Sailing and Sailing Rigs in the Ancient Mediterranean: implications of continuity, variation and change in propulsion technology

Abstract

Ships and boats form the foundations of the maritime connectivity that is a central part of our understanding of the ancient Mediterranean. While the general chronological sequence of sail and sailing-rig development is well established, the implications are less-well discussed. This article sets out how sails and sailing rigs developed in antiquity, with emphasis on the Greco-Roman world. Subsequently, instances of innovation are defined. Why specific pieces of maritime technology were, or were not, widely adopted is considered. Long-term technological continuity can be comprehended, and a shared maritime culture of sailing in the ancient Mediterranean is suggested. 古代地中海的帆与索具:推进技术连贯性、演变与变化的影响 船舶是构成海上连通的基础, 而海上连通则是我们了解古代地中海的核心组成部分。虽然帆与索具发展的基本序列已很好地建立起来, 但其影响却很少被讨论。本文以希腊罗马世界为重点, 首先探讨帆与索具在古代的发展演进。随后, 我们界定出具体的变革实例。在文中我们还会讨论特定的航海技术部件为何会被广泛使用或抛弃的问题。我们认识到技术具有长期连续性, 并提出古代地中海存在一种风帆共享的航海文化这一观点。 关键词:地中海, 帆, 航海, 横帆, 斜杠帆, 三角帆 古代地中海的帆與索具:推進技術連貫性、演變與變化的影響 船舶是構成海上連通的基礎, 而海上連通則是我們了解古代地中海的核心組成部分。雖然帆與索具發展的基本序列已很好地建立起來, 但其影響卻很少被討論。本文以希臘羅馬世界爲重點, 首先探討帆與索具在古代的發展演進。隨後, 我們界定出具體的變革實例。在文中我們還會討論特定的航海技術部件爲何會被廣泛使用或抛棄的問題。我們認識到技術具有長期連續性, 並提出古代地中海存在一種風帆共享的航海文化這一觀點。 關鍵詞:地中海, 帆, 航海, 橫帆, 斜杠帆, 三角帆 Navegación y Jarcias en el Antiguo Mediterráneo: implicaciones de la continuidad, variación y cambio en la tecnología de propulsión Las embarcaciones mayores y menores son el fundamento de la conectividad marítima que es parte central de nuestra comprensión del Mediterráneo antiguo. Aunque la secuencia cronológica general del desarrollo de la vela y las jarcias está bien establecida, sus implicaciones han sido menos ampliamente discutidas. Este artículo expone cómo las velas y las jarcias se desarrollaron en la antigüedad con énfasis en el mundo Greco-Romano. Subsecuentemente, se definen instancias de innovación. Se considera por qué piezas específicas de la tecnología marítima fueron, o no fueron, extendidamente adoptadas. Se sugiere que los mecanismos de continuidad tecnológica a largo plazo pueden comprenderse y que existe una cultura marítima de la navegación compartida en el Mediterráneo Antiguo. Palabras clave: Mediterráneo, navegación, marinería, vela cuadra, vela tarquina, vela latina The sea, and the opportunities it afforded for sustenance, travel, communication, commerce, and warfare, is often placed at the centre of large-scale studies of the Mediterranean and adjoining regions in antiquity. Notable examples include the work of Broodbank (2013) for prehistory, and of Horden and Purcell (2000) for the Classical World. Brief recourse to the geography of the region illustrates that such a focus is unsurprising, indeed even quite logical given the oft-quoted view of Plato (Pl. Phd, 109b) in antiquity itself about the people of the Mediterranean being arranged like frogs around a pond. For this position to be fully justified an understanding of the maritime technology of antiquity, in other words the ships and boats, should be viewed as implicit to our wider appreciation of the complexities of the ancient world. In particular, if maritime connections are deemed so essential to the maintenance of commerce and communication, then an account of watercraft must be equally essential to any account of the economic context of antiquity. This is acknowledged by Schneider (2013: 147) who makes specific mention of ‘means of transport’ when discussing the link between technological and economic development. Yet, perhaps because of the lack of a definitive classical work concerning shipbuilding and use such as that outlined by Vitruvius on specific aspects of architecture, analytical coverage is mixed. For example, the existence of a recent dedicated volume on Maritime Technology within the Ancient Economy (Harris and Iara, 2011) was noted as ‘unique’ by its American Journal of Archaeology reviewer (Leidwanger, 2013), and offers a sharp contrast with the Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World that contains only two paragraphs on maritime transport, within a 27-page chapter on ‘Technology’ (Schneider, 2013). By any standards of coverage, the latter might be considered disappointing. In the absence of a historical handbook, our understanding of maritime technology must therefore draw heavily on archaeological evidence and, where that is insufficient, on a rich iconographic record (for example Basch, 1987), further enhanced by historical literary material (for example Casson, 1995). Archaeological remains, in particular those excavated from the second half of the 20th century onwards have shed light on the methods, processes, and traditions of shipbuilding in the ancient Mediterranean. This is especially true of the Greco-Roman world where an abundance of ships, both under water and in terrestrial deposits, have been located, excavated, and published in a general catalogue (Parker, 1992), with extended focus on construction (Pomey et al., 2012), or with the specific concern of understanding design methods (Olaberria, 2014). Regrettably, the propulsion of these vessels is less-well served, especially with regard to their sailing rigs where there is a relatively small amount of direct archaeological evidence compared to hull remains. As a consequence of this there must be a much greater reliance on iconographic material, despite its interpretative limitations. This paper therefore sets out to achieve two things. First, to present a chronological account of sail and rig development in the Greco-Roman world as currently understood from the available evidence: iconographic, literary and archaeological (Fig. 1). To do this, it is necessary to initially reach further back in time in order to fully contextualize later developments. Reference to such an overview highlights both long periods of technological continuity, specific examples of variation within wider traditions, the invention of novel forms of sailing technology, and the adoption/non-adoption of those forms. All of which are themes worthy of investigation and discussion. The second aim stems from this, which is to offer a consideration of the implications of these observations from a nautical perspective, set against the backdrop of our current understanding of connectivity and technology within the ancient Mediterranean. Doing this highlights some of the shared traditions that prevailed in the ancient world and at times extended beyond the confines of the Mediterranean. It also emphasizes that, even without the wealth of historical material that serves other forms of ancient technology, it is still possible to identify, trace, and begin to comprehend considerable periods of technological continuity, to define instances of invention, and to consider why specific pieces of maritime technology were, or were not, adopted more widely in antiquity. The implications of this allow a revised view of innovation within maritime technology to be put forward, for a shared maritime culture associated with seafaring to be postulated, and for our understanding of the linkages between technological elements of such a maritime culture to be better related to their surrounding context. By the 2nd millennium BC, Egyptian imagery shows vessels carrying a low, broad square sail with yard and boom in which the former is lowered downwards to the latter when furling the sail, and the boom itself is often supported by a web of boom-lifts (for example Vinson, 1994: 38–41; McGrail, 2001: 41–42). These depictions encompass Egyptian vessels, but also ships classified as Levantine/Syrian in origin, indicating a likely use of this rig-plan outside Egypt (Davies and Faulkner, 1947: pl. 5; Basch, 1987: fig. 111–114; Wachsmann, 1998: 42–47; Broodbank, 2013: 357). Alongside this, although still reliant on iconographic sources, there is evidence from outside of Egypt. Perhaps most notably on Minoan seals, which, although highly stylized, show a series of vessels carrying single-masted square sails (Basch, 1987: 95–107). Such sails are often shown filled with a criss-cross pattern and in some cases have rings drawn on, or near them (Fig. 2). Such evidence is certainly equivocal, but it is possible to suggest that these vessels represent the earliest artistic attempt to illustrate the brailed square-sail rig, with its distinctive attachment of fairlead rings to the face of the sail. Similar, ephemeral traces of this eventually long-lived technique for furling sail are pictured across the 2nd millennium BC, and Egyptian sources are cited as evidence of introduction of brails to Egypt from the wider Mediterranean (Vinson, 1994: 41–43; Wachsmann, 1998: 251–254). Eventually, the iconic naval battle between Egyptian forces and those of the Sea Peoples, pictured at Medinet Habu in c.1200 BC (Nelson, 1943; Vinson, 1994: 44–45; Jones, 1995: 59–60; Wachsmann, 1998: 29–32) offers confirmation of the widespread adoption of the loose-footed, brailed, square sail across a variety of cultures in the eastern Mediterranean (Casson, 1995: 38–39). In a seemingly related development, important developments in weaving technology have also been noted as taking place at the same time (Tiboni, 2005). The potential performance of sailing rigs across the Late Bronze Age is difficult to assess because interpretation is restricted to iconographic evidence alone. However, the lack of obviously depicted shrouds, coupled with the continued depiction of oars and sails in conjunction, suggests that sailing on courses above 90 degrees to the wind was probably highly restricted and ineffective. The technical details of the sailing rigs commonly depicted at the end of the 2nd and into the 1st millennium BC generally comprise relatively broad square sails, set on a single mast. The sail is hoisted on a yard that is characterized by commonly depicted down-curving ends, either because the yards are made from several pieces of timber fished together, because no lifts are used to support the yard, or a combination of the two. The sail is loose-footed, which is to say the lower edge is not connected to a boom in the manner of earlier vessels. The lower edge of the sail is therefore free to assume a much more curved shape (greater camber), with a probable increase in effectiveness as a result. Finally, the sail is no longer furled by lowering the yard down to the deck, as in mid 2nd millennium BC depictions. Instead, the system of brails allows the loose-foot of the sail to be drawn upwards, with a system of lines attached to the foot of the sail and led up its face, through the brail ring fairleads, over the yard and down to the deck. This version of the square sail is greatly simplified from its earlier forms, but also more efficient and effective in its use due to the system of brails that allowed the shape of the sail to be manipulated, and rapidly furled, without the need to send any sailors aloft. If the depiction at Medinet Habu is taken as a relatively firm date, it is in this form that the square sail continues in use in the Mediterranean for the next 1500 years or so, until it seemingly begins to fall from use during late antiquity. In this regard it is possible to see this iteration of the Mediterranean square sail as the ‘main trunk’ of sailing-rig technology from which later developments and variations largely stem, but which has its roots firmly planted in the 2nd millennium BC. During the early development of the Mediterranean square sail, most vessels were propelled by oars as well as sails. This serves to remind us of the period when paddling or rowing was the primary form of propulsion, but also offers a meaningful line of discussion about the implications arising from the abandonment of such combined propulsion systems in favour of sailing alone. In the broadest sense, watercraft will always have been party to some form of specialism as a result of their propulsion system and overarching purpose, including periods and places when paddling or rowing, not sailing, was the primary form of propulsion. Typically, this specialism of form is likely to have been longer, more slender hulls, to facilitate speed, and shorter, broader hulls for the purpose of cargo transport (McGrail, 1998: 194–202). Likewise, watercraft that utilized both rowing and sailing in different measures to fulfil the tasks they were intended for have existed across broad temporal and spatial contexts. An example of this might be an ancient warship that used sails for cruising over longer distances, but whose primary propulsion system for combat purposes was the oar. Swiftly they went aboard and sat at the thwarts, and the ship moved out over the river Ocean above the billowing waters; there was rowing for us at first, then a fair wind. (Odyssey IX, 637–640) In such Homeric accounts of seafaring, sailing is conducted when possible, but the oar is just as likely to be used as the sail. This is very much in agreement with the iconographic record, the creators of which were consistent in their depictions of vessels with both sail and paddle/oar, which suggests such vessels were considered by the on-looking consumers of the iconography as both sailing and rowing/paddling vessels. Bearing this in mind, something very profound begins to occur with increasing regularity during the course of the first half of the 1st millennium BC. Namely that sailing vessels are regularly depicted without the auxiliary propulsion that had been part of their illustrated make up for at least a millennia (see examples from this period in Basch, 1987; Wachsmann, 1998). An example of such a vessel, dating from the 8th/7th century BC, is shown on a Cypriot bichrome jug (Fig. 3). In that instance, the sail is furled up to the yard and its equal distribution of the sail on either side of the mast, along with the evidence from contemporary depictions, indicates it is likely to be a square sail. The depiction of vessels with heavily down-curved yards had been a common artistic convention in the Levant from the Late Bronze Age onwards. The absence of any indication of oars, along with the depiction of large transport amphora, gives the impression of a ship engaged in mercantile activity. Meanwhile, both a pure sailing vessel and contemporary oared/sail vessel are depicted on a late 6th-century-BCE, black-figured kylix (Fig. 4). On the left is a vessel with a sailing rig alone and on the right a galley propelled by both oars and sails. The images have been interpreted as a pirate galley attacking a merchant ship (Casson, 1995, 128, n.114). The latter is shown (top) with its sail furled, before they are loosed in order to flee (bottom). Meanwhile the galley is undertaking the opposite manoeuvre in moving from full sailing (top) to beginning to furl sail (bottom). For this differentiation to be reflected so vividly in the iconographic record we can only conclude that, in the eyes of the artists viewing such vessels, their representation should accurately reflect the status of the ships themselves as specialist sailing vessels, rather than anything else. The advent of such vessels allows us to suggest that the sailing rigs of such ships had been refined by their users to a position where auxiliary propulsion, normally oars by this point, could be dispensed with in most circumstances, with perhaps a small number of oars being retained for work in harbours where service craft were not available. This more than anything is clear indication that the ancient Mediterranean square sail now allowed its users to operate in an increasingly wide range of conditions. Freed of the constraints of large rowing crews, especially the need to accommodate and maintain them, such pure sailing vessels are likely to have had a much increased capacity, and to have been able to sail longer distances using only the provisions carried on board. The broader implications of this are returned to and discussed below. As noted, from the Late Bronze Age onwards, the primary sail of the ancient world was the loose-footed, square sail, set from a single mast and furled using a system of brails. Vessels carrying such a rig were able to operate as pure sailing vessels, and this rig was still being depicted in the early 7th century AD (see below). While such depictions might not be definitive proof of the existence of such rigs at that later date, they were obviously still readily recalled from the memories of some people and rendered into the depictions that survive as our evidence. It is thereby possible to establish a line of technological continuity that stretches right through the period under discussion, from the Late Bronze Age to late antiquity, for the use of this type of rig. As such, the single-masted, loose-footed, brailed, square-sail rig can be considered as clear point of reference to which other instances of sailing-rig development, direct, indirect, tangential, or otherwise, can be related (Fig. 5). To this central line of continuity, the use of a small foresail, the artemon, can be added from the middle of the 1st millennium BC (Basch, 1987: fig. 880; Casson, 1995: 70; Beltrame, 1996). The nature of the iconographic evidence dictates that differentiating between dedicated artemon foresails used for steerage, and a foremast providing propulsion within a two-masted rig is sometimes very difficult. But from the perspective of studying sailing practices, our interest in this feature is the same in both cases; that the artemon is a sail the primary purpose of which was to aid in balancing the interaction between hull and sailing rig (see Palmer, 2009; Davey, 2015). The apparent size and location of the artemon indicates that on downwind courses it would be largely shielded by the mainsail and add little to a vessel's overall speed (Arnaud, 2011: 153). In this regard, it is an indication that ancient mariners were attempting to sail on courses to windward and reacting to the problems that they encountered when attempting this in a manner more consistent than in previous centuries. The result of this was the development of a form of technology that was widely recognized enough to begin to be reflected in artistic depictions of those vessels. The artemon provided a means to increase the manoeuvrability of sailing vessels by allowing a steerage point, via the forces acting through the sail at one extreme end of the vessel. In a related, later development, some rare depictions offer evidence of further refinement through the addition of a third mast at the stern of the vessel; nowadays a mizzen-mast in English nautical terminology. The depictions and corroborative literary evidence (for example Pliny NH. 19.1.) are relatively scarce for this sail-plan, but it is likely to have been in use from the 1st century BC. A well-known example occurs at Ostia, on the floor of the Foro delle Corporazioni (The Square of the Corporations) outside an office belonging to ‘the shippers of Sullecthum’, a town on the east coast of Tunisia (Basch, 1987: fig. 1076; Casson, 1995: xxiv, fig. 145). The left-hand vessel of the two depicted is shown with a mainmast, artemon, and mizzen. How long such a rig remained in use is difficult to tell with any certainty, because it is depicted so rarely. Like the artemon, the main purpose of the mizzen-mast was to increase the ability of mariners to balance the sailing rig and manoeuvre the vessel. Again, as with the artemon, the development and use of the mizzen tells a tale of mariners who are prepared to adopt innovative solutions to the problems of sailing to windward, or perhaps of manoeuvring the larger ships that other archaeological data suggests were increasingly used from the 1st century BC (Parker, 1992: 26; Wilson, 2011: 39–40). Finally, in consideration of the Mediterranean square sail it is possible to trace a further line of development from the 2nd century AD, through depictions of vessels carrying a rig of two seemingly equally sized square sails (for example Basch, 1987: fig. 1077 and 1111) (Fig. 6). This suggests that the vessel is truly two-masted rather than being rigged with mainsail and artemon. Similarly the location of the masts suggests a balanced two-masted rig. Each mast is depicted in identical fashion: ropes are shown running from masthead to deck on either side of the mast, which may represent shrouds or stays; both sails are also depicted with braces. In such circumstance, the additional sail would have added significant capacity to the propulsion of the vessel, as well as improving its manoeuvrability relative to the single-masted form of rig. It is again possible to speculate about the wider implications of this development, perhaps relating to the building of vessels large enough to render a single mast impractical, either because it could not be adequately provided for from available timber resources, or could not be made secure enough through existing engineering capabilities or techniques. In the early 5th century AD, such a rig is explicitly associated with large sea-going freighters in the account given by Bishop Synesius of his voyage from Alexandria to Cyrenaica (Fitzgerald, 1926: 82; Casson, 1995: 268; Kahanov, 2006). Although the archaeological corpus of rigging components is limited when compared to the wider shipwreck and hull material, from the mid 1st millennium BC it is possible to trace the Mediterranean square sail through archaeological evidence as well as through iconographic and literary sources. Specifically, brail rings, cylindrically sheaved pulleys, deadeyes, and sail cloth (examples in Table 1 and Fig. 7) have all been documented in a range of shipwreck and port contexts. Meanwhile, related tools for sail-making and maintenance have been recovered from shipwreck and port contexts (Rosen and Galili, 2014). Two key conclusions can be drawn from reviewing this range of material. Firstly, that it is possible to identify a range of rigging components that can be specifically associated with the Mediterranean square sail and secondly, its method of use. In particular, the system of brails and brail rings can be viewed as highly characteristic rigging components that are largely incompatible with the other sailing rigs known in antiquity. Other components, such as the cylindrical pulley sheaves, are not necessarily confined to use within a square-sail rig, but do seem to be unique to the ancient Mediterranean, as least so far as the current evidence base informs us. The second point stems from the fact that such characteristic rigging components are not limited to a single cultural tradition, geographical area, or chronological period. They occur variously in Etruscan, late-period Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman sites, across different port sites and a range of vessel types, including dolia transports (Hesnard et al., 1988: 105–126) and those incorporating sewn construction (Charlin et al. 1978: 57–60). Finally, this variety of archaeological contexts spans an impressive chronological range from the 6th century BC to at least the 3rd century AD. On the basis of the archaeological remains of the Mediterranean square sail it is therefore possible to postulate a common tradition of rigging, and by extension use of that technology. This is certainly comparable to the associated and similarly widely held method of ship construction, practised in the Mediterranean across the same period (see Pomey et al., 2012). It seems possible that with time, and more importantly further archaeological discoveries, it will be possible to identify regional, cultural, chronological, and indeed functional variation in the rigging technology of the ancient world. This is likely to reflect the full spectrum of sailing activity in antiquity, and be sited alongside the wide-ranging and more readily observable hulls of such ships. It is also important to note that the archaeological evidence from the Roman Red Sea ports of Myos Hormos and Berenike indicates that the Mediterranean tradition of rigging and using the square sail also extended across the western Indian Ocean during the early 1st millennium AD, possibly encompassing non-Mediterranean cultures in that use (Whitewright, 2007: 290–291). Our understanding of this widespread use might therefore be pushed further by classifying it as a ‘shared maritime culture’ of seafaring activity that stretched across the Mediterranean and encompassed parts of the western Indian Ocean during antiquity. An account of the Mediterranean square sail from the mid/late 1st millennium onwards is therefore one that addresses an increasing range of forms within the same overall approach to sailing, founded upon the square-sail rig: single-masted, artemon, mizzen, and two-masted. That such a wide degree of variation can occur within a single overall approach should not be surprising given our understanding of variation within other non-maritime technology during antiquity (for example Schneider, 2013). It is however important to draw attention to it here as a means to move our understanding of Mediterranean sail development to a narrative pathway that highlights such readily apparent technological variation. Some of the underlying discussion of this variation is continued below, but it may be emphasized here that such variation in forms is concurrent, and the development of one approach to using the square-sail rig does not appear to result in the abandonment of another. In this regard it is most striking that the longest-lived form of the sail is seemingly the single-masted version, pictured in a graffito from northern Egypt dating to the 7th century AD (Fig. 8, top). The horizontal, symmetrical nature of the yard suggests that the sail, shown from the side, is a square sail. From the lines running from the mast, yard, and sail it is possible to interpret port and starboard braces, two sheets, forestay, backstay, and possibly lifts. The chronological story of the Mediterranean square-sail rig is therefore one of technological variation on a central theme (Fig. 5). But this sailing rig was not the only type in use in the ancient world, and it is to the other forms that we can now turn our attention. For a complete view of the sailing technologies available to the mariners of the ancient Mediterranean it is necessary to provide an account of the fore-and-aft sails that can be identified from the available, primarily iconographic, evidence. These comprise two main types of sail-form, firstly the spritsail and secondly the lateen/settee sail, which are located alongside the square sail in Figure 5, and which are now discussed. The spritsail can be traced through a series of relatively unambiguous depictions between the 2nd century BC and the 3rd century AD. Specifically, a number of reliefs (see Fig. 9), mainly from the Aegean, Ostia, or Constantinople, illustrate sailing vessels carrying a single mast that is placed well-forward in the bow and with the sail supported by a diagonal spar running aft from the base of the mast (see Casson, 1956; 1960; cf Basch, 1987: figs 1078–9 and 1081–3; Polzer, 2008: 244–245). Such depictions are unequivocal in their depiction of a spritsail and for the most part the types of vessels shown are accepted as being support and service vessels, rather than larger merchantmen or warships. Although readily and strikingly apparent when observed in the iconographic record, depictions of the spritsail are not common, and literary descriptions of such sails are notable only through their absence, or at least their non-identification, thus far. Therefore, the abiding impression is of a sailing rig that was certainly used in antiquity, but which never achieved the ubiquitous acceptance within the maritime societies of the ancient Mediterranean, and their iconographic record, afforded to the square sail. In keeping with the overall disparity in the evidence base for rigging technology, the sprit-rig is difficult to identify archaeologically, despite being present in the iconographic record. It occurs only from the end of the 1st millennium AD, well outside the period under consideration here, when the use of the spritsail can be noted in the archaeological remains of a small vessel (Yenikapı 6) excavated at Yenikapı in Istanbul (Kocabaş and Kocabaş, 2008: 103–12; Kocabaş, 2015: 11, fig. 6). Despite its rarity across all forms of evidence, its appearance at Yenikapı, in conjunction with the sporadic iconographic sightings just outlined, is enough to strongly suggest the continued use of the spritsail in the ancient Mediterranean, from the 2nd century BC onwards. But, the limited nature of the evidence, when set against the wider extensive evidence for the square sail, suggests that the spritsail existed on the margins of Mediterranean maritime activity, at least from the perspective of the creators of iconography. From there it appears only fleetingly at the edges of our vision of ancient seafaring. A further type of fore-and-aft sail, technologically unrelated to the spritsail, can be traced in the form of the lateen/settee sails. Such vessels carried a characteristic sail of generally triangular form with a high peak towards the stern of the vessel. In its lateen form this sail is a true triangle, while in its settee form, it has a short leading edge making it a quadrilateral if considered geometrically (Whitewright, 2009: 97–98). The two forms share a common use and their close relationship allows the use of the simpler term ‘lateen’ to cover both rigs. The earliest firmly dated depiction of the lateen rig is currently placed in the 2nd century AD with an example from Piraeus on a tombstone ascribed to ‘Alexander of Miletus’ (Casson, 1956; cf Basch 1987: fig. 1080; Whitewright, 2009: 102, fig. 5). Although the date of the earliest example might have been expected to be pushed backwards by new discoveries, no such thing has happened, at least not from a securely dated context, in the subsequent 60 years. The lateen rig then seems to become more widespread in late antiqu