bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2017) 00.0: 1–24

doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12276

The Ereğli E Shipwreck, Turkey: an early Hellenistic merchant

ship in the Black Sea
Dan Davis
Department of Classics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, USA, 52101, dan.davis@luther.edu

Michael L. Brennan
Brennan Exploration, North Kingstown, RI, USA, 02852, mike@brennanexploration.com

Andrei Opaiţ
11 Burdock Lane, Toronto, Canada, aopait@gmail.com

Jared S. Beatrice
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ 08628, USA, beatricj@tcnj.edu

A shipwreck from the early 3rd century BC was discovered in the Black Sea’s suboxic depths off Ereğli, Turkey, during the
2011 E/V Nautilus expedition. Remote investigation revealed the trawl-damaged remains of a merchant ship carrying multiple
amphora types associated with Aegean and Pontic production areas. Also discovered were elements of the ship’s hull that show
evidence of both pegged mortise-and-tenon and laced construction. The wreck provides crucial archaeological evidence for both
maritime connectivity and ship-construction methods during a period of political and economic transition.
© 2017 The Authors

Key words: deep-water archaeology, Black Sea, trade, ancient shipbuilding, human remains.

T
he Ocean Exploration Trust’s 2011–2012
expeditions of the exploration vessel
(E/V) Nautilus conducted oceanographic
investigations of the Black Sea’s oxic/anoxic interface
to broaden our understanding of the dynamics of the
suboxic zone between these water masses, as well as to
document features of the seabed, including submerged
cultural remains (Brennan et al., 2011; Brennan
et al., 2013). Over the course of the expeditions, 12
premodern shipwrecks were discovered within a narrow
depth range of 100–115m, four off Sinop and eight off
Ereğli, Turkey (ancient Heraclea Pontica) (Fig. 1). In
partnership with Turkish colleagues, the expedition
adopted the principle of in situ preservation as a first
option in accord with the UNESCO Convention for
the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
(UNESCO, 2001) and implemented a non-intrusive,
non-sampling mode of survey and mapping. Ereğli
E, the oldest of the 12 wrecks, was mapped after its
initial discovery in 2011, then remapped the following
year (Davis et al., 2014; Brennan et al., 2016) (Fig. 2).
This early Hellenistic merchant ship rests on a flat
seabed at 101m depth, approximately 11nm north of
Kefken Adası and 52nm west of Ereğli. At least 13
distinct amphora types and variants from both Aegean
and Pontic production areas were identified on the
shipwreck site, with all observed examples damaged
in various degrees from repeated passes of bottom
trawl fishing nets (Brennan et al., 2012). Fortunately,
despite the damage, numerous amphora fragments
retained sufficient diagnostic information to narrow
the date of the sinking to between 300 and 270 BC.
Modern trawling activities along the shelf here have
also exposed, damaged, and displaced numerous hull
timbers. The in situ remains indicate mortise-and-tenon
construction, but disarticulated hull fragments exhibit
evidence of sewn construction, thus suggesting a
hybrid technique. Human remains, a rarity on ancient
shipwreck sites, were discovered resting on the surface
of the site. Aside from two dark, featureless pieces of
cloth (see Fig. 2, grid-squares L10 and L14), both of
which may be modern and intrusive, no other items
of ship’s equipment—anchors, rigging, tiles, and so
on—were evident during either visit.

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Figure 1. a) Map of the Black Sea region, including prevailing currents, winds and probable ancient maritime corridors;
b) locations of shipwrecks discovered off Ereğli (D. Davis).

On initial investigation and dating it was recognized
that the ship and its mixed cargo from two regions
was a unique find for two essential reasons. Firstly,
in comparison to the Mediterranean, until recently
very few ancient shipwrecks have been discovered in
the Black Sea, and most of those investigated were
summarily published (Parker, 1992: fig. 2; Wilson,
2011b, 33–39). This stands in stark contrast to the
large quantities of Aegean goods (primarily amphoras
and fineware) found on coastal and inland river
sites throughout the Black Sea region, which provide
evidence of vibrant seaborne trade between both
regions as early as the 7th century BC. Secondly,
in terms of historical context, the ship’s operating
lifetime was framed by the struggles of the Diadochi
for hegemony over the Macedonian empire after the
death of Alexander the Great. The period witnessed the
economic prosperity of Rhodes, Delos, and Heraclea
Pontica, and the continued affluence of the kingdom of
Bosporus under the Spartocids (Hind, 1994; Chaniotis,
2011). The beginning of the second quarter of the
3rd century BC also marks the start of a century-
long downturn in the economy and political stability
of the North Pontic region (Müller, 2010: 67–79).
Situated in this context, Ereğli E is poised to offer
insights into seaborne trade during a period of conflict
and politico-economic transition. Recognizing the
limitations of a non-intrusive, non-sampling survey, but

2 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Figure 2. a) Photomosaic of the Ereğli E wreck-site (2011) (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust); b) Ereğli E site plan, based
on the 2011 survey with some additions from 2012. Some amphoras and amphora fragments that appeared only in 2012 are not
included here (Illustrated by D. Davis).

also working with technology developed to enable high-
resolution imaging and accurate remote measurements
of artefacts, the expedition’s primary goals were to
determine: 1) the approximate size of the ship and date
of the shipwreck; 2) the construction method(s) of the
hull; and 3) the amphora types and possible nature of
its cargo.
Expedition background and methodology
The 2011 expedition was the first deep-water
sonar survey and remotely operated vehicle (ROV)
exploration off the northern Turkish coast since the
Institute for Exploration’s expedition in 2000, when
four Byzantine shipwrecks were discovered north-west
of Sinop (Ballard et al., 2001; Ward and Ballard, 2004;
Ward, 2010). The 2000 expedition also explored and
documented the paleoshoreline from the Holocene
flooding event in the Black Sea, and located an area of
rounded rocks and freshwater mussel shells at 155m
depth (Ballard et al., 2001; Coleman and Ballard,
2004). This expedition was part of an effort within
the marine geology community in the early 2000s to
find evidence of the flooding event, which included
locating and characterizing the paleoshoreline (Aksu
et al., 2002; Kaminski et al., 2002; Ryan et al., 2003).

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 3
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0
In addition to delineating the ancient lake shore, this
isobath also marks the boundary between the oxic and
anoxic water masses of the Black Sea. Documenting the
chemical and physical dynamics of this interface was
one of the primary objectives of the 2011 expedition.
Freshwater from rivers flowing into the Black Sea
creates low-salinity surface waters that overlie denser,
higher-salinity layers from the Mediterranean entering
through the Bosporus. The resultant stratification
combined with shallow outflow at the Bosporus hinders
the mixing of these layers, which creates a stagnant,
permanently anoxic basin below 155m. The well-
preserved Sinop D shipwreck from the 5th–6th century
AD was discovered during the 2000 expedition lying
within this anoxic water at 325m, its timbers perfectly
preserved and its mast still standing (Ballard et al.,
2001; Ward and Ballard, 2004; Ward, 2010).
Recent research has documented a gap between the
oxic and anoxic layers, referred to as the suboxic gap;
here dissolved oxygen (O2 ) is depleted to a level of
<5 ␮M, but where hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) is not yet
present (Murray et al., 1989). Because of the permanent
vertical stratification, oceanographic processes, such
as storms and thermic fronts that transmit energy in
the form of density currents or internal waves, affect
the thermohaline structure of the Black Sea (Filonov,
2000; Trembanis et al., 2011). The dynamics of this
boundary are paramount to our understanding of the
preservation potential of cultural sites, as suggested
by Ballard et al. (2001) and later shown by Brennan
et al. (2013). The depth of the anoxic layer varies
but is generally around the paleoshoreline at 155m.
These density currents are thought to move through
the oxic/anoxic interface and eventually strike the shelf
break of the ancient shoreline; this action continuously
moves sulfide-rich water over the seafloor and prevents
colonization by organisms (Brennan et al., 2013: 100).
The objectives of the 2011 E/V Nautilus expedition
included a return to the shelf west of Sinop, first
surveyed in 2000, as it is one of the few places along
the southern Black Sea where the shelf break is not a
steep drop into the deep basin. The gradual slope here
is free of turbidity deposits and slumps, which makes
it more conducive to sidescan sonar survey and more
likely to preserve historic features of the Black Sea, such
as paleoshorelines. During the 2011 expedition a second
wider shelf area west of modern Ereğli was identified
that exhibits a gradual slope similar to that off Sinop.
A survey of this plateau north-west of Ereğli ensued
by running approximately 30km-long E-W survey lines
across the feature with an EdgeTech 4200 MP sidescan
sonar. During the survey we observed areas of heavy
trawl scarring on the seabed, some of which ran right
to the edge of the shelf break and led to a hypothesis
that the disturbance to the seabed by trawl operations
could trigger slope collapses and slumping (Brennan
et al., 2013: 93). Previous sonar surveys by E/V Nautilus
expeditions in the Aegean Sea also documented heavy
trawl damage to the seabed that included extensive
4 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
damage to ancient shipwreck sites located in the area
(Brennan et al., 2012). Given the relatively shallow
depth at which the Black Sea becomes anoxic, trawling
activity is concentrated in the coastal shelves; therefore,
observed impacts from trawling are prominent off both
Sinop and Ereğli (Brennan et al., 2013).
During the 2011–2012 expeditions, four additional
sites were found off Sinop and eight off Ereğli. Fifteen
of the 16 wreck-sites now known in these areas, which
include Sinop A, B, and C from 2000 (but not the
anoxic Sinop D wreck at 325m), lie within a narrow
depth range of 100–115 m (Brennan et al., 2013:
95–96). This depth range is critical because it lies
within the range of the shelf break and the density
currents that move through the oxic/anoxic interface.
All of the wreck-sites exhibit well-preserved wooden
timbers due to the suboxic water environment that
prevented destruction by wood-boring molluscs. The
ancient wreck-sites (Sinop A, B, C, F, I and Ereğli
E) are primarily amphora piles with small numbers of
preserved timbers, while the timbers of the premodern
wrecks (Sinop G, H and Ereğli A, B, C, D, F, G, H)
remain well preserved, although most of these latter
wrecks are damaged and jumbled by trawling. Brennan
and colleagues (Brennan et al., 2013: 100) hypothesized
a difference in shipwreck preservation from a shoaling
of the anoxic zone about 200 years ago, indicated
by sediment cores from work conducted in the 1990s
(Anderson et al., 1994) and possibly caused by the
opening of canals between the Baltic and Black Seas
that moved the oxic/anoxic interface shallower. Such
a phenomenon would explain why the ancient wrecks’
hulls have disintegrated while premodern wrecks at the
same depth have most of their timbers intact, as these
depths therefore would have been fully within the oxic
zone in ancient times.
Ereğli E lies at 101m depth, just above this
transitional suboxic zone and within reach of internal
waves breaking across the plateau. An oval mound
measuring 18 × 8m in area indicates the presence
of a single wreck-site. Oriented SW-NE on a flat
seabed, the mound rises 0.80m above a shallow, 0.40m-
deep depression encircling the site. Although additional
artefacts may lie below the surface, the broken and
scattered amphoras visible in the imagery appear to
make up the only layer of cargo remaining after trawl
impacts have done their damage. Like many Black Sea
wrecks, remains of the ship’s timbers were scattered
along with the artefacts, although the upper part of the
hull likely decomposed soon after its sinking.
The ROV was employed initially to assess the size
and scope of the wreck by circumnavigating the site’s
perimeter with high-resolution imaging. Frame-grabs
of the high-definition video were collected throughout
the dive, which included detailed imaging of diagnostic
artefacts, where two red lasers spaced 0.10m apart
were kept in frame for scaling artefacts. Following the
video recording, photomosaic and microbathymetry
mapping surveys were conducted with Hercules’ stereo
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY
Figure 3. Plot of average temperature, salinity, and dissolved
oxygen over the Ereğli E wreck-site (from Brennan et al., 2013,
fig. 5).
cameras and BlueView multibeam sonar to create
high-resolution maps of the wreck. The stereo images
generated by the survey were also used to obtain
detailed measurements of artefacts by computing
camera and light geometries across a spread of pixels.
The most reliable measurements are those confirmed
by both laser and stereo-pair methods; in cases where
there is sufficient doubt of accuracy beyond an error
of 5mm, we specify that the measurement is estimated.
During the entire dive, sensors on Hercules measured
depth, salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen
(Fig. 3). Together with the imagery of the wreck, these
data help us piece together the history of the wreck-
site since its deposition, as well as the oceanographic
dynamics of the Black Sea.
After sinking, the Ereğli E wreck-site underwent
natural degradation over a period of time until two
anthropogenic actions impacted the site. First was
the shoaling of the anoxic layer. This caused what
remained of the site to be preserved in a periodically
suboxic environment. Second is the onset of bottom
trawl fishing operations in the 1940s in the Black Sea
to depths >200m. Trawl scars were visible running
through the site in the initial sidescan sonar image of
the wreck (Fig. 4). Trawling nets also dragged buried
portions of the ship’s hull that had been preserved
under the sediment to the surface of the seafloor.
Once exposed, these timbers were preserved by suboxic
waters periodically washing up over the shelf. On
returning to the Ereğli E wreck-site in 2012, 11 months
after the initial recording, it was immediately apparent
that the site had suffered additional disturbance from
trawls. Many of the artefacts and timbers identified
during the 2011 survey could not be found. A second
photomosaic and microbathymetry mapping survey
was conducted to provide a detailed site comparison
between 2011 and 2012. These showed that the site
© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Figure 4. Sidescan sonar image of the Ereğli E wreck-site.
The bright reflectors in the centre are the amphoras and
timbers on the seabed, while the dark lines seen crisscrossing
the site are trawl scars (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
changed significantly, with >95% of the artefacts
moved, including a conspicuous notched timber now
missing. Calculations from comparing the two survey
data sets indicated that more than 15m3 of material was
removed from the site between visits (Brennan et al.,
2016: 83–87).
Wine amphoras
Although the wreck’s surviving 50 to 60 amphoras
were discovered in various states of damage, a sufficient
number of diagnostic fragments—necks, rims, handles,
toes—remained to enable reliable identification of
at least 13 different amphora types and variants
that originated in production areas ranging from
the south-east Aegean to the north Pontic coast.
Unfortunately, the repeated trawl passes that damaged
amphoras and swept an uncertain number off-site
preclude even reasonable estimates of the original
number of amphoras carried by the ship. As a non-
sampling investigation, the expedition was accordingly
unable to raise any artefacts for more comprehensive
typological, petrographic or volumetric studies.
Instead the expedition focused on obtaining reliable
artefactual measurements for preliminary typological
identification by squaring the ROV’s camera to
all diagnostic fragments and projecting two laser
5
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

lines, spaced precisely 0.10m apart, onto them; these

measurements were also verified by the stereo-image
method described above. The ROVs intense white
lights also revealed colours that aided in identification,
especially in the case of the two Rhodian examples
discussed below. We include here, where possible, a
discussion of the capacities of some general types
because this important variable, often ignored by
specialists, plays an important role in characterizing a
ship’s cargo.

Pontic types
Tauric Chersonesos
The ship carried at least two types of Chersonesian
amphoras, both of which fall under Monachov’s type
I Б and I B (Monachov, 1989; Abramov, 1993: 40–
41; Kac et al., 2002: 104). The three examples of type
I Б (Fig. 5a–c and Table 1, designated EE.1, EE.2,
and EE.3) are characterized by a beaded rim set on
a cylindrical neck of medium size, a steep shoulder,
vertical handles that are ovoid in cross section, and a
body that tapers to a base featuring a knob toe with a
wide, deep, circular hollow. The type is typically around
640mm in height, 280mm in maximum diameter,
between 84 and 100mm in rim diameter, and c.17–18l
in volume (cf. Monachov, 1989: 51–58, pls. iv-xi; 1999:
428–430, pl. 186.2; Kac et al., 2002: 104, 110, pls. 45–
46). They were produced from approximately the end
of the 4th to the end of the 3rd century BC. The best
parallels for the examples found on the wreck are dated
to the 270s–260s BC (Monachov, 1989: 56, pls. VIII.48
and XI.66).
One example of the second, smaller type, I B,
was found at the western end of the site (Fig. 5d,
EE.4). The type averages 635mm in height, 247mm
in maximum diameter, 74–90mm in rim diameter, and
c.13l in volume. The best parallels date from the end
of the 4th to the mid 3rd century BC (Monachov, 1989:
57–58, pl. XI.68, 73). No stamps were visible on imaged
samples of either type.
Although problematic, research on amphora
stamps has narrowed the chronology of Chersonesian
production to 330–150 BC, with a hiatus in production
between 270/260 and 230 BC, during which time
the primary areas of Chersonesian wine production
suffered severely as a result of Scythian invasions
(Saprykin, 1997: 161, 211; Bittner, 1998: 133–134;
Stolba, 2005: 166; Müller, 2010: 67–74). This wine
was likely of moderate quality since it largely failed
to compete with the other Pontic wines, such as that
of Sinope and Heraclea. Its containers are found in
abundance at Chersonesos itself (Zolotarev, 2005: 195) Figure 5. Chersonesian amphoras EE.1 (A), EE.2 (B) EE.3
and in its chora, especially at Panskoye at the beginning (C) and EE.4 (D) (2011). The two red laser dots are spaced
of its production period (Turovskij, 1992; Lancov, 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
1994; Kac et al., 2002: 113–115), and at Farmhouse
151 (Carter et al., 2000: 726; the amphoras await final
publication). It was most likely marketed for inland
Scythian settlements, such as Elizavetovskoe, where
it was found in large numbers (Garlan, 1999: 140).

6 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Table 1. Ereğli E, wine amphoras, types and measurements (in cm). Asterisk denotes an estimation

Amphora ID Origin/Type Date Range Height Max. Diam. Rim. Diam.

EE.1 Chersonesos, Monachov I Б End 4th to end 3rd century BC - 28.5 10.0*
EE.2 Chersonesos, Monachov I Б End 4th to end 3rd century BC - 28.0 10.0*
EE.3 Chersonesos, Monachov I Б End 4th to end 3rd century BC 75.0 28.0 10.0*
EE.4 Chersonesos, Monachov I B End 4th to mid 3rd century BC 63.0 25.0* -
EE.5 Sinope, Monachov II B(?) End 4th to early 3rd century BC - - 8.0
EE.6 Erythrai/Chios, Type IV Late 4th to early 3rd century BC - - 11.5
EE.7 Erythrai/Chios, Type IV Late 4th to early 3rd century BC - - -
EE.8 Thasos Early to mid 3rd century BC - 29.0 13.0
EE.9 Thasos Early to mid 3rd century BC - - 10.0
EE.10 Rhodes Second quarter of 3rd century - - -
BC
EE.11 Rhodes Second quarter of 3rd century - - -
BC
EE.12 Knidos(?) End 4th to first quarter of 3rd - - -
century BC
EE.13 Knidos(?) End 4th to first quarter of 3rd - - -
century BC
EE.14 Knidos(?) End 4th to first quarter of 3rd - 39.0 -
century BC
EE.15 Knidos(?) End 4th to first quarter of 3rd - - 10.5
century BC
EE.16 Mushroom Type Second quarter of 4th to first - - 15.5
quarter of 3rd century BC
EE.17 Mushroom Type Second quarter of 4th to first - - 11.5
quarter of 3rd century BC
EE.18 Mushroom Type Second quarter of 4th to first - -
quarter of 3rd century BC
EE.19 Mushroom Type Second quarter of 4th to first - - 13.5*
quarter of 3rd century BC

However, the presence of Chersonesian amphoras is

very modest both on the north-west and western coasts
of the Black Sea, and even less represented in the
Mediterranean (Avram, 1988; 1996; 1999; Conovici,
1998; 2005; Garlan, 2007; Karjaka, 2007; Lund, 2007;
Mateevici, 2007: map 10, cat. nos. 348–363). The
statistics fail to account for the presence of unstamped
vessels, closer attention to which may enhance our
understanding of their distribution (Lawall, 2005:
203–204, tab. 9.2).

Sinope Figure 6. Two views of Sinopean amphora EE.5 (2011). The

One amphora, characterized by a rolled rim, cylindrical
neck, ovoid body, and handles that are ovoid in
cross section, is of Sinopean production (Fig. 6,
EE.5) (Monachov 1992, 1993, 2003a; Conovici, 1998,
2004; 2005; Fedoseev, 1999; Kac et al., 2002; Garlan,
2004). Unfortunately, much of the body is obscured,
thus hindering specific assignation within Monachov’s
typology. It may belong to Monachov type II B, which
reaches 680–700mm in height and c.21l in capacity
(Monachov, 1992: 173–174, pls. 5–8 and tab. 13). If so,
then it may be dated from the end of the 4th to the first
quarter of the 3rd century BC (Monachov, 1992: 173).
Sinopean imports have been well quantified at Istros,
Kallatis, Tomis, Panskoye and Chersonesos (Kac et al.,
2002: tab. 1; Conovici, 2005: 101–104), but overall trade
two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean
Exploration Trust).
in Sinopean amphoras within the Black Sea region was
relatively modest in this period to judge from stamps
(Garlan, 2004: 21, 27; cf. Empereur, 1982 and Lawall,
2005), and they are rarely found in the Mediterranean
region (cf. Garlan, 2007: 144; Lund, 2007: 185; de Boer,
2013: 109).
Aegean types
Erythrai/Chios
Although only the upper parts of jars EE.6 and EE.7
were preserved (Fig. 7a–c), their features point to

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 7
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0
Figure 7. Amphoras: a) EE.6; and b)-c) EE.7, Erythrai/Chios (2011 and 2012) (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
Figure 8. Thasian amphoras: a) EE.8; and b) EE.9 (2011). The two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean
Exploration Trust).
Erythrai or Chios, whose amphoras are characterized
by a long, cylindrical neck and a less-than-prominent
rim. In our two examples, the upper ends of the handles
are attached above the middle of the neck, but while
one handle is ovoid in cross section, the other is flat.
Both have good parallels in type IV, recently discussed
by Monachov (Monachov, 2012: 121–122, fig. 7), and
date from the last third of the 4th century to the first
third of the 3rd century BC. The jars of Erythrai are well
documented in the Black Sea in the Taman peninsula
along the Kuban river (Monachov, 2012: 121–122), but
also at Olbia (Lawall et al., 2010: 375, pl. 294.L 68) and
Albeşti (Buzoianu et al., 2008: 270, pl. VII. A-69). These
amphoras are becoming better known due to recent
discoveries that supplement ancient testimonia praising
the wine and the quality of its containers (Plin. HN
35.46.161; Tchernia, 1986; cf. Amyx, 1958: 175–178).
Thasos
The wreck included at least two Thasian amphoras
(Fig. 8a–b, EE.8 and EE.9). Their handles were
occluded by sediment to the extent that stamps, if
present, were not discernible. The rims are quite small,
rounded or slightly pulled to the exterior. The neck
is tall and cylindrical, its diameter increasing toward
the shoulder. The massive handles are ovoid in cross
8 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
section, slightly arched, and fall vertically onto a large
shoulder (cf. Zemliyanka no. 3 in Monachov, 1999:
448–452, fig. 195.1). Their large necks and narrow
bodies place them in the first third of the 3rd century
BC, that is, between the Thasian amphora of the Serҫe
Limanı Hellenistic shipwreck (280–275 BC) and one
from the Athenian Agora dated to c.240 BC (Grace,
1986: figs 3.11–12; 1961: fig. 51 [last in the row]). The
presence of Thasian amphoras in the Black Sea area
was common to sites dated to between the 5th and
first two decades of the 3rd century BC, particularly at
Istros, Tomi, Kallatis, and Odessos (Debidour, 1999,
81–2; Müller, 2010: 252–260; cf. Lazarov, 1999: 196;
Conovici, 2005: figs 1–3; Debidour, 2013: 55). The
qualities of this vin de liqueur with a scent of apples
appealed to the Greek palate and was praised by
ancient authors, including the late classical gourmand
Archestratos of Gela, as well as to Pliny the Elder who
compared it with Chian wine (Archestratos 59.15–16
[= Ath. 1.29c]; cf. Ar. Eccl. 1122; Plin. HN 14.9.73;
Salviat, 1986; Dalby, 1996: 94, 99–100; Olson and Sens,
2000: 214–15, 221–222).
Rhodes
Amphoras EE.10 and EE.11 (Fig. 9a–b) can be traced
by their morphology (Monachov, 2003b; 2005) and
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY
Figure 9. Rhodian amphora fragments: a) EE.10; and b) EE.11 (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
colour (Şenol et al., 2004: 353) to Rhodes and the
territory it controlled, its peraia, which produced
vintage wine that was widely distributed in their typical
amphoras throughout the Mediterranean and Black
Sea in the Hellenistic period. The rim of the first
amphora (EE.10) is comprised of a simple vertical
band with a very small lower projection, a feature that
places it in the second quarter of the 3rd century BC
(cf. Grace, 1963: 322, figs 1-5; Monachov, 1999: 475–
77, fig. 204.1). The second amphora (EE.11) with its
rolled rim and short neck is quite similar to a Rhodian
amphora published by Grace (1963: 322, fig. 14). She
considers both amphoras, of the broad rim and rolled
rim variety, to be proto-Rhodian, as they bear the
same eponym (Ἄ␥ ␳ ␫ος ), which is dated c.273–271 BC.
The contemporaneity of these amphoras seems to be
confirmed by their presence together on Ereğli E (cf.
a similar rim produced in Knidos: Lawall et al., 2010:
373).
Knidos (?)
Two amphora fragments and two possible complete
jars appear to be of Knidian manufacture (Fig. 10a–d,
EE.12, EE.13, EE.14, and EE.15). Knidian amphoras
from the late Classical and Hellenistic period fall into
two main types: one characterized by a tall, cylindrical
neck, a mushroom-shaped rim that develops into a
tall collar rim (Lawall et al., 2010: 373), a pythoid
body, and a small, sharp-ribbed toe; the other has a
rolled rim, a conical neck that swells slightly on its
upper part, and a cube-shaped toe. Although their
production appears to have overlapped, the latter shape
prevails. All four of our examples belong to this latter
shape (cf. Grace, 1986: 551–553, fig. 2.1; Empereur
and Tuna, 1988: 344, fig. 4e–f, g; Monachov, 1999:
441–446, pls. 191.1, 192.1, 193.1). The small rounded
rim is set on a cylindrical neck that swells slightly
toward its lower end. The handles are massive, ovoid
© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
in cross section, fall vertically onto the shoulder, and
are quite close to the neck. In this respect they are more
similar to the Knidian amphoras from the Serҫe Limanı
shipwreck of 280–275 BC (Grace, 1986: 551–553, fig.
2.1) than to Knidian amphoras from the Athenian
Agora, which, according to Grace, ‘have long tops that
descend slightly from the upper attachments’ (Grace,
1986: 551, fig. 2.2). These four examples are tentatively
dated to between the end of the 4th and first quarter of
the 3rd century BC.
Mushroom types
At least four so-called ‘mushroom-rim/knob toe’
amphoras were identified (Fig. 11a–d, EE.16, EE.17,
EE.18, and EE.19). Numerous variants with this typical
‘mushroom’ rim were created from the 4th century
BC as part of a regional production that included
the central and south-eastern Aegean area, particularly
Paros, Samos, Ephesus, Erythrai, Klazomenai, Kos,
Knidos, Datça peninsula and Rhodes (Empereur and
Picon, 1986: 112–113; Empereur and Tuna, 1989:
289; Lawall, 1999: 230; Garlan, 2000: 73). Those
characterized by bifid handles may be assigned to Kos
(Kantzia, 1994: 335–337), while those with handles
that are ovoid in cross section could belong to
Knidos or another south Aegean centre (Monachov,
2003c: 102–4, pls. 71–72), travelling together with the
Knidian amphoras with rolled rim mentioned above.
The type appears to have been produced between the
second quarter of the 4th and the first quarter of
the 3rd century BC (Monachov, 1999: 487, fig. 207.8
[unknown centre], 507, and fig. 214.3, 4, and 7 [Samos?];
2003c).
Unattributed types
Several other types remain unattributed due either to
their fragmentary state or heavy sedimentation covering
their diagnostic features. They include at least one
miniature and several medium and large-size amphoras,
9
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Figure 10. Knidian amphoras: a) EE.12; b) EE.13; c) EE.14; and d) EE.15 (20112012) (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).

Figure 11. Mushroom type amphoras: a) EE.16; b) EE.17; c) EE.18; and d) EE.19. The two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m
apart (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).

as well as a flat-bottom vessel. For the most part
these appeared anew during the 2012 revisit to the site,
indicating that heavy trawling was responsible for their
exposure and breakage.
Fineware
No finewares were visible in 2011, but on our return
to the site in 2012 a single kantharos appeared fully
on the surface in the middle of the site in grid-square
M13 (Fig. 12, designated EE.20: height 105mm; handle
span 140mm; min. body diameter 63mm; base diameter
43mm). Apparently, in the intervening 11 months,
it had been dislodged by trawls from a half-buried
position in the mound; its top half is covered in marine
growth, suggesting it was originally oriented upright
and half buried. It exhibits a plain rim, a low stem,
and handle spurs that rise slightly above the rim—all
features of Rotroff’s ‘classical kantharos: plain rim’ type
of the late 4th and early 3rd century BC (Rotroff, 1997:
84, fig. 4, no. 11, pl. 1). Without a direct examination of
its fabric it is impossible to determine whether the cup
was manufactured in Attica, which exported tableware
in abundance to the Pontic region in the Classical and
early Hellenistic periods, or was of local manufacture
(see for example Domżalski, 2007; Müller, 2010: 247–
249; Kallini, 2013: 59–62). In terms of form, the best
regional parallels may be found at Panskoye’s Building
U6 (Hannested et al., 2002: 128–129, 134 B24 and B25,
pl. 63), but they also appear at Chersonesos (Belov and
Jakobson, 1953: 115, fig. 6, v; Ušakov and Bočarov,
2014: 234 and taf. VII.16) and Tyras (Nicorescu, 1933:
583, fig. 71; Hannestad et al., 2002: 134, B24).
The single kantharos may have belonged to one of
the crew members. The Kyrenia ship, for example,
carried a variety of black-glaze vessels, including four
kantharoi, apparently for use by the crew (Swiny and
Katzev, 1973: 342–345). It has long been suspected,
however, that finewares often served as secondary cargo
aboard merchant ships trading in the Black Sea (Gill,
1991; 1994; Bresson, 2008: 167–170). This has been
confirmed by the discovery of the Zmeinyi Island
(Ukraine) wreck of the later 4th century BC. In addition
to hauling nearly 3000 amphoras of Peparethos types I,
II and possibly III, the ship included a large quantity
of black-glaze pottery, including 41 kantharoi and

10 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY
Figure 12. Three views of kantharos EE.20, discovered on the surface in 2012. The two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart
(Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
assorted numbers of bowls, pitchers, fish plates, and
cups (Tereshchenko, 2013: 302, 305). As finewares
would typically be carried in the uppermost layers, and
considering that the uppermost material is missing, it is
not out of the question that there was a consignment on
board.
Hull remains
Ereğli E settled on to a soft, deeply sedimented
seabed. Exposed to an oxygenated environment, the
wreck appears to have undergone similar site formation
processes as those found in the Mediterranean region.
The upper exposed portions of the hull were likely
eaten away within a relatively short time, leaving the
upper portion of the amphora pile exposed. The
lower portions of the wreck sank into the seabed
and remained relatively intact within the anaerobic
sediment. Approximately two centuries ago, suboxic
waters began to move periodically into the wreck’s
environment. Then at some point in the past 50 years
modern trawlers began their work, their otter doors
digging into the wreck mound and exposing, displacing
and upending several of the remaining hull timbers.
Fortunately, the suboxic water curtailed the settlement
of marine borer larvae and thus reduced the risk of
further degradation in this respect. On discovery in
2011, the wreck was notable for its exceptional quantity
of hull elements exposed on the surface, some in situ,
others displaced and damaged. Careful recording and
visual documentation in both 2011 and 2012 allowed a
preliminary analysis of the vessel’s construction.
The ship, like all seagoing ships of antiquity, was
likely built shell-first; the keel was first laid down,
and planks joined edge to edge continued upward.
At different stages frames were inserted to further
strengthen the hull. Ereğli E appears to have employed
two differing construction techniques to join planks
edge to edge—laced construction (coaks, tetrahedral
recesses, and ligatures) and pegged mortise-and-tenon
joinery.
© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Hull Assemblages 1 (HA1) and 2 (HA2) are discrete
groups of timbers (planking, frames, and ceiling) that
remain in situ. Both assemblages exhibit certain features
of pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery (see Fig. 2), and
both are identified as the upper preserved edge of the
buried hull. HA1 is exposed for 10.5m on the southern
side of the wreck and includes framing components,
planks, and ceiling. HA2, visible on the surface for
5.3m, appears to be part of the hull that broke away
during an early phase of the wreck’s degradation on the
bottom, in a way similar to the contemporary Kyrenia
ship (Steffy, 1985: 72–73, Ill. 1); alternatively, but less
plausibly, trawlers displaced HA2 in more recent times.
The timbers of both assemblages are flush or nearly
flush with a surface mat of marine shells. Their upper
surfaces exhibit a ragged edge and a chromatically
uniform aspect, thus making it difficult to distinguish
plank edge features such as scarfs, mortises and tenons.
One timber is an exception, HA1’s Unassigned Member
(UM) 12, a hull plank (or wale) that revealed 11
mortises (Fig. 13a–b). The edge here is approximately
50–60mm thick, and the mortises are 40–50mm long,
<10mm thick, and spaced 80–120mm apart centre-to-
centre.
Displaced plank UM13 (l: 1.40m; w: 120–180mm)
in grid-square M15 also exhibits features associated
with pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery (Figs 2, 13c).
Its top face alternates between patches of light and
dark, their boundaries perpendicular to the plank edge.
The darker areas appear to be a thick, reddish-brown
substance, perhaps pine tar (pitch), which was used in
antiquity to line the interior and exterior of hulls to
make them resistant to rot (Casson, 1995: 211–212).
The lighter areas would correspond to the original
location of frames, which were spaced c.170–190mm
centre-to-centre. The plank’s exposed edge is lined with
mortises measuring approximately 35–40mm in width,
c.5mm thick, and spaced approximately 140mm apart
centre-to-centre. Fragments of tenons are evident in at
least three of the mortises, and the pegs that locked each
tenon in place remain in situ.
11
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Figure 13. a) Timber UM12 in HA1, a long plank (or wale) that preserves vestiges of 11 mortises (indicated by arrows); b)
HD frame-grab of a portion of timber UM12 in HA1. The four mortises in the image correspond to the right-most mortises in
Fig. 13a; c) displaced plank UM13 shows probable frame impressions (lighter areas) and pitch stains (darker areas); d) detail
of UM13 showing mortises (bottom arrows) and possible peg locations. The two red laser dots in A are spaced 0.10m apart
(Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).

Displaced timbers UM2, UM15 and UM16 reveal
features associated with laced construction. Timber
UM2 has a visible face c.0.67m long that has 12
chiselled tetrahedral-shaped recesses along one edge
(Fig. 14). The base of each recess is approximately
30mm, while the sides range from c.15 to 20mm. The
recesses are spaced less than 10mm from the timber’s
edge. Although the face was partially obscured by
sediment, the notches appear to have their plugs in
place. Two strands of string-like material, possibly the
remains of plant ligatures, extend across the vertical
face near the third recess.
Plank fragment UM15 (preserved l: 1.5m; w: 220–
240mm; th: 40mm) lies completely on the surface in
grid-square L14 (Fig. 15). Two edges are preserved, one
straight, the other curved. The straight edge exhibits
a series of cylindrical mortises, approximately 10–
15mm in diameter, for receiving wooden dowels, or
coaks. They are spaced evenly (c.120mm centre-to-
centre) and favour the centre of the edge. Another
series of smaller impressions is discernible—with
difficulty—on the upper part of the same edge,
spaced 55–60mm centre-to-centre. The twin series
of coaks is characteristic of laced construction as
witnessed in several wrecks of the Archaic and
Classical period (discussed below). The coaks align and
hold the planks in position during lacing and offer
longitudinal reinforcement. The smaller holes connect
obliquely with the tetrahedral recesses chiselled into
the opposite—downward facing—face of the plank and
were used to receive the lacings, which, when tightened,
held the planks together. These smaller holes would
have been plugged to lock the lacings and provide extra
strength and watertightness. The lack of fastenings on
the upper face of the plank strongly suggests that this
was the outer face.
Timber UM16 (l: 750mm, w: 210mm max; th: 25–
30mm) is a heavily damaged plank fragment resting
on the surface in grid-square L14 (Fig. 16). Its longer
edge is damaged but preserves most of its features
along a nearly 0.45m span, while the other edge
appears damaged along most of its length. The top
face is covered with sediment, but contrasting light
and dark areas and three linear impressions oriented
perpendicular to the long edges are perceptible. The two
best-preserved impressions cross the width of the plank

12 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Figure 14. Timber UM2: a) Plan view of timber assemblage in N12, including UM2; b) Detail detail of UM2, oblique view.
Note the tetrahedral recesses along the bottom edge. The two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean Exploration
Trust).

Figure 15. Timber UM15: a) top view; b) oblique view showing lower edge seen in a). The smaller arrows indicate lacing holes;
the larger arrows indicate the coak mortises. The two red laser dots in the lower image are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean
Exploration Trust).

and measure approximately 40mm wide; the centre-
to-centre measurement of all three is c.200mm (cf.
HA1 above). The impressions on the upper face of the
plank were likely made by frame components, although
the dark substance that covers the wood (presumably
pitch) also covers these impressions. We can only
speculate that the rather narrow dimension of the frame
impressions (half that of the frames in HA1 and HA2)
was created by smaller timbers, perhaps made frames,
which in laced hulls were typically trapezoidal in cross
section with rounded tops.
The top face also exhibits ten tetrahedral recesses
along its preserved edge. Wherever the edge is
sufficiently preserved for measurement, the base of
each recess never exceeds 10mm from the edge; like
those of timber UM2, the recesses have a centre-
to-centre spacing of between 50 and 60mm. The
damaged face of the preserved edge includes two
probable cylindrical coak mortises (Fig. 16, larger
bottom arrows). Another series of smaller impressions,
apparently sewing plug holes, is visible on the lower
face of this edge; each impression corresponds to
a tetrahedral recess on the adjacent face and are
spaced 55–65mm centre-to-centre (cf. UM15 spaced
at 55–60mm). The lacing channels of both UM15 and
UM16 exit within the thickness of the plank rather
than at the exterior corner as found on other sewn hulls
documented to date (see for example Greene et al.,
2008: 701, fig. 28), which may signal a construction
variation (Polzer, pers. comm.).
Unfortunately, we were unable to detect how the
frames were lashed or otherwise joined to the planks.
Possible treenails in UM13, located at the third arrow
on the right in Figure 15, and UM16, located between

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 13
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0
Figure 16. Timber UM16, oblique view. The upper row of arrows indicates tetrahedral recesses. The lower, smaller arrows point
to sewing plug holes associated with each tetrahedral recess. The larger, lower arrows indicate probable coak mortises. The two
red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
the second and third arrow from the upper right in
Figure 15, need further investigation (Mark Polzer,
pers. comm.).
Finally, plank UM18 (l: 2.7 m; w: 100–250mm),
lying on the surface in grid-squares M12, L13 and
L14, exhibits features of both construction techniques
(Fig. 17). Although the exposed face is heavily covered
with sediment, perpendicular impressions, presumably
where frames once abutted the plank, and traces of a
reddish-brown substance are noted at its eastern end
(right side of Fig. 17). The southern edge is heavily
damaged and covered with sediment, but a sequence
of four mortises is visible toward the eastern end, each
c.0.50m in width and less than 10mm thick. The tenon
pegs—barely visible in the imagery—range between 160
and 180mm apart. The northern side of the plank’s top
face, where the wood surface is visible, is lined with
tetrahedral recesses spaced 50–80mm centre-to-centre
(visible in Fig. 17b, top edge). Most of the notch bases,
however, abut the plank edge, whereas the other two
laced fragments include a space of just under 10mm
between the base and the edge.
Based on the visible hull remains, the hull of Ereğli
E may be preliminarily situated within the context
of ancient ship construction. Kahanov and Pomey
trace the non-linear development of Greek shipbuilding
traditions between the completely laced vessels of the
Archaic period (represented by the Giglio, Bon Porté,
Cala Sant Vicenç, Jules-Verne 9, and Pabuç Burnu
wrecks) and the completely mortise-and-tenon joined
vessels of the late Classical and later periods (Kahanov
and Pomey, 2004; Polzer, 2010: 29; 2011). Between
these two traditions was an age of experimentation
during which shipbuilders working in the sewn tradition
assimilated aspects of mortise-and-tenon construction
in one and the same hull. In the Greek West, for
instance, shipbuilders of the Archaic period—perhaps
influenced by Phoenician techniques (Pomey, 1997:
201; Wachsmann, 1998: 241; Kahanov and Pomey,
2004: 24–25; Mark, 2005: 35, 67–68; Polzer, 2010: 33–
34)—adopted the mortise-and-tenon tradition but also
14 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
employed ligatures to join the hull planking to the
endposts (cf. Jules-Verne 7: Pomey, 1998: 151; Kahanov
and Pomey, 2004: 17, fig. 12; César 1: Pomey, 2001:
429–430; and Grand Ribaud F: Kahanov, 2004: 17–
18). In the Late Archaic Aegean, the builder of the
Pabuç Burnu ship followed the laced tradition but also
used rectangular tenons instead of cylindrical coaks, or
dowels, to align planks (Greene et al., 2008: 701; Polzer,
2010), a practice suggestive of a transitional move to
full mortise-and-tenon construction (cf. Pomey et al.,
2012: 292). The Ma‘agan Mikhael ship of c.400 BC,
found off the coast of Israel, was built in the Greek
tradition using closely spaced mortise-and-tenon joints,
but the first three strakes (including the garboard) were
laced to the endposts (Kahanov, 2003: 64–71; cf. Van
Duivenvoorde, 2014: 21). This ship serves as the last
known example of a hull built using both techniques.
The Kyrenia ship from the opening decade of the 3rd
century BC, and nearly all Greek and Roman seagoing
ships constructed subsequent to it, were built solely
with pegged mortise-and-tenon construction (Steffy,
1985; Steffy, 1994: 42–59; Katzev, 2005: 72; Polzer,
2011: 365). However, as research has shown, other
construction traditions employed the sewing technique
in various historical and regional contexts throughout
antiquity (Pomey, 1985; Kahanov and Linder, 2004: 66–
76; Marlier, 2005, 2006).
The hull of Ereğli E may modify this standard model
to a degree. Precisely how the hull was constructed
remains undetermined due to both the damage to
the site and the limitations of remote investigation.
Even so, evidence strongly suggests that a combination
of both construction techniques was employed by at
least some Greek shipyards until at least the early 3rd
century BC. If we assume that all timbers visible on
the wreck were once components of the hull, then
the ship appears to have been constructed using a
combination of construction methods. To judge from
the timbers and strakes still in situ in HA1 and HA2,
the lower part of the hull (at least) was built using
pegged mortise-and-tenon joinery reinforced by robust
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Figure 17. Timber UM18: a) plan view, top arrows show discernible locations of tetrahedral recesses, bottom arrows show
spacing of pegged mortise-and-tenon joints; b) detail of UM18, oblique view. The upper edge shows a series of tetrahedral
notches; c) detail of UM18, oblique view. The lower arrows point to the mortises, the upper to (barely) discernible peg locations.
The two red laser dots are spaced 0.10m apart (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).

framing; unfortunately, no metal fasteners or lashing
holes could be discerned to determine how frames
were attached to planks. The irregular shapes of sewn
components UM2, UM15, and UM16 suggest that they
were originally located at the ends or in the upper hull
(or both), rather than as planking elements within the
long run of side planking. It would be stretching the
evidence too far to assert that the hull was constructed
along the same lines as the Ma‘agan Mikhael ship,
but the evidence is at least suggestive. Timber UM18
with its evidence of both construction methods remains
enigmatic.
On the other hand, it is possible that all the sewn
components were simply pieces of scrap carried aboard
ship in the event a repair was needed. Gela 2, a
wreck found off the south-west coast of Sicily and
dating to the third quarter of the 5th century BC,
was constructed with mortise-and-tenon joinery, but
a small timber was replaced—presumably by a spare
carried on board or picked up in a port—using the
tetrahedral recess technique (Panvini, 2001: 104–106).
At least two repairs or instances of reuse could be
identified among the fragments of the contemporary
Tektaş Burnu shipwreck (Van Duivenvoorde, 2014:
16–17). Aboard the Kyrenia ship, scrap wood was
fashioned into ceiling planking, some of which showed
evidence of mortise-and-tenon construction, including
nail and frame impressions, and one was a reused laced
plank whose tetrahedral recesses had apparently been
trimmed away leaving only the round peg holes on
the edges (Steffy, 1985: 95 and Ill. 17, Ceiling B at
F28). Only excavation can clarify precisely how both
techniques were used in the construction of the hull.
Human remains
During the 2011 survey, skeletal remains were found
on the surface toward the eastern end of the wreck in
grid-square M15-M16 (Figs 2 and 18). The imagery was
reviewed by author JSB and the observable bones were

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 15
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0
Figure 18. Human skeletal remains assemblage. A: probable femur, B: tibia, C: tooth (Courtesy Ocean Exploration Trust).
Table 2.
Shipwreck Dates
Tektaş Burnu 440–425 BC
Porticello 425–400 BC
Ma‘agan Mikhael c.400 BC
Kyrenia 300–290 BC
Ereğli E 300–270 BC
analysed using morphological criteria. The skeletal
assemblage is comprised of at least two long bones
and a tooth. The exposed proximal half of a tibia (B
in Fig. 18) shows human developmental morphologies
including the tibial plateau, medial and lateral condyles,
intercondylar tubercles, and the shaft. The tibia rests
with its anterior surface down and posterior surface
up; the larger, more oval articular surface of the medial
condyle indicates that it belongs to the right side
of the body. The other long bone (A in Fig. 18) is
morphologically consistent with the midshaft area of
a human femur based on size and slight curvature.
Based on colour and surface texture, it is possible
that a portion of another long bone shaft is lying
just below the femur. The tooth (C in Fig. 18) is
oriented with its crown up and to the right, and
the root or roots down and to the left. The overall
16 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Length References
12–14m Van Duivenvoorde, 2014
16–17m Eiseman and Ridgway, 1987
12m Kahanov, 2003
14m Steffy, 1985
c.15m —
morphology is consistent with human dentition, but the
image contains insufficient detail to determine the tooth
category with confidence.
The visible skeletal elements provide limited
information about the individual or individuals
represented in the assemblage. Based on the lack
of duplication of skeletal elements, the minimum
number of individuals present is one. The spatial
association of the observable remains (especially the
tibia and probable femur) could suggest that they
belong to a single individual. However, factors such
as currents and bioturbation make commingling of
human remains in marine environments very common
(Mays, 2008). Some of the skeletal elements provide
enough information to make general statements about
age at death. The tibia appears to be developmentally
complete, based on the presence of a united proximal
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY
epiphysis. Fusion of this epiphysis to the shaft of the
bone normally occurs between 14–18 years in females
and 16–20 years in males (Schaefer et al., 2009). Thus,
the tibia comes from an individual who was probably
an adult, but who could have been in the mid to late
teens.
The discovery of human skeletal remains is an
extremely rare occurrence on ancient shipwrecks.
Fewer than ten cases have been described out of
approximately 1600 documented wrecks (Wilson,
2011b: 34). Examples include the Vulpiglia wreck of
300–290 BC (Parker, 1980: 63; 1992: 451), the Marsala
Punic Ship of the 3rd or 2nd century BC (Frost,
1981: 57), the Mahdia wreck of 110–190 BC (Parker,
1992: 252), the Spargi wreck of c.75 BC (Roghi, 1965:
117; Gianfrotta, 1981: 227; Lamboglia, 1971: 211,
figs 10–11), the Antikythera wreck of the early 1st
century BC (Nafplioti, 2012), the Titan wreck of c.50
BC (Parker, 1992: 425), and Fiumicino F of the 4th
century AD (Parker, 1992: 179). Such rare instances
have so far precluded studies of the effects of the
marine environment on human remains from ancient
shipwrecks or in submerged settlements. However, the
limited evidence suggests that protected environments
coupled with rapid burial in sediment are conditions
that favour long-term bone preservation. For example,
human long bones from two medieval shipwrecks
off south-east France examined by Arnaud et al.
(1980) showed only minimal histological and chemical
alterations, along with some bioerosion. Additionally,
the Antikythera shipwreck has yielded human remains
representing at least four individuals, including recently
recovered bones and teeth preserved well enough to
attempt ancient DNA extraction (Marchant, 2016).
The presence and state of preservation of human
skeletal remains on Ereğli E strongly suggest that they
were completely buried shortly after the ship’s impact
with the seabed. The presence of the tibia and tooth
would otherwise be unlikely because the head and lower
legs are early sites of soft tissue disappearance and
disarticulation in aqueous environments (Haglund,
1993). Furthermore, if the remains were regularly
exposed to factors such as marine scavengers,
bioerosion, or current abrasion, then they might
be expected to exhibit more obvious evidence of
extensive cortical destruction. In the absence of burial
in sediment or other factors that significantly limit
access to a body, skeletonization can occur in weeks to
months. Advanced cortical destruction of even robust
bones such as the tibia and femur can occur within 12
years in marine contexts (Sorg et al., 1997; Haglund
and Sorg, 2002; Dumser and Türkay, 2008; Mays,
2008). The generally dark and discoloured appearance
of the tibia certainly suggests sediment stains from
long-term burial before being exposed, probably by
trawling. The rather clean surface of the femur, on the
other hand, may indicate a longer exposure in the water
column, resulting in current abrasion, or perhaps recent
localized bacteriological or scavenger cleaning. Indeed
© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
individual bones may have been buried, exposed,
and removed multiple times by repeated trawl passes
over the past few decades before their discovery in
2011. Their complete disappearance before our return
to the site in 2012 points to a repeatedly disturbed
context.
Discussion
To judge from the in situ hull remains, the ship appears
to have been approximately 15m in length and 4–5m in
beam. This is comparable to several other Classical and
Hellenistic ships whose lengths have been reconstructed
at between 12 and 17m and whose tonnages range
between 12 and 25 tons (Table 2). Although larger ships
have been discovered, ships of this size were common
in the Archaic, Classical and early Hellenistic periods
(Wilson, 2011a: 213–215; 2011b: 39–40).
Ereğli E’s estimated 3:1 ratio of length to width
suggests that the vessel was a beamy, sail-driven
merchant ship (holkas) rather than one of a variety of
merchant galley types known from ancient authors but
little discerned in the archaeological record (Plin. HN
7.56.206; Gell. NA 10.25.5; Poll. Onom. 1.82–3; Non.
13; Isid. Etym. 19.1; cf. Davis, 2009: 52–59; Davis et al.,
forthcoming). That the vessel was open-decked cannot
be verified; excavations of the Kyrenia ship revealed a
dense concentration of supplies and crew possessions
in the stern of the vessel, intimating that this area
was outfitted with an enclosed stern cabin (Swiny and
Katzev, 1973: 345; Womer Katzev, 2005: 76). If Ereğli E
had such a cabin, it may explain the presence of human
remains if the ship’s occupant was inside during the
sinking event.
Although few visible clues (such as fineware or
coarse ware) explicitly indicate the origin of the ship
or its crew, it is a reasonable conjecture that the ship
belonged to the Greek cultural sphere: the construction
methods employed in the fabrication and joinery of
the hull are distinctively Greek; the ship was carrying
amphoras from various Greek production centres; and
the shores of the Black Sea had been ringed with Greek
colonies (mostly from Ionia in the east Aegean) since
the Archaic period. This is not to assume, however,
that Greek ship-construction methods in the Black Sea
followed the same line of development as other Greek
colonial areas, such as the western Mediterranean.
Local and indigenous traditions, Greek interactions
with various non-Greek peoples in the region, and
the preponderance of large rivers and deltas around
the Black Sea coast—all may have combined to create
alternate traditions of ship construction that only
further discovery, documentation, and analysis can
discern.
In postulating the final route of the ship as far as
it can be reconstructed from the limited evidence,
we may dismiss as improbable a scenario in which
the amphoras serve to connect the dots, as it were,
of its voyage itinerary: Rhodes–Knidos–Erythraei/
17
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0
Chios–Thasos–(Byzantion)–Chersonesos–Sinope–
sinking off Heraclea. It would be difficult to explain
why the merchant(s) involved in this voyage would
accumulate all of these products from Aegean, north
Pontic, and south Pontic centres, then sink west of
Heraclea.
It is worth considering the possibility that the voyage
was contracted in the Aegean, perhaps in Rhodes,
which at this time was a powerful commercial hub.
The entire Aegean cargo could have been loaded here,
destined for one or multiple Pontic destinations. The
Chersonesian and Sinopean amphoras may have found
their way on board in Byzantion, Hieron, or some
other emporion before the ship entered the Black Sea. If
this is the case, then Heraclea and/or Sinope—or other
poleis along the south Pontic coast—may have been the
intended destination.
Alternatively, the ship may have been built and
operated in the Black Sea, which witnessed a vibrant
intraregional trade in the 4th and early 3rd century
BC (Brashinskii, 1984; Bittner, 1998: 132–140; Müller,
2010; cf. Blavatsky and Peters, 1973). The presence of
a variety of both Pontic and Aegean amphoras on
board, none significantly greater in quantity than any
other, allowing for the vagaries of trawl damage, could
easily be explained if the ship had loaded a modest
but mixed cargo of Aegean commodities at Byzantion,
then set off on a tramping voyage to destinations in the
region as a sort of travelling warehouse. Byzantion, as
is well known, played a vital role in the economic life
of the Black Sea. It served as a vital link between two
commercially vibrant regions and profited from the toll
and other taxes it charged on the hundreds of ships
passing through the straits each year (Gabrielsen, 2007:
288, 295–297; 2011: 223–227; Xen. Hell. 1.1.22; Dem.
20.60; Dem. 23.177; Diod. Sic. 13.64.2–3). Aegean
merchants bound for Pontic ports with cargoes of wine
and oil presumably wished to retain them on board
until reaching their destination (cf. Tereshchenko, 2013;
Dem. 35), but we may speculate that a certain level of
Aegean commodities of all kinds accrued in Byzantion
each season and went on the market there (cf. Lawall,
2005: 193). According to V. Gabrielsen, ‘Byzantion’s
status as a central entrepôt for shipments of grain
could not but have had a beneficial effect on its
domestic emporion, harbour, and agora (all in FGrH
115: Theopompos F 62; [Arist.] Oec. 1346b18-19; Xen.
An. 7.1.19), since all other kinds of commodities,
besides grain, would have passed through it as well’
(Gabrielsen, 2007: 292; cf. Polyb. 4.38.8–9). Indeed,
Byzantion’s location astride the Bosporus made the
city well poised to serve as a primary redistribution
centre for Aegean goods bound for various Pontic
markets (cf. Dem. 34). Thus we may envision shippers
working exclusively in Pontus and taking advantage of
Byzantion’s markets without the necessity of paying the
toll. That the Ereğli E ship had just been loaded there,
and was headed eastward with its heterogeneous cargo,
is strongly suggested by the fact that no Heraclean
18 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
amphoras have been found on the wreck-site at a
time when Heraclean wine was trading heavily in both
regions (Bittner, 1998: 142).
Conclusions
The E/V Nautilus expedition discovered and
documented the Ereğli E shipwreck as part of a
programme of ocean exploration, which included
both physical oceanography and submerged cultural
remains of Turkey’s northern seaboard. Although
the wreck was badly damaged by modern fish trawls,
paradoxically this was the same mechanism that was
responsible for revealing a great deal of what would
have been otherwise buried and therefore unobservable
without excavation. The limitations of a non-intrusive
shipwreck survey are patent, and the degree of damaged
and missing artefacts prevents a full site assessment.
Even so, a significant amount of archaeological data
can be gleaned from a careful analysis of scaled,
high-resolution imagery and mosaics (Ward and
Ballard, 2004). Of necessity, the results remain
preliminary.
At some point between 300 and 270 BC, Ereğli E
slipped beneath the waves 11 nautical miles offshore
between the Black Sea entrance of the Bosporus
and Heraclea Pontica. The modest merchant ship,
measuring no more than 15m or so in length, appears
comparable in size to the wrecks excavated at Tektaş
Burnu, Porticello, Ma‘agan Mikhael, and Kyrenia.
Remote, non-intrusive investigation of this heavily
trawl-damaged site has revealed a hull constructed
using one if not two traditional Greek methods.
The in situ remains argue for a shell-first hull that
employed mortise-and-tenon joinery to join plank
edges. The disarticulated sewn planks and plank
fragments visible on the surface suggest that the sewn
tradition persevered in the Greek cultural sphere as late
as the first quarter of the 3rd century BC. Whether
the hull’s construction continued the tradition of using
a hybrid of both methods, as demonstrated in the
Ma‘agan Mikhael ship, is unknown. The lack of
excavated Classical and Hellenistic shipwrecks in the
Black Sea leaves open the question of whether the
region produced one or many distinctive shipbuilding
traditions. The full excavation of the Zmeinyi Island
(Ukraine) wreck of the latter half of the 4th century
BC, which is currently underway under the direction of
Dr Vyacheslav Gerasimov of the Ukrainian Academy
of Sciences, will likely help answer this question. At all
events, the Ereğli E ship serves as a useful data point as
more shipwrecks are discovered and documented in the
Black Sea.
The Aegean amphoras that appear to have made
up the main cargo serve as an important source of
information on the main wines that were in demand in
the Black Sea during the first quarter of the 3rd century
BC. Those from Rhodes, Kos, and Knidos particularly
encapsulate the transition of forms from the late
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Classical to Hellenistic period, when they acquire a
more well-defined identity. Although amphoras with
mushroom rims were still being manufactured, these are
perhaps the last years that such vessels were seen on
the market. Indeed they may be much older, as their
contents may have remained dormant, ageing for many
years in a cellar or at entrepôts before being sold. In this
context it is worth pointing out the presence of Rhodian
amphoras (from the island and peraia) in two variants,
one of which (that with a small, beaded rim) heralded
the dominant Rhodian form in subsequent centuries.
The products carried in Pontic amphoras, especially
those of Chersonesos, also maintained a reputation in
Pontus but were of lesser value.
Such a mixed cargo composed of both Aegean and
Pontic goods initially suggests an inter-regional trading
venture, but the presence on board of products from
the northern and southern coasts of the Black Sea
complicates the picture. While we can only speculate
on the intended destination of the ship, one likely
scenario is that it may have been a local carrier engaged
in tramping, its mixed assemblage of goods loaded
on board in a port in the Bosporus (Byzantion or
perhaps Hieron) and destined for markets along the
southern shore of the Black Sea or farther afield.
The ship was probably heading east toward Heraclea
when it foundered, taking with it at least one person.
Ereğli E is but one ancient shipwreck among thousands
that have yet to be discovered in the Black Sea
where nautical archaeology remains at a nascent stage.
Further discoveries are required to gain a clearer
perspective on developments in maritime technology
and the modes and mechanisms of intra- and inter-
regional trade in its various periods. Only through
such an approach can a sufficiently large sample be
assembled to make well-grounded observations, and, by
extension, gain a richer diachronic understanding of the
region.
Although all Nautilus surveys adhere to the
UNESCO Convention’s principle of in situ
preservation, it is clear that the future of the Ereğli
E wreck is in doubt. Trawling has already damaged
and scattered the cargo and elements of the hull.
At the current rate, future trawling passes will likely
destroy any semblance of a consolidated shipwreck.
Ereğli E is not an isolated case, for the majority of the
44 shipwrecks discovered off Turkey’s coasts by the
2009–2012 Nautilus expeditions have been damaged
by trawls. The exceptions are found mostly off the
Datça peninsula in the south-east Aegean, where 26
shipwrecks were discovered in deep water (Brennan
et al., 2012). Trawling is legally prohibited in this area
within 2.5 km of shore. Research has shown that those
ancient wrecks that lie within the trawling exclusion
zone are mostly or fully intact, whereas those lying
outside the limit have suffered significant damage
from trawls (Brennan et al., 2012: 64–67; Krumholz
and Brennan, 2015: 130; Brennan et al., 2016: 84).
In addition, the better-preserved wrecks, serving as
artificial reef habitats, demonstrated more abundant
fish populations and biodiversity compared to those
degraded by trawling (Krumholz and Brennan, 2015:
131–132; Brennan et al., 2016: 87). With these data, a
strong case can be made that the creation of marine
protected areas with a high concentration of shipwrecks
can result in both improved protection of maritime
cultural sites and an increase in fish population in
adjacent fishing grounds through adult fish spillover.
Unless or until such MPAs are established, it is
important to identify and document these sites before
they are damaged further or erased from the seabed
altogether.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Culture and Tourism for permission to conduct research
and imaging; Harun Özdaş, Muhammet Duman, and Nilhan Kizildağ for accompanying the expeditions in 2012; İlknur Subası
and Huseyin Vural of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism for co-sponsoring the Bodrum Symposium on Archaeological
Oceanography (October, 2014); Robert D. Ballard, Katy Croff Bell and Tufan Turanlı for their energy and vision; Marshall Stay
and Clara Smart for site and artefact mensuration; Evren Türkmenoğlu, Alexis Catsambis, Mark Polzer, Helena Wylde Swiny,
Susan Rotroff, Art Trembanis, and Joseph Rife for discussion and feedback; and IJNA’s editor and anonymous reviewers for their
insights and helpful comments. Financial support for the expeditions was provided by NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration, the
Expedition Council of the National Geographic Society, and the Office of Naval Research.

References
Abramov, A.P., 1993, Antichnye amfory: Periodizatsiya i hronologiya. Bosporskiiy Sbornik 3, 4–135.
Aksu, A.E., Hiscott, R.N., Mudie, P.J., Rochon, A., Kaminski, M.A., Abrajano, T. and Yaar, D., 2002, Persistent Holocene
Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis. GSA Today 12, 4–10.
Amyx, D., 1958, The Attic Stellai: Part III. Hesperia 27, 163–310.
Anderson, R.F., Lyons, T.W. and Cowie, G.L., 1994, Sedimentary Record of a Shoaling of the Oxic/Anoxic Interface in the Black
Sea, in M.I. Scranton (ed.), Variability in Anoxic Systems, 378–384. Marine Geology 116. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Arnaud, G., Arnaud, S., Ascenzi, A., Bonucci, E. and Graziani, G., 1980, On the problem of the preservation of human bone in
sea-water. IJNA 9.1, 53–65.
Avram, A., 1988, Zu den Handelsbeziehungen zwischen Histria und der Insel Thasos im Lichte der Amphorenstempel. Klio 70,
404–411.
Avram, A., 1996, Histria. Les résultats des fouilles. VIII. Les timbres amphoriques, 1. Thasos. Paris: De Boccard.

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 19
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Avram, A., 1999, Matériel amphorique et non amphorique dans deux sites de la chôra d’Istros (Histria Pod et Cogealac), in Y.
Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25–28
mai 1994, 215–230. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Ballard, R.D., Hiebert, F.T., Coleman, D.F., Ward, C., Smith, J.S., Willis, K., Foley, B., Croff, K., Major, C. and Torre, F., 2001,
Deepwater Archaeology of the Black Sea: The 2000 Season at Sinop, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 105, 607–623.
Belov, G.D. and Jakobson, A.L., 1953, Kvartal XVII: Raskopki 1940 g. (Abschnitt XVII: Grabungen im Jahr 1940). Materialy
i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR 34, 109–159.
Bittner, A., 1998, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike: eine Polis zwischen Tyrannis und Selbstverwaltung. Bonn.
Blavatsky, V.D. and Peters, B.G., 1973, A wreck of the late 4th or early 3rd century BC near Donuzlav. IJNA 2.1, 25–31.
Brashinskii, I.B., 1984, Metody Issledovaniya Antichnoy Torgovli. Leningrad.
Brennan, M.L., Ballard, R.D., Bell, K.L.C. and Piechota, D., 2011, Archaeological Oceanography and Environmental
Characterization of Shipwrecks in the Black Sea. In I. Buynevich, V. Yanko-Hombach, A. Gilbert and R.E. Martin (eds),
Geology and Geoarchaeology of the Black Sea Region: Beyond the Flood Hypothesis, 179–188. Geological Society of America
Special Paper 473. Boulder: Geological Society of America.
Brennan, M.L., Ballard, R.D., Roman, C., Bell, K.L.C., Buxton, B., Coleman, D.F., Inglis, G., Köyağasioğlu, O. and Turanlı,
T., 2012, Evaluation of the Modern Submarine Landscape off Southwestern Turkey through the Documentation of Ancient
Shipwreck Sites. Continental Shelf Research 43, 55–70.
Brennan, M.L., Davis, D., Ballard, R.D., Trembanis, A.C., Vaughn, J.I., Krumholz, J.S., Delgado, J.P., Roman, C.N., Smart,
C., Bell, K.L.C. and Duman, M., 2016, Quantification of Bottom Trawl Fishing Damage to Ancient Shipwreck Sites. Marine
Geology 371, 82–88.
Brennan, M.L., Davis, D., Roman, C., Buynevich, I., Catsambis, A., Kofahl, M., Ürkmez, D., Vaughn, J.I., Merrigan, M. and
Duman, M., 2013, Ocean Dynamics and Anthropogenic Impacts along the Southern Black Sea Shelf Examined through the
Preservation of Pre-modern Shipwrecks. Continental Shelf Research 53, 89–101.
Bresson, A., 2008, L’économie de la Grèce des cités. II. Les espaces de l’échange. Paris: Colin.
Buzoianu, L., Bărbulescu, M., Rădulescu, A., Cheluţă Georgescu, N. and Sion, A., 2008, Albesti, monografie arheologică;.
Constanţa: Ex Ponto.
Carter, J.C., Crawford, M., Lehman, P., Nikolaenko, G. and Trelogan, J., 2000, The Chora of Chersonesos in Crimea, Ukraine.
American Journal of Archaeology 104, 707–741.
Casson, L., 1995, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Chaniotis, A., 2011, The Impact of War on the Economy of Hellenistic Poleis: Demand, Creation, Short-Term Influences, Long-
Term Impacts, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen (eds), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First
Centuries BC, 122–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, D.F. and Ballard, R.D., 2004, Archaeological Oceanography of the Black Sea, in T. Akal, R.D. Ballard and G.F. Bass
(eds), The Application of Recent Advances in Underwater Detection and Survey Techniques to Underwater Archaeology, 49–58.
Istanbul: Uluburun Press.
Conovici, N., 1998, Histria. Les résultats des fouilles. VIII. Les timbres amphoriques, 2. Sinope (tuiles timbrées comprises). Paris:
De Boccard.
Conovici, N., 2004, Les problèmes actuels de la chronologie des timbres sinopéens, in J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds), Transport
Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens,
September 26–29, 2002, 99–102. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Conovici, N., 2005, The Dynamic of Trade in Transport Amphorae from Sinope, Thasos and Rhodos on the Western Black Sea
Coast: A Comparative Approach, in V. Stolba and L. Hannestad (eds), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c.
400–100 BC, 97–117. Black Sea Studies 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Dalby, A., 1996, Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece. London: Routledge.
Davis, D.L., 2009, Commercial Navigation in the Greek and Roman World. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin.
Davis, D.L., Brennan, M.L., Catsambis, A. and Opaiţ, A., 2014, The Ereğli E Shipwreck: An International Merchant Ship of
the Early Hellenistic Period. Paper read at the Symposium on Archaeological Oceanography in the Mediterranean and Black
Sea, 19–20 October, Bodrum, Turkey.
Davis, D., Cariolou, G. and Steffy, J.R., forthcoming. Kyrenia II and Kyrenia Liberty: Performance under Sail, in S. Katzev and
H. Wylde Swiny (eds), The Kyrenia Ship: Final Excavation Report on a Fourth-Century B.C.E. Merchantman. Vol. 2, The Ship.
Debidour, M., 1999, Kleitos, un magistrate thasien attesté sur le rives de la mer Noire, in Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce
des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25–28 mai 1994, 81–89. Aix-en-Provence:
Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Debidour, M., 2013, Obtenir de chiffres pour l’économie grecque: des monnaies aux amphores timbrées, in L. Buzoianu, P.
Dupont and V. Lungu (eds), Patabs III: Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la table ronde internationale
de Constanța, 6–10 octobre 2009, 45–55. Constanţa: Natural History and Archaeology Museum.
De Boer, J.G., 2013, Stamped Amphorae from the Greek Black Sea Colony of Sinope in the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic
Period, in G.R., Tsetzkhladze, S. Atasoy, A. Avram, Ş. Dönmez and J. Hargrave (eds), The Bosporus: Gateway between the
Ancient West and East (1st Millenium BC–5th Century AD). Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Black Sea
Antiquities. Istanbul, 14th–18th September 2009, 109–114. BAR International Series, 2517. Oxford.
Demesticha, S., 2011, The 4th-Century-BC Mazotos shipwreck, Cyprus: a preliminary report. IJNA 40.1, 39–59.
Domżalski, K., 2007, Changes in Late Classical and Hellenistic Fine Pottery Production in the Eastern Mediterranean Reflected
by Imports in the Pontic Area, in V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional
Economic Exchanges, 161–181. Black Sea Studies 6. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

20 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Doonan, O., 2004. Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connections in a Black Sea Hinterland. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Dumser, T.K. and Türkay, M., 2008, Postmortem Changes of Human Bodies on the Bathyal Sea Floor—Two Cases of Aircraft
Accidents Above the Open Sea. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53, 1049–1052.
Eiseman, C.J. and B.S. Ridgway, 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415–385 BC. College
Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Empereur, J-Y., 1982, Les anses d’amphores timbrées et les amphores. Aspects quantitatifs. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
106, 219–233.
Empereur, J-Y. and Picon, M., 1986, A la recherche des four d’amphores. In J-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les
amphores grecques. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, L’Université de
Rennes II et L’École Française d’Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984, 103–126. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément
13. Athens: École française d’Athènes.
Empereur, J-Y. and Tuna, N., 1988, Zénon de Caunos et l’épave de Serçe Limani. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 112,
341–357.
Empereur, J-Y. and Tuna, N., 1989, Hiérotélés, potier rhodien de la Pérée. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 113, 277–292.
Fedoseev, N.F., 1999, Classification des timbres astynomiques de Sinope, in Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores
anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25–28 mai 1994, 27–48. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de
l’Université de Provence.
Filonov, A.E., 2000, Thermic Structure and Intense Internal Waves on the Narrow Continental Shelf of the Black Sea. Journal
of Marine Systems 24, 27–40.
Frost, H., 1981, Lilybaeum. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Suppl. 8.30. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Gabrielsen, V., 2007, Trade and Tribute: Byzantion and the Black Sea Straits, in V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds), The Black Sea
in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, 287–324. Black Sea Studies 6. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Gabrielsen, V., 2011, Profitable Partnerships: Monopolies, Traders, Kings, and Cities, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies and V.
Gabrielsen (eds), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, 216–250. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Garlan, Y., 1999, Réflexions sur le commerce des amphores grecques en mer Noire, in Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce
des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25–28 mai 1994, 131–142. Aix-en-Provence:
Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Garlan, Y., 2000, Amphores et timbres amphoriques grecques. Entre érudition et idéologie. Mémoires présentés par divers savants
à l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres 21. Paris.
Garlan, Y., 2004, Les timbres céramiques sinopéens sur amphores et sur tuiles trouvés à Sinope: présentation et catalogue. Varia
Anatolica 16. Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes—Georges Dumézil.
Garlan, Y., 2007, Echanges d’amphores timbrées entre Sinope et la Méditerranée aux époque classique et hellénistique, in V.
Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, 143–148. Black Sea
Studies 6. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Gianfrotta, P.A., 1981, Commerci e pirateria: prime testimonianze archeologiche sottomarine. Mélanges de l’École française de
Rome, Antiquité 93, 227–242.
Gill, D.W.J., 1991, Pots and Trade: Spacefillers or objets d’art? Journal of Hellenic Studies 111, 29–47.
Gill, D.W.J., 1994, Positivism, Pots and Long-Distance Trade, in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern
Archaeologies, 99–107. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grace, V., 1961, Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.
Grace, V., 1963, Notes on the Amphoras from the Koroni Peninsula. Hesperia 32, 319–334.
Grace, V., 1986, Some Amphoras from a Hellenistic Wreck, in J-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores
grecques. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, L’Université de Rennes
II et L’École Française d’Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984, 551–565. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 13.
Athens: École française d’Athènes.
Greene, E.S., Lawall, M.L. and Polzer, M.E., 2008, Inconspicuous Consumption: The Sixth-Century B.C.E. Shipwreck at Pabuç
Burnu, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 112, 685–711.
Haglund, W.D., 1993, Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 38, 806–815.
Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H., 2002, Human Remains in Water Environments, in W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg (eds), Advances
in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, 201–218. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hannestad, L., Stolba, V.F. and Hastrup, H.B., 2002, Black-Glazed, Red-Figure, and Grey Ware Pottery, in L. Hannestad, V.F.
Stolba and A.N. Shcheglov (eds), Panskoye I. Vol.1. The Monumental Building U6, 127–148. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Hind, J.G.F., 1994, The Bosporan Kingdom. Cambridge Ancient History VI2 , 476–511.
Kac, V.I., Monachov, S.Yu., Stolba, V.F. and Shcheglov, A.N., 2002, Tiles and Ceramic Containers, in L. Hannestad, V.F. Stolba
and A.N. Shcheglov (eds), Panskoye I. Vol.1. The Monumental Building U6, 101–126. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Kahanov, Y., 2003, The Hull, in E. Linder and Y. Kahanov, The Ma‘agan Mikhael Ship: The Recovery of a 2400-Year-Old
Merchantman, Final Report, Vol. 1, 53–129. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the University of Haifa.
Kahanov, Y., 2004, The Sewing of the Ship, in Y. Kahanov and E. Linder, The Ma‘agan Mikhael Ship: The Recovery of a 2400-
Year-Old Merchantman, Final Report, Vol. 2, 3–79. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the University of Haifa.
Kahanov, Y. and Linder, E., 2004, The Ma‘agan Mikhael ship, the Recovery of a 2400-year-old Merchantman, Final Report Volume
2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and University of Haifa, Jerusalem.

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 21
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Kahanov, Y. and Pomey, P., 2004, The Greek Sewn Shipbuilding Tradition and the Ma‘agan Mikhael Ship: A Comparison with
Mediterranean Parallels from the Sixth to the Fourth Centuries BC. Mariners Mirror 90, 6–28.
Kallini, C., 2013, Hellenistic Kantharoi. Their Production Centers and Their Distribution in the Eastern Mediterranean, in N.
Fenn and C. Römer-Strehl (eds), Networks in the Hellenistic World According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Beyond, 59–66. BAR International Series, 2539. Oxford.
Kaminski, M.A., Aksu, A., Box, M., Hiscott, R.N., Filipescu, S. and Al-Salameen, M., 2002, Late Glacial to Holocene
Benthic Foraminifera in the Marmara Sea: Implications for Black Sea–Mediterranean Sea Connections Following the Last
Deglaciation. Marine Geology 190, 165–202.
Kantzia, Ch., 1994, Έ␯␣ ␬ε␳ ␣␮␫␬ό ε␳ ␥ ␣␴␶ ␩␳ ´ ␫ο ␣␮␸ο␳ έ␻␯ ␶ ο␷ ␲␳ ␻␶ ´ ο␷ ␮␫␴ο␷´ ␶ ο␷ 4ο␷ ␣␫. ␲.X. ␴␶ ␩␯ K␻, ´ in ’
E␲␫␴␶ ␩␮ο␯␫␬␩´ ␷ ␯ ␣␯␶ ´ ␩␴␩ ␥ ␫␣ ␶ ␩␯ E␭␭␩␯␫␴␶ ␫␬␩´ Kε␳ ␣␮␫␬␩, ´ ε␴␴␣␭ο␯´␫␬␩ 24–27 ε␲␶ ε␮␤␳ ␫´ο␷ 1991, 323–354. Athens.
Karjaka, A.V., 2007, Amphora Finds of the 4th century BC from the Settlements of the Lower Dnieper Region, in V. Gabrielsen
and J. Lund (eds), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, 133–141. Black Sea Studies 6.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Krumholz, J.S. and Brennan, M.L., 2015, Fishing for common ground: Investigations of the impact of trawling on ancient
shipwreck sites uncovers a potential for management. Marine Policy 61, 127–133.
Lamboglia, N., 1971, La seconda campagna di scavo sulla nave romana di Spargi, in Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di
Archeologia Sottomorina, Barcelona, 1961, 205–214. Bordighera: Instituo Internazionale di Studi Liguri.
Lancov, S.B., 1994, Antichnoe poselenie Novo-Fedoroska I nekotorye voprosy istorii chersonesskoj chory, in V.A. Kutajsov (ed.),
Severo-Zapadnyi Krym v antičnuju epochu, 71–104. Kiev: Kievskaia akademia Evrobiznesa.
Lawall, M., 1999, Amphoras and Aegean Trade: Structure and Goals for Future Research, in R.F. Docter and E.M. Moorman
(eds), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12–17, 1998, 229–232. Allard
Pierson Series 12. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Lawall, M., 2005, Amphoras and Hellenistic Economies: Addressing the (Over)emphasis on Stamped Amphora Handles, in
Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen (eds), Making, Moving and Managing: The New World of Ancient Economies,
189–232. Oxford: Oxbow.
Lawall, M., Lejpunskaja, N.A., Diatroptov, P.D. and Samojlova, T.L., 2010, Transport Amphorae, in N.A. Lejpunskaja, P.
Guldager Bilde, J. Munk Højte, V.V. Krapivina and S.D. Kryžickij (eds), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th
Century BC to the 4th Century AD, 355–406. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Lazarov, M., 1999, Les importations amphoriques thassiennes à Odessos, in Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores
anciennes en Mer Noire. Colloque international organisé à Istanbul, 25–28 mai 1994, 195–200. Aix-en-Provence: Publications
de l’Université de Provence.
Lund, J., 2007, Circulation of Ceramic Fine Wares and Transport Amphoras from the Black Sea Region in the Mediterranean,
c.400 BC–AD 200, in V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic
Exchanges, 183–194. Black Sea Studies 6. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Malyshev, A.A., 2007, Greeks in the North Caucasus, in D.V. Grammenos and E.K. Petropoulos (eds), Ancient Greek Colonies
in the Black Sea, 951–978. BAR International Series, 1675. Oxford.
Marchant, J., 2016, Human Skeleton Found on Famed Antikythera Wreck. Nature 537, 462–463.
Mark, S., 2005, Homeric Seafaring. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Marlier, S., 2005, Systèmes et techniques d’assemblage par ligatures dans la construction navale antique méditerranéenne.
Doctoral thesis, l’Université de Provence, Aix-Marseille I, Aix-en-Provence, 3 vols.
Marlier, S., 2006, An Example of Experimental Archaeology and the Construction of a Full-Scale Research Model of the
Cavalière Ship’s Hull, in L. Blue, F. Hocker and A. Englert (eds), Connected by the Sea: Proceedings of the Tenth International
Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 43–49. ISBSA 10. Oxford: Oxbow.
Mateevici, N., 2007, Amforele greceşti ı̂n mediul barbar din nord-vestul Pontului Euxin ı̂n sec. VI–ı̂nceputul sec. II a. Chr. Chişinău:
Bons Offices.
Mays, S., 2008, Human Remains in Marine Archaeology. Environmental Archaeology 13, 123–133.
Monachov, S. Yu., 1989, Amfory Chersonesa Tavricheskogo IV–II vv. do n.e. Opyt sistemnogo analiza. Saratov: Saratovskogo
Universiteta.
Monachov, S. Yu., 1992, Dinamika form i standartov sinopskih amfor, in V.I. Kac and S. Yu. Monachov (eds), Grecheskie amfory,
163–204. Saratov: Saratovskogo Universiteta.
Monachov, S. Yu., 1993, Les amphores de Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 2, 107–132.
Monachov, S. Yu., 1999, Grecheskis amfory v Prichernomor’e: kompleksy keramicheskoiy tary VII–II vv. do n.e. Saratov:
Saratovskogo Universiteta.
Monachov, S. Yu., 2003a, Amfory Sinopy, in S. Yu. Monachov (ed.), Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e. Tipologija amfor
vedushchik centrov-eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoi tare, 145–160. Katalog-opredelitel. Moscow: Kimmerida.
Monachov, S. Yu., 2003b, Amfory Rodosa, in S. Yu. Monachov (ed.), Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e. Tipologija amfor
vedushchik centrov-eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoi tare, 111–122. Katalog-opredelitel. Moscow: Kimmerida.
Monachov, S. Yu., 2003c, Amfory Knida, in S.Yu. Monachov (ed.), Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e. Tipologija amfor
vedushchik centrov-eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoi tare, 101–110. Katalog-opredelitel. Moscow: Kimmerida.
Monachov, S. Yu., 2005, Rhodian Amphoras: Developments in Form and Measurements, in V. Stolba and L. Hannestad (eds),
Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400–100 BC, 69–95. Black Sea Studies 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Monachov, S. Yu., 2012, Amfory maloaziiyskih Erifr V–II vv. do n.e.: dopolneniya k klassifikatsii, in N. P. Telnov (ed.), Drevnosti
severnogo prichernomor’ya III–II vv. do n.e., 111–124. Tiraspol: Pridnestrovskij Gosudarstvennyj Univ. im. T.G. Sevcenko.
Müller, C., 2010, D’Olbia à Tanaı̈s: Territoires et réseaux d’échanges dans la mer Noire septentrionale aux époques classique et
hellénistique. Scripta Antiqua 28. Paris: Ausonius.

22 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
D. DAVIS ET AL.: THE EREĞLI E EARLY HELLENISTIC SHIPWRECK, TURKEY

Murray, J.W., Jannasch, H.W., Honjo, S., Anderson, R.F., Reeburgh, W.S., Top, Z., Friedrich, G.E., Codispoti, L.A. and Izdar,
E., 1989, Unexpected Changes in the Oxic/Anoxic Interface in the Black Sea. Nature 338, 411–413.
Nafplioti, A., 2012, The Human Skeletal Remains, in N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bougia (eds), The Antikythera Shipwreck:
The Ship, The Treasures, The Mechanism, 57–60. Athens: National Archaeological Museum.
Nicorescu, P., 1933, Fouilles de Tyras. Dacia 3–4 (1927–1932), 557–601.
Olson, S.D. and Sens, A., 2000, Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE, Text, Translation and
Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panvini, R., 2001, The Archaic Greek Ship at Gela (and Preliminary Exploration of a Second Greek Shipwreck). Translated by
B.E. McConnell. Palermo: Regione siciliana.
Parker, A.J., 1980, The Preservation of Ships and Artefacts in Ancient Mediterranean Wreck-Sites. Progress in Underwater
Science 5, 41–70.
Parker, A.J., 1992, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. BAR International Series, 580. Oxford.
Polzer, M., 2010, The VIth-Century BC Shipwreck at Pabuç Burnu, Turkey: Evidence for Transition from Lacing to Mortise-
and-Tenon Joinery in Late Archaic Greek Shipbuilding, in P. Pomey (ed.), Transferts Technologiques en Architecture Navale
Méditerranéenne de l’Antiquité aux Temps Modernes: Identité Technique et Identité Culturelle, 27–44. Varia Anatolica 20.
Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes—Georges Dumézil.
Polzer, M., 2011, Early Shipbuilding in the Eastern Mediterranean, in A. Catsambis, B. Ford and D. L. Hamilton (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, 349–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pomey, P., 1985, Mediterranean Sewn Boats in Antiquity, in S. McGrail and E. Kentley (eds), Sewn Plank Boats, 35–48. BAR
S276, Oxford.
Pomey, P., 1997, Un exemple d’évolution des techniques de construction navale antique: De l’assemblage par ligatures a
l’assemblage par tenons et mortaises, in D. Meeks and D. Garcia (eds), Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales:
Le temps de l’innovation. Colloque international (CNRS), Aix-en-Provence 21–3 mai 1996, 195–203. Paris: Editions
Errance.
Pomey, P., 1998, Les épaves grecques du VIe siècle av. J-C de la place de Jules-Verne à Marseille, in P. Pomey and É. Rieth
(eds), Construction navale maritime et fluviale: Approches Archéologique, historique et ethnologique. Actes du septième colloque
international d’archéologie navale: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Île
Tatihou, Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue, 1994, 147–154. Archaeonautica 14. Paris: CNRS.
Pomey, P., 2001, Les épaves grecques archaı̈ques du VIe siècle av. J.-C. de Marseille: Épaves Jules-Verne 7 et 9 et César 1, in H.
Tzalas (ed.), Tropis VI: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Lamia 1996, 425–437.
Athens: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition.
Pomey, P., Kahanov, Y. and Rieth, E., 2012, Transition from Shell to Skeleton in Ancient Mediterranean Ship-Construction:
Analysis, Problems, and Future Research. IJNA 41.2, 235–314.
Roghi, G., 1965, Spargi, in J. du Plat Taylor (ed.), Marine Archaeology: Developments during Sixty Years in the Mediterranean,
103–118. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Rotroff, S.I., 1997, The Athenian Agora, Vol. XXIX. Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and
Related Material. New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies.
Ryan, W.B.F., Major, C.O., Lericolais, G. and Goldstein, S.L., 2003, Catastrophic Flooding of the Black Sea. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences 31, 525–554.
Salviat, F., 1986, Le vin de Thasos, amphores, vin et sources écrites, in J-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les
Amphores Grecques, 145–196. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 13. Athens: École française d’Athènes.
Saprykin, S. J., 1997, Heracleia Pontica and Tauric Chersonesus before Roman Domination: VI-I Centuries BC. Amsterdam: A.M.
Hakkert.
Schaefer, M., Black, S. and Scheuer, L., 2009, Juvenile Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. San Diego: Academic Press.
Şenol, G.C., Şenol, A.K. and Doğer, E., 2004, Amphora Production in the Rhodian Peraea in the Hellenistic Period, in J. Eiring
and J. Lund (eds), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the
Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, 353–359. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Sorg, M.H., Dearborn, J.H., Monahan, E.I., Ryan, H.F., Sweeney, K.G. and David, E., 1997, Forensic Taphonomy in Marine
Contexts, in W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg (eds), Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, 567–604.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Steffy, J.R., 1985, The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction. American Journal of Archaeology 89, 71–101.
Steffy, J.R., 1994, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Stolba, V.F., 2005, Hellenistic Chersonesos: Towards Establishing a Local Chronology, in V.F. Stolba and L. Hannestad (eds),
Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400–100 BC, 153–177. Black Sea Studies 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press.
Swiny, H.W. and Katzev, M.L., 1973, The Kyrenia Shipwreck: A Fourth-Century B.C. Greek Merchant Ship, in D. Blackman
(ed.), Marine Archaeology, Proceedings of the Twenty-third Symposium of the Colston Research Society, University of Bristol,
April 4–8, 1971, 339–355. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
Tchernia, A., 1986, Amphores et textes: deux exemples, in J-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds), Recherches sur les amphores
grecques. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, L’Université de Rennes II
et L’École Française d’Athènes, 10–12 Septembre 1984, 31–36. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 13. Athens:
École française d’Athènes.
Tereshchenko, A.I., 2013, Issledovaniya Torgovogo sudna vtoroi poloviny IV v. do n.e. v chernom more I modelirobanie upakovki
amfornoi tarya. Drevnosti Bospora 17, 297–323.

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 23
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 00.0

Trembanis, A., Skarke, A., Nebel, S., Coleman, D.F., Ballard, R.D., Fuller, S.A., Buynevich, I.V. and Voronov, S., 2011,
Bedforms, Hydrodynamics, and Scour Process Observations from the Continental Shelf of the Northern Black Sea, in I.
Buynevich, V. Yanko-Hombach, A. Gilbert and R.E. Martin (eds), Geology and Geoarchaeology of the Black Sea Region:
Beyond the Flood Hypothesis, 165–178. Geological Society of America Special Paper 473. Boulder: Geological Society of
America.
Turovskij, E.Ja., 1992, Chronologija I budivel’na istorija nadilu 26 na Geraklejs’komu pivostrovi. Archeologija Kiiv 3, 147–151.
UNESCO, 2001, Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001. UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/
new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention/official-text/
Ušakov, S. and Bočarov, S., 2014, Chersonesos Taurike und die Ägäis im 5.-3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Neue archäologische
Fundkomplexe, in V. Cojocaru, A. Coşkun and M. Dana (eds), Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 229–250. Pontica et Mediterranea 3. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Van Duivenvoorde, W., 2014, The 5th-Century BC Shipwreck at Tektaş Burnu, Turkey: Evidence for the Ship’s Hull from Nail
Concretions. IJNA 43.1, 10–26.
Wachsmann, S., 1998, Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Ward, C., 2010, Four Ships of Late Antiquity in the Black Sea. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16, 189–198, 541–542.
Ward, C. and Ballard, R.D., 2004, Deep-water Archaeological Survey in the Black Sea: 2000 Season. IJNA 33.1, 2–13.
Wilson, A., 2011a, The Economic Influence of Developments in Maritime Technology in Antiquity, in W.V. Harris and K. Iara
(eds), Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship-Design and Navigation, 211–233. Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplement 84. Portsmouth, RI.
Wilson, A., 2011b, Developments in Mediterranean Shipping and Maritime Trade from the Hellenistic Period to AD 1000, in
D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds), Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean, 33–59. Oxford Centre for
Maritime Archaeology, Monograph 6. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology.
Womer Katzev, S., 2005, Resurrecting an Ancient Greek Ship: Kyrenia, Cyprus, in G.F. Bass (ed.), Beneath the Seven Seas:
Adventures with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, 72–79. London: Thames & Hudson.
Zolotarev, M.I., 2005, A Hellenistic Ceramic Deposit from the North-Eastern Sector of Chersonesos, in V. Stolba and L.
Hannestad (eds), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c.400–100 BC, 193–216. Black Sea Studies 3. Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press.

24 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.