warlords and the local banditry upon demobilization.26
As result of the defeats, the general levies, and the crumbling central control over the
vast territories of the Empire, the years 1768-1808 marked not only the nadir of Ottoman
fortunes, but also the height of insecurity in the provinces. Especially hard hit were
Rumelia (Southern Bulgaria) and Bulgaria (Northern Bulgaria), as the Bulgarian
territories were on the forefront of each war. The unleashing of the defeated and
demobilized – not to mention demoralized - peasant levies had traumatic effects on the
population and strengthened the feudal struggles for supremacy with readily available
recruits for private armies. Through the 1780s and 1790s the main opponents in this
struggle were the ayans or more properly warlords of Seres in Aegean Macedonia and
the famous Osman Pazvantooglu of Vidin in northern Bulgaria. While large-scale
banditry arose in the 1770s in Macedonia, in the 1790s its centre moved much closer to
Istanbul, in Eastern Thrace. The height of the lawlessness was reached from 1797 to
1807, known as the period of Kirdjali (as the bandits were known) raiding. It is perhaps
notable that the conflicts suddenly stopped with the appointment of Mustafa Bayraktar
of Silistra (a town on the Danube River in northern Bulgaria) as Grand Vizier. From this
it would appear that at least part of the problem was the lack of determination on the part
of the Sultan to enforce his power and protect the population from the bandits. It is
26
McGowan 2005, 663.
48
perhaps ironic that the nadir of Ottoman fortunes coincided with the reign of the first
Sultan who attempted to undertake real reforms, Selim III (1789-1807). Despite his good
intentions, the arsenal of tools he used in dealing with the ayans included various
stratagems, but never determination and consistency.27
As early as the 16th century the position of the Bulgarian peasants had dramatically
worsened, but the insecurity of the late 18th century had an even more detrimental effect
on the Bulgarian people as their lands were the main field of action for the Kirdjalii
brigandage. This drove people from the land to the cities and into the mountains, thus
increasing the emphasis of the economy on herding in the less accessible parts of the
country at the expense of farming. Many others left in search of security in the Habsburg
and even – a sure sign of desperation - Russian territories. Many settled in Bucharest.
Another response to the insecurity in the lands was the emergence of Christian armed
bands, haiduti, generally (in many cases even correctly) hailed as protectors of the
Bulgarian population. Their emergence also points to unsupportable tax burdens and
inability to secure normal living conditions.28
The second half of the 18th century dramatically changed the ethnic map of the Eastern
Balkans. Between 1770 and 1784 around 200,000 Tartars emigrated from Russianconquered territories to Dobrudja, the northeastern part of Bulgaria. This immigration,
coupled with the insecurity in the two provinces, forced more than 250,000 Bulgarians to
27
28
McGowan 2005, 662-66.
McGowan 2005, 646; Kortepeter 1966, 96, 100.
49
cross into Wallachia, en route to Banat and Russia by 1812. The Kirdjalii period, 17971812, also forced a large scale Bulgarian migration from Thrace to Istanbul and even
Macedonia, thus leaving a vacuum which Muslims (Bulgarian or Turk) and, later,
Greeks filled.29 The Christian Bulgarian depopulation received a further boost in 1829,
when Prince Vorontzoff, Governor General of Bessarabia, proposed to the Imperial
Russian government the re-location of Bulgarian mariners to man the coastal trade in his
province. The proposal was accepted by the government and was extended beyond
mariners.30 Independently of these effectively forceful deportations, unrecorded numbers
of families left on their own, fearing Turkish reprisals after the Russians withdrew at the
end of the 1828-29 war. Thus, the ethnic mix of the population from the 19th century is
not necessarily representative of earlier times. According to Velko Tonev, the Bulgarian
Christian population along the Black Sea shore in this period may have dwindled by as
much as two-thirds.31 Thus, at the time when the Kitten vessel sailed, the Bulgarian
presence along the coast was much stronger than in later times.
McGowan suggested that the large scale flight of the peasants from the land is the best
guide to the economic conditions in the Ottoman Empire during the latter 18th century.
Rural taxation could reach 20-25%, while for share-croppers it was closer to 50%. Any
surpluses of production were sold by force to the state at fixed prices, dramatically
below market value. When insecurity of life was added to the economic insecurity, the
29
McGowan 2005, 640.
Tonev 1995, 39; Pavlov 1966, 60.
31
Tonev 1995, 34-5.
30
50
response was abandonment of homesteads. Thus, Bulgarians from as far as Macedonia
crossed the Danube.32
Throughout the period under study, most of the agricultural activities maintained their
traditional, small scale character and were aimed mostly at satisfying the needs of the
producers themselves and were based on small land holdings, a village common and
common wood lot. Around large centers such as Sofia, Vidin and Russe, which offered
ready markets, more intensive agriculture could be practiced. In such localities arose
ciftliks, large farms run by enforced or hired labour. Ciftliks, always owned by Turks,
were sometimes formed around a mill or some other necessary feature and grew by
occasionally purchasing land from the treasury and seizing village commons. Once a
village lost its common and wood lots, it lost its viability as an economic entity. The sole
option for their survival was to hire themselves to the ciftliks and thus become “agha’s
villages” in a feudal sense. Occasions are recorded when entire villages became property
of an agha as result of debt. The Ottoman courts were lax in defending villagers’ rights
to their commons, but were quite efficient in enforcing payment of their debts.33
By the middle of the 18th century in the southern part of Bulgaria, specialized agriculture
began developing. Mulberry tree stands were established around Kazanluk, Haskovo,
Turnovo, Vratza, Monastir and Ohrid. Kazanluk became a capital of the budding rose oil
trade that began around 1750. With extensive use of irrigation, large scale rice crops
32
33
McGowan 2005, 680-81, 688; Kortepeter 1966, 97.
McGowan 2005, 687.
51
were grown around Skopje, Pristina and Plovdiv. Along the Maritza, Struma and Vardar
rivers tobacco was grown: a crop whose importance remains high to the present day.
Near Seres, in the geographical region of Aegean Macedonia, cotton became a major
staple of the local economy and was exported by sea to France through Solun (Salonica)
and by land to Germany. The growth of specialized agriculture in these regions and
especially in the geographical region of Macedonia, was somewhat tempered by harsh
tenancies and heavy taxes; Turkish landlords took between one and two-thirds of the
produce, thus forcing peasants to run.34
In contrast to the bleak conditions under which the peasantry existed, the period saw
wide-spread urban growth and some commercial prosperity in Bulgaria and Macedonia
through the activities of native merchants who traded in tallow, livestock, hides, leather
and leatherwork, wool, aba cloaks (woolen, waterproof cloaks resold as far away as
Syria), cotton cloth and cotton yarns, rifles from Sliven and Prizren, furs from around
Kostur (now Kastoria, Greece). The rising non-Muslim elite stratum of society –
merchants, peddlers, money-lenders, landholders, tax collectors – led a style of life not
materially different from their Muslim overlords and were sufficiently well-off to be
able to build impressive, fort-like houses, some of which are still standing. The evidence
suggests that this may have been particularly true of the Bulgarians who were active in
animal trading, acted as middlemen for village products and traveled to sell goods at the
great fairs, such as that at Uzundjova, supplying Istanbul itself. Others traded in
34
McGowan 2005, 687.
52
specialized produce such as ironware from Samokov (a town in Southwestern Bulgaria)
or copper utensils and aba cloaks from the Rhodope.35
The most important market for surpluses, especially those of the Eastern Balkans,
remained Istanbul, the greatest center of consumption in the Mediterranean world with
its population of almost 600,000. Moreover, Istanbul itself was not a production center
and was entirely dependent on imported supplies for its daily needs. Providing the
necessities of existence to its populace was a major concern for the Sublime Porte (the
Ottoman Government, the Sultan) from the time of the Conquest onwards, and it
developed policies to assure that regular deliveries were made. The policies were
beneficial to the Porte and the populace of Istanbul, but were detrimental to the
producers, occasionally to the merchants, and were seemingly calculated to stifle
productivity, growth and enterprise in the long run. Bulgaria provided meat, honey, wax,
raisins, leather, woolen clothing, tobacco, timber for construction (naval and civil) and
firewood.36 Naturally, meat and grain topped the list of state secured supplies. Bulgaria
provided more than 80% of Istanbul’s grain needs in the 1780s, with the other 20%
coming mostly from Wallachia.37 The supply network also included the Crimea (prior to
its annexation by Russia in 1783) and the shores around the Sea of Marmara. Grain was
purchased at government-determined prices, far below market value, at the expense of
the producers who were forced to sell at a loss. In fact, the prices were so far below the
35
McGowan 2005, 669, 687.
McGowan 2005, 720.
37
Panzac 1992, 195.
36
53
market value that in Istanbul grain cost less than in the provinces despite transportation
costs! Yet, freight rates within the Empire around 1787 were more than twice those in
Western Europe because of the poor and insecure roads. Another statistic shows that the
price of wheat doubled with every 100 km of distance travelled overland. Thus, as
elsewhere, water transportation was the only viable choice for bringing the necessary
bulk supplies to the capital.38 The exportation of grain was frequently forbidden, the oftrepeated decrees suggesting that none of them were completely successful in stamping
out the illegal trade. Among the tools devised to fight contraband, was the issuing of
permits by Istanbul qadis (judges) that assigned ships to specific destinations, with
specified ports of lading, quantities, purchase price, the names of the ships and the
captains, the dates of loading and departure.39
Undoubtedly the Ottoman archives contain treasure troves of documents, the careful
study of which could yield extensive information on maritime activities in the Black Sea
in the 18th century. Unfortunately, as Daniel Panzac lamented, domestic Ottoman trade
on the Black Sea remains poorly studied.40 Few facts are clear, among them that, until
the opening of navigation to other flags besides the Ottoman (1783), most maritime
traffic on the West Black Sea shore was dedicated to supplying grain to Istanbul.
38
McGowan 2005, 681, 738.
Tonev 1995, 91; McGowan 2005, 719.
40
Panzac 1992, 189.
39
54
Some information on the ethnic background of Ottoman seafarers can be gleaned from a
list of 158 captains that Panzac studied: 136 (86%) were Turks and only 22 (14%) were
Greek or, surprisingly, Albanian. It would appear that at least in the period to which this
document pertained, the position in domestic maritime trade held by non-Muslims was
secondary, though not negligible. Their relative importance would seem to be increased
by the fact that domestic trade had more than twice the value of international trade.41 A
complication in determining the ethnic background of non-Muslim seafarers is that the
term “Greek” often meant the Orthodox Christian population in general, not just
specifically Greek people. Presently available information makes it very hard to
determine which of the two definitions was meant in this list.
Direct evidence for Bulgarian seafaring activities dates to at least the mid-13th century,
the reign of Tzar John Assen II (1218-1241), who built a large galley squadron. During
the 14th century, the last period of independence for medieval Bulgaria, the Dobrudjan
despot Dobrotitza and his son, Ivanko, not only operated galley squadrons from Varna
and Kaliakra, but successfully fought a war against Genoa. The peace treaty still exists
in Genoese archives. In 1453, at the siege of Constantinople Ottoman Admiral Baltaoglu
was the first-born son of a Bulgar aristocrat. The appointment of a Bulgar to this high
post implies that Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror considered the Bulgars experienced
mariners. Historian Vladimir Pavlov studied documents of circa 1594, which name the
Bulgarians Dimiter Takadjiata, and Ivan and Kosta Takadji. In all these cases, Pavlov
41
Panzac 1992, 195, 202-03.
55
connects the names with the popular Black Sea type of vessel, the taka (a modest
double-ended vessel with a settee rig). A document bearing the date September 9, 1792,
required Bulgarian voinugans (part of the population holding privileged status, in
exchange for service to the Porte), to be mustered for service as “gemi yelkendji”, which
essentially means seamen. This document testifies that Bulgarians had the necessary
experience in seafaring to be drafted for naval service, specifically as sailors rather than
as general laborers.42 Among the names of shipwrights working at the Imperial Arsenal
of Istanbul, Stanford Shaw lists a caulker by the name of Nikolay Kalfa, active in the
latter 18th century. The adaptation of the name may be significant, as this is the Slavic
version of a name popular among Bulgarians, Nickolas.43 In an appendix to his study of
the Ottoman Sailing Navy, Ahmed Güleryüz offers a list of line of battle ships, frigates
and corvettes built between 1781 and 1868.44 The list includes the dockyards where the
ships were built and the names of the Master and Assistant shipwrights. Four ships
launched between 1789 and 1792 one at Bodrum and – perhaps significantly – three at
Sinop are credited to an Assistant Shipwright by the name of Nikoli. The name Nikoli is
an archaic form of Nickolas. This may be the same person, the caulker, mentioned by
Shaw. On the other hand, the different transliteration may indicate a different person
altogether. Thus, the shipwright Nikoli Kalfa may have been a Bulgarian, although
equally well he may have been Greek. A shipwright Manol (the Bulgarian version of the
name Manuel) is credited with building two ships of the line and a frigate between 1830
42
Pavlov 1966, 57-8.
Shaw 1969, 223.
44
Güleryüz 2004
43
56
and 1837. The three vessels were launched at the Gemlik (Sea of Marmara), Girit
(Crete), and Fatsa (Anatolian coast of the Black Sea) dockyards. The name suggests that
this shipwright almost certainly was a Bulgarian, as the name is not used by the other
Christian ethnic groups in the Empire. In 1791 the 24-gun corvette Ferah Nuema was
launched at Silistra, a Bulgarian town on the Danube River. Unfortunately, the name of
the builder is not given, although the location makes it probable that Bulgarian craftsmen
were involved in the building.45
Folk songs provide plentiful references to Bulgarian maritime enterprise, varying from
legitimate commercial ventures to outright piracy. Numerous references to Bulgarian
actions at sea in support of the invading Russian army and navy during the war of 182829 are also listed by Pavlov. The idea of Prince Vorontzoff, Russian Governor General
of Bessarabia, to bring to Russia Bulgarian mariners (even though he recognized their
paucity) to man its expanding merchant marine, also suggests that seafaring was not
unknown among Bulgarians. Thus, there is scatered evidence for Bulgarian participation
in maritime, although not always legitimate, activities within the Ottoman Empire. Yet,
it is probably fair to say that in comparison to seafaring involvement among Turks and
Greeks, the Bulgarians ranked of less importance. Much further research into Bulgarian
maritime activities is needed, before a final conclusion can be drawn on the extent of
their involvement.46
45
46
Güleryüz 2004, 98-9.
Pavlov 1966, 52-3, 57-8, 61-2.
57
If little is known about seafaring in the Black Sea in this period, even less detail is
known about shipbuilding along its shores in the territories of modern Bulgaria. Prior to
the excavation of the Kitten shipwreck, virtually nothing was known of the ships
themselves, except from casual observations of frequently ill-informed travelers and
officials. In Bulgaria, maritime studies are still in their infancy. Two articles based upon
partial study of a limited number of Ottoman records, and published over a span of
nearly 30 years, offer some information. While Vladimir Pavlov supplied an overview of
Bulgarian maritime activities, Theodora Bakirdjieva presented some notes on shipping
and shipbuilding along the Bulgarian shore of the Danube river.47 Nikolai Ovcharov
published a study of ship graffiti from churches in the once major port of Messembria
(now Nessebre).48 Shtelian Shterionov wrote a general overview of economic activities
along the Southern Bulgarian coast that pertained to the sea, including discussion of
traditional boatbuilding.49
Shipbuilding, evidently, had long traditions along the Danube shore of Bulgaria.
Vladimir Pavlov quotes Evliya Çelelebi as reporting that a squadron of 50 fragattas was
stationed at Russe. A 15th-century document lists 21 ship guards, 26 caulkers and 6 ropemakers assigned to the fortress of Nicopolis, which was a base for the Ottoman
Danubian fleet. The large number of caulkers speaks of the scale of the squadron based
there. Since there was hardly any presence of Greeks in northern Bulgaria, it is likely
47
Bakirdjieva 1992; Pavlov 1966.
Ovcharov 1992.
49
Shterionov 1999.
48
58
that most of the shipbuilders were native Bulgarians. Building time for river craft for the
use of the Ottoman Army in the 16th century averaged 8-9 months, occasionally reaching
a year, due to supply problems. The timber was locally cut and delivered, but the
necessary ironwork was brought from Samokov in southwestern Bulgaria, removed from
the construction site by some hundreds of kilometers and major mountain ranges. Life
expectancy for these vessels was modest, at about 7-8 years, and, after no more than 4
years, they would be in need of major repairs. This most probably was due to the usage
of unseasoned timber. Old vessels, however, still had useful roles, as they could be used
for bridging pontoons, water mills and, finally, could be broken up and sold to the
populace for construction material or firewood.50
Pavlov published a document from the 1560s in which the ra’aya (subject Christian
population, in this case Bulgarians) were required to cut and transport timber, pitch and
other materials for the construction of a galley squadron to Anhialo (Pomorie), a Black
Sea port on the Bulgarian coast. In 1571 the Anhialo shipyards were employed in
rebuilding the Ottoman galley fleet after the defeat suffered at Lepanto (1571). In 1753
the Frenchman Charles de Peysonel also reported shipyards around Anhialo. According
to his report, the ships built there were mostly small cabotage vessels. The information is
probable, as the sea around Anhialo is too shallow for vessels of significant draught. The
Austrian officer Wenzel von Brognard observed in 1786 that vessels built at Varna were
highly regarded as they were strongly constructed from high quality timber. Special note
50
Bakirdjieva 1992, 136-8.
59
was taken of a vessel called a marulla, which, according to Brognard, was very similar
to a Genoese pinco. Peysonel wrote that in Messembria between 80 and 100 small ships
were built annually. He believed that larger vessels could also be built because timber
was plentiful and of good quality, but sale of material of large scantlings to private
individuals was forbidden, as it was reserved for the Sultan’s fleet. Timber was also
exported to Istanbul and even Egypt.51
A document from January 2, 1826, places an order for shipbuilding timber to be
delivered from the Strandja mountains to Ahtopol. Evidently at Ahtopol too, state ships
could be built. Another document from January 11, 1826 placed an order for the building
of a corvette at the Sultan’s Arsenal in Messembria.52 The order for the corvette suggests
that not only were the logistics for large-scale shipbuilding in place at Messembria, but
also that it was not a unique order. Therefore, shipwrights in the vicinity must have had
the experience and knowledge to build bigger ships. Nevertheless, the American Henry
Dearborn, who also speaks of Messembria as a shipbuilding centre, states that mostly
small vessels were built there, entirely of local oak.53 It does not appear that Dearborn
wrote based on personal observations. These documents demonstrate that as late as the
second quarter of the 19th century, a time by which most maritime powers had
completely exhausted their shipbuilding timber reserves, the Ottoman Empire suffered
little shortages of naval timber. Other necessary shipbuilding stores were also plentiful
51
Kortepeter 1966, 98; Pavlov 1966, 54-6; Tonev 1995, 81.
Pavlov 1966, 58.
53
Dearborn 1819, Vol. 1, 200.
52
60
and easily obtainable, for, as early as the 16th century, the 17 ironworks at Samokov
provided the Ottoman Arsenals with anchors, nails and other necessary ironwork for
shipbuilding.54
The testimony of a few contemporary witnesses speaks of mostly small ships being built
along the Black Sea shore of Bulgaria. The Frenchman J. B. Lechevalier, writing in 1797
but published in 1800, considered Black Sea ships small and slow. He believed that the
use of the smaller ships was due to the inefficiency of the merchants who, because of
lack of warehouses, forced vessels to wait a long time for cargoes. The lack of harbour
facilities was also detrimental to trade as it slowed down loading. Thus, a smaller ship
could complete its lading faster.55 William Eton (writing in 1798 and 1805), too,
described the vessels as small. None of the sources, however, specify what they
understood by “small”. Based on a dispute over a launching permit from 1826, Tonev
and Pavlov assume that “small” meant a load capacity of about 30 tons. However, most
of the cargo shipped from the Bulgarian lands was bulk (such as grain, timber, firewood,
etc.) and low-priced bulk cargoes require shipments in large volume to make their
transportation an economically viable enterprise.
Nautical Archaeology is the discipline best equipped to provide an accurate answer to
the question of Black Sea ship tonnage, but so far the only vessel excavated is the Kitten
shipwreck. Although the displacement of the ship as reconstructed is an estimate, it is
54
55
Faroqhi 2005, 463; Kortepeter 1966, 99, 108.
Papadopoulos 1972, 315.
61
probably a reasonable estimate and its capacity of 160 tons displacement, is far greater
than 30 tons. (See Chapter IV). A single example of a vessel is not a statistically
significant sample on which to build a hypothesis about the average tonnage of Black
Sea shipping and further archaeological and archival studies need to be undertaken
before the question can be satisfactorily answered. However, it is perhaps significant that
of the four wrecks lying on the bottom in the southern bay of Kitten, the one we
excavated appeared to have the smallest scantlings, based on measurements of the
protruding timbers of the other vessels. Thus, it seems that ships of more than 30-ton
capacity were working on the coast. The evidence of contemporary observers such as
William Eton (1805) and Henry Dearborn (1818) for the size of the average Black Sea
merchantman ought to be considered through the perspective of the great maritime
merchant fleets of the world at that time: British ships on the transoceanic routes were
frequently above 300 tons and in the case of ships of the East Indies Company could
reach 1200 tons. In comparison to those argosies, a Black Sea vessel of 100-200 tons
was indeed small. It has to be admitted, however, that the question of the average size of
ships on Bulgaria’s coast in the latter 18th and early 19th century cannot be answered
within the limits of this study and with the single archaeological example of the Kitten
shipwreck.
Our knowledge of the characteristics and construction of vessels from the area is also
woefully deficient. In his Survey of the Turkish Empire, published in 1798, William Eton
wrote: “…They navigate vessels of the worst construction possible, which can never
62
sail, but before the wind; when the wind changes they run into port; this is the reason so
many mercantile vessels are lost in the Black Sea, and not from the dangerous navigation
of that sea…”
56
In 1805 Eton published an even more negative judgment on Black Sea
merchant vessels, which was later copied verbatim by Dearborn from Eton’s A Concise
Account of the Commerce and Navigation of the Black Sea.57 Due to its curious
statements the description is worth quoting in full:
This Sea has been by the Turks called the Black and has been by them esteemed
most dangerous. Nor is it matter of wonder to those who have seen their
mercantile vessels that navigate it. Their heads and sterns are of an enormous
height. From the latter hang a great number of festoons to the waters surface.
They have one or two masts, with immensely large sails, which hang over the
vessels sides a great way to leeward, by which, when the wind is strong, the
lateral pressure of the yards is so strong against the masts, that they often cannot
be lowered. The remedy, in this case, is to dart logs of wood with a sharp end, or
a kind of javelin, at the sail, by which they make holes to let out the wind.
They cannot lie-to, as their bows spread out so much above water that a sea to
windward striking them turns them to leeward. Therefore they never attempt it,
but run for the first port, which if they cannot make, they go on shore.
56
57
Eton 1798, 84.
Eton 1805,4-5; Dearborn 1819, Vol. 2, 212.
63
In fairness to the Black Sea seafarers so disparagingly described by Eton, it should be
noted that the western shore is a permanent lee shore as the dominant winds vary
between N and SE and this may have had more to do with the alleged heavy ship losses
than the lack of seamanship. Although the suggested approach to sail-handling in rising
winds is perhaps less than probable, the higher ends of the vessels, as compared to those
in use in Western Europe, is supported by iconographic evidence such as contemporary
illustrations from westerners and ship graffiti in Bulgarian Churches from Nessebre.58
Eton stated that a sharp vessel was desirable for the navigation of the Black Sea, but did
not say whether the merchantmen plowing its waters were sharp or not in practice.59 As
discussed elsewhere in this work, the evidence of the Kitten vessel suggests that
shipwrights in the region did build vessels with a sharp entry.
Eton’s views on the qualities of Black Sea Ottoman merchant shipping were extremely
critical. Surprisingly, this was not so on the subject of naval vessels. In his earlier
detailed study of the state of the Ottoman Empire, he described Ottoman vessels as
roomy and larger than British equivalents of the same nominal power. He acknowledged
that they were built of good quality oak, but the timbers were placed too “far asunder”
which weakened the ships. According to Eton the slightness of the scantlings and great
distance between the timbers caused Turkish ships to hog quickly. The Turkish
shipwrights’ solution was to build the decks with great sheer, so that once the vessels
settled, the decks would be straight. This technique, however, produced leaky ships with
58
59
Ovcharov 1992; Müller-Wiener 1994.
Eton 1805, 7.
64
short life-spans. In support, Eton offers a case from 1776, when supposedly the finest
ship of the fleet foundered in the Black Sea because its caulking worked out due to its
weakness of construction. If this weakness of the bottoms was indeed present and not on
par with the above quoted sail-handling solutions, the Turks may have used an older, not
doubled, style of frames.60
In contrast to Turkish naval construction, Eton gives high marks to the shape or design
of their vessels. He reported a conversation with a French shipwright, a Mr. (possibly
Lieutenant) Le Roy (Shaw gives the name as Le Roi), who built ships for the Ottoman
navy and told him that his models were based on “Turkish bottoms”. Historian Stanford
Shaw, however, stated that the Ottoman vessels were built on French models.61
According to Eton, both English and French sailors agreed that the Turkish vessels were
well-shaped and went on: “…It is certain that they [the Turkish men-of-war] are very
fast sailors, but their upper works are very inferior to the ships of other nations…” It was
for the improvement of the upper works that foreign, mostly French, shipwrights were
employed.62 Contrast this contemporary statement with Stanford Shaw’s study of the
Selim III naval reforms, where he considered Ottoman ships to be poorly designed too,
and not just poorly constructed.63
60
Eton 1798, 81-3; Batchvarov 2002.
Shaw 1969, 225.
62
Eton 1798, 83.
63
Shaw 1969, 213.
61
65
If Eton was critical of the qualities of Ottoman ships, he is even more critical of the
seamanship of Ottoman sailors. The Empire had no “nursery” for sailors, as he put it,
and most of the navigation was done either by Greeks or Maltese slaves. The Turks
themselves served the guns and helped in weighing. However, they were considered
masters of handling narrow, sharp boats. Even among the Greeks, seamanship was weak:
only the Navy used compasses (none were found on the Kitten shipwreck) and even
these were poorly made, with the variation built into them, thus making them really
usable only in a specific area. Yet, the same compasses were used for all waters of the
Empire. Even in the navy, there were few officers who could take a meridian
observation (yet, on the Kitten merchant vessel the remains of an octant or sextant were
found), the exception being the Algerines, who did possess some knowledge of
navigation. Merchant vessels, Eton asserted, never sailed out of sight of land, which also
contributed to the high losses.64
Although Eton’s statements seem in some respects exagerated, the generally poor level
of seamanship among the Greeks, the alleged master mariners of the Ottoman Empire, is
attested by other sources. J. B. Lechevalier wrote in 1797 about the Black Sea trade that
Ottoman sailors lacked competence.65 Although he probably wrote about Turkish sailors,
the Greeks were probably not much better. F. C. H. L. Pouqueville, writing circa 1813
(but published in 1827), pointed out that discipline was entirely unknown amongst them.
He described them as unruly and lazy, preferring to roll in filth rather than sweep their
64
65
Eton 1798, 84, 215.
Papadopoulos 1972, 315.
66
decks. No watches were kept on their ships and helmsmen frequently slept while
underway by tying the tillers down. On their navigational skills Poqueville had the
following to say: “…The honesty of the Galaxiodite ship-owners affords no more
protection in trade than does their knowledge in the art of navigation…”66
William Gell wrote that Greek sailors from the island of Ithaca tended to overcrowd
their ships and in 1807 spoke of at least two ships recently lost in the Black Sea.67 A. L.
Castellan, unusually well disposed towards the local sailors – ethnic Greeks in this case wrote that that the manner of handling a ship differed dramatically from the one used in
the west: “…Everything is set in motion at once, without order or obedience to rules:
there is neither discipline nor cooperation. The Captain’s speaking trumpet and the
quarter-master’s
whistle
resound
unceasingly
and
often
give
contradictory
commands…”68 Claude Savary, less favourably disposed than Castellan, considered the
incompetence of Greek sailors equaled only by their superstition.69 Edward Daniel
Clarke’s description is worth quoting in full:
As soon as fog or darkness begin to obscure the land, the Greek pilots remain in
total ignorance of their situation: generally, losing their presence of mind, they
either run their ships ashore, or abandon the helm altogether and have recourse to
the picture of some Saint, supplicating his miraculous interference for their
66
Pouqueville 1827, 479-83; Papadopoulos 1972, 337.
Papadopoulos 1972, 388; Gell 1807, 30-2.
68
Castellan 1820; Papadopoulos 1972, 390.
69
Papadopoulos 1972, 391; Savary 1792.
67
67
safety, It more than once happened to us, to have the responsibility of guiding the
vessel without mariner’s compass, chart, or the slightest knowledge of naval
affairs...70
As late as the 1830s, the standard of seamanship had not improved much. C. B. Elliot
wrote:
It is surprising that more accidents do not occur among the country vessels
navigating the Archipelago, for Greek sailors use no astronomical instruments
and therefore can take no observations; they seldom steer by compass, and have
only a general notion of its variation, which is here more than a point to the east;
they keep no dead reckoning and no log; in the day there is no regular watch, and
the helm is readily consigned to any passenger who offers to take it; while in the
night, the steersman, who generally sits [Elliot’s emphasis] on the deck, and
therefore cannot see ahead even with the aid of the moon, may or may not be
accompanied by a watch on the forecastle; and this watch may or may not fall
asleep: this is as it happens. Under all these circumstances, it is easy to perceive
that if the Greek sailors were not as timid as they are inefficient, many vessels
would be lost…71
Although all of these testimonies refer specifically to Greek sailors, it is likely that their
standard of seamanship – rather, the lack thereof – was widespread among subjects of
70
71
Clarke 1810, 108-9.
Elliot 1838, 160-1.
68
the Ottoman Empire, Bulgarians included, in this period. Taken on their own, each of
these statements might be considered a gross exaggeration. However, taken together,
they begin to sound more persuasive. It would appear that the problem of Black Sea
navigation did not lie with the vessels, but with the incompetence of the sailors. Both
William Eton and Edward Clarke speak of running ships ashore as a frequent
occurrence. Others of the quoted travelers suggest that only Providence prevented more
ships from being lost. Embellished as these opinions may sound, the archaeological
situation in the Bay of Kitten seems to confirm them: at least four, possibly five
shipwrecks were observed within 20 meters of each other and Petar Petrov of the CUA
noted that at least one more wreck lies in the southern part of the small bay. They all
appeared to date to the roughly same period of the latter 18th and early 19th centuries.
However, the possibility that they all fell victim to one or two severe storms and sank
together can not be completely excluded.
The Ottoman Empire entered the 18th century still holding a position of power and
respect and held extensive territories in Central and Eastern Europe, conquered at the
height of its power. By the end of the century it looked like its days of holding any part
of Europe were nearly over. The decline was steady, but the process accelerated rapidly
in the second half of the century to reach its nadir in the last decade of the 18th and first
decade of the 19th century. The vessel in the Bay of Kitten very likely sank in the reign
of the Ottoman Sultan Selim III (1789-1807), at a time when the Ottoman Empire had
lost its internal cohesion and strength, its institutions had decayed and were no longer
69
able to meet the needs of the state. By the end of the 18th century the central government
had almost completely lost control over the provinces of the Empire, which had fallen
under the power of warlords too strong for the Sultan to tackle directly. At the same
time, the military power of the empire had declined so much that victory against a
European opponent or even Russia was no longer possible, either at sea or on land. The
political and military decay had important repercussions on the economic and social
conditions in the Empire and had an especially negative impact upon the ra’aya, the
non-Muslim population.
Although trade stagnated in the second half of the 18th century, it did not disappear.
After the peace of 1774 the Black Sea, virtually a Turkish lake from the 15th century
onwards, was opened to international navigation again. The main task of Black Sea
maritime trade and shipping was the supplying of the capital Istanbul with provisions,
fuel and timber. The Bulgarian lands had a major role to play in this, as the surplus
production of the Eastern Balkans was exported through Bulgarian ports. The Eastern
Balkans provided 80% of the grain needs of Istanbul. The main exports to Istanbul,
agricultural products, were bulk low-cost items, which had to be shipped in quantity and
by sea to make the transportation costs economically bearable. These requirements
determined the vital importance of shipping for the region. The Kitten ship was part of
this trade network. At the time of sinking the ship was operated by Christians, as
evidenced by finds from the wreck. The ethnic background of the crew, however, is
harder to establish. The majority of the artifactual assemblage suggests connection with
70
the Bulgarian population, but traditionally historians associate maritime affairs in the
Empire with the Greeks. Even so, evidence for Bulgarian participation in seafaring and
shipbuilding and even piracy is not lacking.
71
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF THE HULL REMAINS
Prior to our resumption of excavation on the Kitten shipwreck in 2000, and based on
information from the doyen of Bulgarian underwater archaeology, the late professor
Michael Lazarov, we believed that no more than the bottom of the hull was still extant.
The excavation soon proved this assumption wrong.72
The extant remains of the ship have a length of 19 m, a width of approximately 5 m and
a depth in hold of nearly 3 m. The vessel lists nearly 30 degrees to starboard on the
bottom, but the remains were twisted severely in the wrecking process; thus the degree
of heeling is only an approximation. The port side of the ship is almost completely
missing: only the bottom of the hull survives, approximately up to the wrongheads. The
starboard side is much better preserved, nearly to the height of breadth amidships. The
vessel is settled down by the stern. The bow is eroded, but not broken up, while the stern
is practically torn to pieces, especially on the port side. Frames are either completely
missing or heavily twisted and split (fig. 11).
Most of the material discussed in this chapter was published in the Proceedings of the 10th International
Symposium for Boat and Ship Archaeology. Here the information is presented with slight modifications,
mostly in correcting some small errors that I have permitted to slip into the publication. (Batchvarov
2003).
72
Fig. 11. Plan of the intact hull structure. Drawn: K. N. Batchvarov.
72
73
The Kitten ship was found to be constructionally of greater interest than anticipated. As
it is the first and only example of a postmedieval ship from the Black Sea to have ever
been excavated and recorded to date, no parallels have been published, thus severely
complicating the task of the researcher. However, a few Mediterranean wrecks feature
similar construction to that observed on the Kitten ship. A similarly constructed ship, the
Culip VI wreck from Catalonia, Spain, is dated to the early 14th century from the
associated pottery.73 This ship’s bottom survives to 11 meters length and three meters
breadth and includes keel, keelson, floor timbers, exterior planking, two mast steps and
the lower part of the stem. The 14th-century Contarina I wreck from Italy was discovered
and excavated in 1898.74 It is estimated to have been 20 meters long with a beam of over
5 meters and had two masts. The hull was extensively preserved and the keel, keelson,
lower stem and sternpost, floor timbers, first futtocks and toptimbers, bilge- and side
stringers survived. In 1979 at Villefranche-sur-Mer, France the wreck of an early 16thcentury vessel was located that is believed to have been the Genoese carrack
Lomellina.75 The wreck covers an area of 35 meters by 9 meters and includes the port
side of the vessel with the orlop and the lower decks. The Ottoman wreck from
Yassiada, Turkey, is dated to the end of the 16th century or very early 17th century.76
Surviving hull structure includes floor timbers, the heels of the first futtocks, the keel
and parts of the stem and sternpost. Another poorly preserved wreck is that of a tartana
lost off Sardineaux, at the entrance of Saint Tropez (France) and dated to the latter 17th
73
(Rieth 1998a; Rieth 1998b.
Bonino 1978.
75
Guerot 1995; Guerot 1989.
76
Personal communications with Dr Cemal Pulak.
74
74
century.77 Similarly to the Kitten ship, better preserved is the starboard side of the small
coaster. The remains extend to 7.65 meters length and include the damaged keel, floor
timbers and first futtocks. According to a description supplied by Taras Pevny,
Ukrainian archaeologists have raised a well-preserved wreck of a galliot from the Dnepr
River.78 The hull construction has not been recorded and little is known about it. With
the alleged exception of the Dnepr wreck, none of them was as extensively preserved as
the Kitten ship, but have sufficient hull preservation to offer useful comparative
material.
THE SHIP’S BACKBONE: KEEL, STEM AND STERNPOST
Regrettably, the consistency of the bottom sediment, lack of time and, ironically, the
extensive hull preservation conspired to prevent excavators from reaching and recording
the keel in detail. It was partially recorded only in the bow, but even there the garboard
hid important details, including the stem scarf. The width of the keelson and patches of
concrete that have found their way between the floor timbers prevented direct
observation of the inner face of the keel and made it impossible to say with certainty
whether the keel tapered or not, either in moulded or sided dimensions. The surviving
part of the stem close to the keel was measured to be 17 cm sided and 27 cm moulded.
The sided dimension can be assumed to be close to that of the front end of the keel itself.
We were unable to observe the after end of the keel, but as the sternpost (see below) has
77
78
Joncheray 1988.
Personal communication with Taras Pevny.
75
a sided dimension of 15.5-17 cm, it seems reasonable to assume that the keel had
virtually no taper in width. The moulded dimension of the keel at the stern probably
matched the 15.7 cm measurement of the sternpost. From indirect measurements this
appears to be close to the moulded dimension of the forward end of the keel as well, so it
is likely that it did not taper in this direction, either. At the bow end a rabbet was clearly
visible and from examining the lower side of the sternpost, there was a rabbet aft, as
well. No direct observation was possible amidships because of the wide (46 cm) keelson
and the closely spaced floor timbers. The wrecks from Culip VI, Sardineaux and
Yassiada did not have a rabbet except in the bows and sterns. It is possible that the keel
of the Kitten vessel, had a rabbet only in the bow and stern, but not amidships.79
The Sardineaux ship had a keel length of 7.65 meters, about half the extrapolated length
of the Kitten ship’s keel, but in practice the surviving keel length of the Sardineaux
vessel was significantly shorter, as only two small pieces survived in the extremities of
the wreck, and they showed no hint of tapering. Its keel had a rectangular section and no
rabbet. The reported scantlings were 9.8 cm moulded by 7.0 cm sided. The American
naval architect and maritime historian Howard I. Chappell studied traditional Turkish
fishing boats in the years 1956-57, at a time when some vessels still demonstrated older
building techniques and sail had not completely disappeared from workboats. He
reported that keels of Turkish fishing boats from the Black Sea were shallow and tapered
79
Rieth 1998b, 120, fig 51; Joncheray 1988, 44, fig 20.
76
in sided dimensions towards both the bow and the stern.80 Kostas Damianidis in his
study of Greek vernacular boatbuilding does not speak of tapering keels. It should be
noted, however, that most of the material that he gathered is from the first half of the 20th
century and it is not certain that the shipbuilding practices at that later date mirror those
of the earlier period. The keel of the 17th-century wreck off Yassiada has no taper. Thus
the suggestion that the Kitten ship’s keel did not taper is supported by the closest
excavated parallels.
Fig. 12. External reinforcing timber, notched for the frame overlaps. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
On the starboard exterior side of the hull, the third plank from the keel was found to be a
longitudinal timber, laid parallel to the keel, with a thickness of 9.6 cm and width of 14.5
80
Chapelle 1957, 44.
77
cm (fig. 12). The timber is notched to fit over the frames to which it was fastened with
spikes and possibly treenails (one empty treenail hole or bolt hole was recorded in the
extreme forward edge of the timber). The length of the notches averages 21 cm, which
agrees well with the space taken by the frame overlap. Remains of an identical timber
were also found to port of the keel. That timber, however, was so badly eroded that no
measurements were possible. These timbers may have supported the lower end of the
stem. It was not possible to trace them further aft, because of the solid wall of timber that
the framing formed. Drawings published by the French Admiral Edmond Paris illustrate
a late 19th-century Turkish coaster from the Black Sea, with similar timbers extending
throughout the length of the vessel and serving as sister keels. On the Kitten shipwreck,
these thick exterior timbers were paralleled on the interior of the hull – at least in its
visible parts – by the bilge stringers, which are also notched over the frames. Thus, the
heavier outer timbers probably continued throughout the length of the vessel, reinforcing
the turn of the bilge and possibly helping alleviate lateral drift when sailing under heel to
windward. These timbers would also have supported the ship when lying aground and
protected its bottom. The Contarina I wreck had similar timbers, running parallel to the
bilge stringer.81 Joncheray reports two broadly similar timbers from the Sardineaux
wreck, though their morphology is not identical to the Kitten timbers. The timbers on the
Sardineaux wreck change in section from triangular to trapezoidal. The triangular
section has scantlings of 11.2 cm by 6.2 cm by 14.2 cm. The rectangular section has
81
Bonino 1978, 14, fig. 4.
78
scantlings of 9.6 cm by 5.6 cm.82 Taras Pevny informed me that his Ukrainian colleagues
have discovered and raised a rowing vessel from the Dnepr River, which was built for
the 1730s campaigns of the Russian army against the Ottoman Empire. That vessel,
possibly a galliot, was built by a French- and Venetian-trained shipwright. Although I
have not seen any documentation from that wreck, Pevny reports that two similar
timbers, strengthening the turn of the bilge, were also observed on the Dnepr wreck.
Scantlings are not available.83 The Culip VI wreck does not appear to posses similar
timbers at the turn of the bilge.84 No such timbers were recorded on the 16th-century
Yassiada wreck, either. It is notable that all vessels with similar timbers at the turn of the
bilge were with shallow keels and, with the possible exception of the large Kitten ship,
may have been expected to take the ground frequently for loading. When laying
aground, the timbers would have helped keep the vessels on even keel and protected the
bottom planking.
82
Joncheray 1988, 45-7. fig. 21.
Pevny, September 29, 2008 pers. comm.
84
Rieth 1998b, 40, fig. 64.
83
79
Fig.13. The remains of the stem with a deep rabbet along the side. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
The stem is eroded almost down to the level of the keelson, but the remaining part is
sufficient to suggest that it had a steep forward rake and was 17 cm sided by 27 cm
moulded (fig. 13). The rabbet of the stem is 10.5 cm wide by 2.5 cm deep. Interestingly,
the stem appears to be simply butted into the keel without a scarf. No evidence was
found that a knee or an apron was ever installed. Any strengthening of the joint must
have come from breasthooks and the above-mentioned timbers on the external side of
the hull. Numerous wales probably added support higher up the side.
80
Although some remains of the stem were discovered on Culip VI, it is not clear how the
keel and stem were attached, but it appears that a flat scarf was used. On the Sardineaux
wreck, the connection between the stem and keel is a flat scarf, fastened with spikes. The
forward part of the 16th-century Yassiada keel is broken, so it is not clear how the
missing stem was attached to the keel, but there are some traces remaining on the upper
face that may be remains of a flat scarf. The stem was supported by an apron, a small
piece of which survives. Pevny informed me that the stem on the Dnepr wreck was also
butted directly into the keel without a scarf. The late 16th- or early 17th-century wreck
from Rondinara, France, likewise had its stem butted into the keel, rather than scarfed.85
Fig.14. The Sternpost. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
The sternpost, a naturally grown knee, survives in better condition than the stem (fig.
14). It has a preserved length of over 2 m and includes the lower part of the post with the
85
Villie 1988, 142-3, Plates VI and VIII.
81
pintle still attached. It was found torn off the hull and buried under the starboard quarter.
The upper part of the sternpost demonstrates damage similar to that suffered by the
frames in the stern, but the lower part is in remarkably good condition, allowing for a
detailed recording. It is certain that the sternpost was not scarfed but simply butted to the
keel. The surface of the butt is original, preserved completely undamaged, and clearly
shows the half-round notch left by drilling for a stopwater. The thickness of the timber is
almost uniform, varying between 16 and 16.7 cm. The depth of throat is 48 cm. The
rabbet is cut to 3 cm width and 2 cm depth. The pintle is now bent out of shape as result
of the ripping away of the rudder in the wrecking process, but extends to its original
length of 2.27 meters and tapers in diameter throughout its length from 5.5 cm to 3.2 cm.
In addition, the pintle is bent off-center to port. Initially I assumed that this also was
result of the wrecking, but Dr. Pulak informed me that Ottoman Imperial caiques in the
Naval Museum in Istanbul invariably have their pintles bent to port.86 According to
Pulak this aided the hanging of the rudder, as otherwise the high sternpost would have
been in the way. The Kitten vessel was larger than the caiques and so the rudder is
unlikely to have been frequently unshipped, but it is possible that the pintle was
intentionally bent to port during construction of the vessel. Two iron cheeks support the
pintle on the sides of the sternpost and are held in place by forelock bolts driven from
opposite directions. The plates are 3 cm thick by 9 cm wide and are 59 cm long. The two
plates are connected with integral strap of the same material and thickness, which
supported the heel of the pintle. They appear to have been forged together and wrapped
86
Pulak 2009 personal communication.
82
around the post. The pintle passes through a long iron eyebolt that penetrates the
sternpost and extends over 30 cm from the inner edge. Although the end is now broken,
it is likely that it was a forelock bolt. The extra length of the bolt must have been used in
securing the sternpost to the hull either through a stern hook or a knee. The long pintle
proves something that we long suspected from the general shape of the wreck: the ship
had a round sharp stern, similar to the 16th-century Ottoman wreck from Yassiada. This
type of stern was generally popular among traditional lateen-rigged craft in the
Mediterranean world until the 19th century, if not later. Usually sternposts with long
pintles are curved, but there are some exceptions as evidenced by Jouve’s and Baugean’s
drawings.87 The aft face of the Kitten wreck’s lower sternpost is almost straight, with
slight indication of curving towards the broken end.
According to Pevny, the Dnepr wreck’s sternpost also butted into the keel with no scarf,
in a manner identical to that observed on the Kitten ship.88 Just as on the Kitten vessel,
the Dnepr wreck’s sternpost had a stopwater at the butt. Although a large portion of the
sternpost is extant on the 16th-century Yassiada ship, its heel does not survive.
Nonetheless, it is probable that a flat scarf strengthened by an inner post attached it to
the keel. Remains of the inner post were observed, but were heavily eroded. A
concretion found on the Yassiada wreck was identified as containing the pintle and was
cast and analyzed. Although the shape of the support plates is not identical to those on
the Kitten ship pintle, overall the pintles are similar. A concreted pintle was also
87
88
Joncheray 1988, figs. 30, 31, 32, 39; Harland 2000.
Pevny 2009 personal communication.
83
discovered on the wreck from Sardineaux. Only 17.8 cm of the length of the pintle
survive and had a diameter of 1.8 cm. It was supported and secured to the now missing
sternpost with a 0.7 by 3.5 cm strap, bent into a U-shape. The distance between the sides
of the U was 6.2 cm, with a length of 27 cm. Three holes in each side match holes on the
opposite side. Joncheray believed that the sides were bolted through the hull and headed
over washers.89
FRAMING TIMBERS
On the Kitten Shipwreck a bend of timbers or a frame consists of a floor, two futtocks
and two toptimbers. Remains of 57 frames survive, but it is probable that a few more
were originally attached to the now missing part of the stem. Likewise two or three more
frames must have existed in the stern. Of the existing frames, 29 are located aft of the
midships frame and 26 forward of it. The room and space between the bends of timber
averages about 30-32 cm. Frame scantlings vary, but most average 12 cm sided by 11.513 cm moulded at the turn of the bilge and taper slightly up the side. Extremes of the
range of scantlings extend from 8 cm to 16 cm for sided, and from 10 cm to 13 cm for
moulded dimensions. The floor timber amidships has a length of around 2.4 meters.
There is no deadwood (or rising wood) in the bow or in the stern. Instead, the floor
timbers are deep grown Y-shaped tree trunk crooks (fig. 15). There is evidence that the
Y-shaped floors continued on to the stem and their lower faces were cut at an angle and
89
Joncheray 1988, 62-4, figs. 37-8.
84
toe-nailed to the stem, so that the futtocks would have been vertical to the waterline and
were directly nailed to the wrongheads. For this reason, no cant frames were used by the
master shipwright. The few floor timbers that could be observed in detail, mostly in the
extremities of the hull, do not show any limber holes, although no doubt these existed on
floor timbers fitted atop the flat keel.
Fig. 15. Y-shaped floor timber in the bow. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
All timbers within a bend are longitudinally fastened. In the bow, the futtocks simply
overlap the floors and are secured to them with a single nail. The overlap averages 40 cm
in length. In the central part of the hull, 27 frames extending over nearly half the length
85
of keel have their floors and the futtocks hook-scarfed (fig. 16). The hooks are very
shallow, varying between 1.5 cm and 2 cm, thus they could not have added materially to
the strength of the scarf, as the port side broke off along at the scarfs.
Fig. 16. Futtocks with hook notches, probably from the collapsed port side. Drawing: K.
N. Batchvarov.
The purpose of the hook scarfs was probably to assist in aligning the timbers during the
fastening process. The floor timbers and futtocks are fastened with a nail and a treenail,
with no observable pattern to their distribution (fig. 17). It was not possible to ascertain
whether the fastenings were driven from the same direction or from the opposing sides
of the timbers.
86
Fig. 17. Hook-scarfs between the floor timbers and the first futtocks on the Kitten wreck.
Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
Towards the stern the scarfing of futtocks and floors changes again, with some of the
futtocks slightly half-lapped, but not hooked; most are simple overlaps that appear to be
nailed together. The closest parallels for the morphology of the scarfs are those found on
the 16th-century vessel from Yassiada.90 At around 70 cm, the overlap is nearly twice as
long as that on the slightly longer Kitten ship. It is possible that the longer overlap may
be related to the longer floor timbers. The small coaster from Sardineaux had nearly
identical scarfs, but with significantly longer overlaps, proportionally, than those on the
Kitten or even the Yassiada shipwrecks.91 Pevny reports that on the Dnepr wreck the
floor timbers were likewise attached to the futtocks with hook-scarfs. Unfortunately no
90
91
Pulak, personal communication; Steffy 1994, 137.
Joncheray 1988, 51-4, figs. 26-8.
87
information is available on their length, the nature of the fastening (possibly clenched
nails) and the number or direction of the fastenings. The Culip VI wreck also exhibits
hook scarfs, but they are cut much deeper into the timbers than those on the later
wrecks.92 Guerot and Rieth report that the upper timbers of Lomellina’s frame employed
both dovetail and hook scarfs, but the floor timbers to first futtocks scarfing was
accomplished with dovetail joints in what is believed to be Atlantic tradition.93
It was possible to determine that the bow floors were toe-nailed to the keel with a single
nail in the middle. A special triangular recess for the nail was cut into the forward face
of the floor timbers, probably with two strokes of a small single-hand held adze, known
as Turkish adze. The fastening system could not have contributed much to the integrity
of the hull in the bow. The strength must have come from the attachment of the frame to
the planking, stringers and wales. As it was impossible to disassemble the keelson, we
were unable to determine how, if at all, the rest of the floor timbers were fastened to the
keel, though nailing seems to be the most probable method.
The midship frame was easily discerned upon removal of the bottom ceiling planks and
was found to consist of a floor timber and a pair of futtocks hook-scarfed to each face of
the floor timber (fig. 18). The floor timber, about 22 cm sided, is almost twice the sided
dimension of the other floor timbers. The 13-cm moulded dimension of the floor is
consistent with that of the neighboring timbers in the middle part of the hull. The
92
93
Rieth 1998b, 206, fig. 2.
Guerot 1995,43, 49, note 4.
88
midship frame’s futtocks are of average dimensions: 10.5 cm sided by 12.5 moulded cm,
and 9 cm sided by 12 cm moulded.
Fig. 18. The Midship frame consists of a large floor timber and futtocks fastened to
either side of it. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Identical arrangement of a floor timber with two futtocks on each side was also recorded
on the first Contarina ship, dated to the 14th century.94 The early 16th-century wreck of
the Genoese carrack Lomellina also has a midship frame with futtocks attached to either
face of the floor timber.95 In contrast, the early 14th-century Culip VI wreck had two
midship floor timbers, one floor had the hook scarfs cut on opposite sides of the
94
95
(Bonino 1978), 14, fig. 4
(Guerot 1995), 43, 49, Note 3.
89
wrongheads.96 The 16th-century Yassiada ship had two floor timbers with single futtocks
attached to each wronghead. The forward bend had the futtocks fastened to the foreward
side of the floor timber and the aft bend had them facing the stern of the vessel. The
same arrangement is also observable on the Sardineaux wreck.97 I do not possess any
information on the Dnepr wreck regarding the construction of its midships frame.
On the Kitten shipwreck, forward of midships the toptimbers and floors are in line, with
the futtocks fayed to the forward face of the respective floor timbers; aft of midships, the
sequence changes, with the futtocks placed on the aft face of the floor timbers. The
toptimbers overlap the futtocks and are nailed to them. In a number of places the
futtocks of the adjacent bends had to be notched deeply to provide clear path for driving
the nails (fig. 19). This suggests that the toptimbers were installed after the preassembled
floor timbers and futtocks were raised on the keel.
96
97
Rieth 1998b, 206, fig 2: see futtocks M113-M114.
Joncheray 1988, 52 and fig. 26.
90
Fig. 19. Notch in adjacent timber for fastener of a toptimber. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
A particularly interesting feature of the framing is that the central section of the hull,
which roughly matches the length of the sister keelsons, had filling timbers driven
between the futtocks, thus forming a solid timber wall. After disassembling the bottom
ceiling planks, we observed that the doubling extended only down to the turn of the
bilge. The filling timbers are of different scantlings, hewn to conform to the spaces
between the futtocks. Their lower ends ended with a taper towards the external planking,
but sometimes they came down square. The upper ends were invariably cut diagonally to
conform to the heels of the toptimbers. The filling pieces do not appear to have been
fastened to the frames, but only to the stringers and, presumably, the external planking.
91
Probably they were added before the attachment of the stringers, or else it would have
been very difficult, if not outright impossible to install them. They may have been
inserted after the attachment of the toptimbers, as otherwise the diagonally-cut heels of
the toptimbers could not have been nailed to their respective futtocks. Max Guerot and
Eric Rieth speak of “packing pieces” between the frames of Lomellina, a feature that
may be similar to what we observed on the Kitten ship.98
KEELSON, SISTER KEELSONS AND MAST STEP
The keelson is a single timber of about 14.3 m in length and tapering in section from 46
cm sided by 19 cm moulded amidships, to 19 cm by 15 cm in the bow (fig. 20). The
keelson is notched over every floor to a depth of about 3 cm. No fastening pattern is
clearly identifiable; however, two or three concretions in the forward third of the keelson
may be remains of iron bolts or spikes. Abaft that point no traces of fastenings are
visible. It is conceivable that the keelson was also fastened with treenails, as treenails are
difficult to identify in poor visibility and limited light conditions. In addition to iron
forelock bolts, treenails were used on the 16th-century Yassiada ship to fasten the
keelson.99 In comparison with Western shipbuilding traditions, the keelson appears
lightly fastened, but this does not seem to have caused any weakness in this part of the
hull, as the keelson was not displaced in the wrecking process and we could not remove
it (fig. 20).
98
99
Guerot 1995, 43.
Dr. Cemal Pulak, pers.comm., October 6, 2008.
92
Fig. 20. The top of the keelson in the bow section. No trace of fasteners are observable.
Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Amidships, two longitudinal timbers, sister keelsons, run parallel and adjacent to the
keelson to which they are spiked. The timbers are 5.17 m long (a little less than one-third
the length of the keelson), 34 cm moulded and 17 cm sided. As the keelson itself, they
are notched over the floors to the depth of 3 cm. The sister keelsons protrude 15 cm
above the upper edge of the keelson. The timbers are supported transversally by two sets
of buttresses, which lie on top of floors. Their length is 65 cm, their thickness is 12 to 13
cm, and their width conforms to the shape of the floors. The buttresses taper from the
93
sister keelsons towards the bilge stringers into which they butt. No notches are cut into
the bilge stringers to receive the ends of the buttresses.
Immediately forward of the sister keelsons a shallow square (c. 10 cm per side and 10
cm deep) mortise is cut into the upper face of the keelson. The mortise is surrounded by
a square imprint, probably caused by the lower end of a stanchion (fig. 21). Neither the
stanchion itself, nor any trace of it was found. This represents the only stanchion mortise
found.
Fig. 21. Stanchion mortise with square imprint visible. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
94
The only surviving mast step is located between the sister keelsons. Taking into account
its position, the length of the sister keelsons and the vessel remains, it is probable that
the ship had a single mast. The step is cut through the keelson, spans three floor timbers,
and at its aft end terminates on the floor timber immediately forward of the midship
frame (fig. 22). The mast step has a length of 70 cm and width of 20 cm. No traces of
wear associated with the loads that the mast must have carried were found on the keelson
around the opening. The excessive length of the maststep mortise suggests there must
have been a wedging system (of which no trace survives) to hold the mast heel in
position. This would explain the lack of wear on the keelson. A very close parallel for
this maststep is the one found on the 14th-century galley from the island of San Marco di
Boccalama in the Venetian Lagoon, which was sunk to crib the shore in AD 1328.100 On
the Genoese carrack Lomellina, the main mast step is also bound on both sides by 5 mlong sister keelsons (which Guerot and Rieth call side keelsons), which are supported
with buttresses (called chocks by the two authors), butted into the thickstuff. Two
dovetail jointed crosspieces fore and aft of the mast support the sister keelsons.101
Similar, though not identical to the Kitten ship mast step appear to have been used on the
mid-18th-century wreck from Sharm-el-Sheikh from the Red Sea and the 19th-century
DW2 wrecks from Israel, neither of which are published in much detail in English. The
mast steps of both vessels, however, appear closely related to the mast step on
Lomellina.102 Eric Rieth also proposes the same arrangement for the Culip VI wreck.103
100
Mauro Bondioli, personal communication, September 2003.
Guerot 1995, 44.
102
Raban 1971, 151; Cheryl Ward, pers. comm. 2003; Yak Kahanov, pers. comm. 2003.
103
Rieth 1998b, 129, fig 59.
101
95
Fig. 22. Sister keelsons and mast step. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
STRINGERS AND CEILING PLANKS
The starboard bilge stringer consisted of three pieces, with the two shorter pieces
forming the bow and the stern risings. The third and longest piece extends along the
central part of the hull. The three pieces are fitted to each other with long diagonal
scarfs, but we found no evidence of fastenings. The timbers are heavy, 10 cm thick, and
are deeply (more than 5 cm) notched over the frame bends, to which they are spiked. At
more than 15 cm, the stringer is wide enough to cover most of the frame scarfs and it
was so heavily fastened that it defied our efforts to disassemble it. The width and depth
of the stringer’s notching also covered the area of the frame scarfs where any sirmark
would have been located.
96
The bilge stringer is partially covered by two thinner, but still massive strakes (c. 5-10
cm thick and c. 20 cm wide each) of footwaling extending from about the middle of the
stringer outboard. Forward, the outer strake butts into a timber with nearly square
section, which forms the continuation of the strake towards the bow of the vessel.
Originally, it probably reached the stem or a breasthook. The timber was fastened to
each frame, although most frames have now fallen off and the timber itself is in very
poor condition. Nevertheless, dovetail mortises were clearly observable on its upper and
outer surfaces, and some still contained the dovetails of filling pieces that covered the
room between the futtocks. Aft, the outer of the two footwaling strakes is crenelated and
notched around the futtocks, with dovetail-jointed filling pieces between the frames (fig.
23).
Fig. 23. Crenelated timbers with filling pieces between the futtocks. Photo: L. Klissurov.
This arrangement is very similar to the one recorded on a well-preserved mid-16th
century wreck from Cattewater, at Plymouth, England, which is believed to have been
97
Iberian built.104 The same arrangement is reported for the Emanuel Point Wreck, a large
mid-16th century Spanish ship found in Pensacola Bay, Florida, believed to have formed
part of Tristan da Luna’s fleet.105 A crenelated timber and filling pieces have also been
reported on a medieval wreck from Tantura Lagoon, Israel, however it is popularly
associated with the Iberian Atlantic tradition of shipbuilding.106 Evidently, this
association needs to be extended to include Mediterranean and Black Sea shipbuilding as
well, although Joncheray does not mention filling pieces between the futtocks of the
wreck from Sardineaux. This arrangement was also absent on the Culip VI and Yassiada
wrecks. These three vessels were less well preserved than the Kitten wreck, which may
explain the absence of filling pieces.
The surviving part of the Kitten ship’s starboard side has four stringers fastened to it.
They differ in scantlings and form, being either narrow and thick, or wide and thin. The
scantlings of the first group average 15 -25 cm wide by 8 cm thick and those of the
second 25 cm by 4 cm thick (fig. 24). The thicker pieces are occasionally notched over
the frames to which they are attached, especially in the curving extremities of the hull.
Even the thinner stringers are notched where differing moulded dimensions of the
frames prevent a smooth run. The stringers are fastened to every frame timber with two
nails driven at an angle to each other, making their removal during excavation difficult.
Evidently the iron fasteners are still in good state of preservation. Most of the stringers
104
Steffy 1994, 133.
Smith 1998, 299.
106
Kahanov 2004, 118, fig. 8.9; Oertling 2004,133, fig 9.5.
105
98
were built of at least two planks scarfed together with simple diagonal scarfs. The
lowermost thick stringer had a nearly S-shaped scarf, but whether this was the intention
of the shipwright or the result of poor workmanship, it is difficult to ascertain. It is
notable that contrary to generally accepted convention, the scarfing of adjacent stringers
was not staggered out along the length of the vessel, but was concentrated in one area.
This ought to have caused a weakening of the construction in this area of the hull, but
there was no evidence to support this view.
The uppermost surviving stringer is thin and, as its location coincides with the overlap
between the toptimbers and the futtocks, it is likely that another stringer existed higher
up on the side. This now-missing uppermost stringer may have formed the clamp. There
is indirect indication that a missing stringer formed the clamp shelf, as there is no
evidence for attachment of beams on the surviving stringers.
99
Fig. 24. Starboard side with stringers and filling timbers. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
100
In the bow, there is a timber, similar in scantlings to the heavier stringers, which butts
into the outer strake of the footwaling and curves towards the stem, which it probably
reached. It is likely to have been part of a breasthook (fig. 25). The timber is in very poor
condition.
Fig. 25. A part of the outer footwaling strake which may have formed the arm of a
breasthook. Photo. L. Klissurov.
Another longitudinal timber of 3.5 m length is located in the forward end of the wreck
halfway between the footwaling and the first stringer. The timber is notched around and
fastened to every frame that it crosses (O to V). Although the forward part is heavily
eroded, some remaining traces of curvature may indicate that the timber did not reach
101
the stem. If so, it may have been a long lodging knee, supporting a beam into or against
which the standards of the bitts rested. This interpretation was proposed by Dr. Fred
Hocker, who discovered the timber in 2000. In the stern, two rider timbers, which angled
sharply upwards, were notched and fastened to the frames with spikes and one treenail.
Their upper ends are eroded, but they likely formed or butted into sternhooks. Their
lower ends butt into the bilge stringers, but are distinctly separate from them. Most
probably, these timbers provided some strength to the otherwise weak attachment of the
sternpost to the hull and likely counteracted the hogging stresses of the high stern.
Fig. 26. Transversal ceiling planks in center right of the photograph. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
102
Transversal ceiling planking, well preserved for the entire length of the ship, extends
from the bottom up to the turn of the bilge (fig. 26). However, the sides above the turn of
the bilge are covered only by the four sets of stringers and otherwise remain open. The
transversal oak ceiling planks are the same thickness as the oak exterior planks (3.5 cm).
Their widths vary, but average about 19 to 21 cm, as do the exterior planking. Notably,
they are nailed in place, and have their top surfaces level with the upper edge of the
keelson. The inner edges are fastened with iron nails to ledges nailed to the sides of the
keelson. The ledges are 7.5 cm wide and 14 cm thick, resting on top of the floors without
being notched for them. The outer edges of the planks are nailed to the bilge stringer and
butt into the inner footwaling edge. Thus the bilge stringer is completely covered by the
ceiling and the footwaling planks. The ceiling planks are nailed to the stringer, too.
One of the starboard planks, located between the transversal buttresses, has a round
opening 20 cm in diameter that most likely accommodated the lower end of a bilge
pump tube. At the time of excavation the pump opening was covered with a square
softwood plank, and from the marking of the plank it seems probable that the cover was
in place at the time of sinking. The nailing of the ceiling planks made it impossible for
the ship’s crew to reach the bilges and clean limber holes routing the water to the pump.
Between the futtocks at the turn of the bilge are driven the filling pieces (see above),
which cover the wrongheads and are dovetailed into the outermost strake of the
footwaling, thus completely sealing off the bottom of the vessel from the hold.
103
DECK BEAM
Fig. 27. Deck beam. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
Only one nearly complete deck beam was found (fig. 27). That sole example proved to
be most informative for reconstruction and interpretation of the hull and its sailing rig.
The extant length is 6.04 m, but it was evidently about a meter longer originally. One
face of the beam is very heavily eroded and no original surface is preserved, but the
other face is in much better condition. The better-preserved face at the peak of the
camber has a shallow indentation approximately 50 cm wide and less than 2 cm deep.
The indentation is more visible at the upper part of the beam than at the lower, which
suggests that the pressure causing the indentation was applied at an angle. On either side
of the indentation deeply cut notches are preserved (about 12 cm sided by 10 cm
moulded and separated by about 1.2 m) that probably supported carlings. The notches
were observed only on the side with the indentation, but this may be due to the
extremely poor preservation of the opposite face of the beam, where no original surface
remains. Another notch is cut into the lower face of the beam, in the middle of the
104
indentation. It appears to have been the mortise for the tenon of a stanchion, although it
differs morphologically from the only stanchion mortise found on the keelson. It is too
heavily eroded for measuring, but appears to be similar in size to those for the carlings.
One end of the beam is preserved completely, although with damage from erosion. The
end itself shows remains of a dovetail cut into it. It appears that the beam was secured to
a clamp through dovetail joints, which supports the view that the surviving stringers do
not include the clamp. On the same arm, 1.1 m from the dovetail another notch cut into
the upper face of the beam is preserved. Likely, it was the bed for another carling, also
fastened by a dovetail joint. The other arm is broken precisely at the notch. Based on the
symmetry of the beam, it can be estimated that the original length was around 7 m. The
location of the beam and its purpose can also be reconstructed from the position of the
stanchion mortise on the keelson. As only one such mortise was found on the keelson, it
is likely that the corresponding notch on the beam was directly above it. The indentation
on the beam is most likely to have been caused by pressure from the mast, and the two
carlings around it would have formed the mast partners.
Thanks to this find, it is possible to accurately estimate the maximum beam (including
the exterior planking, but without the wales) of the vessel at 7.46 cm. The recorded hull
section at the notch in the keelson and the length of the beam permit us to estimate the
depth of the hull at about 3.56 m at this location. The positions of the maststep and the
105
reconstructed depth in hold at this location will, in Chapter V, allow us to reconstruct the
rake of the mast and help identify the Kitten wreck’s rig.
PLANKING
Given the time and funding constraints under which the archaeological team operated, it
was impossible to uncover the preserved exterior of the wreck. Yet, it was possible to
obtain some information about the external planking in the bow and the stern. Planks
vary in width, without discernible pattern, between 19 and 21.5 cm, with most being 21
cm wide. Plank thickness is almost uniform at 3.5 cm. It was possible to identify at least
three sets of wales. The wale sets consist of two thicker strakes separated by a single
thinner strake, the thickness of a standard plank. Their dimensions from the lower to
upper strakes are as follows: 6 cm thick by 13 cm wide, followed by a standard plank
and a 7 cm by 15 cm wale, then a 5.5 cm by 11.5 cm wale followed by an almost
standard plank, but narrower than average (16 cm), and then a 5.5 cm by 12 cm wale.
The third set consists of two 6.5 cm by 13 cm wales, separated by a narrow plank of
normal thickness. It would appear that most of the preserved wales were under water
amidships when the vessel was afloat, even when not fully loaded.
All planks are fastened with two nails per frame. No treenails were observed. Planks
within a strake butt into each other and the butts, where observed, were placed on
frames. These observations were made at the extreme bow and stern ends of the vessel,
106
where futtocks were missing, but the external planks were still in place. Unfortunately,
no measurement for the length of planks within a strake was possible. No evidence for
caulking was discovered anywhere on the ship, but remains of a pitch coating were
detectable. Both drop strakes and stealers were employed by the shipwright. Within the
limits of the preservation, one drop strake in the bow was identified, and, on the port side
of the stern, a stealer was discovered with iron nails still protruding from it. Under the
starboard quarter and below the waterline of the ship, we found a repair to one of the
planks: a piece was cut out and replaced with a dutchman. However, it is not known
whether the repair was made in the process of building to correct a plank defect or was
done later in the life of the vessel. The former seems more probable.
MATERIALS
The ship is built almost completely out of oak. Some remains of softwoods were also
uncovered in the first two seasons, but they were so poorly preserved that it was
impossible to obtain samples suitable for identification. It is probable that they were
remains of a deck. Among the well-preserved oak parts of the hull it is evident that
timbers were carefully worked. None show any bark or even much sapwood. This
confirms that they were cut from large baulks. The large grown Y-shaped floors in the
bow and stern, the massive timbers in the bow that may be breasthooks and the overall
quality of the timber are evidence that the master shipwright did not suffer from any
shortage of quality material. As the vessel is almost entirely iron-fastened, it is natural to
107
conclude that iron was plentiful and cheap. In the Ottoman period, these conditions –
availability of timber and iron - existed in the territories of present-day Bulgaria. The
Bulgarian town of Samokov, located in the southwestern part of the country, was the
principle supplier of iron within the Ottoman Empire. The Strandja Mountain chain,
which reaches the southern coast of Bulgaria in the vicinity of the present day town of
Kitten, was known for its export of timber and charcoal. It appears likely that the ship
was built somewhere along the Bulgarian shore.
CONCLUSION
The vessel represented by the Kitten wreck is large for this region, and likely displaced
between 100 and 200 tons. The quality of the craftsmanship evident in the well-worked
timbers and tight joinery imply the ship was built in a professional shipyard that
followed longstanding traditions. The regular framing, nearly uniform scantlings and
clear fastening pattern of most timbers suggest the work of a master shipwright who had
experience building similar vessels. That the pre-assembly of floors and futtocks is
limited to the central part of the hull, offers evidence for a system of controlling the
shape of the hull through some, probably the traditional, Mediterranean system of
whole-moulding, rather than building by eye or from a lofting.
During the four seasons of work in the southern bay of Kitten, it was possible to confirm
the reports of Bulgarian colleagues that at least three more ships lie around the excavated
108
wreck. A fourth vessel, in the southern end of the bay, is reported but was not observed
by our excavation team. Usually the ships are almost completely covered by bottom
sediment, but in 2001 a storm uncovered, a double-ended vessel of apparently identical
construction to the one under study. This vessel was significantly better preserved with
some decking and part of the single mast still in place. Its extant overall length was
found to be almost exactly 27 m at deck level. The other wrecks have suffered more
damage, but the scantlings of the visible timbers are generally heavier than those of the
ship under study. This implies that despite popular belief to the contrary, large ships
were likely built and certainly operated along the coast, nor were they rare if one is to
judge by the carefully planned construction of the ship and the quality workmanship.
The sheer number of large shipwrecks found in the small bay of Kitten alone supports
this conclusion.
The main export of the Bulgarian territories were destined for the capital of the Ottoman
Empire, Istanbul, and primarily consisted of low-value bulk commodities such as grain,
hides, honey, timber, bulk iron and charcoal. This type of low-cost, but high-volume
cargo requires large ships for the voyage to be profitable. The obvious implication is that
economic conditions on the western Black Sea coast necessitated the use of relatively
large cargo carriers. If the capital for building such vessels was made available, the
importance of seafaring for the local population must have been significant, pointing to
the existence of a more vigorous maritime economy than was heretofore believed.
109
CHAPTER IV
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE KITTEN SHIP
As stated earlier, it is probable that the Kitten ship was lost sometime in the reign of the
Ottoman Sultan Selim III (1789-1807) or shortly thereafter (1807-1825). Since the
excavation of the Kitten shipwreck is the first complete archaeological excavation of a
post-medieval vessel from the Black Sea littoral, there are presently no close parallels
for the construction of this hull. Thus, a thorough study of the Kitten shipwreck provides
an opportunity to add to our knowledge of shipbuilding practices for an area of the world
which hitherto has been Terra Incognita, but this breaking of new ground means there is
a dearth of sources and comparative material. In general the eastern Mediterranean
(including the Black Sea) has been poorly served by nautical archaeology for the
postmedieval period. Few wrecks have been excavated and published, and even fewer
have undergone reconstruction. As the previous chapter demonstrated, the Kitten ship
was extensively preserved, despite having sunk in the surge zone. Amidships, the
remains extend nearly to the height of the deck. The bow is poorly preserved and the
stern is mostly missing. The fortunate discovery of the sternpost provided us with useful
data from which to reconstruct the stern. Only about a meter of the bow survives and the
timbers in this part of the hull have fallen apart.
110
Although no exact parallels for the Kitten ship have been published, some Mediterranean
vessels offer similarities that suggest a common culture of shipbuilding in the Black Sea,
Levant and Mediterranean. The similar 14th-century Culip VI, the 16th-century Yassiada
and the 17th-century Sardineaux wrecks are significantly less well-preserved than the
ship from Kitten, which also may have been the largest in the group. Thus, these
archaeological examples were of limited use in the reconstruction, but still important for
placing the Kitten wreck in the shipbuilding traditions of the Mediterranean world.
By the end of the 18th century plentiful literature on shipbuilding and design existed in
the West, some of which offered detailed lists of scantlings for different types of vessels.
So far nothing similar has been uncovered for the shipping of the Ottoman Empire.
Kostas Damianidis extensively researched Greek vernacular boatbuilding for his
doctoral dissertation and although this study has some relevance – the Greek islands and
mainland were part of the Ottoman Empire until the Great Powers established an
independent Greek kingdom – his research was based on interviews with traditional
boatbuilders and the information is only pertinent to the first half of the 20th century.107
Still, some data can, with caution, be used for the earlier period, too. In the mid-1950s
American maritime historian and ship specialist Howard Chapelle studied traditional
Turkish boatbuilding and found strong traces of 18th-century traditions still practiced.108
Again, Chapelle’s material cannot be used directly, as most of the boats he described had
already been modified from their sailing ancestors for the use of engines.
107
108
Damianidis 1989.
Chapelle 1957.
111
A final source of comparative information is iconography, including both contemporary
graffiti and conventional art. Generally speaking iconography is overrated as a source of
constructional knowledge. Research aimed at identifying archaeological remains based
on contemporary paintings is often futile, given that the bottom of a hull is usually the
sole part that survives to be excavated and recorded, and art is concerned mostly with the
upper part of the hull above the waterline. Thus no direct correlation between the two
can be made. This factor, however, has not dampened attempts to reconstruct ships from
depictions. The sole convincing attempt in this direction, of which I am aware, is the
reconstruction of the Duyfken, a Dutch yacht of the early 17th century. There, however,
data obtained from statistical analysis of works of Dutch masters from the 17th-century
Golden Age, renowned for their technical proficiency and reliability, was combined with
more prosaic, but also more informative and conclusive written shipbuilding instructions
as offered by Nicolaesz Witsen (1671). A similar approach is impossible with the Kitten
ship, as the vital second component – reliable written rules – is not available. Thus,
illustrations from contemporary European visitors to the Empire are used with some
caution for the reconstruction of the rig’s type and the general outline of the upperworks
of the hull. Extensive cataloguing of graffiti from Bulgarian churches has also
demonstrated the same trends, but their crudeness renders them of even more limited
utility. Finally, the French Admiral Edmond Paris published in his Souvenirs de Marine
(originally published in 6 volumes, 1882-1908) two draughts of Ottoman vessels from
the Black Sea. Both recorded vessels are dated to the second half of the 19th century and
112
were clearly constructed differently than the Kitten vessel.109 This limits their usefulness
as comparative material.
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
Starting from at least the earliest Renaissance shipbuilding treatises of the early 15thcentury, and probably from much earlier, the keel length has been the most important
dimension. It is the first dimension to be determined in building a ship, and the
measurement from which all others are derived. On the Kitten shipwreck the keel timber
could not be measured directly, but some reasonable estimates can be made, based on
indirect measurements. The location of the forward butt joint between stem and keel was
recorded. In the stern, the filling chocks that supported the garboards’ entrance into the
sternpost were directly observable too, which helped to determine the position of the
sternpost. Since the lower part of the sternpost itself was also discovered and recorded,
the length of keel was deduced on the basis of these findings. For the calculation of
proportions in order to compare them with available sources, the length of keel is taken
to be the length of the imprint the keel would make on the ground, known in 17th-century
English sources as “thread length”. Thus, the gripe of the stem and the hook of the
sternpost are included. The length of the Kitten ship’s keel is estimated to be 16.86 m.
109
Paris 1999.
113
Table 1 supplies typical hull proportions based on surviving Venetian shipbuilding
treatises for Mediterranean craft and the limited number of archaeological finds for
which the necessary data exists. It will be seen that the ratio of Keel Length and Beam
varies between a low of 2.3 to a high of 3.2. By great good fortune the dimensions of the
one recovered deck beam supplied the moulded breadth of the Kitten ship to within a
few centimeters. It should be pointed out that all early Renaissance treatises provide
stevedore measurements for their proportions and the ratios have been calculated on this
basis, including the ratios for the Kitten ship, which, at 2.5, falls in the mid range of
values.
Kostas Damianidis offers a large body of tabulated data on vernacular Greek boats from
the early 20th century. Although his data covers a later historical period, it is
geographically close to the Kitten shipwreck.
114
Table 1. Table of proportions of Mediterranean vessels. All measurements are in
meters.
Source
LOA
LKL
Beam
Depth
Floor
Length
LOA/B
LKL/B
B/D
B/Floor
Culip VI
(reconstructed)
16.35
c.11
4.11
1.94
n/a
4
2.7
2.1
n/a
Contarina I
(1300)
20.98
16.5
5.2
n/a
2.63
4.03
3.2
n/a
2
Nave Latina,
c.1410
27.5
20.7
8.28?
n/a
3.1
3.32
2.5
n/a
2.7
Nave Quadra,
c. 1410
33.06
22.62
9.22
4.52
3.93
3.58
2.5
2
2.4
Contarina II
(1550)
20.5
14.55
6.3
n/a
1.67
3.25
2.3
n/a
3.8
Timbotta's
250-botte nave
n/a
20.88
7.13
2.96
2.96
n/a
2.9
2.4
2.4
Pre Teodoro
Nave (1550)
24.9
17.4
8
4
2.44
3.1
2.8
2
3.3
47.15
34.8
13.05
5.92
3.83
3.6
2.7
2.2
3.4
23?
16.86
7.46
3.56
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.1
3.1
13.5
10?
4.21
1.99
n/a
3.2
2.4
2.1
n/a
Pre Teodoro
Galleon (1550)
Kitten
Shipwreck c.
1800
Tartane, c.
1800110
As his sources were traditional boatbuilders, the proportions they offered were inherited
from their forefathers and, thus, were not too distant from the period when the Kitten
ship sailed. However, it should be recognized that the changing means of propulsion
have had a significant impact on both construction and design, thus forcing
110
Delacroix 1997, 22. Identified as built by a H. Penevert at Rochefort in the „first years of the 19th
century.“
115
modifications and adaptations on traditional boat shapes. For this reason, the data from
Damianidis was used cautiously for comparison.
According to Damianidis’ Table 5, in which he offers the range of proportions for
trechadiria, (singular: trechadiri), the beam was to be less than half of the length of
keel.111 Rake of stern and stem posts were calculated as a fraction of the keel: one-third
for the forward rake and one-sixth for the aft rake. For the generally larger peramata
(pl.; singular: perama), Daminidis offers forward rake of a quarter the length of keel,
stern rake one-eight the length of keel and a beam of between half and a third the length
of keel.112 Peramata were generally considered better sailers than trechadiria and
perhaps ought to be more relevant to the reconstruction of the Kitten ship.
Calculating the bow and stern rakes of the Kitten ship is particularly fraught with danger,
as little survives to guide us in the process. This is especially true of the bow, where less
than a meter of length survives. Fortunately, two floor timbers found in the area
provided some assistance. A V-shaped floor timber, with eroded wrongheads was found
in situ, backed into the forward end of the keelson. The general shape of the timber is
trapezoidal, with straight-line sides, showing no hollow. The bevels of the two sides of
the timber assisted in determining the run of the planking in this area and were used to
establish the entry of the first, lowermost, waterline. A second floor timber, in even
worse condition than the first, was found in the bow square, but it was no longer in situ
111
112
Damianidis 1989, 48, Table 5.
Damianidis 1989, 49.
116
and the sides were too eroded to provide conclusive direction for the waterlines. Luckily,
the bevel of its lower face, which lay on the stem, was reasonably well preserved, and it
was possible to measure it with some claim to accuracy. Between these two points and
the recorded remaining length of the stem, it was possible to reconstruct a plausible fair
curve, with the lower part being almost certainly correct. The part of the curve above
waterline 5, however, is less certain. Traditionally, the shape of the stem in a
Mediterranean (or any other European) vessel was drawn as one or two tangential arcs,
usually with radius length based on a proportion of the beam. The scarce surviving
archaeological evidence for the shape of the stem made attempts to reconstruct the radii
of the arcs inconclusive. It is, however, probable that two tangential arcs were used. As
drawn, the shape is influenced by iconographic evidence,113 personal observations of the
general shape of stems on traditional Black Sea boats and, even more so, the proportions
derived from the two Turkish coasters published by Edmond Paris.114 It can surely be
said for the upper stem that it does not contradict any available evidence. However, it
must be recognized as no more than a reasonable hypothesis.
113
114
Tzamtzis 1972, 53-174; Müller-Wiener 1994, Ovcharov 1992.
Paris 1999.
Fig. 28. Reconstructed lines of the Kitten Ship. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
117
118
The stern rake as drawn on the lines plan is less than that of the bow, a practice
confirmed by all quoted sources of information. The usual ratio between fore and aft
rakes is about two to one in favour of the bow rake. On the Kitten ship this ratio is
preserved. More of the sternpost survived than of the stem, so a higher confidence can be
placed in its reconstruction. The proportions calculated from Admiral Paris’ drawings
were used together with those provided by Damianidis and available iconographic
evidence for the general shape and height of the stern. By Western European standards
the height of stern and bow may seem exaggerated for a vessel of the last decade of the
18th or first decade of the 19th century, but there are contemporary descriptions that
confirm this practice.115 The hood ends of some planks survived in the stern and
correspond to the surviving sternpost, making them useful in determining the post’s
position. They, unfortunately, do not help determine the shape of the missing upper post.
The surviving part of the sternpost extends to waterline 5 (fig. 28), thus up to this point
the shape of the vessel is based entirely on archaeological evidence and can be
reconstructed with confidence. The remaining part is conjectural but does not contradict
any available evidence. Although it is possible that a shallow and short transom may
have been utilized in the upper part of the stern as is done on traditional Black Sea takas,
a vessel type still in use, especially in Turkey, the general shape of the hull makes it
more probable that it was a true double-ender.
115
Eton 1805, 4-5.
119
Fig. 29. Longitudinal section of the hull. The drawing shows the extent of hull preservation. Drawing: K. Batchvarov.
120
HULL SECTIONS
We used a goniometer for recording transversal sections from which to reconstruct the
lines of the ship (figs. 28, 29, 30). In the 2002 season, virtually every frame between the
bow and the forward buttress was recorded to the inside of the ceiling planks.
Fig. 30. Frame 26 as recorded. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
In the 2003 season, the ceiling planking was removed, but lack of time prevented the
goniometric recording of every frame. A total of 11 sections were taken, with higher
121
concentration in the bow and stern areas where the shape of the hull changed more
rapidly. The recorded sections include from the bow toward the stern S, P, M, E (fig.
31), the midship frame, 3, 7, 13, 18, 22 and 28 (fig. 28, 32).
Fig. 31. Frame E as recorded. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
The large sizes and close spacing of the longitudinal strengthening elements (i.e., the
bilge stringer, four side stringers, the large knee/breast hook, the stringers in the stern) as
well as the filling timbers amidships, made it impossible to follow the outer faces of the
frames. The goniometer was led along the inner face of the frames, taking the moulded
122
dimensions at each length of its base. When drawn, the results of all frame recordings
were consistent enough in relation to each other. While analyzing the angle
measurements, it was found that they are very close for each of the frames. I cut a
pattern of one of the frames (the futtock of the midships frame) and was able to match it
with every one of the other frames. This was clear evidence that the hull was designed
using a single pattern, adjusted along the length of the vessel for the narrowing of the
hull. This system of design is known as whole-moulding and different versions of it were
used from the Mediterranean up along the Atlantic coast to Northern Europe, including
the British Isles.116
The two most fortunate discoveries of the expedition were the sternpost, and a huge balk
of timber, found lying on the surface, which was originally considered intrusive material
or possibly part of a timber cargo. It was only in the last season that recovery of this
timber allowed us on the basis of its symmetrical curvature and the dovetail mortises to
identify it as a beam. Since the poorly preserved lower face still held traces of a mortise
for a stanchion and only one corresponding mortise was found on the keelson, forward
of the sister keelsons, it was easy enough to determine the original position of this
timber. Due to the symmetry on either side of the crown, it was possible to reconstruct
116
Sarsfield 1984; Bellabarba 1993.
123
Fig. 32. Frame at section 13, as recorded. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
the original length and therefore, the maximum beam. As the length-of-keel-to-beam
ratio was found to fall within the limits of traditional values (Table 1), it was expected
that the beam-to-depth-of-hold ratio, too, is likely to be within the traditional ratio of
half the beam equals the depth, as proved to be the case.
124
Fig. 33. Midship frame as recorded. Scale in meters. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
With the help of the beam and the recorded surviving part of the midship frame (fig. 33),
it was possible to reconstruct the master frame of the vessel. The recorded shape of the
frame was plotted, the centerline was struck and a cutout of the beam was moved up
along the centerline until it was possible to achieve a fair section by extending the extant
futtock to an intersection with the half-beam. Throughout the reconstruction process of
the Kitten shipwreck, I followed a minimalist approach: the minimum size and angle or
simplest form that matched the available evidence was employed (fig. 34). Thus, the
minimum depth in hold required to produce a fair curve for the section was found to be
3.56 m. With a stevedore (to the inside of the frame) beam of 7 m, the traditional
125
proportions as recorded in the treatises fit almost perfectly with the data for the Kitten
ship. However, the possibility that amidships the hull was deeper in hold than 3.5 m
cannot be excluded, especially if the preserved beam indeed formed the forward part of
the mast partners. At 3.5 meters depth in hold amidships, the forward rake of the mast
would be extreme indeed, although not without parallels.
Fig. 34. Reconstructed midship frame. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
126
Particularly problematic is the reconstruction of the deck. Both of the Turkish (Ottoman)
Black Sea coasters illustrated by Edmond Paris have platforms in the bow and stern and
an open central area with no complete deck. Such an arrangement was considered for the
Kitten ship, as well. The poor preservation of the surfaces of the beam do not offer much
detail on how the deck was built, but the upper face preserves rust discoloration and
traces of nails that are consistent with the fastening of deck planks. The large size of the
vessel also argues in favor of a continuous deck, rather than a hull with an open central
hold. The 27-meter long wreck found in 2001 about 20-30 meters away from the ship we
excavated, had an almost completely preserved continuous deck, which, oddly, was
nailed in the bow section at an angle to the centerline, rather than parallel to it, as is
usual. In 2006 I dived on that wreck again, but by then most of the deck was no longer
extant and the remains of the mast were no longer observable, either. Finally,
contemporary illustrations of vessels that are smaller, but evidently similar to the Kitten
ship also feature decks.117 It seems likely that the Kitten ship also had a complete deck
along its entire length.
Thanks to the discovery of the beam, the position of the deck amidships can be
determined with some certainty. The bow and stern, however, are a different matter
altogether and the reconstructed curve of the deck line is no more than a conjecture.
Based on contemporary descriptions it is likely that the sheer of the deck was
117
Papadopoulos 1972, Plate 53; Müller-Wiener 1994, Plate 20; Paris 1999, Plates 103, 109.
127
significantly greater than for contemporary western vessels.118 Unfortunately, just how
much spring it had cannot be established. Nor is it clear if it was a flush deck fore and
aft, or it had breaks. For the bow there is no preserved evidence for the presence of a
forecastle. However, both Turkish vessels that Paris published (from Inebolu in the
Black Sea and the Istanbul coaster), have raised decks in their bows, though not full
forecastles in the Western sense.119 In the Inebolu ship a small platform was placed
above the hawse holes of the vessel and was only large enough to provide a step for
handling the sails on the bowsprit. The platform in the bows of the Istanbul coaster is
also small and its sole purpose appears to have been to assist in sail handling, too. The
height of the bow of the Kitten ship would have made sail-handling extremely difficult
without the presence of a raised platform, and one therefore probably existed.
In the stern, it is even more likely that the deck was stepped up. As described in Chapter
III, the stern part of the vessel yielded the remains of a bulkhead and a cabin platform
that rose slightly, about 15 cm, above the rest of the hold. To starboard there was an
interruption of the bulkhead, which may have contained a door to the stern cabin, though
no trace of hinges was found. The slightly raised floor of the stern cabin may indicate a
corresponding rise in the deck above. Another argument in favour of a raised deck aft is
the likely height of the sternpost. Iconographic evidence establishes that traditional
Ottoman vessels were steered with heavily curving tillers, which swooped down from
the rudder heads, above the sternposts. If there was no raised poop in the stern, the tiller
118
119
Eton 1798; Eton 1805.
Paris 1999, Plates 104-107.
128
would have had to be brought down more than 3.5 meters to reach a likely height above
deck. Contemporary witness accounts state that helmsmen sat on deck while steering,
rather than standing up as they did in the West (see Chapter II). A contemporary painting
published in Papadopoulos shows the helmsman actually lounging on deck while
steering.120 Although these descriptions are specifically for Greek mariners in the
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, the general similarity of vessels within the Ottoman
Empire makes it possible that the same practice was followed in the Black Sea. If this
was indeed a general practice for the region, then ergonomics would dictate that the
handle of the tiller came down to between half and one meter above deck. For the Kitten
ship this would suggest that the poop aft was at least 1.5 meters higher than the deck
amidships. Edmond Paris’ depictions in plates 104 and 105 of coastal vessel from
Istanbul, illustrate a two-level rise of the deck in the stern, the second being very small
and clearly intended for the helmsman. When we consider the typically high bows of the
vessels, it is clear that a higher station for the helmsman was of absolute necessity if he
was to see anything ahead of the vessel.
Paris also published three sheets of drawings of two Greek Sakolevas.121 Both vessels
had raised poops, despite their small overall dimensions. Plate109 of Paris’s collection
presents a bratsera-rigged (two masts with standing lug sails) perama, recorded in 1878
in Istanbul. The vessel, not even 15 meters long, also had a raised platform for the
120
121
Papadopoulos 1972, Plate 14.
Paris 1999, plates 101, 102 and 103.
129
helmsman. Thus, contemporary sources, seamanship logic and comparative material
from Paris favor raised platforms for the stern of the Kitten ship.
The height of the bulwarks above deck level is particularly problematic. Paris shows
bulwarks so low that a barrier of cloth was found necessary to keep spray out of the
vessel. Similar information can be gleaned from an article on Istanbul lighters and from
iconographic evidence.122 The bulwarks on the Kitten ship were therefore reconstructed
as 80 cm above deck amidships.
Next to be considered are the means of access to the interior of the vessel. If it was
completely decked, the ship must have had at least one cargo hatch. More probably it
had a small hatch or scuttle forward of the mast and the main hatch aft of the mast. This
seems to have been the typical arrangement on most Mediterranean lateen-rigged
vessels. Gerard Delacroix reconstructed the mid-18th-century tartana La Diligente with a
small hatch abaft the mast.123 The dimensions of the hatch seem insufficient, but since
this was a naval tartana and not a cargo carrier, a larger hatch was evidently not needed.
The Turkish vessels published by Paris cannot be used as comparison for they do not
have complete decks. Yet, on the Istanbul coaster (Plate 105), the large open hold is aft
of the mast. The perama (Plate 109) has a large cargo hatch between the two masts.
122
123
Borgschultze 2005; Paris 1999, Plate 105.
Delacroix 1997.
130
Delacroix published illustrations of tartanas from Album de Jean Jouve.124 None of the
illustrations is conclusive on this subject, but it does appear that their main hatches were
all located abaft the mast. In contrast, Gilberto Penzo published the draught of an 18thcentury lateen-rigged merchantman, probably a tartana, on which the main hatch is
before the vertical mast, which in turn appears to be stepped in the middle of the keel. A
small scuttle is drawn immediately abaft the bitts.125
It is probable that the main hatch on the Kitten ship was located aft of the mast. This
position is suggested by the comparative material and by available room on deck.
Evidently the mast heavily raked forward. The lower end of the lateen yard (for the rig
reconstruction see Chapter V) and its associated rigging would have been in the way of
cargo loading and discharging operations. Undoubtedly, there were also riding bitts in
this area and possibly the heel of the bowsprit to add to the clutter. Aft of the mast the
deck was open of clutter as far as the hypothesized stepped-up stern. Therefore, it seems
probable that the hatch was aft of the mast. Even less certain is are the dimensions of the
hatch. The available length between the mast and the bulkhead of the stern cabin is about
4.5 meters. The hatch probably had a length of between 3 and 4 meters. The outer
carlings on the recovered beam are separated by 5 meters. This distance suggests that the
likely maximum width of the hatch. However this seems to be excessive and normally
deck openings tend to be larger fore and aft, than athwartships. Penzo’s published
124
125
Delacroix 1997, 9-13.
Penzo 2000, 21, fig. 6.
131
draught illustrates a hatch of about one-third the maximum beam of the vessel.126 Paris’
Greek sakoleva (Plate 103) of 13 m length on deck and 3.5 m breadth on deck has a
main hatch of about 2 meters long by 2 meters wide. The 14-meter long perama from
Istanbul published by Paris (Plate 109) has a main hatch of more than 3 meters length
and less than 2 meters width. The maximum breadth of the vessel is listed as 3.8 meters.
When we take into consideration that the most likely cargoes for the Kitten wreck were
bulk commodities, it is probable that a large hatch would have been needed. Taking the
proportions from the vessels illustrated by Paris, a main hatch of about 3 to 4 meters
length by about 3.5 meters width for the Kitten wreck seems a reasonable estimate.
In 2003 we found the remains of the cabin bulkhead in the stern of the vessel. The length
of the cabin sole was surprisingly short – less than 2 meters, but artifacts found between
the frames further aft suggest that the cabin was open into the stern. The extant part of
the bulkhead consisted of two planks, placed transversally, with about 0.75-meter
opening cut in them on the starboard side of the vessel. No trace was found of bulkhead
framing or hinges for a possible cabin door. No fastenings of the planks to the hull were
observed. Presumably a support frame for the bulkhead existed once, but has not
survived. It is possible that the cabin had no solid door and the entrance was covered by
canvas or some similar material, if at all covered. No trace was found of any other
bulkheads anywhere on the wreck, which implies that the stern cabin opened directly
into the hold. The tight space between the position of the hypothetical main hatch and
126
Penzo 2000, 21, fig. 6.
132
the bulkhead precludes the presence of a deck scuttle for entry into the cabin. Therefore
the main hatch must have offered the main entrance into the insides of the vessel
whether for cargo or the crew. The small semi-round chock attached to the keelson
immediately forward of the bulkhead may have served to support a cask with drinking
water in convenient proximity to the cabin.
In summary, the lines of the Kitten vessel were drawn based on the 11 recorded sections
and the reconstructed profile of the vessel. As the survival of the framing timbers
amidships extends to waterline 6, the lines up to that waterline can be considered
accurate representations of the original shape of the vessel. The sides of the ship above
waterline 6 are somewhat conjectural, but based on the logical continuation of the extant
frames, typical proportions and iconography.
HYDROSTATICAL ANALYSIS
It is rare that the hydrostatics of a wreck can be calculated with relative accuracy, but the
extensive preservation of the Kitten hull allowed the calculation of the displacement of
the vessel, the shape coefficients and even an estimate of the wetted surface and weight
of the hull. The calculations were based on the assumption that the normal load waterline
of the vessel was between waterline 5 and waterline 6. The estimate was reached by
determining that the end of the rudder pintle probably reached about waterline 6.
Typically the lower pintle of double-ended vessels protruded above the water.
133
Displacement and all other calculations were carried out for both possible load
waterlines 5 and 6.
For most calculations, the trapezoidal rule was used.127 The rule requires equal spacing
between the stations; the lines, however, were drawn based on the recorded sections. For
this reason three temporary sections were added to obtain the necessary equal spacing.
The common interval used is 2.6 meters.
The volumetric displacement for load waterline (Lwl) 5 was calculated to be:
Volume Displacement (VD5) = 114. 426 cubic meters.
Since salt water has an average weight of 1025 kilograms per cubic meter, the weight
displacement would be:
Weight Displacement 5 (WD5) = VD5 x 1.025 = 117.3 metric tons
The respective values for load waterline 6 are VD6 = 158.327 cubic meters and WD6 =
162.3 metric tons.
127
Steffy 1994, 251-2.
134
These displacement values are, of course, only approximations. The volumes of the keel,
the stem, sternpost and the rudder were ignored as not enough information is available to
calculate them. Therefore, the offered values are a little low, but the difference is
probably insignificant. Thus, it can be estimated that the Kitten ship displaced at light
load about 117 tons and at full load about 160 tons.
The block coefficient is the ratio of the actual underwater volume of the hull to that of a
block with dimensions equal to the waterline length, maximum beam and depth of hull.
For small craft the ratio varies between 0.25 and 0.50, with sailing yachts usually having
a block coefficient of 0.35 to 0.45. The higher a block coefficient is, the higher the
resistance of the hull and consequently the slower the vessel is. As with the
displacement, the block coefficient of the Kitten ship was calculated for both waterlines
5 and 6, but it was found that the two barely differed.
Cb = VD / Lwl x Bwl x D
Cb(5) = 114.43 / 21.4 x 5.86 x 2.32 = 0.39
Cb(6) = 158.33 / 21.9 x 6.34 x 2.82 = 0.40
The Kitten ship has a relatively low block coefficient, which means that the hull had low
resistance. In practical terms a low resistance hull requires less “power” to be driven
through the water up to hull speed and thus a modest rig would have been sufficient for
its operation.
135
The prismatic coefficient compares the vessel’s underwater volume to a prism with
length equal to the length of the waterline and cross section equal to the largest hull
cross section. The coefficient describes the distribution of hull volume; whether the ends
are fine or full. Higher values indicate fuller ends. In modern yacht design values of 0.50
to 0.56 are considered acceptable. The prismatic coefficient is calculated following the
formula:
Cp = VD/Am x Lwl,
where Am is the section with maximum area and Lwl is the load waterline. In the case of
the Kitten ship, the section of maximum area is the midship frame. Therefore:
Cp(5) = 114.43 / 9.6 x 21.4 = 0.56
Cp(6) = 158.33 / 12.78 x 21.9 = 0.57
In both cases, the value falls in the higher end of acceptable range of values, indicating
that the ends of the vessel were full, at least in comparison to a modern yacht. Higher
values are advantageous in vessels intended to sail in stronger wind conditions, though,
in the case of the Kitten ship, this is probably due more to maximizing carrying capacity
than anticipated weather conditions.
The coefficient of the waterline plane is a ratio between the area of the load waterline
and a rectangle of the same length and width equal to the waterline beam. It illustrates
136
the fullness of the hull and as the waterline plane contributes to hull stability, the
coefficient gives some indication of it, as well. In modern small craft the values range
between 0.65 and 0.80 or even higher. The lower end of the range represents fine-ended
sailboats.
Cwp = Aw / Lwl x Bwl,
Where Aw is the Waterline plane Area, Lwl is the length of waterline and Bwl is the
beam at the waterline.
Cwp(5) = 77.688 / 21.4 x 5.86 = 0.62
Cwp(6) = 85.956 / 21.9 x 6.34 = 0.61
A waterline plane coefficient of 0.61-0.62 is on the low end of the usual design range
and may be explained by the double-ended shape of the hull, for which fine ends are
characteristic. The somewhat low value of the coefficient possibly indicates that under
sail the ship may have been tender and prone to heeling. Likely, the ship was lateen or
settee-rigged and this tendency would have been compensated by the rig’s ability to spill
wind, rather than endanger the vessel (see Chapter V for further discussion of the rig).
For the sake of fullness of the hydrostatics calculations, the midship section coefficient
is also offered, which compares the actual area of the midship section to a rectangle with
137
sides equal to the waterline beam amidships and the depth. The coefficient indicates the
fullness of the section and varies between 0.40 and 0.80 or higher.
Cm = Am / Bwl x D
Cm(5) = 9.6 / 5.86 x 2.32 = 0.71
Cm(6) = 12.785 / 6.34 x 2.82 = 0.71
The coefficient for the Kitten ship demonstrates that the vessel had full sections, which
is consistent with its cargo-carrying purpose.
To this point, all calculations were based on reasonably certain data because they
involved mostly archaeologically-derived data. The calculation of the wetted surface is
also a close approximation as sufficient hull remains make the reconstruction of the
underwater hull highly probable. Again the calculations were performed for the two
most likely load waterlines used in the previous calculations. If the vessel floated at or
near waterline 5, the wetted surface would have been about 111.85 square meters. For
waterline 6, wetted surface would have risen to 128.9 square meters. Both values are
only general approximations as neither the area of the rudder, nor that of the keel is
included. At the low speeds at which the Kitten ship was sailed, most of the hull’s
resistance would have been frictional which is directly related to its wetted surface.
Perhaps the ratio between the sail and the wetted surface areas is more informative for
138
the speed potential of the vessel, but this calculation unfortunately cannot be made as the
rig’s reconstruction is based more on comparative than actual data.
Finally, a potentially informative calculation is an estimate of the hull weight of the
Kitten ship. This reckoning is even more fraught with guesswork, as some significant
assumptions have to be made. First, the extremities of the hull are not preserved but
rather were reconstructed, and this creates a level of uncertainty. Second, the available
data do not cover the deck and superstructure, and therefore no reliable estimate is
possible of their weight. Third, the calculation excludes the weight of the rig for the
same reasons: nothing has survived to give us an indication of its weight. Fourth, the
weight estimate does not include the ship’s equipment, the crew and their personal
possession or their provisions. Taking into account the likely shortness of the voyages
between ports, the last two items were probably negligible in weight. Despite the
uncertainties of the accuracy of the final estimate, even a vague approximation of the
weight is of use as it would offer us a fair guess of the probable payload tonnage.
One more assumption has been made in the calculation: that the solid timbering of the
hull extended throughout the whole length of the vessel. In reality, it covers only the
middle part of the hull. This oversimplification may go some way towards compensating
for the ignored deck and the extreme height of the stern and bow of the ship, which are
not otherwise accounted for in the formula. The formula itself is simple and involves
139
calculation of the hull area multiplied by the thickness of the “shell” – in this case
thickness of planks plus frames – and by the weight density of the material (oak).
The average frame thickness is taken as 12 cm. To this value is added the 3 cm thickness
of the planking for a total shell thickness of 15 cm. More problematic is the weight of
the oak, since, depending on the actual species, it varies from 590 to 1009 kg a cubic
meter. Usual industry standard values are 753 kg for seasoned oak and 1009 kg for
unseasoned timber.
Weight = Hull area x thickness x weight density
Weight = 186.16 x 0.15 x .753 = 21 tons
Weight = 186.16 x 0.15 x 1.009 = about 28 tons
It seems probable that with the deck and the rig, the ship weighed between 25 and 35
tons, thus leaving 120-130 tons for the payload. The displacement and weight estimates
for the Kitten ship demonstrate the fallacy of some historians’ claims that vessels on the
Bulgarian coast of the Black Sea during the Ottoman period did not exceed 30 tons in
displacement (see Chapter II).
140
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Attempts to establish the linear measurement system that the shipwright used in building
the Kitten Ship have been partially successful. Depending on the degree of rounding up
or down of the results, the recorded measures can be made to suit either of two known
values of the Ottoman architectural arsin (cubit) and for overall dimensions even the
Venetian feet and paces produce a convincing fit.
The first experiments with measurement units used the Venetian system, as the overall
proportions and even dimension of the vessel fit reasonably well with data in Venetian
shipbuilding treatises. In the calculations, the values for Venetian units offered by
Bellabarba in his article on the square-rigged ship described in the treatise Fabrica di
Gallere were followed: Venetian pace of five Venetian feet equal to 1. 74 meters and
Venetian foot equal to 34.8 cm.128 Converting the metric values for the Kitten ship to
Venetian units, one obtains a keel length of 48.45 Venetian feet (16.86 m / 0.348 m =
48.45) or 9.69 Venetian paces, a beam of 20.5 Venetian feet (stevedore beam
measurement of 7.14 m / 0.348 m = 20.51 feet) and a depth in hold of 10 Venetian feet
(3.56 m / 0.348 m = 10.23 Venetian Feet). Even the reconstructed overall length of the
vessel, of 23 meters, when converted into Venetian feet, comes very close to a round
figure of 66.09 Venetian feet.
128
Bellabarba 1988.
141
The comparison, if it is to have significance, must correspond to the timber scantlings as
well. The Venetian foot was subdivided into 16 deda of 2.1733 cm each. Thus, taking as
an example FR478, the aft-most (partially) preserved frame, one obtains 5.784 deda for
the sided dimension (12 cm). Metric measurement works out to a nearly even or natural
subdivision of Venetian measures. FR479, with a sided dimension of 11 cm, is an even
better match: 5.07 deda. Therefore, the Venetian mensuration system, although not a
perfect match, is fairly close and may have been used.
Comparison of the Kitten shipwreck scantlings with Ottoman measurements are more
difficult to make. Throughout its history the standard length of the cubit or ar in
changed. Even in the same period, there does not appear to have been a standard pattern
for the ar in. Baron Tott, appointed chief architect by Sultan Mustafa III (1757-1774),
observed that each Ottoman master mason who served under him had his own ar in that
differed from the one used by another master.129 Presumably the same was true for
shipwrights, too. Selim III was the first Sultan to establish a publicly accessible standard
length for the ar in in 1794-1795. As this period coincided with the Kirdjali disorders in
the Balkan lands of the Empire (see Chapter II), it is not clear how soon the new
standard became dominant along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, where the Kitten ship
was most likely built. Thus, as the actual date of launching is not known, it is logical to
try to compare the scantlings to both ar ins known to have been in use in the later 18th
century, those of Mustafa III and Selim III. The length of the ar in that Sultan Mustafa
129
Özdural 1998, 104.
142
III gave to Baron Tott equaled 76.4 cm and was divided into 24 digits, parmaks, of 3.18
cm.130 The ar in of Selim III was in use until Turkey switched to the metric system in the
1930s and so its length is certain: 75.8 cm. The standard which was kept at the
Engineering School was divided into two scales: one of 24 digits per ar in and the other
20 digits per ar in. Attempts with the division of 20 proved that this was not used by the
shipwright who built the Kitten ship. Ar ins of 24 parmaks (each equal to 3.16 cm),
however, give believable results. “Believable” results are natural, even divisions such as
wholes, halves and quarters. In all the calculations, preference was given to dimensions
of completely preserved parts of the hull rather than dimensions of reconstructed parts.
Thus, more weight is attached to the length on keel than to the overall length of the hull.
Similar calculations were done for the scantlings of the frame timbers, the stringers, the
sister-keelsons, the heavy timber on the exterior of the hull and the planking.
The problems with consistency of ar in length that Baron Tott encountered were
mentioned above. There is no reason to suspect that things had dramatically changed by
the end of the century. To the uncertainty of the “standardization” of the ar in can be
added the uncertainty over which of the two ar ins was used – that from the period of
Sultan Mustafa III (and recorded by Tott) or the standard established by Selim III. The
problem is complicated by the fact that the difference in length between the two was less
than a centimeter (76.4 cm vs. 75.8 cm). The difference between the parmaks
consequently was even less. Thus, there is rarely a clear-cut difference between the two
130
Özdural 1998, 105-6.
143
Ottoman units when scantlings are converted from metric units. Considering the
isolation of the region, and the Kirdjali disorders of the last years of the 18th century and
early years of the 19th century, it is not likely that the new standard was enforced in the
provinces quickly enough to have been utilized in the building of the Kitten ship. The
table demonstrates that Mustafa III’s arsin fits the vessel’s length on keel, but not as
closely when it comes to the beam. Selim III’s standard provides a reasonable, but less
logical value for the keel length (why make it 22 and one-quarter ar in’s, when a
rounded 22 is an easier and more natural unit?). However, for the beam it offers a better
fit than Mustafa III’s standard (9.76 ar ins vs. 9.68 ar ins). For the scantlings of the
ship’s timbers, both ar ins come reasonably close.
Table 2. Measurements in Ottoman units.
Keel
Beam
Depth
Floor
Keelson sided
Keelson moulded
Sister Keelson moulded
in meters
Kitten Ship
16.86
7.3
3.56
2.46
in centimeters
46
19
34
in ar ins
Mustafa III
Selim III
22.07
22.24
9.55
9.63
4.66
4.69
3.22
3.24
in parmaks
14.46
14.55
5.97
6.01
10.69
10.75
Based on the recorded dimensions and scantlings, it is fairly certain that the master
shipwright employed an Ottoman builder’s ar in, but it is less certain which of the two
used in the closing years of the 18th century was employed for the construction of the
Kitten shipwreck (Table 2).
144
DESIGNING THE KITTEN SHIP
A few features of the Kitten wreck immediately suggested that the shape of the hull was
developed through some kind of whole-moulding technique. By the third season of
excavation it became clear that the overlaps of the floor timbers and the futtocks were
regular and formed a fair curve. The difference in the morphology of the overlap
supplied a second clue: the forward end of the ship had simple, straight overlaps between
the futtocks and the floor timbers, which were simply nailed to each other. Further aft,
however, the timbers were connected by a hook scarf and were fastened with a spike and
treenail. In the aft quarter of the vessel the pattern reversed to simple overlaps and
nailing. Eric Rieth suggested that the hook scarph is characteristic of the Mediterranean
shipbuilding tradition, a position accepted by Hocker and McManamon.131 The earliest
evidence so far reported for this type of scarf comes from the 14th-century Culip VI
wreck from Catalonia, and Rieth proved that it was a diagnostic feature for the use of
whole-moulding to shape the vessel. Naturally, discovering the same characteristic in the
framing of the Kitten wreck, immediately suggested that this vessel, too, was built with
predetermined frames’ shapes. Additional support for such a hypothesis is offered by the
data from the recording of the futtocks, which demonstrated that all surviving futtocks
were identical in shape. Evidently the same mould or pattern, with appropriate
modifications, was used for all frames of the hull.
131
Rieth 1998, 206; Hocker and McManamon 2006, 7.
145
Whole-moulding is a method of shipbuilding based on incremental modifications of the
midship frame. In the Venetian shipbuilding treatises that have survived, the guides for
these modifications are known as partisoni.132 The physical process of shaping the hull
through moulds and partisoni was very clearly explained and illustrated by Joseph
Furtenbach in his Architectura Navalis, of 1629.133 Although it is among the clearer and
easier to follow of the early texts, Architectura Navalis is rarely studied or mentioned by
scholars nowadays, yet its relevance and usefulness cannot be doubted.
The starting point for all variations of whole-moulding is the shape of the midship or
“master” frame, which was transferred to patterns or moulds used to shape the rest of the
frames. In the classical Venetian system, four aids to controlling shape, partisoni, were
used: the narrowing of the floor, the rising of the floor, the narrowing of the breadth and
the rising of the breadth (also called hauling down of the futtock).134 The method spread
throughout the Mediterranean in different forms.135 The variations usually consist in the
number of predetermined frames, the number of partisoni used, and the exact technique
(geometrical mechanical aids or arithmetic) of producing the increments of the partisoni.
The partisoni determined the positions of the points (sirmarks) at which the different
pieces of the mould overlapped, thus forming narrower and sharper mutations of the
132
Hocker 2006, 1.
Furtenbach 1629.
134
Hocker and McManamon 2006, 6.
135
Marzari, 187.
133
146
midship frame. As Mario Marzari explained, the partisoni were a function of the number
of frames that had to be designed prior to erection on the keel.136
Kostas Damianidis interpreted whole-moulding differently, preferring to classify the
varieties of moulding on the basis of the number of pieces that constituted the moulds.
He divides the Greek variants into five-aid and three-aid systems.137 To me this shifts the
emphasis from the conceptualization of the hull shape to the purely mechanical
manufacturing process. The actual number of pieces constituting the mould is irrelevant
for the control of the shape of the hull, as that is based on the partisoni.
In whole-moulding’s most basic form, a vessel could be built with a single pre-designed
frame – the midship bend or master frame – and ribbands bent around it and terminating
at the stem and sternpost. The rest of the framing timbers could than be spiled to the
ribbands. Although a fair shape can be achieved this way, the available volume of the
vessel would be limited. The addition of “tail” frames alleviated this problem by pushing
the useful volume of the hull into the ends of the ship. Their position could be varied;
their shape, however, was a derivative of the master frame. It is usually accepted that the
method predicted the shapes of the frames between the tail frames and the midship
frame, but the ends of the vessel still had to be framed by spiling the timbers to
ribbands.138 If this was indeed done so in practice, the reason was not due to any
136
Marzari, 187.
Damianidis 1998, 222.
138
Hocker and McManamon 2006, 2.
137
147
technical limitations imposed by the whole-moulding process. Joseph Furtenbach
describes whole-moulding all the way into the extremities of the hull, not only the
central part of the hull, and from the text it is clear that he considered this the usual
procedure for building galleys.139 Experiments that I have carried out with whole
moulding the vessel from Edmund Bushnell’s treatise The Complete Shipwright and
following the English shipwright Sir Anthony Deane’s famous Doctrine of Naval
Architecture, confirm that the methods permit moulding the extremities of a hull, as long
as all frames are square and no cant frames are used.140
It would appear that, in practice, vessels built along the Atlantic border of Europe
contained fewer scarfed and predetermined frames than Mediterranean vessels.141 For
example, on the Red Bay nao, believed to be the Basque whaler San Juan and dated to
the mid-16th century, only 14 frames were moulded.142 In contrast, almost all frames of
the 14th-century Culip VI wreck were moulded, as evidenced by the carpenter’s marks
and all of them had hook scarfs.143 Only three frames 139-141, placed on top of the stem,
do not bear carpenter’s marks and therefore were likely spiled to ribbands. These three
frames are also the only ones that did not have hook scarfs. This implies that
predetermined frames were always scarfed in this shipbuilding tradition, probably
because the scarfs aided the aligning of the timbers within the bend. Loewen quotes Joao
Baptista Lavanha’s treatise from Portugal and the Spaniard M. de Aroztegui’s
139
Furtenbach 1629, 38.
Lavery 1981; Bushnell 1669.
141
Loewen 1998, 216, Tables 1 and 2.
142
Loewen 2007, 65.
143
Rieth 2003, 9.
140
148
shipbuilding Ordinances of 1618 as identifying mortised frames with moulded frames.144
Thus, on the 16th-century Ottoman wreck from Yassiada it is likely that all frames were
moulded too, as all surviving timbers bear hook scarfs. The same seems to be the case
with the 17th-century wreck from Sardineaux, although the incomplete preservation and
the not-particularly-clear illustrations do leave some room for uncertainty. In the Kitten
ship, the chronologically latest example in the group, half of the frames bear hook scarfs
and thus can be considered predesigned. Sergio Bellabarba explains that in the Venetian
treatises only the central part of the hull between the tail-frames was geometrically
defined with the help of the partisoni.145 Although Kostas Damianidis illustrates between
one-third and one-half of the frames in the central part of traditional Greek vessels as
predetermined through moulding techniques, all his sources date to the first half of the
20th century and have limited relevance to the earlier period discussed here.146
Nevertheless, the bulk of the comparative material and archaeological evidence from the
wreck itself strongly argue that on the Kitten ship only the central half of the hull was
predetermined, too.
Loewen noted that tail frames are known only from Italian and Iberian treatises and
argued that at least in Atlantic vessels, they were not necessarily the last scarfed
frames.147 Acknowledging the challenge of determining just which bend of timbers can
be associated with the tailframes on the Red Bay nao, Loewen favours the frame from
144
Loewen 1998, 214.
Bellabarba 1993, 280.
146
Damianidis 1998, 219.
147
Loewen 1998, 218, note 15.
145
149
which more marked rising began. For the Mediterranean, the best comparable
archaeological evidence comes from the Culip VI hull. There the last moulded frame
coincided with the frame placed on top of the scarf between the keel and the stem.
Joseph Furtenbach does not specifically mention tailframes, but indicates points along
the length of his galley where changes in the shaping of the timbers occured. Thus, it
appears that the tail frames would have coincided with the last frame of the flatter part of
the vessel.148 The problem of determining the tail frames on the Kitten ship exists but is
perhaps easier to resolve. From the recording of the hull sections, it is evident that in
both extremities of the hull the rising beyond the last scarfed frame was more marked, as
was the narrowing. Thus, the last scarfed frames were assumed to be the tail frames,
especially as they also delineated the central portion of the vessel and this interpretation
agrees with the Mediterranean practice.
Having determined that all futtocks are of the same shape, that it is likely the frames in
the central portion of the vessel had predetermined shapes, and that some form of whole
moulding was used in constructing the ship, an attempt was made to determine the
method of controlling the incremental modifications to the master frame used to derive
the rest of the frames. A pattern was cut to the shape of the master frame. Fitting it to the
other recorded frames and particularly to those with hook scarfs, it was easy to
determine both the rising and the narrowing of the floor timbers. Thus, the range of two
partisoni could be established and it remained to determine the geometrical aid used to
148
Furtenbach 1629, 36-7.
150
design the increments of change. The results of this part of the experiment are
reasonably dependable, because they are based on surviving archaeological evidence.
Unfortunately the same could not be done for the partisoni of the breadth, as the only
futtocks that almost reach the height of breadth were those few immediately before and
abaft the master frame.
Knowing the maximum narrowing and rising of the floor at the last scarfed frames fore
and aft, an attempt was made to find the geometrical aid – for example a mezzaluna,
mezzarola or incremental triangle - that would produce divisions corresponding to the
recorded values. Although working solutions were found for both rising and narrowing
of the floor timbers, the lack of identified carpenter’s marks, or sirmarks, does not permit
one to positively state that one of these methods was indeed utilized in developing the
sections of the hull, but only that such a method was probably used.
151
Fig. 35. Narrowing and rising of Frame M. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
152
Determining the narrowing and the rising of the recorded frames was a fairly straightforward process. The presumed tail frames, M forward and 13 aft (figs. 35 and 36) of
midships, were redrawn on separate mylar sheets and the common pattern (which would
have been the mould), cut to the shape of the midship frame, was slid into place until it
faired with the recorded shape of the respective section. Along the drawn centerline the
rising of the mould/pattern above the base of the master frame was measured. The
narrowing was measured along the protruding part of the floor mould from the
centerline. Although the narrowing was noticeable, the rising was significantly less so.
Bellabarba commented that following the traditional Venetian methods, the rising should
not begin with the master frames, which is exactly what we recorded on the Kitten ship.
The rising is supposed to be less than the narrowing (also as observed on the Kitten ship)
and be greater aft than forward.149 The last requirement is easily explained with the
necessity to achieve a clean and narrow run of the ship for good steering.
149
Bellabarba 1993, 280.
153
Fig. 36. Narrowing and rising of Frame 13. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
154
Both before and abaft the master frame, we recorded one or more additional sections,
without which it would have been impossible to attempt the reconstruction of the
geometrical aids used to produce the partisoni.
Fig. 37. Narrowing and rising at Frame E. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
155
Forward, this was frame E (fig. 37). Aft, frames 3 and 7 were recorded, but 3 was so
close in shape to the midship frame that the distinction would hardly be noticeable at the
scale at which I worked and for this reason frame 7 (fig. 38) alone was used. Knowing
the maximum narrowing or rising at the tailframes, I had to attempt to find a geometrical
aid - mezzaluna, mezzarola or triangle - which would produce increments into which
frames E and 7 would fit.
Fig. 38. Narrowing and rising at Frame 7. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
156
As this was a trial and error process, mezzalunas and mezzarolas were constructed to
cover all of the most probable scenarios. The mezzaluna is a well-known geometrical aid
and instructions on its use are frequent in contemporary literature on ship design. A
drawing of a mezzaluna is to be found in the mid-15th-century Zorzi da Modon,
(Trombetta) manuscript.150 Furtenbach describes it in 1629, too, and offers instructions
on its construction.151
The mezzaluna is a half circle, with a diameter equal to the total narrowing or rising. The
two quarter circles are each divided into as many equal parts as the number of frames
over which the narrowing/rising has to be achieved. The divisions on the quarters are
connected with lines parallel to the diameter, which divide the 90 degree radius into
segments. These segments are the incremental narrowings and risings of the respective
frames. The mezzarola is another similarly constructed geometrical aid, which so far
does not appear to have been reported outside the Aegean.152 A mezzarola is constructed
by drawing a line equal in length to the maximum narrowing or rising. From each end an
arc is struck, with the two arcs crossing above the line. Each of them is divided into as
many equal parts as the number of frames over which the modifications need to be
applied. Straight lines, parallel to the base, connect the respective points on each arc.
These lines are the incremental modifications to be applied for the respective frames.
150
Anderson 1925, 154.
Furtenbach 1629, 33.
152
Damianidis 1998, 222.
151
157
Damianidis suggest that the mezzarola produces slightly fuller, but otherwise similar
lines to a mezzaluna.153
A variation on the mezzarola is the triangle. A base is drawn equal to the narrowing or
rising. With a compass two small arcs are drawn with as large as possible radius, which
arcs cross above the line, creating a point that marks the apex of the triangle. Each of the
sides is divided into as many equal parts, as the number of frames. The respective points
are connected with lines parallel to the baseline and these lines are equal to the
narrowing or rising of the respective frame.154 Furtenbach also employs the triangle, and
a direct derivative – a trapezoid, for determining the rising in the bow of his galley and
for the deck line both fore and aft.155
The experiment with the Kitten ship began with constructing mezzalunas for the
narrowing and rising of the floors before and abaft the midship frame (fig. 39). This
required a minimum of four mezzalunas. There are 13 scarfed frames forward of the
master frame and the same number aft for a total, with the midship bend of timbers, of
27 scarfed and presumably pre-designed frames. The fore and aft narrowings differed
very little from each other (less than 1 cm), and it is most probable that the shipwright
originally used the same increments for both, thereby using the same gage. The
mezzaluna was constructed on the basis of 13 frames. The intermediate sections fit
153
Damianidis 1998), 230.
Sarsfield 1984, 87.
155
Furtenbach 1629, 45-9.
154
158
surprisingly well and the other increments also produced results that do not contradict
the reconstructed lines. Thus, it is very probable that the incremental narrowing of the
floor timbers was controlled with a mezzaluna, using all 13 frames from the master.
Fig. 39. On the left is an experimental mezzaluna based on different numbers of frames
included in the calculation. On the right is the final mezzaluna that matches the
narrowings fore and aft. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
Attempts to make the rising, rather inconsequential in the middle part of the hull, fit
dimensions produced by a mezzaluna were unsuccessful. Mezzalunas were constructed
with 13-frame, 10-frame- and even 7-frame divisions, taking into account the probability
that at least some of the frames immediately adjacent to the midship section would not
have had any rising. Section 1, for example, demonstrated no rising in comparison to the
master frame. None of these attempts produced increments fitting the recorded values for
frames E and 7.
A set of mezzarolas was produced with the same divisions, 13, 10 and 7 frames. A
mezzarola constructed for 10 frames was the only one to fit the rising of 7 (figs. 40 and
41).
159
Fig. 40. Aft mezzarola. For comparison the different trial divisions were superimposed
on the same drawing. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
The same was discovered to be the case forward. Thus, it appears that the shipwright
was well-acquainted with more than one geometrical aid for producing partisoni. Before
far-reaching conclusions are reached, it should be noted that the same result for the
rising could have just as easily been achieved with the use of a batten or by the hanging
of a string as a guide. Until the emergence of further evidence, the most that can be said
is that a mezzaluna for the narrowing, divided into 13 parts corresponding to the number
of scarfed frames on either side of the master frame, and a mezzarola with 10 divisions,
160
leaving the 3 frames fore and aft of the master with no rising, produce results that best
match the recorded evidence.
Fig. 41. This mezzarola fits the rising forward. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
Although we have assumed that the whole moulding of the hull was limited to the
scarfed frames only, there is no technical reason why the rest of the hull could not have
been moulded too. In fact, it is possible that this was at least partially the case, as the
recorded shape of the futtocks forward of tail-frame M are identical to those within the
middle section of the hull. However, the much more haphazardous method of
assembling the frames outside the tail-frames makes it likely that a less structured
161
approach to their shaping was followed. It can be suggested that ribbands or fourmes as
they are called by a fifth-generation Bulgarian wooden boatbuilder, Dimiter Hrusov
from Sozopol,156 may have guided the narrowing and rising of the frames, but their
actual shape was cut according to the same mould that was used for the central part of
the hull.
FURTHER RESEARCH
A number of interesting questions arise from the research into the moulding methods
used on the Kitten ship and their relationship to the methods of the greater
Mediterranean world, questions which require further investigation before they can be
answered. The first question to ask is when the whole-moulding method was born. In his
doctoral dissertation, Mathew Harpster argued that the 9th-century AD vessel from
Bozburun, Turkey, excavated by Fred Hocker, was built to a conceptual famework based
on standard measurements and proportions.157 McManamon and Hocker persuasively
argue that the conceptual framework noticeable on the Bozburun vessel was an early
form of whole-moulding.158 If further wreck excavations confirm this early date the
logical conclusion would be that whole-moulding was a product of the Eastern Roman
Empire. The next question to investigate would be the direction and timing of its
distribution. The earliest evidence for whole-moulding’s existence west of the Balkan
156
Personal communication with Dimiter Hrusov from Sozopol, September 2002 and August, 2006.
Although he still uses fourmes and inherited patterns, he lofts his boats and is not acquainted with wholemoulding and the geometrical methods of producing the divisions of the partisoni.
157
Harpster 2005, 471-85.
158
Hocker and McManamon 2006, 1.
162
Peninsula so far reported is that employed on the early 14th-century Culip VI wreck, and
possibly the early 14th-century Contarina I wreck from Italy, but the earliest written
documents describing the method come from Venice, about a century later. Can it be a
coincidence that so far no evidence in the West has been reported prior to the 13th
century?
If this date can be demonstrated to stand and if further evidence is gathered that the birth
place of whole moulding was Byzantium then the logical conclusion would be that the
spread of the method to the West coincided with the capture of Constantinople by the
knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. This would be the most probable historical
moment when this shipbuilding secret could have been conveyed to the West and fits
chronologically with the appearance of the earliest archaeological and literary evidence
for the method outside the Byzantine Empire. Venice bears a large portion of the
responsibility for Crusaders ending up in Constantinople instead of the Holy Land, and
the Venetian Dodge, Enrico Dandolo (1107-1205), was a major presence at the fall of
the great city and its aftermath. He even participated in the disastrous campaign against
Bulgaria that ended in a debilitating defeat at the hands of Tzar Kaloyan at the Battle of
Adrianople in 1205. Is it than a mere coincidence that the earliest surviving written
evidence for whole moulding comes from Venice?
Although that evidence dates to the 15th century, scholars have established that the
surviving versions were copied from originals that no longer exist or have not yet been
163
found. Byzantine shipwrights remained highly valued in Venice until the Ottoman Turks
conquered most of the Aegean and Levantine Islands and cut off the supply. Plentiful
evidence suggests that as late as the early 15th century the products of such master
shipwrights as Byzantine Teodoro Baxon were considered to be superior.159 A possible
explanation may be that the original method continued to develop and change in the
intervening 200 years in the Byzantine territories. Supporting evidence for such a
supposition may be the possible use of a mezzarola, as illustrated by the rising of the
floor timbers of the Kitten vessel, as this geometrical aid does not appear to have been
reported from anywhere outside the Byzantine world. Shortly after the easy access to
expertise from the Eastern Roman Empire was interrupted, the first written treatises
began to appear. Was this an attempt to preserve knowledge that traditionally was passed
on orally through apprenticeships, but the source of this knowledge was no longer
available, thus the need to preserve it on paper?
These are questions that at present cannot be answered. Only further excavation and
detailed recording of shipwrecks from the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea from
the relevant period can answer them in conjunction with archival research. It is likely
that only archaeology will be able to answer questions about the speed and direction of
the dissemination of this shipbuilding knowledge.
159
Lane 1934.
164
At present, the origin and distribution of whole moulding in the Mediterranean and
Black Seas are perhaps no more than a hypothesis, a direction for further research. What
is clear, however, is that since the 14th century a common tradition of whole moulding
existed in south and south-east of Europe, which survived in more isolated parts of the
continent until the beginning of the 19th century, as demonstrated by the Kitten ship.
There are some details that still need further study to determine the relationship between
wrecks showing whole-moulding techniques and the surviving treatises. Further
experimentation through constructing research models is needed to determine the
practicality of the different geometrical methods of producing the incremental changes to
the master frame.
The relationship between Mediterranean and Atlantic whole-moulding traditions remains
less clear. A comparative study of treatises and wrecks assigned to the two traditions
may help determine the viability of a theory of Atlantic vs. Mediterranean shipbuilding
traditions as posited by Thomas Oertling.160 This may be one case in which the popular
theoretical archaeological approach of looking at the bigger picture, ignoring the details,
may be playing us a bad trick, as with each level of remove, the picture resolution
decreases and conclusions based on this picture are bound to be misleading. To illustrate
this point it is enough to look at Oertling’s list of characteristics that, he argues, define
the Atlantic vessel. He states that not every characteristic needs to be present in order to
recognize a vessel as built in the Atlantic tradition. Following this argument, the Kitten
160
Oertling 2004.
165
ship could be identified as an Atlantic vessel, as it possesses almost all listed
characteristics. The possibility of reaching such an erroneous conclusion implies that the
determining factors are to be found in the details. Rieth has proposed that the
morphology of the scarfs is one of the differences between Atlantic and Mediterranean
vessels. I propose that Oertling is right in putting a heavy emphasis on the characteristic
Atlantic maststep in determining to what tradition a wreck belongs. This, however, may
prove to be less a question of Atlantic vs. Mediterranean tradition than a question of
square vs. lateen rig. This still would imply a vessel built for the Atlantic, but only
because the square rig was better adapted to operation on long-haul voyages in stormy
seas, and not a matter of conceptual difference in design.
CONCLUSION
The extensive preservation of the Kitten shipwreck allowed a highly plausible
reconstruction of the vessel. The central portion of the hull is preserved within a few
decimeters of the clamp and so the lines in this part of the vessel are trustworthy. The
discovery of the sternpost under the quarter of the ship enabled us to determine the shape
of the stern section and the run of the ship. The proposed shape of the bow merits the
least confidence, as it is based on very limited archaeological evidence. As drawn, the
stem is conjectural, yet it does not contradict any available evidence. Features of the
upper hull, the sweep of the deck, its companionways and hatches, raised sections at the
166
ends, and the heights of the bulwarks are based on literary and pictorial evidence, rather
than archaeological evidence.
The reconstructed lines of the ship allow more extensive hydrostatical calculations than
is usually the case with shipwrecks. The vessel had a displacement of between 120 and
160 tons, depending on the loading. As this is the smallest vessel of the four that we
have observed in the Bay of Kitten, one can surmise that its size was not unusual along
the western Black Sea shore. In turn, this conclusion brings into doubt the assumption of
some Bulgarian historians that ships in the region never exceeded 30 tons. The reports of
contemporary Western travelers visiting the Ottoman Empire, that Black Sea ships were
small, do not contradict this conclusion. To their eyes a 160-ton vessel would indeed be
small when compared to West Indiamen and colliers, let alone the huge East Indiamen.
The calculated hull coefficients imply that the Kitten ship would have been well-adapted
for its routes, capable of decent turn of speed, weatherly for its draught and flat floor
with shallow keel. The ship may have been tender-sided, but as it probably carried a
lateen-rig capable of spilling wind rather than being overpowered, this would not have
put it at excessive risk. The high bow and stern would have been detrimental for
progress to windward. On the other hand, they would have offered an added margin of
safety in the short, steep waves encountered in the Black Sea.
Of great interest was the mensuration system utilized in the construction of the ship.
Evidently, the Ottoman ar in of the latter 18th century was used. The ar in, however,
167
changed its values across the centuries, and it is not certain that there ever was a
generally recognized standard length for it, as Baron Tott observed in the 1770s. It is
hard to determine whether the ar in in use was that used during the reign of Sultan
Mustafa III or that fixed during the reign of Sultan Selim III in 1794-95, as the
difference between the two was only 6 mm. Both provide a good fit with the
measurements of the Kitten ship.
Experiments with determining the method of controlling the shape of the vessel
suggested that the Kitten shipwreck is indeed a late example of an old tradition of whole
moulding; some of its elements may have been in place in the region as early as the
building of the Bozburun ship in about 874 AD (possibly on the Black Sea shores),
which may very well have been built not far from the launching place of the Kitten ship
itself.161
The reconstructed method of design or control of the shape of the Kitten vessel fits well
with the tradition recorded in documents of the Italian Renaissance. It is evident that the
master shipwright was conversant with whole moulding techniques, similar to those
described in the extant treatises and observed on the Culip VI wreck. It appears likely
that he was aware of the slightly different characteristics of the curve produced by the
mezzaluna and the mezzarola and may have utilized them accordingly to produce the
rising and narrowing of the frames.
161
Hocker and McManamon 2006, 1.
168
The use of different geometrical aids demonstrates the flexibility of whole moulding.
The broad similarities observed between such wrecks as the 14th-century Culip VI, the
16th-century Yassiada, the 17th-century Sardineaux and the late 18th– early 19th-century
Kitten are evidence that a common Mediterranean tradition of whole moulding and ship
construction probably existed. One of the easily observable and diagnostic
characteristics of this tradition was the hook scarfs between floor timbers and futtocks. It
would appear that the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and the
subsequent transformation of the Black Sea into an internal lake for the Empire came
about at a time when this shipbuilding tradition had already established itself along the
western shore and thereafter helped preserve the tradition from transformation. The
Kitten vessel so far is the latest reported example of this shipbuilding tradition. The
explanation likely lies in the relative isolation of the region assisting the preservation of
older methods into the 19th century.
169
CHAPTER V
HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RIG
LITERATURE OVERVIEW
Literature on seafaring in the Eastern Mediterranean in the centuries after the fall of
Constantinople in 1453 is rather sparse and for the Black Sea is virtually non-existent. In
Bulgaria only three publications have a direct connection with the sea and vessels, none
of which can be considered a dedicated study of seafaring and shipbuilding. Nickolay
Ovcharov’s book on ship graffiti from the churches in Nessebre is poorly translated into
English, but even the Bulgarian original is disappointing. The most important
contribution of the book is the catalog of graffiti published as an appendix.162 The late
Professor Velko Tonev’s study of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast during the National
Revival movement of the 18th and 19th centuries only marginally touches on maritime
affairs and virtually not at all on ships.163
Shteliyan Shterionov published a study of the Southern Bulgarian coast in the 18th – 19th
centuries, which has a chapter dedicated to ship building and ship types.164 Of the
Bulgarian publications, it has the most relevance for the present study. The illustrations,
162
Ovcharov 1992.
Tonev 1995.
164
Shterionov 1999.
163
170
which are uncredited, are most probably taken directly from the German edition of
Marquardt’s Eighteenth Century Rigs and Rigging, as the scales are still marked in
German. Because of their origin, they are suspect as evidence for seafaring on the
western shore of the Black Sea.165 Details of ship construction are not provided in his
monograph, nor is there anything regarding the rigging of the vessels. In fact, all the
technical information appears to have been taken verbatim from Marquardt.
If so little is written about post-medieval ships in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black
Seas, even less attention has been paid to the rigging of local craft. A general consensus
seems to exist that little is known, but that the vessels were rigged archaically and
versions of the lateen rig dominated at least until the beginning of the 19th century.166
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RIG OF THE KITTEN SHIP
During the initial excavation of the Kitten ship by the Bulgarian Center for Underwater
Archaeology in the 1980s, archaeologists recovered 11 complete and partial rigging
blocks. Practically nothing of the documentation of the CUA has survived the numerous
reorganizations over the years and what little survives did not provide provenience for
the finds or description and measurements. All of these blocks were permitted to dry out
before conservation and are now useless as sources of information, except one of the
sheaves, which is likely to have been made of lignum vitae – a Caribbean basin tropical
165
166
Marquardt 1992.
Prins 1992, 77-87.
171
hardwood that is an unexpected material for this region. Because of the lack of
provenience and the unlikely material, it is questionable whether it actually came from
our ship. All other blocks and sheaves appear to be made of oak with wooden pins (fig.
42). Although they are now deformed, cracked and in pieces, the one certain information
that can be derived is that they generally fell into two size groups, smaller and larger
blocks, and were all single-sheaved, with one possible exception. Based on the block
assembly, Porozhanov suggested that the vessel was likely to have been lateen-rigged
and associated the larger blocks with shroud tackles.167 Although the reasoning behind
the rig identification is based on very limited evidence, the conclusion appears to be
correct.
Fig. 42. One of the dried out blocks, recovered in the 1980s. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
167
Porozhanov 2000, 3.
172
To briefly review, the only mast step located on the wreck is located between a pair of
sister-keelsons. Taking into account its position and the length of the vessel remains
(19.7 m), and the provenience of the recovered rigging elements, it is most probable that
the ship had only one mast. The mast step is cut through the keelson, spans three floors
and has a length of 70 cm and width of 20 cm. The excessive length of the opening
suggests there must have been a wedging system to hold the mast in position that has not
survived (fig. 43). The mast step on the Kitten ship ends one room and space forward of
the midship frame. At a distance of 2.54 meters forward of the front end of the step is a
notch in the keelson that must have supported a stanchion.
Fig. 43. The mast step, supported by the sister-keelsons. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
173
The single nearly complete deck beam found on the wreck, proved to be informative and
most useful. The extant length is 6.04 m, but it was evidently a meter longer. One face of
the beam is very heavily eroded and no original detail is preserved, but the other side is
in much better condition. The beam is about 30 cm molded and survives to 17 cm sided.
The better-preserved face has a shallow indentation, approximately 50 cm wide and less
than 2 cm deep, at the peak of the camber. The indentation of the beam is likely the
result of pressure from the mast leaning against it. Notches for carlings on either side of
the indentation indicate the locations of the mast partners. Considering the distance
between the notch in the keelson and the forward end of the mast step, the mast must
have had extreme forward rake (the precise angle would have depended upon the depth
in hold). Although no direct evidence for the depth in hold has survived, the necessary
minimum to achieve a fair section at this point of the hull with the known beam is 3.56
meters (see Chapter IV). Kostas Damianidis lists in his dissertation typical proportions
for vessels built in Greece and its surrounding islands.168 Proportions of the Kitten ship
fit best the trechadiri, known in Turkish as chektirme, or perama type of hull. The
Turkish term is used along the Southern Bulgarian coast to the present day. For the
present study the more conservative proportion is taken. Based on this depth, the rake of
the mast comes to more than 25 degrees.
168
Damianidis 1989, 48.
174
Fig. 44. Small block recovered from the Bow square in 2000. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
During the second, INA-CUA campaign of excavation (2000-2003), blocks and pieces
of broken blocks started emerging as early as the first season, but the most informative
of them were found in 2001 and 2003 (fig. 44). In 2001 one large treble block was
discovered in what proved to be the midship area of the ship. Unfortunately it was in
very poor condition, eroded to its centerline and was destroyed during recovery.
Fortunately general measurements had already been made.
In 2003 an equally large double block was discovered on the starboard side of the ship,
again about level with the mast step (fig. 45).
175
Fig. 45. Double block. Repairs to the shell are visible. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Fortunately this artifact, well protected by the mud, was in excellent condition and was
successfully recovered. Dr. Georgi Mavrov carried out the conservation and presently
the sheaves are rotating again. For some reason this well-preserved rigging element is
not on display at the museum in Kitten, and its present location is unknown to the
author. Remains of a line that passed through the block are also conserved as well as
remains of the stropping. The size, location and types of the double and treble blocks
make it almost certain that they formed the halyard tackle for a large yard. These two
blocks, as well as all others recovered from the Kitten shipwreck, have wooden pins and
no coaks. The double block was crudely repaired at one time, with two extension pieces
nailed to the cheeks. The repair demonstrates that the block had likely been in service for
176
some time prior to the sinking of the ship. The rest of the shell is in excellent condition,
strong and without checks. The double block is 39 cm long by 21 wide. The sheaves
have diameters of 17 cm and are 5 cm thick. The clearance between the sheaves and the
shell is also 5 cm, which is probably close to the diameter of the line that once passed
through it. The grooves for the stropping are almost circular at the top and have a
diameter of 6 cm. The shell of the block is carved from a single piece of wood. The
openings for the sheaves were chiseled through after pre-drilling the ends of the slots to
avoid splitting the wood. This same technique of manufacture was used also in shaping
the smaller blocks.
Fig. 46. One of the larger single blocks. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
177
A few smaller blocks and parts thereof have been recovered. Although hand made, all
are nearly uniform in shape and size. Most were recovered in the same general area from
which the halyard-tackle blocks came, with one found farther forward and one aft of
them. Most of the blocks have sheaves of about 10 cm in diameter and a thickness of 3
cm, with grooves of 2.4 cm (fig. 46). The stropping groove on these blocks is about 3 cm
wide. The shells range from 17 cm up to 20 cm long and all are 12 cm wide. One of the
two smallest blocks is about 15 cm long by 7 cm wide, with a sheave diameter of 5.5 cm.
The other block is even smaller, with a length of 9 cm, thickness and width of 4.5 cm,
and sheave diameter of 3.8 cm. The rope groove of the sheave is only 1 cm. This tiny
block was likely used for a flag halyard, as it is too small to have been used for anything
else. Regardless of their size, all blocks have virtually the same construction: a singlepiece shell carved out of oak, a wooden sheave, and a wooden pin without coaks. On all
observed blocks, the opening for the sheave was chiseled out after the four corners were
drilled with an auger to prevent splitting the shell. Similar blocks with wooden pins and
no coaks have been recovered from the Akko 1 shipwreck in Israel.169 This vessel is
believed to be nearly contemporaneous with the Kitten shipwreck, dating to the end of
the 18th or early 19th century. Although the remains appear to have come from at least
seven different blocks (exclusive of the halyard blocks), the number, even when added to
the 11 blocks found in the 1980s, does not seem to be adequate for the rigging of a ship
with estimated size of 23 meters by 7.5 meters. Undoubtedly, many more were in use on
the vessel during its sailing career.
169
Kahanov 2008, 17, fig. 3.
178
No special types of blocks, such as fiddle or sister blocks, were found. Moreover, neither
deadeyes and chainplates, nor traces of them, were located. Taking into consideration the
extensive survival of the hull, it therefore seems likely that none were used on the ship.
On another wreck about 30 meters away from the studied ship, at least one deadeye was
still present in 2001, so the conditions in the bay are conductive for preservation of such
items.
Seven toggles, rigging elements that may indicate the type of rig, were also discovered.
Four of them were in good and recognizable condition, and the other three were severely
degraded.170 The toggle assembly is T-shaped, with the body consisting of three long
iron bar links, the upper one ending with an eye, through which a wooden cross piece is
passed (fig. 47). The lowest link ends with a hook. Marquardt illustrates an example,
similar to the one found at Kitten, but made of chain.171 He describes it as a large toggle
for the strop of the lower block in the shroud tackles of lateen-rigged galleasses. The
same source states that this type of toggle was also used as a quick-release on the
running backstays of naval cutters and sloops.
170
As a serious error of the project director should be reported that none of them were recovered, but were
instead reburied on the site.
171
Marquardt 1992, 155.
179
Fig. 47. Toggle in situ. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
A large quantity of line was discovered, most of which fell apart at the slightest
disturbance from the excavators. Nevertheless, samples were recovered and analyzed by
Dr. Chakalova. Most of the samples ranged between 2.5 and 3.5 cm in diameter, which
corresponds well with the size of the sheaves recovered from the wreck. The ropes were
made from two twisted strands, rather than three or four as is usual. Even stranger is the
material – reedmace (Thypha sp.) – which resembles basten. Alan Villiers, who sailed on
traditional Arabian dhows in the late 1930s, reported that the halyards were made of
“plaited straw.”172 Numerous sticks with rounded heads on one end were uncovered
during the excavation and although generally they were identified as broom handles
172
Villiers 1961, 249.
180
(more than a dozen brooms were recorded), it is possible that at least some of them were
used for rope twisting. Similar sticks were used for basten rope making in Viking
times.173 Ms. Hristina Angelova, Director of the CUA, conducted interviews with old
fishermen from Sozopol, who confirmed that as late as the 1930s, reedmace was still
used for rope making in the region. Sozopol is about 30 km north of Kitten and the
whole district was surrounded by marshes, some of which have now dried up or have
been reclaimed, so reedmace was at one time plentiful.
No data were recovered on the construction of the sail. As was to be expected, no part of
the sails survived and no spare sails were found inside the hull, although traces of
textiles were found. However, two pieces of leather were recovered and conserved,
which have holes from sewing around their perimeters. Originally they were identified
as clothing, but after conservation, Dr. Mavrov brought them to my attention and pointed
to their irregular shape. It appears that these pieces were leather strengthening,
conceivably from the sail, although their odd shape makes it impossible to be certain
(fig. 48).
173
I was shown hand-laying of basten rope with a similar stick in the Viking Museum in Roskilde, during
the 10th International Symposium for Boat and Ship Archaeology (September, 2003).
181
Fig. 48. Leather piece with traces of sewing. Photo K. N. Batchvarov.
BASIS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RIG
Considering the limited extent of the wreck and the lack of preserved spars, it is unlikely
that a definite statement on how the ship was rigged will ever be possible. However,
enough clues have been discovered to offer at least one hypothesis.
Masts with pronounced forward rake, as appears to have been the case with the Kitten
ship, are usually associated with the lateen rig or, in Greek waters, the sakoleva, which is
a version of the sprit rig.174 Sakoleva drawings from 1878 were published by Admiral
174
Dimmock 1946, 34-41.
182
Paris, but the depicted vessel is no more than half the surviving part of the Kitten ship in
size.175 A Beaugean engraving from the first decade of the 19th century, though, depicts a
large sakoleva.176 In both cases the mast is heavily raked forward and the shrouds are set
up with deadeyes. Even where the deadeyes are not clearly illustrated, the shrouds have
ratlines which strongly argue in favour of standing, non-movable rigging. No depiction
of a sakoleva shows toggles in the standing rigging. Toggles are invariably associated
with lateen rigs, as a study of Beaugean’s engravings and Paris’ drawings testify.
Damianidis speaks of lateen rigs and quotes Greek wooden shipbuilders as stating that in
“earlier times” large lateeners of up to 250 tons were common, but by the mid-19th
century their numbers dwindled and they completely disappeared less than a century
later. A few photographs are included in his work and seem to date to the early part of
the 20th century. On the bigger vessels, the yards were never lowered, but the sails were
furled by sailors who shinnied up the yards.177 Damianidis quotes a Greek authority from
c. 1860 as describing the lateeners as one- or two-masted trechadiri.178
Sir Alan Moore describes lateen- and settee-rigged boats that he observed during World
War I in Greek and Ottoman waters.179 D. Verwey published sketches of Turkish lateen
rigged vessels from the Sea of Marmora that he observed in the early part of the 20th
175
Paris 1999, Plates 101-103.
Harland 2000, 119, Plate 104.
177
Damianidis 1989, 76-8; Moore 1925, 117.
178
Damianidis 1989, 77.
179
Moore 1925.
176
183
century.180 H. M. Denham provided a photograph from about 1916 with vessels captured
in the Sea of Marmara. Of the four, two were lateen rigged and those he identified as
“Turkish Lateen” and “tchirme”.181 “Tchirme” is undoubtedly misunderstanding of
“tchektirme”, which is the Turkish equivalent of trechadiri.182 “Tchirme” refers to a
small rowing galley in the Western Mediterranean.183
Wolfgang Müller-Wiener’s monograph on the harbors of Istanbul dedicated part of a
chapter to Ottoman vessels and included extensive collection of prints and photographs
of lateen-rigged vessels.184 Some of the ships are substantial in size with extreme
forward rakes evident in their masts (fig. 49).
180
Verwey 1932.
Denham 1986, 281.
182
Güleryüz 2004, 95.
183
Müller-Wiener 1994, 90.
184
Müller-Wiener 1994.
181
184
Fig. 49. Extreme mast rake on a lateen-rigged vessel. Detail. Also reprinted in MüllerWiener as Plate 6.
In almost all cases the sterns are significantly higher than the bows and some have a tiny
lateen mizzen that seems to be placed almost on top of the sternpost.185 Settee rigs (a
lateen sail with a short luff) are also visible on two photographs from Sozopol harbor
(See Figures 50 and 51).
185
Müller-Wiener 1994, 61-65 and plates 5.2, 6.1, excellent depictions of forward raking mast of lateeners
are 19.1, 20.1 and especially, 36.1, 43.2, 44.1, 52.2, 55.1, 56.1.
185
Fig. 50. Fishing boats from Sozopol, c. 1912. The closer boat appears to be a mauna.
From a postcard. Photographer unknown.
The boats are small and the photos are not dated, but based on the uniform of the
Bulgarian soldiers, the likely date is c. 1908-1912. Small fishing boats from the
Bulgarian coast, called sefer, of 5-9 meters length (visible in the photographs from
Sozopol) carried settee sails as late as the 1970s and as a child I had the good fortune to
sail on a few, mostly as a passenger.
By the 1980s sails had virtually disappeared, only to be revived here and there in the late
1990s and early 2000s as rising fuel prices and the general economic collapse made the
free wind an attractive motive power again.
186
Fig. 51. Sefer boats and a mauna at the quay in Sozopol, c. 1912. From a postcard.
Photographer unknown.
Graffiti from the Nessebre churches (about 100 km north from Kitten, but less by sea)
also depict lateen-rigged craft.186 They have not been precisely dated, but most probably
were scratched into the wall plaster during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many illustrate
vessels at anchor with furled sails and raised yards. Shrouds are depicted with ratlines
only on the few square-riggers, which may indicate that the shrouds on the other vessels
were meant to be running and therefore set with “quick-releases”. Typical for these
double-ended vessels, the sterns are invariably much higher and rise more steeply than
the bows, although it is hard to quantify this statement, because of the tenuous nature of
iconographic evidence. The high, sharply rising stern feature is visible on photographs
186
Ovcharov 1992, catalog numbers 117-20, 145-47, 149, 159, 161-62, 173, 175, 176.
187
published in a recent article on mahones lighters, a double-ender with low freeboard, of
various dimensions, which were also lateen-rigged (fig. 52).187
Fig.52. A mahone from the early 20th century. Detail after Borgschultze.
The source for most of these photographs (referenced in the article) is Müller-Wiener’s
monograph on the Istanbul harbors. Larger, sea-going versions of the mahone were also
built and they differed little in rigging or construction. Other spellings and
pronunciations of the name are mahownah as transcribed by Moore or mauna, as it
sounds in Bulgarian. Mauni (plural form of mauna in Bulgarian) survived until at least
187
Borgschultze 2005, 164.
188
the mid-20th century and smaller ones are still operated as fishing boats, but with
engines.
Some indirect information on the rigging of Black Sea ships can also be deduced from
Eaton’s early 19th-century book On the Commerce and Navigation of the Black Sea. He
notes that Ottoman ships from the region “…have one or two masts, with immensely
large sails, which hang over the vessels sides a great way to leeward, by which, when the
wind is strong, the lateral pressure of the yards is so strong against the masts, that they
often cannot be lowered….”188 The passage does not preclude outright the sakoleva/sprit
rig, yet it is more likely that Eton was speaking of the lateen rig, because he suggests that
it was impossible to shorten sail underway in a squal by lowering the yards. In a
sakoleva or sprit rig, the sprit usually is not lowered, but the sail is brailed.189 In the
region, the mainsails on sakolevas traveled along a rope horse stretched between the
mast and the sprit. Thus, lowering the sprit to strike sail is not necessary – it was a
question of using an inhaul to bring the sail to the mast. Even if for some reason the
lowering of the sprit was found to be necessary, it is physically impossible for it to be
prevented from coming down because of wind pressure, as it was held to the mast only
by a snotter. As most of the spar was aft of the mast and at an angle, gravity would soon
(perhaps quicker than desirable) bring it crashing to the deck. In a lateener, on the other
hand, it is more probable that the crews lowered the yards in a sudden storm. Unlike the
sprit, the lateen yard has a larger proportion of its length forward of the mast and is
188
189
Eton 1805, 4.
Tzamtzis 1972, 53-174. See Plates 97, 98 and 99.
189
much more likely to have enough friction in its parrels to prevent it from easily sliding
down the mast in strong winds. The quotation also sheds light on the probable handling
of the rig, to which we shall return later. More iconographic evidence for the popularity
of the lateen rig in the Ottoman Empire, including the Greek Archipelago, is published
in The Greek Merchant Marine.
190
Tzamtzis also speaks of the lateen rig’s popularity
and sees it as well-adapted to the fickle conditions of the Mediterranean: the long yard
permits the sail to catch the slightest breath of air, yet it also allows the sail to spill the
wind in sudden gusts.191 In this respect the sail would be well-adapted for use in the
Black Sea also, where conditions can be very similar to the Mediterranean in the sailing
season.
These examples demonstrate that lateen rigs were popular and well-known in the
Ottoman Empire and specifically along the western Black Sea shore. Thus, it is likely
that the Kitten ship carried this type of rig, possibly in a settee version. Review of the
archaeological finds also supports the hypothesis that the vessel may have been lateen
rigged. The heavy forward rake of the mast and the presence of at least seven large
toggle assemblies are the strongest evidence to support such a reconstruction. Additional
indirect evidence is that no traces of deadeyes or chainplates have been found. Yet,
deadeyes survived on a nearby wreck, that was in poorer state of preservation. The
190
Papadopoulos 1972. See Plates 37, 43 (It is titled Raising sail on a Sakoleva, but the sail appears to be a
lateen, not sprit), 58, 95, 99.
191
Tzamtzis 1972, 53.
190
apparent absence of deadeyes on the Kitten wreck does not rule out their prior existence,
but it is more likely that none was used in the first place.
The forward rake of the mast on the Kitten ship is a matter of conjecture and is based on
the tentative reconstruction of the depth in hold. The minimum depth as reconstructed
suggests that the mast rake was about 25 degrees or more. This extreme value is not
impossible as plates in Mueller-Wiener’s work demonstrate.192
The previously mentioned Beaugean engravings from the first decade of the 19th century
provide plenty of examples of rakes in this range, too. Lionel Dimmock wrote that rakes
of 10-20 degrees on Arab lateeners were normal.193 The very heavy rake of the mast on
Arab vessels was also noted by Richard Le Baron Bowen Jr.194
The same observation, this time for European Mediterranean craft, is made by Sir Alan
Moore, with the additional information that the mast was nearly amidships.195 The same
location is observed on the Kitten shipwreck and is depicted on plates 6 and 20 in
Mueller-Wiener (fig. 53). Plate 89 in the 1999 abridged edition of Edmond Paris’s
Souvenirs de Marine depicts a fishing bilancella from the Ligurian coast, the mast of
which rakes forward 23 degrees.
192
Müller-Wiener 1994, especially Plates 6.1 and 20.1.
Dimmock 1946, 37.
194
Bowen Jr. 1948, 101.
195
Moore 1925, 89.
193
191
Use of toggles is depicted in engravings by the French marine artist Beaugean, published
by John Harland.196 Toggles are illustrated in Joseph Furtenbach’s 1629 Architectura
Navalis.197 Delacroix provides the French 18th-century tartana La Diligente with toggles,
too.198 An Italian fishing tartana from the Adriatic Sea is also illustrated with toggles for
her shrouds. Admittedly the vessel was bratsera-rigged (Adriatic Lug), rather than
lateen.199 However, research into the usage of toggles has not yielded any positive
evidence for associating this quick-release device with other types of rig, such as square
or fore-and-aft, except for lug and, conceivably, for the backstays of naval cutters.200 All
lateen-rigged vessels in the plates from Mueller-Wiener have tackles for the shrouds and
not one has deadeyes. Regrettably the reproductions are too small for the toggles to be
visible if they were used (figs. 54 and 55).
196
Harland 2000, 100, 155, 144.
Furtenbach 1629, Plate 18.
198
Delacroix 1997, Plate 15.
199
Marzari 1985, 287-303.
200
Marquardt 1992, 155. It should be pointed, however, that he does not provide any source for this
statement and no illustration.
197
192
Fig. 53. A lateener with heavily raked mast. This vessel is probably very similar to the
Kitten ship. Shrouds are set up with tackles. Detail from Melling, reprinted by MüllerWiener in Plate 20.
193
Fig. 54. Detail from an engraving by Melling, showing a two-masted lateener c. 1819.
Republished by Müller-Wiener as Plate 36. Shrouds are set up with tackles, though the
toggles are not visible.
As mentioned earlier, a treble and a double block were found on the Kitten wreck. The
presence of only one such pair, baring freak survival, implies that only one yard was
large and heavy enough to require such powerful purchase for handling it. This cannot
be taken as direct evidence for a lateen rig, but it is known that lateeners require very
massive yards, frequently longer than the hull of the ship itself. For a vessel of around 23
meters length, the yard would have been massive indeed. Moore reports an Egyptian
194
vessel on which this spar was 80 feet (24 m) long.201 Even on conservatively rigged
vessels, the yard could be at least equal in length to that of the ship itself.202
Fig. 55. Detail from a Melling engraving, c. 1819. Republished by Müller-Wiener as
Plate 44. The small lateen-rigged boat is similar to the sefer boats. The shrouds appear to
be set up with tackles.
The archaeological evidence, although not definite, all points towards one specific type
of rig, the lateen sail, which was clearly present in the Black Sea when the Kitten ship
was in service. The presence of toggles and lack of deadeyes, the probable heavy
201
202
Moore 1925, 116.
Moore 1925, 88, 93.
195
forward rake of what was probably a single mast located nearly amidships, and the
powerful purchase of the halyard tackle argue that the Kitten ship was lateen-rigged.
SPAR DIMENSIONS
No list of proportions for lateen-rigged cargo ships from the Levant, Eastern
Mediterranean or Black Seas has come to light during research. Some proportions can be
deduced from the ship draughts published by Paris and Furtenbach. Additionally,
attention was paid to such iconographic evidence that looked dependable, technically
detailed and bereft of major distortion in perspective because a rig was shown from the
profile. Based on these sources, proportions for the rig and mast were calculated and
applied to the Kitten ship. The spars were proportioned based on what was most easily
measured or what dimensions were listed in the source material; for this reason they are
not consistently calculated based on the same dimension (i.e., the overall length of the
hull or length of mast).
For the tartana illustrated in Paris’ Plate 89, the proportions of the rig were calculated as
follows: mast length equal to three times the beam or 1.15 times the overall length of the
ship. The yard equals 4.2 times the beam or 1.25 times the length of the vessel. For the
tartana on Plate 54 the mast is 1.15 times the length of the ship, and the yard is 1.5 times
the length of the mast.203 On La Diligente the mast equals 1.15 times the length of the
203
Paris 1999, plates. 54, 89.
196
tartana, the yard equals 1.3 times the length of the mast.204 It should be noted that La
Diligente was a two-masted vessel and the draughts are a secondary source. Bowen
records yards on Arab dhows in excess of 130 per cent of the hull length.205 Joseph
Furtenbach’s Plates 16 and 18, illustrating a barca and a polaca, are of special interest. A
tartana is discussed, but not illustrated. Furtenbach gives more detail on the barca so here
only the proportions for this vessel are used: mast to length of vessel ratio equaled 1.15,
yard to mast equaled 1.5 for the foremast and 1.7 for the mainmast. Sir Alan Moore,
speaking of the mauna (mahownah in his transcription) states that yards were frequently
as long as the boat itself and in many cases significantly longer.206 He uses “boat”
somewhat inconsistently – sometimes it means indeed a boat and some times it is used as
synonymous with ship. Furtenbach describes all three vessels (Barca, polaca and
tartana) as extremely fast and capable of 8 to 10 knots, an impressive speed for the early
17th century indeed. Supporting evidence that lateeners could achieve such speeds comes
from Bowen, who reports speeds of between 10.5 and 12 knots in favorable
conditions.207 If one looks at the huge spread of sail of these ships, it is hardly surprising
that they were fast sailers.
All examples of vessels discussed had an overall length-to-beam ratio of about 3.5:1,
while the Kitten ship is hypothesized to have had a ratio of about 3.2:1. Logically it
would be expected that this vessel could have carried an even more-extreme rig, thanks
204
Delacroix 1997, plans 14 and 15.
Bowen Jr. 1948, 111.
206
Moore 1925, 88.
207
Bowen Jr. 1948, 102.
205
197
to the added stability of the proportionally larger beam. However, considering the rough
sailing conditions of the Black Sea where sudden and violent storms arise even in the
summer months, and ships frequently encounter short steep waves and open roadsteads,
a more conservative stance was taken. The proposed reconstruction has limited
proportions to the lowest ratios calculated. The length of the single mast is equal to the
length of the ship of 23 meters. The yard, following most proportions, ought to be 33.75
meters long, but the figure was decreased to 28 meters. The decrease was “eye-balled” to
what seemed appropriate, rather than calculated.
A bowsprit was added to facilitate the spread of a foresail or “polaca” sail as Harland
calls it. Furtenbach confirms the name of the large jib found on the bows of tartanas. The
protruding part of the bowsprit is based on the tartana and the two Ottoman vessels’ rig
dimensions in Paris. The foresail would have been a necessity for the Kitten vessel if it
was to avoid a heavy weather helm.
198
Fig. 56. Reconstruction of the Kitten vessel’s rig. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
Since no evidence for the Kitten ship’s spars exists, it is inevitable that the spar
dimensions are at best an educated guess.
STANDING RIGGING
Strictly speaking, the classic lateen rig, proposed for the Kitten ship, does not have
standing rigging, since all shrouds and stays are shifted each time a tack is changed. For
199
convenience the term shall be used, however, to describe all lines that are intended to
support the spars rather than control the sail.
In this hypothetical reconstruction, the shrouds are set with toggles, three of them abaft
the mast and one forward. Bowen describes at least one shroud forward of the mast on
large Arab lateeners; Dimmock demonstrates a similar arrangement, too and some of the
iconographic evidence published by Harland supports such a position.208 It may be
significant that three of the toggles at Kitten were found far aft on the site, but a fourth
one was found in the forward third of the hull, on the starboard side of the wreck.
Marquardt and the La Diligente monograph show the shrouds lashed to the masthead.209
The iconographic evidence from Nessebre, published by Ovcharov is useless in this case
and, regrettably, so are the illustrations in Müller-Wiener, for, in all of them either the
vessel is too distant for such details to be visible, or, the details are hidden by the sail
itself. The photographs of boats in Sozopol harbor (figs. 50, 51) depict the shrouds
looped around the mastheads. The hypothetical reconstruction of the Kitten vessel uses
the same technique of securing the shrouds. Although there is evidence for such an
arrangement, it should be recognized that it is for simple open boats, not for ships. The
decision is open to question. Significantly easier to deduce is the arrangement for the
lower ends of the shrouds. All sources are unanimous that this was done through a tackle
which allowed speedy easing and setting of the shrouds when tacking. On Adriatic and
western Mediterranean vessels the tackle consisted of a single and a long-tackle (fiddle)
208
209
Dimmock 1946, 36.
Delacroix 1997, 71, Plate 15; Marquardt 1992, 155, fig. 112.
200
block. The surviving pieces of blocks from the 1980s expedition are mostly of single
blocks with one exception that may have been a double block. Because of the lack of
double blocks, the setup of the shrouds is reconstructed with a gun-tackle arrangement.
The arrangement for the bowsprit support is lifted in its entirety from the small Turkish
coaster (a sprit, not lateen-rigged vessel) published by Edmund Paris.210 The bowsprit is
butted into bitts, passes through a collar at the stem and is supported by a bobstay.
However, extensive and apparently dependable iconographic evidence suggests that
bowsprits on lateeners within the Ottoman Empire were not necessarily supported by
standing rigging. This is particularly well illustrated in an 1817 engraving by Ch.
Pertusier of a single-masted lateener (fig. 53) and an 1819 engraving by A. J. Melling of
a two-masted vessel (fig. 54).211 Both illustrations point to the lack of a standing forestay
on this type of rig. The presence of such stay would have made it virtually impossible to
shift the yard in tacking maneuvers, as this was usually done by shifting it forward of the
mast. Therefore, the large foresail or polaca was set flying.
RUNNING RIGGING
The blocks of the main halyard were already described. Here it should only be reiterated
that none of them looked like typical lateener ram-blocks. The treble was never properly
210
Paris 1999, Plate. 106.
Müller-Wiener 1994, plates 20.1 and 36.1 taken from A. J. Melling, Voyage pittoresque de
Constantinople et des Rives du Bosphore (Paris, 1819; re-issued Istanbul, 1970) and Ch. Petrusier,
Promenades pittoresques dans Constantinople et sur les rives du Bosphore, (Paris, 1817).
211
201
studied, but the double block was documented. The grooves for the strop are angled
towards each other in the upper part of the block. Two possible ways of stropping it
come to mind. First, that the block could simply be stropped with a becket to which the
halyard was bent. Second, the halyard tye was spliced around the block or it formed a
bight in which the block was secured and the two ends reached a pair of masthead
sheaves or blocks. Either one of the methods would work, but the evidence does not
permit us to determine which one was used. On smaller vessels, the halyard tyes passed
through a single sheave at the masthead from aft forward and the line was bent to the
yard. In bigger vessels the tyes formed a bight around the upper block and then passed
through two sheaves in the cheeks of the masthead. If the size of the Kitten ship is taken
into account, the double tye seems the more probable arrangement. A parrel would have
held the yard close to the mast and under control. Dimmock, Moore and Bowen describe
simple arrangements for parrels. None of them include ribs, only trucks, but in all cases
they describe Egyptian and Arab dhows. The parrels on the Kitten ship are derived from
the photograph of one of the boats in the photograph from Sozopol harbor (figure 51).
202
The huge lateen yard is also controlled with the help of tacks, rigged as simple whips
and belayed to either side in the bow of the vessel. A lift is rigged from the upper end of
the yard to a block at the masthead and belayed to the deck or one side of the vessel, as a
photograph of the Sozopol boats demonstrates (fig. 50). The lift would have been
necessary to support the lengthy and heavy upper part of the large yard. Additional
control is provided by the means of two vangs led to the quarters of the vessel. Both are
set with guntackles. However, Moore recorded that high-peaked lateeners did not have
vangs for safety: vangs would prevent the yard from sagging to leeward and spilling
wind in gusts (on vangs see fig. 58).212 The vangs may have been in the way while
tacking, but in all illustrations in Müller-Wiener vangs are shown. They are also clearly
visible in plate 53 of The Greek Merchant Marine, where the vangs are rigged through
two – apparently single - blocks at the top of the yard, thus forming a whip (fig. 57).
212
Moore 1925, 93.
203
Fig 57. A detail from Plate 53 in The Greek Merchant Marine. The vangs are visible,
rigged with simple whips.
204
If the vessel was to be tacked by shifting the yard on each tack, than likely it had a single
mainsheet, with a simple whip belayed to a protruding timber head. Possible
archaeological evidence for such a timber was discovered at Kitten. The timber, a rider,
butts into the bilge stringer and extends from there upward at a sharp angle. Besides
supporting the sharply rising high stern, these timbers could have served as belaying
points for a sheet or mooring line, depending where they actually ended.
Considering the huge size of the sail, it probably needed a way to spill the wind quickly.
The reconstruction proposes the use of three leach lines and a brail to the foot. Three
leech lines seem to be a sufficient number, based on iconographic evidence.
The rake of the mast makes it almost a certainty that in tacking, the yard was carried
across on the forward side of the mast. Thus, any foresail would have had to be set
flying. In the hypothetical reconstruction of the Kitten ship rig, the foresail is set with a
halyard passing through a block at the masthead and led to the base of the mast, although
it is possible that it was led to one of the sides. The tack is rigged with an outhaul lead
through a single block at the end of the bowsprit. The foresail sheet was either a single
line or a whip. In either case with the fairly large crew, possibly of around 17 or 18 men
and boys, there would have been sufficient manpower available to strike the sail or set it.
205
HANDLING OF THE LATEEN RIG
The lateen sail is among the less well-understood rigs (fig. 58).213 It has generally, and
less than convincingly, been argued that the sail was developed and distributed by the
Arabs; that the lateen rig made the great geographical discoveries possible (yet almost all
great explorers wasted no time in converting their lateen-rigged caravels to square rig);
that the lateen sail was the immediate predecessor of the fore and aft rigs.214 I. C.
Campbell in his study of the lateen rig, argued persuasively that whatever the actual
origin of the sail, the Arabs likely had very little to do either with its invention or its
diffusion.215 Furthermore, he concluded that the most probable region in which the rig
originated is the northern Aegean and that its use predates the Muslim invasions of the
7th century AD. He proposed that “…the gift of the lateen sail to Atlantic maritime
history could well be Italian….”, thus charting a course for dissemination of nautical
technology from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Iberian Peninsula. 216
213
Harland 2000, 11.
Campbell 1995, 1.
215
Campbell 1995, 4-7.
216
Campbell 1995, 10.
214
206
Fig. 58. Diagram of a lateen rig. Computer modified from the Amics
de la Mar Menorca site.
207
The handling of the lateen rig has entertained the wits of researchers for some time and
the literature on the subject is not small (fig. 58). The best short description of the
seamanship of the lateen rig is to be found in John Harland’s Ships and Seamanship. The
descriptions are perfectly complemented with the exceptionally accurate engravings of
the French marine artist, J. J. Baugean. Virtually all maneuvers are illustrated by this
prolific and accurate artist.217 The general consensus has it that the yard had to be shifted
on each tack to the leeward side of the mast; otherwise the sail would loose some of its
efficiency.218 Plentiful evidence exists to support this view, at least for Western lateenrigged vessels. Two methods of doing this have been proposed: by the fore side of the
mast or by the rear, as it was done on large square-riggers with lateen mizzens. On fully
lateen-rigged ships, it appears that the first method was employed. A mast with a heavy
forward raking would have facilitated this maneuver. Hans-Jockel Nickel quoted
passages from Oliveira, Juan Escalante de Mendoza and Pantero Pantera (Commander of
the Papal galleys) on the lateen rig of caravels in the 16th century.219 All three authorities
agreed that the lateen rig was weatherly, but hard to manage and labour-intensive in
shifting the yards. The same sources describe shifting the yard by bringing its heel to the
foot of the mast with the tacks and then rolling it across the masthead. Meanwhile, the
sheets and vangs are reset on the new tack and, presumably, so are the shroud tackles.
The description implies that the sail was brailed during the procedure, for if the canvas is
simply left to feather out of control severe damage to the rig and injuries to the crew
217
Harland 2000, 6 and 11-13.
Nickel 2002, 192-96; Nickel 2006, 166- 71; Ostermann 2003, 192-7; Göhren 2004), 24-28.
219
Nickel 2002, 194.
218
208
would be inevitable. All three quoted authorities make a point of the dangerous nature of
the maneuver.
Alternatively, Hermann Ostermann hypothesized that on multi-masted lateen-rigged
vessels the yards were placed on opposite sides of the masts and were set depending on
the course steered, the sail to windward of the mast being furled.220 Although the
proposed solution to the problem of shifting yards at sea is ingenious, it is not applicable
to single-masted vessels and ignores that a two-master would not be properly balanced
with one of the sails furled.
Norton explained that going about in lateen-rigged craft depended on the cut of the sail
and the method of yard suspension.221 On Alexandrian (Egypt) feluccas, the sails were
cut with a vertical leech and short luffs, referred to as a settee sail (fig. 59). These craft
came about frequently and on short tacks kept the yards on the same side of the mast. On
longer tacks, however, the clew of the sail was passed forward of the mast and the yard
rolled over the masthead.
220
221
Ostermann 2003, 193.
Norman 1957, 327.
209
Fig. 59. Settee rig as carried by Alexandrian feluccas. The halyard leads aft and the yard
swings forward of the mast in tacking. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
A slightly different rig and procedure were used on Nile ghaissas (fig. 60). These boats
were single-masted and their sails were cut with a vertical leech, low foot with no roach
210
and no luff. The yard was slung abaft the mast (meaning that the halyard was led
forward, rather than aft) and on a wind the heel of the yard was boused in to the mast to
the point where the rig resembled a gunter sail.
Fig. 60. Sketch of a ghaissa rig, sailing on a wind. The halyard is led
forward. Drawing: K. N. Batchvarov.
211
Thus, the sail set well on either tack, and shifting the yard was not necessary. The mast
raked slightly aft and was placed in a tabernacle to permit easy negotiation of the bridges
at Cairo. A nearly identical arrangement was used on the Istanbul lighters, the mahones.
A short stubby mast supported a tall, nearly vertical lateen sail, which, when set, also
resembled a gunter (fig. 61).
Fig. 61. A passenger alamana, with a stub mast and almost gunter-like lateen sail.
Borgschultze incorrectly identifies the vessel as a mahone.222 Note the difference in
profile from fig. 62, which indeed is a mahone.
222
Pulak, personal communication.
212
The yard had a counterweight on its heel to ease lowering and raising when the vessel
passed under the Istanbul bridges (fig. 62). In 2001 a vessel, discovered about 20 meters
from the wreck we excavated in the southern Bay of Kitten, still had the remains of the
stubby mast and tabernacle. In 2006 I dived on this wreck again, but no trace of the mast
remained.
Fig. 62. A mahone with lowered yard for passing under bridges. Detail after a photo in
Borgschultze.
Norman also speaks of two-masted ghaissas, the sails of which had roach and short
luffs. On the two-masted vessels the sails were set in the more conventional manner of a
true settee with yard at an angle to the masts, rather than nearly vertical, but the sails
were left to windward only for short tacks.
N. Lishman likewise described handling Arabian lateen-rigged vessels.223 According to
his experience, lateeners only wore and did not tack. The maneuver was the same
regardless of the size of the vessel, and only the gear needed to support the yard and
223
Lishman 1961, 57.
213
mast differed. The craft turned downwind, the tack and sheets were cast loose, the parrel
was loosed, too, and the tack brought in to the mast. The sheet and the yard were passed
in front of the mast and clewed down, then the tack was made fast. According to
Lishman, a peak halyard was also attached to the yard to help in its shifting. Although
most of the sail handling could be done from deck, to furl the sail the mariners had to go
up the yard. The spar itself was rarely brought down on deck except when anchored in
an open roadstead and there was necessity of lowering the centre of gravity. Lishman
also spoke of the set-up of the shrouds: a long pendant from the masthead with two
single blocks. The lower block was equipped with a toggle which was slipped through
rope grommets or salvagees. Alan Villiers gives virtually the same description, but he
adds that the two single blocks were arranged in a gun tackle.224 They in turn were fitted
to convenient points round the vessel in accordance with the course being steered. This
arrangement is very close to the one proposed for the Kitten ship, with the notable
exception that the lower block must have had the salvagee attached to a becket and the
toggles were directly attached to the hull, either through an iron eyebolt or a grommet.
Lishman speaks of double sheaves in the masthead for the jeers (Harland calls them
tyes). A large block with up to four sheaves was set in the bight of the jeers. The lower
block on most Arabian vessels was secured to the hull in the form of a vertical stanchion,
fastened to beams and stepped on the keelson. In the Kitten ship, as described above, the
jeers or tyes were set up with a double and a treble block. It is difficult to be certain
224
Villiers 1961, 249.
214
which of the two blocks was secured to the jeers and which to the hull, but based on
provenience, it is possible that the treble block was secured to the hull and the double to
the jeers, because the first was found inside the wreck, to port, while the double block
was discovered outside the hull, to starboard.
Unfortunately, direct observations and descriptions of handling of lateen-rigged craft in
the waters of the Black Sea are virtually unknown. Some deductions can be made on the
basis of analogy with other regions in which the lateen rig was used and on a limited
body of iconographic evidence. The sole written source describing ship handling in the
Black Sea is of questionable value and comes from the already quoted William Eaton:
The remedy, in this case [NB: that is, the necessity to shorten sail in a
strengthening breeze ], is to dart logs of wood with a sharp end, or a kind of
javelin, at the sail, by which they make holes to let out the wind.
They cannot lie-to, as their bows spread out so much above water that a sea to
windward striking them turns them to leeward. Therefore they never attempt it,
but run for the first port, which if they cannot make, they go on shore.225
The hurling of darts at the sail to spill the wind was surely not a general practice, nor
does it appear likely that Black Sea sailors intentionally ran larger craft aground on what
is a rocky lee shore in all dominant winds. Thus, we are reduced to reconstructing
225
Eton 1805, 4-5.
215
Ottoman seamanship in the Black Sea through parallels, educated guesses and
iconography. The first question to answer is whether vessels in these waters regularly
shifted the yards when tacking. Considering the usual routes along the Bulgarian coast
and the dominant winds in the sailing season, it is not likely that ships were forced
frequently to beat tack upon tack to reach their destinations. Long boards on the same
tack are more probable. Some limited maneuvering would have taken place when
entering or leaving anchorages. All comparative material presented above demonstrates
that, in cases of short boards, the yards were usually left on the same side of the mast. In
my limited experience of lateen- (settee-, actually) rigged fishing boats in the 1970s, the
sails were never shifted, rather it was accepted that on one tack the boat will sail less
efficiently than on the other. Because these flat-bottomed boats had shallow keels and
very limited weather-going abilities to begin with, it made surprisingly little difference
to their performance. Yet, a small fishing boat is not a sail-propelled merchantman of
some 160 tons.
An 18th - century engraving of the Ottoman port of Seraya in the Gennadeios Library in
Athens (Greece) depicts two lateen-rigged small vessels sailing on the starboard tack
(fig. 63).226 The size of the image is small and details are not easily discernable, but it is
clear that both are open boats, that the shrouds are set up with pendants and tackles and
that the boat on the left is larger and it flies a foresail (a polacca or polacre sail) in
addition to the lateen mainsail.
226
Papadopoulos 1972, fig. 99.
216
Fig. 63. Small lateeners on the starboard tack. Modified detail from an engraving of
Seraya. After The Greek Merchant Marine.
This boat also has the yard on the windward side of the sail. The smaller lateener has its
yard on the lee side of the mast. This engraving illustrates the vessels at the mouth of a
harbor so it may be depicting the boats while making short boards, beating tack upon
tack. From the presented evidence, we know that in such circumstances other lateeners
could sail without shifting the yards. In other words, in this instance iconography simply
confirms what we have already established.
217
The archaeological evidence suggests that the Kitten ship had a heavy forward rake to its
single mast. Harland pointed out that this feature eased the shifting of the yard forward
of the mast; therefore, we can hypothesize that this is how the crew of our vessel would
have handled it.227 Some additional support to the hypothesis comes from the
provenience of the tye blocks, which seems to indicate that the halyard was passed from
forward aft, as would be the case if the yard was to be shifted on the forward side of its
mast. Yet further support is added by the presence of toggles. Had the yard been shifted
aft, the way it was done on lateen-rigged mizzens on Northern European vessels, the
need to shift the shrouds and therefore use toggles would not have been present.
When sailing on the wind, it is likely that the sail was on the inside of the lee rigging, as
this seems to be attested to by most of the iconographic evidence. Close-hauled, the lee
rigging would have interfered very little with the sail. Once the wind started moving to
the beam and abaft it, two things would have occurred. First, the sail would begin to
chafe on the rigging, especially in the case of baggy sails as used in this region according
to Eaton. Second, the sail would have to be eased farther out from the centerline of the
ship. The lateen sail is inherently unbalanced, as its largest part is aft of the mast. The
farther aft of the beam the wind comes from, the less balanced the sail becomes, as its
center of effort moves away from the hull’s center. This dramatically alters the steering
of the vessel, creating heavy weather helm. Once the sail is launched completely out, it
will have the tendency of broaching the ship to. Two possible remedies existed, as
227
Harland 2000, 12.
218
discussed by Harland.228 First, it was possible to ease the tack (Harland refers to it as
“bowlines”) and cant the yard, with the front end of it (the “car” in Mediterranean lateen
terminology) to rise and the upper end, the penna, to be lowered. When the vessels
sailed directly before the wind, the yard could be brought perpendicular to the centerline
of the ship and nearly horizontal. The spar could be set either before or abaft the mast,
although in the later position the mast would have interfered with the sail and caused
chafe.229 Alternatively, it was possible to launch the polacre sail (or foresail) to weather,
its foot spread on a boom, much like a modern spinnaker. Interestingly, the usual
practice appears to have been to raise the polacre stopped with thin lashings, preparatory
to setting. This way it was kept ready for setting even at anchor. Harland reproduces
three Baugean engravings that illustrate the practice.230 The use of a polacre set off the
centerline of the vessel and suggesting that the “bowsprits” on such vessels were indeed
more in the nature of a boom is also illustrated by the vessel in the engraving of the port
of Seraya (fig. 63).
At this stage of the research, it is not possible to identify positively the ethnic affiliation
of the crew of the Kitten vessel, although it is likely that they hailed from the present day
Bulgarian Black Sea coast. This adds to the problem of insufficient source material to
determine the probable crew organization. Villiers, in describing arrangements on the
dhow on which he sailed in the 1930s, stated that there was no division in watches, the
228
Harland 2000, 13.
Harland 2000, plates 57, 90, 98 depict lateen-rigged craft running before the wind with the yard aft of
the mast. Plate 110 depicts a Turkish djerme with the yards forward of masts.
230
Harland 2000, plates 52, 54, 87.
229
219
helm was relieved whenever somebody thought of relieving it, and all maneuvers
required the entire crew.231 He ascribed no great seamanship to the Arabs of the Red Sea,
but noted that their abilities were adequate for the prevailing conditions in which they
sailed. The low opinion that William Eaton had of Ottoman (evidently Turkish) sailors
in the Black Sea (quoted above), although seemingly exaggerated and improbable in
some details, makes it clear that in a Westerner’s eyes those sailors were unskilled.
Unfortunately, Eaton does not speak of the crew organization. Among the subject
population of the Ottoman Porte, Greeks usually are considered the best seamen, which
is not the same as being good sailors. Papadopoulos reproduced excerpts from travelers’
accounts that do shed some limited light on crew employment. According to a quotation
from A. L. Castellan: “… I have already mentioned their way of handling a ship; it
contrasts still more with our own since they perform it according to their fancy.
Everything is set in motion at once, without order or obedience to rules: there is neither
discipline nor co-operation. The Captain’s speaking-trumpet and the quarter-master’s
whistle resound unceasingly and often give contradictory commands. Silence, so
scrupulously observed in our own vessels, is unknown to them; they urge each other on
with shouts and maniacal gestures and accompany their efforts at hauling the shortest
rope with a kind of song whose refrain is repeated by the ship-boys from the top of the
masts. …”232
231
232
Villiers 1961, 246.
Papadopoulos 1972, 390.
220
C. B. Elliot wrote of Greek (Ottoman) ships that “… in the day there is no regular watch,
and the helm is readily consigned to any passenger who offers to take it; while in the
night, the steersman, who generally sits on the deck, and therefore cannot see ahead even
with the aid of the moon, may or may not be accompanied by a watch on the forecastle;
and this watch may or may not fall asleep: this is as it happens.”233
Although the quoted passages vacillate between the hilarious and farcical, they are
probably reasonably accurate, as close acquaintance with the Balkan character would
suggest. They also suggest the likelihood that on the Kitten vessel, no regular watch was
kept either and that for any maneuver such as tacking or wearing, the entire crew of 16
to 18 people had to be gathered.
CONCLUSIONS
It is unlikely that we will ever be entirely certain how the ship from Kitten was rigged.
The limited nature of the archaeological material permits us no more than an educated
guess. The surviving toggles and lack of deadeyes strongly suggest that the ship carried a
lateen rig, which is known to have been popular in the region. Only one mast step was
found during the excavation, located amidships, and this probably indicates that the ship
had a single mast. Iconographic evidence supports the hypothesis. The double and treble
sheaved blocks suggest that a single, very large yard carried most of the sail area. The
233
Elliot 1838, Vol. II, 160-61.
221
bowsprit and foresail (staysail or polacre) added on the reconstruction drawing are not
based on archaeological data, but seem to be a reasonable proposition, as otherwise the
centre of the sail area would be too far aft and the ship would have carried too much
weather helm. There is plentiful iconographic evidence for the use of such foresails. The
proportions of the rig are even more open to question than the type. The proposed values
are based on averaging proportions from different sources and the best that can be said is
that they are reasonable values.
Undoubtedly of great interest is the unusual material and construction of the lines which
may be typical for the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in the 18th -19th century and as late as
the first half of the 20th century. From this one can infer that, in essence, the shipbuilding
industry along the shoreline of present-day Bulgaria was self-sufficient when
manufacturing lines. It is likely that the lines were weaker than equivalent thickness of
manila or hemp and probably needed more frequent replacement. The fairly flexible sail
plan, with the ability of the sail to spill gusting wind, would have helped save the lines
and keep the rig standing.
In conclusion, for the region in which operated the Kitten ship was a large cargo carrier
that may have been involved either in the grain or timber/charcoal trades on the western
Black Sea shore. Most likely the ship had one mast with a large lateen sail and may have
also carried a bowsprit and foresail. The crew was probably large in comparison to
equivalent tonnage Western vessels and archaeological finds, such as the number of
222
wooden spoons hint that it numbered about 17 or 18 men and boys. Such large numbers
would have been sufficient to control the unwieldy lateen sail. The conjectural nature of
the rig reconstruction makes it hard to estimate the vessel’s speed, but historical sources
suggest that speeds of 8 to 10 knots were within the reach of similar lateen-rigged
vessels.
223
CHAPTER VI
ARTIFACTS FROM THE KITTEN SHIPWRECK
According to the agreement among the directors of the Kitten ship excavation, the task
of analyzing and publishing the artifacts recovered during the project rests with the
Bulgarian Center for Underwater Archaeology. The two exceptions are the smoking
pipes and paraphernalia, and the rigging artifacts, both of which were studied by the
author. For this reason the present chapter is no more than an extended catalog of the
finds. Any discussion is limited to insights into the dating of the wreck, the likely trade
routes served by the ship, and the ethnic background of the crew.
The overwhelming majority of objects were found in two areas of the wreck: most, not
surprisingly, were in the area that comprised the small stern cabin, while the rest were
found in the extreme bow of the ship. Stray artifacts were recovered from the central part
of the hull, but they were few. From this area came one or two broken pipes, fragments
of rigging blocks and large quantities of line. The double block and the remains of one
barrel with iron hoops were found amidships, but outside the hull. The second barrel that
Porozhanov reported in the 1980s was not relocated.
The richest assemblage of finds came from the stern cabin. Virtually all higher quality
copper utensils were recovered from that part of the ship. Most of the personal items also
224
came from there, as did the complete skeleton of a goat kid with a brass bell around its
neck. The presence of a live baby goat in the cabin at the time of the ship’s loss is
evidence that the sinking was due to a sudden catastrophe, with no time for evacuation.
The smoking paraphernalia was also discovered in the stern cabin. From the distribution
of the finds, it is clear that in Black Sea ships the higher status members of the crew (and
possibly passengers) were quartered in the stern quarters, tiny as they were on this
vessel.
A few interesting items were discovered in the bow. To starboard, between the frames,
were found two small green-glazed jugs with pinched rims. Seven such jugs were also
recovered in the 1980s and are still to be seen in the storage area of the Sozopol Museum
of Archaeology; recently one of them was conserved and is now on display in the
museum. Of more interest are the items that were recovered from the port bow,
immediately outside the wrongheads. Besides the remains of a served line eye, that may
have been part of a stay, we found heavily corroded remains of yet more copper utensils
(these were not recovered, as they were in small pieces), the remains of what we believe
to have been a toiletries box, and a mirror and two lenses with wooden rings treaded for
screwing into a tube – possibly the ocular for an octant or sextant.
No recognizable cargo was found on board, which suggests that the ship may have been
lost at Cape Urdoviza while waiting to load or was carrying a buoyant cargo that floated
away after the hull broke up. The town of Kitten has existed only since the 1930s, but
225
until the 1940s three loading stages operated in the southern and northern bays of the
cape. Two of them were located in the southern bay, where the wreck was discovered.
One of the two was close to the mouth of the Karaagach River and the other one in the
immediate vicinity of the cape. From these quays charcoal and timber for Istanbul were
loaded. It is not certain which of the two cargoes, if in fact either of them, the Kitten ship
was destined to transport. The large (for the region) displacement of 160 tons implies
bulk cargo of some sort. No trace of charcoal was found on board ship, nor was there
any evidence found that timber was the intended cargo. Structural characteristics of the
hull may offer clues in this respect. The vessel has a completely sealed bottom with
tightly laid thick ceiling planks nailed in place. The sole pump opening was discovered
without the pump tube and covered completely with a flat softwood board. A similar
characteristic on the Clydesdale Plantation Sloop was interpreted as indicating an
adaptation for rice carrying.234 It is possible that the sealed bottom of the Kitten ship
may have been an adaptation for carrying grain. This hypothesis is supported by the fact
that grain was a major export from the Bulgarian lands to Istanbul. A large wooden ladle
with grains of wheat stuck to it was discovered amidships, too. However, it is equally
possible that this ladle was for the use of the crew, who likely crushed their own grain
for meals as suggested by the discovery of a large marble mortar and a crude wooden
pestle in the stern cabin.
234
Fred Hocker, personal communication.
226
It is known that charcoal was exported from the bay. It is also known that brooms are
used in charcoal burning for beating out the flames and thus, the nine brooms found in
the stern cabin, may be pointing towards charcoal as the intended cargo. This, however,
is not a clean commodity and it ought to have left traces of its presence on board had it
been shipped before, and yet, none was discovered. Timber was also loaded in the bay,
but no logs, cut timber, timber-handling tools or related artifacts were found to provide
evidence for this type of freight. In conclusion, the ship’s intended cargo cannot be
determined with certainty, but charcoal or grain seem most probable.
CERAMICS
Surprisingly, ceramic vessels were relatively few in number. Earthenware predominates,
mostly green glazed jugs or carafes with pinched rims. A number of such jugs were
recovered in the 1980s, of which six are still preserved in storage and one is on display
at the Sozopol Museum of Archaeology. Nearly identical jugs were discovered during
the excavations of Sveti Ioan Predtecha (St. John Podromos) Monastery on the island of
Sveti Ioan (St. John), in front of Sozopol Harbour. The monastery was destroyed by the
Turks in 1628 and never rebuilt. Based on the finds from the closely datable context of
the monastery ruins, the Kitten ship jugs were assumed to be typical for the 16th - 17th
centuries, and it was partially on this basis that in the 1980s the wreck was dated to the
same period. To the best of my knowledge this type of ceramics has not been extensively
studied or published. In addition to the examples found in the 1980s excavation, more of
227
these jugs were found in 2003 in the starboard bow (square I3) between the frames and
were almost certainly used for water storage. Not surprisingly, they were filled with mud
and sand when raised. The examples found in the 1980s came from the same location.
The stern yielded a meager number of ceramics. The most interesting and diagnostic was
an earthenware plate (KT050) from the workshops of Chanakkale on the Asia Minor
side of the Sea of Marmara. The pottery manufactures at Chanakkale were active from
the 1740s to the 1920s. The deep plate is red earthenware with a shallow base ring
(fig.64).
Fig. 64. KT050. Late 18th-century slipware plate from the workshops of Chanakkale.
Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
228
It was dipped in white slip on which is incised a stylized floral ornament in a lozenge
arrangement. The decoration is of a brownish color, while the dish is finished with light
yellow glaze. The narrow rim has four segments of latticed patterns between two
concentric circles. It has the following dimensions: diameter: 24 cm; height: 4.5 cm;
base diameter: 15.3 cm; rim width: 2.4 cm; Wall thickness: 0.55 cm. Numerous broadly
similar plates have survived in different collections and museums in Turkey, Bulgaria
and even in France. An identical plate, but broken and with missing pieces, is in the
collections of the Varna Museum of Archaeology.235 Valentin Pletnyov dates it to the
end of the 18th or early years of the 19th century. Fragments of two broadly similar plates
were found in the excavations at Saraçane.236 Hayes considers this type to be late and
tentatively dates it to the late 19th century. Hülya Yilmaz disagrees and dates this type of
Chanakkale plate to the second half of the 18th century, reasonably close to the date
Pletnyov assigns to this example.237 Henri Amouric et al. date this type of plate to the
late 18th century as well.238 In the context of the artifact assemblage from Kitten, a late
18th-century date seems consistent with other evidence.
Two earthenware inkpots were discovered, one came from the stern (KT079;
dimensions: height: 4.1 cm; maximum diameter: 5 cm; opening diameter: 2 cm), and the
other from the port bow of the ship (fig. 65). The one in the stern (KT080; dimensions:
height: 4.4 cm; maximum diameter: 5.8 cm; opening diameter: 2.6 cm) had a small
235
Pletnyov 2002, 22.
Hayes 1992, plate 44.3 and 44.4.
237
Hulya Yilmaz, The Suna and Inan Kirac Collection of Çanakkale Ware,
http://seramik.kaleicimuzesi.com/english/koleksiyon.html, Accessed on April 18, 2008.
238
Amouric et al. 1999, 157-58, fig. 288.
236
229
conical lead weight inside it, which probably served to keep the ink mixed and as ballast
for the inkpot. Traces of ink are still visible. Neither had lids when found. In the 1980s
two bronze inkpots, were raised but they cannot be located. The large number of inkpots
is notable. It is only to be expected that someone on board a merchantman would be
literate, but the distribution in two separate places on the ship, and the relatively large
number and different materials used in their manufacture suggest more than one literate
person on board, which could be indicative of large scale trade.
Fig. 65. Inkpots. KT079 on the left and KT080 on the right. Photo K. N. Batchvarov.
In the stern cabin a large unglazed earthenware jug (KT112; Dimensions: height: 39 cm;
bottom diameter: 12.5 cm; maximum diameter: 14 cm) of coarse clay was also
discovered (fig. 66). It is much larger than the green-glazed jugs, but, like them, has a
pinched mouth and for this reason Hristina Angelova described it as an oinochoe. Likely,
it contained water and was the product of some small workshop in one of the ports
230
visited by the vessel. In the starboard bow the lower part of a similar jug was also
discovered.
Fig. 66. KT112, an oinochoe-type jug from the stern cabin. Photo K. N. Batchvarov.
Manufacturing decorative tiles has a long history in the Ottoman Empire. Two whole
(KT047, KT048) and one broken tile (KT049) were discovered in the starboard side of
the stern cabin. Their dimensions are identical: side length 15 cm and 2.3 cm thick.
When found, they were believed to be from the galley, but subsequently it became clear
231
that they were independent finds. The pale ochre clay has a fine texture and the glaze is
well-preserved, but the floral decoration is unimpressive (fig. 67). The colors are
suggestive of late 18th-century production, but the dating and identification of the
manufacturing center remains for the detailed study of the artifact collection. Aboard
ship, the tiles were probably used as coasters for hot pots.
Fig. 67. Ceramic tiles from the stern cabin. From left to right: KT047, KT048 and
KT049. Photo K. N. Batchvarov.
Fragments of at least three, and possibly more ceramic, green-glazed candlesticks were
recovered. Two of the fragments were located forward of the stern bulkhead, but
originally they likely were placed on a shelf inside of it. Fragments of one or two more
candlesticks were found close to the bow of the ship. All candlestick fragments are made
of the same pale ochre earthenware. At least two similar fragments were also recovered
in the 1980s and are still in the storeroom of the Sozopol Museum of Archaeology.
232
Fine ceramics were largely absent from the wreck. Immediately forward of the stern
cabin bulkhead and, therefore, probably spilt from there, excavators found a small green
glazed cup (KT082; height: 4 cm; diameter: 6 cm) without a handle. The vessel is typical
of Ottoman coffee cups (fig. 68).
Fig. 68. KT082 Coffee cup. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Although the clay is fine textured, the quality of the glaze is fairly low and it has crazed
extensively. Its place of manufacture is not known at the moment, but the cup does not
appear likely to be a product of the Kutahya workshops, which specialized in finer ware
and by the late 18th century were in decline. Accessible published material on
Chanakkale products do not show convincing parallels for this cup either. It may have
233
been a product of Lule Burgaz (Arcadiopolis) in Eastern Thrace, as it is known that this
town had an extensive pottery industry.239 In the lower levels of the wreck, especially
among the ballast, a few fragments from higher quality faience and porcelain vessels
were discovered. Most are not diagnostic, but it is likely that they are from coffee cups.
One or two of the fragments include part of the bottoms of cups and one of the porcelain
pieces has the crossed swords of the German Meissen porcelain manufactures. Hayes
reports that imitation Meissen stamps were common, so the presence of the swords on
this bottom does not necessarily mean that the cup was a Meissen import. However, it
confirms that the vessel must have made its fatal voyage after the mid-1760s.
COPPER UTENSILS
Among the most notable part of the artifact assemblage were the 17 copper vessels that
were discovered in nearly perfect condition. The poorly preserved remains of at least
another three cauldrons were also observed in the bow area of the wreck, to port, but
they were not raised due to their fragmentary condition. In the 1980s another group of
three, possibly four, poorly preserved cauldrons were found in the starboard bow. They
were not conserved, but the pieces are still in storage at the Museum in Sozopol.
Sixteen of the seventeen discovered vessels were found in the stern cabin of the ship;
one small, but heavy copper cooking cauldron was found amidships, to port. It may have
239
Walsh 1828, 80.
234
served for the preparation of the crew’s food which was typically a soup or stew. The
copper vessels in the stern demonstrated some level of social stratification among
members of the crew. The higher status personages ate their meals on good quality,
expensive vessels in the relative privacy of the small stern cabin.
From modest usage in the 17th century, demand for copper vessels increased
dramatically through the 18th and 19th centuries and did not begin to decrease until the
second half of the 20th century. The rapid increase in the demand for copper household
products in the 18th century is associated with the re-urbanization of the Bulgarian
population and its improving economical status, despite the foreign overlordship of the
Ottoman Turks. Most purchasers of such copper products were Bulgarian elites, and
many of the products were commissioned for specific persons. By and large the copper
industry was in the hands of Bulgarian craftsmen, although Turkish and Pomak
(Bulgarian Muslims) craftsmen worked in the Rhodope Mountains also.240
The general practice of melting and reusing copper has assured that few items have been
found in dateable archaeological context, but some surviving examples bear inscriptions,
frequently with dates. Although some move towards standardization is discernible and
makes it difficult to identify specific workshops in the absence of stamps or inscriptions,
general patterns in decoration can usually be broadly assigned to specific ethnic groups
within the Ottoman population. Thus, Bulgarian craftsmen appear to have preferred
240
Bakirdjiev 1957, 21.
235
clean, open surfaces with simple single line decorations.241 Later in the 18th century
heavier decoration began to appear, but the general shape of the vessels remained the
same.242
The large and varied collection from the Kitten Shipwreck may give some indication of
the dominant regional cultural influence among the officers and crew, once it is studied
in detail. Here only a brief description and analysis are offered. Of the 17 copper vessels
recovered from the wreck, only 13 were available for study. The first four raised in 2001
were still in the conservation laboratory of Professor Vessela Inkova, a renowned
Bulgarian specialist in metal conservation. These four vessels consisted of a decorated
ibrik (pitcher), two deep plates – sahan – and a single flat, thin-walled sahan. When last
seen in 2001 the vessels were in fair condition, although the deeper sahan’s bottom was
heavily eroded. The present condition or exact location of the items is not known. The
vessels described here were conserved by Dr. Georgi Mavrov of the Museum of Sofia.
Discovered in 2001, although not raised until 2002, a copper jug with a hinged lid
(KT005; Dimensions: height 15 cm [without lid]; diameter of mouth: 9 cm; bottom: 13.2
cm) was found immediately aft of the cabin bulkhead, wedged between the futtocks of
the starboard side. A similar item is illustrated by Bakirdjiev in his Appendix.243
Bakirdjiev’s example, like KT005, is not dated and has virtually no decoration.
241
Bakirdjiev 1957, 21-2.
Bakirdjiev 1957, 23.
243
Bakirdjiev 1957, plate 52.
242
236
According to Bakirdjiev it is a vessel used for warming rakia, a popular home-brewed
brandy. Assuming the identification is correct, the presence of this vessel would
strengthen the argument for Christian ownership of the ship, as Islamic practice forbids
consumption of strong spirits.
KT006 is another deep sahan, similar to those in Prof. Inkova’s hands. The inner
diameter (without the broad rim) is 16 cm and the depth of the sahan is 2.4 cm (fig. 69).
Fig. 69. KT006 Sahan. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
237
The 20.8 cm-diameter vessel (including the rim) has a relatively thick wall of 0.14 cm
and has preserves traces of tinning, a technique commonly utilized for copper vessels
intended for food preparation or consumption. The sole decorative element on the
bottom of the plate is an incised circle. The perfect accuracy of the circle and the general
smoothness of the surfaces imply that the vessel spun to shape on a lathe from sheet
copper. KT067 is nearly identical, although thicker (c. 3 mm) and with some decorative
hatching along the rim (fig. 70).
Fig. 70. KT067 Sahan with hatched decoration on the rim. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
238
Its dimensions are diameter 22.8 cm, bottom diameter 16 cm, depth: 3.4 cm and rim
width 2 cm. This type of deep sahan is not rare. The National Museum of History in
Sofia has at least one on display, inscribed with a date of 1739. Bakirdjiev offers
parallels also, generally ascribed to the mid-18th century.244 Dr. Vera Kovacheva of the
National Ethnographic Museum in Sofia, a renowned specialist in copper vessels in
Bulgaria, advised me that, generally speaking, the thicker the wall, the earlier the date of
a copper vessel. The sahan type of plate was popular and likely had a long use span.
A flat, thin-walled plate, KT065, is also in excellent state of preservation (fig. 71). The
plate has dimensions of 27.3 cm maximum diameter, inner bottom diameter of 17 cm, 5
cm wide rim and wall thickness of 0.01 cm.
244
Bakirdjiev 1957.
239
Fig.71. KT065 A shallow and thin-walled plate. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Two similar plates are in Professor Inkova’s laboratory. Neither of the plates bear any
inscription to help with dating, but an identical plate in the National Museum of History
in Sofia has an inscribed date of 1757. Thus, this type of sahan can also be dated to the
second half of the 18th century. The slightly later date in comparison with KT006 and
KT067 is supported also by the thinner wall – c. 0.1 cm. Bakirdjiev published a
photograph of an identical sahan, with an inscribed date of 1773.245
245
Bakirdjiev 1957, 25, fig. 9.
240
A broad and shallow copper cooking dish, KT066 (diameter 24.1 cm; diameter of
bottom: 21.7 cm; depth: 6 cm; rim width: 1 cm) with two hinged handles, a tava, was
raised in 2001 from the stern cabin (fig. 72).
Fig. 72. KT066 A tava. A similar vessel Bakirdjiev calls a caravana. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
Similar dishes are even today widely used in Bulgarian villages and small towns for
cooking. Bakurdjiev did not publish exact parallels. KT066 cannot be unique and no
doubt research will yield parallels in ethnographic collections. The thinner wall would
suggest a date of the latter 18th century or even later. Bakirdjiev published a somewhat
241
similar vessel, from Karlovo, which he calls a karavana.246 The handles, however, are
not hinged, but firmly riveted to the sides, as far as can be judged from the photograph.
A very poorly preserved tall beaker (KT009; height: 16.3 cm; diameter: 7.4 cm; wall
thickness: 0.05 cm) was found in direct proximity to KT005. The side has a large piece
missing and the bottom has also deteriorated beyond recovery. No parallels are
illustrated by Bakirdjiev, but the general type appeared in the late 18th century and was
widely distributed by the early 19th century.247
KT008 is a small copper cauldron of conical shape (height: 23.1 cm; diameter (upper):
22 cm; bottom diameter: 25 cm; wall thickness: 0.3 cm). The sides meet the bottom at a
very sharp angle. The vessel is well preserved, with thick, heavy walls and bottom. No
attachment point for handles was observed, although typically this class of cauldrons has
one, for hanging above an open fire. It was found amidships and does not appear to have
been in the stern cabin at the time of sinking. It is possible that the food for the crew was
prepared and served in this cauldron.
KT007 (diameter: 15.5 cm; height: 11.1 cm; depth: 9.8 cm) is a small copper bowl,
known as tas or tazza (fig. 73). The vessel looks like a bakers bowl, but was used for
mixing wine and water.
246
247
Bakirdjiev 1957, plate 48.
Bakirdjiev 1957, 23.
242
Fig. 73. KT007 Tas or tazza. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Bakirdjiev illustrates two broadly similar vessels and ascribes it to Karlovo, a wealthy
small town in the Podbalkan (Sub-Balkan, the valley between the Balkan Mountains and
the Sredna Gora - Middle Range - Mountains, in central Bulgaria). He assigns an 18th
century date to them.248 It seems at least possible that KT007 was also a product of the
Karlovo workshops, as were KT064 and KT063. Both these items are of great interest.
KT064, a large poorly preserved basin, was raised in 2002 from the stern cabin. It has
dimensions of 35 cm maximum diameter, depth of 10.6 cm and rim width of 7 cm. The
rounded shape of the bowl and the large, incompletely preserved rim quickly made us
nickname the find “Don Quixote’s Helmet”, because of its resemblance to a barber’s
basin. An identical item with complete rim is illustrated by Bakirdjiev and described
248
Bakirdjiev 1957, 22, fig 7, plate 23.
243
simply as a basin.249 KT 063 is a filigree lid (max. diameter: 21.1 cm; diameter of boss
or handle: 7.5 cm; total height: 3.7 cm), which originally was identified incorrectly as
part of a lantern (fig. 74).
Fig. 74. KT063 Lid, probably of basin KT064. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
It is here re-classified as the lid of basin KT064 (fig. 75), based on two identical items
published by Bakirdjiev (figure 28). They are identified in the captions of the illustration
249
Bakirdjiev 1957, fig. 28.
244
as products of the Karlovo workshops and dated to the latter 18th century.250 No dated
examples of filigree-decorated vessels were known from a period later than the first third
of the 19th century at the time Bakurdjiev published his study.251 It appears likely that
KT063 and KT064 form a basin with a lid, on the boss of which stood the ibrik. They
were used for washing hands prior to a meal in the Ottoman Empire.252
Fig. 75. KT064 Basin. KT063 was probably the lid of this basin. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
KT011 is a copper serving tray or siniya (fig. 76). The tray has a diameter of 49 cm.
Such trays frequently substituted for low tables, sofri (singular – sofra). The siniya,
when used as sofra, was popular throughout the 18th century, especially among the
250
Bakirdjiev 1957, 56, fig. 28.
Bakirdjiev 1957, 30.
252
Pulak, personal communication.
251
245
Turks, but was also used by Bulgarians. It was especially widely used in the region of
the Rhodope Mountains.
Fig. 76. KT011 Siniya or carrying tray. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Most surviving examples were manufactured in Istanbul, Solun (Thessaloniki, now in
Greece) or Odrin (Adrianople, Edirne, now in Turkey). There appears to be some
evidence for Bulgarian manufacture, too, especially from Ustovo in the Rhodope
Mountains, from around 1765.253 As with almost all other copper utensils from Kitten,
the only decoration on the siniya consists of three sets of concentric circles cut into the
surface of the metal. This tray, too, was evidently worked on a lathe. The lack of
253
Bakirdjiev 1957, 24.
246
decoration and the wide clear surfaces argue in favor of Bulgarian craftsmanship, rather
than Turkish.
A very interesting artifact recovered from the stern cabin is the copper brazier, KT119
(fig. 77). It is manufactured of two parts, the upper section where the charcoal burned
and lower which serves as a stand. The two parts are riveted together with three copper
rivets with large flat heads. Two oversized handles are riveted opposite each other. Their
large size may have helped to move the heated brazier, without burning one’s hands.
This type of brazier is used for heating, suggesting that the captain and possibly his
family lived on board the ship in the colder seasons, too. Bakirdjiev illustrates a vaguely
similar, though evidently taller brazier from Karlovo (Plate 34). The dimensions of the
brazier are: total height: 20 cm; Diameter (with rim): c. 43 cm; diameter of bowl: 27 cm;
rim width: c. 8 cm; depth of bowl: 8.44 cm; diameter of the bottom with the flange: 28
cm; lower half height: 9.3 cm; flange width: 1.1 cm; wall thickness: 0.1 mm. Another
similar example is on display in the Ethnographic Centre in Kazanluk, another town in
the Sub-Balkan.
247
Fig. 77. KT119 Copper brazier. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Neither Bakirdjiev nor Anastas Primovsky include similar examples for the two-part
copper candleholder (KT115) found in the stern cabin, between the starboard frames.254
The candlestick is manufactured in two sections, the base and the standing body which
held the candle. It measures 16 cm high with diameter of the base of 14.35 cm (fig. 78).
The diameter of the candle holder is 2.4 cm. The two parts screw into each other and can
be disassembled. The artifact was probably hammered (or cast) and then finished on a
lathe, as were the other copper finds. It is in an excellent state of preservation and is
almost completely devoid of decoration beyond its general shape and incised circles.
Stylistically and in the high quality of its production, the candleholder fits well with the
assembly of copper utensil aboard the ship.
254
Primovsky 1955.
248
Fig. 78. KT115 Two-part candlestick. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Although these are only preliminary notes on the copper assembly and a detailed study
remains to be undertaken, some general conclusions may be offered. It would appear that
most items come from either Karlovo or the general Sub-Balkan region. If so, the likely
manufacturers were Bulgarians. The smooth surfaces, with little or no decoration also
point in the same direction for their manufacture. The siniya, although more popular
among the Turks and the population of the Rhodope Mountains, does not preclude
Bulgarian manufacture either, and may have found its way on board the ship as
249
adaptation to the limited room available. The presence of a large collection of copper
utensils in the stern cabin suggests that its inhabitants, most probably the captain and
possibly his family, were not struggling economically. The concentration of the finds in
the stern also points to social divisions within the crew. Although it appears likely that
the copper vessels were manufactured by Bulgarians, this does not necessarily mean that
the crewmembers of the vessel were ethnic Bulgarians too, for copper utensils were a
valued commodity and widely traded.
WOODEN SPOONS
The justification of putting the spoons in a separate category lies in the sheer quantity
recovered -17 (one was also found in the 1980s, for a total of 18) - and the identification
of three different types among the recovered examples. Most of the spoons appear to be
carved from willow, which is the preferred species for this type of carving to the present
day.
By far the largest group, for convenience here called Type I, consists of spoons with
straight, parallel-sided bowls, ending in more or less sharp points forward (KT018,
KT019, KT020, KT024, KT029, KT030, KT033, KT051). The back side of the bowl
terminates in well-defined “shoulders”, a straight line perpendicular to the handle. The
shape of the handles varies. Most have half-round handles with flat upper surfaces and
chamfered edges. The width of the chamfering varies and so does the general quality of
250
the carving. Rectangular (KT031), octagonal (KT023) and hexagonal handle sections
(KT026) are preserved (fig. 79).
Fig. 79. KT026 Type I spoon with hexagonal handle. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
The second group, Type II, consisting of spoons KT025, KT027 and KT032 is
characterized by a pear-shaped bowl, with the narrower end of the bowl attached to the
handle. At the transitional point between handle and bowl, the handle is squared and has
a floral decorative element carved on its upper surface. KT025 and KT032 have handles
that are elliptical in section, while the handle of KT027 has a flat upper surface.
Type III is represented by spoons KT021 and KT022. The type is close to Type I, but the
bowl is oval in shape and ends in a sharp point. The handles are similar to those of Type
I spoons.
The spoon collection may provide our closest estimate of the Kitten ship’s crew size. If
we subtract two for the woman and the child, the remaining 16 may be the number of
251
sailors on board. However, there is no certainty that the recovered spoons are all the
spoons originally used on board. Neither is it certain that each individual on board had
his or her own spoon because no personal identifying marks were found on any of these
artifacts. Conversely, a crew size of 15-16 men is probably appropriate for a 160-ton
lateen-rigged vessel, as lateeners require large manpower to handle them.
COINS AND TOKENS
During the last season of the expedition, three brass tokens or jetons and two Ottoman
silver coins were found at the stern bulkhead. One of the jetons has eroded so badly that
it is illegible. The other two, although damaged, proved to be readable. The silver coins
have not escaped deterioration either, and are thus difficult to identify. These are the
only two coins discovered on the wreck.
Token KT101 has an irregular shape and was struck slightly off center of the brass blank
(fig. 80). On the reverse of the token is depicted a ship, viewed from the port quarter.
The depiction is highly stylized and appears to illustrate a two-decked warship. It is
surrounded by the motto Plus Ultra (Further Beyond) of the Holy Roman Emperor
Charles V. Subsequently, this also became the motto of Habsburg Spain. According to
mythology, the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) bore the warning Nec Plus Ultra
or “nothing further beyond” to prevent sailors from falling off the earth. The adoption of
the modified motto by Charles V was meant to state a commitment to going further than
252
any before him. The association with the Pillars of Hercules is probably the connection
between the motto and the ship depicted on the token. The obverse contains a sun face,
moon and stars. Around the periphery is inscribed “E. L. S. Lauer RECHEN PF.” The
first stands for Ernst Ludwig Siegmund Lauer, the manufacturer of the jeton. Lauer
evidently was born in 1762, started work in or about 1783 and retired in 1833. It appears
that he died as late as 1845. The second part of the inscription is to be read as rechen
Pfennig, or “accounting token” in German. It appears that Lauer struck large quantities
of this type as they frequently appear on internet auction sites. A Lauer jeton was also
found at Corinth in Greece, but as the article did not include an illustration of it, I cannot
be certain that it is identical to KT 101.255
Fig. 80. KT101 An accounting token struck by Ernst Lauer. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
255
Williams II 1989, 48.
253
Bulgarian archaeologist Boni Petrunova reports what appears to be a similar jeton from
Simeonovgrad in Southern Bulgaria, near the Maritza River.256 She has not published an
illustration, but from the description in her catalog, it is evident that the KT101 and her
jeton are very similar, if not identical. Petrunova notes that this type of jeton has not
been the subject of studies, and their function is not certain. She implies that they are
usually associated with maritime activities, as the most frequent finds in Bulgaria are
from German and Austrian manufacturers and, according to her, made their way into
Bulgaria through Danubian trade. Finding this jeton close to the Maritza River, she
argues, implies that the river may have been navigable until recently. Petrunova assigns
a 17th-18th century date to the jeton and reads the inscription on the obverse as follows:
LVD LAVER.KECH PFEN. The reverse has PLUS ULTRA inscribed. Evidently the
Simeonovgrad find is another Lauer product. LVD LAVER should be read as Ludwig
Lauer. KECH has no meaning and there can be little doubt that it actually says RECH
for rechen as on the KT101. A 17th-century date is improbable as Lauer was born in
1762.
KT 102 is a similar accounting token (fig. 81). On the obverse is a setting sun with rays
and stars above it. Along the periphery is inscribed Iohann Christian Reich RE. P.F. On
the reverse is depicted a double-ended 3-masted ship, surrounded by the motto MIT
GLUCK (German for With Luck). RE. P.F. most probably must be read as Rechen
Pfennig Fecit. According to L. Forrer in the Biographical Dictionary of Medalists
256
Petrunova 2006, 315, 324, Inv. N 5.
254
Johann Christian Reich was a Bavarian, born in Eisenberg (Saxe-Altenburg) about 1740.
In 1758 he settled at Furth and died in 1814. He appears to have started a counter and
medal manufacturing business about 1762. His business interests were extensive and
included the ownership of a factory for organs, clocks, mathematical instruments, and
musical boxes. A Reich manufactured token, dated to the latter 18th century, was found
at the Ottoman Citadel of Alanya and from the description appears to be identical to
KT102.257
Fig. 81. KT102 An accounting token struck by Johan Christian Reich. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
Two Ottoman silver para coins were recovered from the same area as the tokens. KT100
was struck off centre and about half of the tughra is missing. However, it may be the
257
Bilici 2005. Accessed May 13, 2008.
255
same as KT099, which appears to be an 18th-century coin.258 Dr. Cemal Pulak tentatively
identified KT099 as bearing the tughra of Sultan Selim III (1789-1807). According to
Pulak the coin was minted in Misr (Egypt) (fig. 82). This find provides a terminus post
quem date for the sinking of the Kitten ship of 1789.
Fig. 82. KT099 An Ottoman parah coin from the reign of Selim III. Minted in Misr
(Egypt). Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
CARVED WOODEN PLAQUES
In the 1980s a small wooden plaque with St. Andrew’s cross incised on it was recovered.
Based on this find and a piece of pig’s hide, Dr. Kalin Porozhanov suggested that the
vessel was owned by Christians.259 Although the ownership cannot be determined with
258
259
Igor Lazarenko, Assistant Director of the Varna Museum of Archaeology, personal communication.
Porozhanov 2000.
256
certainty, it appears likely that it was at least crewed by Christians. Some finds from the
2000-2003 joint expeditions seem to confirm this view. Fragments of at least six
different wooden plaques have been recovered. Only the first to be discovered, KT068
(raised in 2001) does not have crosses inscribed in one form or another. However, it is
the most spectacular of the lot, as it is the only one to show skillful, accomplished floral
carving and still bears remains of gilding (fig. 83). The plaque was carved on both sides.
One of the edges seems to bear a trace of hinge carved out of the wood and may have
formed part of a diptych or triptych. On one face is carved a round indentation which
probably contained an appliqué, possibly the depiction of the guardian saint of the crew.
The preserved dimensions of the plaque are length 20.5 cm; width: 10.5 cm, and 0.85 cm
thick. Tentatively, it is proposed that KT068 was part of an iconostas, a screen that acts
as support for icons, although it may also have been part of a box.
257
Fig. 83. KT068 Front and back sides of the gilded plaque. Discoloration from a fastener
is visible. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
The other plaques are even more fragmentary than KT068. KT071 is a fragment,
apparently a quarter, of a plaque identical to KT069 (fig. 84). KT070 (fig. 85), KT072
(fig. 86) and KT073 are not carved, but a nearly identical decoration is cut with a vshaped gouge: a cross within a square lozenge, both of which are circumcised by a
circle.
258
Fig. 84. KT069 Carved plaque with cross decoration. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Between the corners of the square and the circle, diagonals are cut with a v-gouge. All
plaque fragments were decorated on both sides and therefore were meant to be seen from
both sides, thus eliminating the possibility that they were part of a paneling. At the
moment, the only hypothesis that can be offered is that they, too, were part of the
iconostas, though what that iconostas might have looked like and how the pieces were
assembled and related to each other is unclear. Once the Bulgarian Center for
Underwater Archaeology completes a detailed analysis of the finds from Kitten, these
questions may be answered convincingly.
259
Fig. 85. KT070 on the left and KT072 on the right. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
The contemporary English sailor, journalist and traveler James Silk Buckingham relates
that a small “altar” was attached to the cabin bulkhead of the small vessel on which he
travelled from Egypt to Syria in December of 1815. The vessel was crewed by Arab
Eastern Orthodox Christians and they regularly burned incense and kept a small lamp lit
in front of an iconostas.260
PERSONAL EFFECTS
Very few items were found on board that could be described as personal effects. At least
three possible explanations come to mind for this paucity: there was enough time during
the sinking to evacuate with valued personal items, there were very few personal items
on board, or most personal effects have dispersed during the wrecking process. The
260
Buckingham 1821, 9.
260
presence of the goat skeleton in the cabin argues against the first explanation. Most
probably, there were few personal objects on board. The few items that have been found,
however, give us interesting clues for life on board.
A small wicker box, KT034, was found in the port bow, with its bottom and top made
out of single pieces of thin softwood plank. On top of the cover was roughly incised a
graffito of a single-masted, square-sterned vessel with high bow and stern, possibly a
saique. The possibility that the incision was supposed to represent the Kitten ship cannot
be excluded completely, although it is improbable because of the difference in the sterns.
Regrettably, as result of conservation with PEG, the image is invisible now. Even after
recovery it was hard to see it, and photography did not catch the graffito. The diver who
discovered the box reported that during the recovery attempt the wicker work
disintegrated, but the contents of the box, its top and bottom were saved.
Fig. 86. KT036 A comb found in a wicker basket in the bow. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
261
Inside wicker box KT034 were found the ceramic inkpot KT079 and a small wooden
comb, KT036 (Length: 6.8 cm; Width: 6.3 cm, fig. 86). A second comb, KT035 (Length:
8.5 cm; Width: 6.2 cm), was found in the stern cabin (fig. 87). The combs are
stylistically similar, H-shaped and with fine and coarse teeth. KT036 is smaller and some
of its teeth are broken. Similar combs are known from other wrecks, such as the one
found on the Basque whaler lost in Red Bay, Labrador, in the 1560s. Similar combs
were commonly used to comb lice out of the hair.
Fig. 87. KT035 A comb found in the stern cabin. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
In the stern cabin was found the lower part of a small sheet brass button, KT076, which
may have come off a woman’s dress. In the same area (F5) excavators found heavily
262
eroded brass earring (KT075) and a thin silver leaf-shaped piece, which may either have
been part of another earring or some other form of embelishment. A small mother-ofpearl four-leafed clover, KT109, must have formed part of a jewelry item, too. This set
of personal adornments implies the presence of a woman on board.
In the stern cabin were found the remains of four leather shoes. One of the soles is in
Prof. Inkova’s laboratory and was not available for photography and description. Of the
remaining three, two are the upper parts of moccasin-type shoes, or tzarvuli (pl.). KT059
is only the front upper part of a shoe, whereas KT061 is better preserved and consists of
the entire upper half (fig. 88).
Fig. 88. KT061 Upper part of a man’s shoe, tzarvul. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Of great interest is shoe sole KT060, (fig. 89).
263
Fig. 89. KT060 sole from a child’ shoe. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Only 14 cm long, the small size of the sole implies that it was a shoe belonging to a
child. This strengthens the proposed identification of another find, KT056. When
discovered, this strangely shaped piece of wood defied attempts to identify its purpose.
Hristina Angelova proposed that it was a toy sword because of the sharp edge, diamondshaped cross-section and pointed end. The rear part of the “blade,” where the guard
would have been, has eroded. At the time the suggestion was met with general jocularity
among the crew, but in the light of the identification of KT060 as a child’s shoe, the
proposed identity of KT056 as the toy sword becomes less a subject of mirth and may
prove to be correct (fig. 90). Alternative identification was offered by Pulak: that it is the
264
“sword” from a sword-fish. Similar artifacts were found at Yenikapa.261 This
identification, however, does not exclude its possible use as a toy sword. Thus, the
earring, the silver leaf, the mother-of-pearl clover, the small shoe and the toy sword
argue for the presence of a woman and child on board the ship. Their presence in the
stern cabin may identify these individuals as the captain’s wife and son, although it is
also possible that they shipped as passengers on the fatal voyage.
Fig. 90. KT056 This artifact is tentatively identified as a toy sword. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
CLAY PIPES AND SMOKING PARAPHERNALIA
By far the largest group of artifacts acknowledged as personal possessions is the
smoking paraphernalia. The smoking-related artifacts consist of more than a score of
clay smoking pipes and pieces thereof, a wooden pipe stem, one amber and one ivory
mouthpieces. Although clay pipe bowls from the Ottoman Empire are not rare, the stem
and mouthpieces recovered at Kitten are among the few originals in existence. Rebecca
Robinson, possibly the best authority on Ottoman pipes, specifically mentions the
261
Pulak 2009, personal communication.
265
scarcity of original stem pieces and considers the ones in the Benaki Museum in Athens
as the only surviving historical stems. Only three are illustrated in her seminal article.262
That pipe (chibouk, tchibouque) smoking was popular within the Balkan territories of the
Empire is well-attested by travelers, especially in the early 19th century. Captain Edmund
Spencer, who traveled through Bulgaria in the 1840s described the Turks’ daily routine
and national character as follows: “…still, his character is composed of contrarieties;
that quiet sedate-looking man, we see sitting cross-legged on his little carpet, smoking
tchibouque from sunrise to sunset [my italics] is susceptible of the strongest passions
that can agitate the breast of man…”.263 Descriptions of the bowls have also survived,
but are not detailed enough to offer good clues to styles and dating. A case in point is the
report of the Reverend Robert Walsh who published an account of his travel in 1827
from Constantinople through Bulgaria on his way to Great Britain: “A fine clay is found
in the neighborhood [of Lule Burghaz] which is formed into pipe-bowls, [coffee?] cups
and other utensils. These [pipes] are unglazed, but highly polished and ornamented with
gilding.”264
The Ottoman smoking pipe consists of a bowl (lule), stem and mouthpiece. Generally,
the bowl is made of clay in a two-piece mold and is subsequently carved and decorated.
This was the cheapest part of the smoking paraphernalia and is widely found on
262
Robinson 1985.
Spencer 1851, Vol. 2, 365.
264
Walsh 1828, 80.
263
266
archaeological sites. The stem was made of cherry or jasmine sticks, specially grown for
the purpose. Stems could be richly decorated and of a length that could reach 4 meters.
Although on military campaigns shorter stems of about 1 meter were used, the length
and decoration appear to have been status symbols. The stem ended in a mouthpiece,
which could be made of different materials. Most expensive and popular were
mouthpieces made of amber, but coral was also valued.265 St John Simpson describes
mouthpieces as the most expensive part of the chibouk with amber being particularly
valued.266 The English traveler James Silk Buckingham, in 1825, confirms the high
value placed on amber mouthpieces: “…we were served with long pipes made of the
stem of the jasmine steeped in rose water, and mounted with the richest amber…”267
Elsewhere Buckingham wrote that the amber mouthpieces were considered so valuable
in the Ottoman Empire that they were used as bribes.268 The manufacturing of Ottoman
chibouks involved three types of craftsmen: the clay pipe-makers, manufacturers of
stems and mouthpiece-makers, as Buckingham relates in his description of Diarbekir in
Asia Minor: “… and a hundred and fifty makers of ornamented pipe-stems only, besides
those who make the clay balls [bowls], amber mouthpieces, & c. [sic!]…”269
Both Vulka Iltcheva and Magdalina Stancheva made attempts to classify pipes, based on
general shape and assumed date, but each went her own way in the actual grouping.270
265
Robinson 1985.
Simpson 1998, 7.
267
Buckingham 1825, 341.
268
Buckingham 1827, 265.
269
Buckingham 1827, 380.
270
Iltcheva 1975; Stancheva 1972.
266
267
Thus, Iltcheva’s Group V corresponds to Stancheva’s Group I from Varna. In John W.
Hayes’ classification these pipes are described as Saraçane Type X.271
Rebecca Robinson worked with the collections of pipes from the excavations of
Kerameikos, Corinth and the Athenian Agora.272 Her terminology and classification
have become the standard used in describing Ottoman pipes and is followed in this
study. Generally, her dating fits the finds from the Kitten ship better than that of Hayes.
Robinson separates the pipes into three major types based on shape: lily-shaped (the
Bulgarian archaeologists describe this category as bell-shaped), disc-based and roundedbowl type. The one point on which all researchers agree is that the lily-shaped type is
chronologically the latest, appearing around the middle of the 19th century. No pipes of
this type were found on the Kitten wreck, thus implying an earlier date for the sinking of
the vessel. The other two types, Robinson believes to have co-existed since the 17th
century.273
John W. Hayes studied the large collection of pipes from Saraçane in Istanbul. As early
as 1980, he proposed a preliminary typology of pipes.274 The date that he suggests for
Type X appears to be too late in comparison with the likely date of the Kitten
Shipwreck. Hayes himself points out that the pipes do not come from secure layers;
271
Hayes 1980. Hayes does not appear to have read their articles, just the summaries.
Robinson 1983, 1985.
273
Robinson 1985, 163.
274
Hayes 1980.
272
268
therefore, the dates are only his best guesses.275 His belief that the marks and stamps on
Bulgarian pipes such as his Type X are illiterate imitations of Arabic is shared by
Stancheva but now appears to be incorrect.276 He also ignores the fairly large number of
stamps that have been successfully read. Iltcheva reports that in the Veliko Turnovo
collection that she studied, 33 out of 40 pipes with stamps, could be read. Five were
personal names, presumably of the manufacturers. Of the names, four were Turkish and
only one Bulgarian – Ivan.277 Other inscriptions were poetic references to tobacco and
smoking.
Despite the growing number of publications on Ottoman pipes, a definite chronology or
even a standard taxonomy have yet to be established. The lack of dating is largely due to
the context in which most of the pipes have been recovered. Until recently material from
17th - 19th century levels was considered “modern” and was either disposed of or not
recorded.278 In many cases the collections consist of surface finds or come from heavily
disturbed levels, which are useless for dating. A few disc-based pipes from Varna were
discovered in the graves of Turkish soldiers from the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829,
together with four bell-shaped pipes.279 Another pipe, apparently a Varna I type, is
reported to bear a date on its bowl of 1700.280 These are the exceptions. In this respect
275
Hayes 1992, 237.
Stancheva 1968, 97.
277
Iltcheva 1975, 184.
278
Robinson 1985, 158.
279
Stancheva 1972, 90.
280
Iltcheva 1975, 185.
276
269
the value of the Kitten finds is significant, for they come from a closed, reasonably welldated context.
Although the dating of chibouks may lack the precision of Western pipes, some general
principles have been established. Robinson measured the diameters of the shank
openings and concluded that they vary between less than 10 mm to around 17 mm in the
late 19th century.281 From the 18th century onwards, the dominant color of the bowls
becomes brick-red or brown. It appears that, at the end of the 18th century and in the
early years of the 19th century, yellow-ochre bowls gained popularity. This color may be
specific to Varna products, because clay of this description is readily available in the
area.282 It should be noted that no historical documents have so far come to light that
offer evidence for the existence of a Pipemaker’s Guild in that city on the Black Sea.
From the Balkans, only two pipe-making centers are attested in documents: Sofia and
Lule Burghaz (Arkadiopolis), a small town in Eastern Thrace, not far from Adrianople in
present day Turkey. The latter was so well-known for its pipe manufacturing that it even
contains “pipe” (“lule” in Turkish) in its name. Stancheva based her hypothesis that
pipe-making shops existed in Varna entirely on the large quantities of identical, usually
unused, pipes found there. Virtually all pipes recovered from the Kitten ship have direct
parallels with those from the Varna collection.
281
282
Robinson 1983, 268-69.
Stancheva 1972, 87.
270
The chibouks from the wreck that preserve some diagnostic characteristics fall into two
categories: round-bowled (one of hourglass shape) and disc-based. No lily-shaped pipes
were found either in the 1980s or the 2000s.
Five pipes belong to the disc-based category, KT086, KT087, KT089, KT091 and
KT092. Most of them can be described as severely compressed round bowls with rims,
but at least two have nearly flat discs as bases and the rim forms the entire bowl. Not one
of the five has survived complete. At least one, KT087, came from the upper levels of
the wreck, as the growth of a barnacle attests (fig. 91). For this reason its association
with the ship is uncertain.
Fig. 91. KT087 Disc-based pipe. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
All examples in the category were made from red to brick-red fired clay and have small
shank diameters of about 12 mm. They are poorly eroded to have preserved much trace
of decoration; however, it is probable that whatever decoration they once had was not
271
part of the mold, but was stamped on, after the shaping of the pipe. One of the pipes
(KT092) has a flower-shaped mark stamped on the side of the shank (fig. 92).
Fig. 92. KT092 Disc-based pipe with stamp on shank. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
All examples retain at least some trace of rouletting, mostly around the keel and the rimbowl transition. Numerous parallels are known for these chibouks. The general shape
appears throughout the Ottoman Empire and is often depicted in contemporary
illustrations from the early 18th century through the first half of the 19th century.
Robinson also points to the relative longevity of the shape. Following her estimates, the
shank diameters fall within the later 18th century.283 The closest parallels for these pipes
can be found at Kerameikos, Corinth and the Athenian Agora. Similar pipes appear to
have been recovered at Saraçane, too, but the poor illustrative material in the final
publication of these excavations makes it hard to confirm this. A pipe with a mark
283
Robinson 1983, 268-69.
272
identical to KT092 has been reported from as far away as Gozo (Malta) and is assumed
to have been manufactured in Varna, too.284
The largest group of chibouks (six, of which only three were available for study) from
Kitten is of the round-bowl Varna I category. The clay for most examples is of a fine
uniform texture. Colors vary between brick-red and yellow-ochre. The decoration is rich
and employs the full range of possibilities available to the maker: integral with the mold
(see especially KT093, fig. 93) and stamped.
Fig. 93. KT093. Until recently this type of stamp was considered an imitation of Arabic.
Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Three pipes that are not illustrated, but were essentially identical to KT094 are still at the
laboratory of Prof. Vessela Inkova so were not available for this study. Microscopic
examination of these three pipes suggested that they came from the same mold.285 At
284
285
Wood 1999, 238.
Vessela Inkova, 2001, personal communication.
273
least one of the three had been used. KT094 also has heavily carbonized remains of
tobacco inside the bowl (fig. 94).
Fig. 94. KT094 has seen extensive use. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
None of the yellow-ochre colored bowls (KT093, KT095 and KT096) show any sign of
usage. The type (which includes the brick-red colored KT094) is characterized by a
straight, faceted rim, the panels of which are usually separated by two vertical incised
lines; the bowl can be paneled, spirally fluted, or vertically fluted (fig. 95). The shank is
faceted, with a heavy gadrooned termination. Numerous parallels for this type of pipe
exist.286 All bowls have identical stamps. They are applied to the lower side of the pipes,
either on the keel itself, or on the bowl, or on both. The identical stamps and the similar
style of the chibouks suggest that they came from the same work shop.
286
Robinson 1985, Plate 55, C90, Plate 56, C93, C94, C96, C98 – identical to KT095, C99, Plate 62, A21.
Hayes (1980, 8) states that more than 74 pipes of this type were found at Saraçane.
274
Fig. 95. KT095 has the stamp pressed in three places. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
The entire group of yellow-ochre pipes is well preserved with no trace of erosion from
sand scouring.
The pipes, found deep in the wreck, undoubtedly belonged to the ship’s crew or
passengers. Many parallels are preserved at the Varna Museum of Archaeology, many
were found at Saraçane, quite a few are reported from Greece and at least one each has
been reported from Gozo and Israel.287 Virtually identical to the Kitten finds are C93
through C100 from Corinth and A19 to A21 from the Athenian Agora.288 All pipes from
Corinth have the same stamp as the Kitten pipes, but from the Agora only A20 has it.
Robinson describes the type as a 19th-century product, Hayes as late 19th-century. In
contrast, Stancheva believes it to be an early type and dates it to the beginning of the 18th
century based on a reported Romanian find from Mihai Voda (from a level dated to the
mid-18th century), the report of two Russian researchers on a similar pipe in Moscow
287
The pipe was found on the Akko 1 wreck, tentatively dated to the Napoleonic siege of Acre in 1799.
Personal communication, Ms. Deborah Cvikel.
288
Robinson 1983, Plates 52 and 53; Robinson 1985.
275
and dated to the first half of the 18th century and for other, unspecified, reasons.289 Based
on a stamped date on one pipe from Veliko Turnovo, Iltcheva assigns an early 18thcentury date.290 It appears that the longevity of this category of pipes was quite
remarkable and extended from the early 18th to the mid-19th century if Stancheva’s and
Iltcheva’s dating is correct. All things considered, a late 18th to very early 19th century
date for this type of pipes seems to be the most reasonable estimate, with the recognition
that the type was popular (as the large quantities found at different sites attest) and had a
long life span. It appears that Stancheva’s view of a Varna origin for the type is correct,
and neither Robinson nor Hayes challenges it. It may not be a coincidence that all
reported finds come from areas that have direct access to the sea: Varna, Kitten, Istanbul,
Corinth, Athens, Gozo and Akko (Israel). This distribution certainly suggests trade
routes followed by seafarers from the Ottoman territories.
Pipe bowl KT095 has the same mark stamped in three different places on the lower side
of the pipe (fig. 95). This particular stamp is frequently found on pipes from the Varna
collection and until now was assumed to be an illiterate imitation of Arabic. However, it
has been recently established that the marks are mirror images of Arabic script.291
289
Stancheva 1972, 86-7.
Iltcheva 1975, 185.
291
Through the kind offices of Ms. Deborah Cvikel, a Ph.D. candidate at the Leon Recanati Institute for
Maritime Studies at Haifa University, photos of the stamp were submitted to the Arabic scholar Mr. Azam
Halabi who successfully read the stamps.
290
276
Evidently the die was cut directly and so, when applied to the pipe, produced a mirror
image of the word. Halabi read the stamp as “Allah” (God).292
Fig. 96. KT096. The stamp reads as the Muslim male name Ali. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
Pipe bowl KT096 is different from the other round-bowl chibouks (fig. 96). Although it
is of the same colour and texture of clay, it differs in shape, decoration and stamp. The
highly-burnished pipe has a round bowl with short, straight rim. The shank is decorated
with a scalloped end wreath. The lower part of the bowl is petalled by small palmettoes
stamped in each petal. The rim is separated from the bowl with a wreath or decorated
shoulder. A stamp on the shank is sharply imprinted, but differs significantly from the
half-moon found on the Varna I type pipes from the Kitten ship. At Ms. Cvikel’s
request, Mr. Halabi kindly read this stamp too. The stamp appears to bear a mirror image
292
Deborah Cvikel, personal communication of 22 December, 2007 and 26 January, 2008. I would like to
express my particular gratitude both to Ms. Cvikel and to Mr. Halabi for taking the trouble to look at the
stamps and reading them. He appears to be the first scholar who has noticed that the stamps are mirror
images! His contribution to the understanding of the Kitten smoking pipes is here gratefully
acknowledged.
277
of the Muslim male name “Ali”. This probably was the name of the pipemaker and is
consistent with the historical data that pipemaking was mostly in the hands of the Turks.
Chibouk KT096 is unused. Robinson published close parallels for this pipe from all
three sites that she studied.293 She proposes an early 19th-century date for petalled pipes
of this type, which agrees fairly well with the dating of the Kitten shipwreck.
Three broken, heavily eroded pipes (KT086, KT087, KT090) were recovered from
layers of the wreck that make the association with the ship less certain than for those
already discussed. All three are undoubtedly round-bowl chibouks made of red clay.
Two of the three are no more than large fragments, but retain some diagnostic features.
The third one is better preserved. The best preserved pipe, KT086, has a complete bowl
and shank, with partially preserved rim. The bowl is gadrooned and has some rouletting
around the keel, shank and shank termination that is still visible. The shank end is round.
A line separates the rim from the bowl and another was incised under the rim edge. No
stamps appear to have been applied to the pipe. The other two are too fragmentary to
determine their exact shape or dimensions as not even the bowls are complete. Likely,
they were similar to the already described pipe but without the gadrooned bowls. As
noted these may be intrusive artifacts not related to the wreck.
A single pipe (KT105) of a type described by J. W. Humphrey as “chay-glass shaped”,
by Robinson and Simpson as “sack-shaped” and by Stancheva as “hourglass-shaped”
293
Robinson 1983, No. 24 (Plate 53) from the Kerameikos; Robinson 1985, Corinth C55-C64.
278
was recovered from insufficiently deep layers of the site to make it probable that the pipe
was in situ.294 It is brick-red in color, with complete bowl, broken rim and completely
missing shank (fig. 97). The keel of the pipe is mostly discernible through the faint
rouletting that delineates it. The rouletting follows the outline of the keel and meets
halfway up the front end of the pipe, where it ends in three lozange shapes, symbolizing
a plant. The clay is fairly coarse, similar in consistency and colour to that of the discbased and fragmentary round-bowl pipes; faint traces of red slip are still visible on parts
of the bowl. Most probably it is a late 18th-century type. Parallels for this pipe bowl have
been reported from the Agora, Saraçane and Corinth.295 A similar pipe is found in the
assemblage from the 1980s expedition to the shipwreck.
Fig. 97. KT105 An hourglass-shaped pipe. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
In addition the commonly found clay pipe bowls, the finds from the Kitten shipwreck
included KT098, a wooden stem with an amber mouthpiece, and KT097, an ivory
294
295
Humphrey 1990, 4.
Robinson 1983, 1985; Hayes 1992.
279
mouthpiece. Such artifacts are rarely found in archaeological contexts. Simpson lists
ivory as one of the possible materials for mouthpieces, but does not mention any found
in archaeological context.296 He listed only three mouthpieces in existence: one of
greenstone (possibly from a musical instrument rather than from a pipe) and two ceramic
ones.297 Presumably, he spoke of those found within Palestine only, as Robinson
illustrates three amber mouthpieces and stems from the Benaki Museum.298 Petrana
Bojilova and Ilina Sirakova report three stems with mouthpieces held in the Museum of
History, Shumen, Bulgaria.299 Two of them are broken and only two have mouthpieces:
one of ivory, one of amber. Clearly, the mouthpieces in existence are very few and the
Kitten examples represent a significant contribution.
The ivory mouthpiece KT097 (fig. 98) does not appear to have any parallels from any
other archaeological site that has yielded Ottoman smoking paraphernalia. The example
from Kitten may be the only one found in an archaeological context. It is shaped like an
hourglass and is of modest dimensions (Length: 3 cm; Diameter max: 1.5 cm), but the
diameter of the central perforation is proportionately large (0.7 cm). It is not highly
polished.
296
Simpson 1998, 15.
Simpson 1998, 7.
298
Robinson 1985.
299
Bojilova, Sirakova 1991, 171-72.
297
280
Fig. 98. KT097 Ivory mouthpiece. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Of great interest is the cherry wood stem (KT098) recovered from the shipwreck. It is
about 70 cm long, thus on the short side as these stems go. Although varying lengths are
mentioned in the literature, they are believed to have measured between a meter and four
meters in length. The shorter values are for what Robinson describes as “campaign”
stems, the longer ones being too awkward to use under field conditions. This
awkwardness would be even more noticeable aboard a ship, especially one with such a
small stern cabin as the Kitten ship, so the short length may well be a seagoing
adaptation. Their decoration could reach extravagant proportions in expensive examples
and stems were looked upon as status symbols, too.300 In the case of the Kitten
shipwreck example the decoration is very modest. The stem appears to be from a cherry
branch with the bark left on. Simpson relates that cherry roughed out sticks for stems
were imported from Persia and Central Asia (presumably to Istanbul, although he does
not specify), but it is unlikely that this was necessary for manufacturers in Bulgaria,
300
Robinson 1983, 266.
281
where cherry orchards are frequent.301 The sole decorative element is a narrow (40 mm)
band of silver-plated copper with stamped floral decoration at the mouthpiece end. The
examples reported from Shumen are not close parallels to the Kitten find. The only
complete example that Bojilova and Sirakova reported has a length of 44 cm and forms
part of a complete chibouk, which was intended for use with cigarettes, mounted in the
clay bowl. They assigned it to the second half of the 19th century. It was made of
cherry.302
All researchers and contemporary sources agree that most high status mouthpieces were
of imported Baltic amber.303 They were also the most expensive. The stem from the
Kitten shipwreck, KT098, has a large pear-shaped amber mouthpiece (30 mm long, 21
mm maximum diameter, 8 mm inner diameter). The narrower (diameter 10mm) end of
the pear was attached to the stem (fig. 99). Compared to the ivory mouthpiece, the amber
one has a much smaller-diameter opening. Found deep within the hull, the artifact
undoubtedly belongs to the ship. None of the chibouk heads (the bowls) were found in
direct association with the stem. It is possible that one stem was used for more than one
pipe head. Travelers’ accounts, for example, speak of individuals possessing more than
one pipe head.304 This may have been the case with mouthpieces, too, as two were found
on the wreck, but only one stem. On the other hand the end of the stem was turned down
to fit into the small diameter opening of the amber mouthpiece and the ivory one would
301
Simpson 1998, 15.
Bojilova 1991, 171.
303
Simpson 1998, 15; Robinson 1985, 156; Buckingham 1825, 341.
304
Walsh 1828.
302
282
have been too large to fit securely, so it is more probable that the other stem did not
survive.
Fig. 99. KT098 Stem with amber mouthpiece from the Kitten shipwreck. Photo: K. N.
Batchvarov.
As with most artifacts from the wreck, the smoking paraphernalia and most of the bowls
were found in the stern part of the ship where the cabin bulkhead was located. This is
hardly surprising since this is where the captain (and possibly part-owner of the ship)
slept. At least three of the bowls had been used and any one of them (or all) could have
been associated with the one stem that was found. This raises the question of whether the
pipes were personal or trade items. The evidence is ambiguous. It would have been of
the greatest value to know more about the pipes recovered in the 1980s, including the
types, quantities, and whether or not they were used. Regrettably, this information is
now unavailable. Based on the finds from the joint expedition, however, it seems
283
unlikely that the pipes were intended for trade as the numbers involved are too low.
Since pipe bowls were fragile, they could get broken frequently and therefore appear to
have been bought in quantity. The Reverend Robert Walsh himself bought four pipes on
passing through Lule Burghaz.305 Thus, it would appear that the pipes from the wreck
were personal property; and for the stem and the two mouthpieces, that this is so
practically certain. If we consider only the best preserved pipes, which unquestionably
belonged to the ship, we discover two different types: Varna I and the heavily decorated
round-bowl chibouks. The different stamps suggest that the two types came from
different workshops. It is interesting to speculate whether all of them belonged to the
same person, who most probably have been, the captain, or different persons bought
them from their own preferred suppliers – hence the difference in style and stamps. It
appears that the Varna I type of faceted rims and round bowls was quite popular as more
pipes of this type have been discovered than any of the others. The multiple examples
stamped with “Allah” may indicate sole ownership, with the other pipe belonging to
someone else, or, alternatively the sole pipe may indicate that the smoker had decided to
expand his collection with an experimental new type.
Beyond the utility of these finds in adding some precision to the dating of certain classes
of pipes, the smoking paraphernalia from the wreck tells us something about life aboard,
social status and perhaps even the direction the ship was heading when lost.
305
Walsh 1828, 80.
284
The discovery of most smoking paraphernalia in the stern of the ship may also indicate
that, if anyone had any leisure time on board, it must have been the person inhabiting the
stern cabin, most probably the ship’s captain. Alternatively, there may have been limited
places aboard ship where smoking was permitted. In Western ships, this was always the
galley area. In Eastern ships, Ward has suggested that this was also true, although for the
Sadana island ship this appears to have been in the bow and the stern, with the higher
value materials, including smoking paraphernalia, found aft.306 On the Kitten ship no
discernible galley was discovered. A number of copper cooking utensils were discovered
in the 1980s, which came from the bow. At least one cauldron was found amidships, but
no trace of cooking stove or fireplace was found in either place. Neither was any
charcoal or firewood observed to indicate where cooking took place. The stern cabin
possessed a copper brazier, the only potential cooking equipment that was found.
Therefore, the possibility that smoking was permitted only in the stern cannot be
ignored.
The pipes may also hint at the last port of call before the loss of the ship. If, as most
researchers seem to agree, the Varna I pipes were indeed a product of Varna workshops,
then the presence of so many unused pipes suggests that the ship may have sailed from
Varna and was sailing south along the coast of Bulgaria, likely en route to Istanbul.
Urdoviza Bay could not have been the final destination of the ship, as at the time there
was no settlement there.
306
Ward and Baram 2006, 12-3.
285
In conclusion, the finds from the Kitten shipwreck contribute to our knowledge of the
chibouk and the smoking paraphernalia by adding items rarely found in an
archaeological context. The smoking material also assists in the general interpretation of
the wreck. In the first instance, the finding of different types of smoking pipes in the
same closed archaeological context supports Robinson’s view that different types of
pipes coexisted and that chibouk styles had a fairly long life span. Her hypothesis that
shanks may be more diagnostic and useful in dating than the shape of the bowl needs
more testing because KT096 has a completely different shank from the other finds, but it
is of the same date. It is possible that pipes of the Varna I type continued in manufacture
into the late 19th century. However, defining them purely as a late 19th-century product
as Hayes does (under the designation Type X) is evidently incorrect. The style probably
appeared some time in the 18th century, perhaps as early as mid-18th century. The
“Allah” stamps found on many examples of this type of pipe suggest that pipe-making
was mostly in the hands of Muslim crafstmen. This hypothesis is also supported by the
name Ali, stamped on KT096.
Smoking paraphernalia from the ship adds to our understanding of the status of seafarers
in the Black Sea waters of the Ottoman Empire. The history and archaeology of
Ottoman-era seafaring has received so far such cursive treatment as to be of little value,
largely because of the lack of sources. The Kitten shipwreck offers insights that future
research and complete archaeological excavations of other wrecks from the region may
expand. No doubt, the Ottoman archives also contain information that awaits
286
enterprising researchers with strong knowledge of Ottoman Turkish. The smoking
assembly from the Kitten wreck confirms what the copper utensils and the rest of the
finds suggested: the stern area of the vessel was the living area of the ship’s captain. In
Western European tradition of seafaring, the stern cabin is always the prerogative of the
captain. In comparison with quoted descriptions of pipe stems, the find from Kitten is
quite modest in dimensions and decoration. Its short length may have been an adaptation
for the space constraints aboard ship. The minimal decoration of the wooden stem,
which still has its bark, identifies it as a unpretentious example. However, the
mouthpiece is of a most expensive and valued material – amber. It would appear that the
owner of the pipe stem was a man of some means and of a certain social status.
The contribution of the smoking paraphernalia to our understanding and interpretation of
the entire wreck is of significant value and demonstrates the opportunities offered even
by mundane artifacts found in small numbers.
NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT
In 2001 a sounding lead was discovered in the stern cabin. With a length of about 22 cm
and maximum diameter of 9.7 cm at the base, it is short and stubby. Its bottom is heavily
worn and misshapen, and the edges are curled upwards. In the middle of the base a slight
indentation is still observable, which probably contained tallow for “arming” the lead to
collect samples of seafloor deposits. Considering the predominance of coastal navigation
287
along the Kitten ship’s probable trade routes, the presence of a sounding lead is hardly
surprising.
Fig. 100. KT117 Mirror from a navigational instrument. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Of greater interest is the presence of what may be a complete navigational instrument,
possibly an octant or a sextant. In the port bow of the ship, next to the small toiletries
box were found two glass lenses each with its associated threaded wooden rims, and a
small mirror (KT117) with exfoliating silvering (fig. 100). The dimensions of the mirror
(5.2 cm x 3 cm) correspond precisely with the reflecting mirror of a sextant or an octant.
The dimensions, converted to Imperial measurements, yield exact divisions of the inch:
2 1/16 inches by 1 3/16 inches. This seems to point to a British manufacturer of the
288
instrument. The diver who discovered the items related that the lenses and rims were
found among a mushy substance, which belatedly he identified as disintegrating paper,
possibly from a papier-mâché tube. It appears that they comprised part of a small
telescope or ocular tube for the instrument (fig. 101). Such ocular tubes appear to be
more frequently found on sextants than on octants. No remains were discovered of the
instrument’s frame, which probably was made of wood. This, in turn, makes it more
probable that the instrument was an octant, as wood was the usual material for their
frames. Sextants from early on were more often made of metal.
Fig.101. KT118 Possibly an ocular from the same navigational instrument as KT117.
Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Regardless of whether the instrument was an octant or a sextant, its presence on board
the Kitten ship is rather surprising. The use of celestial navigation along the likely trade
routes served by this ship – namely the Bulgarian coast from the northern Bulgarian
ports (i.e. Varna) to Istanbul – is not necessary. Even more to the point, plentiful
evidence exists from contemporary observers, both travelers and Western military
advisors, that even the pilots for the Ottoman Navy did not know how to use sextants
289
and octants. Merchant skippers depended entirely on previous experience on the routes
and generally sailed only on the same routes. Thus, how such an instrument found its
way on board the Kitten ship is a mystery. Had it belonged to the captain, one would
have expected it to be found in the stern cabin, not in the bow. Possible explanations for
its provenience are that the captain lost the instrument while abandoning ship over the
bow, since the stern was smashed to pieces on the shallow bottom, or the instrument
belonged to someone else, a passenger perhaps, who was quartered in the bow of the
ship.
MISCELLANEOUS
The first artifact raised from the stern cabin came to light in the 2001 season. It is a large
marble mortar (KT113) of 22 cm height and diameter at the mouth of 21 cm. It was most
likely used for crushing grain and other foodstuffs for feeding the crew (fig. 102). A
crudely carved wooden pestle, KT039, was discovered in 2003 in the immediate vicinity
of the cabin front bulkhead. Originally, it may have been stored on a shelf attached to the
bulkhead.
290
Fig. 102. KT113 Marble mortar. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
KT012, a large elongated wooden scoop for grain, was discovered just forward of the
bulkhead (fig. 103). A similar, though smaller scoop is known from the wreck of La
Belle of the French explorer Sieur de La Salle, lost in Matagorda Bay, Texas, in 1686.
Whether the scoop from the Kitten shipwreck served only the purposes of the crew or
was related to a possible cargo is not clear.
291
Fig. 103. KT012 Grain scoop. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
The stern cabin also yielded at least nine complete brooms and fragments of an unknown
number of others. All of them were located on the port side of the cabin. It is not certain
what their purpose was. While a maniacal dedication to cleanliness among the crew
cannot be completely excluded, it is more probable that the brooms were associated with
the cargo. Brooms are used in charcoal manufacturing to put down flames breaking
through the earth clods that cover the burning pile. The Bay of Urdoviza (today Kitten)
is known to have exported charcoal. Such brooms could also have been in use if grain
was the intended cargo.
In the stern cabin a brass wick holder, KT074, from an oil-lamp was found. Only two Tshaped iron fasteners (KT010 and KT045) were recovered out of the half-dozen that
were found in the wreckage of the cabin. Similar fasteners are known also from 24M site
in Red Bay, believed to be the wreck of the Basque whaler San Juan, dated to the middle
of the 16th century. Unfortunately, not one of the fastenings was found in situ and it is
not possible to determine what timbers they held together. Yet, the fact that none was
292
found attached to structure, is evidence that they must have been associated with the
missing upperworks of the ship.
Fig. 104. KT085 A small cask found in the stern cabin. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
A perfectly preserved small cask, KT085, discovered in the middle of the stern cabin
(fig. 104). The cask has two bung holes – one in a stave and one in the end lid. Neither
was fitted with a bung, and the cask itself was filled with sand.
Finally, the inventory of the stern cabin would not be complete without mentioning the
four-legged passenger, who may have been the sole casualty of the shipwreck. In 2002,
293
diver Miroslav Todorov discovered a complete goat’s skeleton and a small brass bell
between the skull and the body, KT058 (fig. 105). This type of shepherd’s bell has had a
very long lifespan and are used extensively by the region’s shepherds to the present day.
The presence of the little goat in the stern cabin suggests that it may have been a pet,
rather than a source of fresh meat for the owners.
Fig. 105. KT058 Shepherd’s bell from the neck of the goat. Photo: K. N. Batchvarov.
Two solitary cask bungs, KT037 and KT038, with perforations in them, were discovered
in the hold area of the ship, between excavation units G3 and G4. Neither was associated
with a barrel, although the remains of one barrel were discovered outside the hull, to
starboard (unit I3). Porozhanov reported a second barrel from the 1980s, left in situ; the
barrel may have perished in the intervening 20 years, since it could not be relocated. In
fact, apart from the small cask in the stern and the half barrel in unit I3, no barrels were
found on board or in the vicinity of the ship.
294
Conspicuously absent from the wreck are carpenter’s tools for shipboard repairs. The
only exception is a small hand auger discovered just forward of midships in 2002. No
other tool of any description was found. It is unlikely that a ship of this size sailed
without a carpenter’s chest, so the question arises whether some items were salvaged
from the wreck. Certainly, access to the stern cabin was impossible, as the ship sank
stern first and the aft end of the vessel is completely destroyed, but it is possible that the
bow remained close to the surface of the sea until it fell apart, and items stored there
may have been accessible for some time after the sinking. If the carpenter’s tool chest
was stored in the bow, then it may have been saved at the time of sinking.
CONCLUSIONS
As this chapter is no more than a preliminary overview of the finds from the Kitten
Shipwreck, its conclusions must be tentative. Nevertheless, the artifact assemblage does
yield valuable information even at this stage of the research.
It is likely that the vessel was either owned or at least operated by a Christian crew as
attested by the several plaques with cross decorations found during the two series of
excavation campaigns in the 1980s and 2000s. The pig skin reported from the previous
expedition on the site strengthens the argument further. Based on the assemblage as a
whole, and especially the Selim III issue coin, it would appear that the ship was lost after
1789 and probably not much later than the early years of the 19th century, because there
295
are very few artifacts of Western origin. In the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic
Wars, trade expanded greatly and the Ottoman market was flooded with European
wares. Thus, although we have a fairly secure post quem date and less certain ante quem
date, in all likelihood, the ship was lost between 1789 and the end of the Napoleonic
Wars in 1815.
It is not possible to determine with any certainty the ethnic background of the crew. The
assemblage of copper utensils, however, appears to be the product of Bulgarian master
craftsmen and likely originated in the Sub-Balkan region, where Bulgarians remained
dominant. The copper vessels suggest a Bulgarian crew, but it should be noted that
copper products were widely available and extensively traded. The different ethnic
groups in the Balkans seem to have had slightly divergent tastes in decoration and, thus,
it is probable that Bulgarians were the principal customers of Bulgarian craftsmen, but
this can not provide conclusive evidence for the nationality of the crew.
Smoking pipes, most probably manufactured in Varna, copper vessels from central
Bulgaria, and pottery from Chanakkale suggest that the ship served the trade routes
between Istanbul and the Western Black Sea ports. We do not know what the cargo for
this ship was, but grain, timber and charcoal appear to be the most probable. It is
unlikely that the ship ever sailed further than the Sea of Marmara.
296
The artifacts help to develop some ideas about the social status and domestic economy
of the commanding officer, possible members of his family, and the crew. From the
concentration of relatively valuable artifacts in the stern cabin, it is clear that the
individuals occupying it were of modest privileged status. The copper assemblage
especially points to people of certain economic standing. The collection of smoking
pipes and, more specifically, the amber mouthpiece appear to confirm this view. In the
cabin food was served with some elegance, as evidenced by the use of graceful copper
vessels and the limited pottery, rather than in the simple wooden equivalents. The
presence of the sounding lead in the cabin suggests that the privileged person was most
probably the captain himself. The displayed wealth may be evidence that he was also at
least part-owner of the vessel.
The child’s shoe, the toy sword – either wooden or, as has been proposed by Cemal
Pulak, a swordfish beak – and the simple jewelry point to the likelihood that a woman
and a boy were on board as well. It appears that they shared the cabin with the captain,
from which one may conclude that they were his family. The goat probably belonged to
the family and may have been more in the nature of a pet than an immediate source of
food. However, it should be pointed out that at this time smaller animals frequently lived
in the houses with the families, so the goat’s presence in the living quarters may simply
be an adaptation of land practices to life on board a ship.
297
In contrast to the relative luxury of the cabin, the crew appears to have eaten from
common cooking pots. The large number of spoons found on the wreck, however, may
suggest that each crewmember or passenger had a separate spoon. The quantity of
spoons (eighteen including the one found by the previous expedition) may reflect the
number of people on board the ship. This would suggest a crew of about 15 to 16 men.
Considering the likely lateen rig and large size of the ship, this seems a reasonable
number.
The only connections to the Western European world are a sextant or octant of possibly
British manufacture and the tokens manufactured by the Germans Lauer and Reich. The
two tokens are common and have been found on other historical period Ottoman sites.
The presence of the navigational instrument is harder to explain, as most authorities
agree that virtually no one, even in the Ottoman Navy, knew how to use one, let alone
the crew of a small merchantman, which traded along traditional, well-known routes that
virtually never took the vessel out of site of land. Besides not needing to use such an
instrument, the skill to do so was likely also absent. Charts of the Black Sea were still
few and mostly inaccurate. Almanacs and other navigational reference works do not
appear to have been available at the time either. Thus, the presence of such an instrument
is clearly unusual, and archaeology is ill equipped to explain this anomaly. Perhaps an
answer to this question may be found one day in the war archives of Great Britain and
France, as both countries are known to have sent officers to the Ottoman Black Sea
298
coasts to gather intelligence related to building ships or obtaining timber and other
supplies.
299
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
In the 1980s a shipwreck was discovered lying in about 10 meters of water, close under
Cape Urdoviza, in the southern Bay of Kitten. Bulgarian archaeologists, directed by Dr.
Kalin Porozhanov, undertook preliminary work on the vessel, but were forced to
abandon their excavation for lack of ship specialists and the discovery of an inundated
Early Bronze Age settlement threatened by the construction of a marina. In 2000 the
Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA)- Centre for Underwater Archaeology (CUA)
team began the complete excavation of the site. The project was co-directed by Dr.
Porozhanov on the Bulgarian side, assisted by Ms. Hristina Angelova, Director of the
Centre for Underwater Archaeolgy (CUA), our host institution, and the author on the
INA side. Although in the first two seasons students from Texas A&M University
participated in the project, scheduling conflicts prevented those that were invited back
from returning to the site for the final two seasons in 2002 and 2003. Most of the labor
force therefore was provided by Dr. Porozhanov’s archaeology students from New
Bulgarian University, Sofia. In the first two seasons, we had additional help from three
students from Macedonia.
Although the vessel sank in the surge zone, it quickly became clear that the state of
preservation was significantly better than originally believed, and the wreck likely held a
considerable number of artifacts. Over four seasons of excavation the wreck was
300
completely uncovered and recorded, the artifacts raised and conserved. The 2000-2003
excavation agreement stipulated that Bulgarian archaeologists under the directorship of
Ms. Angelova were responsible for cataloging and studying the artifacts, while the INA
contingent would record and study the vessel. The analysis of the finds from inside the
wreck is still ongoing and so the study of the Kitten shipwreck presented here offers only
a preliminary analysis of the select few artifacts that have assisted in dating the ship.
Thanks to efforts on the part of Ms. Angelova, a small museum has opened in Kitten that
now houses the artifacts from the shipwreck.
The Kitten ship project had its challenges, but overall the excavation and analysis have
been completed successfully. It is the first complete post-medieval shipwreck excavation
to have been undertaken in the Black Sea. Prior to this excavation little archaeological
information was available for the vessels that plied the waters of the Ottoman Empire,
especially those of the Black Sea. The excavation was undertaken with very limited
resources, yet achieved important results and provided information on subjects that were
little known until now, such as shipbuilding traditions of the Black Sea and their
relationship to the greater Mediterranean world. The project demonstrated the potential
of nautical archaeology in the region to answer questions that cannot be answered fully
from other sources. Finally, the project advanced from completion of the excavation, to
conservation, research and analysis, and finally to museum display for the education of
the public in a short time span of only five years.
301
Although attempts to date the wreck through dendrochronology were not conclusive, the
finds from the ship suggest that it most probably sank in the reign of Sultan Selim III
(1789-1807). Two silver coins found on the wreck bore the tughra of this ruler. The two
legible tokens were manufactured in Germany in the late 18th century. The closest
parallels for the large assemblage of copper utensils found on board also date from the
second half of the 18th century. The smoking pipes from the wreck suggest a late 18thcentury date as well. As the diagnostic artifacts seem to collectively date to the second
half of the 18th century, it is most probable that the catastrophe took place either in the
last years of the outgoing century or the early years of the 19th century.
The 18th century in Ottoman history is a period of gradual decline and territorial loss that
accelerated in the last decade to reach its lowpoint in the period of the Napoleonic wars
(1804-1815), when entire parts of the Empire were beyond the effective control of the
central government. The repercussions of this political decline were wide and far
reaching, and affected virtually every aspect of life for the population, Muslim and
Christian alike. Trade, only tolerated rather than encouraged, stagnated in the second
half of the 18th century, but it did not disappear. The treaty of Kuchuk Kainardja in 1774,
between Russia and the Ottoman Empire reopened for the first time since the fall of
Constantinople in 1453 the Black Sea for navigation by non-Ottoman subjects and thus
opened the door for further expansion of foreign activity.
302
The main impetus for Black Sea maritime trade and shipping remained the same as
before, supplying the Ottoman capital of Istanbul with provisions, grain, fuel and timber.
The Bulgarian lands played a major role in that supply effort. Bulgarian ports exported
the surplus production of the entire eastern Balkans, and they provided 80% of the grain
needs of Istanbul. The main exports to the huge city, which consisted of agricultural
products, were low-cost bulk items that had to be shipped in quantity and by sea to make
their transportation economically viable, a fact that has often escaped the attention of
Bulgarian historians, who have argued that vessels on the Black Sea did not exceed 30
tons burden. The necessity to feed the capital determined the size and tonnage of the
region’s merchant fleet, and the Kitten vessel operated within that trade network.
At the time of its loss, the vessel was manned by a Christian crew, as evidenced by finds
from the wreck. The ethnic background of the crew, however, is more difficult to
establish. Traditionally, it has been assumed that all maritime activities were handled by
the Greeks and that they were the great seafarers of the Empire, even though
contemporary Western observers spoke scornfully of Greek qualities as seafarers. While
Greeks were likely the largest group of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire involved
with maritime activities, documentary and other evidence indicate that Bulgarians
participated in seafaring, shipbuilding and piracy even if in modest numbers. Taking into
account that the Kitten ship plied the waters of the Black Sea and the crew consisted of
Christians, they must have been Greeks or Bulgarians. The large group of copper
utensils stylistically suggests that they were manufactured in the Sub-Balkan region,
303
Central Bulgaria, where there was no Greek minority. The smoking pipes probably were
manufactured in Varna, on the north coast of Bulgaria, by Muslim craftsmen, as the two
stamps that have been identified read “Allah” and “Ali”. The only complete earthenware
plate found was manufactured in Chanakkale on the Asian side of the Sea of Marmara at
the end of the 18th century. It is unlikely that we shall ever know with certainty the
ethnic background of the crew, but it appears that they were Bulgarians.
The 18 wooden spoons found on the wreck may indicate the number of persons on board
during this fatal voyage. The presence of a child’s shoe and a possible toy sword suggest
that among the passengers was a little boy; the jewelry may have belonged to a woman,
possibly the boy’s mother. As the clues to their presence were discovered in the stern
cabin, they likely were members of the captain’s family. The sole confirmed victim of
the shipwreck appears to have been the family’s goat-kid. Its skeleton was found in the
stern cabin. Calculating a total of 18 wooden spoons found on the wreck, and allowing
one spoon each for the child and woman, the result indicates that the crew perhaps
numbered about 15-16 men, including the captain. One major question regarding the
people on board at the time of the wrecking concerns the presence of the navigational
instrument in the port bow of the ship. Such an instrument was a rarity in the Ottoman
Navy of the time, and it is all the more surprising to find it on board a small
merchantman that sailed between Istanbul and the Bulgarian ports, a route on which the
navigator would rarely lose sight of land for long. The presence of a sextant or an octant
also presumes ability on the part of somebody to work with one, knowledge of
304
navigational astronomy, charts, almanacs, and of spherical trigonometry – skills that
were rare even in the Sultan’s Navy. The only other navigational tool found on board
was a sounding lead, discovered in the stern cabin. Its provenance strongly suggests that
it belonged to the captain, the most probable “navigator” on board. No other navigational
instruments, such as a compass or dividers, were found on the ship, although the absence
of evidence is not evidence for their absence. Still, the presence of a sextant or octant
when no evidence for a compass was found on board is strikingly odd. The captain
would have been the most logical owner of the sextant, but its location in the bow of the
ship suggests otherwise, unless it was lost while attempting to abandon ship from the
bow. This possibility, however, is not supported by the association of artifacts (toiletries
box, inkwells, cauldron remains, rope) with which the sextant mirrors and lenses were
found. If the instrument did not belong to the captain, it must have been the possession
of a passenger. The owner of this device will remain a mystery until further data,
perhaps archival evidence, emerges.
The finds from the ship help us to learn about the social status and internal economy of
the captain, his family and the crew. The concentration of artifacts of higher value in the
stern cabin leads to the conclusion that privileged individuals occupied that space. The
many copper vessels found there imply a person of a certain economic status. The amber
mouthpiece on the otherwise simple chibouk stem suggests likewise. Some elegance was
associated with serving food in the cabin, as evidenced by the finely crafted copper
vessels and some earthenware pottery. The poorly preserved remains of copper
305
cauldrons and large pots from the bow area, suggest that the crew messed from a
common dish, separately from the captain and his family.
The archaeological evidence permits us to build a hypothesis on the final voyage of the
ship. It appears that at the time of sinking there was no cargo aboard, so the vessel may
have entered the bay for the purpose of loading. It is known that there were three loading
stages around Cape Urdoviza, one on the northern side and two on the southern side.
One was located more or less where the Marina Restaurant now stands, the other was in
the mouth of the Karaagach River in the southern part of the bay and the third in the
Atliman to the north of the cape. The location of the wreck indicates where the ship
intended to load. From Cape Urdoviza (the hamlet, now town, of Kitten did not exist
until the 1930s) was exported timber and charcoal. It is not known if grain was also
exported from there. Combining the knowledge of those exports and the numerous twigbrooms found, charcoal appears the likely intended cargo. Yet, no trace of this dirty
cargo was found on board, so questions still exist on this count. If we consider the tightly
sealed lower part of the hold, it would appear that grains such as wheat and rice
comprise logical intended cargoes as well. Since there was virtually no hinterland around
Urdoviza that could be a market for imported goods, the odds are that the ship arrived in
ballast. The destination of whatever cargo was to be loaded would logically have been
the largest consumer centre of the Mediterranean world, Istanbul. The port of origin is
less certain. Nevertheless, a likely hypothesis is that it was Varna. Varna was a major
transshipment centre for produce from Dobrudja and the interior of the Balkan
306
Peninsula, brought down the Danube River. Varna was also the main entrepot for
imported goods brought from and via Istanbul. A Varna origin of the voyage may be
implied by the smoking pipes found on board. Since, their quantity was not sufficient for
them to be a cargo item, they are likely to have been the personal property of people on
board. Typologically these pipes are widely accepted in the literature as products of
Varna workshops. Some of the pipes were used, but a few were pristine, suggesting that
they were recent purchases. Therefore it seems probable that the ship began its last
voyage from Varna, possibly in ballast, and anchored under Cape Urdoviza to load cargo
for Istanbul. An alternative hypothesis that is also possible is that the ship was returning
in ballast from Istanbul and tried to shelter in Urdoviza Bay, only to be overwhelmed by
a storm.
From the general orientation of the wreck and the structural damage suffered, we are
able to reasonably reconstruct the final moments of the ship. It appears that the ship was
at anchor, in the lee of Cape Urdoviza, possibly waiting to load cargo. The small
quantity of ballast found and the lack of identifiable cargo in the hold suggest that much.
The general orientation of the wreck points to a storm coming from the NE, which is the
dominant direction of the winds for most of the year. It is possible that the captain
misjudged the depth in which he anchored. It is, however, more probable that either the
anchor dragged, as the grapnel anchors typical for the region are only too prone to do, or
the cable broke and the ship found itself in the surf, still with its bow into the wind. Once
in the shallow surf zone, the stern hit the bottom first, likely tearing off the sternpost.
307
The vessel appears to have beaten its stern into the bottom for some time, as the aftmost
frames, especially on the port side, are completely twisted and broken. Since the vessel
did not turn on its beam ends in the surf, it would appear that the bow was held into the
eye of the wind and therefore the anchored dragged, but the cable did not break. The
force of the waves must have been significant, as the ship was driven stern down and lies
deep into the bottom to the present day at a distinct angle from the horizontal.
The sinking must have happened quickly, as the goat was left in the cabin. Yet there may
have been some time to grab easily accessible items, as there is a dearth of valuable
personal effects or coins. No traces of human remains were identified during the
excavation, so either all people on board safely abandoned ship or the bodies drifted
away. Either in the wrecking itself, or shortly thereafter the port side tore off and
probably floated away, as very little evidence of it was found. The remaining starboard
side was filled with mud and sand. The bow probably sat up from the bottom for some
time, until shipworms and erosion took their toll on it. Eventually, the parts of the hull
protruding from the sea floor disappeared. Interesting and informative as all the finds
are, the largest, most important and informative artifact proved to be the vessel itself.
The coherent structure encompasses most of the starboard side of the ship, but
unfortunately very little of the bow has survived. The stern is heavily damaged too, but
the discovery of the lower part of the sternpost was indispensable in the reconstruction.
The central portion had suffered significant distortion over the 200 years since it sank,
but the individual frames have mostly preserved their shape. On the port side most of the
308
floor timbers have survived almost to their original length and most of the transversal
ceiling was still in place, but no futtocks were present, except a few in the port quarter of
the ship and they were all split and broken up, completely distorted.
During the recording of the ship structure it was observed that the words “timber
shortage” must have been completely unknown to the master shipwright who built the
excavated vessel. All parts of the ship were converted from large baulks of timber. None
of the timbers were observed to have sapwood, let alone bark, while I have personally
observed that many of the timbers on the Swedish Royal Ship Vasa, lost in 1628, were
barely worked and still had bark on them. On the Kitten ship all compass timbers were
naturally grown. Thus, the floor timbers of the rising both fore and aft were cut from Vshaped and Y-shaped forked trees. The keelson, and evidently the keel too, were of
single trees. The filling pieces between the futtocks in the central part of the hull also
appear wasteful, but they were probably required for stiffening the hull in an area of high
stress from the rig. Alternative explanations are that the hull needed the reinforcement
for specific intended cargo (although it is difficult to envision what that cargo could have
been) or that the reinforcement was found necessary as the ship was supposed to take the
bottom regularly during loading and unloading operations. Port facilities were virtually
non-existent and some vessels were beached for loading. Considering the large size and
the likely draught of this ship, beaching is unlikely to have been a regular occurrence,
especially since it would not have eased loading in any way. Thus, the two most likely
309
explanations for the filling timbers must remain the reinforcement for the support of the
rig, or protection of the external planking from the cargo.
Of great interest was the discovery of hook scarfs in the frames. A broken futtock found,
that was no longer in situ, had a clearly observable hook in its end and remains of
fasteners. This brought to mind the 16th-century wreck from Yassiada, Turkey, and was
the first hint that the Kitten ship may prove to be a wreck of significant importance for
understanding of shipbuilding in the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Subsequently, it was determined that the middle half of the hull, consisting of 27 frames,
including the midship frame, were hook-scarfed. The morphology of this type of scarf is
associated with Mediterranean whole-moulding techniques, although until now the only
vessel that has been thoroughly analyzed is the 14th-century Culip VI wreck from
Catalonia, Spain. At least two other vessels are known to have the same scarfing, the
Ottoman wreck from Yassiada and the wreck from Sardineaux, France.
The good preservation of the Kitten ship permitted a reconstruction of the hull lines with
only the shape of the bow and particularly the stem being hypothetical. Fortunately for
any further analysis, the middle part of the vessel formed a coherent structure and any
distortion could easily be corrected. Of particular value for the reconstruction process
was the recovery of a midship beam that extended almost to its original length and the
missing part could be estimated on the basis of symmetry. The beam and the midship
frames could produce fair lines of the section at a minimum of 3.56 m depth in hold,
310
which matches reasonably well with the traditional proportion that the depth in hold is
about half the beam of the vessel. Comparison with treatises and other data demonstrated
that the shipwright followed traditional proportions and methods in building the vessel.
The second fortunate discovery was the disarticulated sternpost of the ship under the
starboard quarter. Only about 2 meters of it survived, but these included the pintle and
the lower end, which butted into the keel. Thus, the actual thread length of keel and the
rake of the lower sternpost could be determined and then the approximate draught of
water for the ship could be estimated. The height of stem and stern were based on
iconography, comparative proportions calculated from Paris’ drawings and proportions
tables from Damianidis’ doctoral dissertation on vernacular Greek boatbuilding. Though
probable, the heights of stem and sternpost cannot be considered certain.
Once the reconstruction of the vessel was complete, it was possible to estimate the
displacement and calculate the hull coefficients. The obtained results demonstrated that
the Kitten ship was likely to have been a fairly good sailer, with lines that were wellsuited for rough conditions. The lines and the rig would have permitted good windward
performance, which, however, was probably influenced negatively by the high bow and
stern. It has been argued that the ship was single-masted with a lateen sail providing
most of the motive power. It is very likely that the ship had a polacca or foresail, too.
That the rigging lines were made of reed (papur) bast – indicates the fitting out of the
ship was done locally; ropes of this material were being hand-twisted along the coast as
311
recently as the 1930s and 40s. Although it is hard to say what the properties of reed rope
are without comparative studies and experiments, it is likely a weaker material than
hemp. Therefore one would expect the ship to have been sailed conservatively. This
conclusion seems to be supported by the writings of contemporary Western European
travelers, although most of them expressed this in somewhat stronger and harsher terms,
in particular Eton who was openly dismissive of the sailing characteristics of vessels on
the Black Sea. Be that as it may, vessels similar to the one at Kitten served their purpose
and met the needs of the maritime community in a technologically and politically
backward area of the world. With a displacement of about 160 tons, the ship was large
enough to make the transportation of bulk cargoes economically practicable and small
enough to have a fairly fast turn around in port.
Two aspects of the design of the ship were explored. An attempt was made to determine
the mensuration system used by the shipwrights. The most logical was to expect the ship
to have been built to Ottoman units, and this was the original working hypothesis.
However, since Venice had a strong influence in the region, including upon Ottoman
shipbuilding in the early period of the Empire, and when it became clear that the Kitten
ship was built through whole-moulding similar to the system described in the Italian
treatises, the units used by the Serenissima were also tested. Conversion of the recorded
metric measurements into Venetian piedi, paces and deda demonstrated that these units
are unlikely to have been used, despite the even divisions obtained for keel length,
stevedore beam and even overall length. The timber scantlings when converted did not
312
produce logical divisions, proving that different units were used. This brought us back to
the original hypothesis. However, the value of the Ottoman architectural ar in changed
over the centuries. We know these values for the 1770s, (though there is strong
indication that these values may not have been universally used) and we know its last
incarnation, established by Sultan Selim III in 1794-95. Experimentation proved that
Ottoman measuring units were used, but it is harder to determine which of the two
standards was employed. The difference between the two is only 6 mm and thus results
for calculations based on either of the two ar ins offered good results. At present no
final conclusion can be offered. It is also not impossible that both standards were used
simultaneously. Improbable as this may sound to a 21st-century Westerner, Baron Tott
remembered that when he compared the builders’ ar ins of the twenty or so masons
under his direction to the ar in he was sent by Sultan Mustafa III, not one matched the
length of the one sent by the sultan. As if this was not enough, no two of the mason’s
ar ins matched each other! In the light of Baron Tott’s experience, it is not impossible
that the situation among shipwrights was not much different. Thus, the overall
dimensions match better an ar in length of Mustafa III’s reign, but many of the timber
scantlings are closer to the newer ar in of Sultan Selim III. The main point, however, to
be made on the basis of the measuring units, is that there was no direct Venetian or
Italian influence in the building of the ship.
The next stage of the analysis of the vessel was to attempt to recover the method used for
controlling the hull shape. The scarfs gave a strong indication that a form of whole
313
moulding was used. Unfortunately, the preservation of the upper hull is insufficient to
permit analysis of the narrowing and rising of the breadth. However, this could be
determined for the floor timbers. Whole moulding has been defined as a method in
which the hull is formed through incremental changes of a master frame, the midship
bend of timbers. These incremental changes were based on the partisoni – a geometrical
progression (for the Mediterranean) that determined the increments. Four partisoni were
usually used: the narrowing and rising of the floors, and the narrowing and rising of the
breadth. From the treatises it is known that the frames immediately before and abaft the
master frame usually had no rising and frequently no narrowing either. Experiments
carried out on the Kitten ship led us to determine that the narrowing was controlled with
a mezzaluna and all 13 frames before or abaft the master were projected. For the rising
no mezzaluna seems to fit the recorded information. Either the rising was determined by
eye with a batten, hanging string or some other mechanical device, or a different
geometrical tool was employed for graduating the partison. Kostas Damianidis describes
traditional methods of moulding that were used in small shipyards in Greece until at
least the middle of the 20th century. The information that he offers may shed light on this
aspect of the Kitten ship. It should be noted, however, that the Greek methods, as
described by Damianidis, are modified from their original form. The switch to engines
not only modified the proportions and general shape (especially the stern) of boats, but
also the control points from the turn of the bilge and height of breadth to the waterline
and sheer. The geometrical methods of producing the increments, however, appear to be
relevant. Damianidis describes the mezzarola, a derivative of the mezzaluna, which he
314
believes to be typical of the Aegean and unknown in other areas. Three different
mezzarolas were constructed before finding that one based on 10 frames before and abaft
the master frame fits the recorded measurements on the Kitten ship. Thus, it is at least
possible that a mezzarola was used for determining the increments of rising on the Kitten
ship.
There is, then, sufficient evidence to conclude that the Kitten ship was built by an
experienced master shipwright, who had constructed similar vessels before. To shape the
hull, he used whole moulding. It can be postulated that the excavated vessel is a late
example of an ancient method of shipbuilding, the origins of which Hocker and
McManamon suggest go back to the Middle Ages.307 Traces of the method are evident in
a shipwreck from Bozburun, Turkey, dated to circa A.D. 880 (timber for its construction
possibly felled in present day southern Bulgaria) and the wreck at Serce Limani, Turkey,
dated to circa A.D. 1025. The method can be traced through the centuries in the Culip VI
wreck (c. A.D. 1300), the Contarina I ship (c. A.D. 1300), the Venetian treatises of the
15th and 16th centuries, the Ottoman wreck from Yassiada (end of the 16th century), the
treatises of the 17th century (e.g., Joseph Furtenbach), and the shipwreck from
Sardineaux (17th century). The Dnepr wreck, dated to the 1730s, may also prove to be an
example of this whole-moulding tradition.308 It is to be hoped that the wreck will
eventually be studied from the point of view of the history of technology. The latest
known example of a whole-moulded ship so far excavated is the Kitten wreck, which
307
308
Hocker and McManamon 2006.
Taras Pevny 2009, personal communication.
315
sank at the end of the 18th or the beginning of the 19th century. From the dates of
recorded instances of its usage, it would appear that by the beginning of the 18th century,
the traditional whole-moulding process was in decline. Other methods of designing ships
were coming into general use. The old ways appear to have been preserved only in areas
that were technologically falling behind, such as the Ottoman Empire, or Russia. The
Dnepr wreck, although discovered in Ukraine and built for service on the Ukrainian
rivers, evidently was built for the Russian army.
The existence of a whole moulding tradition common in its broad outline to the entire
Mediterranean and the Black Sea as well seems clear now. In the archaeological record,
the use of this system in constructing the vessel is attested by the presence of hook scarfs
between the floor timbers and the futtocks. Earlier wrecks were built with scarfs along
their entire lengths, but in the Kitten ship, they were limited to the middle part of the
hull. From the work of Damianidis it is clear that Greek boatbuilders also projected the
shape of one-third to one-half of the frames in the central section of the hull.
Interestingly, the Iberian treatises seem also to suggest that only a small portion of the
frames were to be moulded and scarfed. The archaeological and historical evidence seem
to suggest that by the time Constantinople fell to the conquering Ottoman Turks in 1453,
this style of whole moulding was well-established and widely used. The isolation of the
Black Sea littoral from the technological development in the West may have aided the
preservation of the old tradition until the 19th century.
316
REFERENCES
Amouric, Henri, Florence Richez, Lucy Valouri. 1999. Le Commerce de la Ceramique
en Provence et Languedoc du X- au XIXe Siecle. Marseilles: Musee d'Istres.
Anderson, R. C. 1925. “Italian Naval Architecture about 1445”. Mariner's Mirror 11
(2):135-63.
Anderson, R. C. 1945. “Jal's "Memoire No. 5" and the Manuscript " Fabrica di Galere".”
Mariner's Mirror 31 (3):160-7.
Anderson, R. C. 1952. Naval Wars in the Levant, 1559-1853. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Bakirdjiev, Georgi. 1957. Kovana Med. Sofia: Bulgarian Artist Publishers.
Bakirdjieva, Theodora. 1992. “Shipping on the Danube River, 15-18 centuries.”
Jahrbuch der Museen in Nordbulgarien 18:133-9.
Baram, Uzi. 1999. “Clay Tobacco Pipes and Coffee Cup Sherds in the Archaeology of
the Middle East: Artifacts of Social Tension from the Ottoman Past”.
Intenational Journal of Historical Archaeology (3):137-51.
Batchvarov, Kroum N. 2002. The Framing of Seventeenth-Century Men-of-War in
England and Other Northern European Countries, M.A. thesis, Anthropology,
Nautical Archaeology Program, Texas A&M University, College Station.
———. 2003. “A Black Sea Merchantman.” In Connected by the Sea, edited by Lucy
Blue, Fred Hocker and Anton Eglert, 306-11. London: Oxbow Books.
Bellabarba, Sergio. 1988. “The Square-Rigged Ship of the Fabrica Di Galere
Manuscript Part I”. Mariner's Mirror 74 (2):113-30.
———. 1988. “The Square-Rigged Ship of the Fabrica Di Galere Manuscript Part II”.
Mariner's Mirror 74 (3):225-39.
———. 1993. “The Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls”. Mariner's Mirror 79
(3):274-92.
———. 1996. “The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis.”
Mariner's Mirror 82 (3):259-92.
Bilici, Kenan. 2005. “A German Token Uncoverd During the Alanya Citadel
317
Excavations.”Adalya VIII: 351-6.
Bloesch, Paul. 1983. “Mediterranean Whole Moulding.” Mariner's Mirror 69 (3):305-6.
Bojilova, Petrana, Ilina Sirakova. 1991. “Pipes and Chibouks from the Collection of the
Ethnographic Department of the Historical Museum – Shumen.” Jahrbuch der
Museen in Nordbulgarien XVII:165-77.
Bonino, Marco. 1978. “Lateen-rigged Medieval Ships. New Evidence from Wrecks in
the Po Delta (Italy) and Notes on Pictorial and other Documents.” International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 7 (1):9-28.
Borgschultze, Siegfried. 2005. “Mahone, ein tuerkischer Hafenlichter.” Das Logbuch 41
(4):161-4.
Bowen Jr., Richard Le Baron. 1948. “Arab Dhows of Eastern Arabia.” American
Neptune 9 (2):86-132.
Buckingham, James Silk. 1821. Travels in Palestine. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Longman.
———. 1825. Travels among the Arab tribes. London: Longman.
———. 1827. Travels in Mesopotamia. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Henry Colburn.
Bushnell, Edmund. 1669. The complete ship-wright. Second ed. London: George
Hurlock.
Campbell, I. C. 1995. “The Lateen Sail in World History.” Journal of World History
(Spring):1-23.
Castellan, A. L. 1820. Lettres sur la Moree, L'Hellespont et Constantinople. 2 vols. Vol.
1. Paris: Chez H. Agasse.
Chapelle, Howard I. 1957. Report to the Government of Turkey on Fishing Boats. Rome:
FAO.
Clarke, Edward Daniel. 1810. Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa.
Vol. 3. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies.
Cozzi, J. 1998. “The Goniometer: An Improved Device for Recording Submerged
Shipwreck Timbers.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 (1):6480.
Cvikel, Deborah, Yaacov Kahanov. 2006. “The Dor 2002/2 Shipwreck.” Archaeologica
318
Maritima Mediterranea (3):79-98.
Damianidis, Kostas A. 1989. Vernacular Boats and Boatbuilding in Greece. A Ph. D.
dissertation, St Andrews University, St. Andrews, Fife, United Kingdom.
Damianidis, Kostas A. 1998. “Methods Used to Control the Form of Vessels in the
Greek Traditional Boatyards.” In Concevoir et construire les navires, edited by
E. Rieth. Paris: Eres.
Dearborn, Henry. 1819. A Memoir on the Commerce and Navigation of the Black Sea
and the Trade and Maritime Geography of Turkey and Egypt. Boston: Wells and
Lilly.
Delacroix, Gerard. 1997. Tartane du Roi La Diligente, 1738-1761, Collection
Archeologie Navale Francaise. Paris: ANCRE.
Denham, H. M. 1986. “Aegean Caiques 1915-1980.” Mariner's Mirror 72 (3):277-93.
Dimmock, Lieut.-Col. Lionel. 1946. The Lateen Rig. Mariner's Mirror 32 (1):35-41.
Elliot, C. B. 1838. Travels in the Three Great Empires of Austria, Russia and Turkey.
Vol. 2. London: Richard Bentley.
Eton, William. 1798. A Survey of the Turkish Empire. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies.
———. 1805. A Concise Account of the Commerce and Navigation of the Black Sea:
From Recent and AuthenticIinformation. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. 2005. Crisis and Change, 1590-1699. In An Economic and Social
History of the Ottoman Empire, edited by H. Inalcik. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Furtenbach, Joseph. 1629. Architectura Navalis. Ulm: Jonam Saurn.
Gell, William. 1807. The Geography and Antiquities of Ithaca. London: Longman,
Hurst, Rees and Orme.
Göhren, Harald. 2004. „Fragen zur seemaenischen Handhabung von Latersegen“. Das
Logbuch 40 (1):24-8.
Güleryüz, Ahmet. 2004. Kadirgadan Kalyona Osmanlida Yelken, Ottoman Sailing Ships
from Galleys to Galleons. Eyluel: Denizler Kitabevi.
Guerot, Max, Eric Rieth, J.-M. Gassend. 1989. Le navire genois de Villefranche.
319
Archaeonautica 9: 1-171.
Guerot, Max, Eric Rieth. 1995. The Wreck of the Lomellina at Villefranche sur Mer. In
Archaeology of Ships of War, edited by M. Bound. London: Anthony Nelson,
Ltd.
Harland, John. 2000. Ships and Seamanship: the Maritime Prints of J. J. Baugean.
London: Chatham Publishing.
Harpster, Mathew. 2005. A Re-assembly and Reconstruction of the 9th-century AD
Vessel Wrecked off the Coast of Bozburun, Turkey. Ph. D. dissertation, Texas
A&M University, College Station.
Hayes, John, ed. 1980. Turkish Clay Pipes: A Provisional Typology. Edited by P. J.
Davey, The Archaeology of the Clay Pipe IV. Oxford: BAR.
———. 1992. Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul. The Pottery, vol.2 . Washington
DC: Princeton.
Hocker, Frederick, Cheryl Ward, ed. 2004. The Philosophy of Shipbuilding. College
Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Hocker, Frederick M. and John M. McManamon. 2006. “Medieval Shipbuilding in the
Mediterranean and the Written Culture at Venice”. Mediterranean Historical
Review 21 (1):1-37.
Humphrey, J. W. 1990. “The Turkish Clay Smoking Pipes of Mytilene.” Society for
Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 26 (April): 2-9.
Iltcheva, Vulka. 1975. “Clay Pipes from Veliko Turnovo.” Jahrbuch der Museen in
Nordbulgarien Band 1: 179-99.
Inalcik, Halil. 1983. “Introduction to Ottoman Metrology.” Turcica 15:311-48.
Inalcik, Halil ed. 2005. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. 5th
printing ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joncheray, Jean-Pierre. 1988. “Un navire de commerce de la Fin du XVII Siecle,
L'Epave des Sardineaux.” Cahiers D'Archeologie Subaquatique VII: 22-67.
Kahanov, Yaacov, Jeffrey Royal, Jerome Hall. 2004. “The Tantura Wrecks and Ancient
Mediterranean Shipbuilding”. In The Philosophy of Shipbuilding, edited by F. M.
Hocker, Cheryl Ward. College Station: Texas A&M University.
320
Kahanov, Yaakov, Deborah Cvikel. 2008. “Akko Underwater Excavation 2007.” RIMS
News (Report 33):16-8.
Kortepeter, Carl. 1966. “Ottoman Imperial Policy and the Economy of the Black Sea
Region in the Sixteenth Century.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86
(2):86-113.
Lane, Frederic Chapin. 1934. “Venetian Naval Architecture about 1550.” Mariner's
Mirror 20 (1):24-49.
Lavery, Brian, ed. 1981. Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture, 1670. London:
Conway Maritime Press.
Lishman, N. 1961. “Arabian Lateeners.” Mariner's Mirror 47 (1):57-8.
Loewen, Brad. 1998. “The Morticed Frames of the XVIth Century Atlantic Ships and
the "Madeiras da Conta" of Renaissance Texts.” Archaeonautica 14:213-22.
———. 2007. “The 24M Hull.” In The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay: Basque
Shipbuilding and Whaling in the 16th century, edited by R. Grenier, Marc-Andre
Bernier, Willis Stevens. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Marquardt, Karl Heinz. 1992. Eighteenth Century Rigs and Rigging. London: Chatham.
Marzari, Mario. 1985. “The Tartana da Pesca: A fishing Vessel from Chioggia.”
Mariner’s Mirror 71 (3):287-303.
———. 1998. “Evolution of Shipbuilding Techniques and Methodologies in Adriatic
and Tyrrhenian Traditional Shipyards.” In Concevoir et construire les navires,
edited by E. Rieth. Paris: Eres.
Meling, Antoine-Ignace. 1819. Voyage pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du
Bosphore. Paris: Didot
McGowan, Bruce. 2005. “The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812.” In An Economic and
Social History of the Ottoman Empire, edited by H. Inalcik. Cambridge:
Cambridge Unviersity Press.
Moore, Sir Alan. 1925. Last Days of Mast and Sail. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morris, Edward. 1886. The Early Hanoverians. London: C. Scribners.
Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. 1994. Die Häfen von Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul.
Tubingen: E. Wasmuth.
321
Nakas, Yannis. 2007. “14th-Century Galleys in the Black Sea: Ships in the Romance of
Alexander the Great.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37 (1):7787.
Nickel, Hans-Jochen. 2002. „Segeltechnik bei Lateinfahrzeugen.“ Das Logbuch 38
(4):192-6.
———. 2006. „Nochmals: Wie wurden Lateinfahrezeuge gezegelt.“ Das Logbuch 42
(2):166-71.
Norman, J. P. 1957. “Going about in Lateen-rigged Craft”. Mariner’s Mirror 43 (4):32728
Oertling, Thomas J. 2004. “Characteristics of Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Iberian
Ships.” In Philosophy of Shipbuilding, edited by F. Hocker, Cheryl Ward.
College Station: Texas A&M University.
Ostermann, Hermann. 2003. “Am und vor dem Wind.“ Das Logbuch 39 (4):192-7.
Ovcharov, Nickolay. 1992. Ships and Shipping in the Black Sea, 14th – 19th centuries.
Sofia: University Press “Sveti Kliment Ohridskii”.
Özdural, Alpay. 1998.” Sinan's Ar in: A Survey of Ottoman Architectural Metrology.”
Muqarnas 15:101-15.
Panzac, Daniel. 1992. “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman
Empire during the 18th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies
24:189-206.
Papadopoulos, Stelios A. , ed. 1972. The Greek Merchant Marine (1453-1850). Athens:
National Bank of Greece.
Paris, Edmond. 1999. Souvenirs de Marine
National de la Marine.
s. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Paris:
e
Pavlov, Vladimir. 1966. “On the Subject of Bulgarian Maritime Activities during the
Ottoman Yoke (1396-1830).” Bulletin du Musee National de Varna 17 (Tome
II):51-62.
Penzo, Gilberto. 2000. Venetian Ships. Trieste: LINT.
Petrunova, Boni. 2006. “Settlement and Necropolis at Zlati Dol Neighborhood,
Simeonovgrad.” In Rescue Archaeological Excavations Along the Route of the
Railroad Track Plovdiv-Svilengrad in 2004, edited by V. Nikolov, Georgi
322
Nehrizov, Julia Tzvetkova. Veliko Turnovo: Archaeological Institute and
Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Pletnyov, Valentin. 2002. Ottoman faience from Varna. Varna: Slavena.
Porozhanov, Kalin 2000. “The Sunken Ship Near Urdoviza: Preliminary Notes.”
Archaeologia Bulgarica 4 (3):92-5.
Pouqueville, F. C. H. L. 1827. Voyage de la Grece. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Vol. 4. Paris.
Primovsky, Anastas. 1955. Mednikarstvoto v Rodopskata Oblast. Sofia: Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences.
Prins, A H J. 1992. “Mediterranean Ships and Shipping, 1650-1850.” In The Heyday of
Sail: The Merchant Sailing Ship 1650-1830, edited by R. Gardiner. London:
Conway Maritime Press.
Raban, Avner. 1971. “The Shipwreck from Sharm-el-Sheikh.” Archaeology 24 (2):14655.
Redknap, Mark. 1984. The Cattewater Wreck: The Investigation of an Armed Vessel of
the Early Sixteenth Century. Vol. 131, BAR British Series 131. British
Archaeological Series. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum.
Rieth, Eric. 1998a. “L'epave du caboteur de Culip VI.” Archaeonautica 14:205-12.
———1998b. “L'arquitectura naval.” In Excavations arquelogiques subquatiques a
Cala Culip 2; Culip VI. Girona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
———. 2003. “First Archaeological Evidence of the Mediterranean Moulding Ship
Design Method: The Example of the Culip VI Wreck. Spain, XIIth-XIVth c.” In
Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th
Century, edited by H. Nowacki, Matteo Valleriani: Max-Planck-Institut für
Wissenschaftsgeschichte.
Robinson, R. 1983. “Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Kerameikos.” MDAI Athenische
Abteilung 98:265-85.
———. 1985. “Tobacco pipes of Corinth and the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 54: 149203.
Rule, Nick. 1989. “The Direct Survey Method (DSM) of Underwater Survey, and its
Application Underwater.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 18
(2):157-62.
323
Sarsfield, John Patrick. 1985. “Survival of Pre-Sixteenth Century Mediterranean Lofting
Techniques in Bahia, Brasil.” Forth Meeting of the International Symposium on
Boat and Ship Archaeology, Lisbon
———. 1984. “Mediterranean Whole Moulding.” Mariner's Mirror 70 (1):86-8.
Savary, Claude. 1798. Lettres sur la Grece. Paris: Arthus-Bertrand.
Shaw, Stanford J. 1969. “Selim III and the Ottoman Navy.” Turcica 1:211-41.
———. 1976, reprinted 1987. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. 2
vols. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1979. “The Population of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century.” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (2): 265-77.
Shterionov, Shtelian. 1999. The Southern Black Sea during the National Revival. Sofia:
Tomel.
Simpson, St John 1990a. “A Brief Introduction to Ottoman Clay Pipes.” Society for Clay
Pipe Research Newsletter 27 (July): 6-10.
Simpson, St John. 1990b. “Ottoman Clay Pipes from Jerusalem and the Levant: a critical
review of the published evidence.” Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 28
(October): 17-23.
———. 1993. “Turkish Clay pipes: a review.” Society for Clay Pipe Research
Newsletter 39 (Summer):17-23.
Simpson, St John. 1998. “Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire”, Pipesmoking in the
Ottoman Empire. British Museum Society Magazine 31 (Summer):14-7.
Simpson, St John. 2002. “Ottoman Pipes from Zir’in (Tell Jezreel).” Levant 34:159-72.
Slane, Kathleen W. 2005. “Corinth: Late Roman Horizons.” Hesperia Volume 74
(2): 243-97
Smith, Roger. 1998. “The Emanuel Point Ship: a 16th-century Vessel of Spanish
Colonization.” Paper read at International Symposium on Archaeology of
Medieval and Modern Ships of the Iberian-Atlantic Tradition, at Lisbon.
Spencer, Captain Edmund. 1851. Travels in European Turkey, in 1850;
through Bosnia, Servia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thrace, Albania, and Epirus; with
324
a visit to Greece and the Ionian Isles 2 vols. London: Colburn & Co.
Stancheva, Magdalina and Stephka Medarova. 1968. “Production of Clay Pipes in
Bulgaria.” Muzei I Pametnitzi na Kulturata 3:4-13.
———. 1972. “Collection of Pipes from the Varna Museum.” Bulletin du Musee
National de Varna VIII: 81-99.
———. 1975/1976. “On the Production of Clay Pipes in Bulgaria.” Muzej Primeniene
Umetnosti (19-20):129-38.
Steffy, J. Richard. 1994. Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
———. 1995. “Ancient Scantlings: the projection and control of Mediterranean hull
shapes.” Paper read at Tropis III, Third International Symposium on Ship
Construction in Antiquity, at Athens, 1989.
Tonev, Velko. 1995. The Bulgarian Black Sea Coast during the National Revival. Sofia:
Academic Publisher “Prof. Marin Drinov”.
Tzamtzis, A. I. 1972. “Ships, Ports and Sailors.” In The Greek Merchant Marine, edited
by S. A. Papadopoulos. Athens: National Bank of Greece.
Verwey, D. 1932. “Turkish Rigs.” Mariner's Mirror 18 (2):190-3.
Villie, Pierre. 1988. “La Rondinara: Epave d'un caboteur du XVI/XVI siecle.” Cahiers
D'Archeologie Subaquatique VII:137-57.
Villiers, Allan. 1961. “Sailing with the Arabs.” Mariner's Mirror 47 (2):249.
Walsh, Robert Rev. 1828. Narrative of a journey from Constantinople to England.
Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Carey.
Ward, Cheryl. 2001. “The Sadana Island shipwreck: An eighteenth-century AD
merchantman off the Red Sea coast of Egypt.” World Archaeology 32:371-85.
Ward, Cheryl and Uzi Baram. 2006. “Global Markets and Local Practice: Ottoman
Period Clay Pipes and Smoking Paraphernalia from the Red Sea Shipwreck at
Sadana Island, Egypt.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 10(2):
135-58.
Williams II, Charles K. and Orestes H. Zervos. 1989. “Corinth, 1988: East of Theatre.”
Hesperia 58 (1):1-50.
325
———. 1990. “The Excavations at Corinth,1989: The Temenos of Temple E.” Hesperia
59 (2):325-269.
Wood, John. 1998. “Pipes from Malta: a short account of the tobacco pipes found in
Dockyard Creek, Birgu.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27
(4):313-30.
———. 1999. “A study of clay tobacco pipes in Tunis: Were they traded to Gozo
(Malta)?” Post-Medieval Archaeology 33:233 - 41.
Yilmaz, Hulya. 2008. The Suna and Inan Kirac Collection of Çanakkale Ware. [cited
April 18 2008]. Available from
http://seramik.kaleicimuzesi.com/english/koleksiyon.html.
326
VITA
NAME:
Kroum Nikolaev Batchvarov
ADDRESS:
Department of Anthropology
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4352
batchvarov@tamu.edu
EDUCATION:
2009
2002
1994
Ph. D. in Anthropology, Nautical Archaeology Program,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
MA in Anthropology, Nautical Archaeology Program,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
BA, Political Science, Park College, Parkville, MO
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
2007
2005-2006
1999-2003
1999
1998
Tobago Archaeological Reconnaissance
Archaeologist, INA-OHS Red River Project: excavation
and recording of steamboat Heroine.
Project Director, Bulgarian Black Sea Project, Bulgaria:
Kiten Shipwreck Excavation
Archaeologist, Tektas Burnu Shipwreck Excavation,
Turkey
Archaeologist, Lake Champlain Maritime Museum:
Barn Rock Harbour canal barge recording
Pipe Stove Wreck, survey and hull recording