THE MINOR BOAT F

FROM THE SITE

OF THE ANCIENT SHIPS
OF PISA

Master's thesis submitted to the

Maritime Archaeology Programme

University of Southern Denmark

Vasiliki Kyprouli
2012

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE CULTURAL CONTEXT

A. The area of Pisa and its position through the ages
1. Maritime aspects on Pisas history From the Etruscan Ages until the Late antiquity
2. The change of the coast line
3. Pisas Harbour system
B. The site
1. The discovery of the site
2. The excavation
a. The methods
b. The formation of the site
c. Presentation of the site
c.i. The structures
The Palisade, an Etruscan evidence
The quay of Classical age
The Hellenistic platform
The Imperial age pier
c.ii.The Boats
The Hellenistic Shipwreck
The Boat A
The Boat B
The Boat C - ALKEDO
The Boat D
The Boat E
The Boat F
The Boat I
The minor boats (G, H, P)
3. Infrastructures & The restoration center
4. A project for a future museum

6
9
10
12
15
18
22
23
23
25
26
28
29
30
32
33
34
34
34
36
39

III. THE BOAT F

A. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOAT F
1. History of excavation
2. Preliminary studies
3. Reconstructions
The model 1:1 by Polo Navacchio SpA- Phoenix Srl - SBAT
The model 1:10 by Polo Navacchio SpA - Phoenix Srl - SBAT
The model 1:10 by Romisch - Germanisches Zentralmuseum of Mainz

40
44
47
49
50
2

4. Objectives of study
B. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BOAT F
1. Overall dimensions and state of preservation
2. The external planking
3. The frames
4. The ceiling
5. Fastening
6. Propulsion
7. Blocks
8. Details and the rest
9. Wood analysis
10. Painting, caulking and waterproofing materials
11. Dating
C. COMPARANDA
1. Ancient vessels
Etruscan pottery boat models
The Geraz do Lima 4 dugout
The Lake Kastoria boat
The Herculaneum boat
The Grado Roman ship
Horeiae
The Fiumicino wrecks
The Kinneret boat
Zwammerdam 3 and 2a vessels
The Yverdon-les-Bains 2 craft
2. Ethnographic parallels
The Lake Amatovo boat
The Barcil from Comacchio lagoon
The battllo - battna family
The snnaro of Foggia
The asymmetric tholepins

51
52
54
56
58
63
65
66
66
70
71
73
73
74
74
76
77
77
79
79
80
82
82
83
84
85
87
87
88

D. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

1. Construction methods-Technical solutions
2. The wood used
3. Use
4. Typology: Canoe, Piroga, Linter or something else?

91
95
98
99

E. CONCLUSION & OUTLOOK

1. Conclusion
2. Outlook

101
102

LIST OF REFERENCES

103

APPENDIX 1 (extended paper)

111

APPENDIX 2 (extended paper)

111

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge the help of the staff of Maritime Archaeology Programme of SDU

and especially my professor and supervisor Thijs Maarleveld for his assistance,
advice and guidance.
I would like to thank Andrea Camilli for granting permission to study the vessel
and for the material provided.
A tremendous personal debt goes to Prof. Marco Bonino for his availability to
transport me the deep knowledge that possesses, for the offer of many helpful
suggestions regarding boat construction, for the personal material provided and
for his encouragement. For his character simplicity and enthusiasm on his
profession he will always be a personal example.
My appreciation and warm thanks go to Ronald Bockius, who generously offered
personal material, precious advice and most of all, for his contribution to the
study of the Boat F.
I am indebted to Athena Trakadas, Ermanno Gambini, Fabrizio Gennai, Fabio
Fiesoli whose help is greatly appreciated.

I owe a great debt of gratefulness to Daniele Coppini for the sketch of the front
page, for helping me in italian language issues, for his assistance in technological
and -naval- architectural matters, for patiently resolving practical problems and
foremost for his constant psychological support and encouragement in difficult
moments.
This essay is dedicated to him.

I. INTRODUCTION
In 1998, during works for the expansion of a railway station in San
Rossore - Pisa, archeologists came across an ancient port that probably served
local necessities through the river Auser (today's Serchio) and its tributaries. The
port was used mainly during the Imperial Ages, but remains from the Etruscan
and Hellenistic period have also been found. The site might have been abandoned
after 10 centuries of extensive use, due to repeated floods caused by
environmental as well as human factors. Innumerable artefacts related to maritime
and harbour life were discovered, as well as 30 river-going vessels, some entire
and others in part. Several minor boats employed in inshore navigation, both in
rivers and lagoons which seems to have been the pisan ambient of that epoch,
have been uncovered in the layers connected with the Middle Empire floods. In the
present essay an attempt to study deeper one of them, the Boat F, will be made.
The initial stimulus for choosing this topic was a visit in Pisa - San
Rossores archeological site. The ships discovered had been researched in one or
another way, but the Boat F, enclosed for the last 13 years in a fiberglass shell,
remained out of the interest of the researchers, probably because of its small size
in relation to the other ships found on the site. This exactly conjuncture made me
propose to the Sopritentenza a collaboration that could shed more light on this
particular vessel and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of the
whole site. A further aim -stated by the Soprintendenza- is this of the exposition
of the vessel in the Museum of Ships in the Arsenali Medicei on the Arno
embankments of Pisa, with the appropriate explanations, illustrations and
accompanied texts.
The essays outline will basically include the descriptive and comparative
analysis of the vessel, after an introduction to the cultural context in which the
vessel was found. The primary material used for the purpose of this thesis was
supposed to be the vessel itself, which after 13 years would go out of its
fiberglass housing in order to be restored. Unfortunately, due to imponderable
factors that do not fall within the scope of this essay, this was not finally feasible.
No visible contact with the Boat F has ever been made, which obstructs by far any
dignified research. The study had to be based on a minimum number of photos,
inadequate documentation and scant designs, all results of limited field time due
to the nature of the findings, the rotation of the projects staff, the many years
intervened from the discovery until today, as well as due to several omissions and
misfortunes.
Be that as it may, this study aims to hopefully make a step towards the
better comprehension of the Boat F.
5

II. THE CULTURAL CONTEXT

A. The area of Pisa and its position through the ages
1. Maritime aspects on Pisas history - From the Etruscan Ages until the Late antiquity

It would be impossible and out of the purposes of the present essay to

present the history of Pisa (Fig.1), but a short reference to the connection of the
city with the sea and the maritime environment throughout the centuries, appears
worthwhile in order to incorporate the site of the ancient shipwrecks to its cultural
context.
The research of the ancient past of Pisa appears quite complex, as the
building constructions from the Middle Ages onward and the particular
hydrogeological characteristics make it difficult. Nevertheless, several
archaeological investigations made throughout the years assist in the
recomposition of this difficult puzzle. The strong connection of the first
populations settled here with maritime trade, is obvious since the 9th-8th cent.
BCE. The material found inside the tomb of an important man of Etruscan
ethnicity seems to underline his power through connections with the sea (Bruni,
2000, p.22). The site of San Rossore is connected with this phase of Pisa through
some constructions found at the southern part of the site and through numerous
Villanovan impasto shards (Bruni, 1998). The traditions on the citys foundation
themselves, emphasize the connection of the city with the sea, as they want it to
be founded -among thousands of versions- by people coming from the sea.
Strabo (V, 5, 2) and Plinius (Naturalis Historia, VII, 65, 201) give us important
information on Pisas maritime role. The material evidence from this era confirms
the trade relations of the city with other Mediterranean cities: Corinth and
Pithecusa are just two of them. On the exactly opposite hand, pottery of Etruscan
origin is found in numerous Mediterranean cities (De Laurenzi, 2006, p.41),
mainly domestic ceramics of bucchero ware and impasto ware, as well as material
that verifies the wine production and trade (Bonamici, 2005, p. 19). One of the
strongest products of commerce during this era was indisputably marble
(Bonamici, 1985, p.123 ff.), extracted from the Apuan Alps at the north of Pisa
and manufactured around the many workshops of the region. Such a fact is
verified by Strabo (V, 5, 2) that the Pisans, masters of so great a sea for so long a
6

time, were constructing their boats with the wood of the area in order to meet
the perils that faced them on the sea.
During the heyday of the Roman Empire (Pasquinucci, 2003, p.81), Pisas
maritime role was anything but devitalized. Its geographical position and
geomorphological characteristics, combined with the political decision to be a
member of the Roman alliance extended the citys maritime glory, not only due to
the continuity of commercial exchanges, but also because in this epoch Pisa was
one of the most important bases of the Roman fleet and important guardian of
the peace of the area, threatened by the Sardinians, Ligurians and Gauls. Although
buildings and other constructions are proved by Roman epigraphical sources, we
have little archaeological evidence on the citys imperial past. The only
monumental evidence of Roman Pisa is the octagonal building of the Thermae of
Nero (Fig. 2). Except for this, the Roman past of the city through archaeological
remains is limited to some domi discovered throughout the city, some religious
proto-christianic buildings at the Monumental Cemetery, some pottery workshops
and other scarce evidence.
From 86 BCE, when Pisa becomes municipium, Rome is prepared to give
citizenship to the inhabitants of Pisa that is later denominated as colonia
Opsequens Iulia Pisana, fact which brings changements to the urbanistic and
agrarian organisation of the city: the introduction of the centuriatio (De Laurenzi,
2005, p.25) (Fig. 3), a system widely used in Roman colonial settlements for the
cultivation of the land, was realized also in Pisa. The system was consisted of
regular squares (centuriae) that were divided by streets or canals, the limits of
which were marked by stones or other means of boundaries (limites). Each
centuria was then subdivided into 100 lots (Fig. 4). The land allotment could vary
depending on the lands profitability or the colonists rank, but there were also
centuriae that could not be alloted (for example centuriae with natural limitations
of rivers or mountains) and were used for the community. The traces of Pisas
centuriatio system are still visible, especially through aerial photographs around
the city. As the water at Pisa was in abudance, the limites used for the boundaries
of the centuriae were watercourses and canals, being at the same time used for
the drainage of the marshy areas as well as waterways for the local transportation
of goods.
As shown, Pisa is not just the town of the Leaning Tower. Maybe the Piazza
dei Miracoli is an important sample of the citys greatness during the epoch it was
a powerful maritime republic of the Middle Ages; maybe through the Medician
dockyards inside the fortified city the role of Pisa is emphasized the maritime
policy of the Gran Duchy; but the position of the town in the maritime affairs also
during the Antiquity was anything but disreputable.
7

Fig. 1 Pisa: The site of San Rossore in relation to Arno River

and the famous Piazza dei Miracoli (www.googlemaps.com)

Fig. 2 The Thermae di Nero (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.24)

Fig. 3 The area of the excavation with the traces

from the centuriatio and the riverbed's sequence
(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.25)

2. The change of the coast line

The city of Pisa lies now around 10 km away from the coast, but it is a fact
that in the ancient times the scenery was quite different than its present situation
and this considrable distance was not that big (Fig. 5). The defences connected
with the centuriate system were abandoned and, as a result, the accumulated
alluvial deposits of the river Arno that runs across the city, formed the gradual
expansion of a marshy area. Other reasons for this geomorphological changement
of the area are the rising sea level of the western part of the tyrrenian coast, the
hydrological deterioration produced by the political, economic and demographic
crisis undergone by the city in the late ancient times as well as the subsequent
radical reclamation projects undertaken from the Middle Ages onwards (Bruni,
2000, p.25).
From the studies carried out until now on the geomorphology of Pisa
(Bruni, 2000, p.25) (Fig. 6), we are informed that the city was founded in the
naturally protected area between the crossing of two rivers, Arno and Auser (that
no longer exists, but it remains the similar toponym of the present river
Serchio>Auserclus>Auser) with other minor watercourses and canals as well as a
complex lagoon system, that reminds Venice (Fig. 7). As far as Auser is
concerned, a possible re-construction of its shape and course can be conjectured,
but merely based on present geomorphological surveys and photographic
interpretation (Fig. 8). Based on the evidence that comes from the site of the
ancient shipwrecks in San Rossore, we can assume however that it was devided
into two branches exactly on the area of the present site (Fig. 9); one branch was
merging with Arno and a second one was running parellel to Arno and flowing to
the sea (Bruni, 2002, p.22). Regarding Arnos watercourse, from its three
branches mentioned by Strabo (V, 5, 2), we can nowadays recognize the northern
one, on which the city was founded and which is in fact the present course of
Arno that passes from the heart of the city of Pisa. However, the course in the
past was quite diverse, forming a more meandering path with upstream and
downstream loops. For the second one we have no evidence or information apart
from Strabos reference, but we can identify the third and southernmost branch,
from a document of 963 that confirms its existence during also the early Middle
Ages (Bruni, 2000, p.25). This last one was subjected to a lot of alterations during
the years (Bruni, 2000, p.26), but we can possibly identify its mouth that must
have been located in the area of San Piero a Grado, where a very important
mooring point -part of the pisan harbour system- had been situated.
The whole image of the geomorphology of Pisa as it appears today differs
radically from the one of the ancient times. In antiquity, the coastline was set
9

further inland than it is today and from Strabo (V, 5, 2) we are informed that it
was lying around 20 stadia (almost 2 kilometres) from the sea, whereas the
present distance is around 10 kilometres. A very wide gulf was formed, the socalled Sinus Pisanus, from where the city of Livorno stands today until the Lake of
Massaciuccoli (Fig. 5), where somebody maybe can find an example of how the
landscape of Pisa looked like during the ancient times, as the whole area was
covered by large lagoons, several canals and massive dunes (Bruni, 2000, p.25).
This image of the area had not been subjected to any differences until around the
Late Antiquity - Early Middle Ages, when urban installations spread out also on
the south-western part of the river Arno (Bruni, 2002, p.22).
The repetitive floods of Arno bringing several alluvial deposits, the
progressive turning of the area into a swamp caused by the abandonment of the
water-defences related to the centuriato, the continuous rising of the Tyrrhenian
sea, the hydrological declining as a consequence of the political, economical and
demographic crisis of the Late Antiquity, as well as the drainage efforts during the
medieval period have resulted the impressive alteration of the landscapes
characteristics (Bruni, 2002, p.22).

3. Pisas Harbour system

Based on the recent research on the territory of Pisa and its surroundings
(Pasquinucci, 2003, p.93) it appears that the area was playing a very important
role since already the chalcolithic period (Bruni, 2002, p.22) for the whole internal
region. Besides, it seems that it was an important and central part of the traffic
system that involves the whole north-central Tyrrhenian area and its connections
with the Mediterranean sea. The maritime direction of the region since the ancient
times has been confirmed by numerous harbours as well as landing places that
have been found along this part of Tyrrhenian coast (Camilli, 2003, p.123 ff.), but
also very near Pisa. Although numerous, few of these places were equipped with
structures and facilities where a big ship could moor and load/unload its goods.
The majority of them consisted more of landing places, where the big boats would
anchor and would tranship the products to minor vessels, which then would
transport through the rivers the goods to their destination -and vice versa (Fig. 5).
The principal port of Pisas harbour system seems to be this of Portus
Pisanus (Camilli, 2005a, p.28) (Fig. 10), to which the ancient sources usually refer,
meaning however some times the whole quite complex port system mentioned
above. As Rutilius Namazianus in 417 CE informs us in his poems (De reditu, I,
531-2), this ports shallow bottom consisted of sandy barriers covered by
seaweed in order to make docking more secure. From the vicinity of the port to a
villa refered in this text, we can today locate the Portus Pisanus in a silted up,
10

urbanised area very near Livorno, in the vicinity of the cemetery of Santo Stefano
ai Lupi. Recent rescue excavations in the region, revealed the remains of several
ovelapping sea bottom deposits near the shore; it seems that sea traffic was quite
frequent in this basin between the 3rd cent. BCE and the 2nd cent. CE, after which
the port went under decline.
On-site investigations around the early medieval basilica of San Piero a
Grado (Bruni, 2000, p.27) (Fig. 11), which was once situated at the mouth of the
branches of the Arno delta, have shown the use of the area as a significant port
since the Bronze age up to around 177 CE, when the port of Luni was founded
and became the main port of the Tyrrhenian region. Excavations carried out in the
church have made it possible to identify a complex monumental construction of
the 1st cent. CE, a building that was later enlarged and modified. Although it is
difficult to interpret this structure, it is indubitably connected with another
building recovered at the east of the street that leads to the basilica. All together,
they appear to be parts of a complex urban system stretching towards the Arno,
therefore a river port, probably linked to the sea.
A third place, highly hypothetical, is the one known from post-antiquity
literature as Porto delle Conche (Bruni, 2003b p.64-65) and which was told by
Rafaello Roncioni to be located in the 16th cent. in the mouth of the river Serchio
(Fig. 5). The position -or even the existence- of this port have not yet been
identified.

Fig. 4 Scheme of Roman centuriatio

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.25)

Fig. 5 Pisa and its harbour system

(Bruni, 2002, p.21)

11

B. THE SITE
1. The discovery of the site

The site of The Ancient Ships of Pisa - San Rossore is situated in a short
distance from the well-known Piazza dei Miracoli and the Medieval walls of the
city of Pisa, Tuscany, Italy (Fig. 12). Its history (Bruni, 2002, p.12) starts in 1998,
when the Italian Railways intended to construct a new headquarters near the
homonymous but lesser known railway station of San Rossore, formerly the
location of the Pisa Porta Nuova station of the Savoyard railways. The place
chosen is of strategic importance, especially for the management of the
Tyrrhenian line that connects Rome with Genoa. The building would consist the
control center of an area intended to be used for goods loading/unloading on the
trains of the line, situated exactly upon the vast area where the remains of dozens
of boats were lying for centuries.
Some years before, in 1992, the Superintendence of Tuscany had in formal
acts declared the historical-archaeological interest of the area in which the site of
the ancient boats occurs (Bruni, 2000, p.23). Given that the kind of work that
would be realized in San Rossore is of public interest, according to the italian law
(Bottini, 2005, p.12) a preliminary project must be presented to the competent
authorities, to judge the archaeological importance of the place. his report must
contain the results of specific archaeological research made through archives,
bibliography, aerial interpretation and archaeological surveys of the area. Based
on the data, further investigation can be ordered, including test trenches if
necessary. As such, any possible damage of an archaeological site can be avoided
and the client can re-evaluate his interest for the area in case of antiquities found.
In this last case, the two parts must come to an agreement for collaboration and
co-ordination of the survey.
As part of this agreement, in 1997, when the Italian Railways decided to
give life to their project, the archaeologists proceeded to a series of preventive
studies. The Italian Railways would be responsible for the expenses of the survey,
while the Superintendence would carry out the research. Nevertheless, the lower
levels of the area could not be reached, because of the abundant groundwater
present. The trial excavations results were these of identifying the remains of
Renaissance buildings as well as substantial traces of the Imperial age Centuriate
system in the southernmost sector (Bruni, 2000, p.69).
It was in November of 1998 when an extensive working site was set up by
the Italian Railways and when the archaeologists from the very first results of the
survey in the lower levels understood the importance that the zone had for the
12

topography and urbanistic context of a more ancient era of Pisa, still with a lot of
questionings. The research had been carried on for more than one year, a period
in which the archaeological interest was indeed confirmed.
In December of the same year, after the finding of around sixteen vessels,
the Italian Railways responsibles realized the extraodinary importance of the site
for the reconstruction of the ancient city of Pisa as well as for its social,
economical and cultural growth (Bruni, 2000, p.15). As a result, they decided to
completely abandon the first plan of an expansion of the railway services in this
area, transfering their interest near Pisas central train station, allowing the whole
working site in the hands of the archaeologists for further investigation.

Fig. 6 The paleo-environmental context of

the Pisan plain (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.15)

Fig. 7 Traces revealed by the aerial

photograph, related with the ancient
watercourse of the river Auser (Serchio)
and with the paludal basin where the
excavation is located (SBAT, 2002, p.13)

13

Fig. 8 Satellite photographs of the Pisan territory (Bruni, 2003, p.35)

Fig. 9 Reconstruction of the waterway landscape of Pisa in Etruscan and Roman period (Bruni, 2003, p.38)

Fig. 10 The Portus Pisanus area at present time

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.28)

Fig. 11 Excavation of the Roman structures inside

the basilica (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.27)

14

Fig. 12 The territory of Pisa and the coastal line in Roman times.
With yellow the site of San Rossore (Bruni, 2000, p.52)

2. The excavation

a. The methods
As it is above stated, the archaeological site of the Ancient Ships of Pisa
came to light through a casual discovery. To allow the building of the Italian
Railways take place in the area, the dig was initially carried out following simple
protection requirements, being completed by a quick unearthing of findings
(Camilli, 2002a, p.11). Due to the impressive series of artefacts found one on the
top of the other though, from the very begining of the scientific investigations it
became clear that the initial plan of rescue excavation should give its place to a
proper and systematic project, based on long-term planning and following a strict
methodology, in order to connect the findings among them as well as the
environment with them.
Nevertheless, in the beginning of the works in the area, the Italian Railways
had already established an articulate system of cofferdams and well points (Fig.
15

13,14), which would outline the area of their interest and at the same time would
dewater the ground, before the systematic excavation starts. Unfortunately, in this
way, one of the cofferdams put, fell exactly on the area where in the future the
Boat A would be found, resulting the cut of the boat into two parts, one in the
internal of the excavation area, one in the external, that remains uninvestigated
until today.
The methodology followed in the beginning was this of preventive
archaeology, that would save the archaeological remains of the area and would
obtain the relevant information about it as much as possible in a feverish haste,
as the Railways had to proceed with their construction plan. This justifies the
importance given to a parallel excavation of all the vessels found -whose depth
ranges from 5.5 and 9 m. below ground level, under the aquifer stratum- putting
aside the fact that ship retrievals are of course those of a maximum complexity
and burden, while the -under the sun- in situ permanence of recovered wood
creates serious conservation problems.
Of course, in a complex excavation like this, the stratigraphic method
could not be ignored, in order to interpret the context of the whole surrounding
area where the boats were found. The research was orientated to an analytical
knowledge
of
the
place
(including
sedimentological
traces
and
paleoenvironmental indications) as well as to the retrieval and concervation of the
big load of wooden pieces that had come to light and were by this time exposed
to the sun.
After the researchs complete adoption by the Superintendence of Tuscany
and with the help of a large government grant, the research strategy changed
(Bottini, 2005, p.12): from now on the excavations main goal would be this of
recovering the boats already uncovered, whereas pinpointing others remained an
important aim. Then, the removal of the boats from the ground and their
restoration and consolidation would follow.
The complexity of the site as such requires an interdisciplinary approach.
The excavation had in this way encouraged from the beginning the participation
of scientists from different and diverse disciplines that try to answer to
innumerable and very specialized questions born during the research, considering
the stratigraphic sequences and the finding contained therein (Bruni, 2002, p.17).
On the other hand, an archeological research is carried out first and
foremost for the sake of all humanity and it has to involve the general public,
especially when this research results as the consequence of an important, public
work plan that is compelled to undergo radical changes, as the case of San
Rossore. This is the reason of a choice made from the beginning of the
investigation that provided the general public and the local community with the
information gained so far and that resulted a series of exhibitions, presentations,
16

conventions and publications (Bruni, 2002, p.16). This was considered important,
regardless of the risk of a wrong interpretation, caused by the immediate
publication of the very preliminary results of the research.

Fig. 13 The working site of San Rossore under construction (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.82)

Fig. 14 The working site of San Rossore-view of the lower square (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.83)

17

b.The formation of the site

As it is already mentioned before, the environment in which the site of The

Ancient Ships of Pisa was developed, was quite different than the ambient as it
appears today. A very complicated situation with rivers, lagoons, canals, small
water courses and paleo-alveolar systems crossing the pisan plain and especially
the parts near the -old- coast is what we should imagine in the past (Fig. 7). The
reconstruction of its image is a complex, difficult and long job, for which the
present evidence is not enough and for which is necessary an interdisciplinary
study that combines the archeological remains, the historical information given
through literature and maps (Fig. 15), as well as aerial photographs and hydrogeological studies. The only certain fact is the existence of the three branches of
Arno and in north of the center, a complex of branches of Serchio river (Auser).
The place might have been under continuous changements of this fluent
situation (Fig. 16) and from the Roman times onwards, characterized by
deforestation and drainage, which created the innumerable floods present at the
stratigraphy of San Rossore site.
The fact that Pisa became a Roman colony seems to have been fatal for the
environment of the region: the centuriatio system provokes massive deforestation
in order to create the regular cultivation grid and the river courses are changed in
order to be intergrated into the same grid. In addition, the wood trading for which
Pisa became famous in the Antiquity, had also a negative aspect. These factors,
consequently, influenced the strenght and frequency of Arnos floods and made
the river pour huge quantities of water into the small canals and consequently
sediments, brought after intense rains.
Sedimentological studies (Pallecchi, 2005, p.14) on the area, allow us to
identify the pre-existence of a riverbed 1 km north of the river Arno, were today
lies the archaeological site of the ancient ships in San Rossore. This river course
was probably connected to the sea -which would be necessary for the goods
transportation towards Pisa- and appears to be idle during the Roman Ages,
probably because this river course must not had been an exception during the
Arnos destructive floods. It is reported that the ships were embedded under nine
centuries of silt, which was periodically created due to catastrophic floods that
took place at regular intervals (almost every 100 years) during the Roman period.
During these, the wrecks were engulfed by the sediments of the embankments of
the river (Fig. 17).
Shortly presented, on the site of San Rossore, we can reconstruct six
different lines of the river bank (Fig. 18). The archaeological evidence begins in
the Archaic period (6th-5th cent. BCE), when the area in the southernmost part of
the site was probably used for habitation and to which have been attributed a
18

palisade that probably supported wooden houses and a later stone quay. A
second phase, during the Hellenistic period seems to finish after a flood (2nd
cent. BCE) leaving behind the remains of a vessel, supposingly wrecked by an
accident that provoked the damage of a platform of the same era. After that, the
settlement appears to be located more to the north, abandoning the area of the
Ampliamento Sud since the Claudian years, probably as a result of the centuriatio,
whose evidence might be the pier of Imperial ages. The next flood, in the
begining of Imperial Ages (Julio-Claudian and Flavian epoch), provokes the
wreckage of the vessels B, C, E, P - as they called after being pinpointed. Another
catastrophic inundation comes during the Medium Imperial years (Hadrianean
epoch), to cause the sinking of another five boats (A, H, F, G, I). The wreckage of
the last boat found in the site (Boat D) is the result of another flood in the years of
the Late Antiquity - Early Medieval period.

Fig. 15 Leonardo Da Vinci, Map of the

Pisan plain. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional,
ms. 8937 (II), cc. 52v-53r

Fig. 16 Stratigraphic cross-section

during excavation (Camilli-Setari,
2005, p.15)

19

Fig. 17 The plan of the phases at San Rossore (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.30)

20

Fig. 18 Schematic plan of the San Rossore site and hypothetical reconstruction
of the different river lines (Camilli-Pallecchi-Remotti, 2006, p.82)

21

c. Presentation of the site (Fig. 17).

c.i. The structures

The Palisade, an Etruscan evidence
The most ancient evidence on regular attendance of the site of San Rossore
is a palisade, situated in the eastern corner of the southernmost part of the
excavation (Ampliamento Sud). Under the roman stratigraphical levels, it was
possible to locate in situ a series of thirty-one straight wooden poles (Fig. 19), of
about 20 cm in diameter, embedded vertically in the sandy sediment of slimeclayish deposits, through a sharpened, shaved point (Fig. 20). The wood species
used were these of holm, oak, ashwood and elm. Ceramical objects found in the
same stratigraphical level indicate the 6th c. BCE as a terminem ante quem, which
was in fact confirmed by the results of C-14 analysis of the wooden poles
(968-793 BCE and 785-521 BCE) (Bruni, 2003c, p.82). The continuity of the
palisade is interrupted by the boundaries of the excavation area and this
limitation itself, creates a lot of problems about the interpretation of the
structure. The archaeologists, though, could reconstruct a semicircular structure
with perimetrical posts and a central load-bearing beam that can be considered
as a kind of embankment of the hedge of the river or else, a breakwater (Remotti,
2005, p.21 - Bruni, 2003c, p.82) similar to the ones found in the river port of
Aquileia or the river Piave or the Grado lagoon, a modern equivalent, with
fishermens settlements and other infrastructures (Bruni, 2003c, p.82).

Fig. 19 The area with the palisade, seen from above: in red the posts' headpieces (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.22)

22

Fig. 20 Ampliamento Sud, the Palisade (Bruni, 2003, p.79)

The quay of Classical age

Almost parallel to the palisade described above, 8,00 m. away towards NW
starting from the SW corner of the excavation and 16,00 m. long, a quay was
discovered. The structure was realized with a strong straight wall around 1,70 m.
long, constructed with big blocks of stone (dry-stone technique), in the forepart
of which, there were found smaller stones that were related to another, collapsed
palisade found (Fig. 21). From the associated to this stratum ceramics, the quay is
dated in the years around 400 BCE (Bruni, 2002, p.33). From the archaeological
evidence of the area, we determine the destruction of it already in the hellenistic
years. The lack of other material in this whole zone might be attributed to
dredging operations taken place in the antiquity by the Pisans in order to hold
back the floods of Arno and Auser, as Strabo (V, 5, 2) remembers.

Fig. 21 The excavation of the Classical quay (Bruni, 2003, p.22)

23

 The Hellenistic platform

At the extreme NW part of this structure a mobile gangway was found (Fig. 23). It
has been interpreted as such, due to the lack of hooking points in its lower side. It
has the same orientation as the previous one, but it seems it was constructed in a
later epoch (2nd cent. BCE) (Bruni, 2002, p.36), after the collapse of the first and
the earthing up of the whole area due to the drift of the river course towards the
north. The quay was made out of eight pinewood boards (2,4 m. long) without
nails and and two parallel small grooved beams (Fig. 22). It was found destructed
after around 10,00 m., towards its north-western part.

Fig. 23 Wooden floor of the

Hellenistic pier
(SBAT, 2002, p.15)

Fig. 22 The Hellenistic platform

connected with the Classical quay
(Bruni, 2002, p.33)

24

Fig. 24 The remains of the Imperial

Age pier (Bruni, 2002, p. 40)

The Imperial age pier

Another consequence of the earthing-up stated above of the southern area of the
excavation, was the construction of new harbour installations, in which must
belong another wharf found at the eastern boundary of the excavation. The wall,
was made of rough pieces of stone of different and irregular size, connected with
mortar and sand, probably according to the rules on the harbour architecture
posed by Vitruvius (De arch. V, 12, 5). The structure is orientated SE-NW, long
around 8,00 m. (up to the point that is excavated), wide around 1,70 m. and has
two square small structures near the NW end, one on each long side, staggered
and diametrically opposite (Fig. 24).

25

c.ii. The Boats

The Hellenistic Shipwreck
The most ancient of the boats found in Pisa belongs to the Hellenistic
period (Bonino, 2003, pp.183-221). Numerous pieces of wood were found spread
(due to the rivers current or due to demolition of the boats pieces) over a vast
area that starts from the northernmost part of the contemporary Hellenistic
platform mentioned above (Fig. 25). In fact, the wooden fragments of the
structure were mixed with these of the boat, that was found disassembled and its
orientation is similar to the one of the platform -as well as to the orientation of
the major part of the later wrecks (Boats A, B, C, D, G) that may be again
attributed to the rivers current. The research on the vessels fragments (Fig. 26)
permits the reconstruction of a cargo vessel 14 m. long and 4,5 m. wide, of an
overall tonnage of 42 tonnes. The hull might have been flat-bottomed with curved
sides and a wide space for cargo. The wood species used were oak, elm, ash and
pinewood. It was probably used for coastal or lagoon navigation.
From the cargo of the boat we can date it in the 2nd cent. BCE. It is
estimated that just half of its cargo was found; this was mainly constituted from
amphoras of Greekitalic origin (approximatley 300), which probably transported
wine, as well as some of Dressel 1 type, the content of which has not been
preserved and some of Punic type. This second kind of amphoras transported
numerous pig right shoulder-blades assuming the existence of a load of top
quality ham. There were also a lot of on board equipment found and attributed to
this boat (Bruni, 2003a, pp.15-28): among them kalathoi, thymiateria, blackglazed pottery, lamps, lagynoi, unguentari and other, smaller elements. The set of
more personal items, such as the thymiateria, used for religious purposes points
to the iberian provenance of the boat. Together with the amphoras animal bones
connected with food of the crew, as well as the remains of three horses and one
lioness (Bruni, 2002, p.40)1 were found. Such a discovery, permits an hypothesis
on the boat's voyage, that might have started from the African coasts, passing
from the Iberian coasts and Massalia, to dramatically finish its trip in Pisa whereas Ostia or Pozzuoli might have been the final destinations. Among the
remains of the cargo human bones were found, which may suggest that some of
the sailors lost their lives during the striking event of its wreck.

1 From Plinius (Nat. Hist., VIII, 3) we are informed that this type of wild animal, was only unloaded in the
ports of Ostia or Pozzuoli.

26

Fig. 25 The material of the excavation of the Hellenistic stratum (Bruni, 2003, p.87)

Fig. 26 Remains of the Hellenistic boat's hull (Bruni, 2000, p.58)

27

Fig. 27 Boat A: frame and

keelson under excavation
(Camilli-Setari,
2005, p.79)

The Boat A
The first of the
boats
to
be
accidentally found
on the site was the
Boat A, whose hull
remains half inside
and half outside
the north-eastern
border of the excavation, as it had been cut while the placing of the cofferdams
that delimit the site (Fig.17). The short distance between the boat's location and
the railways platform cannot permit the investigation of the boat outside the
sites boundaries, as it would create serious static problems. Nevertheless, it is
possible to gather important information from the part of the boat inside the
limits of the site. Starting from the stern, the vessel extends for 15 m. and we can
suppose the total length of the boat at around 25-30 m, although the keel has
not been found (Fig.27). Its planking was connected with wooden pegs and
wedges and was superimposed by the framing, which also was connected with
wooden pegs and bronze nails, of smaller dimensions near the stern. Several
findings were located, both parts of the cargo and parts of the boat's equipment
(small jugs, saucepans and lids-dishes, small tankards and cups of African terra
sigilata), which help to date the boat around the 2nd cent. CE. Among the cargo
related objects, we find amphoras (Forlimpopoli C, Gauloise 4 ) and African
ware for wine and fish sauce transportation, which give us an idea about the
boat's voyage from the Adriatic sea to the African coast, passing through Messina
and then went up to the Iberian peninsula, stopping at a Gallic port to finally end
in Pisa (Comune di Pisa, 2001, p.54).

28

 The Boat B
The boat B found near the eastern board of the excavation site, was a
medium size (9.50 m. of length so far and 4.30 m. of width) cargo boat found
lying on one side, still with part of its cargo in situ (Fig. 28). The vessel was made
out of oak and fir wood and it was constructed in two layers of planks with
interspace between them in order to be stable and solid even for shallow waters
navigation. The hull was assembled by joints of mortises and tenons, reinforced
by wooden pegs and wedges fastened with bronze nails rich in copper to avoid
rust. On the internal surface, there were traces of a resinous substance used to
waterproof the vessel (Comune di Pisa, 2001, p.54).
The cargo (Fig.29) consisted of several amphoras found in stagged rows
while some others were found fallen out of the vessel due to its inclination. The
amphoras, of diverse typologies and provenance (Adriatic area, Carthage,
Campania, Betica), had been reused for the transportation of fruits, olives in
defrutum, fish sauces, as well as sand, whereas primarily they contained wine
(Bruni, 2000, p.43). The material used for the fastening of the amphoras (small
pieces of tufa, marble statues fragments, pieces of Vesuvian lava) in combination
with the ballast stones of different kind, indicate the Naples provenance of the
boat B. Noteworthy is the discovery of the skeleton of a man fallen in the water
during the wreckage, holding his dog (Sorrentino et al., 2000, pp.329-342) (Fig.
30).

Fig. 28 Map of the Boat B (Bruni, 2000, p.63)

29

Fig. 29 Amphoras from the cargo

of the Boat B (Bruni, 2000, p.63)

Fig. 30 Skeletons of a sailor and

his dog (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.56)

The Boat C - ALKEDO

Independent of the other boats, lying around 13 m. to the west of the Imperial
age pier, boat C (Camilli, 2002b) was found, still moored by a pole (Fig. 31). Its
preservation status is quite good -even some colours on the planks still visibleand it is for this reason that we can identify its main structural elements: keel,
keelson, timbers, dunnage, mast partners and step, top of bulwarks -which were
reinforced with gunwales and had apertures for the oars-, prow bollards, as well
as six rowing benches set at regular intervals (Fig. 33). On the second bench near
the stern, there was a plank with letters preserved on it: [], which means
seagull in latin (alcedo), but written with greek characters -and which gave the
boat its name (Fig. 32). Leather secured by bronze rivets was protecting its edges,
while the prow is fitted with a cutwater. Wreck C was a huge, fast riverboat, about
14 m. long and 3 m. wide. Nevertheless, there is not much evidence for the date
of the boat, as few material was found, based on the presence of some amphoras
found inside its hull, we suggest a date in the Julian-Claudian period.
30

Fig. 31 The moorage of the Boat C

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.51)

Fig. 32 Detail of the description

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.53)

Fig. 33 The Boat C (Bruni, 2002, p.50)

31

 The Boat D
Completely turned over (Fig. 34), the boat D (Comune di Pisa, 2001, pp.56-57)
was found in the north-western part of the site of San Rossore. It was made of
oak, about 14 m. long and 6 m. wide and was the last of the many deposited
boats of the site: stratigraphy and radiometric analysis put its dating in the Late
Antiquity, between the 6th and 7th cent. CE. Its keel must have been recovered in
the antiquity, while part of the planking was not concealed by sand, therefore
deteriorated and not preserved. Its structure is quite complex, as near the stern
and stem areas and in a higher level than the edges, there are pairs of projecting
structures, set on large brackets, attached above a double parallel series of three
beams. Other structural characteristics of this boat are the double planking along
the broadside, the double gunwale at the external bulwarks, the iron-face at the
slender prow, the mast-hollow on one of the beams, a sort of dockhouse and a
hatchway for access at the hold and the deck (Fig. 35, 36). Under the wreck of the
boat D, the remains of other -probably two- boats were discovered, still to be
excavated, but some already attributed to the boat I.

Fig. 34 The Boat D as it was found

(Bruni, 2002, p.53)

Fig. 35 The planking of the Boat D

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.77)

32

Fig. 36 The Boat D (Bruni,

2000, p.67)

The Boat E
Very near the wreck of the Boat B (Fig. 37), another cargo boat named E was
recovered (Bruni, 2000, p.45), lying on its side. Made with double planking
technique, it must have been of big dimensions, which is also confirmed by the
big wooden anchor found near. The boat saved part of its cargo in situ: amphoras
of Dressel 2-4, 7-11,9 type, amphoras Beltran II.B type, sigilata vases, some dolia
covers and a coin from Cadiz, with the help of which we can date it to the first
decades of the 1st cent. CE and assume its provenience from the Spanish region
or South-Gallic or Corsican.

Fig. 37 Plan of the Boat E (Bruni, 2000, p.64)

33

 The Boat F
As the Boat F is the main topic of this thesis, a more elaborate discussion of this
vessel will follow in Part B of the present essay. It is a small vessel found over the
Boat E, around the center of the excavation area. It is the most well-preserved
boat and one of the first excavated. It remains until today in the site's restoration
laboratory, covered by fiber-glass for its protection.
The Boat I
The Boat I2 has already been mentioned, as it is the one that lies beneath the Boat
D still unexcavated. In fact, its cargo of amphoras of African type, dates it in the
4th-5th cent. CE, just before the epoch that the Boat D was wrecked. We speak
about a 12 m. long and 2.50 m. wide boat, constructed with the mortases and
tenons technique, but iron nailed. It was used for inland waters navigation.
The minor boats (G, H, P)
Apart from the bigger or (at least basically) excavated boats found in Pisa, some
other vessels have been discovered, that have not yet been researched or are of a
minor size -although not of a minor importance. This kind of boats could
generally be used for the transportation of products from the big boats
approaching the Mediterranean coasts to the inland regions through the rivers or
for the exploitation of local resources and goods, like fishing, sand collection,
river-weed collection for baskets and other works.
Fig.

38

Point

of

the

Boat

under

excavation (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.45)

The most ancient one (of

Augustan-Tiberian epoch), the
Boat P3 (Fig. 38), is a flatbottomed vessel that has been
only identified and partially
excavated. It seems similar to
the later (of Claudian-Augustan
epoch) and much smaller Boat
H (Camilli, 2005c, p.64), flat2 www.cantierenavipisa.com
3 www.cantierenavipisa.com
34

bottomed as well, with low, straight broadsides (Fig. 39), that may be associated
to the contemporary padula (Bonino, 1996, pp.28 ff.), a small, square-stern boat
still used nowadays in the marshy areas of Fucecchio, a village situated few
kilometres away of Pisa, that presents an ambient probably similar to the one of
Pisa of the 1st cent. CE. The Boat G (Camilli, 2005c, p.64) (Fig. 40) belongs in the
same category of flat-bottomed vessels; partly on the top of the wreck B, its legth
measures around 9 m., but only its stern has been excavated so far.

Fig. 39 The Boat H

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.65)

Fig. 40 The Boat G

(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.64)

35

3. Infrastructures & The restoration center

During the retrieval of the numerous wooden artefacts it became
immediately understandable that the research could not respond to the
archaeological questions posed by the site itself, without a proper plan for the
recovery of material, especially the wooden and organic ones. The whole
archaeological site occupies an area of 10.650 m, with 3.500 m taken up by the
proper excavation. One can maybe assume the amount of the material recovered
from the site, but the reality is beyond any imagination, with millions of objects
having seen the light so far and countless others waiting under the soil to be
excavated. A vast area like this of San Rossore appeared as a great opportunity for
the creation of different scientific centers, which would serve the purposes of the
excavation and create the base for future investigation not only in San Rossore,
but also in the wider region with its complicated geomorphology of the past, still
to be discovered.
The first and most important scientific infrastructure that had been
created, was this of the Centro di Restauro del Legno Bagnato (Fig.41,43), the
Wet Wood Conservation Center, based in prefabricated buildings near the
excavation site. Its first and foremost reason of existence was the protection and
conservation of the woods already uncovered by the site and following, to restore
the material and make it ready for public exhibition. During a proper excavation
where the rules of stratigraphy are required, the material uncovered stays often
under the risk of fast decay, which is not wanted -especially for objects preserved
in such an exceptional state like the ones of San Rossore- and this is another
reason for the vicinity of the center. The equipment is suitable for all kinds of
restoration, both small objects and largesize boats, making suitable the testing
of various treatments. The Center is equipped with various tanks for the
immersion treatment, a room for the spraying treatment, installations for the
closeshell treatments, a refrigerated room for the findings preservation and a
lyophilizer -just to mention some conservation instruments.
Almost all the boats found in San Rossore, except for those not being yet
excavated, have been removed from the place they were found and gone under
conservation. This solution was also chosen to avoid dehydration and decay of the
wood or other organic materials that came to light. The wrecks are excavated in
small sections which are documented and then covered with a thin layer of
polyethylene foam, reinforced with fiberglass, until the vessel is completely
covered, retained from now on under anaerobic conditions and without light. The
next step is the construction of a galvanized iron frame, that allow the
transportation of the vessels to the storerooms of the site and at the same time
creates a safe container. A pipe system keeps stable the levels of humidity in the
36

interior and results a primary washing of the wood, which is visible through small
windows and special instruments. Closed in this fiberglass shell, the boats are
then treated with a constantly growing concentration of polyethylene glycol
(Camilli, 2005b, p.40). Another method that was established for the restoration of
the ships is their treatment with Kauramin (Cerami-Remotti, 2008, p.722), a
melamine resin that penetrates the natural cavities of the wood and consolidates
it. After the impregnation, the period of drying follows, divided in two phases:
one includes the placing of the wood in the oven at around 50 for variable times
and the second the slow controlled drying, until the complete dehydration of the
object. The methods of Polyethylene Glygol (PEG) and of Colophony are also used
by the restorators, but only in the cases of small pieces of wood or, respectively,
organic materials such as ropes, baskets etc.
Among the infrastructures that attend to the archaeological operations
in San Rossore are these of Analysis and Ceramology Laboratory. The first is
responsible for any chemical and physical analysis that can be done on objects
coming from the site or on the site itself, as for instance the mineralogical
analysis of the stones or the palynological study of the woods (Camilli, 2007, p.
287). The second examines the context from which pottery objects were collected
and records them in suitable forms, according to the Ministrys standards. The
ceramics documentation, classification in databases and storage follow, process
that aims to the facilitation of further research on the material4 (Fig. 42).

Fig. 41 The Boat C in its shell

during its lifting
(Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.42)

4www.cantierenavipisa.com

37

Fig. 42 The storeroom of the

archaeological site of San Rossore
(Kyprouli 2011)

Fig. 43 Coating a wicker creel and covering it with fibreglass (Camilli-Setari, 2005, p.44)

38

4. A project for a future museum

From the very first moments of the discovery of the ancient ships of Pisa, it
was clear that a museum where all this material could be exposed, should be an
important consideration among the institutes and authorities involved. The main
idea is this of the creation of a scientific pole which, in combination with the
archaeological site itself and the Wood Restoration Center, will make the site of
San Rossore a proper educational and research center. The museum was chosen
to be based in a very central part of the city of Pisa, in the old dockyards of the
Renaissance family of the Medici on the embankments of Pisa. The restoration of
the buildings and the architectonical process have been concluded. The
museological study will include a lot of different sectors: the discovery of the site,
the historical, ambient and territorial frame from etruscan until roman times, the
methodologies applied on Pisas wrecks excavation, the archaeological research
on land and underwater with emphasis on the naval aspects of it, the restoration
techniques, the presentation of the vessels restored along with the objects that
come from the same layer, the containers of goods and their commerce, the life
on board as well as navigational aspects (Setari, 2007, p.289) (Fig. 44). From
2005 the archaeological site opened for the public and the Arsenali Medicei
hosted the first exhibition of the discoveries of the ancient shipwrecks site.
Unfortunately though, 13 years after their discovery, the site of the Ancient
Shipwrecks of Pisa is not any more accessible to the visitors and the works related
to the Arsenali Museum of the Ships are still in progress.

Fig. 44 Table with part of the museological project in the building of the Arsenali Medicei (Bernicchi, 2009)

39

III. THE BOAT F :

AN INTRODUCTION
1. History of excavation
The Boat F was one of the first found at the site of San Rossore. Its
excavation started in 1999 and was concluded in 2001, when the boat was
transferred to the laboratory for conservation. Here, it has to be mentioned that
the diaries of the excavation provided by the Soprintendenza concern two
excavation periods, this of 12/04/1999 - 15/12/1999 and this of 04/12/2000 03/01/2002. Few things are clear about the state of the hull of the Boat F during
its recovering, as the diaries refer to the excavation activities on the whole Area
2 -where the Boat F was found- and Area 3 (Fig.45), mentioning just the basic
process of the excavation, but not describing the situation of the boat in
particular. The reference to the Boat F starts with the information that the vessel
gets designed in 3D during excavation. From this process, a series of plots, 3D
scannings and designs comes out, upon which the description of the vessel will
be based, as the actual hull of the boat is still under conservation and therefore,
not accessible. As far as the exact location of the boat is concerned, it was found
lying in a direction West to East, with its western extremity lying around 29,50
metres away from the north-western corner and 22,50 metres from the northeastern corner of the excavation and its eastern extremity lying 16,20 metres
from the eastern corner and 35,20 from the western corner of the excavation site.
It was found above the sandy sediments that had covered the Boat E and her
cargo, in an area where the high concentration of wrecked vessels in different
moments and under diverse circumstances leaves the margin of supposing a kind
of shoal inside the basin of San Rossore.

40

Fig. 45 The division of the areas of the site while excavation and the position of the Boat F (Bruni 2000, 19)

Examining the diaries, the process of the excavation can be followed: in

the first place, the excavation is carried out in saggi, excavation probes (Fig.
46), that are realized across and under the hull of the boat, as preliminary target
at this phase was the salvage of the boats and their transportation for restoration.
It follows the resining of each part of the boat that was exposed after the
excavation, in a way that piece by piece the whole vessel is first uncovered by the
soil and immediately after, before the excavation of the next part, covered by
resin. Before the resining, the recording of each part is intervened. After the
covering of the whole boat (having excavated around and under it), a metallic
frame was constructed (Fig.47) around the fiber-glassed wood and the whole
construction with the enclosed boat was transferred to the restoration center on
the 16th of July 2001, where it remains until today (Fig.48).

41

Fig. 46 During the excavation of the Boat F in saggi (longitudinal probes) (SBAT Archive)

Fig. 47 The Boat F with the metal construction, before its transportation to the conservation center
(Camilli, Setari 2005, 42)

42

Fig. 48 The Boat F in the laboratories of San Rossore today (Kyprouli, 2012)

We lack detailed descriptions of the condition of the wood or any other

information that could help to the study of the boat, apart from notifications that
the hull presented serious fractures, due to which it had to be sustained by
numerous props and some times inox needles, until its resining. The references
to objects found at the same area or at the same strati, are simply restricted to
name these objects, for which we have no other evidence: three wicker baskets
(SBAT Excavation Diaries 12/05/99, 18/06/99, 09/05/01), a cup of blue glass
with ribs (SBAT Excavation Diaries 13/05/99), a wooden structure of naval
architecture (SBAT Excavation Diaries 12/04/2001, USL 243), a wooden panel
(SBAT Excavation Diaries 13/4/01), mats (SBAT Excavation Diaries 13/04/01,
16/05/01), a leather fragment (SBAT Excavation Diaries 23/04/01), a wooden
shoe-sole (SBAT Excavation Diaries 16/05/01, n. 796), a part of bow in phase of
elaboration (SBAT Excavation Diaries 26/04/01, n. L3) and diverse kind of
amphorae, mainly of Dressel type 2-4 and 9 and Haltern 70, entire ones or in
fragments. Bruni (2002, p.49) also informs us about the existence of an as coined
by Adrianus in the years between 119 and 121 CE, which was found in direct
contact with the shell of the boat and which gives an indication about the date of
its sinking (Fig. 46). Not to be forgotten that the Boat F was found in direct
contact with the commercial Boat E, whose part of the cargo was uncovered
during the excavation probes before the raising of the Boat F (SBAT Excavation
Diaries 25/05/01). The boat was mainly covered by alternating yellow and greyish
thin clay layers and was reposed directly on sandy sediments.
43

2. Preliminary studies
Few things have been written about the Boat F. Apart from the articles
concerning the chemical analysis of the wood and the one of the
dendrochronology of the boat mentioned below, few references can be found on
its construction characteristics.
Following a chronological order, we first find mention of it in Bruni (Bruni,
2000, p.45-46 ), where we learn about its dimensions (8,2 metres in length and
just over one meter in width), the position it was found (lying on its side), few
construction details (straight sides and raised ends), the dating of the vessel in
the 2nd century CE and where there is an indication for its use (used on rivers
and lagoons). In the same book (p.363-366), we find some pictures of the Boat F
(of a 3D file and a photomosaic), as an example of the process that was followed
for the documentation of all the boats.
Next reference is done in the book The ancient ships of Pisa - A european
laboratory for research and preservation (MBAC, 2002, p.23-29) with an article of
Ronald Bockius, who is discussing several arguments, mainly on the
reconstruction of the Boat F, focusing on the problems of the boats original size
and shape (Bockius, 2002, p.23-29). This article is basically the most
comprehensive effort made so far, discussing the constructive technique and at
the same time dealing with the reconstruction of the boat. Commenting firstly on
the specialness of the Boat F, then Bockius presents the craft, giving a general
idea about its form and a description of its main constructional features:
planking, frames, ceiling planks. A detailed reference to the condition of
preservation follows. Then, Bockius examines the reconstructional aspects that
have to be kept in mind and, based on plots and sketches of the boat from
different angles as well as sectional views, recorded during excavation, he
analyses the problems that such a method bears, proposing also a solution, which
does not delete possible errors, anyway.
Another mention of the Boat F is done once more by Stefano Bruni in Pisa
nei secoli (Bruni, 2003, p.47-49), who gives more detailed information about the
Boat F in relation to its previous reference in 2000. He writes more about the area
it was found, as a lot of crafts were found in close vicinity, assuming the existence
of a kind of shoal in the basin. He also gives a more detailed description of the
complex construction of the boat; stem and stern slightly raised, flat bottom
curved near the stern, double planking, floor timbers distributed with an interval
of around 43 cm between them, frames of oak fastened near the ends, traces of
caulking, rectangular opening for the oars. The use of the vessel for inland
navigation is again mentioned and in this article the term lintres is attributed to
the Boat F, putting it in a group, typologically speaking. The dating is again
44

discussed, with a reference to the adrianean coin again, as well as to the Boat E of
the 1st cent. CE, lying partly above the Boat F (Fig.81).
In his article about Etruscan vessels based on pottery models, Marco Bonino
(Bonino, in press) connects the form of the Barca F with one of the types of the
crafts used by Etrurians to navigate (Fig.84). Before this, he had proposed a
reconstruction of the Boat F, that we find in the CD-ROM of 2003 that followed
the publication of 1982 Barche tradizionali delle acque interne (Fig.49). After
personal communication, he kindly provided me with two sketches of his most
recent studies on the reconstruction of the Boat F (Fig.50-51).
Andrea Camilli (Camilli, 2004, p.69) also very briefly alludes to the Boat F in
its article, underlining the wrong use of the term piroga for the craft.
Last, the guide book of the archaeological site (Camilli - Setari 2005, p.
64-65) as well as the official internet website refer to the Boat F as one of the
small ships of the excavation, showing also some images.

Fig. 49 The first reconstruction of the Boat F by Marco Bonino (Bonino, 2003)

45

Fig. 50 Reconstruction of the Boat F by Marco Bonino

(Bonino, personal communication [interview], 6/6/12 )

Fig. 51 The last reconstruction of the Boat F by Marco Bonino

(personal communication [email], 24/9/12)

46

3. Models reconstructions
The model 1:1 by Polo Navacchio - Phoenix Srl - SBAT
In the case of the Boat F, the complete graphic documentation, has
permitted the reconstruction of a model 1:1 (Fig. 52) of the vessel (Camilli, 2002c,
p.7) by the Soprintendenza della Toscana, Tecnostudio 77 and Polo Navacchio
S.p.A. The CAD images elaborated together with 3D scannings were recomposed
(Camilli, Fiesoli, Gennai 2005, p.4) in order to create a model in real scale. The
purpose of this model was from the beginning to be exposed in the first
exhibition released for the new discoveries at San Rossore. Therefore, it is neither
a reconstruction nor a reproduction of the Boat F. It is just the result of a trying to
show more or less the overall volume and dimensions of the vessel, not with great
accuracy though.
The way it was created was a bit particular (Paolo Machetti, personal
communication, 12/9/12). Based on CAD files, the cross sections of the boat at
each frame were realized -although in an approximate way regarding the shape of
the frames, as one cannot understand it due to their cover by the ceiling- and the
wooden frames were created. Then, it was provoked an explosion to the threedimensional scannings in order to understand the different components of the
vessel. The frames were then put standing up on an ax and the planking was
applied in a way to cover the skeleton. The planking did not follow the dimensions
of the original planks; the models planks were wider, without grooves and
attached on the frames casually. The image given to imitate the original external
planking was made in the end, by carving longitudinally the fake strakes.
Comparing the model 1:1 with the CAD and 3D files, one can observe
considerable differencies: there is one frame more, the pieces of internal and
external planking are not the same in shape and number, the fastenings are not
the original ones, the sheer strake is thicker, the external planks at stem and
stern are put in a way to embody completely the whole blocks -which is certainly
not the case of Boat F- and the blocks themselves are different in relation to the
ones seen on photos taken during the excavation.
We can say in the end, that the model 1:1 was created for the
purposes of that first exhibition in Pisa, in order to give an approximate idea of
what was the Boat F to the general public, but it is by no means trustable for
study and it does not facilitate the work of the researcher. Today the model in
scale 1:1 remains in the laboratories of the Ancient Ships of Pisas site. It is being
discussed whether this model will be included in the exhibition of the new
Arsenalis Ships Museum until the authentic Boat F comes out from the state of
conservation.
47

Fig. 52 The model 1:1 of the Boat F (Kyprouli, 2012).

48

 The model 1:10 by Polo Navacchio SpA - Phoenix Srl - SBAT

In 2001, with the opportunity of two
exhibitions that presented the new
findings of San Rossore, one in Tokyo
and one in New York, the Scienza
Machinale
of
the
Scientific
and
Technological
Pole
of
Navacchio
succeeded to reproduce a model of the
Boat F in scale 1:10. The project was
based on an intervention of a CAD
representation of the vessel -already
made during the excavation- through
CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing)
software. A parallelepiped piece of oak
was the basis on which the subsequent
material removal operations allow roughhewing little by little the model imported
by the CAD. The operation was realized
through a robotic arm on which an
electric drill spindle was attached and
which
produced
a
mathematically
proportioned and scaled with respect to
the original hull, which can give an idea
of the distortion occurred after the
finding of the vessel (Fig. 53). The
superficial finish was given, finally, by a
local artisan wood carvers hand (Fig. 54).

Fig. 53 The robotic arm while creating

the model 1:10 (Polo Navacchio, 2001, p. 33)

Fig. 54 The model 1:10 by Polo Navacchio S.p.A. (SBAT)

49

 The model 1:10 by Romisch - Germanisches Zentralmuseum of Mainz

After the publication of the article of R. Bockius on the reconstruction of
the Boat F (Bockius, 2002, p. 23-29), the proper reconstruction of the Boat F
followed, in scale 1:10 (Fig.55). This is actually the only one model that is a true
reconstruction, whereas the other two are just reproductions of the hull of the
Boat F at the moment of its recovery and, of course, they were not hand-made.
The important difference of this model-reconstruction is that had been made
after studying the construction characteristics of the hull of the Boat F, based on
archaeological data. It was an attend to show to the public the three-dimensional
character of the ship, which is usually object of complex lineation (Bockius, 2002,
p. 23) and not just a mould giving an idea about the volume of the vessel.
Based on -partially imaginative- cross sections of the Boat F made almost- at each frame (Fig.68), Bockius reconstructs a vessel of 8,4 m. long and
1,28 m. wide, with four asymmetrical tholepins and four thwarts, therefore he
proposes single-seated crew members for the propulsion of the boat -the thwarts
put in an arrangement according to the interscalmium of Herculaneum wreck,
112cm.- and he observes the distance of two classical interscalmia between the
tholepins centers of the Boat F (for further discussion on this reconstruction see
p.87).
After its completion, this model was transferred to Pisa, to be exposed for
the first exhibition that took place in the Arsenali Medicei, based on the results of
the research done in San Rossore till then. Unfortunately, after this the 1:10
model of Boat F was lost and until today, we are unaware of its luck.

Fig. 55 The plan view of the reconstruction made by the Museum of Mainz
(Bockius, personal communication [Letter], 24.5.12)

50

4. Objectives of study
Of the numerous boats found in Pisa, the Boat F is not the biggest, neither
the most impressing one. It is not a large cargo boat, traveled in foreign waters,
as its size declares. Nevertheless, the Boat F is part of the group of the vessels
found at Pisa - San Rossore site and its study can throw new light to our present
knowledge in a series of sectors.
Studying this vessel as an object at the moment of its destruction, it can
help to a better understanding of the conditions prevailed in the past -both at the
moment of its destruction and before- and give information that will help to the
reconstruction of the area. Its deeper inspection will hopefully incorporate it in a
wider cultural and social context, to which new information will be added, helping
the understanding of the role of Pisa during the Roman Empire (and probably
before).
The Boat F presents several unusual characteristics that make it peculiar,
mainly regarding its construction, which will be investigated below. Aim of this
essay is to examine these characteristics by a constructional point of view, leaving
apart the inspection of some physical queries such as draft, capacity, performance
etc. Deepening into the construction of this particular craft will probably lead to a
better understanding and consideration of ship construction in past times in
general. It would enrich our knowledge on this field, as every single ancient vessel
does, being unique and therefore, important.
Scrutinizing the elements of this small craft would clarify some construction
skills and patterns applied in vessels of this region at this epoch, but would also
add more elements to the sectors of inland vessels construction and inland
navigation in general. As water transportation was predominate in relation to this
by land during the past times, more light can be shed on the ways the goods
commerce was carried out, not only through the river system of Pisa, but also considering the connection of this vessel to the harbour and subsequently the
connection of the harbour to the sea- the whole water transportation system in
the Mediterranean Sea.

51

III. THE BOAT F :

DESCRIPTION

The recording of an archaeological finding - and in this case the hull of a

boat- is the most important phase for the acquisition of the information that will
lead to the better comprehension of the object and its contest. This process is
limited only to those who performed this work and the result depends mainly on
them. The work of this essay is defined principally by the quantity and quality of
the information recorded 13 years ago, during the excavation of the ship, because
-mentioned quite often in this paper- the real hull of the Boat F remains
unaccessible. The present study is exclusively based on digital files, provided by
Tecnostudio77 on behalf of the Soprintendenza della Toscana.
It is understandable that the protection of the fragile remains of a boats
hull should be the first consideration for a project like the one of Pisas wrecks.
Nevertheless, the plethora of information derived from the site itself in
combination with the long time passed since its discovery and the rotation of
people involved in the project, transform the study of a finding of that epoch in a
bit more complicated process. Files that do not exist any more, documentation
papers that have been lost, photographs that were not given to the responsibles
or even servers that have been stolen can create a short of inconvenience to the
ones intending to make research. Besides, more might have been acquired if the
hull of the Boat F had been recorded by people specialized in ship construction, or
by means equal to the occasion, although we also must take into account the
limited technological possibilities of the past in respect with the present.

52

Fig. 56 The Boat F (Coppini after Tecnostudio77) [see also Appendix 1]

53

1. Overall dimensions and state of preservation

Starting with the description of the Boat F, it is essential to give some of its
basic dimensions. The overall length of its hull is 8,18 meters, whereas its
maximum width -occurred nearly amidships, frame n.7- approaches the 1,00
meter. This results a ratio of length to width c. 7:1. The maximum depth
amidships was a bit less than 0,70m (Fig.56, Appendix 1).
To be mentioned that the dimensions stated are those of the hull as it was
brought to light. A certain degree of wood distortion is present, even if the
anaerobic conditions that prevail at the environment of the site of San Rossore
permit a very fine state of preservation of the hulls in general. And if in a lot of
cases the deformation of a vessel provokes the widening of the transversal
sections, this does not apply in the case of the Boat F. As mentioned previously,
the Boat F was found tilted on one side and one of its ends deeper than the other
(Fig.57,58). The way the boat ran aground resulted the alteration of its shape in
two ways. First, the side hovered above the other curved inwards, at least until
solid materials such as sand and sediments, covered the empty space between the
two sides and played a supporting role for the side above. Therefore, the portside
(see p.62 for the discussion about stem and stern) was almost to its entirety
preserved until the gunwale, whereas the starboard side was subjected both to
cracks along the planking and several damages on the sheer strake. Second, both
the extremities of the hull -but especially what is identified as bow- are quite
damaged. Besides, there are several cracks on the elements of the external
planking, some on the internal, while some planks of the ceiling are missing.
The Boat F does not have a keel. It has a round bottom (seen from cross
sections amidships) whose beam narrows down going afore and abaft. Further
down, the groups of the several elements that form it, will be examined: the
external planking, the frames, the ceiling, the fastening and then some particular
characteristics of this boat, such as the wooden blocks that consist its
extremities, the tholepins on one sheer strake and the wooden pole that stands
near the stern.

54

Fig. 57 The position of the Boat F as it was found - depths (Tecnostudio77)

Fig. 58 The Boat F during excavation (SBAT)

55

2. The external planking

The planking is single and carvel-built. On the external planking of the Boat F
(Fig.59, Appendix 2), we cannot surely define how many rows of strakes run. The
sketches made so far do not help this identification. A careful examination of the
frames sections (Fig.) gives a.. result; an example, frame n.8 is attached to 10
strakes, whereas the next one, frame n.8 is attached to 13 frames, which seems
quite illogical. Based on sketches of the starboard side in combination with
photos, we can suppose the existence of 10-13 strakes (see p.54), each one
being formed by one or maximum two planks, which vary in shape and size. In
general, they are wider in the middle of their length and narrow down in order to
compensate for a smaller area near the wooden blocks ends, where they were
attached (Fig.74). Nevertheless, this is not a rule. The width of the strakes ranges
from c. 16 cm (amidships) to c. 3 cm (ends), whereas their thickness is about 4
cm. The strakes are edge-joined, connected to each other by the technique of
mortise-and-tenons, secured with pegs (see p.61). No proper stealers exist, but
some shorter and less wide planks might have been used as a kind of stealers
(Bockius, 2002, p.23); they end up in a triagonal shape either joining other planks
through diagonal scarves (Fig.60) or being attached on one of the wooden blocks
of the extremities (see p.62). Diagonal scarves of various lengths were mostly
used to combine outer planks into strakes. On the upper plank of the port side,
between frames n. 12 and 13, at 3 m from the bow we observe also a vertical
diagonal scarf (Fig.56b). We cannot be sure whether the strakes were
preassembled before installation or not. The observation of the only one scarf
obvious (Appendix 2, Fig.60,61) results a quite irregular way of cutting the joints,
neither perpendicular to the run of planking seam which would mean they were
installed individually, nor perpendicular to the diagonal seam, which would mean
they were preassembled (Steffy, 1998, p.167). The planks that consisted the sheer
strake were not thicker with regard to the others as one can notice on photos
taken during excavation, therefore the sheer strake at portside seen on the
sections made by Tecnostudio 77 (Fig.66) is incorrectly designed. On the port side
two tholepins have survived (see p.62). On the surface of the planking several
spits can be noticed, mostly horizontal ones along the grain or others provoked
by the existence of pegs (Fig.62,63). The planks seams were sealed with caulk,
remains of which have been preserved (see p.69). The wood used for the external
planking is deciduous oak, apart from the second and half of the first portside
strakes (Fig.80)

56

Fig. 59 A possible identification of the several planking rows of the starboard side (Coppini after Machetti, 2012)

Fig. 60 The way of connection between external planks (Coppini after Tecnostudio77)

Fig. 61 Joints on a diagonal scarf (SBAT)

57

Fig. 62 Part of the external starboard side of the Boat F (SBAT)

Fig. 63 Detail of the Fig. 62 (SBAT)

Fig. 64 Frame n. 4 (Tecnostudio77)

58

Fig. 65 Plan view of the Boat F (Tecnostudio77)

Fig. 66 The frames taken by the 3D model (Tecnostudio77)

3. The frames
The frames of the Boat F are fashioned from several species of wood (ash,
elm, oak, walnut tree) without a reasonable pattern (Fig.80). It is difficult to
identify their number. Bruni (2003d, p.385) states that they are 17, on the plan
view made by Tecnostudio77 (Fig.65) we count 14 frames, the cross sections each for every frame- made by the same studio (Fig.68) are 13, while according to
the 3D model (Fig.66) also provided by Tecnostudio77, there are 15 frames. As all
designs have been based on the 3D model made in situ with a total station, we
consider it as the most trustable among the four. Consequently the frames have
been given numbers from 1 to 15 starting from the after ones. It was concluded
that the two frames missing from the cross sections of Tecnostudio77 are the
frames n. 1 and 3, the first probably because it was not regarded as such and the
second because it is obvious only in the 3D file (Fig.66). The assumption that
there must be one more frame between frames 2 and 4 can also be supported by
59

the disproportionate big room and space observed between these two frames (Fig.
65).
The average of their sided surfaces is 6 cm and of moulded 7 cm. The
average of room and space is 43 cm. Their cross section is mainly round. Any
alteration observed can be attributed to the deformation of the wood, that
provoked the moving out from the proper place of some frames. All frames seem
to have been fastened to the planking with pegs of around 2 cm in diameter.
We can not be sure whether the frames are made up of just one piece or
more, because they are not accessible, as the ceiling planks cover them. It is
visible only their higher part, from 7 cm until 10 cm, that excesses from the upper
ceiling plank (Fig.65,66). In this way we can understand their shape (rectangular
in plan) as well as the shape of their ends: they were cut away to create a
symmetrical slopping edge, a kind of chamfer in the highest part, on the internal
sided surface, attached on the inboard faces of of the planks in a beveled way
(Fig.70,71,73). In some cases, we can be sure that the frames did not consist of
one piece and this becomes obvious by examining the wooden species analysis
(Giachi, 2003): frames n. 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 are made of two different kinds of
wood. On the other hand, there are cases where the wooden analysis indicates the
same kind of wood for one frame (frames n. 12-15 ). Unfortunately, in our
disposal we have just one photo taken during the excavation of the hull of Boat F,
where it is possible to access to one -to be exact half- frame (frame n. 14) where
the ceiling is missing (Fig.67). Although we can probably see the beginning of a
seam on the frame, the quality of the photo is not such as to get a clear image.
The wood of the frames n. 4, 8, 9 has not been analyzed and therefore no
conclusion can be made. Anyhow, the acquisition of any information on the
connection of the pieces of the frames will remain impossible, until the fiberglass
shell opens.
The frames n. 1, 2 and 15 (the first and second abaft and the last afore) while
they have the same moulded and sided dimensions with the other frames, they
present one difference: they protrude from the sheer strake for 1 cm, 5 cm and
around 15 cm respectively. We cannot be sure for the starboard part of the frame
n. 1, as this area is not obvious in photos, but it is likely that the missing part was
also protruded (Fig.74).
In most cases, the frames present a good state of preservation, especially on
the portside which is generally better preserved. On the starboard side a certain
degree of deformation is obvious; characteristic is the example of frame n. 12,
canted towards the portside (Fig. 68).

60

Fig. 67 Frame 14 and the ceiling of the Boat F (SBAT)

61

Fig. 68 Frames sections and dimensions (Coppini after Tecnostudio77)

62

4. The ceiling
In the interior, the hull presents several rows of
strakes that compose the ceiling in the internal of the
boat (Fig.69). We cannot precise their number, but
based on the sketches, they might have been 6 or 7
rows (Fig.56a). Their thickness is 2-2,5 cm and the
average width 10-15 cm. The ceiling covers much of
the interior of the vessel running along its length;
strakes start almost after the two wooden-block ends
and only the first portside is one entire plank. In most
of the cases they were composed by two or more
elements with butt ends that usually met each other
on the frames and are secured by wooden pegs of 1
cm in diameter. Not long strakes like the ones
observed on the external planking were used. At the
bow area there is lack of ceiling planks. The upper
portside row runs up to the sides of the boat until
around 14 cm from the sheer strake (Fig.70), which as already mentioned- makes the upper part of the
frames visible. The runs of the ceiling are fastened to
frames on the interior with nails of 2-3 cm in
diameter, whose the material we cannot identify (Fig.
70,72). The planks were fashioned from black alder in
majority as well as oak and present a considerable
amount of cracks, although they are generally well
preserved. Looking at the sectional views, we observe
elements of the planking disconnected by the frames.
The Boat F was an open vessel without evidence of any
decks.

Fig. 69 Photomosaic of the ceiling of the

Boat F (Bruni, 2000, p.365)

63

Fig. 70 The bow covered by

fiberglass and a part of the
ceiling of the Boat F. On the
left, one of the two tholes
preserved on the portside,
on the right the destroyed
starboard side (SBAT)

Fig. 71 Bow, ceiling and frames n. 4 and 5 after the excavation in saggi (SBAT)

64

Fig. 72 Ceiling planks and fastenings on the Boat F (SBAT)

5. Fastening
Even if from the photos available for the study of the Boat F, a detailed
image of all the fastening elements cannot be obtained, some patterns of pegs
and treenails can be observed. As cited above, mortise-and-tenons joints were
used for the assembling of the strakes on the outer planking, which were secured
by wooden pegs of c. 1 cm in diameter on the outer surface and the same for
inner, made of ash (or at least the ones that have been examined -Fig.80). We
cannot attest whether the driving of the pegs has been done from the inside or
the outside of the hull. The distance between peg centers and seams varies from
2 till 4 cm. Nails transfixed into the wooden pegs cannot be pinpointed. Joint
spacing seems quite regular and averages c. 20 cm between centers throughout
the hull (Appendix 2). For the composition of the strakes diagonal scarves were
used to join the planks (Fig.60,61), which were also seamed by the same
technique. On the outside of the hull, rows of treenails (Appendix 2) that pass
vertically through both timbers (average diameter 2 cm) indicate the fastening of
the frames to the planking, which presents various distances between treenails
(6-15 cm). The ceiling planks seem to have been attached to each other and to
the frames by pegs, treenails as well as nails, in an irregular pattern. Nails or
headed treenails -impossible to identify from just the photos- of 3-4 cm in
65

diameter were used for the attachment of the planks to the two wooden blocks at
stem and stern (Fig.75,77). The two tholepins present on the starboard side, were
secured on the sheer strake by couples of nails ( 1 cm).
6. Propulsion
Tholepins for two oars (B and A -Fig.65,70,71,73) are recessed at a
distance of 2,31 m and at 4,53 m from the bow respectively, on the upper side of
the portside sheer strake of the Boat F. Unfortunately, the sheer plank of the
starboard side has been damaged and we cannot know more about the existence
of tholepins also to the opposite side. They have a length of 42cm (A) and 47cm
(B) and a width of 4cm -equal to the width of the planking. In the middle of the
length a hole of 2,5cm in diameter has been opened.
It is maybe necessary to state at this point that fragments of thwarts are
not pinpointed; no holes in the hull, no recesses in the gunwales. Nevertheless,
this does not exclude their existence that could be noticed in a future, more
detailed examination of the boats hull.

Fig. 73 One of the two tholepins preserved on the sheer strake (SBAT)

7. Blocks
Maybe the most particular characteristic of the Boat F is the existence of
two slightly raised wooden blocks positioned in the extremities that form the
stem and the stern of the vessel, without big profile differences, therefore
symmetrically positioned. They are of almost triangular shape in plan view with
probably -as much as the degree of distortion permits us to understand- pointed
ends. The sides are carved as a socket for the side strakes (Fig.76,77).

66

Aim of this chapter is a clear description of what can be seen on the Boat F
and surely not to fall in any interpretations of these characteristics. It is inevitable
though at this point to avoid a small deviation, in order to give an explanation
relevant to the stem and stern of the boat and therefore to its starboard/portside.
As the two ends are almost symmetric and the view plans do not help to define
which of the two is the bow and which the stern, we were based on a photo taken
during the excavation of the craft, where we notice the existence of a wooden
pole projecting out of one side (Fig.78,79). We presume that this is a pole
employed in steering and that this end is the stern.
Back to the blocks characteristics, the maximum length of the bows block
is 60 cm and the maximum width 40 cm (Fig.74-75), whereas the same distances
for the stern are 76 cm and 43 cm respectively (Fig.76-79). They are two inboard
hollowed solid alder blocks, that have been integrated in the hull of the boat
through their connection with the planking, at the carved sides. The connection
has been done by headed treenails ( 3-4 cm) and it briefly reminds us the
hooding-end connection of a vessels planks with the rabbet.

Fig. 74 The bow of the Boat F (SBAT)

67

Fig. 75 The bottom part of the bow of the Boat F (SBAT)

Fig. 76 The stern of the Boat F; external planking and their attachment to the wooden block (SBAT)

68

Fig. 77 Stern, wooden block, protrusion and frames (SBAT)

Fig. 78 The stern of the Boat F; wooden block, protrusion (SBAT)

69

Fig. 79 The stern of the Boat F; the attached protrusion and the projected frames (SBAT)

8. Details and the rest

On the surface of the outer planking, several signs can be detected, but as
this observation has been done solely through photographs, it is for the moment
impossible to clarify whether these are repairs, tool marks, damages, surface
coverings or other signs (Appendix 2).
The unique assumption that can be made on possible repairs concerns a
vertical diagonal scarf noticed on the sheer strake of the portside, in a distance of
3 m from the bow and its continuity afore (Fig.60,61). The wood taxon -elm- that
has been employed for their construction differs in relation to the rest of the
planking and therefore it would appear likely that these elements have been put in
position later than the rest of the planking, which is made by oak. Nevertheless,
as several times repeated, as documentation or photos lack, this is just an
assumption based on wood species that cannot be seriously supported, except
after direct examination of the hull.
Another characteristic of the Boat F is a wooden pole that is attached very
near the block of the stern (c. 55 cm from its end) or more probably on the block,
part of which has been carved for this reason (Fig.78-79). Its length is 80 cm and
its diameter c. 5 cm. This timber (of which the wood species remains unknown)
70

was embedded from the port side not exactly perpendicular to the sides but
slantwise, in order to reach and penetrate the starboard side only of the wooden
block, without exceeding beyond starboard planking. The piece of plank that was
situated above it is not preserved and the pole was completely exposed during
excavation. Anyhow, the timber sticks out of the port side for 40 cm.

9. Wood analysis
As mentioned above, the boat was found lying on one side, which probably
provoked the destruction of this side, whereas the other remains almost
complete. The wood appears completely wet and of spongy consistency, due to its
permanence under the water table. In general, though, the hull of the boat is in a
very good state of preservation, almost to its total length -except for its
extremities (stem and stern)- due to the wet and anoxic sediments where it had
been buried (Fig.62,63). The fact that this ancient port is now buried under the
soil, makes the collection of wooden samples easier than an underwater
environment.
The examination of several kinds of wood from the site, allow the correlation of
these woods technological properties with their structural use (Giachi, 2003, p.
269-283). During the excavation of the vessel, 150 samples of the waterlogged
wood from the Boat F were taken. From the samples of the different components
of the Boat F, the results show that in general, the woods used for its construction
were hardwoods (Table 1, Fig.80):
for the planking Quercus sp. caducifolia is basically used and only two elements
are of Ulmus cf. minor,
the two monoxyle extremities (stem and stern) are made out of Alnus cf.
glutinosa,
frames are realized with Fraxinus excelsior, Juglans regia L., Ulmus cf. minor and
Quercus ilex,

ceiling planks are made of Quercus sp. caducifolia and Alnus cf. glutinosa,
tenons are of Quercus ilex,
for the treenails that fasten the plank to the frames Fraxinus excelsior has been
used and last,
the treenails that fasten the plank to tenons are of Quercus ilex.
Three samples of sand were taken around the Boat F, in order to be examined
under palynological analysis. The results show that all the trees used as timbers
for its construction are represented in the palynological spectra on the thin layers
71

of clay which existed within the sand layers at San Rossore and which covered the
boat right after its burial, therefore are of the same epoch.

Identified wooden species

Part of the boats structure

Alnus cf. glutinosa (black alder)

Monoxyle elements of prow and stern, ceiling planks

Fraxinus excelsior L. (ash)

Frames, frames treenails

Juglans regia L. (walnut tree)

Frames

Ulmus cf. minor (elm)

Planking, frames

Quercus ilex L. (holly oak)

Frames, planking treenails, tenons

Quercus spp. caducifolia (deciduous oak)

Planking, ceiling planks

Table 1. Results of wood-types identification of the Boat F (Giachi, 2003, 272)

Fig. 80 Plan and section views with the map of identified wooden species
of the Boat F (Giachi, 2003, 273)

72

10. Painting, caulking and waterproofing materials

There are no studies on the painting material of the Boat F. As the relative
article (Colombini, et al., 2003) examining the paints of several boats found in
Pisa does not include paints from Boat F, we can either assume that there is no
evidence of painting on the wood of Boat F or that such a study was never made.
On the photomosaic of the external starboard planking, we can locate some
spots, but it is difficult to distinguish whether these are traces of painting,
waterproofing material or just erosion.
Concerning the caulking and waterproofing material, three samples were
taken from the Boat F: two from the waterproofing material that covered the wood
and one from the caulking substance found between the planks of the hull. From
their chemical analysis and examination the same results occur: the wood was
covered by a kind of pitch that was obtained by pyrolitic treatment of resinous
wood whose biomarkers come from a diterpenoid resin that belongs to the family
of Pinaceae and was strongly heated in the absence of oxygen (Colombini, et al.,
2003, 671).
11. Dating
No dendrochronological studies have been carried out concerning the wood of the
Boat F. The stratigraphical method that was followed during the excavation of the
hull of the Boat F is a secure path to follow for its dating. The craft was found in a
stratum that is characterized by the destructive flood of the Hadrianean period
(117-138 CE). From the same level of excavation (US15) several pottery
fragments, characteristic of the first centuries of CE have been brought to light.
As a confirmation to this, in close vicinity to the hull of the boat a Hadrianean as
(copper coin) was found, fact that forms concrete evidence of the hypothesis
above (Bruni, 2000, p.45) (Fig.81).

Fig. 81 The adrianean coin found at the same stratum

of the Boat F (Bruni, 2002, fig.53)

73

III. THE BOAT F :

COMPARANDA
To better understand the construction of a vessel and shed more light on
its usage aspects, it is of great importance to draw parallels between the vessel
under examination and other similar vessels. Similarity, though, can include
quite a variety of meanings, aspects and points of view according to the means or
kind of research. Here an attempt to focus on the constructional and technical
characteristics of the Boat F already seen in the previous chapter has been made.
In this chapter, the selection of the comparanda has been done following mainly
two rules: a) comparison to other similar vessels of the ancient epoch regardless
of area vicinity (Ancient vessels), b) comparison to other similar vessels of the
wider area but of modern epoch (Ethnographic parallels). Further discussion will
follow in the next chapter.

1. Ancient vessels
Etruscan pottery boat models
A group of pottery candles in the shape of boat comes from the epoch and the
area of Etrsucans and are dated between the 11th and the 8th century BCE
(Bonino, in press) (Fig.82,83). Although these terracotta models are more
schematic than realistic, Bonino marks the common symmetric extremities and
distinguishes three types. One of them (type n.2) is the one that presents
similarities to the Boat F. The pottery models have flattened and arched bottom,
sometimes a keelson and refined extremities. Therefore, the hull of these kind of
boats would be round of which the extremities finish with tapered blocks. The
exact shape of the hull is impossible to be identified, but Bonino focuses on a jut
of shaped blocks at the extremities of the models and finds conceptual vicinity
between them and the form of the extremities of the Boat F. A possible
representation of this type of vessels would be this of Fig.84.

74

Fig. 82 Terracota model boats from Capena (a,b,c) and uncertain provenance (d,e) (Biella, 2009, fig.3)

Fig. 83 Impasto boat from Capena, 7th c. BCE (of Fig.82d)

National Maritime Museum, Haifa (Hagy, 1986, fig.25A).

Fig. 84 Possible representation of the type n.2 of the etruscan pottery models (Bonino,in press)

75

 The Geraz do Lima 4 dugout

Near the shore of the river Lima in Lanheses, Portugal was found a dugout of
6,95m in length, 0,88m width and a height of 0,80m (Alves, Rieth, Alves, 2004)
(Fig.85). It has parallel sides, round extremities and a small protrusion at the bow
in form of a bico with two small round holes with 3,4 3.9 cm in diameter, that
are present at both sides of the protrusion. Another interesting aspect about this
boat is the presence of two planks located at the bow, crossing the boat from
each side to another with function unknown. It is in almost all its length a flat
bottom boat. The dugout was made by oak (Quercus rubur L.) and is dated from
370 BC to 200 BC.

Fig. 85 The dugout Geraz do Lima 4 (Alves, Rieth, Alves, 2004)

Fig. 86 The Lake Kastoria boat (Beaudouin cited in Basch, 1987, fig.348)

76

 The Lake Kastoria boat (Greece)

This boat found in the Lake of Kastoria in continental Greece and dates
back to the 8th century BCE (Basch, 1987, p.167-171) . It is long around 5,5
meters and wide around 1,5 meters. This archaistic type of boat has a flat bottom
composed by sewn planks. The sides follow the same technique to shape a very
particular kind of vessel seen on Fig.86. Very characteristic elements of the Lake
Kastoria boat are the extended tholes, the disposition of the planks, as well as the
two extremities, forming a kind of stiff construction at bow and stern.
This latter characteristic is the one that concerns us more. The parallelism
between the Boat F and the boat of Kastoria is inevitable looking at the way the
extremities of the two vessels have been constructed. In the case of Kastoria we
cannot be sure whether the extremities are composed by wooden blocks; from the
documentation sketch of F. Beaudouin -especially Fig.86c- it seems that the part
of the stern is composed by planks put vertically and a piece of wood connects
the top of these planks and covers the stern, while another piece of wood of
similar shape positioned closer to the sheer strake reinforces the stern
construction and is probably used for practical purposes. The bow on the other
hand seems to be composed by one solid shaped piece of wood on which the
strakes of the sides and the bottom are sewn. Whatever the case is, this boat
reflects a similar constructive mentality to the one of Boat F of Pisa.

The Herculaneum wreck

Discovered in 1982, the hull of the Herculaneum boat (Steffy, 1985) was
found carbonized under the ashes that an explosion of Vesuvius provoked in 79
BCE. Its overall length would measure c. 9 m., while its maximum width is 2,60 m.
and its midship depth 0,85 m. (Fig.87-89). Keel and one end post are exposed for
7,6 m. There are 7 bottom planks on the starboard side of the hull and 8 on the
port side. Wales are thicker than planking, which measures c. 2 cm. On the sheer
strakes there are 6 tholepins, three on each side. It brings a through-beam near
one end, which penetrates the side planks above wales and projects 43,5 cm
beyond each side. The hull was constructed in the usual technique of shell-firts
construction with plank edges joined by pegged mortise-and-tenon joins. It has
been built in a light way and it is long and shallow.
Several similarities can someone notice between the wreck of Herculaneum
and the Boat F. The constructive technique of both follows the classical
Mediterranean way of ship construction of the epoch. The overall dimensions are
very similar, especially length and midship depth, whereas the width of
77

Herculaneum must have been around the double. Boat F does not present a keel,
but planking adjustment follows more or less the same rationale and have the
same thickness. If we could count the rows of external strakes on Boat F, we
would probably end to a similar number (13 or 14). Both vessels have tholepins, 6
on Herculaneum, 2 on Boat F, but those are the preserved ones of the portside;
we could probably assume the existence of other two. The through-beam near
the end of the wreck of Herculaneum -usually employed in steering- could
possibly be likened to the pole projecting beyond portside of the Boat F. Striking
characteristic is the similarity between the first and last frames of the Boat F frames in quotes and with a lot of questionings- and the first frame after the
through-beam of the wreck of Herculaneum: different in construction, but similar
in mentality, these pieces could answer the same purpose.

Fig. 87 The Herculaneum hull (www.museomav.it)

Fig. 88 Projected frame and through-beam

of

Herculaneum boat (www.museomav.it)

Fig. 89 Vertical diagonal flat scarf in a wale of Grado wreck (Beltrame, Gaddi, 2006, fig.10)

78

 The Grado Roman ship

The Grado wreck was discovered at a depth of 15 m. near Trieste in 1986
(Beltrame, Gaddi, 2006) and is dated back to the middle of the 2nd century CE. It
is preserved at a length of 13 m. and was 6 m. wide. Two of its main
characteristics are the considerable amount of repairs that are noticed, as well as
the existence of a box for an hydraulic system (Beltrame, Gaddi, 2006, p.144).
Although the dimensions of this vessel are considerably bigger than those
of the Boat F and its construction more complicated and with a keel, apart from
the construction method of shell-first and the mortise-and tenon joins, we notice
one more point in common with the Boat F: the diagonal scarves on the planking
(vertical diagonal flat srarfs -Beltrame, Gaddi, 2006, p.142). On Boat F these are
obvious on the port side sheer strake, at 3 m from the stem (Fig.89)

Horeiae

Another interesting comparison to

the Boat F would be this of a group of
vessels to which is attributed the name
Horeiae. It is a kind of vessel recognizable
for the squaring off at one end -the
discussion if this is a transom bow or a
transom stern seems to be open (Carlson,
1998). Carlson (1998) writes these small
Fig. 90 Horeia from the mosaic Catalog of Boats
vessels were, in the truest sense doubleat Althiburus, Tunisia (Duval, 1949)
ended; that is, capable of being maneuvered from either end, depending on the
circumstance, which seems quite possible. This transom at one end would give
bigger working area and better visibility in fishing cases, as well as easier docking
in cargo transferring. Still, the argument whether this vessel was used just for
fishing or not, has not been closed; an example, some interpret the loads on the
depiction of a Horeia in Althiburus, Tunisia as nets, some others as bundles of
cargo (Carlson, 1998; Boetto, 2009b). The archeological evidence existing for
Horiae today, is limited to mainly three examples: the hulls of Napoli C (Boetto,
2005), Toulon (Boetto, 2009b) and Isola Sacra I5 , all three coming from roman
harbour basins that have been silted. All the ships were built according to the shellfirst method. The planks were fitted edge to edge, fastened by mortise-and-tenon
5 The Isola Sacra I wreck is unpublished. Information about it has been taken from the Abstracts catalogue of
ISBSA13, where the results of the recent research will be presented by Giulia Boetto.
79

joints and had a keeled flat bottom, structure which reminds us the Boat F in
general, with the difference of the keel.
One can wonder why this kind of vessel is included in this chapter, since
the Boat F does not present any transom end. The answer lies somewhere among
the explanations about the use of these crafts, which have been assumed to be
either fishing boats or serve harbour necessities, like cargo transportation.

The Fiumicino wrecks

The group of wrecks found in Fiumicino while the works for the new airport
of Rome, according to structural and functional characteristics can be
distinguished into three sub-groups (Boetto, 2010, p.117): the wrecks 1,2,3, the
wreck 4 and last the wreck 5. The first group of wrecks has been identified as
naves caudicariae, used either -but less possibly- as fishing boats or for the
transportation of cargo from big maritime vessels that arrived in maritime ports
further inland through rivers and outlets. The function and use of the wreck 4 is
hard to identify, but it is assumed its use for passengers transportation, or for
pleasure navigation (Boetto, 2010, p.119).
The third group consists also of just one vessel, Fiumicino 5 (Boetto, 2006)
(Fig.91-92). This wreck is the one that presents more similarities to the Boat F,
mostly because of its use, of its structural characteristics, as well as for its
dimensions and date. Wrecks 1-4 are quite big in relation to the Boat F, whereas
wreck 5 measures 6 m. in length and 2 m. in width; shorter but wider, this boat
can be likened to Boat F, even with this small difference in dimensions. It is dated
to early 1st CE or early 2nd CE (Carlson, 1999, p.107) -more or less the same
epoch of Boat F- while the other wreck of Fiumicino have been dated in later
years. The construction is the common for Mediterranean boats of the epoch, of
shell first assembled hull and planking connected edge to edge with mortiseand-tenon pegged joints. The thin keel on the wreck of Fiumicino is a difference
between the two boats, but the small thickness of the piece of wood used as keel
in Fiumicino, in combination with the uncertainty about the existence of a keelplank on the Boat F, makes this difference less important. The particularity of this
boat is the characteristic that gives also the clue for its use: the wet well at its
center. It is about a fishing vessel and more particularly a navis vivaria, built to
endure the choppy coastal waters of Mediterranean (Carlson, 1999, p.108).

80

Fig. 91 Reconstruction of the hull of the wreck Fiumicino by Marco Bonino (1982, p.36)

Fig. 92 The Fiumicino 5 as it is exposed at the

Museum of the Roman Ships (http://
www2.rgzm.de/Navis/ships/ship055/
Fiumicino5engl.htm)

Fig. 93 The Kinneret boat with the different wood taxa (Jesus Boat MUseum)

81

 The Kinneret boat

Another kind of fishing vessel found in the Sea of Galilee, is dated at the same
epoch as the Boat F (1st c.BCE-2nd c.CE). It has a similar length (9 m.), but it is
wider (2,5 m.). Cedar was used for the planking that was connected with mortises
and tenons, like the Boat F. Particular characteristic, its wood variety; in Kinneret
boat one can find at least 11 different wood species (Fig.93), assumably because
they were in second use or because it formed a quite poor construction (Carlson,
1999, p.108). Despite the homogeneity of planking, for the frames a variety of
taxa has been used, fact that we also notice for the Boat F. The Jesus Boat as it is
also called, had a keel -in contrast to the Boat F- on which clues for the existence
of a cutwater exist (Steffy, 1994, p.67), characteristic which puts the vessel to the
category of fishing boats (Carlson, 1999, p.108).

Zwammerdam 3 and 2a vessels

Another vessel coming from northern Europe this time, representing more
a Gallo-Roman tradition of ship building rather than the Mediterranean one, dated
in Roman Ages and employed in roman military purposes (NAVIS database), is
Zwammerdam 3. The likeness between this vessel and the Boat F -even though
their general shape is quite diverse- apart from the fact that they were found in
(ex) fluvial environments, lies in an element positioned at the one end of the
vessel found in Zwammerdam. It is about the rectangular wooden piece
positioned in the front part of the boat (Fig.94). The shape of it in relation to the
wooden blocks of the Boat F is of course completely different, as well as their
function, but a comparison between them (or among all Zwammerdam boats)
could probably reflect the same way of thinking, this of a developed monoxyl
craft.
Next to the Zwammerdam 3, Zwammerdam 2a was found (NAVIS database),
of which survives just a very small piece of the planking, representing a carvel,
edge-to-edge technique with mortise-and-tenon joints, characteristic that refers
to the Mediterranean tradition, such as Boat F (Fig,95).

82

Fig. 94 The Zwammerdam 3 wooden

extension (NAVIS database)

Fig. 95 The Zwammerdam 2a

carvel
built
sides
(NAVIS
database)

The Yverdon-les-Bains 2 craft

We also notice similarities in the
way of construction thinking
between the Boat F and Yverdon
2 (NAVIS database). It is certain
the origin of this vessel from two
logs that after their carving had
been assembled together to
form a round hull. Interesting
characteristic that recalls the
Boat F of Pisa is the way the
constructor
of
Yverdon
2
secured the transversal axis of
the boat, putting a block of
wood
at
the
end
for
reinforcement.

Fig. 96 The Yverdon-les-Bains 2 (Arnold, 1999, fig.2)

83

2. Ethnographic parallels
The Lake Amatovo boat (Greece)
This particular boat comes comes from a lake that now does not exist
because of drainage works (Fig.97). We cannot know its dating as it is
documented in an article of Traeger (1904) to which access was impossible. We
find information and sketches of it in Basch though, when he compares it to the
quantel batella (Basch, 1972, p.18). It is a flat bottom vessel in which pairs of
right-angled timbers have been used as frames. The floor planking has been
assembled to their horizontal part, while the side planking to their upright ends.
Rectangular in section, this boat presents an enormous similarity to the
Boat F as far as the extremities are concerned. At both ends, the constructor of
the Lake Amatovo boat has put two wooden blocks to which the side planks are
attached (in a not obvious way, unfortunately). Besides, the shape of the hull of
this vessel reminds us the concept applied in dug-outs, a mentality that cannot
be that far from this of the Boat F.

Fig. 97 The Lake Amatovo boat (Traeger, 1904, fig 20-21. Cited in Basch, 1972, fig.10)

84

 The Barcil from Comacchio lagoon

It is a traditional vessel of the eastern parts of the river Po (Italy) (Fig.
99,100). It has a length of 6 until 12 m. and it was used for specific kinds of
fishing or for the crossing of the river. It is an open vessel with relatively simple
construction; flat bottom, frames consisted of three pieces, sections that tend to
be rectangular (Bonino, 2008, p.117).
Its most interesting characteristic though is the wooden blocks that are
incorporated in its extremities and this is a common element with the Boat F. As
Bonino observes (2008, p.117) these blocks serve as posts at the bow or the stern
of the boat. The external planking and the planks of the flat bottom start from
these, therefore the profile would show the blocks vertically. There are also some
variations of the barcil, one with the wooden block not vertical but inclinated and
another in which the blocks (or the block -as it can happen just in one) of the
extremities has been decreased in size and the curved planks of the bottom finish
at the upper part of the bottom.
Similar to this, there is another type of vessel, bigger in dimensions, but
that could also have blocks to its extremities, the burchillo (Bonino, 2008, p.118)
(Fig.98). It was also found in two versions, one for transportation of passengers
and another for materials transferring. In this second case, the vessel was open
and it was also added a vertical rudder at the starboard side. The boat was towed
to horses pulling from land, probably by the two posts near the bow (Fig.98b).
What the burchillo and the Boat F of Pisa share, are also these two elements, the
rudder and the posts, of course with some comprehensible differences due to the
size of the vessels, their use, the different area, but foremost the centuries that
separate them.

Fig. 98 The burchillo. At starboard side the rudder. Right, a minimized wooden block at stem and the
projected posts (Bonino, 2008, p.117)

Fig. 99 Two types of barcil

(Bonino, 2008, p.117)

85

Fig. 100 The wooden block at one end of a contemporary barcil (Bonino, personal communication, 14.06.12)

Fig. 101 Barbta (Bonino, 2008, p.120)

Fig. 102 Bato polesano (Bonino,

2008, p.121)

86

 The battllo - battna family

Also from the region of eastern Po river, we find a family of crafts with flat
bottom that bends upwards at the extremities, where there are posts. In some
types of these, like the barbta (Fig.101), the stem is lower and has a small
wooden block on which the side planks are attached (Bonino, 2008 p. 121).
Similar vessel, belonging in the same family is this of bato (Fig.102), with
symmetric extremities, without posts, with also small blocks to which the planks
of bottom and sides were arriving. These boats were driven either with a sail or,
more often, with oars attached at tholes (forcole) or used as helms.

The snnaro of Foggia

We find it under the name snnaro or snnale and was used in the Lakes of
Lesina and of Varano in the region of Puglia (Fig.103). It is a simple, flat bottomed
craft. Its stem and stern have been assembled by connection of two side
previously enlarged planks that have been attached onto wooden blocks characteristic that refers to the Boat F of San Rossore. Its type and this special
characteristic not so clear in the drawing below, becomes more obvious in one
model of this vessel made by Marco Bonino, today in the Museo della Regina in
Cattolica (Rimini). Both sides have been internally reinforced by short longitudinal
wooden pieces at the maximum curve. This technique can also be seen in the
Nave di Posta Fibreno, craft with clear dug-out origins (Bonino, 1982, p.35).
An impressive detail is that the form of snnaro boats -as well as the
terminology itself: (plank) or (sandal)- has a straight
correspondence with some greek crafts, with ancestral examples the ones of Lake
Kastoria and Lake Amatovo (Bonino, 1982, p.79).

Fig. 103 The snnaro of Foggia (Bonino, 1982, p.78)

87

 The asymmetric tholepins

In their proposed reconstruction designs of the Boat F, both Bonino and
Bockius make an assumption based on the tholepins survived on the portside of
the sheer strake. They suppose the existence of other two tholepins on the
starboard side, though not oppositely positioned, but asymmetrically (Fig.
105-112). Based on this assumption and aware of the fact that the asymmetrical
tholepins may not absolutely be the case, a reference to modern vessels with
similar kind of propulsion is considered worthwhile. Some examples are:
-Bato (Polsine - Rovigo) and Battna (Senigallia - Ancona) (Fig.102,105) from
Adriatic regions,
-Peta, battlla, puparn, sandolo, veneta (for competitions) as well as some types
of gondols from the venetian region (Fig.108,109,110,112),
-The boats from the Lakes of Trasimeno, Chiusi, Montepulciano and Bolsena
Lakes from central Italy (Fig.104,106),
-Nacc (Iseo Lake) and bissa (Garda Lake) from alpine regions, that are mainly
used for competitions (Fig.111,107).

Fig. 104 The different ways of oaring in Trasimeno Lake (Museo dell Barche di Passignano, after E. Gambini)

88

Fig. 105 Battna from Senigallia (Ancona) (Bonino,

1982, p.30)

Fig. 106 A boat of Bolsena Lake in a recent photo

(Tiziano, 2009)

Fig. 107 Bissa from Garda Lake

(Bonino, 1982, p.86)

Fig. 108 The

peta veneziana
di Vittorio
Amedeo III of
1735 (Bonino,
1981b, fig.4)

89

Fig. 109 Two venetian

sandoli navigating along
the canals (Crovato et al,
1980, p.92)

Fig. 110 Fisolera from en engrave of 1500

(Crovato et al, 1980, p.43)

Fig. 111 Nacc from Lago dIseo during a competition

(www.iseomoments.it)

Fig. 112 A veneta during a competition (Crovato et al, 1980, p.86)

90

III. THE BOAT F :

DISCUSSION AND
INTERPRETATION
1. Construction methods - Technical solutions
As seen previously, the Boat F lacks a keel, fact that places the craft among
the category of ships constructed with a flat bottom. Camilli (2005c, p.64) states
that the bottom {was} made flat by a narrow plank joined to the frame. We have
no proved evidence of this, without though being in position to exclude it, as
photographs and documentation do not help. Nevertheless, as stated, the
external planking of the Boat F must have been composed by 10, 11, 12 or 13
strakes. In case the number of the strakes is odd, we can assume the role of the
central one as a keel-plank, opinion that supports also Bockius adding that exists
over a limited range only (2002, p.24).
The external planking of the Boat F that positions it in carvel built vessels,
seems to have been installed in a quite normal pattern, edge-to-edge with
mortise-and-tenon joints, characteristic of the Mediterranean school of building,
also confirmed by the he presence of diagonal scarves, that have been used far
more frequently than the others on Mediterranean ships in the classical {....}
period (Steffy, 1998, p.167). According to this tradition, the vessel would have
been built shell-first with a later installation of the frames. When fitting of the
frames into the strakes skeleton was completed, the drilling of holes for treenails
through frames and planking would have followed. The fitting of the two wooden
blocks must have been realized possibly before the insertion of the frames to the
hull or simultaneously, in order to give the final shape and keep the ends together
before the forces that the hull would accept on its transversal axis. The chine of
the boat was rounded, with a sweet turning of the bilge. Therefore the
construction process would involve a first phase of some planks (one keel-plank?
some more?), then the fitting of the blocks would follow, probably together with
the frames that would give the wished curve to the hull and then the construction
would continue with the positioning of the rest of the external planking, the
securement of the frames on them and finally with the placing of the ceiling.
We cannot exclude though, a more conservative technique which wants
the positioning of the frames last, imitating the way logboats were built,
assumption based on a strong relation of the Boat F with dugouts. This likeness
91

results foremost due to the existence of the two wooden blocks at the extremities
of the Boat F. These two carved-trunk pieces refer to simpler constructive
solutions and to the classical way logboats were formed. Question to be
answered whether the wooden blocks were placed at the ends as a result of
anachronistic attitude or after a conscious choice of the shipbuilder for the
protection of the extremities in the ambient of small rivers and canals in which
the Boat F would circulate. The truth must lies somewhere in-between; maybe the
use of blocks is the consequence of a local tradition that was still alive -as shown
by the resemblance of the Boat F to etruscan boats- in combination with the
practical solutions that this guarantees.
The Boat F is not the only vessel of the ones found at San Rossore that
recalls a dugout structure. Another finding, for the moment under conservation
and still not published and therefore not dated, affirms this relation: it is about a
block of wood that represents one of the two ends of a dugout, with pointed
shape near the end of which there is a big hole (Fig.113). Such boats appear usual
in the reality of the site of San Rossore.

Fig. 113 The extremity of a dugout in the laboratories of San Rossore (SBAT)

92

It seems that there was a particular attention for the longitudinal axis of the
Boat F by the shipwright. This becomes more apparent if one takes under
consideration the entire planks assemblage of the hull. The impression obtained
is this of a vessel constructed with the principal -longitudinal- axis as the basic
concept. The ratio 7 to 1 of length to width confirms this. Besides, it was
observed by the comparison to other contemporary vessels of more or less the
same constructive technique, that hulls with similar length (9m) have at least the
double beam amidships (Herculaneum, Kinneret etc). This could be an indication
that the boats are employed in different conditions and situations of course, but
on the other hand the same observation could underline a different way of
constructive concept that -in confirmation to what was previously stated- reminds
us the form of a monoxyl element. Nevertheless, such a fine shape would have
also been given to the craft in favour of manoeuvrability and stiffness, adopted to
the environmental conditions of the area. An archaism could be marked also due
to this characteristic, which is corroborated by the knowledge that the older
school of Mediterranean shipbuilding used to give more importance to the
stiffness of a hull gained by a good planking formation, while the emphasis on the
transversal axis and sophistication of frames laid later (Steffy, 1998, p.77-78).
In fact, as far as the frames are concerned, a certain degree of casuality is
noticed. We cannot follow a pattern as regards the wood taxa used for them. Four
different kinds of wood are employed: Fraxinus excelsior, Ulmus cf. minor,
Quercus ilex and Juglans regia L. for an amount of 15 frames. More intriguing, for
the same frame have been used two different taxa -applied on minimum 6
frames. The casuality continues concerning the construction of the frames
themselves; we can be sure that 6 of them are made by -at least- two pieces, for
1 of them that is made by 1 piece of timber (frame n.15 from walnut), whereas for
the rest we have no evidence whether they are made by one, two or more pieces,
as they are covered by the ceiling planks. We cannot, therefore, know if they
overlapped, if they were meeting each other near the center or they were
separated -which anyway seems less probable. In this way, it is impossible to
understand the way they were constructed, their connections if they were two
pieces (or more) or, in case one timber consisted one frame, if they were bent
naturally or not. Anyhow, this irregularity on frames construction -not noticed on
their positioning though- might also lead to a confirmation of the thought made
above about an old-fashioned way of construction of the Boat F observed.
A tempting characteristic appears in regard to the frames of the Boat F. The
frames n.1, 2 and n.15 -in contrast to the rest of them that arrive a bit before the
sheer strake- project above the sheer line. We can make this observation only on
the portside that is the one better preserved, but we have no evidence of such a
fact for the starboard side. It is quite normal though, if one considers the bad
93

state of preservation of this side and particularly of the sheer line, that might have
been the first to break and therefore all the elements attached to it. Nevertheless,
these frames must, by analogy, have been projected above the starboard side as
well. Besides, frame n.1 the nearest to the stern is placed at the exact point where
the wooden block ends. It seems that such a choice does not have any
constructional value and that this frame was placed there in order to serve other
necessities, which in this case could possibly be the positioning of the ceiling
planks. Moreover, frames n.2 and 15 present a closer similarity between them, as
they are also positioned more or less at the same distance from the end of the
blocks (1,30m). This group of frames would have probably played the role of
posts to tie off ropes when at dock or to haul (for example wooden trunks -Fig.
114), be hauled either by other boats or by human hands (near the coast or the
dock for small manoeuvres for example) or even by animals that would move
along the coast. We saw the examples of Herculaneum and burchillo, boats with
the same characteristic -even if for Herculeneum due to the attachment of these
projected poles to the through-beam a steering function can also be assumed. In
the end, we can support that even if the longitudital axis seems to have been
taken under more consideration, longitudinal and lateral integrity was gained
anyway. The positioning of the frames at relatively small distances between each
other shows an intention of strengthening also the transversal axis.
The Boat F was a rowing ship as proved by the existence of the two tholes
surviving at the portside gunwale, which would have accepted the fulcri.
Questionings on the specific way the boat was propulsed are born automatically:
how many tholepins existed and therefore how many rowers, in which way they
were arranged and which way they were rowing? In his reconstruction of the Boat
F, R. Bockius (2002) proposes the placing of other two tholes on the starboard
side, arranged not diametrically opposite, but asymmetrically (Fig.55). This
opinion is eminently persuading. Observing the starboard side and its
deformation, the parts more damaged are almost where Bockius positions the two
tholepins.
Logical enough, as these would be the most fragile parts of the sheer
strake, where the boat during its life would have accepted much propulsion force.
Moreover, an exactly opposite positioning of the tholes would be impossible due
to the small beam of the Boat F that cannot afford two rowers one next to the
other. Bockius (2002, p.28) also supposes the existence of four thwarts where the
rowers would normally seat. However, there is no evidence of slots in the upper
edges below the sheer strakes where thwarts would have been fitted. One could
argue that this is not obvious due to damages, but the portside of the boat is
satisfyingly preserved and such indications would have at least be noticed there 94

although nothing is excluded until the boat opens for conservation and research,
of course.
A proposal for the solution of this problem may appear by the comparison
done between Boat F and other boats with asymmetrical tholepins. There are
several ways of rowing a small boat (see for example Fig.104), among them this
of standing rowers seen in Trasimeno, in venetian region and in Garda and Iseo
Lakes (Fig.107-111). In this case the rowers could also be four as proposed, but
they could also be just two, rowing each one two oars in asymmetrical position
like in Trasimeno. In some of them, we also notice a person standing at the stern
of the boat, serving as a helmsman, scene depicted also on ancient artefacts (Fig.
115). This would probably be the role of the wooden pole projecting out of the
portside of the vessel. We previously met this beam at Herculaneum boat as well
as at the Geraz do Lima 4 dugout. This latter similarity adds another grit in the
opinion that wants the Boat F as a craft-descendant of dugouts. It is not about the
classic through-beam though, as it does not exceed beyond starboard planking. A
helm would be slung on this wooden pole. Therefore the boat could supposingly
be punted for small distance transports or, for long distances, it could be oared
by two or four persons plus a helmsman that would give the direction and control
the manoeuvres. It is noticed a certain symmetry in regard to the tholepins in
combination with the wooden blocks: could it be supposed that the boat would
have a double ending? The stern could serve as bow for simplifying manoeuvring
and steering in the pisan ambient of lagoons and canals; the rowers would not
feel any inconvenience either in this case. Also the symmetrical projected frames
at stem and stern appear to support this. Besides, horeiae to which the Boat F has
been compared may have been used as crafts with double ending (Carlson, 1998,
p.213) -in another sense of course, as they have different shape- why not the
Boat F?

2. The wood used

Functional properties, local availability as well as personal choices of the

constructor were determinative factors in the choice of the timber used for
ancient ship building. As far as the wooden taxa used for the Boat F construction
are concerned no coniferous wood was employed for any part of the hull of the
Boat F, unlikely the extended use of Pinus pinaster Alton for the hull of the Boat C
(the only one subjected to wooden analysis) of the same site (Giachi, 2003).
Of the broadleaved wood taxa, the deciduous oak, known for its natural
durability, strength and resistance to fungus and temperature changes, as well as
the fact that has a long life expectancy may justify its use as the principal
95

constituent for the planking of the Boat F (Fig.80) which might have been loadbearing. This choice was common in Mediterranean shipbuilding, especially for
longitudinal carpentry (Guibal and Pomey, 2003). As mentioned previously,
exception to the rule of the use of oak for planking, is the use of elm for just two
elements of the outer planking, both positioned at portside. Could these indicate
a possible repair, especially in combination with the scarf noticed on the sheer
strake? Again, only the direct examination of the hull can give the answers.
The black alder at the extremities of the Boat F make it ideal because of the
easy processing of this species of wood, whereas its use for ceiling planks -quite
rare in general due to its low mechanical performances- can be attributed to the
abundance of the species in the surroundings of Pisa.
Elm is a kind of wood used often in Mediterranean ship timbers, like in
Madrague the Giens for axial carpentry, planking and frames (Guibal and Pomey,
2003) or the Napoli wrecks (Allevato et al., 2010). It is known for its resistance to
biota attack in submerged conditions (Giachi et al., 2003), which make it ideal for
ships construction. The flexibility and easy moulding, hardness and high density,
as well as the easy sawing of the elm, must be the reason that the constructor of
the Boat F chose this kind of wood for some frames and few part of the planking
of this boat.
The same reason may justify the existence of ash at some other frames.
Ash is used also for the treenails probably because of its surface hardness. We
also find treenails of holly oak -as well as tenons and some rectangular openings
on the sheer strake- wood usual in Mediterranean, mainly used in this way
because of its resistance to friction. Last, the walnut used for some other frames
of the boat is also known for its elasticity and good mechanical performance.
Walnut tree is found in all the wrecks of Napoli (A, B, C) (Allevato et al., 2010) and
it is likely that its was cultivated for timber supply.
All these kinds of hardwood used for the Boat F reflect the consistent
choice of the constructor to create a quite heavy and durable vessel, with strong
capacity of carrying. This is maybe a proof that the Boat F had been adopted in
short paths and inner waters, rather than open sea navigation. The diversity of the
wood species employed in the construction of transversal axis of the Boat F in
relation to the homogeneity of the oak used in the external planking could verify
the particular attention for the longitudinal axis instead of the transverse.
In order to identify if the wood used for the construction of the Boat F was
of local provenance, palynological analysis was necessary to be carried out. All the
timber taxa are very common in the Mediterranean basin, thus the identification
of the location of the construction of Boat F is impossible. The trees used in the
construction of the Boat F could be of local provenience. As availability in the
proximities was a determinant factor for the choice of the wood in a vessels
96

construction, it seems that Pisans, with the help of the aquatic environment in
which they lived, had solved this problem using the numerous water courses for
the woods transportation (Fig.114). This is also reported by Strabo (V, 2, 5) who
mentions that timber played a very important role in the life of Pisa and its
harbour, through the commerce of diverse wood species, as well as their use for
ships construction. Nevertheless, this fact does not exclude the possibility of a
foreign origin of the timbers.
Thinking about the diversity of the wood used for its construction, the Boat
F reminds this of Kinneret, where it has been hypothesized that this variety of
wood species can be proof of either long use-life dating or second hand use
(Carlson, 1999, p.108). Of course, no detailed analysis has been executed for the
timbers of Boat F, so it would be a simplification considering the case of Kinneret
as the rule and therefore the Boat F as a long-lived craft or a poor construction,
but this example can put basic questionings to be answered after the opening of
the fiber glass.

Fig.114 Trunk from San Rossore,

probably transported through the river
(De Laurenzi, 2006, p.20).

Fig. 115 Relief from Isola Sacra

(Museum of Roman Civilization)

97

3. Use

The employment of the Boat F in inland waters is proved by its shape and
size that places it among a group of vessels adopted to the local environment and
for this reason presenting a lot of flexibility in their use, as opposed to bigger
vessels occupied in solely certain tasks. The lack of sails also indicates navigation
in calm, easy-going waters.
That this kind of boat would be employed in fishing activities is the most
probable and obvious surmise that one could do. The wicker baskets found in the
same stratum (Excavation diaries, Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della
Toscana) support this opinion, as they could probably have been used for fishing
or the transportation of fish. As stated by Carlson (1999, p.107) artistic
representations of roman fishing boats show that the typical vessel was small,
holding up to four rowers and a helmsman, which agrees with the interpretations
proposed about the crew of the Boat F. Anyway, we know how organized was the
fishing job in Roman times, by the guilds that we find in important places like
Roma, Ostia etc (Carlson, 1999, p.107). For Pisa we have not such evidence, this
do not exclude the existence of such groups though, maybe in a smaller degree,
taking into account the importance of the port of Rome and Ostia in relation to
the harbour system of Pisa. It is probable that vessels like the Boat F would
simultaneously be employed in hunting as well -lets not forget that fishing and
hunting in fluvial or lagoonal environment like this of Pisa were not so diverse as
processes and a small vessel like this would be appropriate for this task.
Maybe the Boat F was a transporting vessel. Its open deck for some few
amount of cargo makes it ideal for goods transportation through the rivers and
canals, that the bigger vessels arriving at the port would bring and that small
crafts like the Boat F, more easily navigating inland, would carry towards the
inland region or towards the other ports of Pisa, something like a navis caudicaria
of Rome. Transportation tasks of small or medium importance, of ferrying, small
transfers of persons, or even agricultural products picking, shall be included in
such boats job.
It appears by its possible use, that the Boat F was a working vessel. We
cannot confirm something like this based on its hull, as for the moment there is
no way of ascertaining any signs or repairs or cracks on the wood, provoked
during work. The hull was in a generally good state, which either means that it
was relatively new at the moment of its destruction, or that was not adopted for
hard tasks. We exclude of course the probability of it having been abandoned like
the boats of Fiumicino for example (Boetto, 2009), as we know that the situation
found in Pisa was a consequence of destructive floods. As a result of all the above,
98

we should not exclude any of these functions of the Boat F, as it could possibly be
a multi-tasking craft. And yet, even if we do not have information enough to
answer whether the boat F was carrier of fish, commerce or persons, we can for
sure underline its significance as a carrier of meanings (Adams, 2001, p.292).

4. Typology: Canoe, Piroga, Linter or something else?

From time to time, different and diverse characterizations have been
attributed to the Boat F. Canoe, piroga and linter are the ones usually met. But
since, as we previously saw, the Boat F is a plank-boat why this insistence? It is
not of course in the purposes of this essay to examine in detail where the terms
derived from. It would also be ignorant a trying to strictly place this particular
boat in one category, especially without having ever examined it properly: by
near. The different characterizations -in the end not so distant among themcould be explicable though, concerning the nature of the Boat F that, as seen,
occurs as a result of various trends that amalgamate onto this small craft. The
one prevailed is clearly its monoxyl origin that is present on its form through a
great deal of aspects. Exactly this fact is the one that can justify the use of terms
like piroga or canoe.
The latin term linter on the other hand, used by innumerable authors, is
generally attributed to describe light, slim craft, either dugout or planked, with
flat bottom, designed for inland navigation (DAgostino-Medas, 2010, p.286).
Consequently, the Boat F fits also into this category. From a linguistic point of
view in relation to the term linter and its use, nowadays similar words with
conspicuously same origin as linter are used in Italy to describe also small inland
going crafts: two examples is this of Messine, where it is called luntro (Fig.116)
and this of Trasimeno, where lintri represent every boat of limited dimensions
used for inland navigation (Minciarelli, 1986, p.10).

Fig. 116 The luntro of Messina (www.messinaieri.it)

99

We saw above the relation of the Boat F with the group of boats called
horeiae, as far as the kind of propulsion with oars is concerned (see p.), as well as
the meaning of the double ending. Given the fact that these boats were used in
inland waters for fishing and transportation and the transom end facilitated this
exact function, why this do not apply on the Boat F? Is it likely that is simply an
ancestor of them? Given the admitted anachronism of this boat, it is probable that
this is also an anachronism within the same context.
Can the Boat F be then related to the caudicariae naves such as the boats of
Fiumicino? Their connection to monoxyl crafts is proved (Boetto, 2009a, p.142)
and as such, we cannot exclude the eventuality that the Boat F is a rough form of
the same type. It is surely smaller than the boats 1, 2, 3 of Fiumicino that are
considered caudicariae. Moreover, it was found in a small harbour, part of the
harbour system of Pisa and not in one of the biggest ports of the Roman Empire
like the one of Ostia -lets not forget either that the term is associated with
vessels navigating the river Tiber specifically. Nevertheless, their likeness consists
in their use (transportation of products arrived in big ships moored at the open
sea or in the beginning of the paludal area and the hauling of cargo ships- Boetto,
2010, p.118) the ambient they were employed to navigate. In the very end, we still
have so scarce information about the Boat F, that its classification cannot be
realized and at the same time any of the categories above can be adopted.

100

III. THE BOAT F :

CONCLUSION AND
OUTLOOK
1. Conclusion

The shape of the Boat F is the first and more important characteristic that
incorporates it in the category of crafts encountered in inland navigation. Its flat
bottom would anyway position it as such, despite the fact that it was found in an
environment of which a past fluvial situation has been proved. As stated by Basch
(1972, p.18) a flat bottom recalls the origin of a ship and flat-bottoms also
result from the deliberate adaptation of boats to suit the conditions prevailing in
the area where they are used. Both statements seem to be true in the case of Boat
F. On the hull of this boat three different factors are obviously reflected: this of a
log-boat origin, this of a local adaptation and this of a new, Roman reality.
Importance on longitudinal axis and wooden blocks at the extremities show the
the relevance to dugouts. Carvel building, joints, interscalmia, intention for
transversal strengthening the maritime influences of a Roman port. Dimensions,
function, geographical transport zone and place of discovering in combination
with wood taxa indications lead to a local construction. Therefore, we have an
anachronistic kind of boat that embodies the transition to more developed
practices, without being able to discharge local customs.
That the flat bottom is imposed by the builder's limited level of
technology (Basch, 1972, p.18) is also a real fact. On the other hand though, Pisa
during the Hadrianean epoch was a dynamic promising colony of Rome. In
consequence, the Boat F is the result of conservatism or progressivism? It was
constructed late to be called archaistic or early to be called Roman? The truth
lies somewhere in-between.
Anyhow, the Boat F represents a unique kind of vessel, sui generis, with a
pluralism of influences that in the end compose its individuality. A graceful,
elegant and agile craft, engaged in a reality in which we are unable to be
absolutely present.

101

2. Outlook
Reaching the logic of the ancient shipwright is naturally the purpose of any
research being done on ancient ships. In this way we -try to- conquer better and
deeper understanding of the way of thinking of the era under study and as a
result, to understand better the human being that remains of course the primitive
subject of any research.
By researching the Boat F of San Rossore more light has hopefully shed on
the life of this relatively small port -which anyway was in use for 10 whole
centuries- and consequently more knowledge was obtained that brought different
understanding as far as fluvial transportation in Roman Ages is concerned. Being
studied, the Boat F clarified a part of the local history and more widely thinking,
added its own piece to the puzzle of inland ancient navigation. Even more widely,
a small, seemingly insignificant vessel (Carlson, 1998) like the Boat F has a part
to play in the history of shipbuilding and can attribute to nautical archaeology in
general.
I am personally aware of the fact that there will be mistakes in relation to
the actual hull, as I am aware that a proper research of an existing boat cannot be
done merely through archives and photos. Any conclusions made must stay
provisional and be retested in the future. With the opening of the encapsulated in
fiberglass hull of the Boat F technical details, structural characteristics, physical
queries and basic questionings that stayed in the present essay unanswerable, will
be answered. The general idea of what the Boat F had been in the past will be
more complete and educative. Therefore, further investigation is required, also
through disassembling the structural components of the hull. Hopefully, the
liberation of the Boat F from its artificial shell will bear the fruits that
Archaeology has been expecting for the last c. 2000 years.

102

LIST OF REFERENCES
Adams, J., 2001. Ships and boats as archaeological source material. World Archaeology, Vol.
32(3), pp. 292-310. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/827924 . [Accessed at 3.2.12].

Allevato, E., Russo Ermoli, E., Boetto, G., Di Pasquale, G., 2010. Pollen-wood analysis at the
Neapoli harbour site (1st-3rd century AD, southern Italy and its arcaeobotanical implications.
Journal of Arcaeological Science 37 (2010), pp. 2365-2375. Available at: http://
www.elsevier.com/locate/jas . [Accessed at 5.5.12].
Alves, F., Rieth, E.; Alves, J., 2004. Relatrio das misses de recuperao das pirogas 4 e 5 do
rio Lima. Trabalhos do CNANS. 2003. Lisboa
Basch, L., 1987. Le muse imaginaire de la marine antique. Athnes: Institut Hellnique pour
la prservation de la tradition nautique.
Basch, L., 1972. Ancient wrecks and the archaeology of ships. The international Journal of
Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1972), 1, pp. 1-58
Begliomini, V., Benvenuti, M., Mariotti Lippi, M., Pallecchi, P. and Sagri, M., 2003. Il contesto
paleoambientale dell'antico porto di Pisa. In Bruni, S. (ed.) Il porto urbano di Pisa: la fase
etrusca il contesto e il relitto ellenistico. 2003. Milano: Silvana, pp. 103-109.
Beltrame, C., Gaddi, D., 2006. Preliminary Analysis of the Hull of the Roman Ship from Grado,
Gorizia, Italy. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36.1, 2007, pp. 138147.
Benvenuti, M., Pallecchi, P. and Sagri, M., 2000. Cenni sull'evoluzione geomorfologica della
pianura pisana. In Bruni, S. (ed.) Le navi antiche di Pisa ad un anno dall'inizio delle ricerche.
2000. Firenze: Edizioni Polistampa, pp.87-91.
Bernicchi, M., et al., 2009. Museo delle Navi Antiche di Pisa Progettazione della comunicazione
integrata. GRADUS 4.1, pp. 40-46.
Biella, M. C., 2009. Tra fiume e mare, su alcune testimonianze di navigazione nella media Val
Tiberina di VII sec. a. C. In Petitti, P. (ed.) 2009. Sul filo della corrente, la navigazione nelle
acque interne dell'Italia Centrale dalla preistoria all'et moderna. pp. 83-90. Available at:
http://sovraintendenzaroma.academia.edu/CarloPersiani/Papers/970139/
Il_lago_di_Bolsena_nella_preistoria . [Accessed 20.6.2012]
Bockius, R., 2002. On the reconstruction of Pisa Nave F by the museum Fur Antike SchffahrtMainz. In Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturali (ed.). 2002. The ancient Ships of Pisa. A
European Laboratory for Research and Preservation/Le navi antiche di Pisa. Un laboratorio
europeo di ricerca e di valorizzazione. Bruxelles: European Heritage Laboratory, pp. 23-29.
Boetto, G., 2010. Le port vu de la mer: lapport de l archeologie navale a l etude des ports
antiques. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I, 2010/ Volume speciale B/B7/9. pp. 123-129.
Available at: http://www.archeologia.beniculturali.it . [Accessed 12.6.2012].
103

Boetto, G., 2009a. Les navires de Fiumicino, influences fluviales et maritimes. In Pomey, P.
(ed.). Transferts technologiques en architecture navale mditerranenne de lAntiquit aux
temps modernes : identit technique et identit culturelle, Actes de la Table Ronde
Internationale, 19-21 mai 2007. Istanbul: Varia Anatolica XXX, pp. 137-150.

Boetto, G., 2009b. New archaeological evidences of the Horeia-type vessels : the Roman
Napoli C shipwreck from Naples (Italy) and the boats of Toulon (France) compared. In Bockius,
R., (ed.). Between the seas. Tranfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology, Proceedings of the
11th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 11), Mainz 2006 (RGZM
Tagungen Bd. 3). Mainz : Verlag des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, pp. 289-296.
Boetto, G., 2006. Roman techniques for the transport and conservation of fish : the case of
the Fiumicino 5 wreck. In Blue, L., Hocker, F., Englert, A. (eds). Connected by the sea,
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of Boat and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 10),
21-26 September 2003, Roskilde. Oxford : Oxbow Books, pp. 123-129.
Boetto, G., 2005. La scoperta el porto di Neapolis: dalla ricostruzione topografica allo scavo e
al recupero dei relitti. In: Giampaola, D., Carsana, V., Boetto, G., Bartolini, M., Capretti, C.,
Galotta, G., Giachi, G., Macchioni, N., Nugari, M.P., Pizzo, B. (eds.). Archeologia Maritima
Mediterranea, an International Journal on Underwater Archaeology, MVI, vol. 2. Roma-Pisa:
Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, pp. 63-76.
Bonamici, M., 2005. Pisa and the sea: a long story. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds.) 2005. The
ancient shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. pp.19-20.
Bonamici. M., 1985. L uso del marmo nell Etruria settentrionale. Le statue funerarie. In
Maggiani, A. (ed.) 1985. Artigianato artistico in Etruria, catalogue of the Volterra - Chiusi
exhibition. Milano, pp.123 ff.
Bonino, M., (in press). L' pave du Golo, les "sutiles naves" et la navigation en Mediterrane
centrale et septentrionale. Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea - An International Journal on
Underwater Archaeology. Pisa-Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.
Bonino, M., 2008. Cantieristica navale delle acque interne in Emilia e Romagna tra il XIX ed il
XX secolo. In Orlandi, M., Tozzi Fontana, M., (eds.). 2008. Indagini sul Po. Bologna: CLUEB, pp.
87-171.
Bonino. M., 2005. Lezioni di architettura navale antica. Pisa: Felici.
Bonino, M., 2003. Tecnica e architettura navale dai frammenti del II secolo a.C. In S. Bruni,
ed. 2003. Il porto urbano di Pisa: la fase etrusca il contesto e il relitto ellenistico, Milano:
Silvana, pp.183-221.
Bonino, M., 2003 [CD-ROM]. Imbarcazioni tradizionali delle acque interne dell Italia Centrale.
Perugia: Atlante Linguistico dei Laghi Italiani.

104

Bonino, M., 1996. Il Barchino del Padule di Fucecchio e le barche tradizionali dell Arno. La
navigazione interna in Toscana. Erba d Arno, 66. pp. 28 ff.
Bonino, M., 1983. Le imbarcazioni monossili in Italia. Bollettino Civico di Padova, 72. Padova,
pp. 51-77.
Bonino, M., 1982. Le barche tradizionali delle acque interne. Firenze: Nuova Guaraldi Editrice.
Bonino, M., 1981a. Rafts and dougouts in central Italy. The primitive phase of local inland
boatbuilding. Mariners Mirror, 67. 1981, 2. pp.125 ff
Bonino, M., 1981b. Lineamenti di evoluzione navale tra lAdriatico e il Po nel Settecento.
Quaderni del Giornale Filologico ferrarese, 1981, 2. Ferrara. pp 139 167.
Bottini, A., 2005. The discovery of the site. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds.) 2005. The ancient
shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.12.
Bruni, S., 2003a. Le ricerche nell area del porto urbano di Pisa etrusca e romana. Cronaca di
una scoperta. In Bruni, S. (ed.) 2003. Il porto urbano di Pisa: la fase etrusca il contesto e il
relitto ellenistico, Milano: Silvana, pp.15-28.
Bruni, S., 2003b. Il sistema portuale di Pisa etrusca e romana. Appunti. In Bruni, S. (ed.)
2003. Il porto urbano di Pisa: la fase etrusca il contesto e il relitto ellenistico, Milano: Silvana,
pp.47-71.
Bruni, S., 2003c. La campagna di scavo 1998-1999: larea dellAmpliamento Sud. In Bruni, S.
(ed.) 2003. Il porto urbano di Pisa: la fase etrusca il contesto e il relitto ellenistico, Milano:
Silvana, pp.75-99.
Bruni, S., 2003d. Pisa, porto urbano, il relitto F. In Tangheroni, M. (ed.) 2003. Pisa e il
Mediterraneo. Uomini, merci, idee dagli Etruschi ai Medici - catalogo della mostra di Pisa,
Ginevra-Milano: Skira, p.385.
Bruni, S., 2002. Pisa la citt delle navi. Il porto urbano di Pisa etrusca e romana dallo scavo al
museo: prospettive e problemi. In Zampieri, A. (ed.) 2002. Pisa nei secoli. La storia, larte, le
tradizioni, vol. I, Pisa: ETS.
Bruni, S., (ed.). 2000. Le navi antiche di Pisa ad un anno dall'inizio delle ricerche, Firenze:
Edizioni Polistampa.
Bruni, S., 1999. Le navi antiche di San Rossore. Pisa - Arsenali medicei 25 giugno - 6 agosto
1999. Firenze: Edizioni Co.IDRA.
Bruni, S., 1998. Pisa etrusca, Anatomia di una citt scomparsa, Milano: Longanesi & C.
Camilli, A., 2007. Pisa. Cantiere delle Navi Antiche, Centro di Restauro del Legno Bagnato:
Resoconto delle attivit 2007-2008. In Notiziario della Soprindendenza per i Beni Archeologici
della Toscana. 3/2007. Firenze.
Camilli, A., Pallecchi, P., Remotti, E., 2006. Stratigrafia fluviale, portuale e terrestre: la
sequenza dello scavo delle navi di Pisa - San Rossore. In B. M. Giannatasio, ed, 2006.
105

Aequora, , iam mare... Mare, uomini e merci nel Mediterraneo antico, Atti del convegno.
Genova, pp.74-86.
Camilli, A., 2005a. Portus Pisanus. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds). 2005. The ancient
shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.28.
Camilli, A., 2005b. The excavation and the wrecks lifting. Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds). 2005.
The ancient shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.40-41.
Camilli, A., 2005c. The minor boats. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds). 2005. The ancient
shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.64-65.
Camilli, A., Fiesoli, F., Gennai, F., 2005. Cantiere delle Navi Romane a Pisa. Leaflet for the
european programme UE - Interreg III B Medoc. ANSER Antiche rotte del Mediterraneo.
Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana, p.4.
Camilli, A., 2004. Il cantiere delle Navi Antiche d Pisa. Note sullambiente e sulla
periodizzazione del deposito. Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea - An International Journal on
Underwater Archaeology 2004 (1). pp. 53-75. Pisa-Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici
Internazionali.
Camilli, A., Gambogi, P., 2003. Porti e approdi della costa toscana. In Artigas, M. U. , Maura,
M. J. N. (eds.). 2005. Mar Exterior. El occidente atlntico in et romana. Roma: Scuola
Espanola de Historia y Arquelogia en Roma-CSIC, pp.123-145.
Camilli, A., 2002a. The site of the urban port of Pisae - The situation. In Ministero per i Beni e
le Attivita Culturali, 2002 (ed.). The ancient Ships of Pisa. A European Laboratory for Research
and Preservation/Le navi antiche di Pisa. Un laboratorio europeo di ricerca e di valorizzazione.
Bruxelles: European Heritage Laboratory.
Camilli, A., ed. 2002b. Cantiere delle navi di Pisa. La nave C Giuditta dallo scavo al
laboratorio. Firenze: Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit culturali.
Camilli, A., 2002c. Lo scavo delle navi di Pisa - San Rossore tra archeologia navale, restauro e
tecnologie applicate. Le Giornate del ChiBeC, Il legno nella storia e nellarte. Pisa, 30/9-1/10
2002. pp.6-7.
Carlson, D.N., 2002. Roman Fishing Boats and the Transom Bow. In Tzalas, H., (ed). Tropis
VII: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Pylos
1999. Athens 2002, pp. 211-218.

Carlson, D.N., 1999. Roman Fishing Boats: Form and Function. In Docter, R.F., Moormann,
E.M. (eds). Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology,
Amsterdam, July 12-17, 1998. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Series 12, pp. 107-09.

Casson, L., 1971. Ships and seamenship in the ancient world. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.

106

Cerami, E., Remotti, E., 2008. Restauro. In Camilli, A., Pisa. Cantiere delle Navi Antiche,
Centro di Restauro del Legno Bagnato, Museo delle Navi Antiche: attivit 2008. In Notiziario
della Soprindendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana. 4/2008. Firenze.
Colombini, M.P. et al., 2003. The characterization of paints and waterproofing materials from
the shipwrecks found at the archaeological site of the etruscan and roman harbour of Pisa
(Italy). Archaeometry 45, 4 (2003), pp. 659-674. Great Britain.
Comune di Pisa, ed. 2001. Pisa e il museo della navigazione: materiali e percorsi per un
plano regolare delle grandi istituzioni. Pisa: ETS.
Crovato, G., Crovato, M., Divari., L. 1980. Barche della laguna veneta. Venezia: Arsenale
Cooperativa Editrice.
D Agostino, M., Medas, S., 2010. Roman Navigation in Venice Lagoon: the Results of
Underwater Research. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2010) 39.2. pp.
286-294.
De Laurenzi, A., 2006. Eteius - Un imprenditore toscano. In Camilli, A., De Laurenzi, A.,
Setari, E. (eds.). 2006. Pisa. Un viaggio nel mare dell antichita. Verona: Mondadori Electa
S.p.A. pp.41-43.
De Laurenzi, A., 2005. The centuriatio. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds.). 2005. The ancient
shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.25.
Dell Amico, P., 2002. Costruzione navale antica: proposta per una sistematizzazione.
Albenga (La Spezia): Edizioni del Delfino moro.
Duval, P.M., 1949. La forme des navires Romains d aprs la mosaque dAlthiburus. MEFR 61,
pp.119-149.
Giachi, G. et al., 2003. The wood of C and F Roman ships found in the ancient harbour of
Pisa (Tuscany, Italy): the utilisation of different timbers and the probable geographical area
which supplied them. Journal of Cultural Heritage 4 (2003), pp.269-283. Available at: http://
www.elsevier.com/locate/culher . [Accessed at 28.4.12].
Giachi, G., Pallecchi, P., 2000. Analisi preliminari sui materiali. In Bruni, S. (ed.) Le navi
antiche di Pisa ad un anno dall'inizio delle ricerche. 2000. Firenze: Edizioni Polistampa, pp.
348-352.
Gould, R. A., 2000. Archaeology and the social history of ships. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
GRADUS (Pisas ancient shipwrecks magazine). Available online at: www.cantierenavipisa.it
Greene, K., 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. London: University of California
Press

107

Guibal, F., Pomey, P., 2003. Timber supply and ancient naval architecture In: Beltrame, C.
(ed.). Boats, Ships and Shipyards, Proceedings of the IXth International Symposium on Boat
and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 9), Venice 2000. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 35-40.
Hagy, J. W., 1986. 800 years of Etruscan ships. The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1986), 15.3, pp. 221-250.
Hocker, F.M., Ward, C. (eds.) 2004. The Philosophy of Shipbuilding. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press.
Lipke, P., Spectre, P. and Fuller, B. A. G., 1993. Boats: A Manual for Their Documentation,
Nashville - Tennessee: American Association for State and Local History.
Mc Grail, S., 2001. Boats of the Worldfrom the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Minciarelli, F. 1986. La navigazione a remi nel Trasimeno e nai laghi di Chiusi e
Montepulciano. Foligno: Edizioni dellArquata.
NAVIS database: http://www2.rgzm.de/Navis/Home/NoFrames.htm [Accessed at 20.08.2012]
Pallecchi, P., 2005. The paleoenvironment of the wrecks site. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds).
2005. The ancient shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.14.
Pasquinucci, M., 2003. Pisa e i suoi porti in eta etrusca e romana. In Tangheroni, M.(ed).
2003. Pisa e il Mediterraneo. Uomini, merci, idee dagli Etruschi ai Medici - catalogo della
mostra di Pisa, Ginevra-Milano: Skira, pp. 93-97.
Pasquinucci, M., 2003. Pisa romana. In M. Tangheroni, ed. 2003. Pisa e il Mediterraneo.
Uomini, merci, idee dagli Etruschi ai Medici - catalogo della mostra di Pisa, Ginevra-Milano:
Skira, pp. 81-85.
Petralia, G. (ed.), 2010. I sistemi portuali della Toscana Mediterranea. Pisa: Pacini Editore.
Remotti, E., 2005. A village by the river. In Camilli, A., Setari, E. (eds.) 2005. The ancient
shipwrecks of Pisa - A guide. Venice: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. p.21.
SBAT. Excavation Diaries from San Rossore site, 1999 & 2000. Provided by the
Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologigi della Toscana.
Sorrentino, C., Di Giuseppe, Z., Manzi, F., 2000. Materiale osteologico animale. In Bruni, S.
(ed.). 2000. Le navi antiche di Pisa ad un anno dall'inizio delle ricerche, Firenze: Edizioni
Polistampa, pp. 329-342.
Steffy, J.R., 1998. Seldom discussed features of ancient and medieval ship construction.
Archaeonautica, 14, 1998, pp. 165-169. Available at http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/
prescript/article/nauti_0154-1854_1998_act_14_1_1200 [Accessed: 10/03/2012]
Steffy, R., 1994. Wooden shipbuilding and the interpetation of shipwrecks, Texas A&M.

108

Steffy, J.R., 1985. The Herculaneum Boat: Preliminary Notes on Hull Details. American Journal
of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 519-521. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
stable/504369 [Accessed: 10/07/2012]
Tangheroni, M., (ed.) 2003. Pisa e il Mediterraneo. Uomini, merci, idee dagli Etruschi ai
Medici - catalogo della mostra di Pisa, Ginevra-Milano: Skira.
Tiziano, F., et al, 2009. Navigazione e traffici nelle acque interne del Lazio settentrionale tra il
XV ed il xVIII secolo. In Petitti, P. (ed.) 2009. Sul filo della corrente, la navigazione nelle acque
interne dell'Italia Centrale dalla preistoria all'et moderna. Montefiascone: Arx Societa
Cooperativa, pp. 133-154.
Traeger, P., 1904. Schiffsfarzeuge in Albanien und Macedonien. Correzpondenzblatt der
deutschen Cesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, XXXV. Cited in Basch,
L., 1972. Ancient wrecks and the archaeology of ships. The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1972) 1, pp. 1-58.

109

110