bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2018) 47.2: 357–390

doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12325

The Yenikapı 12 Shipwreck, a 9th-Century Merchantman

from the Theodosian Harbour in Istanbul, Turkey:
construction and reconstruction
Işıl Özsait-Kocabaş
Istanbul University, Department of Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects, Ordu Cad. Laleli, Fatih, İstanbul,
Turkey, isilozsait@gmail.com

Shipwreck Yenikapı 12 was discovered in Yenikapı, Istanbul, Turkey in 2007 during rescue excavations carried out by Istanbul
Archaeological Museums. The majority of the bottom of the shipwreck, found within the sediment-filled Theodosian Harbour, is
intact and part of the cargo was found in situ. According to the results of reconstruction studies, YK12 was a small merchantman
working coastal waters, approximately 9.24m in length and 2.64m in breadth. The shipwreck is dated to the 9th century AD and
was built with a mixed construction using the shell-based method for the lower hull.
© 2018 The Author

Key words: Yenikapı shipwrecks, Theodosian Harbour, mixed construction, ship reconstruction, plank-edge dowels.

A
rchaeological excavations in Yenikapı were
conducted within the scope of the Marmaray
and Metro projects and were carried out non-
stop by Istanbul Archaeological Museums (IAM) from
2004 to 2013. A 12m-thick deposit was excavated
with stratigraphic layers dating from the end of the
Ottoman Empire to the Neolithic Age (Kızıltan, 2010;
Kocabaş, 2015b). The Theodosian Harbour, which
was discovered during the excavations, produced many
archaeological finds that have enriched the cultural
history of Istanbul, most notably the remains of 37
vessels that sank at different times from the 5th to
11th centuries AD.1 The excavation of the Theodosian
Harbour and the recording methods used have been
previously published (Kocabaş, 2008; Kızıltan, 2010;
Kocabaş, 2010; Kocabaş, 2015a; Kocabaş, 2015b, Pulak
et al., 2015).
Yenikapı 12 shipwreck (YK 12) with a cargo of
amphoras was discovered by IAM archaeologists in
the east part of the harbour in February 2007. The
shipwreck was located in the fifth sediment layer, in
grid squares F-G/13-14 at the Yenikapı site (Fig. 1)
(Perinçek, 2010: 210). After the amphoras had been
removed, an Istanbul University (IU) team started
to study the wreck. The shipwreck was documented
in situ with 3D measurements and drawings, full-scale
hand drawings, photography, and photo-mosaics.
Then the hull members were dismantled and placed
in wooden chests. In July 2007 they were moved to
storage tanks in the IU Yenikapı Shipwrecks Research
Centre directed by Ufuk Kocabaş. At the Centre, 3D
digitizer (FaroArm) drawings, documentation and
cataloguing of the hull members were completed, and
construction techniques and reconstruction studied
(Özsait-Kocabaş, 2013: 45–50). In this article, the basic
construction features, design, and building philosophy
of YK12 are discussed, along with its structural
similarities to other Yenikapı vessels. In order to
understand the original form and dimensions of vessel,
reconstruction studies are briefly outlined.
Finds and dating
YK12 was one of four shipwrecks that contained
cargo when found. As well as the amphoras and a
large number of amphora fragments spread around
the hold, cooking utensils were found in the stern
area (Fig. 2), including a stove-like brazier and its
lid, a cooking pot, two cups, a trefoil juglet, glass
goblet sherds, and two amphoras of a different type
(Denker et al., 2013: 204, 209). Furthermore, gaming
pieces made of ivory, a wooden comb, a bronze needle,
and a thimble found inside the shipwreck inform us
about daily life aboard. Also, two toggles were found
as rigging equipment (Denker et al., 2013: 198–203).
Cherry seeds that were found in a basket, and olive
and peach seeds provide information about the crew’s
food supplies. The amphoras and the wreck itself
were dated to the 9th century AD (Denker et al.,
2013). Additionally, a 9th-century AD coin was found
in the shipwreck. The shipwreck has been dated to

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 1. Site plan of the Yenikapı excavation, showing the locations of YK 12 and the other shipwrecks studied by Istanbul
University (Istanbul University Yenikapı Shipwrecks Project Archive).

Figure 2. a) The amphoras as found on YK 12; b) the personal belongings found in the storage compartment (IUYSP Archive).

358 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Table 1. Radiocarbon analysis results for shipwreck YK12. All samples analysed by Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,
calibrated using OxCal V4 1.7

Sample ID Timber type 14C age years BP Calibrated Probability Note

OxA-23836 Floor-timber (Fr 11) 1246 ± 25 BP cal AD 681–870 95.4% Quercus sp

OxA-23837 Plank (PS7-2) 1233 ± 24 BP cal AD 690–876 95.4% Castanea sativa
cal AD 762–876 60.1%
OxA-23838 Central keel timber 1258 ± 25 BP cal AD 672–859 95.4% Fagus orientalis L.
(keel 3) cal AD 672–818 93.4%

Figure 3. In situ plan of YK 12 and cross-sections at frames Fr4, Fr12, Fr18, and Fr25 (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, processing the digital
version/PDV M. Sağır).

AD 672–870 by radiocarbon analysis of its timbers
(Kocabaş, 2015a: 13) (Table 1).2
There are different opinions about the typology
of the amphoras. Some researchers state that the
ship’s cargo was transported in Crimean amphoras
(Trakadas, 2014: 84; Polat, 2016: 382). Also, one of the
two amphoras in the storage compartment resembles
an amphora type from the Black Sea region found on
the Bozburun ship (Hocker et al., 1998: 4, 5; Denker
et al., 2013: 204). YK 12 sailed during a period in which
trade from Constantinople was directed from the south
to the north, to the Aegean and Black Sea (Bortoli

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 359
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 4. Keel timbers (C. Ciner, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

Table 2. Keel timber dimensions (see Fig. 4)

Moulded (mm) Sided (mm)

Keel Timber Length (m) Forward Middle Aft Forward Middle Aft Notes

Keel 1 (Stem) 0.21 – – – – – – Broken

Keel 2 (Curved keel timber) 1.54 100 - 95 67 – 90 Intact
Keel 3 (Central keel timber) 3.63 100 110 115 90 100 90 Intact
Keel 4 (Curved keel timber) 1.78 110 – 135 90 – 85 Intact
Keel 5 (Sternpost) 0.10 – – – – – – Broken

and Kazanski, 2002: 662; van Doorninck, 2002: 902;

Asal, 2010: 156). Based on the cargo, YK 12 may
have been involved in regional trade along the southern
coasts of the Black Sea, or it may have been a local
trading vessel involved in transshipping cargo carried in
Crimean amphoras from a seagoing vessel to a nearby
port.
Other researchers have suggested the amphoras
could be prototypes of a Günsenin type 1 Ganos
amphora, dated to the 10th–11th century, from a
workshop on the Marmara Sea coast (Günsenin, 2016:
401; Vroom, 2016: 163). If these are earlier Ganos
amphoras, the vessel could have been used by a local
trader in Marmaran and Thracian foodstuffs (Laiou,
2002: 725; Vroom, 2016: 163–164). The divergent views Figure 5. Keyed hook scarf joining the central keel timber
(keel 3) and curved keel timber (keel 4) (IUYSP Archive).
of the amphoras’ provenance and uncertainty about the
vessel’s route and home port, may be resolved when the
analysis of the amphoras and goods the vessel carried 25 frames, the mast-step timber and 43 ceiling planks
is concluded. (Özsait-Kocabaş and Kocabaş, 2008) (Fig. 3).
Keel and posts
Five timbers made up the backbone of the vessel,
The hull remains numbered keel 1 to keel 5 from bow to stern. They
The vessel might have sunk as a result of a violent included a central, rockered keel timber (keel 3), with
storm from the south as it was found covered with sand curved timbers scarfed to each of its ends (keel 2 and
likely raised from the seabed during a storm (Perinçek, keel 4), all of which are well preserved. The posts (keel
2010: 211). Since YK 12 sank with a slight incline 1 and keel 5) are largely missing, except for small pieces
to starboard, sitting on its bottom, and was quickly attached at the scarfs at the ends of keel 2 and keel 4
buried, most of the timbers under the amphora cargo (Fig. 4, Table 2). The scarfs between the five keel and
were preserved in their original places. The hull remains post pieces are intact and all are keyed hook scarfs
have a length of 7m and a width of 2.3m, and consist of (Fig. 5). Rabbets were cut on both sides along the
five scarfed keel timbers, 17 planking strakes, two wales central keel and curved keel timbers. At the stem
on the starboard side, a piece of the starboard caprail, and sternpost the rabbets end in a smooth transition.

360 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Figure 6. Plan of planking of YK 12.

Table 3. Planks dimensions. Widths measured at the widest Table 4. The different thicknesses on the inboard and
points of the planks; * indicates intact planks outboard edges of some original planks

Plank Width (mm) Length (m) Thickness

PS1 122 5.72* Starboard Port edge

PS2 210 PS2-1: 5.18* / Plank Measured location edge (mm) (mm)
PS2-2: 2.08*
PS3 215 PS3-1: 4.63 / PS1 Fr2-Fr3 16 24
PS3-2: 1.33* Fr13-Fr14 20 26
PS4 203 PS4-1: 0.96* / Fr24-Fr25 26 23
PS4-2: 2.75* PS2 Fr1-Fr2 20 21
PS5 160 PS5-1: 2.25 / Fr10-Fr11 15 17
PS5-2: 4.76* Fr24-Fr25 21 30
PS6 181 PS6-1: 3.75 / PS6 Fr4 16 14
PS6-2: 2.68 Fr11-Fr12 19 16
PS7 158 PS7-1: 1.48 / Fr22-Fr23 21 20
PS7-2: 4.60 PP1 Fr3-Fr4 19 14
PS8 150 PS8-1: 1.38* / Fr13-Fr14 23 16
PS8-2:1.90 Fr23-Fr24 26 25
PS9 140 PS9-1: 3.70 PP2 Fr11 21 12
PP1 124 5.72* Fr22-Fr23 17 14
PP2 212 PP2-1: 5.02 / Fr24-Fr25 27 18
PP2-2: 2.10 PP5 Fr4-Fr5 19 16
PP3 210 PP3-1: 4.52 / Fr8-Fr9 10 19
PP3-2: 1.74* Fr26-Fr27 19 14
PP4 186 3.08
PP5 148 PP5-1: 1.77 /
PP5-2: 4.80*
PP6 176 PP6-1: 3.65 / Planking
PP6-2: 2.59 The bottom of the hull was found in a very robust state
PP7 165 PP7-2: 4.20 with nine surviving strakes to starboard and eight to
PP8 90 (broken) PP8-1: 1.10* port (Fig. 6). The garboards (PP1, PS1) were made from
PP8-2: 0.69 single planks with tapered ends and are 5.72m long
(Tables 3 and 4). At their widest points PS1 measures
122mm and PP1 is 124mm.
Rabbets average 10mm in depth and were cut 12mm They were fastened in the keel rabbet with treenails,
below the inboard surface of the keel. Approximately driven at intervals of 0.22–0.45m, from the outboard
in the middle of the central keel timber and to the stern towards the upper surface of the keel, where they were
of keel 4, there are transverse holes cut through the port cut flush (Fig. 7). Resin and luting material were found
and starboard faces of the timber. in the join.

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 361
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 7. Characteristics of the joint between the garboard and the keel (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

Figure 8. FaroArm drawing of planking strakes PS1 and PS2 (C. Ciner, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

The other strakes are generally made up of two
planks, combining one long and one short plank. These
planks also taper towards the ends and range 0.14–
0.215m at their widest points. Some planks are very
worn and thickness ranges 0.01–0.03m (Fig. 8).
The planks forming a strake are joined together
with S-shaped scarfs, varying in length from 0.20 to
0.45m. The alignment and locations of these scarfs
is approximately symmetrical to port and starboard.
The planks are fastened together, edge to edge, with
regularly spaced dowels (coaks) from the garboard up
to the first wale (Fig. 9). Space between dowels ranges
from 0.20m to 0.36m. The dowels are polygonal and
11mm diameter on average. Depending on the width of
the planks the dowels are about 0.07–0.10m in length.
Dowels 0.09–0.13m long fasten the planking scarfs.
Only two dowels were found between the eighth strake
(PS8-1, PS8-2) and the first wale, near frames Fr22 and
Fr23 (Fig. 10). There is no evidence of dowels above the
first wale. Luting was laid between the plank seams and
appears around many of the dowels. Also, caulking was
determined between wale 1and PS9; caulking material
was probably used between the planks of the upper hull.
The planking strakes are organized so that the long
planks, and thus their scarf directions, alternate from
bow to stern (Fig. 6). The long planks of the second
and third strakes start at the bow, while the fourth and
fifth strakes have the short plank at the bow (except for
PP4). On the sixth strake, the direction changes once
again and the long planks were placed at the bow. Then
the long planks of the seventh and the eighth strakes
start at the stern.
The planks were scarfed in the same style throughout
the hull. The scarf end of the first, long plank was
attached to the plank below with a dowel, and the
scarfed end of the short piece was joined to the long
plank with a dowel, also (Fig. 10).
Wales, caprail, and through-beams
A 4.69m length of the first wale (wale 1) was found
in situ on the starboard of the hull, between the 7th/8th
and 9th strakes (Fig. 11). The wale has a curved outer

362 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Figure 9. Edge-dowel from the PP5–PP4 plank seam (IUYSP Archive).

Figure 10. a) Two dowels between wale 1 and PS8; b) fastening detail of the scarf ends observed on worn planks (PS4, PS5-1
and PS5-2 (IUYSP Archive); c) locations of dowels fastening planking scarfs (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

surface, and flat inner surface. Both of its ends are
broken. It ranges 92–115mm in width and 55–70mm in
thickness.
Based on the proposed reconstruction (see below),
a second wale (wale 2) was positioned at the loaded
waterline above plank PS9: a wedged treenail identified
at the top end of floor-timber Fr14 supports this
hypothesis, as do carpenter’s marks on the on the outer
surfaces of the long arms of floor-timbers Fr12 and
Fr14 and on starboard futtock Fr15 (see below).

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 363
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 11. Starboard planking and wale 1 (IUYSP Archive).

Figure 12. FaroArm drawing of the caprail and wale 3 (C. Ciner and A. Çetiner, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

A third wale (wale 3) was found under the vessel
towards the stern on the starboard side, disarticulted
from the main structure, but still fastened to a caprail
(Fig. 12). It has a similar rounded section to wale 1
with flat edges about 0.03m wide to match the planking
below and the caprail above. Both of its ends were
broken. No dowels were recorded on the lower edge
of wale 3. This piece of wale 3 is 2.63m long, ranges
90–110mm in width, and is c.60mm thick. The caprail
fragment is 2.18m long, about 100mm wide and 32mm
thick. It was attached to wale 3 with treenails, which
were driven into angled drilled holes. Caulking was
recorded between the caprail and wale 3. Notches were
recorded cut in the inner side of the caprail that seem to
be related to the sail rigging (Fig. 13).
On wales 1 and 3 the inner surface has raised sections
in line with and the same width as some of the frames.
These areas were left 2–4mm higher than the rest of the
wale surface. Similar protrusions were also found under
some frames on plank PS9 (Fig. 13).
The presence of through-beams fitted on to the first
starboard wale were identified ahead of Fr18 (through-
beam 1) and abaft Fr20 (through-beam 2). Through-
beam 1 was fastened to wale 1 with a treenail, and a
notch 0.07m wide and 0.025m deep was cut for it on
the bottom edge of PS9. Only a small part of through-
beam 1, 0.06m wide and 0.022m thick and 0.064m long,
was preserved (Fig. 13).
Through-beam 2 was not found; its location was
determined by a treenail and a pressure mark recorded

364 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 13. a) Caprail and wale 3; b) protrusion on the inner
surface of plank PS9; c) through-beam fragment in mortise
in PS9 (IUYSP Archive).
Figure 14. Framing plan (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
on the upper surface of wale 1, and a notch in the edge
of PS9.
Framing
Remains of 25 floor-timbers (Fr2-Fr26) and 15 futtocks
(five to port and ten to starboard) survived (Fig. 14).
Most of the floor-timbers were found intact (Fig. 15).
The futtocks are well preserved at the scarfs with the
floor-timbers but the upper ends are broken at the
height of strake 10. The floor-timbers are moulded
0.082–0.096m and sided 0.05–0.07m at the keel. The
futtocks are moulded 0.07–0.09m and sided 0.05–
0.07m. They have rectangular cross-sections with one
entirely flat side, while the other has a 20mm chamfer
on one top corner. The chamfered sides of the frames
in the array change direction at a certain point: the
chamfered side of Fr2–Fr7 face the bow, the mast-step
timber starts on Fr8 and thereafter the chamfer is
on the stern side of each floor-timber. On the inner
surface and side surfaces some floor-timbers have bark
layers; therefore, irregular shapes on these surfaces were
recorded. The floor-timbers have triangular limber-
holes, one on each side of the keel with a vertical face
aligned with the outer edge of the keel.
The framing system consists of L-shaped floor-
timbers, and short and long futtocks. The floor-timbers
are asymmetrical, one end finishing at the turn-of-the-
bilge and the other extending to strake 9 or wale 2 (Fig.
16). They are placed with the long arms alternating
to port and starboard. Corresponding short and long
futtocks are scarfed into the ends of the floor-timbers
but not fastened (Fig. 14). The long futtocks meet the
floor-timbers at the turn-of-the-bilge at the fifth or the
sixth strake. The short futtocks start at the ninth strake
or at the second wale (Fig. 16).
Fr12, which has the narrowest angle of deadrise (4°)
and is the broadest floor-timber, has been determined
365
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 15. FaroArm drawing of frames a) Fr4; b) Fr12; c) Fr19, and d) Fr24 (C. Ciner and E. Ertuğrul, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

as the midships frame. The floor-timbers were placed
on the keel with room and space ranging 0.23–0.27m
with an average of 0.25m. Eight of the floor-timbers
(Fr4, Fr8, Fr10, Fr12, Fr14, Fr16, Fr22, and Fr24)
were attached to the keel with iron nails, while 11 of
them (Fr3, Fr6, Fr9, Fr11, Fr13, Fr15, Fr17, Fr19,
Fr21, Fr23, and Fr25) are fastened with treenails.
Seven floor-timbers (Fr1, Fr2, Fr5, Fr7, Fr18, Fr20,
and Fr26) were not fastened to the keel at all. A
pattern was identified: the floor-timbers with long
arms to starboard were attached with iron nails, while
those with long arms to port were fastened to the
keel with treenails. The frames were attached to the
planking with one or two treenails per strake. They go
right through the frame and planking. These treenails
were driven with spaces ranging 0.04–0.15m along
the inner surface of each frame. Iron nails were also
used as frame-plank fasteners; nails were driven from
the outboard and only go into the thickness of the
frame. These nails were found less often than treenails
and with an irregular distribution throughout the
hull.
Mast-step timber
The mast-step timber was placed on the floor-timbers
between Fr8 and Fr16, close to the centre of the vessel,

366 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Figure 16. a) Alternating pattern of floor-timbers with long arms to port and starboard, L-shaped scarf connection between
floor-timber and futtock, and triangular limber-holes (IUYSP Archive); b) schema showing arrangement of short and long
futtocks in a bend (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

Figure 17. Ceiling plan (IUYSP Archive).

and was found still set firmly in place and intact

Figure 18. Detail of fitting the mast-step timber over the
floor-timbers (IUYSP Archive).
(Figs 17–19). It has a rectangular section with
chamfered edges. It is 2.05m long with a maximum cross
section 0.145m wide and 0.10m deep at the step. It has
notches cut 0.03–0.04m deep on the underside that fit
tightly over the floor-timbers. In addition, notches were
cut into floor-timbers Fr8, Fr12, and Fr16 to fit the
mast-step timber. It is attached to Fr13 with an iron
nail.
There are two mortises on the upper surface of the
mast-step timber. One is the step for the mast, the
other a small rectangular mortise foreward of the step.
The small mortise is about 0.096m long, 0.04m wide
and 0.046m deep. The mast-step itself is 0.206m long,
0.056m wide and 0.058m deep. Along the long edges
of this mortise there are thin wooden rods nailed to

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 367
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 19. FaroArm drawing of the mast-step timber (C. Ciner and A. Çetiner, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

Figure 20. Wood species used in YK 12 (Identification Ü. Akkemik, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).

the mast-step timber that are approximately 0.44m long
and 0.04m wide.
Ceiling and stringer
A total of 43 ceiling planks have survived (Fig. 20),
that were systematically placed and secured to the floor-
timbers with 1–3 iron nails. The ceiling was placed by
superimposing one plank edge 20mm over the next,
starting from the keel working up the sides to starboard
and port (Fig. 17). Five groups of ceiling planks were
placed in this way, starting from the bow and continuing
towards the stern, with the ends of the planks in a
group overlapping the previous set. The ends of the
ceiling planks are finished in a variety of shapes, such
as triangles, curves, and straight cut. Based on ceiling
planks with intact ends—excluding C22 and C24 that
appear to be exceptions—they are 1.16–1.36m long,
0.105–0.20m wide, and 1–15mm thick.
Ceiling planks C22 and C24 were placed on each
side of the mast-step timber. C22 is 3.08m long, 120–
140mm wide, and 15–30mm thick. C24 is 2.10m long,
and 32mm wide on average, and 20–33mm thick. These
two ceiling planks are thought to be repair timbers and
are notable for their larger dimensions, differences in
colour and texture, and mismatch with the rest of the
ceiling system. These may have been added because of
wear, or to provide additional support to the mast-step
timber over time.
The ceiling stops at Fr5 to the bow, and there is a gap
in the ceiling between Fr18 and Fr20 that, according
to the finds, was the space used as stowage by the
crew (Fig. 17). Ceiling was found in situ up to PS9

368 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
and empty nail holes on the innerface of some frames
suggest the ceiling continued up to wale 2 (Fig. 17, see
Fig. 39).
No stringers were found: however, slight depressions,
only about 1–2mm deep, observed on the upper ends of
a few long futtocks along strake 9 indicate the existence
of a stringer (Fig. 21).
Bulkheads
Towards the stern, bulkheads were constructed on
frames Fr18 and Fr20. The starboard futtocks (Fr18-
S1 and Fr20-S1) were attached with two treenails to
the inner surface of the long arms of the floor-timbers
(Fig. 22). A groove was cut in the top surface of futtock
Fr18-P1, and it can be assumed that the missing port
Figure 21. Carpenter’s mark on Fr11 indicating the position
of a stringer (IUYSP Archive).
Figure 22. a) The futtocks with grooves in the strorage compartment (IUYSP Archive); b) FaroArm drawing of frame Fr18
and bulkheads. (C. Ciner and A. Çetiner, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler)
Figure 23. a) Repair plank PP4; b) repair plank PS6-3; c) grey resin between the repaired part of arm of floor-timber Fr21
(IUYSP Archive).
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
futtock Fr20-P1 also had a groove. There is a broken
stanchion approximately 0.34m high, 0.14m wide, and
0.054m thick, attached to the inner surface of Fr18 with
two dowels. The stanchion has grooves cut along two of
its sides. Two dowels and a pressure mark placed side-
by-side on floor-timber Fr20 suggest there was a second
stanchion. The panels that would have been fitted in the
grooves and the upper parts of the bulkhead structure
were not found.
Repairs
The YK 12 vessel had spent a long time travelling
on the seas as evidenced by the three layers of pitch
found on its hull, each separated by mussel remains.
Moreover, the inner surfaces of the planking and ceiling
were in some places worn extremely thin. Despite
this, few repairs have been identified. Indications of
repairs following accidents were recorded on the port
and starboard sides of the planking, possibly as a
result of different events, based on differences in the
workmanship and materials used. On the port side
of the vessel towards the stern, there is a roughly
shaped chestnut repair timber (PP4-2), about 0.54m
long, between frames Fr16, Fr17, and Fr18, fitted in
the third to fifth strakes (PP4 and PP5)(Fig. 23a). A
cleanly cut and skilfully fitted repair plank about 0.57m
long was identified on the starboard side of the vessel,
towards the stern of the sixth strake (PS6-3), under
369
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
Table 5. Summary of woods used according to the place of use in the hull
Keel The lower parts of the hull
Central keel Posts and curved
timber keel timbers Planks Floor-timbers
Oriental Hornbeam Chestnut Oak or white oak,
beech walnut,
hornbeam, ash
Fr20, Fr21, and Fr22. This plank (PS6-3) was made of
oak (Fig 23b).
The arms of floor-timbers Fr21 and Fr22 were also
broken and then stuck back together: grey resin was
identified between the repaired parts of these frames
(Fig. 23c). These frames are above the repair plank and
were likely damaged in the same incident.
Of C22 and C24, which are thought to be repairs to
the ceiling as they differ from the other ceiling planking,
C24 was made of plane wood.
Splits and cracks that occurred in the planking, such
as PS2-1, were repaired by being filled with pitch,
caulking material, or grey resin.
Building technology
Many features, such as symmetry in the planking
to starboard and port, very regular frame scantlings,
carefully worked chamfers on the frames and mast-
step timber, and well-cut floor-timber to futtock scarfs,
and other standardized joints demonstrate that YK 12
was built with great care. In addition, as evidenced by
the presence of unprocessed bark left on some floor-
timbers, the builder was careful to use the materials
economically and, whenever possible, two floor-timbers
where cut from a single trunk (see below). Considering
the properties of the wood used, it can be seen that the
builder also consciously selected different species for
specific uses on the vessel. These choices are indicative
of balancing expenditure incurred during construction
with both reducing the risks encountered on voyages
and costs of repairs (Unger, 1980: 27).
Wood use and processing
Seven tree species were used in the construction of
the vessel: oak (Quercus L.), ash (Fraxinus L.), walnut
(Juglans L.), chestnut (Castanea Miller), hornbeam
(Carpinus L.), beech (Fagus orientalis L.) and plane
(Platanus L.) (Akkemik, 2015: 43–47). This variety
arises because species were selected according to the
requirements of their positions in the vessel (Fig. 20).
Chestnut, the strength of which increases as it gets wet,
was used on all the planking (Akkemik, 2015: 188–189).
Oak, which is water-resistant and hardwearing, was
used for the wales (wale 1 and wale 3) and also preferred
for floor-timbers and ceiling planks (Akkemik, 2015:
188–189). For the central keel 3, beech was used, while
hornbeam was chosen for the curved keel 2 and 4 and
370 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
The upper parts of the hull
Futtocks and Wale1 and
Ceiling bulkheads wale 3
Oak or Ash Oak
white oak
Figure 24. A pair of floor-timbers Fr11 and Fr12 cut from
the same timber (IUYSP Archive).
the posts (keel 1 and keel 5). These species, which have
high-friction and wear resistances, are the preferred
construction material for keels of ships built in the
Black Sea region of Anatolia (Nutku et al., 1963: 4;
Dinçel et al., 1977: 82–85). For the futtocks in the
upper part of the framing system, with less contact
with water, ash was preferred (Akkemik, 2015: 188–
189). The bulkhead timbers, and the mast-step timber
were also processed from smooth, fibrous, and resistant
ash. A plane tree (Platanus L.) timber was used for
repair (C24) following the construction of the vessel. It
is noted that the ceiling is a mixture of woods, as are
the floor-timbers, while the planking is consistent. This
could be an indication of the builder’s focus on the shell
in the lower hull. A similar consistency is seen in the
futtocks which are cut from ash (Table 5).
The grain structure is parallel to the length of the
planks, which indicates that naturally curved trees were
selected and used in the construction. This method,
which prevents deformations and splits along the seams
occasioned by internal stresses in the wood, is known
from the traditional boats of several regions and is the
preferred method used in the traditional Black Sea-built
vessels, known as saçula (Pla Y Rave, 1996; Kaygın and
Aytekin, 2005: 22).
During timber studies, it was determined that two
floor-timbers, of similar size, were extracted from a
single trunk with one branch. For example, Fr12 was
derived from the same trunk as Fr11; they have almost
identical measurements and the grain structure and
knots match (Fig. 24).
According to the cross-sections taken at different
places along the beech keel 3 it was determined that
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 25. a) Saw marks on the plank (IUYSP Archive); b) overlapping saw marks on side face of floor-timber Fr20 (C. Ciner,
PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler, IUYSP Archive).
the heartwood, which is the strongest and most stable
part of the log, was aligned before the keel was shaped.
In the same way, the mast-step timber, which would be
subject to a variety of stresses, was obtained from the
heartwood of an ash log.
Chestnut, ash and eastern beech used in the
construction of YK 12 are abundant in the Black
Sea region and were often used in ship construction
(Nutku and Küçük, 1963). These tree species, which
vary according to the part of the vessel, have been
recorded in the traditional vessels of this region between
the 16th century and the last quarter of the 20th century
(Turna and Pirim, 2015: 119). The current natural range
of these trees includes the Black Sea, Marmara, and the
Aegean Regions. Bithynia and Paphlagonia woodlands
were very suitable for shipbuilding in the Byzantine era
(Morrisson, 2013). Akkemik, who carried out wood
analysis of all the Yenikapı shipwrecks studied by IU,
stated that in the vessels dated after the 7th century,
timbers from the Black Sea-Marmara vicinity were used
(Akkemik, 2015: 197).
Tool marks and shaping
It is possible to ascertain which tools were used and
how the wood was shaped from the different tool marks
recorded, the shapes of the finished timbers, and the
orientation of the wood grain. Also, similar marks
related to certain tools are reported in other shipwrecks
(Katzev, 1982; Hocker, 2004b). From the tool marks on
the frames and planking of YK 12, it was determined
that several different saw types were used. Planks were
cut longitudinally using a saw as ascertained by the
wide spacing of marks and the way they cross over each
other at regular intervals (Fig. 25). Moreover, short saw
marks detected at the ends of the planks, made in the
opposite direction to the wide saw marks, indicate the
use of smaller saws to adapt them to their individual
positions.
Generally, the frames have one sawn side, and one
left round. The teeth marks left by the saw used are
all at the same angle, very regular, with even and
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
frequent intervals. These marks come from different
directions and overlap in certain places. According to
these marks, the carpenter started cutting from one
end, the saw was removed before the turn and cutting
recommenced from the other end (Fig. 25). On the
round side of the floor-timbers, adze or axe marks
can be seen, but no saw marks. The bark encountered
on the surfaces was dubbed with an adze/axe, which
shows that most parts were hewn first, rather than
cut with a saw. Like the floor-timbers, one side of the
futtocks was cut with a saw, while the other side was
trimmed with an adze or axe. The floor-timber and
futtock joints are carefully worked L-shaped scarfs.
Tool marks show that floor-timbers and futtocks were
trimmed with an adze after the two elements were
joined together (Fig. 26a). Adze marks are also very
clear in the limber-holes of the floor-timbers (Fig. 26b).
The adze/axe marks are also observed on the chamfers
of the side and bottom edges of the mast-step. Some
planks have had traces of sawing erased by dubbing that
has left them very smooth and with few marks. An adze
was used on the surfaces of the planking and marks
cross over the seams; thus, they were dubbed after
the planking was assembled. Different sizes of adze
used can be determined from blade marks of different
widths.
Saws were mostly used for major conversion of
timber into planks and frames. Additionally, smaller
hand saws were used for smoothing the transition
from the curved keel timbers (keel 2, keel 4) with
rabbets to the posts (keel 1 and keel 5) without
rabbets, fitting the planking scarfs and shaping the
plank ends. Clear adze/axe marks are visible especially
on the curved side of the floor-timbers and futtocks
and the floor-timber chamfers, the top and bottom
surfaces of the keel members (Fig. 26c) and at the
keel scarfs, and on the top, bottom and side surfaces
of the mast-step timber. This indicates the use of
adzes/axes for fine finishing timbers once joined, as
well as shaping the main forms. These marks show
that the adze and axe were the favoured tools for
construction.
371
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 26. a) Adze/axe marks on the outer surface of the frame; b) adze marks on the limber-hole; c) adze marks on the inner
surface of the keel; d) saw and chisel marks on the scarf of the keel (IUYSP Archive).

Tool marks show that chisels were used to shape Fasteners

treenails, for cutting treenails to length, cutting and
trimming scarfs and mortises (Fig. 26d), surface
matching, and finishing. Chisels of different widths, and
both straight and curved blades have been recognized
from the tool marks (Katzev, 1982: 246–248).
A sharp tool, such as an awl or knife, was used for
marking the position of the floor-timbers on the inner
face of planks, the locations of the plank-edge dowels,
the end points of scarfs on the edges of the planks,
and areas of timbers requiring additional shaping, as
well as a series of special builder’s marks of unknown
function.
Drill marks were identified in the treenail holes
that connect the YK 12 hull elements. Some of these
holes are believed to have been made with bow drills,
examples of which were found in different sizes in
the Yenikapı excavation area (Gökçay, 2010: 145).
Holes 110/120, 150, and 170mm diameters were found
indicating that drill bits of different sizes were used.
Two wooden mallets were found in the stern of
the vessel; these carpentry tools may have been for
repair and maintenance during voyages, being similar
to those used in construction (Denker et al., 2013:
200).
The elements of the hull were fastened with treenails
and iron nails. Treenails were driven at regular intervals
to connect all the frames to the planking, providing a
solid connection by traversing the combined thickness
of the frame and plank. Iron nails did not follow a
regular pattern and were hammered in from the outside
of the planking and end in the middle of the thickness
of the frames. Similarly, iron nails fastening the frames
to the keel only penetrated to the middle of the keel. The
frame–keel joints, ceiling–frame joints, and mast-step
timber–floor-timber joints are other examples of the
use of iron nails in the construction. Treenails are used
in higher numbers and more regularly to attach the
frames to the planking. In addition to this, all frames
attached to the first and third wales were fastened with
treenails. Based on this evidence, the main fastening
device in the construction of YK 12 is treenails. Iron
nails were used for temporary fastening, reinforcing,
and strengthening. Moreover, it is concluded that
some of the iron nails were added for repairs and
reinforcement later in the vessel’s working life, rather
than during the construction. For example, nails
are found grouped on repair planks and the planking
around them or coinciding with the top of treenails that

372 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Table 6. Locations, cross-section shapes and dimensions of nails and dowels

Average length
Fasteners Cross-section (mm) Average diameter/width (mm)

Iron nails
Floor-timber and keel Square 155 12 × 12 (on the inner surface of the frame)
Frame-planking Square 60 6 × 6 (on the outer surface of the frame)
Ceiling and frame Square 40 4 × 4 (on the inner surface ceiling)
Frame and upper member Square ? 3.5 × 3.5/4 × 4 (on the inner surface of the
frame)
Planking and keel Square 30–40 4 × 4 (on the inner surface of ceiling)
Mast-step, floor-timber and keel Square 155 12 × 12 (on the inner surface of the
mast-step)
Mast-step and mast base Square ? 6 × 6 (on the inner surface of mast base)
Treenails
Floor-timber and keel Polygonal 170–210 Ø 16/17
Frame and planking (with small Ø Polygonal 80–140 Ø 11/12
hole)
Frame and planking (with large Ø Polygonal 80–140 Ø 14/15
hole)
Frame and first wale Polygonal 190 Ø 11/12–14/15 (Ø dependant on frame)
First wale and through-beam Polygonal 50 Ø 14
Garboard and keel (slopped nail) Polygonal 50–70 Ø 11
Unidentified holes in the planking Rounded – Ø 12 (diameter of hole)
Dowels
In plank-edge seams Polygonal 80 Ø11
Between scarf of planks (edge-joint) Polygonal 90–130 Ø11
Garboard and keel (fitting dowel) Polygonal ? Ø11
Floor-timber and bulkhead stanchion Polygonal 75 Ø14
Floor-timber and bulkhead futtock Polygonal 75 Ø14

Figure 27. a) An iron nail hole to the right of a treenail hole on the underside of frame Fr17 (IUYSP Archive); iron nail and
hole b) before and c) after application of EDTA solution (IUYSP Archive).

fasten the frames to the planking throughout the hull
(Table 6).
Iron nails
Deposits adhering to the hull indicate nail holes covered
with corrosion and rust stains (Fig. 27a). The sizes of
nails used were determined from measurements taken
from corrosion shapes or the nail holes. Three different
upper shank sizes were detected: approximately 12 ×
12mm; 6 × 6mm; and 4 × 4mm, varying according
to their position and use in the hull. The lengths of
these nails as determined by reconstruction drawings
are 155mm, 60mm, and 40mm respectively. The nails
have a square-section shank and taper towards the
point. Further, during conservation of the timbers and
cleaning the iron stains with EDTA solution, 12mm-
diameter holes were discerned (Fig. 27b). These holes
are very hard to see with the naked eye, being filled with

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 373
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

a hard layer of wadding, with iron nails driven through
it. Nail-head marks, about 30mm in diameter, were
distinguished by corrosion and pressure marks around
some of the holes on the outer surface of the planking.
This revealed two different forms of nailing: iron nails
were driven through pilot holes previously opened and
packed with wadding in the planking and into the
frames; or, nails were hammered directly through the
planking into the frames with no evidence of pilot
holes. In both actions the same sized nails were used,
and they have an irregular pattern: however, those
driven through pilot holes were commonly found in the
repaired areas of the hull.
Treenails and dowels
Wooden fasteners were used in two different forms:
treenails and dowels. Dowels, which are polygonal small
pegs, were placed between two members, and in the
plank-edge seams (Fig. 28), for fitting the garboards to
the keel, between the starboard plank PS8 and the wale,
and between the bulkhead components. Treenails which
are usually polygonal wooden nails, are driven from one
side of two connected members. Treenails were detected
joining floor-timbers to the keel, frames to the planking
and wales, wales to the through-beam, and wale 3 to the
caprail. Additional holes were also detected irregularly
distributed in the planking, unrelated to fastening the
frames, in some of which treenails were identified.
Pressure marks were not identified around these 12mm-
diameter holes (Fig. 29).
Three different diameters of treenails were
determined, with diameters of 11/12, 14/15 and
16/17mm. The treenails are slightly conical tapering
by about 2mm. For the floor-timber–keel joints both
wedged or unwedged treenails were noted. The treenails
were driven into holes drilled through the frame and the
keel, and then the protruding parts were trimmed. For
the frame–planking joints Ø11/12mm and Ø14/15mm
treenails were used. Moreover, treenails were placed
in two distinct locations on the upper face of frames:
in the centre of the frame, and close to the side edge
of the frame. Similarly, some of the futtocks were also

Figure 28. a) Drawing of planking edge-dowel; b) drawing

of planking scarf edge-dowel (G. Turan and M. Sağır, PDV Figure 29. Treenail hole in the planking of unknown
Ç. Şanlıgençler). function (IUYSP Archive).

Table 7. Distributions of treenails with small and large diameters at the floor-timbers and futtocks (all of the futtocks are ash)

Floor-timbers with large Floor-timbers with large Floor-timbers with small Floor-timbers with small
treenail and their futtocks with treenail and their futtocks with treenail and their futtocks treenail and their futtocks
large treenail small treenail with small treenail with large treenail

Frame Wood species Frame Wood species Frame Tree species Frame Tree species

Fr2 Hornbeam Fr3 Oak Fr11 Oak Fr10 Oak

Fr6 Walnut Fr5 Walnut Fr15 Oak Fr22 Oak
Fr8 Walnut Fr7 Walnut Fr17 Oak Fr24 Oak
Fr12 Oak Fr9 Oak Fr19 Oak – –
Fr14 Walnut Fr13 Walnut Fr21 Oak – –
Fr16 Hornbeam Fr23 Oak – – – –
Fr26 Walnut Fr25 Walnut – – – –

374 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 30. a) The treenail cut at the scarf joint in the short arm of the floor-timber Fr6 (photo) (IUYSP Archive); b) schema
showing the treenail at the L-shaped end of the floor-timber Fr11 (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).
Figure 31. Wedged treenail connecting wale 1 and floor-
timber Fr16: a) photo (IUYSP Archive); b) drawing (G.Turan
and M. Sağır, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).
attached with treenails placed at the centre, and some
at the edges of the upper face. Of the surviving futtocks
and those evidenced by holes in the planking, 10 were
affixed centrally with large-diameter treenails (Fr2,
Fr6, Fr8, Fr10, Fr12, Fr14, Fr16, Fr22, Fr24, Fr26); 12
were held in place by small-diameter treenails driven
close to the edges of the upper face (Fr3, Fr5, Fr7, Fr9,
Fr11, Fr13, Fr15, Fr17, Fr19, Fr21, Fr23, Fr25). The
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
futtocks with small-diameter treenails placed close to
the edge are on the starboard side; the futtocks with
large-diameter treenails placed centrally are on the
port side (Table 7).
An additional detail concerns the L-shaped short
arm ends of the floor-timbers. For Fr5, Fr6, Fr8, Fr11,
Fr12, Fr14, Fr15, Fr17, Fr18, Fr19, Fr20, Fr22, Fr24,
Fr25, a treenail joining the end of the short arm of
the floor-timber to the planking had been cut through
leaving part of the treenail in the floor-timber and
the other part in the plank, and a gap between them
(Fig. 30). This suggests that the floor-timbers were cut
long and fastened to the planking before the futtock
scarfs were cut and the futtocks fitted. The cut edges of
the L-shaped scarfs of the floor-timbers are parallel to
the planking seams beneath them, which also supports
this argument.
Two types of treenails were used in the frame–wale
joints: wedged and unwedged. Wedged treenails were
found at the first starboard wale (wale 1) joints with the
long arms of floor-timbers only (Fig. 31).
Bedding
In addition to the nails, a grey resin was noted in
locations requiring extra strength, such as the gaps
in the keel scarfs, between the garboard and the keel
(Fig. 32a), between the mast-step timber notches and
the frames, between some ceiling planking and the
innerface of frames (Fig. 32b), and between frames, keel
and planking, and the inner surfaces of the transverse
holes in the keel (Fig. 32c). Resin was also found in
deep cracks and broken parts of two frames (Fr21 and
Fr22) (Fig. 32c). Resin was used for bedding (sealing)
and perhaps to strengthen the joints. It was applied as
a fluid as evidenced by it having penetrated the wood
and flowed into the joints. The resin, which becomes
very hard on drying, maintained its gluing qualities and
it was difficult to separate some of the joints during
our investigations of the timbers in the lab. The resin
was analysed by Armaggan Culture Tourism Trade and
375
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Figure 32. Locations of grey resin: a) at the the keel scarf; b) in the mortise for the mast-step on floor-timber Fr12; c) in the
transverse hole (IUYSP Archive).

Industry Incorporated Company’s DATU Laboratory,

which defined it as a mastic resin.

Figure 33. a) Luting on the outer surface of plank; b) yellow
pitch layer on the inner surface of planking. Saw marks and
grey resin pitch on the inner surface of planks below the floor-
timber E14 (IUYSP Archive).
Waterproofing
The waterproofing of the vessel was provided by
luting, caulking, and a layer of pitch. The luting, the
presence of which was reported in Port Vendres 1 (Liou,
1974: 422; Santamaria, 1995: 149–50) and Dramont E
(Bockius, 2006: 118, 120) and has been identified in
many Yenikapı shipwrecks (Pulak, 2007: 133; Kocabaş,
2015a: 11), is present on all the surviving planking of
YK 12 (Fig. 33a). The dowel holes in the plank edges
were drilled longer than the dowels and luting was also
stuffed into these holes.
Larch resin/turpentine was found in analyses carried
out in the DATU Laboratory of Armaggan Culture
Tourism Trade and Industry Corporation. The inner
and outer surfaces of the planking of the YK 12 hull
and the upper surfaces of the ceiling planks are covered
with a yellow resinous layer (Fig. 33b), a mixture of
larch resin/turpentine and horsehair.
The shipbuilder improved watertightness by luting
the plank seams, and by coating with a thick layer
of pitch the entire inner and outer surfaces of the
planking. Also, caulking material was probably used
between the planks of the upper hull. At the same time,
the pitch coating gave the hull timbers a protective

376 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 34. Two scribe marks on the outboard surface of plank PP2 indicating the beginning of a scarf (IUYSP Archive).
Figure 35. a) The builder’s sloped 3–4 scribe marks on
the inner surface of the keel; b) the builder’s side-by-side
perpendicular six-seven scribed lines on the inner surface of
the keel (IUYSP Archive).
layer against wear and tear, splitting, and seawater
damage.
Carpenter’s marks
A large number of scribed carpenter’s marks were
identified on the inner surfaces of the planks: some
were used to align the holes for the dowels; some mark
structural details. For example, two small scribed marks
were made on the outboard surface of the lower plank
PP2 at the start of scarf of PP3-2 (Fig. 34). Scribed
marks on the inner face of the planking indicating the
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
future placement of frames cross over plank seams. In
addition, a particular mark of the shipbuilder, three-
four parallel, stepped lines, was found on the inner
surface of the planking, on keel 1–keel 4 (Fig. 35a), on
the first wale, on the mast-step timber, and on a few
frames. A series of six or seven lines marked on the inner
surface of the keel may also have had a special purpose
(Fig. 43b). Scribe marks on the frames are fewer than
on the planks. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any
mark indicating the position of planks on the outer
surface of the frames; however, on the outer surfaces
of Fr12 and Fr14’s long arms, and on starboard futtock
Fr15 lines have been identified that are thought to mark
the position of starboard wale 2’s inboard edge.
Design, construction, and assembly
Shell strength
When we look at YK 12, it is clear that elements of
two traditions, namely shell-based and skeleton-based,
are visible in its construction and that the vessel was
built using a mixed method. Much care and effort was
applied to building the shell structure and maximizing
its strength: for example, the five keel/post timbers are
joined with keyed hook scarfs and any gaps filled with
grey resin and caulking material. Having joined the
keel timbers and posts, the construction continued with
fastening the garboards to the keel. The garboards, each
made from a single plank, were fastened with treenails
and placed on a bed of grey resin and luting applied to
the keel rabbet. Indeed, the fastening of the keel and
garboard, a feature that played a major role in hulls
built in the shell concept, continued to have importance
in mixed construction where a shell-based philosophy
still had a strong influence (Pomey, 2004: 27; Pomey
et al., 2012: 297).
The plank-edge dowels exhibit a homogeneous
distribution, positioned between 0.20m and 0.36m
apart throughout the hull up to the first wale (Fig. 36).
As they are numerous and placed at short intervals
they contribute to the strength of the hull in addition
to aligning the planking and also provide resistance
to the planking opening during a voyage. Their task,
contrary to the dowels with an uneven distribution
377
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
Figure 36. Locations of plank-edge dowels on planking plan. Grey lines mark frames (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).
found on the Bozburun vessel (Harpster, 2005a: 91),
was similar to the mortise-and-tenon joints found on
the bottom of Yassıada I (van Doorninck, 1982: 59),
Pantano Longarini (Kampbell, 2007: 53, 57) and YK 11
(Pulak et al., 2015: 49; Ingram, 2018: 110–113), ships
dated to the early 7th century AD.
The use of S-scarfs, which are one of the
characteristic features of Greco-Roman hulls, would
have maximized the strength of the hull by increasing
the contact surface of the scarf. S-scarfs were also
documented in shipwrecks such as Ma'agan Michael
dated about 400 BC (Steffy, 1994: 41; Kahanov, 1998:
155), County Hall dated late 3rd century AD (Steffy,
1994: 72; Marsden, 1974: 62), Pantano Longarini
dated early 7th century AD (Throckmorton and
Throckmorton, 1973: 262; Kampbell, 2007: 78),
Bozburun dated AD 874 (Harpster, 2005b: 255) and
several Yenikapı shipwrecks dated to the 5th–10th
centuries AD. The butt-joints observed on the vessels
thought to have been built according to the skeleton
philosophy in Yenikapı, such as YK 17 and YK 27
emphasize the difference between the two main
techniques (Türkmenoğlu, 2012; Kocabaş, 2015a: 19,
31). Similarly, the planking of the Dor/Tantura lagoon
wrecks that have been interpreted as skeleton-based
vessels, such as Dor 2001/1, Tantura A, Tantura B,
Tantura E, and Tantura F, also featured butt-joints
(Kahanov et al., 2004: 116, fig. 8.5; Barkai and
Kahanov, 2007: 29).
The planking pattern noted on YK 12 is similar
to the alternating planking arrangement reported in
the 4th-century-BC Kyrenia shipwreck (Steffy, 1985:
91–92; Steffy, 1994: 48), which is an archetype of the
shell-based construction method. This pattern was used
for the same purpose in the hull of YK 12, that is
spreading the weakness introduced by the joints around
the hull to improve the strength of the shell. This
alternation of plank placement and scarf orientation
378 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
can be seen in many other ancient Mediterranean
shipwrecks including Yassıada I, which has a mixed
construction using the shell-based method for the
bottom of the hull (Steffy, 1982: 73).
Additionally, the through-beams are fastened to
the first wale, rather than the frames, as seen on
earlier shipwrecks with shell-based construction, such
as Laurons 2 (Pomey et al., 2012: 242, 249), the County
Hall ship (Marsden, 1974: 59), and with partly shell-
based construction such as Yassıada 1 (van Doorninck,
1982: 53). This evidence suggests that a shell philosophy
had a strong influence in the construction of YK 12.
Framing pattern
Analysis has shown that the builder of YK 12 placed the
frames before completing the planking (see below) and
a skeleton-based construction philosophy is apparent
in the framing pattern and the lack of plank-edge
dowels above the first wale. It is suggested that the
transition occured just below or just above the first wale.
Some floor-timbers were attached to the assembled
lower planking shell. From this level up to wale 3, the
planks and wales were attached to these floor-timbers.
The alternating arrangement of the floor-timbers, the
fastening of most of them to the keel, and the precision
of floor-timber–futtock scarfs reflect the importance
given to the frame system. A floor-timber dominated
framing pattern was reported in the County Hall ship
dating to AD 300 (Marsden, 1974: 60), Dramont F
dating to the second half of the 4th century AD in
which pegged mortise-and-tenon joints were used in the
planking seams (Joncheray, 1977: 6), and also Parco
di Teodorico dating to the 5th century AD, which has
unpegged mortise-and-tenon joints for the planking
(Medas, 2003: 46). A similar pattern can be seen on
the Bataiguier (Jézégou et al., 1997: 35), Bozburun
(Harpster, 2005a: 93) and Serçe Limanı vessels (Steffy,
2004: 158), which are said to have been built with a
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 37. Frame (Fr14) planking treenail running into
edge-dowel (between PP4-PP3) (IUYSP Archive).
skeleton-based construction technique. However, since
the alternating floor-timbers on these vessels are used to
determine the shape of the hull and are fastened to the
keel before the planks (Harpster, 2009: 301; Harpster,
2010: 45), they differ substantially from YK 12. Even
if the frames undoubtedly provide the majority of
the transverse strength and contribute to the upper
shape of the hull, YK 12’s floor-timbers support rather
than shape the hull’s bottom because the construction
started with the planks.
It is certain that the frames strengthen the structure
of the hull and carry a significant part of the structural
load; however, the fact that the planks exhibit an
alternating pattern, like the frames, indicates that
planks were also considered important for the strength
of the hull. Put another way, the fact that the planks as
well as the frames in YK 12 have an alternating pattern,
much as the planking documented on Kyrenia (Steffy,
1985: 92) and Yassıada 1 (Steffy, 1982: 73), indicates
that the frames are not the only structures giving the
hull its strength. The builder used both the planking
and the frame system together in order to strengthen
the hull structure and spread stresses.
Assembly sequence
There are a number of indications that the bottom of
the hull was built before the frames were inserted. Many
of the treenails identified along the upper surface of the
keel that fasten the garboards were positioned under the
floor-timbers; however, no holes or pressure marks on
the underside of the corresponding floor-timbers were
found, proving that none of the floor-timbers were in
place when the garboard treenails were driven and cut.
The plank-edge dowels fastening the planking scarfs
follow a standard system regardless of the presence
of frames behind them, reinforcing the notion that
the planking was assembled before the framing. The
presence of frames would have made driving many of
the edge dowels awkward where they are placed directly
behind the dowel. In addition, many of the treenails that
fasten the frames to the planks pass through dowels in
the plank seams (Fig. 37).
Another significant detail is that none of the stealer
plank ends, in the third and fourth strakes, were
fastened to the frames. Instead, the shipbuilder attached
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Figure 38. Schema showing fastening of a plank end (I.
Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV Ç. Şanlıgençler).
the plank ends to the plank below using two dowels
spaced 0.25m apart. Between these, a single long dowel
joins the plank above, the plank end, and the plank
below (Fig. 38).
To identify the assembly sequence more precisely
the plank-edge dowels positioned at frame stations, the
intervals between dowels, and carpenter’s marks on the
inner surface planks at the corresponding frame station
were analysed in more detail. Analysis of the plank-
edge dowels under the floor-timbers showed that no
floor-timber could have been placed prior to the fifth
strake being fitted. Moreover, Fr12, the midship frame,
was placed after at least the seventh planking strake.
The floor-timbers that could have been inserted after
the seventh planking strake are Fr15, Fr21, and Fr22,
and the ones likely placed just before wale 1 are Fr4,
Fr7, Fr9, Fr10, Fr11, Fr13, Fr14, Fr16, Fr17, Fr18, E19,
Fr20, Fr23, and Fr26. A particular capenter’s mark on
the inner surface of the wale 1 corresponding to the
lower section of Fr8 was detected. This detail suggests
that Fr8 was inserted after wale 1.
One of the three important characteristics used to
determine construction sequence according to Sean
McGrail is how the ship was made watertight (McGrail,
1981: 43): for YK 12 the watertightness of the bottom of
the vessel was ensured by the planking. The long planks
start at the bow of the vessel and cover the load-bearing
areas of the hull, with the planking joints concentrated
in the curved stern.
Another indication that supports that the floor-
timbers were added after the fifth strake is the
differences in shape seen on each side of the hull. The
angle of deadrise, as indicated by the floor-timbers is
not consistent to port and starboard, for example the
deadrise angle of the starboard arm of Fr4 is wider
than that to port, while the starboard arm of Fr22 is
narrower than that to port. These differences in the
symmetry of both sides disappear after the turn-of-the-
bilge, coinciding with the fifth strake and the floor-
timber–long-futtock scarf. Above this level the sides of
the hull are a closer match. Based on this detail, the hull
bottom appears to have been formed before the floor-
timbers were placed. Following a mixed construction
concept, the bottom of the floor-timbers would have
379
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
been shaped to fit the planking, while above the turn-of-
the-bilge the framing determined the shape of the hull
(Basch, 1972: 16).
The futtocks are not fastened to the floor-timbers,
so, despite the close-fitting L-shaped scarfs, they require
the planking to support them. This situation could have
been resolved, as Beltrame and Bondioli have pointed
out (2006: 92), by the pre-installation of side planking,
battens, or the top wale. All three solutions emphasize
the importance of the longitudinal shaping of the upper
hull.
It is possible to broadly describe the process as ‘mixed
design and mixed construction’: however, this does not
adequatley describe YK 12. The vessel is evidence of a
technological transition that is thought to have begun
with increasingly loose and widely spaced mortise-and-
tenon joints from the middle of the 2nd century AD
and continued with unpegged mortise-and-tenon joints
from the end of the 4th century and the beginning
of the 5th century AD (Pomey et al., 2012: 297). The
design, construction, and assembly sequence of YK 12
reflects the 9th-century projection of a ‘longitudinal
perspective’ defined by Steffy for ancient hulls (1995:
419); it is an example of one of the last stages of
mixed construction techniques prior to the adoption of
skeleton-first principles (Hocker, 2004a; Pomey, 2004;
Pomey et al., 2012).
Comparanda
Mediterranean shipwrecks dated to the 8th–10th
centuries are few outside of Yenikapı. Tantura E,
Tantura F, and Tantura B, all dated to the 7th–9th
century and found in the Dor/Tantura Lagoon, Israel;
the Agay A, and the Bataiguier wrecks are dated to the
10th century and found off the southern coast of France
(Kahanov, 2000; Mor and Kahanov, 2006; Barkai and
Kahanov, 2007; Israeli and Kahanov, 2014; Pomey
et al., 2012: 269–272, 275–277), all have skeleton-
based features, such as planking without edge fasteners,
the garboards not joined to the keel, and planking
butt-joints. In addition, the 9th-century Bozburun
shipwreck, discovered off the south-western coast of
Turkey, which has widely spaced edge dowels, has
been presented as an example of mixed construction
with skeleton principles (Harpster, 2005a). Of the 31
merchantmen recovered at the Yenikapı site, most have
plank-edge dowels and are in this date range, making
a considerable contribution to our knowledge of ship
archaeology for this period (Pulak, 2007; Kocabaş and
Özsait-Kocabaş, 2013; Kocabaş, 2015b; Pulak et al.,
2015).
Even if the hull form of YK 12, with its flat
floors and round turn-of-the-bilge, has similarities to
Tantura B, Tantura F and Agay A at first glance,
analysis of the construction features suggests it belongs
to a completely different shipbuilding tradition. The
Bozburun shipwreck, also built in the 9th century and
found on the Turkish coast, shares common features
with YK 12, with plank-edge dowels and similar
380 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
forms of wooden elements, such as the floor-timber–
futtock joints (Harpster, 2005b: 115); however, neither
the construction sequence nor the design of YK 12
resemble the 9th-century Bozburun vessel in which
some duplicated frames based on the midships frame
were placed before the planking (Harpster, 2009: 301).
The plank-edge dowels used to align the planks have
an irregular distribution throughout the Bozburun hull
(Harpster, 2005a: 92–93). For YK 12, in constrast, the
hull planking was erected without the frames at least up
to the fifth planking strakes. The frames are therefore
not pre-designed, but rather formed to fit the shape of
the lower part of hull. This constitutes the basic design
and construction difference between Bozburun and
YK 12. Although they were built at similar dates, the
Bozburun ship tends towards a skeleton-based mixed
construction technique, whereas YK12 is representative
of a period when shell-based principles and design were
used in combination with mixed construction methods.
(Özsait-Kocabaş, 2012: 118–119).
In terms of some structural features and its
construction philosophy, YK 12 was observed to
be closer to the 5th-century wreck of Parco di
Teodorico than its contemporary vessels. For example,
its mast-step/keelson was placed directly on to the
floor-timbers and a full ceiling was fastened to
the frames with iron nails (Medas, 2003: 43). In
terms of construction philosophy, YK 12 is linked
to the early 7th-century shipwrecks: Yassıada 1
(van Doorninck, 1982); and Pantano Longarini
(Throckmorton and Throckmorton, 1973; Kampbell,
2007), which were much larger; and YK 11 (Pulak
et al., 2015: 47, 49; Ingram, 2018). These vessels have
mixed construction features, while their shapes were
determined substantially by their planking.
Yenikapı merchantmen and YK 12
Of the 37 shipwrecks discovered in the Theodosian
Harbour, six have been classified as galleys and 31
as merchant ships (Kocabaş, 2015a; Kocabaş, 2015b:
48–53; Pulak et al., 2015). Post excavation analysis
is still in progress for most of them; however, in situ
recording, photographs, and preliminary publications
provide an initial data set. Here, the focus is on the hull
construction of the Yenikapı merchant ships and their
similarities to YK 12.
Yenikapı merchantmen have been classed in three
groups based on the hull planking joints: vessels with
pegged or unpegged mortise-and-tenon joinery; vessels
with edge fasteners in the form of dowels, and vessels
without edge fasteners. Alternatively, the ships can be
classified by the geometry of the hull cross section
amidships as flat-floored or wine-glass shaped; or by
size as small, medium, and large vessels.
The merchantmen without edge-joined planking
have also been considered here to avoid missing any
clue. Briefly, most have rabbeted keels. Their planks
are joined with diagonal, butt, and three-planed scarfs
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
(Z scarfs). The framing pattern has alternating floor-
timbers and half-frames. Joints are mostly fastened with
iron nails. YK 31 differs from these with S-scarfs, and
the planking–frame fasterners include both treenails
and iron nails. The vessels without edge-joined planking
have been dated between the mid 7th century AD and
the end of the 9th century AD (Türkmenoğlu, 2012:
121–125; Kocabaş, 2015a: 29–30).
In considering YK 12 we should also mention
the earliest group of Yenikapı shipwrecks, which
have mortise-and-tenon joints. Of these, only one has
pegged mortise-and-tenons (YK 34). They are wine-
glass shaped at their midships cross-sections. They
have thick planks, and diagonal and S-shaped plank
scarfs. Their thick and closely spaced frames are
generally alternating floor-timbers and half-frames.
Stringers were nailed on to the frames. Mortise-and-
tenon fastened vessels at Yenikapı have been dated
between the 5th and the beginning of 7th centuries
AD (Kocabaş, 2015a: 8, 30; Pulak et al., 2015: 47–50;
Ingram, 2018).
Here focus is on the vessels with plank-edge dowels.
The majority have planks joined with plank-edge
dowels in the lower hulls up to the waterline; diagonal
and S-scarfs are predominantly used to join planks in
a strake; and they commonly have flat floor-timbers
amidships. The framing pattern is floor-timbers with
long arms alternating to port and starboard. The
futtocks are placed at the ends of floor-timbers in L-
shaped scarfs or placed to the fore or after sides of
floor-timbers. Floor-timbers are fastened to the keel
either with iron nails or by a combination of treenails
and iron nails. In some vessels, not all floor-timbers
are fastened to the keel. The floor-timbers have mainly
triangular or rounded limber-holes on either side of
the keel. In some vessels, the right-angled side of the
triangles are towards the keel, while in others they
face the opposite direction. The frames are generally
fastened to the planking with treenails and iron nails.
The mast-step timbers, even if their dimension and
locations are not standard, were placed directly on the
floor-timbers. The stringers are narrow, flat timbers
placed at or above the waterline. There are transverse
holes through the keels amidships and towards the
stern, presumably used for hauling the vessels ashore.
It is known that in the shipbuilding tradition of the
Black Sea region of Anatolia, a hole is cut at the centre
or towards the stern of the keel for hauling the vessels
smaller than 10m ashore; such holes were blocked when
not used (H. Bakan, a shipbuilder from Amasra, pers.
comm., October 2009). These vessels, which constitute
the majority of wrecks recovered from the Yenikapı
excavation site, date between the 7th and the late
10th centuries AD (Kocabaş and Özsait-Kocabaş, 2013:
43–44; Pulak et al, 2013: 29; Kocabaş, 2015a: 8, 29;
Pulak et al., 2015: 50–62; Jones, 2017).
The vessels with plank-edge dowels, studied by the
IU team are divided according to whether the keels
have rabbets or not. The ships without keel rabbets can
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
also be divided in two subgroups according to their
hull shapes. The first is represented by the box-shaped
YK 7 and YK 8 with very flat floors. The limber-holes
of YK 7 and YK 8 are rounded. YK 7 has bilge keels
along the hull’s bottom (Özsait and Kocabaş, 2008: 138,
150). YK5, studied by the INA fits in this group (Pulak
et al., 2015: 56, 58). The second group includes vessels
that have a very shallow deadrise angle: these are YK 6,
YK 9, and YK 20. For YK 1, it is reported that its keel
was rockered and lacking rabbets (Pulak et al., 2013:
33, Pulak et al., 2015: 61). Bilge keels or runners are
also reported in YK 24 (Pulak et al., 2015: 58). YK 1
and YK 24 are classified in one of these two subgroups
according to their structural characteristics.
The vessels with plank-edge dowels and rabbeted
keels are YK 3, YK 12, YK 15, YK 18, YK 21, YK 30,
and YK 32.3 These are discussed in two subgroups
according to the framing pattern. The first subgroup
with shallow (YK 12 and YK 21) or a curved (YK 18)
garboards, and a round turn-of-the-bilge, has a framing
pattern of floor-timbers with long arms alternating to
port and starboard side. YK 14, studied by the INA
fits in this group (Pulak et al., 2015: 54–55; Jones, 2017:
259). YK 20 has curved keel timbers with rabbets. The
possibility that the central keel with no rabbet is a
replacement piece is suspected; if so, YK 20 can be
considered in this subgroup.
The other subgroup is represented by YK 3, which
has hollow garboards or a wine-glass-shaped hull. YK 3
was built with a framing pattern of alternating floor-
timbers and half-frames. Futtocks were placed on the
L-shaped ends of the half-frames or to the fore or
after side of the floor-timbers (Çetiner, 2013: 61). With
hollow garboards and a round turn-of-the-bilge or
wine-glass-shaped hull, YK 32 and YK 23 are also
likely to be in this subgroup (Pulak et al., 2015: 52).
This subgroup, with its hull shape and framing pattern,
resembles ancient Mediterranean ships (Pomey, 2004:
Pomey et al., 2012: 298).
YK 12 has the some of the characteristics of the
Yenikapı shipwrecks with plank-edge dowels; however,
there are some differences in terms of construction
characteristics and the variety of use of wood species
used. With its rabbeted keel, YK 12 resembles YK 18
and YK 21. The stern of YK 14 is narrower than the
bow, as in YK 12 (Pulak et al., 2015: 54; Jones, 2017:
254), which is one of the rare Yenikapı vessels that
closely resembles YK 12 in its construction features.
However, certain YK 12 features find similarities in
other Yenikapı shipwrecks. The slightly rockered keel of
YK 12 resembles YK 1 (Pulak et al., 2013: 33), YK 6,
and YK 7. S-shaped scarfs were predominanatly used
in YK 1, YK 3, YK 9, YK 14, YK 15, YK18, YK 20,
YK 21, YK 32 and YK 31, though without plank-edge
fasteners; and YK11, YK22 and YK35 with mortise-
and-tenon (Kocabaş, 2015a: 8; Pulak et al., 2015: 61;
Jones, 2017: 262; Ingram, 2018: 114).
The garboards of YK 14, similarly to YK 12, were
fastened to the keel with treenails that were driven
381
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
diagonally from the outboard surface of the planks,
and additionally with iron nails (Jones, 2017: 262).
Garboards fastened with treenails in keel rabbets
were observed on the curved keel timber of YK 20.
YK 7, YK 8, and YK 9 have keels without rabbets
but with treenails fastening the garboards to the
keel.
The other shipwrecks, in addition to YK 12, where a
combination of treenails, iron nails, and no fastneners
are identified in the floor-timber–keel joints are YK 6,
YK 7 and YK 24 (Özsait and Kocabaş, 2008: 104, 132–
134; Pulak et al., 2015: 58).
The triangular limber-holes with the vertical side
facing the keel as in YK 12, are also present in
YK 5, YK 6, YK 9, YK 18, YK 21, in YK 34 with
mortise-and-tenon, and in YK 31 and YK 27 without
edge-joints (Özsait and Kocabaş, 2008: 110, 131, 145;
Pulak et al., 2015: 56;).
Bulkhead components were found in other vessels.
The ones that have similar characteristics to YK 12
are YK 20 and YK 14. These vessels have grooved
futtocks and floor-timbers without grooves. In contrast
to YK 12 and YK 20, YK 14 has bulkheads located
forward of midships (Pulak et al., 2015: 55; Güler,
2017). Another system with grooves cut in the inner
surface of the floor-timber is seen on YK 3 and YK 21,
while YK 29 andYK 31 (without edge-joints) and
YK 11 (with mortise-and-tenons) have bulkhead bases
on the floor-timbers (Çetiner, 2013: 62; Kocabaş, 2015a:
17, figs 18–20; Jones, 2017: 265; Ingram, 2018: 127).
Through-beams, or their positions, have so far been
detected in only a few of the Yenikapı ships. The
through-beams of YK 20, YK 11, and YK 12 were
positioned towards the stern, next to the bulkheads
(Güler, 2017; Ingram, 2018: 129). In YK 5 and YK 14
the through-beams were fitted slightly forward of
midships (Pulak et al., 2015: 54, 57).
The wood genera/species used in YK 12 were also
preferred for some of the other merchantmen with
plank-edge dowels found at the Yenikapı site. The keel
timbers of YK 6 were made of hornbeam, while those of
YK 8 and YK 20 are made of beech, resembling the keel
of YK 12. One of the wales of YK 20 is oak, as in YK 12.
Ash was used in a few frames of YK 3 and YK 29,
which has no edge-joints; walnut was used in a few
frames of YK 6, YK 8, and YK 35, which has planking
with mortise-and-tenon joints. White oak is the wood
type preferred for frames in most Yenikapı ships. In the
samples from YK 12 identified at species level, some
floor-timbers were white oak (Akkemik, 2015: Jones,
2017: 255).
The predominant wood genera of the shipwrecks that
have the keels without rabbets and plank-edge dowels
are chestnut for the planks and white oak for the frames.
Of the shipwrecks that have rabetted keels and plank-
edge dowels, the use of chestnut has only been identified
in the planks of YK 32 and YK 18, other than YK 12.
It might be concluded that a few chestnut timbers of
YK 29, which has no edge fasteners, are indication of a
382 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
repair carried out in the north of Anatolia rather than
being characteristic of its construction. In contrast,
almost half of the planks and a part of the ceiling of
YK 31, which has no edge-joints, are chestnut.
It is noted that YK 12 most resembles the ships
that have keels without rabbets (YK 6, YK 7, YK 8,
YK 9, and YK 20), in terms of planking wood species.
However, the specific use of ash for the futtocks was not
detected in any other vessel.
Vessels with plank-edge dowels differ from the
other Yenikapı vessels in their dimensions and
construction features such as framing patterns and
wood species/types. Predominant wood types of the
vessels with mortise-and-tenons, dated before the
7th century, are Mediterranean cypress and red oak
(Akkemik, 2015: 188). For the vessels without edge-
joints, dated to the 7th–9th century, stone pine and oak
species were found to be the predominant wood used in
YK 17, YK 27, and YK 28, and Mediterranean cypress
and Turkish pine in YK 10 and YK 29. The trees used
for these two groups originate from the Aegean and
Mediterranean regions (Akkemik, 2015: 188).
The hull of YK 14, which resembles YK 12 in terms
of construction features such as fastening of the plank
ends, keel-garboard fastening system, and bulkhead
timbers, is primarily built of Turkey oak, a type of
red oak (Jones, 2017: 255). Turkey oak grows almost
everywhere in Anatolia (Akkemik, 2015: 199).
YK12 can be placed with the small-sized vessels with
flat floors and plank-edge dowels, built with chestnut
planking (YK 7, YK 8, YK 6, YK 9, and YK 20).
It is suggested that this group belongs to a regional
type from the Marmara and Black Sea area (Akkemik,
2015: 188). This situation corresponds to the routes
used for trade activities from the Theodosian Harbour
(Asal, 2010: 156). But when technology is considered,
YK 12 lies between those with hull types similar to the
ancient Mediterranean ships and those that have no
keels rabbets.
Reconstruction
Considering the time elapsed since deposition, the
bottom of YK 12 was well preserved: minimal changes
to the shapes and dimensions of timber elements
were observed. According to reconstruction studies,
to starboard only one wale and two planking strakes
were missing between the existing 9th strake and the
uppermost wale 3. To port, planks above the 8th strake
were lost. The ends of the planks following the second
strake in the bow and the fifth strake in the stern were
broken towards the ends and were lost above the curved
keel timbers (keel 2 and 4). In contrast to the hull
bottom, which maintained its integrity, the majority of
the futtocks, deck and upper elements, mast, rigging,
and steering components were not found (Fig. 39).
Information derived from other Yenikapı shipwrecks
have contributed to the reconstruction of YK 12 to
complete its missing parts. Likewise, the image of a
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI
Figure 39. Preserved hull remains and the reconstructed lines (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV H. Güler and Ç. Şanlıgençler).
ship with a lateen sail on a 9th-century amphora
found in the excavation site (Günsenin and Rieth,
2012) (Fig. 40) is invaluable considering the few
iconographic sources dated to this century. Ship images
on 9th-century manuscripts, such as the Homilies of St
Gregory of Nazianzus (Galavaris, 1969; Zafiropoulou,
1997), and archaeological and ethnographic examples
of vessels from the Marmara and Black Sea region
with similar dimensions as YK 12, have also helped to
develop hypotheses regarding the missing parts of the
vessel.
A reconstruction based on attempting to maximize
the use of the tangible data with precision and accuracy
was initiated. First, a plan was made by placing the
disarticulated pieces found around the hull in place.
The hull was found listing 12° to starboard, thus, the
plans were digitally righted. Afterwards, missing parts
of existing members of the hull were estimated. Planks
PP2, PS2, PP3, and PS3 at the bow; PS5, PS5, and PS6
at the stern are intact or with only small pieces broken
from the ends. The curve of the posts at the bow and
stern are calculated according to the shapes of these
planks, enabling the widest and the narrowest possible
angles of the posts to be determined.
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
For the purposes of the reconstruction it was
assumed that the both sides of the ship’s hull were
symmetrical in the longitudinal axis. This approach, as
a starting point, was appropriate since the asymmetrical
bottom of the hull survived intact, while the less
complete sides appeared symmetrical above the turn-of-
bilge. The position of missing futtocks was determined
following the existing floor-timbers. The starboard
strakes were mirrored to port and the missing floor-
timbers completed.
At this stage, a physical 3D research model at a 1/10
scale was constructed. This model yielded clues about
the shape and dimensions of the missing floor-timbers
and the course of the missing planking ends. The keel
and frames (actual and estimated) were assembled, then
scaled copies of the planks were cut from balsa and
attached to the frames by matching up nail holes. The
strakes were extended to the posts, enabling the angle
of the planks and the height at which they met the
posts to be determined. The same method was used
for wale 1. Wale 1, which is broken near the bow and
stern, helped to accurately determine the hull form at
the waterline. Similarly, possible forms for the posts
at the waterline were estimated by extending the ends
383
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
Figure 40. The amphora from the Yenikapı site with a
depiction of a lateen-rigged ship (Istanbul Archaeological
Museums Archive).
of wale 1. The shape of the posts above this were
estimated by trial and error using the physical 3D
model and referring to descriptions in the Homilies of
St Gregory of Nazianzus dated c.880 (Omont, 1929:
plate CXVII.16, LII). Wale 3 and the caprail assisted
in increasing the accuracy of the proposed sheer line.
The builder’s precision and the regularity of patterns
in the construction also helped us to apprehend the
system used. Missing parts of the YK 12 vessel were
estimated from clues such as the framing and planking
patterns, pressure marks and nail holes found on
the planking and the frames related to the upper
members. For example, the marks on Fr6 are possibly
for a stanchion supporting a partial deck at the bow
(Fig. 41) and dowels on the inner surface of Fr20
are evidence of the location of a missing bulkhead
stanchion. The bulkhead structure and through-beam
mortises indicate that the vessel had a compartment
towards the stern.
The mast-step timber is the principal indicator of
the rigging system. The small size of the vessel and
lack of any other mortise on the inner surface of the
floor-timbers suggests that YK12 had a single mast.
There is a small mortise for a stanchion in front of the
mast-step. A mast-partner through-beam might have
been located above this mortise fastened to wale 2,
since there is no evidence for it on PS9 or wale 1. In
384 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Figure 41. A pressure mark, nail, and a carpenter’s mark on
the inner surface of Fr6 (IUYSP Archive).
addition, two toggles found inside the hull are evidence
of rigging equipment. A similar toggle was found in the
Tantura B ship, which had a lateen sail and is dated
to the 9th century AD (Polzer, 2008: 227). Byzantine
ship depictions portray lateen sail and pairs of quarter
rudders (Albani, 1997: 82, 84; Evgenidou, 1997: 37–
38). Also, Yassıada 1 (Steffy, 1982: 85; Castro, 2008:
351), Bozburun (Harpster, 2009: 297–298) and Serçe
Limanı (Matthews, 2004) reconstructions have used
archaeological evidence from these ships to suggest
lateen sails and a pair of quarter rudders in each
case.
YK 12 was likely propelled by a single-mast, lateen-
sail rig and steered with a pair of quarter rudders, as was
characteristic of the period (Casson, 1994: 19; Pryor,
2004: 43). These parts are proposed as hypotheses in the
reconstruction of YK1 2, based on the archaeological
evidence, iconographic and ethnographic images, and
according to the dimensions and structural features of
the vessel. The hypothesized support mechanism and
size of the quarter rudders were tested during the first
sailing trials of a full-scale reconstruction of the ship
launched in 2017.
The amphoras were found in the middle of the hull.
The ceiling plank C23 stopped on frame Fr6 at the
bow. A pressure mark on this frame corresponds to
a possible stanchion for a partial deck on which the
anchors could have been placed, perhaps with ropes
and other equipment stowed beneath. Examples of such
equipment were found in the bow of YK 1 (Pulak
et al., 2015: 59). There was no ceiling between Fr18
and Fr20. The bulkhead structure at these frames may
have delimited the hold. No knees or other evidence,
such as mortises, nail holes, or pressure marks on the
ceiling planks, were found that would suggest a full
deck, so it is suggested that the hold was open, which
accords with the ship’s small size. Also, the narrow
freeboard of the vessel would make a complete deck
impractical. A partial deck at the stern would have
provided space for handling the quarter rudders. No
finds other than a few amphoras were found in this
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Figure 42. Reconstruction drawing showing sources of evidence used (I.Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV H. Güler and Ç. Şanlıgençler).

area of YK 12. Stowage beneath the stern may have
been used for cargo or more valuable goods, or used
to shelter the crew in stormy weather, or to sleep. As
the upper parts of the vessel were not found, there is no
firm evidence for the location of the decks, such as deck
beams or decking; however, ethnographic and other
archaeological examples provide some information.
The Parco di Teodorico boat had an open hold and
short decks at the bow and stern (Medas, 2003: 45). It
was assumed that YK 14 also had fore and aft decks

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 385
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2
Figure 43. Reconstructed linesplan of YK 12 (I. Özsait-Kocabaş, PDV M.O. Avcı).
(Jones, 2017: 274–275). Beside these, side decks can be
proposed to facilitate movement along the vessel as the
cargo would have completely filled the central part of
YK12. Side decks are seen on small vessels in the Black
Sea and the Sea of Marmara.
YK12’s hypothetical reconstruction drawings were
realized using both hand and digital drawings (Fig. 42).
Since archaeological ship forms may be less even than
modern ship drawing programs allow for, the linesplan
for YK12 was drawn by hand. The drawings also took
account of the 3D model studies. Then, the vessel’s
lines were created digitally based on numeric values
from offset tables using NAPA software, as were the
hydrostatic properties (Fig. 42).
The AutoCAD drawings made from 3D
measurements taken using a Total Station of the
timbers in situ and the full-scale individual timber
drawings realized with a FaroArm digitizer and
Rhinoceros 4 software at the Yenikapı Shipwrecks
Research Centre of Istanbul University were
superimposed by reducing them to the same scale
digitally to create a detailed 3D digital model of
the hull in situ. The completed drawings of missing
parts following the results of the reconstruction
studies were combined with this 3D digital hull,
using 3D Studio max software. This hypothetical
digital model was used in the initial calculations of
the shape of the hull. In addition, it was used to
create several digital illustrations of the hull. As a
full-scale sailing reconstruction of YK12 was planned,
386 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
reconstruction drawings were drawn covering all details
of construction based on working systems.
The results suggest a length overall (LOA) of a
minimum 9.24m, a beam (Bm) of 2.64m, and depth
(D) of 1.10m. The reconstructed length-to-beam ratio
of the vessel is 3.5:1. The hold, if full to the beam,
was approximately 3.20m long, and carried an average
210 or maximum of 250 amphoras. Displacement
is calculated as c.5.2 tonnes and the estimated
cargo capacity of the vessel is approximately 3.26
tonnes at the loaded waterline. The loaded waterline
(WL3 on the reconstruction) was located at wale 2
(Figs 34, 43).
Following completion of the reconstructed plan, the
sections and the linesplans, preparations for a full-scale
sailing reconstruction of YK 12 were started. It was
built according to the original hull shape, dimensions,
and tree species. Construction features, such as the
framing and planking pattern, keel-timber scarfs, and
plank scarfs were built following the original vessel.
The aim was to create a vessel with the form and
dimensions of a 9th-century ship as a physical and
visual resource. The reconstruction was completed in
collaboration with the RMK Marine shipyard team,
and the IU Yenikapı Shipwrecks Project team in May
2016. It was financed within the ‘LIMEN: Cultural
Ports from the Aegean to the Black Sea’ project within
the framework of the European Union, Cross-Border
Cooperation Programme in the ENPI Black Sea Basin.
(Fig. 44).
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Figure 44. Full-scale sailing reconstruction of Yenikapı 12 (IUYSP Archive).

Conclusions curved stem and sternpost. Besides fair-weather sailing,

YK 12’s wide bow would have increased its ability to
Yenikapı 12 is a small merchant vessel that sank
weather light storms, while its low-draught and flat-
in the 9th century in the Theodosian Harbour
bottom would have allowed it easy access to shallow
of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine
harbours and bays, beaching, and even navigating
Empire, where maritime trade was intense. This
rivers. Its dimensions are estimated as: length overall
date corresponds to the period when economic and
9.24m, beam 2.64m, and depth 1.10m.
political troubles such as Bulgar and Arab sieges,
Merchant ships have always been constructed
civil rebellions, and iconoclastic movements, began to
with their economic function in mind (Unger, 1980:
subside (Haldon, 2007: 102–103; Norwich, 2011: 45);
26). Function must have influenced the design and
the routes changed from the eastern Mediterranean to
construction of YK 12. In the area of the hold, the
the Aegean islands and the Black Sea (Asal, 2010: 156);
angle of deadrise is as small as possible—at Fr 12
new practices in trade were indroduced such as the
it is 4 degrees and at Fr11 it is 6 degrees—and the
State promoting private initiatives instead of holding a
turn-of-the-bilge was slightly curved. The widest part
quasi-monopoly (Dagron, 2002: 451, Magdalino, 2002:
of the vessel was designed a little forward of centre.
532); and vessels were built and may have been used by
Even if this feature reduced speed, it expanded the
the independent merchants who owned them.
cargo area located towards the bow. The hull was
According to reconstruction results, YK 12 was a
designed so as to increase the cargo capacity despite its
small merchantman working coastal waters. It was
small size for coastal trade on short, safe routes.
likely propelled by a single-mast, lateen-sail rig and
We don’t know where YK 12’s captain would have
steered by two quarter rudders, which is characteristic
set sail to from the Theodosian Harbour had it not
of the period (Evgenidou, 1997: 38; Pryor, 2004: 43).
sunk, but the vessel then started on a journey that
It had a storage compartment near the stern, and
has transported knowledge of 9th-century shipbuilding
bow, stern, and side decks. As for the shape of the
technology to the 21st century, a destination that its
hull, its plan was wide in the bow and amidships,
builder could never have imagined.
tapering towards the stern. It had a rockered keel, and a

Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, to Zeynep Kızıltan and Rahmi Asal; to
the Istanbul University Yenikapı Shipwrecks Project team, particularly to the project chairman, Professor Ufuk Kocabaş; to
Professor Abdi Kükner, Professor Ünal Akkemik, Dr Evren Türkmenoğlu, Taner Güler, Dr Namık Kılıç, Dr Gökçe Kılıç Can
Ciner, Hakan Kahraman, Ayşegül Çetiner-Dinçer, Erkan Baloğlu, Çağlar Çakır, Gökçe Turan Teker, Ebru Ertuğrul-Kocaçınar,
Gökçe Eğin, İlker Kızılçay, Deniz Öztekin-Eke and Mehmet Sağır, Hilal Güler, Çisil Şanlıgençler, Serhat Keskin; to RMK Marine

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 387
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Shipyard team Özgür Numan, Orhan Can, M. Oğuz Avcı, Tayfun Bilgili, Mercan Tara Şişman; to Dr Orkun Köyağasıoğlu; to
lecturer Taner Karakoç, Dr Bilge Özsait-Selçuk, Seçil Kocabaş. The Yenikapı Shipwrecks Project was supported by the Istanbul
University Scientific Research Projects Unit (Project no: 2294, 3907, 7381, 12765).

Notes
1. Istanbul University team 27 shipwrecks, INA team 8 shipwrecks and IAM team 2 shipwrecks.
2. OxA-13836 1246 ± 25 BP (cal AD 681–870 at 95.4% probability), OxA-23837 1233 ± 24 BP (cal AD 690–751), OxA-23838
1258 ± 25 BP (cal AD 672–818).
3. The framing pattern of YK 15 andYK 30 could not be determined because their frames were lost.

References
Akkemik, Ü., 2015, Yenikapı Shipwrecks Volume II: Woods of Yenikapı Shipwrecks/ Yenikapı Batıkları Cilt II: Yenikapı
Batıklarının Ahşapları. Istanbul.
Albani, J., 1997, Sea Journey, Journeys on the Seas of Byzantium, D. Zafiropoulou (ed.), 82–87. Athens.
Asal, R., 2010, Theodosian Harbor and Sea Trade in Byzantine Istanbul, in U. Kocabaş (ed.), Istanbul Archaeological Museums,
Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations 5th–6th May 2008, 153–160. Istanbul.
Ashburner, W. (ed.), 1909, Nόµος Pοδιῶν Nαυτ ικός : The Rhodian Sea-Law. Edited from the Manuscripts. Oxford.
Barkai, O. and Kahanov, Y., 2007, The Tantura F Shipwreck, Israel. IJNA 36.1, 21–31.
Basch, L., 1972, Ancient Shipwrecks and the Archaeology of Ships. IJNA 1, 1–58.
Beltrame, C. and Bondioli, M., 2006, A Hypothesis on the Development of Mediterranean Ship Construction from Antiquity to
the Late Middle Ages, in L. Blue, F. Hocker and A. Englert (eds), Connected by the Sea, Proceedings of the tenth International
Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 89–94. Oxford.
Bockius, R., 2006, Coating, Sheathing, Caulking and Luting in the ancient shipbuilding, in L. Blue, F. Hocker and A. Englert
(eds), Connected by the Sea, Proceedings of the tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003,
117–122. Oxford.
Bortoli, A. and Kazanski, M., 2002, Kherson and Its Region, in A. E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From
the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 659–65. Washington, DC.
Casson, L., 1994, Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times. London.
Castro, F., Fonseca, N., Vacas, T. and Ciciliot, F., 2008, A Quantitative Look at Mediterranean Lateen-and Square- Rigged Ships
(Part 1). IJNA 37.2, 347–359.
Çetiner, A., 2013, Yenikapı 3: A Merchantman Carring the Past, in Z. Kızıltan (ed.), Stories from the Hidden Harbor: The
Shipwrecks of Yenikapı, 56–63. Istanbul.
Dagron, G., 2002, The Urban Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries, in A. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From
the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 393–461. Washington DC.
Denker, A., Demirkök, F., Kiraz, M., and Akbaytogan, T., 2013, YK 12, in Z. Kızıltan (ed.), Stories from the Hidden Harbor:
The Shipwrecks of Yenikapı, 197–209. Istanbul.
Dinçel, H., Çelebi, N., and Şanıvar, N., 1977, Ağaç Teknolojisi. Istanbul.
Evgenidou, D., 1997, Byzantine Shipbuilding, Journeys on the Seas of Byzantium, D. Zafiropoulou (ed.), 32–39. Athens.
Galavaris, G., 1969, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus, Studies in Manuscript Illumination 6.
Princeton.
Gökçay, M., 2010, Selected Wooden Finds from Yenikapı, in U. Kocabaş (ed.), Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Proceedings
of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations 5th–6th May 2008, 135–152. Istanbul.
Güler, T., 2017, Construction Technique of theYenikapı 20 Shipwreck, Found in the Harbour of Theodosius (İstanbul, Turkey),
in J. Gawronski, A. van Holk and J. Schokkenbroek (eds), Ships And Maritime Landscapes: Proceeding of the Thirteenth
International Symposium On Boat and Ship Archaeology Amsterdam 2012, 280–282. Amsterdam.
Günsenin, G., 2016, Ganos Limanı’ndan Portus Theodosiacus’a, in P. Magdalino and N. Necipoğlu (eds), Trade in Byzantium:
Papers from the Third International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, İstanbul 24–27 June 2013, 399–402. Istanbul.
Günsenin, N. and Rieth, E., 2012, Un Graffito de Bateau à Voile Latine Sur Une Amphore (IXe s. ap. J.-C.) du Portus Theodosiacus
(Yenikapı), Anatolia Antiqua 20.1, 157–164.
Haldon, J., 2007, Bizans Tarih Atlası, A. Özdamar (transl.). Istanbul.
Harpster, M., 2005a, Dowels as a Means of Edge-to-Edge Joinery in the 9th-Century AD Vessel from Bozburun, Turkey. IJNA
34.1, 88–94.
Harpster, M., 2005b, A Re-assembly and Reconstructıon of The 9th-Century AD Vessel Wrecked off The Coast of Bozburun, Turkey,
PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, Department of Anthropology. College Station, TX.
Harpster, M., 2009, Designing the 9th-Century-AD Vessel from Bozburun, Turkey. IJNA 38.2, 297–313.
Harpster, M., 2010, Designing the 11th-Century AD Vessel from Serçe Limanı, Turkey. IJNA 39.1, 44–55.
Hocker, F.M., Bozburun Byzantine Shipwreck Excavation: The Final Campain 1998. The INA Quarterly 25.4, 3–13.
Hocker, F.M., 2004a, Shipbuilding: Philosophy, Practice, and Research, in F. M. Hocker and C. A. Ward (eds), The Philosophy
of Shipbuilding: Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Wooden Ships, 1–11. College Station, TX.
Hocker, F.M., 2004b, Tools, in G.F. Bass, S.D. Matthews, J.R. Steffy and F.H. van Doorninck Jr. (eds), Serçe Limanı, An
Eleventh-Century Shipwreck: The Ship and Its Anchorage, Crew and Passengers, Vol. 1, 297–326, College Station, TX.

388 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
I. ÖZSAIT-KOCABAŞ: YK 12: A 9TH-CENTURY MERCHANTMAN FROM YENIKAPI

Israeli, E. and Kahanov, Y., 2014, The 7th–9th Century Tantura E Shipwreck, Israel: Construction and Reconstruction. IJNA
43.2, 369–388.
Ingram, R., 2018, The Hull of Yenikapı Shipwreck YK 11: a 7th-century merchant vessel from Constantinople’s Theodosian
Harbour. IJNA 47.1, 103–139.
Jézégou, M.P., Joncheray, A. and Joncheray, J. P., 1997, Les Épaves Sarrasines d’Agay et de Cannes. Archéologia 337, 32–9.
Joncheray, J.-P., 1977, Mediterranean Hull Types Compared 2. Wreck F from Cape Dramont (Var), France. IJNA 6.1, 3–7.
Jones, M., 2017, The Hull Construction of Yenikapı 14 (YK 14), a Middle Byzantine Shipwreck from Constantinople’s
Theodosian Harbour, İstanbul, Turkey. IJNA 46.2, 253–283.
Kahanov, Y., 1998, The Ma'agan Mikhael ship (Israël), A Comparative Study of its Hull Construction. Archaeonautica 14.1,
155–160.
Kahanov, Y., 2000, Tantura B Shipwreck, A Preliminary Report on its Hull Construction, in J. Litwin (ed.), Down the River to
the Sea: Proceedings of the eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 1997, 151–154.
Kahanov, Y., Royal, J. and Hall, J., 2004, The Tantura Wrecks and Ancient Mediterranean Shipbuilding, in F. M. Hocker and C.
A. Ward (eds), The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Wooden Ships, 113–127. College Station,
TX.
Kampbell, S.M., 2007, The Pantano Longarini Shipwreck: A Reanalysis, unpublished MA thesis, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX.
Katzev, M.L., 1982, Iron Objects, in G.F. Bass, and F.H. van Doorninck Jr., Yassı Ada, Vol. I: A Seventh-century Byzantine
Shipwreck, 231–265. College Station, TX.
Kaygın, B. and Aytekin, A., 2005, Ahşap Tekne Konstrüksiyonu, ZKÜ Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 7.7, 14–23.
Kızıltan, Z., 2010, Excavations at Yenikapı, Sirkeci and Üsküdar within Marmaray and Metro Projects, in U. Kocabaş (ed.),
Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations 5th–6th May
2008, 1–16. Istanbul.
Kocabaş, U. (ed.), 2008, The ‘Old Ships’ of the ‘New Gate’ 1, Yenikapı Shipwrecks, Vol. I. Istanbul.
Kocabaş, U. (ed.), 2010, Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage
Excavations 5th–6th May 2008. Istanbul.
Kocabaş, U., 2015a, The Yenikapı Byzantine-Era Shipwrecks, Istanbul, Turkey: A Preliminary Report and Inventory of the 27
Wrecks Studied by Istanbul University. IJNA 44.1, 1–35.
Kocabaş, U., 2015b, Geçmişe Açılan Kapı, Yenikapı Batıkları. İstanbul.
Kocabaş, U. and Özsait-Kocabaş, I., 2013, A New Milestone in Ship Archaeology: The Yenikapı Shipwrecks Project, in Z.
Kızıltan (ed.), Stories From The Hidden Harbor Shipwrecks of Yenikapı, 35–46. İstanbul.
Laiou, A. E., 2002, Exchange and Trade, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries, in A. E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium:
From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 697–770. Washington, DC.
Liou, B., 1974, L’épave Romaine de L’anse Gerbal (Port-Vendres), Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, Vol. 118.3, 414–433.
Magdalino, P., 2002, Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development, in A. Laiou (ed.), The Economic
History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 529–537. Washington DC.
Marsden, P., 1974, The County Hall Ship, London. IJNA 3.1, 55–65.
Matthews, S. D., 2004, Evidence for the Rig of the Serçe Limanı Ship, in G. F. Bass and F. H. van Doorninck Jr., Yassı Ada, Vol.
I: A Seventh-century Byzantine Shipwreck, 32–64. College Station, TX.
Medas, S., 2003, The Late-Roman ‘Parco di Teodorico’ Wreck, Ravenna, Italy: Preliminary Remarks on the Hull and the
Shipbuilding, in C. Beltrame (ed.), Boats, Ships and Shipyards: Proceeding of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and
Ship Archaeology Venice 2000, 42–48. Oxford.
Mor, H. and Kahanov, Y., 2006, The Dor 2001/1 Shipwreck, Israel. IJNA 35.2, 274–89.
Morrisson, C., 2013, Trading in Wood in Byzantium: Exchange and Regulations, in P. Magdalino and N. Necipoğlu (eds), Trade
in Byzantium, 105–127. İstanbul.
Norwich, J.J., 2011, Byzantium, The Apogee. New York.
Nutku A. and Küçük, F., 1963, Türk Kıyı Tekneleri I ‘Çektirme’ ‘Gulet’, İTÜ Gemi Enstitüsü Bülteni 8, 1–36.
Omont, H.A., 1929, Miniatures des Plus Ancients Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale. Paris.
Özsait-Kocabaş, I., 2013, The Centuries Long Voyage of Ship Yenikapı 12, in Z. Kızıltan (ed.), Stories From The Hidden Harbor
Shipwrecks of Yenikapı, 47–55. İstanbul.
Özsait-Kocabaş, I., 2012, Hull Characteristics of the Yenikapı 12 Shipwreck, in N. Günsenin (ed.), Between Continents:
Proceeding of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Istanbul 2009, 115–120. Istanbul.
Özsait-Kocabaş, I. and Kocabaş, U., 2008, V. Technological and Constructional Features of Yenikapı Shipwrecks: A Preliminary
Evaluation, in U. Kocabaş (ed.) The ‘Old Ships’ of the ‘New Gate’ 1, Yenikapı Shipwrecks, Vol. I, 97–186. Istanbul.
Perinçek, D., 2010, Geoarchaeology of the Excavation Site for the Last 8000 Years and Traces of Natural Catastrophes in the
Geological Profile, in U. Kocabaş (ed.), Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-
Metro Salvage Excavations 5th–6th May 2008, 191–217. Istanbul.
Pla Y Rave, E., 1996, Construcción Naval y Madera: Extracto del Libro Editado en Madrid el año 1880 ‘Tratado de Maderas de
Construcción Civil y Naval’. Madrid.
Polat, M.A., 2016, Yenikapı’nın Yükleriyle Batmış Gemileri, in P. Magdalino and N. Necipoğlu (eds), Trade in Byzantium: Papers
from the Third International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, İstanbul 24–27 June 2013, 379–398. Istanbul.
Polzer, M.E., 2008, Toggles and Sails in the Ancient World: Riggigng Elements Recovered from the Tantura B Shipwreck, Israel.
IJNA 37.2, 225–252.

© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 389
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 47.2

Pomey, P., 2004, Principles and Methods of Construction in Ancient Naval Architecture, in F.M. Hocker and C.A. Ward (eds),
The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Wooden Ships, 25–36. College Station, TX.
Pomey, P., Kahanov, Y. and Rieth, E., 2012, Transition from Shell to Skeleton in Ancient Mediterranean Ship-Construction:
Analysis, Problems, and Future Research. IJNA 41.2, 235–314.
Pryor, J.H., 2004, Akdeniz’de Coğrafya, Teknoloji ve Savaş, Araplar, Bizanslılar, Batılılar ve Türkler, F. Tayanç and T. Tayanç
(trans). İstanbul.
Pulak, C., 2007, Yenikapı Batıkları: Fırtınanın Armağanı. ArkeoAtlas 6, 128–141.
Pulak, C., Ingram, R., Jones, M., Matthews, S., 2013, The Shipwrecks of Yenikapı and Their Contribution to the Study of Ship
Construction, in Z. Kızıltan (ed.), Stories From The Hidden Harbor Shipwrecks of Yenikapı, 22–34. İstanbul.
Pulak, C., Ingram, R., Jones, M., 2015, Eight Byzantine Shipwrecks from the Theodosian Harbour Excavations at Yenikapı in
Istanbul, Turkey: an introduction. IJNA 44.1, 39–73.
Santamaria, C., 1995, L’épave Dramont ‘E’ À Saint-Raphaël (Ve siecle ap. J.-C.). Archaeonautica 13. Paris.
Steffy, J.R., 1982, Reconstructing the Hull, in G.F. Bass and F.H. van Doorninck Jr (eds), Yassı Ada Vol. I: Seventh-Century
Byzantine Shipwreck, 65–86. College Station, TX.
Steffy, J.R., 1985, The Kyrenia Ship. An Interim Report on its Hull Construction. American Journal of Archaeology 89.1, 71–101.
Steffy, J.R., 1994, Wooden Ship Building and The Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station, TX.
Steffy, J.R., 1995, Ancient Scantlings: the Projection and Control of Mediterranean Hull Shapes, in H. Tzalas (ed.), Tropis III:
3rd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens 1989, 417–428. Athens.
Steffy, J.R., 2004, Construction and Analysis of the Vessel, in G.F. Bass, S.D. Matthews, J.R. Steffy and F.H. van Doorninck Jr,
Serçe Limanı. An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. Vol. I, The Ship and Anchorage, Crew and Passengers, 153–170. College Station,
TX.
Throckmorton, P. and Throckmorton J., 1973, The Roman Wreck at Pantano Longarini. IJNA 2.2, 243–66.
Trakadas, A., 2014, A Sea in Transition: Ships of the Mediterranean, in S.M. Sindbæk and A. Trakadas (eds), The World in the
Viking Age, 82–85. Roskilde.
Turna, İ. and Pirim, A.E., 2015, A Study About The Brief History of the Vessel Named ‘Çektirme’ and its Role on the Commercial
Activities of Its Age. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12, 119–135.
Türkmenoğlu, E., 2012, Preliminary Report on the Yenikapı 17 Shipwreck, in N. Günsenin (ed.) Between Continents: Proceedings
of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Istanbul 2009, 121–125. Istanbul.
Unger, R.W., 1980, The Ship in the Medieval Economy 600–1600. London.
van Doorninck, F.H., Jr, 1982, The Hull Remains, in G.F. Bass, and F.H. van Doorninck Jr, Yassı Ada, Vol. I: A Seventh-century
Byzantine Shipwreck, 32–64. College Station, TX.
van Doorninck, F. H., Jr, 2002, Byzantine Shipwrecks, in A.E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From the
Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 899–905. Washington, DC.
Vroom, J., 2016, Byzantine Sea Trade in Ceramics: Some Case Studies in the Eastern Mediterranean, in P. Magdalino and N.
Necipoğlu (eds), Trade in Byzantium: Papers from the Third International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, İstanbul
24–27 June 2013, 157–177. Istanbul.
Zafiropoulou, D. (ed.), 1997, Journeys on the Seas of Byzantium. Athens.

390 © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2018 The Nautical Archaeology Society.