Romanian Journal of Historical Studies Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019

https://romanianjournalofhistoricalstudies.wordpress.com

UNDERWATER ARCHEOLOGY IN THE COUNTY OF

CONSTANTA - ANCIENT WOODEN ANCHORS WITH
LEAD CROSSPIECE DISCOVERED IN THE BLACK SEA
Laurențiu Marin Dobre 1
1 Ph.D.Student, Doctoral School of Humanities Sciences – "Ovidius" University of Constanta, Romania
E-mail: mlaurentium@yahoo.com
Online Published: July 31, 2019

Abstract
This study presents two lead pieces as components of two ancient wooden anchors which were randomly
discovered in the Black Sea and nowadays decorate the terrace of a fishing complex situated on the southern
sea-coast of Constanta. The research scientifically highlights the elements of the wooden anchors and includes
a description of their technical and physical characteristics, conservation state, dating, and various hypotheses
regarding their recovery and place of discovery. The analysis of the artefacts proved that one of the investigated
elements represents the largest and best-preserved ancient lead crosspiece, out of all similar pieces discovered
on the Romanian territory.
Key words: underwater archaeology, lead stocks, ancient anchors in the Black Sea, ancient lead stock in
Romania, lead stock with a wooden core.

1. Introduction
Amid increase of accessibility to diving equipment and the large number of SCUBA1 divers, as well as the rise
of industrial fishing with trawls, after the year 2000 there has also been an increase in the number of underwater
cultural goods discovered accidentally. This reality is confirmed by both media and specialized publications which
feature studies on underwater archaeological materials from accidental discoveries.
The practice of the last decades threatens the scientific information of the artefacts brought to surface,
influences the historical content of the archaeological site, and no less created a confusion between the discipline
of underwater archaeology and the recovery of underwater artefacts.
The present paper brings new data on underwater archaeological goods discovered accidentally in the
submarine area of Constanta’s sea-coast, and emphasizes the importance of qualified research on submerged
artefacts. The artefacts under analysis are two lead components of ancient wood anchors, which currently serve
as decoration items that were located and recovered by fishermen divers during their activities for economic
purposes. The study of the pieces aims to give an accurate account of the physical characteristics and
conservation status, manufacturing features and visible damage caused by various natural or man-induced
factors. Moreover, the metallic elements were chronologically dated in comparison to similar goods and
according to the typology of models known in the ancient European world.
This study is the result of an analysis limited by the possibility of investigation, a shortage caused by the place
of storage (private property) and the status of the pieces within the fishermen's community. The physical data
were recorded using measurement instruments calibrated in millimetres and decagrams, in the measuring range

1 SCUBA, Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus.

9
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

0-2000 mm and 0-30000 dag, respectively, in natural light conditions. When dating the anchor fragments, we
used the comparative method and also specialized studies.
This type of artefacts enters the archaeological landscape at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of
the 20th century2 and appear even more often in the second half of the 20th century, along with the development
of diving and its expansion to the civilian sector.
Valuable information regarding shipbuilding and ancient anchors is obtained during the interwar period, after
the drainage of Lake Nemi (Italy) which resulted in the study of two Roman wrecks; the ships are attributed to
Emperor Caligula (37-41)3.
Underwater scientific research carried out in the sixth and seventh decades of the 20th century, lead to
impressive findings of ancient wrecks and, indirectly, of anchors belonging to old vessels4.
In the last decades, several studies have been conducted on anchor typology and age5, but also on the history
and evolution of anchorage elements, starting from the first models (made of stone) up to modern anchors6.
In Romania, the first underwater archaeological investigations took place in Mangalia’s submerged area7, in
the 1960s. In this context, several anchors were found, including a fragment of a lead stock of an impressive size
(1, 08 m)8. A decade later, underwater prospecting in the basin of the old harbour of Tomis brought to surface
several lead pieces which became known due to the studies published by Vasile Cosma in national and
international scientific magazines9.
Meanwhile, in the same geographical area, on the western sea-coast, at Sozopol more underwater
discoveries were registered, including anchor-specific lead elements, archaeological materials that were initially
scientifically valued by archaeologist Bojidar Dimitrev10and more recently by Ivan Hristov11.
In the following years, Constantin Scarlat and Carmen Atanasiu published data and information regarding
some anchors discovered in the Romanian Black Sea.

2Descriptions and opinions on lead stocks and reinforcements of wooden anchors are found at L. Magnon, ”Essai de reconstitution d'ancre

du Musée d'Archéologie de Marseille”, in Revue Archéologique, no. 2 (1894), 220-230; T. Moll, ”The History of theanchor”, in The Mariners
Mirror, no. 13 (1927), 293-332.
3Guido Ucelli, Le navi di Nemi, (Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1940).
4Benoit F., ”Jas d'ancre et pièces d'outillage des épaves de Provence”, in Rivista di Studi Liguri, no. 21 (1955), 117-128; H. Frost, ”From

rope to chain. On development of anchors in the Mediterranean”, in The Mariners Mirror, no. 49 (1963), 1-20.
5
Kapitän Gerhard, “Ancient anchors e tehnology and classification”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 13 (1984), 33–
44; David Douglas Haldane, The wooden anchor, (Texas A & M University, 1984).
6
Jacques Gay, Six millénaires d'histoire des ancres, (Paris: Presses L’université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1997); B. Curryers, Anchors, an Illustrated
History, (London: Chatham Publishing, 1999); N. E. Upham, Anchors, (Published by Shire Publications, Princes Risborough-Bucks, 2001);
Filippo Avilia, La storia delle Ancore, (Roma: Editore IRECO, 2007).
7Constantin Scarlat, Itinerare subacvatice la Istru și Pontul Euxin, (București: Editura Sport-Turism, 1988), 73–74; Idem, ”Portul Antic

Callatis, cercetări de arheologie submarină”, in Acta Mvsei Napocensis, vol. X (1973), 529-540.
8Constantin Scorpan, “Ancore antice descoperite pe coastele submarine ale Callatisului şi unele probleme ale navigaţiei în Pontul Euxin”,

in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche, Tom 21, no. 4 (1970), 639.

9
Vasile Cosma, ”Anchors from Tomis”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no.2/2 (1973), 235–241; Idem, ”Ancore din Tomis”,
in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie, Tom 25, no. 2 (1974), 191-207; Idem, ”Anchors from Tomis”, in International Journal
of Nautical Archaeology, no. 2/4.1 (1975), 21–26.
10Bojidar Dimitrov, “Anchors form de ancient port of Sozopol”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 6 (1977), 156-163.
11
Ivan Hristov, Antique stone anchors, stone and lead anchor stocks from the collection of The National Museum of History end of 2nd
century BC – 3rd century AD, (Published by UNICART, 2013).
10
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

The presence of ancient anchorage pieces in the coastal waters of Constanța was also reported after the year
2000 in the submerged area of “Trei Papuci”12 beach and the Casino in Constanţa13, between Eforie and Tuzla14
or Costineşti15.

2. The Anchor: Importance, Description, Operation

On a ship, the anchor was and is considered an indispensable piece. The fundamental role of the anchor is to
keep the ship in place, on a fixed location and in different situations such as strong winds, currents, tides or in
order to stop the ship from moving. According to the captain’s experience, skills and knowledge, under certain
conditions the anchor may serve as an additional instrument in steering the ship, when executing manoeuvres
of turning, collision avoidance or mooring. In order to ensure safety, most ships have multiple anchors, at least
two or three, up to five or six16. The anchor is usually positioned at the bow, in the middle of the deck17 or on the
inside or outside of the bulwark18, tied to the gunwale. Moreover, according to the ship type, the anchors can be
situated along the plating or at the stern.
The importance of the anchor in history and maritime navigation is probably hardly understood and accepted.
However, thousands of merchant or military vessels sank due to anchorage failure, shipwrecks which lead to
human and material losses with notable impact on the course of historical events.
The existence of anchors on the water bottom represents the material confirmation of written sources about
ancient shipping routes and means of water transport. At the same time, these artefacts can help draw maps
with new sailing itineraries and commercial and maritime routes unknown until present day.
The anchors can be considered indicators of the economic level or practices in navigation. Based on physical
characteristics and shape, the level of navigation training within the shipbuilding community19 can be assessed,
and researchers can obtain information on the type, size and transportation capacity of the ship which lost its
anchor.
In some cases, significant ship or crew information can be identified by interpreting astragali and drawings
on lead stocks, worshipped deities, dolphins, good luck symbols in general, which represented important sources

12In 2014, a diving fisherman brought to surface a lead arm reinforcement of a wooden anchor. Currently the piece is displayed at the
Romanian Navy Museum in Constanta.
13Laurenţiu M. Dobre, ”Underwater archaeology in Romania anchors discovered in the Black Sea between 1989 and 2017 (Constanţa

County, Casino area, between The Touristic Harbor of Tomis and The Commercial Harbor of Constanţa)”, in Romanian Review of Eurasian
Studies, XIII, vol. 1-2, (Constanţa: Ed. University Press, 2018), 199-234.
14The fishermen in this area use lead stock fragments as weights for their buoys used at fishing nets.
15
Near the shipwreck at Costinești, the divers harvesting rapana identified several lead “bars” which belong to ancient stocks, based on
their description.
16
Jean Rougé, La navigazione antica, (Roma: Editore Massari, 1990), 34; Marine Sadania, Les ancres en fer en Bretagne, 2010, 17,
http://bibliotheque-bernard-liou-drassm-
culture.fr/GEIDEFile/Master_i_Sadania.pdf?Archive=191959191913&File=Master+I_Sadania_pdf, accessed on February18th 2019.
17Meredith Gretz Marten, Spatial and Temporal Analyses of the Harbor at Antiochia and Cragum, (2005), 50-51,

https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A180973, accessed on 3rd January, 2019.

18
Georges Charlin, Jean-Marie Gassend, Robert Lequément, ”L'épave antique de la baie de Cavalière (Le Lavandou, Var)”, in
Archaeonautica, no. 2 (1978), 54.
19
Daniel Claggett, A Typological Assessment of Anchors used in Northern Europe During the Early and High Middle Ages, CE 750 – 1300,
Flinders University of South Australia, (2017), 24, https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/d9a20ba4-2d63-4566-8076-
fe9f36a57bfe/1/Masters%20of%20Maritime%20Archaeology%20Thesis%20-%20Daniel%20Claggett.pdf, accessed on January 22th, 2019.

11
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

for determining the origin of the anchor or ship20. Sometimes the components of the anchors have the name of
the owner, the ship or the place where the piece was made, engraved on them21.
In order to understand anchor operation, it is important to get briefly acquainted with the terminology of the
anchor. Both the description (Figure 1) and the principle of underwater operation will be limited only to the
wooden anchor with lead stock.
1. Rope, hawser, line, cable, rode;
2. Rope (forming a loop on the shank to hold the hawser. Prevents twisting,
by offering more elasticity);
3. Box, yoke, rectangular hole (some pieces have a tendon, joint which
increases the resistance)
4. Stock
5. Shank, trunk, shaft (wood)
6. Bill, claw (lead, bronze, iron22);
7. Arm (wood);
8. Reinforcement, collar, bracelet, connecting piece23 (lead);
9. Wood dowells (for holding and resistance);
10. Crown
Fig. 1 Wooden anchor with lead stock

Contrary to appearances given by the large quantity of wood in the structure, the working manner of the
anchor is based on the principles of gravity and friction. The neutralization of the wood buoyancy is ensured by
the stock, which generally weighs half of the total mass of the anchor24.This lead element plays an important
role in the first two phases of anchorage, dropping and fixation on the bottom, but also in the final stage of
heaving up the anchor when the procedure requires additional effort from the crew.
Casting or dropping the anchor is done by passing the entire piece overboard and releasing an adequate
length of rode so as the anchor reaches the water bottom without stopping “between waters”. But touching the
bottom and placing the anchor on the underwater soil is not enough to keep the ship still.
In order to fixate the anchor on the bottom, the crew has to release a rope longer than the water depth,
which allows the stock, due to its weight, to position itself parallel to the underwater terrain, pointing one of its
bills perpendicular to the submerged soil. Under these circumstances, the ships’ inertia, the current or the wind,
push the ship up to a smooth tensioning of the rope, thus forming a sharp angle between the rope connecting
the ship and the water bottom, placing the anchor in attacking position. The ship’s drifting on the water surface
will cause the anchor to drag on the bottom until it has suitable holding ground that means the bill begins to dig

20Gianfranco Purpura, ”Le ancore”, in Arhaeogate, (March 2001),

https://www.academia.edu/11046645/Le_ancore_Archaeogate_marzo_2001, accessed on January 24th, 2019; Gianfrontta Piero Alfredo,
“Ancore romane. Nuovi materiali per lo studio dei traffic marittimi”, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, no. 36 (1980), 103;
Benoit F., ”Nouvelles épaves de Provence”, in Gallia, volume 16/1 (1958), 37; Benedict’s Anchor, a lead stock 2.5 m long, discovered by
the Maltese Mark Gaft in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015 “had two inscriptions on the stock. On the left side of the stock there was the
Latin word ISIS, the name of an Egyptian goddess. On the right side there was the word SAPARIS, the name of another Egyptian god [...],
which shows that the ship’s owner was a superstitious worshipper of the divine couple ISIS – SAPARIS [...], indicating that the stock may
have been made in Egypt”, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/09/13/Benedicts-Anchor-Was-It-From-the-Shipwreck-of-the
Apostle-Paul-on-Malta.aspx, accessed on January12th, 2019.
21Gianfrontta P. Alfredo, Ancore romane, 103; Masimiliano Ditta, “Analisi tipologico-statistica dei ceppi d'ancora in piombo della provincia

di Trapani”, in Arheolgia Subacquea, Universita' di Bologna, anno accademico

2009/2010,https://www.academia.edu/995972/Analisi_tipologicostatistica_sui_ceppi_dancora_in_piombo_della_Provincia_di_Trapan,
accessed on January 17th, 2019.
22Gianfranco Purpura, Le ancore.
23
Vasile Cosma, Ancore din Tomis, 195.
24Gianfranco Purpura, Le ancore.

12
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

in the bottom terrain, preventing the ship from drifting. In order to ensure a thorough set and to prevent
dragging, the length of the rode between the ship and the anchor must be at least 3 and maximum 10 times the
depth of the water, according to soil morphology, underwater relief and surface water turbulence. A shorter
rode increases the opening of the angle formed between the water bottom, anchor and ship, and modifies the
inclination of the claws in relation to the soil, leading to a position which does not guarantee a quick and secure
fixation of the ship, allowing it to drift or, in other cases, the anchor might come off suddenly and strainedly.
The retrieval of the anchor is done in two stages. In the first stage, rode recovery takes place progressively
until the cable forms an angle of 90o with the water surface (anchor is apeak), a position which changes the
geometry of the anchor in relation to the bottom, however this is not enough to displace it. In the following
stage, during two consecutive actions, the anchor is pulled up and detached from the submerged soil, and then
lifted on-board. In order to amplify the force when pulling up, the two phases must happen fast and fluently,
with the ship transferring its inertia to the stock.
Underwater archaeological goods, anchors especially, have become increasingly vulnerable in recent
decades, due to the development of industrial fishing and diving. The risk of losing historical information or
ultimately losing these artefacts has increased and is reflected in the large number of submerged vestiges found
in museum collections as a consequence of the above-mentioned activities.
Bottom trawls especially, also called bulldozers of the depths25, scrape the surface of the terrain and damage
submerged sites26 and ecosystem27, by using a metal bar attached to the net which is towed parallel to the
submerged soil.
Among the recovered anchors, many pieces became objects of decoration in private collections28, public
places29, or have been cashed in on by metal scrap collectors, "scrap iron", a common practice on the European
continent in the 1970s30, but also nowadays.
The two lead components presented in this study will be called as follows: Lead stock I, full-length rectangular
stock with boxed tendon, and Lead stock II, representing the fragment of a lead stock with wooden core.

3. Lead stock I
The lead component of the ancient anchor is located in the area of a small fishing complex on Constanta’s
southern sea-coast and, most likely, it was recovered from the sea bottom during a fishing campaign which
involved divers.
At the moment, the piece is displayed outdoor on the terrace of the restaurant within the fishing complex,
and is positioned horizontally on a small stone bed situated on the ground; its position is similar to the one it had
on the seabed, which highlights its impressive characteristics. In this context, there are also two four-armed
medieval iron anchors and a fragment of a lead stock with wooden core which also belonged to an ancient
wooden anchor. These artefacts serve as decoration items.
The piece is a single element, cast in one piece, made entirely from lead, in the form of an isosceles trapezoidal
bar, with a central rectangular opening oriented on the height of the trapezium. (Figure 2)
The stock has a total length of 1.83 m, with a trapezoidal section which gradually increases its dimensions
from the ends towards the middle. At the ends of the stock, the trapezoidal section has the large base of 0.075

25Sean Kingsley, Fishing & Shipwreck Heritage. Marine Archaeology's Greatest Threat?, (Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, 2015).
26One of the three rows of amphorae from the hold of a shipwreck in Tarragona was destroyed by trawls; Manuel Berges Soriano “Los
hallazagos arqueologicos submarinos ingresados en el Museo Arqueologico de Tarragona”, in Buletin Arqueolocico, fasc. 105-112 (1969-
1970), 4.
27
Elizabeth Brown, Fishing Gear 101: Trawl-Bulldozers of the Ocean, http://safinacenter.org/2015/02/fishing-gear-101-trawls-bulldozers-
ocean/, accessed January 23th, 2019.
28
In 2016, The Office of Criminal Investigations within the Police Department of Constanța County recovered two medieval anchors from
a private property in Ovidiu, Constanta County.
29
Two medieval anchors are placed at the entrance of the touristic harbor of Varna, Bulgaria.
30Marine Sadania, Les ancres en fer, 8; Constantin Scarlat, Portul antic Callatis, 535, note 11.

13
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

m, the small base of 0.065 m and the unparalleled sides of 0.1 m, whilst in the middle the large base is 0.11 m,
the small base 0.1 m, and the unparalleled sides are 0.175 m. The two segments with similar lengths of 0.83 m
and 0.80 m, respectively, have round edges at the small base and at the ends, dating back from the production
phase. From the constructive point of view, the segments are nonrectilinear, off-axis since the main casting, both
vertically and horizontally. One of the parts is slightly twisted along the longitudinal axis, a damage which likely
occurred during usage and produces a visual effect that amplifies the deviation, when viewed from certain
angles. The segments form obtuse angles of 185o-187o in both planes (horizontal and vertical). On the surface
which represents the large base for both segments there are traces specific to material casting, protuberances
and holes31, especially near the rectangular hole, also affected by corrosion.

Fig.2 Fixed lead stock with rectangular box and tendon (Considering the circumstances did not allow a better photography,
the angle from which the stock was captured does not provide the most relevant image.)

The rectangular opening (box) is a rectangular parallelepiped, consisting of four faces without bases, with
slightly round edges from the main casting and due to wearing, where the width is parallel to the stock axis,
while the two segments are attached almost perpendicular on the length. The physical characteristics of the box
are proportional to the size of the segments, a ratio that provides increased strength and a harmonious shape of
the stock structure: 0.2 m in width, 0.32 m in length and 0.185 m in height; the thickness of the sides varies
between 0.015-0.035 m, while the missing material originates from the inner walls, which explains the uneven
surfaces inside the hole. The exterior faces show small traces of corrosion, but not in depth. Casting traces and
defects on the large base surface of the segments continue on the adjacent margins of the box.
The tendon, an inseparable component, made simultaneously with the casting piece, is situated within the
box, in the middle, and is aligned with the stock axis. Its initial shape, with rectangular section, is preserved only
at the edges towards the inner walls of the box: 0.06 m in length and 0.05 m in width in the middle; due to
corrosion, its dimensions are smaller by 0.001 m and the section is elliptical. The length of the tendon
corresponds to the inner dimension of the box in the central point, 0.14 m.
The initial weight of the stock was not significantly affected by corrosion, we estimate that the losses are
between 1 and 3 kg; the current weight is 273.80 kg.
The outer surface of the stock, as well as the inside of the rectangular opening, are clean and without aquatic
deposits, with these being visible only at a careful examination. It appears that the piece was mechanically
cleaned with pressure water jets, because the surfaces are smooth to touch and do not show any marks of
scraping or striking. 95% of the surface of the piece has an ashy-gray colour, the rest are isolated spots of colour
remaining after the interaction with the marine environment or taken from surrounding objects; there are also
shades of white, blue or rust (brown-red).
Referring to the present context of the artefact, we can say that it originates from the Romanian Black Sea.
The current state of preservation, which is very good, as the segment is not hit or scratched, excludes the
possibility of recovering it during a trawling campaign in which case it would have suffered damages at the

31
As for casting pieces, due to the phenomenon of contraction when solidified, cavities may occur in those areas of the wall in which the
liquid alloy solidifies lastly and separately. - Gelu Barbu, Tehnologia turnării, course support, 28, http://www.sim.tuiasi.ro/wp-
content/uploads/G.Barbu-Tehnologia-turn%C4%83rii-curs.pdf, accessed January 28th, 2019.

14
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

superficial layer during lifting or transport (due to its weight, the object is difficult to handle, especially in on-
board or transhipment conditions). It is possible that the stock was brought to surface by fishermen divers
(rapana gatherers), using an air lift bag device, of parachute-type and afterwards was towed to the beach; this
aspect points to a smaller area of discovery, in the southern region of the Romanian sea-coast, up to the limit of
the stone bottom within this sector. Therefore, we can appreciate that the origination area of the stock can be
situated in the marine perimeter between Olimp and Vama Veche, between the shore and the bathymetric line
of 10-15 m. The hypothesis is supported by the underwater discoveries made after 197032, and indirectly by the
geography of the water bottom and the history of the ancient harbor settlements in the area, the old estuaries,
the harbors of of Tatlageac and Callatis33, the harbor of Olimp, believed to be Stratonis Portus or Parthenopolis34.
This type of stock was also discovered in several Mediterranean and Black Sea areas, but had different sizes.
A stock with similar characteristics, 1.80 m in length, a good geometric line, undamaged and with equal
proportions, was discovered in August 2015, offshore the harbour of Tabarka (Tunisia)35. The stock was found
with the reinforcement which connected the arms to the shank, in a good conservation state, at about 500 m
from the harbour and 200 m from the shore, at a depth of 25 m, on a rocky sea bottom, within an underwater
landscape isolated from the historical site. The components of the anchor were attributed to the Roman age and
dated as early as the 2nd century BC36.
The stock analysed here corresponds to the type of stock designed with transverse tendon inside the box, a
piece made by direct casting on the shank. In the area of contact with the yoke, the shank presents a drilled hole
on the longitudinal axis of the stock through which the lead penetrates and forms the tendon during casting. The
tendon forms a unitary piece that increases the strength of the shank-stock assembly37. The typological
assessments of Kapitän Gerhard and Haldane David Douglas recognize this model in a single version, type 3c38,
and type IIIB39; each type is a stock with a rectangular box.
After calculating the ratios between the stock segments sizes, according to the algorithm used by Haldane D.,
with compensations up to +/- 15%, the following results were obtained: box outer length = 1.5 of the box outer
width (0.32: 0.2 = 1.6); box inner length = 1.5 of the box inner width (0.26: 0.16 = 1.62); box outer width = 0.8 of
the box inner length (0.2: 0.26 = 0.77); box inner width = 1.5 of the centre segment width (0.16: 0.11 = 1.45) and
centre segment width = 1.5 of the edge segment width (0.11: 0.075 = 1.46).
The overlapping of the data obtained on the graph of stock size correlation used by Haldane D40 placed the
analysed stock in the typology of the majority for the following segments: box outer length (53%) and box inner
length (71%) and, on the secondary position, in terms of box inner width (32%) and centre segment width (42%).
As for the box outer width, the ratio obtained was not found in the results table, although accepted

32Constantin Scarlat, “Investigaţii istorico-arheologice şi geografico hidrologice asupra căilor navigabile de acces în interiorul vechiului
teritoriu geto-dac din Dobrogea”, in Muzeul Național, III (1976), 112, fig. 7.
33Idem, Itinerare subacvatice, 76, fig. 4.
34Ștefan Datcu, Sergiu Iosipescu, Raluca Iosipescu, “Întâlnire cu trecutul de sub ape”, in Magazin Istoric, an XXXV, no. 8 (2002), 41-42;

Raluca Iosipescu, Sergiu Iosipescu, „La Protection du Patrimoine Culturel Subaquatique en Roumanie. Quelques remarques préliminaires”,
in Stoica Lascu, Melek Fetisleam, Contemporary Research in Turkology and Eurasian Studies. A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Tasin
Gemil on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, (Cluj-Napoca, Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2013), 910.
35Francis Leveque, “Jas d’ancre découvert à Tabarka”, http://www.marine-antique.net/spip.php?page=index, accessed January 18th,

2019.
36Sentiers sousmarins archéologiques en Tunisie, Site de l’ancre a Tabarka, 10,
http://www.gestioneadmin.it/public/images/214/files/Roadbook%20Walter%20dive%20FR_DE.pdf, accessed February11th, 2019.
37Kapitän Gerhard, Ancient anchors, 38.
38Ibid, 37, fig. 4, (3c).
39
Haldane David Douglas, The wooden anchor, 4, fig. I11.1, (IIIB).
40Ibid, 97-99. The author studies 123 stocks of type III (7 of type IIIA, 84 of type IIIB and 32 of type IIIC), and as a result he notices a

mathematical correlation between the inner-outer length and width of the box and the outer-central widths of the segments. The results
of the equations indicated constant ratios between the sizes of the stocks with values between 1-3.5 (considering the manufacturing
flaws and wearing, some ratios have been adjusted with +/- 15%). The most frequently encountered ratio in the equations carried out is
1.5.
15
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

compensation percentage was applied; the closest result was that of the ratio 1x1 with the box inner length41.
The comparison of the results shows that the lead piece presented here predominantly contains the common
factor, the ratio of 1.5 and respects the general typology specific to the ancient stocks.
However, the lack of contextual evidence for this discovery does not allow an accurate dating. The validation
of the known data, in relation to the periodization suggested by Haldane D.42, places the stock within a wide span
of time, between 2nd century BC and 3rd century AD43.

4. Lead stock II
At the same fishing complex, outdoors, behind the stock described above, a wooden core stock is displayed.
Apparently, the fragment seems to have been ignored, shaded by the size of the larger piece, but its position in
the same location, on a well-maintained gravel layer (construction shale) indicates at least one association
between the two elements or an aesthetic assessment.
The piece represents half of a stock of an ancient wooden anchor, namely one of the two segments attached
to the box. (Figure 3) The fragment is 0.81 m in length and weights 48.60 kg. Initially, during its constructive
phase, the element appears to have had a parallelepipedal shape. In its current state, the artefact preserved the
original outline, but without the wooden core, therefore at the end towards the shank the section profile has
the shape of the letter "U", with the following sizes: 0.135 m, 0.11 m and a variable thickness between 0.035-
0.045 m. At the opposite edge there is a trapezoidal section with the following sizes: the large base of 0.09 m,
the small base of 0.08 m and nonparallel sides 0.12 m.
The lower part of the stock fragment, on its entire length, starting from 0.07 m from the narrow end, presents
a deep cavity with a rectangular section of 0.09 x 0.045 m. The empty space is the place where the wooden core
used to be. Close to the connection with the shank, above the cavity, on a length of 0.1 m, a part of the lead layer
which closed the space is still preserved.
In general, the wood essence used for the core is oak44, but it varied according to the geographic region where
the anchor was built; it might have also been cypress45, date, Indian acacia46, etc. The wood insertion of the
analysed fragment was formed by a single piece that went through the stock from one end to another and
penetrated the shank right in the middle47. Inside the cavity, in the narrow area of the fragment, on a surface of
0.16 x 0.025 m, in a layer of about 0.007 m, there are wood fibres oriented in the length direction of the piece.
In this area, in the upper part of the stock, at 0.1 m from the end, there is an opening irregular in shape (large
axis 0.06 m, small axis 0.035 m) which allowed the wood to get to the outside, currently with visible traces of
mildew.

Fig. 3 Fragment of a fixed lead stock with wooden core

41Ibid,99
42Ibid,13
43The five-century time span determined by Haldane D. Douglas represents the period of proven presence and frequency of type III stocks,

without marking a periodization for each typological subcategory.

44
Manuel Berges Soriano, Los hallazagosarqueologicos,17; Haldane David Douglas, The wooden anchor, 60.
45Jean Marcadé, François Braemer, “Céramique antique et pièces d'ancres trouvées en mer (baie de Marathon)”, in Bulletin de

correspondance hellénique. Volume 77 (1953), 145.

46Gideon Hadas, Nili Liphschitz, Georges Bonani, “Two Ancient Wooden Anchors from Ein Gedi, on the Dead Sea, Israel”, in The

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 34.2 (2005), 304.

47Kapitän Gerhard, Ancient anchors, 33–44, fig. 4, (4); Haldane David Douglas, The wooden anchor, 4, fig. I11.1.

16
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

Contrary to appearances, this cavity is not a flaw, but a hole left after the manufacture of the piece. Following
the making of the shank and mounting of the wooden core in the pocket on the shank, the assembly is turned
and fixed into a mould made of earth48, sand49 or clay50. In order to avoid the inclination, keep the balance and
maintain a correct position inside the mould at the ends of the core, between the wood and the lower wall of
the mould a couple of ceramic or stone spacers51 were placed. This procedure facilitates the penetration of
molten lead and the total wrapping of the core, except for the two places where the spacers are installed. In this
case, the oblique and rounded holes suggest the use of a spherical piece, most likely a rolled stone.
From the stock fragment, towards the box, due to the oxidation an uneven piece is missing, as well as most
of the side wall, but also from the upper part. Here, on the inside, the lead is dark grey and spongy.
The possible cause which involved the disappearance of the lead layer from the lower part of the stock
fragment is the swelling of the wooden core that pushed into the side walls until the most fragile gave out.
Whatever caused the wall to break can be explained either by the casting in several stages, two or even three
steps52, or a too thin casting; in both cases the strength of the material decreases. Also, an inadequate
temperature lower than 450o – 500o C53 or an incomplete technological process of casting could favour the
appearance of open, lateral or closed cavities (depressions, irregular surfaces or voids) that influence the
properties of the material, accelerate oxidation and diminish the mechanical strength. Equally, if the segment
broke away from the stock during an anchoring or lifting manoeuvre, the separation of the lower wall could have
also happened following this mechanical action.
As for the making of stocks with wood insertions, there are several opinions. One of the assumptions is that
stones or wood54 may have been introduced inside the metal for economic reasons. Considering the layout and
shape of the core inside the workpiece and on the shank, the positioning in the middle of the metal and the
finish, this type of stock was seen as a form of technological progress. The wood insertion increases strength and
elasticity and diminishes the weight of the stock, while maintaining its size.
A faithful reconstruction of the stock is difficult to achieve due to the absence of the box or some of the sides
which could have provided design information, leaves some options and model combinations open. In this case,
considering that the wooden core crossed the shank fulfilling the function of a tendon, for each type of cavity
we can have three possibilities of inner shape, depending on the section of the shank and its positioning within
the box55: square, rectangular with the length along the longitudinal axis of the stock, and rectangular with the
width on the longitudinal axis of the stock. From this point, the three inner shapes can be multiplied in relation
to the outer geometry of the box: square, rectangular in the two positions with the width or length parallel to
the longitudinal axis of the stock, or round, resulting a total of 12 design options.
An assessment of the stock length can be carried out by doubling the known length and calculating the box
sizes with the predominant coefficient of 1.5. Therefore, we can estimate the stock length to be over 1.75 m and
the weight more than 120 kg.
In the Romanian sea waters, wooden core stocks were also discovered in the area of the old Callatis and
Tomis harbors.

48V. Cosma, Ancore din Tomis,205; Elaine Azzopardi, Timmy Gambin, Renata Zerafa, ”Ancient anchors from Malta and Gozo” in Malta
Archaeological Review, Issue 9 (2008–2009), 25.
49Ibid.
50
Manuel Berges Soriano, Los hallazagos arqueologicos, 6.
51Haldane David Douglas, The wooden anchor, 29, fig. I11.22.
52
Manuel Berges Soriano, Los hallazagos arqueologicos, 9.
53Haldane David Douglas, The wooden anchor, 60.
54
Gianfranco Purpura, Le ancore.
55Elaine Azzopardi, Timmy Gambin, Renata Zerafa, Ancient anchors from, 23.

17
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

Following the underwater research in the Mangalia harbour area in 1967, a fragment of a wooden stock56 was
recovered. According to C. Scorpan's description, the segment still preserved the hardwood inside, has a
rectangular section of 0.13 x 0.19 m and is 1.08 m long, and also has the yoke of rectangular shape 0.21 x 0.30
m, attached. This information allowed the reconstruction of the stock (2, 37 m length and about 400 kg) and
resulted in some considerations regarding the type and size of the ship which lost it. By analogy with the findings
for the studied period, the stock was dated in the 3rd or 2nd century BC57.
In the marine perimeter near Constanța’s casino and the old harbour of Tomis, two stocks were identified in
1972; they had different sizes and were made of lead with a wooden core and tendon. These stocks were
analysed from a technical point of view by V. Cosma, their finder. The large stock, 1.1 m long and weighing 68.5
kg, had its tendon in place (square section of 0.045 m) and the small stock, 0.6 m long and weighing 13.2 kg,
preserved its tendon (square section of 0.025 m). Insufficient data on site did not provide the author guiding
marks for a chronological dating of the anchor fragments58.
A similar piece, with wooden insertions in both sections of the stock, in which the wood had swollen due to
humidity and caused the explosion of the lower lead wall, was discovered in the province of Tarragona (Spain)
between 1968-1970. The space left empty by the wooden core has a rectangular section and sizes similar to the
analysed piece. The lack of a historical context regarding the place of recovery did not allow the dating of the
stock59.
Another stock approximately equal in size to the one studied here, was discovered in Qala, Gozo region
(Malta). The piece has a length of 1.83 m, with segments of 0.85 m and a box with rectangular inner section (0.23
x 0.13 m) and a round outer side. Both segments present inner cavities along their length, evidence of casting
over an organic core60. The stock is not dated.
According to the typological classification made by Douglas Haldane, the analysed stock fragment
corresponds to the IIIC stock type. This stock, in the typological classification made by Kapitän Gerhard, is model
4 – a stock with wooden insertion, where the wooden core has approximately the same length as the stock and
the role of a tendon. There is also a second option, a 3d model - where the wooden insertion functions as a
tendon and the wood penetrates a little into the side segments of the stock.
The unknown place of discovery and the lack of contextual evidence from the site prompts us to accept a
wide chronological span, based on the periodization carried out by Haldane D. Douglas, from the 2nd century BC
to the 3rd century AD.
The place of discovery is very difficult to determine. The artefact can come from any marine area that has
been trawled or where fishing with divers was carried out. If we admit that the fragment is the result of an
accidental breaking of the stock during anchoring, which certainly happened in a submarine area with uneven
stone terrain, we can accept the piece was discovered and recovered by fishermen divers, which diminishes the
area of recovery to the sector between Olimp and Vama Veche, between the shore and the bathymetric line of
10-15 m.

5. Conclusions
This study aimed to highlight the scientific value of the two lead stocks through a non-invasive and non-
destructive analysis.
After establishing the technical and physical characteristics and the degree of conservation of the artefacts,
the research provided a typological framing and proved that both stocks are models common to massive lead or

56
The terminology used in the study presented by C. Scorpan, Ancore antice descoperite, creates confusion as to the manufacture and
principle of operation of "lead anchors", aspect which was also signaled by V. Cosma, Ancore din Tomis, 194, note 5.
57
C. Scorpan, Ancore antice descoperite.
58V. Cosma, Ancore din Tomis,191-193.
59
Manuel Berges Soriano Los hallazagos arqueologicos, 12.
60Elaine Azzopardi, Timmy Gambin, Renata Zerafa, Ancient anchors from, 28.

18
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

wooden core stocks, and originate from two ancient wooden anchors. As for how the discoveries were made, in
both cases it was assumed they were accidental findings during fishing campaigns. Based on deductive reasoning,
the sites of discovery were placed in the submarine perimeter between Olimp and Vama Veche, between the
shore and the bathymetric line of 10-15 m, a hypothesis accepted based on the known circumstances (fishery
profile of the area and place of display of the artefacts). The insufficiency of data regarding the place of recovery
and the lack of contextual evidence, led to an extended dating, during a period of five centuries (2nd century BC
to 3rd century AD).
In relation to the already known discoveries, the research showed that the massive lead stock is the largest
component of an ancient anchor registered so far on the Romanian territory.
We are convinced that the results obtained following the analysis, will provide new data for future
underwater research and studies related to ancient sailing and anchors from the western sea-coast of the Black
Sea.
In order to deepen the research, we consider as necessary to carry out physical and chemical analyses, which
can determine more precisely the place of origin and the manufacturing period of the two artefacts.

Bibliography
Associates for Biblical Research, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/09/13/Benedicts-Anchor-
Was-It-From-the-Shipwreck-of-the Apostle-Paul-on-Malta.aspx.
Avilia, Filippo. La storia delle Ancore, Roma: Ed. IRECO, 2007.
Azzopardi, Elaine, Timmy Gambin, Renata Zerafa. ”Ancient anchors from Malta and Gozo”, in Malta
Archaeological Review, Issue 9 (2008–2009).
Barbu, Gelu. Tehnologia turnării, suport de curs, http://www.sim.tuiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/G.Barbu-
Tehnologia-turn%C4%83rii-curs.pdf.
Berges, Soriano Manuel. ”Los hallazagos arqueologicos submarinos ingresados en el Museo Arqueologico de
Tarragona”, in BuletinArqueolocico, fasc. 105-112 (1969-1970).
Bonani, Georges, Gideon Hadas, NiliLiphschitz. ”Two Ancient Wooden Anchors from Ein Gedi, on the Dead
Sea, Israel”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 34/2 (2005).
Braemer, François, Jean Marcadé. ”Céramique antique et pièces d'ancres trouvées en mer (baie de
Marathon)”, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. volume 77 (1953).
Brown, Elizabeth. Fishing Gear 101: Trawl-Bulldozers of the Ocean, http://safinacenter.org/2015/02/fishing-
gear-101-trawls-bulldozers-ocean/.
Charlin, Georges, Jean-Marie Gassend, Robert Lequément, ”L'épave antique de la baie de Cavalière (Le
Lavandou, Var)”, in Archaeonautica, no. 2 (1978).
Claggett, Daniel. A Typological Assessment of Anchors used in Northern Europe During the Early and
High Middle Ages, CE 750 – 1300, Flinders University of South Australia (2017),
https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/d9a20ba4-2d63-4566-8076-
fe9f36a57bfe/1/Masters%20of%20Maritime%20Archaeology%20Thesis%20%20Daniel%20Claggett.pdf.
Cosma, Vasile. ”Anchors from Tomis”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 2/2 (1973).
Cosma, Vasile. ”Ancore din Tomis”, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie, Tom 25, no. 2 (1974).
Cosma, Vasile. ”Anchors from Tomis”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, no. 2/4.1 (1975).
Curryers, B. Anchors, an Illustrated History, London: Chatham Publishing, 1999.
Datcu, Ștefan, Sergiu Iosipescu, Raluca Iosipescu. ”Întâlnire cu trecutul de sub ape”, in Magazin Istoric, no. 8
(2002).
Dimitrov, B. ”Anchors from the ancient ports of Sozopol”, in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology,
no. 6 (1977).
Ditta,Masimiliano. ”Analisi tipologico-statistica dei ceppi d'ancora in piombo della provincia di Trapani”, in
Arheolgia Subacquea, Universita' di Bologna, anno accademico

19
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

2009/2010,https://www.academia.edu/995972/Analisi_tipologicostatistica_sui_ceppi_dancora_in_piombo_de
lla_Provincia_di_Trapani.
Dobre, M. Laurențiu. ”Underwater archaeology in Romania anchors discovered in the Black Sea between 1989
and 2017 (Constanța County, Casino area, between The Touristic Harbor of Tomis and The Commercial Harbor
of Constanța)”, in Romanian Review of Eurasian Studies, XIII, vol. 1-2, Constanța: Editura University Press (2018).
Fernard, Benoit. ”Nouvelles épaves de Provence”, in Gallia, volume 16/1(1958).
Fernand,Benoit. ”Jas d'ancre et pieces d'outillage des epaves de Provence”, in Rivista di Studi Liguri, no. 21
(1955).
Frost, Honor. ”From ropetochain. On development of anchors in the Mediterranean”, in The Mariners Mirror,
no. 49 (1963).
Gay, Jacques. Six millénaires d'histoire des ancres, Paris: Presses L’université de Paris Sorbonne, 1997.
Gerhard, Kapitän. ”Ancinet anchors e tehnology and classification”, in International Journal of Nautical
Arhaeology, no. 13 (1984).
Haldane, David Douglas. The woodenanchor, Texas A & M University, 1984.
Hristov, Ivan. Antique stone anchors, stone and lead anchor stocks from the collection of The National Museum
of History end of 2nd ml b.c. – 3rd century a.d., Published by UNICART, 2013.
Iosipescu, Raluca, Iosipescu Sergiu, „La Protection du Patrimoine Culturel Subaquatique en Roumanie.
Quelques remarques préliminaires”, in Stoica Lascu, Melek Fetisleam, Contemporary Research in Turkology and
Eurasian Studies. A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Tasin Gemil on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Cluj-
Napoca, Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2013.
Kingsley, Sean. Fishing & Shipwreck Heritage. Marine Archaeology's Greatest Threat?, Bloomsbury Academic
Publishing, 2015.
Leveque, Francis. ”Jas d’ancre découvert à Tabarka”, Le Musée imaginaire de la marine antique,
http://www.marine-antique.net/spip.php?page=index.
Magnon, L.”Essai de reconstitution d'ancre du Musée d'Archéologie de Marseille” in Revue Archéologique,
no. 2 (1894).
Marten, Meredith, Gretz. ”Spatial and Temporal Analyses of the Harbor at Antiochia ad Cragum” (2005),
DigiNole: FSU’S DIGITAL REPOSITORY, https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A180973.
Moll, F.”The History of the anchor”, in The Mariners Mirror, no. 13 (1927).
Purpura, Gianfranco. ”Le ancore”, in Arhaeogate, (March 2001),
https://www.academia.edu/11046645/Le_ancore_Archaeogate_marzo_2001.
Piero, Alfredo Gianfrontta. ”Ancore romane. Nuovi materiali per lo studio dei traffic marittimi”, in Memoirs
of the American Academy in Rome, no. 36 (1980).
Rougé, Jean. La navigazione antica, Roma: Editore Massari Editore, 1990.
Sadania, Marine. Lesancres en fer en Bretagne (2010), http://bibliotheque-bernard-liou-drassm-
culture.fr/GEIDEFile/Master_i_Sadania.pdf?Archive=191959191913&File=Master+I_ Sadania_pdf.
Scarlat, Constantin.”Ancore antice descoperite pe coastele submarine ale Callatisului şi unele probleme
ale navigaţiei în Pontul Euxin”, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie, Tom 21, no. 4 (1970).
Scarlat, Constantin. ”Portul Antic Callatis, cercetări de arheologie submarină”, in Acta Mvsei Napocensis, vol.
X (1973).
Scarlat, Constantin. ”Investigaţii istorico-arheologice şi geografico-hidrologice asupra căilor navigabile de
acces in interiorul vechiului teritoriu geto-dac din Dobrogea”, in Muzeul Național, III (1976).
Scarlat, Constantin. Itinerare subacvatice la Istru și Pontul Euxin, București: Editura Sport-Turism, 1988.
Scorpan, Constantin. ”Ancore antice descoperite pe coastele submarine ale Callatisului şi unele probleme ale
navigaţiei în Pontul Euxin”, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche, Tom 21, no. 4, (1970).
Sentiers sous marins archéologiques en Tunisie,
http://www.gestioneadmin.it/public/images/214/files/Roadbook%20Walter%20dive%20FR_DE.pdf.

20
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428
Romanian Journal of Historical Studies, Volume II – Issue 2 / 2019 Laurențiu Marin Dobre

Ucelli, Guido. Le navi di Nemi, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1940.
Upham, N. E. Anchors, Published by Shire Publications, Princes Risborough-Bucks, 2001.

21
ISSN 2601 – 3428 / ISSN-L 2601 – 3428