Sydney Quarm

The entire article was an interesting piece, proving and explaining the process and transportation of marble from Proconnesos to Claros.

“At some point in the Late Hellenistic period, an ancient marble carrier sank off the western coast of Asia Minor near the promontory called Kizilburun. The ship had set out from Proconnesos Island laden with a freshly quarried cargo of architectural parts intended for the Temple of Apollo at Claros, but the vessel sank before reaching its destination.”

“The discovery provides a unique snapshot of quarrying processes, long-distance transport by sea, and monumental construction in marble in Late Hellenistic Asia Minor.”

(Carlson, 145)

“It is conceivable that a builder from Claros made the trip to Proconnesos with specifications for the peristyle and perhaps even accompanied the shipment of marble back to the temple.” (Carlson, 156-157)

The marble quarries at Proconnesos produced widely famous exported white marbles and has been known as a source since at least the Sixth Century B.C.E.

Marble from Proconnesian also ranked least expensive.

The marble was not prefabricated and cut into large blocks, but rather custom ordered to each costumer’s wishes.

(Carlson, 154)

“Isotopic and metrological data indicate Proconnesos as the source of the marble…found in the Kizilburun shipwreck.” (Carlson, 145)

Five samples were sent out to get petrographically, isotopically, and spectroscopically analyzed and confirmed that Proconnesos is the very place the marble was probably quarried from.

Another feature is the distinct blue-gray lines that is often associated with Proconnesian marble, but this banding is also found on other marbles of western Asia Minor.

Kizilburun was not the first time Proconnesian marble was found with in a wreck, but it is now the earliest known wreck to date.

(Carlson 146, 155)

“Kizilburun is exposed to strong winds and treacherous sea conditions that may well have been responsible for the numerous shipwrecks in the area.” (Carlson, 145)

The total weight of the cargo that the small cargo ship was carrying was at least 50 tons.

It was one of many small ships to transport the entire cargo, what was found in the wreck is only a fraction of the entire cargo shipment. (Carlson 145, 156, 157)

Every since the 1980s The Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) at Texas A&M University has been carrying out underwater surveys of shipwrecks off the Turkish Coast.

In 1993, five ancient shipwrecks were discovered, by a team led by Cemal Pulak, at Kizilburun.

Only one of the wrecks was a Late Hellenistic stone carrier, but this is the one ship that gives the greatest insight into how the entire marble cargo operation was carried out in the Late Hellenistic period.

In 2005, a team lead by Donny Hamilton and Deborah Carlson began excavation on the unknown stone carrier.

(Carlson, 145)

There was a huge amount of cargo uncovered and discovered on the shipwreck. Cargo including: Eight unfinished drums and a Doric Capital Two large basins with separate pedestal bases Two large table like slabs Four rectangular blocks that may have been set aside as pillar

or steps Nearly a dozen grave stellae. Pottery include a wide range of typical shapes in many fabrics

Lagynoi, kylikes, fish plates, cooking pans, echinus bowls, moldmade bowls, and lamps.

Transport Amphoras, dozens from the Adriatic, East Greece, the Black Sea, and Egypt.

(Carlson, 145)

Slab of marble from the wreck, with the blue gray banding.

The Drums and Capital found on the wreck are the biggest and most influential part of the proof that links the shipwreck and the route between Proconnesos and the Temple of Apollo at Claros.

The Drums each weigh around 6 to 7 tons. The Drums each have neat little bevels carved around the edges of

each drum. Their average height would have been around 0.90 m , which means the total shaft of the drums combined would be around 7.8 m tall.

Drum 4 also has four handling bosses around its base, which would make sense for this drum to be the bottom of the Doric shaft.

The other seven drums exhibit characteristics, such as the diminution characteristics, that are clearly Doric.

The wreck obviously contained the lowest and highest drums for the column, which goes with the theory that these drums belonged in the middle of the shaft of the column and were shipped separately from the rest of the column.

(Carlson 148, 150)

Although the drums were unfinished the capital is ruled out to be Doric.

The capital includes the echinus and abacus and with the echinus being about the same match to the abacus in width clearly supports the argument that the capital Doric.

The echinus of the capital also has a steep slate which suggested it was created no earlier than postclassical.

The capital, height wise, would have been about 0.7 m, unfinished.

Together with the drums, the height of the column would have been about 7.8m, which is well below the other postclassical examples, unless the column itself of shipped separately. This seems to be the running theory.

“The deficiency in the height of the Kizilburun column makes sense if other drums were shipped separately.” (Carlson, 150)

(Carlson 148, 150)

Photos of the drums from the wreck, and the capital dimensions.

To fully examine the drums and cargo of the ship, everything inside the wreck had to be removed from the archaeological site.

The team used thee Lift-All Tuflex lifting lings rigged in a triple choker hitch assembly which was then assembled to four 4,000 pound Subsalve lift ballons, to lift, relocate the drums and other cargo of the ship about 25 m away onto the seabed.

Then the team used a single lifting sling and balloon to flip each drum and exposed any surfaces that were clear and free of marine crustation.

After the relocation, each drum was applied with high-contract mapping putty, to form a accurate 3-dimensional scale of the drums, physically and technologically.

(Carlson 146-147)

^^ Drum 3 flipped on the seafloor using balloon and sling.

^^ Wire-frame image of Drum 3 with finished 3-D digital model vv Drum 3 after removal showing reference points on mapping putty.

“The form of the architectural elements and the date of the wreck suggest they were destined for a site were a monumental Doric building in white marble was under construction in the late second or early first century B.C.E. The location of the wreck at Kizilburun is also key, as is the presumed direction of travel away from the quarries at Proconnesos. This rules out Thrace, and the northern Aegean but allows for anywhere south of the shipwreck...Metrological analysis of the quarry-finished architectural parts helps narrow the field of potential buildings because of the large size of the drums and capitals rules out a portico, propylon, or theater facade—these pieces had been quarried for nothing smaller than a temple.” (Carlson, 147)

Another requirement is active construction in white marble during the first century B.C.E.

A finished lower-column diameter of about 1.73m is another requirement, which leaves only one destination that fits all criteria. The Temple of Apollo at Claros.

(Carlson 151)

“Construction of the Temple of Apollo at Claros began no later than the third century B.C.E.” (Carlson, 151)

Hadrian was named the dedicator due to the inscription on the architrave meaning construction cannot date before December 135 C.E.

Therefore construction was ongoing when the cargo ship sank around Kizilburun.

The original plan called for a 6-column x 11-column peristyle, but no more than 14 columns were erected. 6x4 was the final dimensions.

The columns also included around 11 or 12 drums for a total height around 10.425m or 11.315m

Both reconstructions are consistent with other postclassical examples.

(Carlson, 151)

The finished peristyle drums at Claros are consistent in height, around 0.805-0.945 m, which including the date of the wreck and the dimensions of the drums found at Kizilburun make Claros a strong candidate as the destination of the small cargo ship.

The peristyles also contain the same blue-gray banding as the Kizilburun cargo and identifies it as Proconnesian marble.

A partially finished drum was founded at Claros with the dimensions of 0.82m high and 1.88m wide where masons began to carve Doric flutes into one end.

The flutes match other flutes carved around the temple.

“The partially finished drum represents an important intermediate stage of processing between the roughly finished, unfluted drums found at Kizilburun and the finished, fully fluted drums at Claros.” (Carlson, 153)

There are also lewis holes on the drums at Claros, except for the bottom drums, which were used to lift and place the drums one on top of the other.

The lewis holes and the handling bosses on the bottom drums imply that there was detailed communication about the drum specifications from Claros to Proconnesos.

(Carlson 151-153)

vv Unfinished drums from Kizilburun compared with finished drums at Claros. Inner black lines are the finished drums dimensions.

^^ Partially finished drum at the Temple of Apollo at Claros.

“The Kizilburun shipwreck provides new evidence for the maritime transport of marble between the quarry and the construction site.” (Carlson 156)

The cargo was also separated because Kizilburun was just in its beginning stages of quarrying and shipping, and therefore not as experienced.

The match in size and shape of the capital and drums intended for Claros support the theory that there was close contact between masons at Proconnesos and builders at Claros.

This is the first time that a shipwreck has provided evidence for both the destination of the ship and the origin of travel.

The wreck also suggests that Claros received columns in small shipments, no more than one at a time.

This wreck also marks the first time a construction phase of a monument or temple had been dated by shipwreck.

(Carlson 156, 157)

This article was well cited and stated. It was easy to follow, and understand. Every piece of evidence was used completely and fully to come up

with the destination and origin of the route of the cargo. There is very little room for criticism. The entire article was well

stated and proof was infallible at best. Each theory was provided with more than enough evidence to be

proven. The only thing I can really think to comment on is why would a

temple choose Proconnesos as the origin. I would think a temple would pick a pricey quarry, especially since this seems to be one of the first quarry purchases at Proconnesos, which means it was relatively new and probably not advertised well.

Also, the article mentioned other places with the blue-gray banding marked on the marble, throughout Asia Minor. They should have looked into those other quarries also. There wasn’t much evidence against those quarries.

Carlson, Deborah N., and William Aylward. "The Kizilburun Shipwreck and the Temple of Apollo at Claros." American Journal of Archaeology (2010): 145-59. Web.

All pictures, and information came from the article as cited above.