474

Ship Graffiti at Ayşe Kadın Mosque
by
Günce Pelin Öçgüden
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Graduate School of Social Sciences and Humanities
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Archaeology and History of Art


Ship Graffiti at Ayşe Kadın Mosque

Graffiti has a broad scope since it can appear in various contexts. Graffiti in sacred/religious
contexts have been interpreted as votives for protection, good fortune, salvation, hence
scratching graffiti became a ritual rather than an ordinary act. On the other hand, because
hull remains in the archaeological record are few, and the amount of information that can be
obtained from it is very limited, scholars have been considering ship graffiti as a means to
investigate nautical technology. These two aspects are combined in the current scholarship
on ship graffiti. The ship graffiti in this research are located in Ayşe Kadın Mosque in the
old village of Mordoğan in Karaburun peninsula, İzmir. They are densely clustered on the
walls of the women’s mezzanine in the prayer hall. The frescos that graffiti were scratched
on give a terminus post quem of the late 18th century. This thesis analyzes this group of ship
graffiti by trying to identify and interpret them within geographical, historical, and cultural
contexts. By doing so, it emphasizes the human elements in their creation such as aesthetic
concerns, beliefs, and habits. A secondary purpose, as a part of the methodology, is the
evaluation of different documentation methods that can serve the needs of research questions.
This corpus of graffiti is particularly important and unique. Even though ship graffiti in
churches are well studied, the research on Islamic religious contexts is very limited.
Furthermore, as they are found in the women’s section of the mosque, this ritual can be safely
identified with women of the village and their involvement in the maritime community. This
specifically breaks the androcentric perspective in the field and encourage scholars to
consider women as a possible artist of ship graffiti rather than focusing on men or staying
gender neutral. Furthermore, the previous studies may be re-assessed, and new interpretations
may evolve.
ii
ÖZETÇE
Ayşe Kadın Cami’nde Bulunan Gemi Kazımaları (Graffiti)

Graffiti konusu çeşitli bağlamlarda görüldüğü için geniş bir çalışma alanına sahiptir.
Kutsal/dini bağlamda bulunan graffiti tehlikelerden korunmak, şans getirmesi amacıyla
yapılan adak olarak yorumlanmıştır. Bu nedenle kazıma sıradan bir aktivite değil bir ritüel
olarak tanımlanmıştır. Diğer yandan gemi kalıntılarından elde edilen arkeolojik verinin
yetersizliğinden dolayı araştırmacılar gemi kazımalarını gemi yapım teknolojisini araştırmak
amacıyla kullanmıştır. Günümüzde gemi kazımaları bu iki yaklaşımın birleşimi üzerinden
araştırılmaktadır. Bu çalışmadaki gemi kazımaları İzmir’in Karaburun yarımadasının
Mordoğan köyünde yer alan Ayşe Kadın Cami’nin kadınlar mahfilinde bulunmaktadır.
Kazımaların üzerine yapıldığı kalemişi terminus post quem olarak 18. yüzyılın sonunu
vermekterdir. Bu tez çalışmasında bu gemi kazımaları coğrafi, tarihi ve kültürel bağlamda
incelenmektedir. Bunu yaparken estetik kaygılar, inançlar ve alışkanlıklar gibi insan unsurlar
da vurgulanmıştır. İkincil olarak, çalışmanın yöntemi dahilinde, araştırma sorularına en iyi
hizmet edebilecek farklı belgeleme yöntemleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bu kazımalar önemli ve
benzersiz bir çalışma sunmaktadır. Kiliselerde bulunan gemi kazımaları yaygın olarak
çalışılsa da, İslami yapılar bağlamında oldukça kısıtlıdır. Dahası bu çalışmadaki gemi
kazımaları kadınlar mahfilinde bulunduğu için ritüel köyün kadınları ve bu kadınların denizci
toplumdaki yeri ile bağdaştırılabilir. Bu yorum özellikle bilim dünyasındaki erkek egemen
bakış açısını kırarak, araştırmacıların gemi kazımalarını kadınların da yapmış olabileceğini
göz önünde bulundurmasını teşvik etmektedir. Bu sayede önceki araştırmalar da tekrar
gözden geçirilebilir.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank my advisor Matthew Harpster for giving me the
opportunity work on such an important and unique material. I am grateful for his guidance
throughout my research with his support on resource (both technical and scholarly),
constructive comments. I appreciate his patience, flexibility, and time during the process, as
he did a lot of rereading. I would also like to thank my thesis committee members, Suzan
Yalman and Jennifer Baird, who spared their time to read my thesis and provide comments
and insights that I was missing in my research. Besides my committee, I would like to thank
Çiler Çilingiroğlu and Cengiz Gürbıyık who informed me on the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın
Mosque.
Upmost, I would like to thank my family. The family support is always important but,
in my case, my mother and father got beyond any expected emotional support. Aside from
letting me follow my dreams and being there for me, they provided intellectual and logistical
assistance. Thanks to our trailer and my father’s chauffeuring, I was able to go to Mordoğan
with large set of equipment twice and did not have to worry about the logistics,
accommodation and an extra hand when needed. Without this capital, the field work would
have been much more difficult. Furthermore, my mother suggested some sources that can
improve my argument, due to her knowledge on history.
Even though they were not directly involved in my thesis research I would like to
thank Michael Jones, Ahmet Dönmez, Osman Özkan, Orkan Köyağasıoğlu for suggesting
me sources and providing insights on the topic. I would like to thank my colleagues from the
department for the solace they offered, particularly to Savannah Bishop, since she shared her
office space and language skills as well.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. i
ÖZETÇE ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTON .................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: SOCIO-HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND SCHOLARLY CONTEXT
................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1. Behind the Scene .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. Karaburun Peninsula ............................................................................................. 6
2.1.2. Mordoğan Village ................................................................................................ 11
2.1.3. Ayşe Kadın Cami ................................................................................................ 12
2.2. Story of Ship Graffiti Studies ..................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 29
3.1 Photogrammetry .......................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 Equipment ............................................................................................................. 31
3.1.2 Data Collection: Photographing ........................................................................... 32
3.1.3 Data Processing .................................................................................................... 35
3.1.4. Results ................................................................................................................. 38
3.2 Terrestrial Laser Scanning .......................................................................................... 40
3.2.1. Equipment ............................................................................................................ 40
3.2.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 41
3.2.3 Data Processing .................................................................................................... 42
3.2.4 Results .................................................................................................................. 43
3.3 Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) ................................................................ 44
3.3.1 Equipment ............................................................................................................. 45
3.3.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 45
3.3.3 Data Processing .................................................................................................... 47
3.3.4 Results .................................................................................................................. 48
3.4 Comparison of the Methods ........................................................................................ 49
3.5 Building the Catalogue ................................................................................................ 54
v
Chapter 4: IDENTIFYING SHIP GRAFFITI ..................................................................... 56
4.1. Sail Plans .................................................................................................................... 56
4.2. Vessel types ................................................................................................................ 58
4.3. Graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque .................................................................................. 60
Chapter 5: INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAFFITI ........................................................ 71
5.1 Spatial interpretation of the graffiti ............................................................................. 71
5.2 Religious and ritual aspect of the graffiti .................................................................... 93
5.3 Graffiti and the maritime activity of the peninsula ................................................... 101
5.4 Women as the carver of ship graffiti ......................................................................... 106
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 109
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 112
Appendix 1: CATALOGUE .............................................................................................. 121
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4. 1: The propulsion types and number of graffiti in each category. .......................... 63
Table 4.2: Number of masts depicted in sailing vessels. ...................................................... 64
Table 4. 3: The sail types and number of graffiti in each category. ..................................... 64
Table 5.1: Number of graffiti in each area………………………………………...…….…70
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The map of Karaburun peninsula showing the topography ................................. 7
Figure 2.2: A dowry chest with a steamship painted on the lid in Müesser Aktaş Etnoğrafya
ve Tarih Evi .......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3: Ayşe Kadın Mosque ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.4: The floor plan of the second story of the mosque. The red rectangle highlights
the women’s mezzanine ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2.5: Areas 2&3 (on the left) and Area 5 (on the right) before 2006 restoration project
(photo by General Directorate of Foundations, İzmir) ......................................................... 15
Figure 3.1: Area separation of the walls of the women’s mezzanine (not scaled) ............... 33
Figure 3.2: The photogrammetry set up ................................................................................ 34
Figure 3.3: The photogrammetry model ............................................................................... 39
Figure 3.4: The point cloud of the laser scanning in Scene. The scanning points are
indicated by the scanner. ....................................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.5: The solid view of photogrammetry model mesh, quality setting medium ......... 51
Figure 3.6: The solid view of laser scanning model mesh .................................................... 52
Figure 3.7: The solid view of photogrammetry model mesh, quality setting high ............... 52
Figure 3.8: The orthophoto from the medium quality .......................................................... 53
Figure 4.1: The rigging types: square sail, lateen sail, sprit sail, gaff sail, lug sail
(illustrations from Moore 1925) ........................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.2: AK 2047, AK 2048, and AK2049. The lines are highlighted to enhance the
visibility of the graffiti .......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 4.3: Coaster from Istanbul by Paris, çektirme from Moore, Smyrna coaster from
Smyth, İnebolu coaster by Paris ........................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.4: Pereme and Izmir Kayığı from Pâris ………………………………………….68
Figure 4.5: A fishing cabin in Ardıç …………………………………...………………… 69
Figure 5.1: Densely painted wall on Area 9………………………………………………..72
Figure 5.2: Area 6 ................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 5.3: The women’s mezzanine from the main prayer hall .......................................... 75
Figure 5.4: Several graffiti overlap in Area 2 ....................................................................... 76
Figure 5.5: Graffiti overlap in Area 10a. .............................................................................. 77
viii
Figure 5.6: AK 9016 and AK 9017 overlap. ......................................................................... 78
Figure 5.7: AK 9001 and AK 9002 that are almost identical ............................................... 79
Figure 5.8: The left arch of Area 1 (Area 1a) ....................................................................... 81
Figure 5.9: The right arch of Area 1 (Area 1b) ..................................................................... 82
Figure 5.10: Area 2 ............................................................................................................... 83
Figure 5.11: Area 3 ............................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.12: The left arch of Area 4 (Area 4a) ..................................................................... 85
Figure 5.13: The right arch of Area 4 (Area 4b) and Area 5 ................................................ 86
Figure 5.14: Area 6 and the left arch of Area 7 (Area 7a) .................................................... 87
Figure 5.15: The right arch of Area 7 (Area 7b) ................................................................... 88
Figure 5.16: Area 8 ............................................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.17: Area 9 ............................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5.18: The left arch of Area 10 (Area 10a) ................................................................. 91
Figure 5.19: The left arch of Area 10 (Area 10a) ................................................................. 92
Figure 5.20: Narcissos/Dilek Pınarı and the wishing tree in Mordoğan ............................... 95
Figure 5.21: Remains of the church in Mordoğan ................................................................ 96
1
Chapter 1:
INTRODUCTON
Graffiti, as a research subject, has a broad scope, since it can appear in various
contexts throughout time: public, domestic, religious, secular; along with on different
materials such as stone, plaster, ceramic, and wood. As the study field grew more, defining
what constitutes graffiti became more complex1. The Italian origin of the word graffito
(graffiti in pl.) means scratch (or graffiare to scratch), therefore graffiti in archaeological
context refers to the markings carved or engraved on a surface. It is interpreted as a tool of
communication that takes shape rapidly, and so crudely, in the form of scratched markings
on a surface with an illicit nature, as it involves vandalism through defacement2. In this broad
scope ship graffiti studies comprise a considerable portion from different regions and periods.
Additionally due to the modern usage of the term, some scholars use this term for
dipinto (dipinti in pl.), which refers to painted marks by charcoal, ink, or paint. In contrast
some scholars emphasize this mistake and differentiate them3. It is important to distinguish
these two means of depiction, as they differ – yet are very similar – in materiality and engage
different practices involving different action, more importantly different set of skills, and
choice of surface with specific characteristics. These differences influence scholarly
approaches towards the subject matter in terms of questions asked, analysis made, and
interpretation of it as well as the methods employed on the data. This is particularly important
for some of the interpretations provided in Chapter 5 and the selection of documentation
methods.
This thesis examines a group of ship graffiti discovered on the walls of women’s
mezzanine of Ayşe Kadın Mosque in old Mordoğan village in Karaburun peninsula, İzmir.
The graffiti are likely dated to 19th – 20th century based on a terminus post quem provided by
the frescos that graffiti are carved on. There are 249 graffiti identified, concentrated on the
walls of the mezzanine. The only subject that is clearly identified is ships. There are vague
1 Baird and Taylor 2011, 3
2 Baird and Taylor 2011, 3–4
3 Emetz 1995; Michail 2015; Bagnall et al. 2016 are some of the studies distinguishing them.
2
depictions or disturbed graffiti which complicates the identification of them. Some of these
vague depictions were most likely intended to be ships, but it is possible that some of them
might have been something else. Because of the overall representation, the vague depictions
are interpreted to be ships as well. They are mostly small vessels with a single mast.
Unfortunately, due to the current state of the walls of the structure, it is not clear whether the
mezzanine was the only location with the graffiti. Modern plaster on the walls covers any
possible graffiti elsewhere in the building.
The aim of the study is to interpret the ship graffiti in its socio-economical context,
and understand the connection between the maritime activity of the peninsula and the graffiti.
This attempt to interpret the graffiti involves broadly classifying what was depicted but not
definite identification of each ship graffiti. ‘Instead, this classification is important to
understand the capacity of the maritime activity and further interpret on the maritime
interactions in the region and how this reflected on the graffiti. The catalogue (Appendix 1)
was built for the documentation of the graffiti in the interpretive process, but it is not the aim
of the study.
The study seeks to understand who made these graffiti and to apprehend their
meaning and importance for the carvers. For this it is necessary to comprehend the relation
between these people and the sea. Their dependence on the sea (which is demonstrated in
Chapter 2) reflects on the graffiti. Another relation the study aims to understand is between
the carver, graffiti and the space, identify possible patterns, habits, and preferences. What are
the characteristics of the act of carving the graffiti in the mezzanine? These questions are
addressed in Chapter 5.
The secondary purpose of the project is to investigate the use of different digital
documentation methods to understand which method works better with documenting graffiti.
The comparison is based on this particular collection of graffiti rather than general guidelines
on graffiti. The methods chosen for the comparison are photogrammetry, laser scanning and
Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI). These three methods were chosen because they
are the most common methods of documentation that can provide more information than
regular photography. The characteristics of the context and graffiti, as well as conditions in
the mosque, were determining factors on choosing the methods.
3
This study is important as it contributes a unique case to the vast literature on ship
graffiti. First, it gives a relatively clear idea about who carved them rather than a range of
possibilities. Due to the location of the graffiti, the study interprets carvers to be women of
the village. It considers women as active agents in male dominant contexts – i.e. mosque and
maritime activity. This challenges the androcentric perspective in the ship graffiti literature
and suggests women as possible artist of ship graffiti.
Second, it is a rarely studied context in which the graffiti was made in a functioning
mosque. Most of the ship graffiti studies are conducted in churches. In the literature review
(Chapter 2), a few examples in an Islamic religious context are provided, but it is rare to have
this many graffiti carved on the same space. The two cases mentioned in the study, mescit in
Alanya Castle and Ayasofya (Orhan) Mosque, provides examples of ship graffiti carved in
dense concentration. Yet, they are not quite similar to the graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque in
terms of context. The mescit in Alanya was used for other purposes like storage through its
history and it is not the same as a mosque. Ayasofya Mosque was converted from a church
and there is a cross depiction among the graffiti, which complicates the context and the
identity of the carver.
Third, the only identified subject is the ships. There are no other subjects identified
such as objects, figural motifs or patterns, or symbolic representations. There is also no
textual graffiti which generates an interesting case as the textual depiction (Arabic writing)
is a common decorative element in a mosque4.
Graffiti in the Ayşe Kadın Mosque was brought to my attention during the Karaburun
Archaeological Survey Project, conducted by a group of researchers under Çiler Çilingiroğlu,
in the 2019 season and became the subject of my thesis work. It hinted a great research
opportunity as it is an interesting and unique case. This study was a chance to introduce a
group of ship graffiti into English scholarship which is dominated by the church context. The
study challenges the bias of the English scholarship which to some extent creates a false
notion that ship graffiti appear solely on churches. All the ship graffiti studies in mosques
that are discussed in Chapter 2 are published in Turkish, which leaves a gap in the English
4 Gharipour and Schick 2013 demonstrates the importance of calligraphy in mosques.
4
scholarship. This probably affects the interpretation of the graffiti in English scholarship as
well.
The first part of the thesis (Chapter 2) provides a background information on the
peninsula and the mosque, and provides a literature review on ship graffiti. The background
information is limited to topics that can shape the interpretation of the graffiti such as the
topography and the demography of the peninsula. The aim of the literature review is to
understand and evaluate the ship graffiti studies in Turkey, explore different approaches in
surrounding regions in sacred spaces and investigate the applicability of these approaches on
ship graffiti found in a mosque in Turkey throughout the thesis.
The second part of the thesis (Chapter 3) is investigating methods of documenting the
graffiti. In this project three digital documentation methods are utilized: photogrammetry,
laser scanning and Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI). The aim of this part is to
establish a documentation methodology, compare the three digital documentation methods
and infer which method works better specific to this case, and lastly to lay out the components
of the catalogue (Appendix 1).
The third part is the catalogue in the Appendix 1. The catalogue provides information
on general location, categorization, measurements, description of graffito including
identification of the elements, preservation state, drawings and photos. Most of the data
provided in the catalogue is obtained from the photogrammetric model. The section drawings
are later used on discussing the spatial distribution of the graffiti in Chapter 5.
The next part of the thesis is the identification (Chapter 4) and the interpretation of
the graffiti (Chapter 5). The identification chapter (Chapter 4) provides a categorization of
the ships depicted based on the propulsion type, sail type (if applicable) and if possible the
ship type. However, the primary purpose of the chapter (and the thesis) is not to provide a
definite identification of the vessel type to obtain a nautical information. The chapter
provides a general overview of the sail types and vessel types encountered in Aegean during
Ottoman Period, in order to suggest vessel types. The interpretation chapter (Chapter 5)
discusses the graffiti within the spatial and social context. It investigates the religious aspect
of the graffiti as votive offering and makes connections with the traditions that already exist.
5
The chapter comprises of three sections: spatial distribution, religion and ritualistic aspect,
relation between graffiti and the maritime activity of the peninsula.
The last chapter (Chapter 6) provides a summary of the thesis and suggests possible
research agendas such as comparative studies and regional surveys that can be generated
from this research. It addresses the importance of the thesis again referring to the discussions
throughout the thesis.
6
Chapter 2:
SOCIO-HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND SCHOLARLY
CONTEXT
2.1. Behind the Scene
2.1.1. Karaburun Peninsula
The Karaburun peninsula has a long history of continuous human activity from the Lower
Palaeolithic to the historic period, as recent diachronic surveys indicate5. The Turkish
presence in the peninsula, which was under Byzantine reign, started with the invasion of
Çaka Bey, who introduced the concept of the navy to Turkish military, of the region between
1086 and 10956. After a brief period when the region was back under the Byzantine rule,
Mehmet Bey from Aydınoğlulları Beylic took control when he conquered İzmir in 1317, and
then the region was taken over by Ottomans in 14267. Administratively the peninsula was
under the Aydın Province during the Ottoman Period.
One particular event that affected the history and likely the nature of the community
is the Börklüce Mustafa’s uprising in 1416, who was interpreted as one of Şeyh Bedreddin’s
followers, centred in Karaburun peninsula8. He had an interest in Christian culture and argued
that all shall be equal, and everything (except women) shall be shared. Even though the
primary aim was sharing property, his ideas likely resulted in sharing cultures as well.
The landscape of the peninsula prevents the establishment of large settlements and
determines the settlement pattern. The overall topography of the peninsula is rough (Figure
2.1). The inland is dominated by uplands with steep hills and high mountains with sheer cliff
faces; hence settlements appear to have been predominantly established along the coast.
Another reason for the proximity of the settlements to the coast is that the geographic location
and overall topography of the interior zones would have made transportation difficult; hence
5 Işık 2002; the latest surveys are done by KAYA team under Çiler Çilingiroğlu.
6 Işık 2002, 15.
7 Işık 2002, 15.
8 Balivet 2000, 35. For further discussion Anon 2017.
7
maritime routes were preferred and people inhabited lands that were close to these access
points and created clusters of villages. There was a ferry service enabling the transportation
by Hamidiye Vapur İşletmeleri (Hamidiye Ferry Services), that was established in 1883 and
based in İzmir, and had two trips per week between Karaburun and İzmir9. Sea transportation
was used for the trade activity as well which is discussed further below. In 1967 the first
highway connecting the peninsula to İzmir was built from the Çeşme road to Mordoğan and
later extended to the tip of the peninsula, to Yeniliman. Thus, until the middle of the 20th
century, maritime routes were the primary connection.
Figure 2.1: The map of Karaburun peninsula showing the topography
Specific to the peninsula as a whole, the number of settlements and the population
have been and continue to be much denser along the east coast of the peninsula facing the
Gulf of İzmir. There are two primary elements that explain this pattern: From an economic
9 Kurt 1991, 90.
8
perspective, the east coast is more opportunistic as it is en route and faces İzmir Bay and
Foça. By contrast, the west coast is linked with Chios, which was a major island in the region,
and Çeşme. İzmir became one of the most prominent ports of the Eastern Mediterranean that
links the Anatolian hinterland (even markets as distant as Iran) with European markets
starting from the 17th century and further developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The port
centres an extensive trade network with external routes between İzmir and major port cities
of Europe such as Marseilles, Livorno, Trieste, Malta, and more, along with a major domestic
route of Egypt-İzmir-İstanbul10. The city housed many European and Ottoman (Greek)
merchant companies as well as banks. The intensity of trade at the port of İzmir is evident in
the series of reports prepared by the consuls in İzmir on trade and commerce of Smyrna11.
Additionally, since the port of İzmir was the main port for international trade, Chian
merchants operated through İzmir instead of Chios12. Hence the west coast of the peninsula
was not as attractive as the east for maritime trade.
The other issue is the safety of the settlement and the sailing route. The closed Gulf
of İzmir to the east provides a calmer climate compared to the tip of the peninsula and the
west coast which faces open seas and high winds. Furthermore, the east coast was more
protected from the dangers of the open sea, such as pirate raids as well as naval attacks. These
dangers also influenced the choice of settlement location either on the outer slopes visible
from the sea or those towards the inlands, set on the sides of the valleys and hills that are not
visible from the sea. Turks preferred to settle inland, while Greeks were settling on the outer
slopes towards the sea13. Hence, the major harbour towns such as Yeniliman, Büyük
Mordoğan, Karareis, Kaynarpınar (Kösedere) were Greek villages.
The peninsula had a mixed population of Turks and Greeks with a changing ratio due
to immigration movements from the 18th century, starting with the Balkan Wars, through
early 20th century and the population exchange following the War of Independence. The
information on population and layout of the peninsula is obtained from tapu tahrir defterleri
(land registry records) and salnameler (annual registers) which provide the census data of
10 Frangakis-Syrett 2001.
11 Great Britain Foreign Office 1886.
12 Frangakis-Syrett 2001, 123.
13 Işık 2002, 24.
9
the territory. Since censuses were done to prepare for tax collection and military expeditions,
one of the criteria in the census was religion. These records show that the villages were either
only Muslim or non-Muslim; or had a mixed population, which was the case for most of the
villages in the peninsula. The Muslim population mostly concentrated on the east coast and
inland villages, whereas Greek population dominated the west coast and few coastal villages
on east coast14.
Due to political factors the demographic character of the peninsula was subjected to
changes in the last couple of centuries; some of the villages were abandoned or ones with
mixed population had a drop of population. This population movement probably started with
the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829). Based on the 1883 records the Greek
population was slightly higher than Turkish with 54%, but in 1894 this ratio dropped to 49%
and rose back to 59% in 190815. This sudden fluctuation should be a result of the Greek
population’s movement to and from the islands during the Ottoman-Greek War in 1897. A
second fluctuation (1914-1922) came with the Turkish immigrants that were displaced from
Balkans during the wars and Turkish population of the peninsula recruited for the military.
Additionally, Greeks left the peninsula to sail to islands or Greek mainland during the WWI
and returned to the peninsula during the Greek Invasion of İzmir. However, most of the
Greeks left the peninsula after the invasion was repulsed16. Ultimately, the population
exchange between Turkey and Greece as a part of the Lausanne Treaty ended the Greek
presence in the peninsula and replaced by Turks migrated from different lands, mostly
Balkans.
Olive and grape were the two major subsistence products in the peninsula. However,
when the Greeks left the peninsula the production of these items suddenly dropped. These
goods were transported through the harbours of the peninsula, mainly Kösedere and
Mordoğan, and comprised a major part of the trade as indicated in the customs tax records of
the villages17. The impact of grape in the economy even reflects on the name of the harbour
in Mordoğan: Üzüm İskelesi (grape port).
14 Işık 2002, 55.
15 Işık 2002, 43.
16 Işık 2002, 45-7.
17 For tax records of Mordoğan see Goffman 1990.
10
Because of the limited arable lands, it was unlikely that people had high economic
profits from agriculture. Trade was more advantageous. Trade activity of the peninsula had
two outlets: the islands and İzmir. Few families on the peninsula owned vessels to conduct
the trade of the peninsula. These families either sold these goods in their shops or on their
vessels, either pereme (perama) or mavna (Ottoman barges), at the harbour18. One of the
families, Hocazadeler, was dominating the grape export at Mordoğan harbour19. The other
families who were active on the trade of the peninsula and became wealthy through trade
were Kadıeminler, Hasanefendiler, Mustafakaptanlar, Hafızcemaller20.
Figure 2.2: A dowry chest with a steamship painted on the lid in Müesser Aktaş Etnoğrafya
ve Tarih Evi
Maritime activity was reflecting on the visual elements of the material culture of the
peninsula as well. The Müesser Aktaş Etnoğrafya ve Tarih Evi, next to the mosque, houses
several dowry chests with a steamship painted on the lid (Figure 2.2) that girls of the
Mordoğan village would have been expected to have before they get married, even if they
are not from a maritime family21. Furthermore, ships and seascapes adorn the walls of
18 Selling goods in the boats at the docks was common practice in Ottoman society. In Istanbul merchants
were selling goods in their caique as mentioned by Ertuğ 2001, 39.
19 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 65.
20 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 20.
21 Müesser Aktaş Etnoğrafya ve Tarih Evi is a private ethnographic museum in old Mordağan village that
houses local artifacts. There were several of these dowery chests in the collection. I had the chance to
investigate only two of them during my visit to the museum. However, the owner of the museum, Müesser
Aktaş, informed me that all the chests at the museum had the similar depiction of a steamboat.
11
mosques around the peninsula: one example is in Kösedere, which is little further on the
north of Mordoğan village and another is in Urla at the south of Karaburun peninsula. This
is particularly important since seascape is not a common depiction in mosques22.
2.1.2. Mordoğan Village
Present-day Mordoğan is divided into the old village and the coastal town. Based on
the land registry records there has been a division between the two villages that began at least
by the 16th century. In the 16th century records and Kitab-ı Bahriye by Piri Reis the name of
the village was Emirdoğan, with Emirdoğan-ı Kebir (big) and Emirdoğan-ı Sağir (small), but
in the early 19th century census records the name was changed to Mordoğan (Mordoğan-ı
Kebir and Mordoğan-ı Sağir)23. Today the old village is what remains from Mordoğan-ı
Sağir, and Mordoğan-ı Kebir evolves into the current harbour town and few surrounding
villages. Mordoğan-ı Sağir was established on the inner slopes facing hillside that is not
visible from the sea. The present villagers say their ancestors chose to settle at the inner
slopes to protect themselves from pirate raids.
Mordoğan-ı Kebir (Büyük Mordoğan) was one of the major villages that incorporated
several small villages exist today: Çatalkaya, Yenicepınar, Hacılar and Teke as well as the
harbour town. Çatalkaya and Hacılar had a Turkish population whereas Yenicepınar, Teke
and the harbour town had a Greek population. When Greeks left the peninsula, Yenicepınar,
Teke and the harbour town were totally abandoned. On the other hand, Mordoğan-ı Sağir had
a mixed population; Turks dominating Greeks, and when Greeks left the peninsula Turkish
immigrants replaced them as indicated by the villagers and further confirmed by the numbers
at the population records24. The two earthquakes in the 20th century also influenced the
population of Mordoğan. The first quake in 1949 affected mostly the north-eastern part of
the peninsula, the second quake in 1969 heavily damaged old Mordoğan and the surrounding
villages, hence the majority of the village was moved to the harbour town (Mordoğan
İskelesi). This is the main reason that currently the old village feels deserted, as many
structures were emptied and did not survive. Naturally one can question the presence of a
22 Study on seascape in mosques are Friedman 2015, Ülkü 2016.
23 Land registry records studied by Işık 2002; Telci and Güntürkün 1996.
24 The population statistic tables provided in Işık 2002 (table 5&9) dating to 1831 and 1923.
12
sophisticated mosque, Ayşe Kadın Cami, if the demographic history of the village is not
known.
2.1.3. Ayşe Kadın Cami
Ayşe Kadın Cami (Figure 2.3.) is located in old village of Mordoğan, across from the
only kahvehane (traditional Turkish coffee house) left in the village. The villagers mention
there used to be three kahvehanes on that modern-day agora of the village with few more
bakkals and barbers25. Additionally, there used to be a waqf of Ayşe Kadın26.
Figure 2.3: Ayşe Kadın Mosque
Unfortunately, there is no concrete information on the history of the building. Cengiz
Gürbıyık, who studied the architecture of the building, gives the impression that it was built
as a mosque and not converted from a church27. If correct, this suggests that the building
never had a sacred significance for the Orthodox Greek community of the village. Moreover,
a little further up on the hill there are the remains of a church which was most probably used
25 Personal communication with Adnan Aşıkı.
26 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 21
27 Gürbıyık 2010.
13
by the Greek community of the village. While minor, this detail may be important to the
analysis of the ship graffiti on the mosque’s walls: it lowers the possibility that the graffiti
were carved by the Greek community in the village.
The specific date of the construction of the mosque is also not known since the epitaph
is missing. However, based on the construction material and few stylistic elements, Gürbıyık
dates the mosque to the 15th or 16th century 28. Originally a single domed square mosque, it
had later construction phases. The two-story entrance portico on the north side and the
mezzanine in the prayer hall, where the graffiti were carved, were added sometime after the
construction of the mosque29. This mezzanine, along with the upper story of the portico, has
been functioning as the women’s section of the mosque. It is accessed by a staircase outside
the mosque on the west side, and the upper story of the portico is connected to mezzanine
with a window size opening (which was probably used to be a window before the
construction of the portico). The entrance portico to the mezzanine does not bear any graffiti,
but graffiti are heavily concentrated on the walls of the women’s mezzanine. However,
renovations on the walls of the portico may have sealed the possible graffiti and thus altered
the interpretation of the distribution of the graffiti.
Figure 2.4: The floor plan of the second story of the mosque. The red rectangle highlights
the women’s mezzanine
28 Gürbıyık 2010, 24.
29 Gürbıyık 2010, 14-15.
14
Another important aspect of the mosque is the frescos that the ship graffiti were
carved on. The frescos are not only present on the walls of the women’s section but used to
cover all the walls of the prayer hall. Today these frescos are mostly preserved on the dome
and the higher levels of the walls of the prayer hall, where the squinches are, but the lower
levels of the walls have some traces of the fresco, which suggests its wide original
distribution within the structure. These frescos were studied by Ersel Çağlıtütüncigil and
dated to the last quarter of 18th century based on stylistic comparison with similar frescos
from other buildings30. This is further supported with sicil records dating to 19th century that
mentions an Ayşe Kadın having the mosque renovated31 and the gravestone with the date of
1804 that belongs to an Ayşe Kadın, which used to be on the courtyard of the mosque32. The
frescos were probably made during that renovation. The dating of the fresco is quite essential
for this study as it gives the terminus post quem of the graffiti.
The mosque is quite prominent for the villagers. There are a few tales among them
about Ayşe Kadın, who gave the mosque its name, and how she renovated the mosque33.
There are two versions of this tale. One tells that the frescos were commissioned by Ayşe
Kadın, who is believed to be a wealthy unmarried woman. When she got old and sick, she
realized that she would never be able to get married, so she sold her dowry to renovate the
mosque. The images depicted on the frescos represent the items in her dowry. The second
version is similar to the first one, except the dowry belonged to her daughter who died before
getting married. These frescos should have been quite important for the villagers as they have
replastered and painted some of the worn parts trying to mimic the original motifs during the
later renovations.
The General Directorate of Foundations of Turkey completed two major restoration
projects: the first in 1960’s and the second in 200634. In addition, other stakeholders, such as
philanthropists and imams made some renovations. One of these was recorded on the epitaph
30 Çağlıtütüncigil 2012
31 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 21.
32 Unfortunately this gravestone is currently missing but it must have been there until the last two decades, as
Telci and Güntürkün 1996 refers to its presence in the courtyard of the mosque in the book.
33 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 21.
34 Gürbıyık 2010, 13.
15
on the minaret of the mosque: it was renovated by M. Ali Ak in 194735. I could not locate
any documents about the 1960 restoration project in the archive of the foundation in İzmir;
therefore, the previous state of the parts of the building that is associated with the graffiti is
unknown. The logbook and report of 2006 restoration project mention that during the
cleaning of the plaster from the renovations, especially the areas mimic the original motifs,
the conservators uncovered more of the original frescos dated to 18th-19th century. Before the
restoration project some of these frescos were already visible on the dome and the upper parts
of the prayer hall. The project uncovered the fragments of the frescos at the lower levels of
the walls of the prayer hall. Unfortunately, the 2006 restoration project harmed the graffiti,
when conservators removed these plasters and replastered and painted the lower levels of the
walls of the mezzanine, especially inside the squinches, to give a clean appearance (Figure
2.5). Many graffiti are not visible or barely visible because of this application. The graffiti
carved on the fresco that was damaged but not plastered over during the project survived
better. The damage caused by the restoration project emphasizes the need of the
documentation and study of the graffiti before further poor renovations and restorations
obscure them.
Figure 2.5: Areas 2&3 (on the left) and Area 5 (on the right) before 2006 restoration project
(photo by General Directorate of Foundations, İzmir)
35 Gürbıyık 2010, 24.
16
2.2. Story of Ship Graffiti Studies
Graffiti is a generous research subject, since it can appear in various contexts, and on
different materials. This variety provides different study areas within this broad media.
Additionally, pictorial and epigraphic graffiti requires different specializations. Hence, many
scholars work on this iconography genre. There are various monographs focusing solely on
graffiti36. Within this extensive literature ship graffiti comprises a good portion. However,
for the sake of this thesis the literature review is narrowed contextually and geographically.
The ship graffiti studies from religious buildings in Greece, Cyprus, and Anatolia dating from
Byzantine to Ottoman periods, with additional few secular Ottoman structures, as well as a
few studies from other geographies that provide a different perspective are included in the
review to see the complete picture of ship graffiti studies and evaluate the development of
the research. The main purpose of this review is to understand the scholars’ research agenda
on ship graffiti: their research interests, methods, and interpretations.
Due to the scarcity of primary archaeological data (i.e. ship remains), early scholars
sought different sources of data to study the ancient ships and to understand the development
of ancient shipbuilding technology. Graffiti, as well as reliefs and paintings, were among
these sources. Lucien Basch is one of the first scholars who demonstrated the opportunities
that iconography can provide by consolidating a vast number of ship depictions on mosaics,
paintings (on walls and pottery), carvings (seals and coins included), and graffiti. Aside from
his small scale publications, his most extensive work which became a benchmark, Le musée
imaginaire de la marine antique37, provides a diachronic study of ship depictions from
Predynastic Egypt to Roman Mediterranean with a focus on the eastern Mediterranean that
includes many ship graffiti. This possibility resulted in the increasing interest in ship graffiti
studies in the last two decades in geographies such as Great Britain and the Nordic region38,
36 Baird and Taylor 2012; Keegan 2014; Milnor 2014; Lovata and Olton 2015; Ragazzoli et al. 2018 are
among the major publications
37 Basch 1987.
38 Westerdahl 2013; Dhoop et al. 2016; Champion 2015.
17
western Mediterranean39, and eastern Mediterranean40, particularly in the Aegean and
Cyprus, and the Levant.
In comparison to the moment of their creation, the graffiti and the carver lost their
agency in the course of academic scholarship. For some scholars, ship graffiti existed to
demonstrate the ship typology of an era41. These images were merely sources of technical
information for nautical archaeologists42. Although some scholars concentrated on
categorizing and identifying ship graffiti, and creating catalogues, there are few examples
trying to emphasize the context and identity of the carver or trying to understand the meaning
of the graffiti. In contrast to graffiti being a source for technical information, Le Bon
emphasizes the artistic connotation and the fact that graffiti represents the cognitive world of
the artist rather than being objective representations of the actual ships43. She sees the ship
graffiti as a tool of communication and stresses the use of symbols and metaphors, and the
context that influences the artist44.
One of the conceptualization attempts appears in the religious context where ship
graffiti are interpreted as votive offerings (another term used is ex-votos) since the early
studies like Meinardus. Ship graffiti in religious context became one of the most appealing
topics among the ship graffiti studies because of their religious connotation. Their votive
implication reflected on the titles of the articles45. However, in some studies the primary aim
continued to be the identification of the graffiti. The interpretation of the votive nature was
not discussed in-depth and remained secondary in the publications. Scholars like Walsh and
Westerdahl break this trajectory and concentrate more on the interpretation rather than the
identification. And some scholars try to balance the different approaches. These scholarly
approaches are discussed more detailed in the following paragraphs.
39 Helms 1975; Muscat 1999; 2006.
40 Kahanov et al. 2008; Kahanov and Stern 2008
41 Kahanov et al. 2008; Kahanov and Stern 2008; Babuin and Nakas 2012; Nakas and Krapf 2017 can be few
of the examples.
42 Also suggested by Le Bon 1995.
43 Le Bon 1997.
44 Le Bon 1995, 173.
45 Few of these articles “Maritime ex–voto graffito from the church of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople”
Thomov 2015; “Medieval carved ship images found in nordic churches: The poor man's votive ships?”
Westerdahl 2013;
18
In contrast to votive connotation, in his ship graffiti study in Nordic region,
Christensen46 challenges the religious or mystical aspect of ship graffiti and qualifies it as a
mere representation of male interest in a maritime society, even in a church context. He
relates this activity with a modern-day scratchings or drawings of schoolboys in class or men
in long meetings. He also points out the question of (non)existence of women as the carvers.
And since he perceives the graffiti as a way of killing time, he jokes about women being too
busy for such activities47. This indicates that women are not considered as the artists of graffiti
due to the androcentric approach towards maritime activity. This is rather an issue of the
overall literature that women are not openly suggested as the artists/authors/carvers of ship
graffiti. At this point ship graffiti from Ayşe Kadın Mosque becomes particularly important
to indicate women should be taken into account during the analysis of ship graffiti.
A major study of ship graffiti in eastern Mediterranean is done by Meinardus48 in
which ship graffiti in churches are interpreted as votive offerings. He covers an area from the
southern Black Sea region, which is from Azerbaijan to former Yugoslavia, down to Cyprus
covering Aegean islands, and Anatolian and Greek lands. He makes a typology of ships using
the graffiti from churches and groups them under galley (one masted, two masted or larger,
and dromos), galleon, caravel, and carrack. Aside from identifying the ships he interprets
these graffiti as votive offerings of sailors. He uses the term, possibly a neologism he created,
akidographemata rather than ship graffito, unlike any scholar. It is not very clear why he
prefers this term, but it is likely to make a distinction between any graffiti and ship graffiti.
He is a pastor with a personal interest in ship graffiti in churches and monasteries, which
probably affects his interpretation as votive offering and his concentration on religious
aspects of its interpretation. Furthermore, it is possible that his privileged access to these
structures and relation with the clergy provides him additional examples that are not visible
to a regular visitor and supplementary insights on seafarers’ cultic activities in those
particular churches. Even though Meinardus had an interpretive approach, the identification
and categorization of the graffiti is the major purpose of his study.
46 Christensen 1995.
47 Christensen 1995, 184.
48 Meinardus 1972.
19
Thomov studies the graffiti of nearly 35 ships in Hagia Sophia, in İstanbul. He has
two thematic articles investigating two groups of graffiti in the building: the first one studies
four Scandinavian ship graffiti49; the second studies a coastal scene comprised of three ships
and a human figure with a halo in the pose of an evangelist50. His approach adapts to the
subject and the interpretive opportunities it provides. The first study gives a detailed
description of the graffiti and examines the Viking ship typology to identify the ships,
whereas the second investigates the maritime cult and the narration of the scene. This coastal
scene is a unique example as it involves a saint. He identifies the saint as St Nicholas of
Myra51, who is the patron saint of seamen, and explains his reasons through iconography and
his association with Hagia Sophia. The scene is interpreted as ex-voto, particularly as
gratitude of protection received rather than prayer for future aid.
Özdaş studies 29 ship graffiti from Hagia Sophia. Like many scholars he mentions
the votive nature of the graffiti, but his main interest is identifying ships, establishing a
typology and gathering nautical information from them52.
Basch entertains the votive nature of ship graffiti but the primary purpose of his
scholarship has been the identification of the ship graffiti. His collaborative study in 1985
with Artzy on graffiti in Kition has a technical approach and intends to identify the form of
the vessel with a short interpretation of the graffiti as ex-voto. This insight is likely from
Artzy who seems to have a more interest in the interpretation of graffiti rather than
identification of ships as seen in his other work53. Even though the material used in these
studies are earlier than the overall dating range that is preferred for this literature review, they
demonstrate the development of the scholarly approach to graffiti. Basch’s approach is very
persistent as seen from his later study on graffiti in Hagia Sophia in Trebizond, in which he
only briefly mentions the votive aspect and moves on to the analysis of ship54.
Another scholar who stresses the votive nature yet prioritizes the nautical information
in the graffiti is Damianidis. He studies the ship graffiti in religious and secular structures in
49 Thomov 2014
50 Thomov 2015.
51 Thomov 2015, 64.
52 Özdaş 2007
53 Basch and Artzy 1985; Artzy 1999
54 Basch 2012
20
Aegean and Black Sea region from various periods. He interprets the graffiti in religious
buildings as votive offerings, but more noticeably he gives a magical connotation to ones on
secular buildings. He investigates the graffiti at Kilise Mescidi55 and the Turkish bath56 in
Amasra, the Bezir Melek Pasha fountain in Chios, and the Tower of the Winds in Athens57.
Kilise Mescidi is a mosque converted from a church, but there is no exact identification of
the church. He thinks the graffiti in the building were made when the structure was a church,
but he cannot provide a more specific date, hence the graffiti are probably associated with
the non-Islamic context of the structure. Their presence indicates the significance of the city
in maritime activities. He provides the historical context and identifies the ships primarily
based on the context and the detailed investigation and identification of the graffiti lines.
Notably the graffiti from the church are identified as galleys and he associated them with the
fact that the city housed the fleet of the Byzantine and the Genoese in the shipyards of the
city. The other structures mentioned, the bath, the fountain and the tower, are important in
terms of their relation with water which according to him is one of the “magical element of
the Nature” and the graffiti are perhaps offerings for the “magical power of the water”58.
Walsh59 points out the importance of establishing a methodology on studying ship
graffiti and offers one that includes documentation and creating a framework of questions for
interpretation that can be standardized for various contexts. He demonstrates his approach on
over fifty ship graffiti identified at the Church of Saint George of the Greeks in Famagusta,
Cyprus. His documentation includes recording location, surface conditions, drawing
technique (using tracing paper or digital drawing from photo); drawing the characteristics
and details, measurements, and scaled photos. Aside from the very basic questions regarding
the location and style, he raises some deeper questions such as “did scale matter more than
detail” or “does it matter whether port or starboard side is depicted” or “why is the vessel …
un-crewed and why is it removed from any geographical, narrative or dramatic context”60
which are important to understand the meaning behind these graffiti and such research
55 Damianidis 2012; 2014.
56 Damianidis 2014.
57 Damianidis 2012.
58 Damianidis 2014, 458.
59 Walsh 2008.
60 Walsh 2008, 120.
21
questions shape the documentation as well as the interpretation. He indicates the importance
of a geographical, historical, economical, and cultural context in the interpretation of the
graffiti and does an in-depth evaluation of the context and maritime community of the town
that graffiti is located – Famagusta.
Westerdahl, in his study of ship graffiti in Nordic churches61, discusses the votive
aspect of ship images without prioritizing the identification of the representations and does
an ethnographic comparison with ship models placed in churches to investigate the meaning
of the graffiti. The other significant and unparalleled aspect of his study is that he prefers to
use the term carving rather than graffiti since graffiti, as a term, has an illicit connotation,
which is more appropriate for secular context, whereas churches provide a sacred context
and deviation62.
One of the studies trying to have a balanced approach between the identification and
interpretation of the ship graffiti is the Karavoi project63 (Karavoi: The Ship Graffiti on the
Medieval Monuments of Cyprus: Mapping, Documentation and Digitisation) initiated in
2014, and an associated conference in 201664. The project aims to establish a methodology
from documentation to interpretation of the ship graffiti and communicates each step of
research elaborately. It is the most extensive project conducted in Cyprus, focusing on the
ship graffiti from 44 structures dating to the Medieval period. These structures are mostly
religious. Furthermore, the project incorporates previous research done by other scholars in
their database. The holistic approach of the project provides an opportunity to see the patterns
among the graffiti in different structures; however, it limits the in-depth investigation of the
graffiti in each site in terms of both identification of the graffiti and their association with the
structure and each other. In contrast the project aims to be geographically comprehensive,
yet it is not entirely integrative as the northern part of the island is neglected in terms of
surveying the area with the project team65 or collaborating with another research team
working on the northern part. The only graffiti from the northern part of the island that are
61 Westerdahl 2013.
62 Westerdahl 2013, 337.
63 Demesticha 2017; Demesticha et al. 2017.
64 Unfortunately, the proceedings of the conference are not published. For the abstracts of the presentation see
https://www.ucy.ac.cy/karavoi/abstracts
65 This is acknowledged in Demesticha et al. 2017, 347; but the rest of the article has a holistic sense and in
Demesticha 2017 this issue is disregarded entirely.
22
included in the project database are the ones documented and published prior to the project
by western scholars during their research projects with different purposes (e.g. surveying
inscriptions). These projects and their contribution to the Karavoi Project will be discussed
in later paragraphs. The map showing the survey sites of the project creates a biased narrative
in a way that the northern part of the island does not bare any graffiti or monuments other
than couple of locations, whereas southern part of the island has a wide distribution. Yet, the
northeast promontory of the island must have been a significant landmark for seafarers as it
is geographically unique and for that reason provides a legitimate context to bear ship graffiti.
The Karavoi project employs different documentation methods of ship graffiti.
Digital humanities and big data are the main elements of the process, which involves mapping
(the spatial data of both the graffiti and the structures), building a database that combines the
previous research with the data collected during the current project, digital documentation of
graffiti with photogrammetry and RTI methods. RTI was employed especially when the team
encountered contradicting drawings on which some of the lines were missing or possibly
wrong in previous research66. The graffiti was categorized in three groups: uncertain, simple
drawings with masts and some rigging elements, and elaborate ships. There are at least three
ship dipinti that are categorized as graffiti, but each of them are indicated as a dipinto in the
catalogue description. The preliminary analysis article provides a catalogue of structures as
an appendix that summarizes the context and the graffiti, but ship graffiti is only
demonstrated with an elaborate discussion of few examples in each category and structure.
Aside from the identification of the ship, the emphasis is given on the contextual
analysis and understanding the relation between the graffiti, the structure, and the carver’s
identity. Since the graffiti were on the walls of religious structures, it was interpreted as
votive offerings for safe voyage. As the project includes many religious structures throughout
the southern part of the island, it is possible to investigate the distribution patterns of ship
graffiti. The graffiti on coastal locations were associated with the seamen whereas inland
rural locations were associated with the pilgrims because they were on the way to a popular
cult location visited by many pilgrims67.
66 Demesticha et al. 2017, 348.
67 Demesticha et al. 2017, 372.
23
One of the previous research projects which provided data to the Karavoi project was
done by Trentin. She did a survey of textual graffiti in fifteen religious structures and
documented the ship graffiti affiliated with these structures. She does not have an in-depth
investigation on the ship graffiti but provides a possible interpretation through their
association with the textual graffiti. The notable aspect of her study is that she makes a
distinction between votive and devotional graffiti. The former is a request for grace or a
thanksgiving for the grace received from the saint, whereas the latter establishes a permanent
presence next to the saint who the carver is devoted to and invokes his constant protection68.
This distinction may be the outcome of her interpretation of textual graffiti and reflected on
the ship graffiti interpretation as well.
The other project that provided source for Karavoi project is the survey conducted by
Imhaus on Latin inscriptions. Like Trentin, she documented the ship graffiti along with the
inscriptions in her survey. Several graffiti from the northern part of the island are included in
the Karavoi project through her publications 69. The fact that these two projects with purposes
other than studying ship graffiti documented several ship graffiti during their research
indicates the prominence of the ship graffiti within these structures, as it attracts nonspecialist
scholars’ attention.
The masters research by Michail lays the foundations of the Karavoi project.
Unfortunately, I could not locate the final product of her research, but accessed a preliminary
publication presented in a conference70. She samples twenty sites, dating from Byzantine to
Ottoman, and examines the graffiti within its context to understand the meaning and purpose
of each by seeking answers to further questions, and not merely labels them as ex-voto71. She
emphasizes the importance of geographic and spatial context. She makes a distinction
between the graffiti carved at seaside locations and inland sites and comprehends the
rationale behind this choice of location. Furthermore, she is aware of the fact that the
researcher and the artists are from different backgrounds and context, that the researcher is
68 Trentin 2010, 301-2.
69 Demesticha 2017; Demesticha et al. 2017. The graffiti incorporated is published in Imhaus 2001; Bollon
and Imhaus 2009.
70 Michail 2015.
71 Michail 2015, 43.
24
under the bias of her own time and experience. Nevertheless, her sampling is determined by
the quality and availability of the data, and hence not an accurate representation of the island.
The northern part of the island is studied by a different research team under the Ship
Graffiti of North Cyprus (SGNC) project, and likely underway since 200772. The project
studies the ship graffiti on major monuments on the northern half of the island without
segregating secular and religious structures, but they limit their scope with medieval
structures. Unfortunately, the project is not well published, except for the two conference
proceedings focusing on the documentation73. The main purpose of the project is to document
the graffiti and ensure the preservation and promotion of it, with a general identification of
the ship graffiti. Neither a detailed analysis nor the interpretation is an established objective
in the publications. This may be due to lack of specialization on nautical technology. Yet an
interpretation of them arises in relation to architectural and socio-historical context. Like the
Karavoi project, this project does not have a comprehensive approach for the island and does
not incorporate the data from southern Cyprus in the analysis of the ship graffiti.
Another publication that is documentation oriented is by Delouca who conducted a
survey of ship graffiti in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine churches in Aegina Island. Her
conference paper74 presented at IV. Tropis in 1991 is a preliminary report during the early
years of the survey. The paper is purely methodological and does not give detail on the ship
graffiti or any interpretation. This kind of agenda probably serves for the accurate
identification of the graffiti in later stages of the research. Although some aspects of the
documentation process are still valid, the techniques have changed with the technological
developments, hence the paper is mostly outdated and not useful as it does not include any
interpretation of the graffiti or much on the discussion regarding the identification of the ship.
Nevertheless it is important as it aims to establish a methodology for ship graffiti studies in
Greece. This, combined with the Basch tradition, seems to have led the scholarship in Greece
approach the graffiti with the purpose of ship identification and gathering nautical
information which is demonstrated by the following studies.
72 The project may have started before 2007, the starting date is interpreted from Şevketoğlu 2017,183. The
other possible date is 1999.
73 Şevketoğlu 2017; Bertocci et al. 2019.
74 Delouca 1996.
25
Babuin and Nakas studied a group of ship graffiti in the Church of Prophet Elias in
Thessaloniki. The church was built in the third quarter of 14th century and the frescos that the
graffiti were carved on were made at that time, but in 1430 the city was conquered
permanently by the Ottomans and not later than 1478 the building was converted to a mosque;
thus the frescos were covered75. The study prioritizes the identification of the ship and gives
a detailed description. They categorize the graffiti based on type (oared or sailing ship) rather
than depiction quality (simple or elaborate). For the identification, the researchers investigate
the maritime power dynamics between Ottoman, Byzantine and Venetian powers over the
city and the presence of their ships around the region - Venetian merchantman and galleys,
Ottoman pirates and galleys, or Byzantine “triremes” - from the contemporary written
sources and try to make sense of the presence of some the ship types in the collection. This
case study is particularly interesting as the structure provides a narrow interval within the
history of the building when the ship graffiti were carved, hence provides a unique
opportunity for the interpretation of graffiti within the historic context. However aside from
the identification, further interpretation is very limited. They provide a short, vague
discussion on the identification of the carvers based on the quality of the technical details
(e.g. rigging elements, hull shape and superstructures (the authors prefer the term
overstructure), the hand movements, and the location of the graffiti within the church.
Nakas and Krapf76 studied the ship graffito carved on the fresco of the church of
Amarynthos, Euboea with a terminus post quem from the frescos dated to the 15th century.
The church bares one more graffito in addition to the single one that they studied. This short
publication is a pure description of the ship graffito with details regarding the ship
technology, without any interpretation that is associated with the location or socio-historical
context, because in their stand there is not a concrete dating of the graffito. The study includes
a ship graffito carved on a tableware sherd that is studied in similar way.
The thesis study by Aydın77 focuses on 27 ship graffiti found on the church of Hagia
Sophia converted to Ayasofya (Orhan) Mosque in İznik. The graffiti are dated to 17th - 19th
century with the terminus post quem from the frescos that the graffiti were carved on. This
75 Babuin and Nakas 2012, 8-9.
76 Nakas and Krapf 2017
77 Aydın 2019
26
indicates the graffiti were carved when the structure was a mosque. Yet this does not evidence
that the graffiti were carved by Muslim visitors since the mosque kept its secret nature for
Christians as well. The church was where the Second Council of Nicaea took place and likely
remained as a pilgrimage site for Christians (which is supported by the cross on Çizim 24).
The study demonstrates an example of documentation and cataloguing of ship graffiti,
concentrating on identifying ships. It uses other visual materials such as miniatures and
ceramics with ship depictions to compare and identify.
Aside from these approaches on ship graffiti studies focusing on ship identification
and interpretation of the graffiti, a few scholars perceive ship graffiti as means to discuss the
maritime history of the region rather than prioritizing the graffiti. Bryer’s study on graffiti in
Hagia Sophia in Trebizond78 and Bilici’s study on graffiti in Alanya79 are among these
studies. This approach to the graffiti is a corollary of their expertise on maritime activities or
shipbuilding technology.
Bryer discusses the seafaring in Black Sea, particularly Trebizond region, in the
Byzantine period through the graffiti discovered in Hagia Sophia in Trebizond80. His main
interest is towards the naval activity and the presence of the Genoese in the region, but also
mentions small vessels. He seeks linguistic identification, creating a typology of the vessels,
rather than identifying the graffiti, except a few out of hundred.
Alanya Kalesi, the citadel from Seljuq period, bears extensive amount of ship graffiti
on secular and religious buildings spread around the city that have been discovered and
documented between 2003-2007 (there is no specific information on their documentation).
Most of the graffiti are dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, but there are examples dated up
until 19th century. Some of these graffiti are also published by Karasu81. Bilici uses this ship
graffiti as a tool to discuss the maritime history of the city, in a socio-political and an
economical context. He investigates the maritime power dynamics in the Mediterranean
through trade relations. In that context he makes connections with the identity of the carvers
who might have been merchants and sailors or local community that has benefited from the
78 Bryer 1966.
79 Bilici 2008
80 Bryer 1966.
81 Karasu 2005.
27
maritime trade. In addition to these common aspects he points out the viewer’s perception of
the graffiti and its significance within the landscape. His interest in the viewer is likely the
result of an art historian’s approach. He points out the association between the purpose of the
graffiti without calling it as votive offering and the function of the building, in this case
mescit, giving the building a saint-like connotation82. On the other hand, in the last chapter,
there is a strong effort on identifying the ship types of the graffiti, however, it is quite difficult
due to the extensive number of graffiti and the fact that they were carved on top of each other
in some places complicates identification of the graffiti. There are few examples of ship types
identified as brig, galleon, caravel, frigate, but an analysis of the ship parts and level of
quality in accuracy of the drawing is not questioned, probably due to lack of specialization.
Another study similar to Bilici’s approach is by Altıer, involves ship graffiti from
various structures in Çanakkale region: Hüdavendigâr Mosque in Behramkale (Assos), a bath
in Babakale built by Captain Kaymak Mustafa Pasha, and a mansion in Mahmudiye built by
Cezayirli Hasan Pasha. She explores the maritime history and the maritime community of
Çanakkale region through the graffiti, with an emphasis on the importance of the region in
shipbuilding thorough the Gelibolu shipyard in addition to its place in the Ottoman trade
network83. She acknowledges the spiritual aspect of the graffiti in religious context without
labelling it as votive offering. Along with the merchants and sailors she suggests the
shipwrights from Gelibolu shipyard as the possible carvers of some of the graffiti. She makes
a connection between the maritime achievements of Cezayirli Hasan Pasha and the graffiti
in his property. Even if the graffiti was made after he abandoned the property, the structure
might have been used by sailors and had a significance among them due to its history84.
Ship graffiti studies seem to evolve along these three paths: graffiti as a source of
nautical information, graffiti as an agent with its own meaning and purpose within a context,
and graffiti as a tool for investigating maritime history. These are not absolute divisions, as
some scholars combine different approaches in their studies. The background of the
researcher and the school of thought in a region appears to be influential on how they
approach the material. Studies in Cyprus have a holistic approach both in methodology and
82 Bilici 2008, footnote 156.
83 Altıer 2016, 10-11.
84 Altıer 2016, 11.
28
analysis, and emphasize the contextual interpretation; in Greece, they are characterized by
the emphasis on ship identification and less on contextual interpretation; and in Turkey, they
follow various approaches as the graffiti is studied by people with different specializations.
Broadly a social and historical context is essential to fully understand the graffiti, as most of
the scholars put much emphasis on them. Few of the studies above demonstrate that a
researcher should have a grasp of the overall literature in order to develop a method to study
ship graffiti. Overall literature can guide on how to approach to the subject. Some of the
aspects of the studies in the review helped to shape the research on ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın
Mosque. The review demonstrated what was missing in the scholarship and how my study
fills this gap: women as the artist of ship graffiti, a group of ship graffiti from a mosque in
English scholarship, and in depth discussion on the relation between the space and the graffiti
(some studies by Thomov and Karavoi project mentions few aspects only). It showed the
identification of the graffiti is a big part of the scholarship but not necessarily the primary
purpose as in Westerdahl and Walsh. It can be just supplementary to the interpretation of the
graffiti as in Demesticha et al. or a tool to discuss maritime activity in Bilici.
29
Chapter 3:
METHODOLOGY
Archaeology employs many digital documentation methods, depending on the
research questions and conditions of the context. These methods offer fast, more accurate
and detailed documentation that enables more in-depth study later during the lab work, which
is an advantage especially if the time on field is limited. These benefits cannot be fully
provided by traditional documentation methods of graffiti such as tracing on paper, free-hand
drawing or photography. As a part of the study, this chapter investigates three documentation
methods to assess the benefits and drawbacks of the methods when applied to this project:
photogrammetry, RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging) and terrestrial laser scanning.
There are many projects and publications investigating the use of these methods and
comparing their advantages and disadvantages on various subjects85. The aim of this chapter
is to give basic guidelines on methods and compare these methods to determine which
method of documentation is more suitable for studying graffiti depending on research
questions. However, it should be borne in mind that this comparison is specific to this context
and variables. The methods and results may vary in different circumstances.
Photogrammetry became the primary documentation method for this project, whereas
RTI and laser scanning were done for comparison and supplementary purposes for several
reasons. Photogrammetry provided greater advantages compared to RTI and laser scanning
because of the author’s experience with the method, the availability of the equipment to
conduct the method with efficient results within a limited time, the applicability to the entire
space, and number of graffiti and their location within the mosque. Photogrammetry model
enabled me to examine the graffiti within the context and investigate spatial relations with
the space and with each other, do digital drawings using the orthophotos extracted from the
model, take measurements from the model, and extract photos without the limitations of
space. As later discussed, RTI does not provide the data necessary for any spatial analysis
and contextual interpretation, hence it required further study in the field. Furthermore, the
85 For studies particular to graffiti see DiBiasie Sammons 2018; Abate and Trentin 2019; Bertocci et al. 2019;
Valente and Barazzetti 2020.
30
laser scanner became available after the photogrammetry model was completed and the
analysis of the graffiti was started.
3.1 Photogrammetry
Photogrammetry, as a documentation method, is becoming increasingly common
every year in the field of archaeology and heritage. It is faster and more efficient compared
to traditional documentation methods and easily manageable and low cost compared to highend
methods like laser scanning. But what is photogrammetry? Today with the technological
developments in digital photography and computational systems, it is employed more as a
science of creating three-dimensional spatial data by using two dimensional photographs and
software that applies the principles of stereoscopic viewing86. Since it uses photographs, it is
a passive technique of collecting data. Photogrammetry is divided into many categories
depending on camera positioning, image number, the method of recording the images, the
area of application, and such. Furthermore, one should be aware of the use of different
terminology to refer to photogrammetry such as Structure from Motion (sfm), and Computer
Vision Photogrammetry.
Photogrammetry is an efficient method when used to demonstrate the graffiti in
context and to emphasize its relation with the context as well as to examine their spatial
distribution. Even though graffiti has a three-dimensional nature in the micro scale since it
was carved, we perceive it as two-dimensional representation on a plane. This twodimensional
recognition of the subject makes graffiti different than the conventional scope
of subjects of the close-range photogrammetry method. By applying this method, the
researcher would have the opportunity to approach each graffito individually, as a whole or
in sections within the context. Furthermore, as the model is 1:1 scaled, quantitative survey
86 Stereoscopic viewing is the use two images of same content from slightly different angles to create depth
and have a sense of three dimension. Human eye is an example of this. Each eye focuses on the same thing
with an angle difference. Each detects it on a different position and brain combines these two sets of data to
position the subject.
31
can be done including precise measurements, which is an advantage in situations where the
researcher does not have direct access to the material.
3.1.1 Equipment
Photogrammetry is a very simple method and does not require complex and expensive
equipment, but the best result is only possible through the right equipment. All that is needed
is a camera and a computer with a software to build the model. To scale the model rulers,
scales or tape measures can be used, as well as software generated targets for georeferencing.
In case the tools are unavailable, the distance of two known points on subject can be applied
to the digital model in order to scale – however, this may cause inaccuracy. Along with this
necessary equipment, depending on the light conditions, additional light sources and a tripod
might be needed.
In order to have photos that have enough quality for photogrammetry, the camera
should have a full-frame sensor or APS-C sensor. Full-frame sensor is more sensitive than
APS-C sensor and generally present on professional DSLR cameras. Even though these
cameras cost more than amateur DSLR cameras with APS-C, they cover more surface and
more detail with more depth of field, which is essential for photogrammetry, and less noise
caused by low light. Although the issue regarding capturing more detail can be overcome by
getting closer to the subject, this will result in less surface coverage and create the need of
more photos for the same area, which requires more time for image recording and data
processing as well as additional space for extra images.
In this project a Fujifilm X100S, a compact camera with APS-C sensor87, with
Fujinon 23mm f/2 fixed focal length lens was used. A full-frame camera was not available
during the photography stage. Among the cameras with APS-C sensor available, this compact
camera was chosen over the DSLR cameras for several reasons. First, this camera has a lens
that is fixed to a specific focal length. This is an advantage during photographing the subject
87 In the last decade or so the companies like Fuji, Sony and Nikon developed compact cameras with ASP-C
sensor (23.7 x 15.6 mm).
32
as the focal length will not change accidentally. A variable focal length can generate
problems during the image processing as the software needs to calibrate these photos which
results in extra processing time. This problem can be overcome by using DSLR with a fixed
lens or an accessory to fix the focal length that would prevent variation. Second, due to the
very limited space, it was preferred to have a camera that takes up as less space as possible.
Both the body and the lens of a DSLR camera take more space than a compact camera.
Furthermore, the compact camera is lighter than DSLR which makes its use more
manageable in physically challenging situations. These situations will be discussed in detail
later in section 3.1.2, data collection.
In terms of software there are many open source and commercial software that can
be used based on the budget. For this project Agisoft Metashape Professional was used. This
program is the new version of Agisoft Photoscan. The main reason for choosing this software
is its availability and the author’s experience with it. Furthermore, this software is widely
used in both terrestrial and underwater archaeology.
Due to the light conditions inside the mosque being studied, additional light sources
had to be used during the photography. The women’s mezzanine did not have adequate
lighting to illuminate the space. The only light source is a spotlight in the main hall and little
day light coming from the small windows. The spotlight of the main hall was not suitable to
use because of the screen that partially blocked the mezzanine and caused shadows. The
crosshatch pattern of the shadow on the wall where the graffiti was located might have caused
problems with the alignment. Three Tricolor continuous studio lights with five bulbs were
used to illuminate the space. Since the graffiti was spread to different heights, two tripods
were used for different height ranges, one for higher part and one for the floor height.
3.1.2 Data Collection: Photographing
The documentation of the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque was conducted in late
November of 2019. The walls of the women’s section in the praying hall were divided into
10 areas to organize the documentation and recording better (Figure 3.1). Dividing the wall
33
into smaller units helped streamline the workflow and communicate the space more
precisely. In later phases of the research this is helpful on organizing the catalogue as well.
Figure 3.1: Area separation of the walls of the women’s mezzanine (not scaled)
The process of taking photos took less than two days. On the first day the lights were
set up and the left half of the space from the entrance (Area 1-5) was photographed. The next
day the right half of the space (Area 6-10) was photographed. Since the space was very
limited in the working area, the lights were used without their softboxes. With the softboxes
the lights could not have been positioned properly to illuminate the Area 1 and 10, because
of the screen separating the woman’s section from the main hall. Additionally, the area would
have been very crowded when all three lights were in use, which would limit the space for
movement, and would make following a fixed path and distance from the wall during
photographing very challenging. Furthermore, a softbox absorbs some of the light when it
diffuses it, which decreases the total light that can be obtained. Unfortunately, not using
softboxes caused glares on the walls where the light reflected directly. These areas can be
detected on the model. Luckily, this problem can be overcome with postprocessing.
In photogrammetry the software’s ability of aligning photos and building models with
clear texture depends on the use of sharp and clear photos. To avoid blurry images there are
certain settings that improve the quality of the photo: high aperture and shutter speed values.
High aperture values increase the depth of field and eliminate the blur caused by the planes
that are out of focus in various distances to the focal plane in a frame, likewise high shutter
speed eliminates the motion blur caused by the movement of the camera during exposure.
34
ISO setting is not as effective as aperture or shutter speed on the quality of the model, as the
noise on photos does not affect the model very much; nevertheless, it is better to keep ISO
as low as possible. Unfixed settings on the camera were employed to balance the
nonhomogeneous environment due to the challenging space with screen limiting the space
and low squinches cutting the space that caused the problem of unevenly distributed light.
Aperture setting was f11 or f16; shutter speed varied between 1/2 – 1/25; ISO changed
between 640 – 1250.
Figure 3.2: The photogrammetry set up
The photos were taken perpendicular to the wall from a constant distance less than 1
meter. Keeping a constant distance from the subject is important for two reasons. First, each
photo covers the same amount of area which makes the processing faster as the software does
not have to convert and match the points. Second, it ensures the full coverage with enough
overlap, because some areas can be missed as the distance changes. A combination of
longitudinal and transversal paths are followed during photographing. Consecutive photos
had more than 80% overlap to secure the alignment of the photos – 60% of side overlap and
80% of forward overlap is recommended by Agisoft88; however, higher overlapping was
88 AgisoftLLC 2020, 9.
35
preferred due to the low density of texture of many parts of the wall and close shots of the
dynamic parts like squinches. 1112 photos were taken for processing the model, including
some reshoots in November 2019. An additional 100 photos were taken to fix the problematic
areas in the model in October 2020.
3.1.3 Data Processing
The processing of the photos and building the model was done using Agisoft
Metashape software. The workflow below is based on this software but the main stages of
processing are similar to other softwares with maybe use different terminology. The main
stages that are essential in building a model and common among the various workflows are
Align Photos, Build Dense Cloud (if the point cloud is used to build the mesh)89, Build Mesh,
and Build Texture. In Metashape these stages are run under the workflow menu. Additional
steps can be included to improve the accuracy of the model and make it more presentable.
The workflow presented here includes these additional steps as well. The detailed processing
steps of the model made for this thesis are provided below. Low quality processing, including
the essential stages provided above, is done in the field to see if the photos align and had
enough coverage to build the model. A higher-quality model was made at the KUDAR
computer back in the lab.
1) Import photos to the software
Metashape works with chunks, in which groups the photos and processes them
together. All the photos that are going to be used in the model should be in the same chunk.
By contrast, the researcher may prefer to use several chunks to build the model and merge
them later, depending on the project and the subject matter. The user can add the photos by
dragging and dropping to the appropriate chunks in workspace or add them through workflow
menu.
2) Align photos
89 Because depth maps are used to build the mesh and not the point cloud, it was unnecessary to build dense
cloud in this project, hence skipped to save processing time.
36
There are four settings for alignment: low, medium, high, and highest. These levels
refer to the amount of information from images that will be used to align the cameras. The
alignment setting is determined by the sensor of the camera that was used for taking photos
and preferred level of accuracy of the model. Medium setting is suitable for full frame
cameras. Since a full frame image possesses more information per pixel, the software does
not need all the information to align the cameras (i.e. photos), whereas sensors with lower
sensitivity, e.g. APS-C, would have less information per pixel, hence the software needs to
obtain more data from each pixel. Even though it is not necessary, the high setting can be
used for the full frame cameras to have more precise result, if the GPU (Graphics Processing
Unit) of the computer is powerful enough to process it. The high setting is suitable for APSC
sensors, whereas the highest setting is for lower sensors on devices such as phone cameras
and action cameras. Before proceeding to step three, the user should check the alignment of
the photos in workspace. In case there are non-aligned photos (NA), the user should select
the photos and right click on them and select align selected cameras.
3) Shaping the model
To build a presentable model and to facilitate the use of some commands at later
stages I suggest rotating and resizing the subject and the model region. First, in orthographic
view mode the user rotates the subject, then rotates and resizes the model region. Check the
positioning from the following views: side, top and front. The proper positioning of the
subject will be helpful when the orthophoto is built or the data is exported.
4) Optimization
Minimizing the error of alignment by deleting the tie points with low accuracy using
gradual selection and optimize cameras lowers the accuracy error. Gradual selection should
be done in the following order of criteria: Projection Accuracy, Reconstruction Uncertainty,
and Reprojection Error.
5) Build mesh
Mesh is the geometry of the model. Metashape can build mesh using depth maps or
point cloud (dense cloud) or spare cloud. There are different settings depending on the
subject: surface type, source data, quality, and face count. Surface type refers to the surface
characteristics of the subject. If the subject is relatively flat (planar surfaces such as terrain
37
or bas-reliefs), the Height Field is the appropriate setting. The other option is the Arbitrary
setting, which is used when the subject has three-dimensional structure. Even though graffiti
is carved on a flat surface, the squinches create a three-dimensional structure. Hence, the
mesh of the graffiti was done in the Arbitrary setting. For the source of data to build the mesh,
the Depth Map was chosen, since it allows to use all the information from the photos more
effectively and is less resource demanding.90 The quality of mesh depends on the preferences.
Similar to the alignment settings, higher quality provides more detail. The important factor
is the GPU of the processing computer. Depending on the number of photos processed, the
GPU of the computer may not be able to complete the processing, since higher settings
require more powerful GPU. Face count refers to the maximum number of polygons that will
be created to build the model. This setting depends on the detail and smoothness desired. It
should be compatible with the quality setting. Before proceeding to the step six check the
integrity of mesh, for holes and alien floating lumps. If there are holes, re-processing the
photos with higher setting may solve the problem. If not, the subject should be photographed
again. The floating lumps create aesthetic problems and take up the texture size which leaves
less data space for the actual subject. Removing them would result in better texture of the
model.
6) Build texture
The final step of the processing, building texture, is creating a photomosaic from the
photos and applying it on the mesh to give the real-life appearance of the subject. At the end
of this process, the processing of the model is completed.
7) Scale model
Since measurements are essential in archaeological research, the model must be
scaled based on the measurement tools used during the photography as mentioned above:
targets or rulers. Targets are recognized by the software (because the software itself generated
them), if not they can be manually added. The coordinates of the targets can be entered in
Metashape, or the model can be georeferenced in GIS or another CAD program after being
exported. The important point about using coordinates is that in order to fix the model in
90 AgisoftLLC 2020, 30.
38
three-dimensional coordinate system, there needs to be at least three target points, preferably
from different parts of the model, to fix all x, y, z coordinates. If rulers or known distances
are used for scaling the subject, the scale bars in Metashape should be made based on known
measurements, and the measurements should be entered as distance.
8) Build orthophoto
Orthophotos of planes are built for drawing the ship graffiti. The orthophoto provides
better resolution image than the model texture, so the details are clearer while drawing.
Sections of each angle are made to create the orthophotos because when the orthophoto is
built, the 3D space is flattened into 2D plane which causes distortions at the areas that does
not have a perpendicular view. Hence, each area has their own orthophoto, and areas 1, 4, 7
and 10 have two orthophotos because of their V-shape.
Orthophoto has several advantages compared to regular digital photos. First, the
images are scaled equally throughout the entire space, hence the size of graffiti can be
compared visually. Second, the camera distortion of a single image is eliminated in the
orthophoto, which results in more accurate images. Third, it allows one to capture more detail
that single image can provide by adding close up images. Last orthophoto is a safer source,
compared to 3D model, for planar measurements as the third dimension can cause
mismeasurements in 3D model.
9) Export data
There are few different options to export the data. One can create a pdf of the model
to be able to share with many people. The point cloud or the model can be exported to work
in other CAD programs. Metashape, specifically, enables to export editable 3D data in
formats that can be opened in many CAD program such as OBJ, PLY, VRML, and XYZ.
Orthophotos can be exported as images in jpeg and tiff formats.
3.1.4. Results
All the photos taken for the model aligned, and the model was built successfully
without any holes. The accuracy of the scaling of the model is tested with the additional scale
39
bars on the walls that were not used to scale the model. Their measurement on the model
gave the size of the scale accurate enough for the purposes of the research. The model
sometimes measured these scale bars with a 0.02-0.10 cm difference, however this can be
overlooked as the aim of the research is not to collect technical data on nautical technology
like taking measurements of each element of the vessel and compare sizes, but to have a
general sense of the size of the graffiti. Furthermore, these variations of measurements are
most probably also related with the x,y,z values of the points used for the measurements.
Figure 3.3: The photogrammetry model
The model had few blurry areas on the texture, and so on the orthophotos. The lower
parts of the arc side of Area 10 turned out to be blurry on the first version of the model
because that part was only captured in the general photos and there were no good quality
chose-up photos to build the texture. Even though the graffiti were visible, they were not
clear enough for drawing. Another blurry area appeared on the model in Area 5. During the
second visit to the mosque these blurry areas were photographed again and combined with
the already existing photos. Although the second set of photos have a different light from the
previous set which altered the texture of the two, the software did not have any problems
regarding alignment of photos.
40
Using the lights without softboxes caused glares on the model and the orthophotos.
However, adjusting the brightness of the orthophoto in Metashape solved the problem
regarding the visibility of the graffiti.
3.2 Terrestrial Laser Scanning
Laser scanning is useful in collecting extensive amount of 3D measurement data in
short time with great accuracy, which makes it an efficient tool for geometric analysis. There
are number of scanners used to collect three-dimensional data: terrestrial laser scanners
(TLS), triangulation-based laser scanners and structured-light scanners. Although the
structured-light scanners are preferred more on graffiti documentation and TLS was more
suitable for documenting the spatial framework of the surface91, TLS is used due to its
availability to the author. This method automatically creates a point cloud of measurements
in its local coordinate system that can be georeferenced during the processing. If preferred,
color values can be captured by a built-in camera (that has a resolution less than a DSLR) or
external sources. Unlike photogrammetry it is an active documentation technique as the
device sends beams to measure rather than collecting the light in the environment. The
instrument calculates distances between the scanner and the object by measuring the time
lapse between the emission of laser beam and the detection of its reflection. This enables it
to gather data in poor light conditions as well.
3.2.1. Equipment
Laser scanning is more complex and more limited in terms of available equipment
and software to process the data. There are various types of laser scanners from few brands
and software provided by these companies used in cultural heritage. Generally, one can only
process the raw scan with the software they provide because of the specialized file format.
This forces a dependence on the company and in case of short-term use it allows limited time
91 Valente and Barazzetti 2020, 4.
41
of work on the project’s raw data. In this project Faro Focus S 350 terrestrial laser scanner
and the Scene software was used. The scanner has a built-in camera to capture color values.
It has a custom tripod with a specialized mounting to fix the scanner; however, it can be used
without the tripod when necessary. Since the laser scanner is an active technique, there is no
need for additional light source in a low-light environment such as the women’s mezzanine
in Ayşe Kadın Mosque. Yet if the color capturing is an essential part of the project, one can
use an additional light source or night mode of the scanner. The scaling instruments are not
necessary because the scanned point cloud is set on the local coordinate system of the scanner
as 1:1 scaled.
3.2.2 Data Collection
Several sets of scans of the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque were conducted in
two days in October, 2020. Every set of scans had different settings to compare their results
for efficiency and success on documenting the graffiti. The scanner allows a wide range of
resolutions for various needs. For this project two resolution settings were preferred: ½ and
¼. The ½ setting captures points in every 3.1mm, whereas ¼ captures in every 6.1mm on a
sphere 10m away from the scanner. The scanning quality was fixed to x4 (the highest quality
available in ½ resolution) for all the scans because of the surface treatments done during the
restoration of the mosque. Due to the light conditions, both night mode and 5x HDR color
setting were used. For HDR setting additional light sources were used. The night mode was
used when the daylight was providing a weak light but enough to see around. Although
scanning range in terms of angles can be set to narrow the region that is scanned, as long as
40% overlap is ensured for the registration92, the scans for this project was not narrowed,
even though it would have saved scanning time. Six scan points (Figure 3.4) were set to have
a full coverage of the space with angles as perpendicular as possible.
92 Overlap eases the registration, however depending on the software used there are manual registration
methods in which one can position the scans manually. I would only recommend using manual registration if
the researcher has a strong comprehensive knowledge of the space.
42
3.2.3 Data Processing
The processing and registration of scans into single point cloud and deleting the
unnecessary elements in the scan was done in the Scene software that is provided by the
scanner company. The software has a very simple workflow that does not have many options
to customize the processing. The following workflow is used for processing93:
1) The raw scan files are imported to the software with drag and drop technique.
2) To continue move to processing tab and chose the files that needs to be processed.
Then click configure processing.
3) The processing settings are customized on the configuration step. The point cloud
can be colorized at this step. A distance range of the points from the scanner can
be set to be included in the point cloud to eliminate the unnecessary spatial data.
4) Before starting the processing, the settings for registration can be set as well, so
after the processing, software automatically registers (aligns) the scans. When the
registration is complete it needs to be verified to approve the proper alignment. If
the alignment is not successful, scans can be registered manually.
5) After registration the individual scan files should be combined into a project point
cloud under explore section. At this stage it eliminates the duplicate points, but it
is important to keep the radius of selection as small as possible in order not to lose
surface data.
6) After creating the point cloud can be exported. The area that is exported can be
narrowed by creating clipping box. Clipping box can be used to create mesh as
well.
7) The point cloud is exported in formats that can be imported to Meshlab and
Metashape to create meshes in these softwares.
8) Mesh of the point cloud is made in Metashape, to see the three-dimensional
features of the graffiti on a solid model.
93 The workflow provided includes basic information. For more detailed instructions and information on
processing settings see the Faro Scene User Manual 2020.0.3
https://faro.app.box.com/s/uivkgf3jyrxcxn5ofazlohjnadddknhr/file/730718082810?sb=/details
43
Even though the color data is captured during the data collection, it is not used during
the processing of final version, because the poor light conditions created unpleasant
nonhomogeneous color during the test processing. Furthermore, the colors are not necessary
for this project, so this step of the processing can be eliminated to save time.
3.2.4 Results
The graffiti in the point cloud mostly appear due to their chromatic values rather than
spatial values. The visibility of the graffiti increases in relation with the contrast of chromatic
values of graffiti and the surrounding. In other words, the homogenous areas like the parts of
Areas 8&9 that were painted during the restoration do not show the graffiti clearly.
Furthermore, surfaces that were not perpendicular to the scanner had lower density of points.
As the beam inclined the distance between points increased. This had a negative effect on the
arch side of Areas 1&10 because the scanner positioning was restricted by the screen of the
mezzanine and scanner was not perpendicular to the surface. Additionally, there are holes on
the point cloud as the scanner had no view on those locations because of the screen.
Figure 3.4: The point cloud of the laser scanning in Scene. The scanning points are
indicated by the scanner
44
The mesh made with the scene program is not successful as it lowers the resolution
of the model. This is probably due to a possible subsampling the software does to reduce the
workload. The size of the area meshed does not affect the quality of the mesh. For that reason,
other software such as Meshlab and Metashape are considered for the later stages of the
processing. The point cloud with ½ resolution could not be processed successfully in both
softwares, because the technical equipment (i.e. computers and hard drives) was not
sufficient enough. The data size caused memory problem in Metashape and Meshlab crashed
during the import. However, the point cloud with ¼ resolution was processed successfully in
Metashape. The mesh with high face count setting was processed. The solid view of the mesh
revealed few of the graffiti appeared on the point cloud but not all. Only the original surfaces
revealed the graffiti and most of them are not with clearly identifiable lines. The point cloud
imported to Meshlab was not further processed because the preview did not seem promising,
and mesh was successfully built in Metashape.
The ideal method could have been the use of TLS combined with structured-light
scanner. However, considering the number of graffiti, this combination would have tradeoffs
such as the time spent to collect data on each graffiti, logistics of the data collection
(taking the equipment necessary for both to the mosque and setting up the scanners),
processing time, and data storage. These can become major issues in small scale projects as
this one and might not be beneficial even though both scanners are available.
3.3 Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI)
Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) is a computational photography
technique where one can manipulate the light direction during the examination of the twodimensional
image which is created by a software from several images with full overlapping,
which means neither the subject nor the camera moves during photographing. This technique
is particularly useful on small subjects that have depth of incision such as graffito because it
enhances the visibility of the surface change by employing the idea of raking light technique
from many directions.
45
3.3.1 Equipment
RTI is a low cost – yet very complex in terms of conducting – documentation method
that requires easily accessible equipment and a computer to process the images. The required
equipment is a camera to capture the images, a tripod for the camera, a portable light source
to illuminate the subject from different angles, a black reflective spheric object (in this study
small size shiny Christmas ball painted black with a marker is used) that the software will
use to detect the direction of the light. In addition to these, a tool to keep the light source at
a constant distance from the subject such as string, a scale, a tripod or a stand to hold the
reflective sphere, a remote control for the camera can be used to ease the data collecting
process. In this project Nikon D7100 with a 17-70 mm sigma lens and Fujifilm X100S with
Fujinon 23mm f/2 fixed focal length lens are used to capture the images fixed on a tripod.
There are two essential softwares provided for free by Cultural Heritage Imaging94 used for
RTI: RTIbuilder95 to process the images and RTIViewer96 to view the end product and
manipulate the light direction.
3.3.2 Data Collection
The data collection has few basic steps: setting up the camera, positioning the
sphere(s) 97, holding a light source with a distance of two to four times of the diagonal length
of the subject away from it, moving the light at this constant distance as photographed.
Data collection can be challenging based on the environment. The method works
better in the dark and stationary settings. Hence, the darkness in the mezzanine was an
advantage. However, the narrow space and the unsolid ground because of the hardwood floor
94 A non-profit corporation that develops and adopts digital imaging and preservation solutions for people in
cultural heritage. http://culturalheritageimaging.org/
95 http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/Downloads/Process/index.html
96 http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/Downloads/View/index.html
97 Currently the software uses one sphere to detect the light direction, however, Cultural Heritage Imaging
suggests to have two spheres because in the future it is possible that the program use two to have a more
precise detection.
46
made it difficult to stabilize the camera and the tripods. There were several times when the
camera moved because of small accidental collisions or shakes on the ground caused by
heavy movement and the sequence had to start from the beginning.
This technique is not applied to all the graffiti because of the high number of the
graffiti and the spatial limitations that make the technique rather inefficient in this
environment (this will be discussed further in results and comparison sections). Samples were
chosen based on different surface conditions, particularly the areas altered by the renovations
and restoration. The areas that were clearly visible on the model were excluded. In total 14
sets of images of graffiti were captured with this method during field work in November
2019 and October 2020.
The camera is fixed on the tripod and set perpendicular to the subject. One or two
spheres tied to the handle of a tripod were positioned as close to the graffito as possible
without blocking the light on graffiti. In 2019 two spheres were used, whereas in 2020 only
one sphere was used because it is not essential and stabilizing it was quite problematic. It is
important that the sphere should be on the same plane as the subject or as close as possible
to capture the correct angle of light on the subject. In this study it was not possible to place
the ball on the same plane. To minimize the error small size balls were chosen and placed
adjacent to the wall.
Multiple photos of graffiti with a light projected from a different direction were taken.
Photos taken in 2019 are saved both in jpeg and nef format but ones in 2020 in jpeg98. A
handheld flashlight was moved around the subject at the constant distance of two or three
times of the diagonal size of the graffito. The distance is determined depending on the
availability of the space and the size of the graffito. A string attached to the wall next to the
subject is used to measure this distance. A remote control was used instead of pressing the
shutter to avoid possible budging. The number of images for each graffiti depended on
barriers of space. Graffiti that were located close to the floor did not have images with light
directed from below or the squinches blocked the light from above.
98 Cultural Heritage Imaging does not suggest taking in jpeg format for archival purposes but photos that are
taken as jpeg can be used for RTI.
47
3.3.3 Data Processing
The processing of the RTI images is done in RTIbuilder. Cultural Heritage Imaging
provides a manual with well-organized and detailed workflow99. The workflow of this
method is quite standard except choosing the fitter to use when the file is built: PTM fitter
(Polynomial Texture Map algorithm)100 or HSH fitter (Hemispherical Harmonics algorithm).
These two fitters have the same principle except PTM uses 6 coefficients whereas HSH uses
4, 9 or 16 based on the setting preferred. Choosing one instead of the other has its trade-offs.
While HSH provides better quality data because it uses more coefficients, PTM provides
rendering options that HSH does not. Also, since the photos are taken with a portable light
source moved around, the highlight-based option should be chosen. Therefore, the
processing is not discussed further in depth except the few points discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Even though the processing in the software is rather simple, the overall processing of
the images is complex because, it involves small details that can result in malfunctioning. It
requires certain file organization, formatting and naming for a functioning pipeline, such as
the project name and the folder name must be the same in order to create the path, the images
have to be in jpeg format in the folder named as jpeg-exports located under the project folder,
the pipeline cannot have any words with spaces between (e.g. the folders cannot be named
as ‘graffiti rti’ or ‘ mosque graffiti’ because of the space between them).
The jpeg images are used to build the RTI images. Prior to the processing the manual
includes image adjustments such as white balance. This step is optional and requires
additional processing time and software. Therefore, jpeg images are used without any preprocessing.
99 For detailed workflow of building a RTI file see the Reflectance Transformation Imaging: Guide To
Highlight Image Processing by Cultural Heritage Imaging
http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/Downloads/rtibuilder/RTI_hlt_Processing_Guide_v14_be
ta.pdf
100 PTM is developed by Tom Malzbender, Dan Gelb, and Hans Wolters from HP Labs and published their
work with a conference paper. For detailed explanation on PTM see Malzbender et al. 2001.
48
Due to license issues, PTM fitter is not built into the software and has to be
downloaded from HP Lab, however at the time of the processing of these images the site did
not provide PTM fitter. Instead, graffiti were processed in HSH fitter which was already
available in RTIBuilder. After the study of these RTI images, the PTM fitter was found that
was shared by an entry in the forum of the Cultural Heritage Imaging101. However, project
images are not reprocessed with the PTM fitter, except one test case, because HSH fitter
creates better data and it already provides the surface enhancement mode in the RTIViewer
which is the rendering mode that seems to be mostly used for the graffiti studies102. The
downside is PTM has another mode that is not available in HSH called diffuse gain which
emphasizes the surface details and makes the surface more sensitive to variation and light
direction. This mode is particularly useful in revealing the shallow incisions of the graffiti103.
3.3.4 Results
The processed RTI images are viewed with RTIViewer provided by Cultural Heritage
Imaging using specular enhancement mode. The color diffusion is lowered to eliminate the
confusion that can be caused by the color texture. When the colors were removed, the graffiti
became more prominent. The specularity and highlight size can be adjusted according to the
visibility of the graffiti. This mode increased the visibility of the graffiti drastically. It works
best where the original surface remains. However, there is a significant improvement in areas
that underwent applications as well. The other mode available in HSH fitter, normals
visualization, is not as effective.
One sequence of graffito was unsuccessful because on one photo the camera moved,
and this was not realized during the shooting and the processing. The resulting RTI image
101 Cdschroer March 28, 2019 http://forums.culturalheritageimaging.org/topic/615-ptmfitter-softwaredownload-
link/
102 Among the researchers who use RTI in graffiti documentation and discuss their documentation method or
refer to the rendering mode of visuals in their publications, specular enhancement mode is used the most. For
these studies see Dhoop et al. 2016; DiBiasie Sammons 2018.
103 DiBiasie Sammons 2018, 186
49
was blurry, but the image could still be analyzed. Nevertheless, the photo causing the problem
was removed, then the sequence was reprocessed successfully.
Processing with PTM fitter was not successful due to an error regarding file
formatting that did not happen in HSH. All sequences were processed successfully in HSH
algorithm. The PTM algorithm did not recognize the file format and gave the message of
“Unknown file type: .JPG”. Changing the format to jpg solved the problem for a test
processing with less images (seven images out of the sequence of thirty four), but because
HSH provided the data that is useful to examine the graffiti, this is not applied to all graffiti.
3.4 Comparison of the Methods
The data processing is explained in detail for photogrammetry but not for the laser
scanning and RTI because photogrammetry allows many options as settings and workflow
whereas laser scanning and RTI have standard procedures. Furthermore, photogrammetry
can be done using various software, whereas laser scanning is dependent on the file format
of the scanner and currently there are no software options to build RTI other than RTIBuilder.
The data collection is quite challenging for RTI and photogrammetry as they are
passive techniques that are heavily affected by the environmental conditions such as light,
stability, and depended on the experience of the researcher. On the other hand, laser scanner
does not depend on such variables. The darkness of the mezzanine was an advantage for RTI
but caused logistical problems for photogrammetry. Since the laser scanning is an active
technique, the light in the environment is not essential. Space availability is another issue
regarding environmental conditions. RTI requires certain distance available from different
angles whereas photogrammetry and laser scanning can adapt to spatial limitations
(photogrammetry more than laser scanner).
Photogrammetry and laser scanning are helpful in documenting a great number of
graffiti in shorter time than RTI. All the graffiti in the mezzanine can be documented in single
model, whereas in RTI each one has to be documented individually. The number of graffiti
combined with the unstable floor makes RTI method very time consuming. Photogrammetry
50
of a single graffiti would take more time compared to RTI. Even though taking photos for
photogrammetry is faster than RTI, the processing takes a lot longer.
Photogrammetry and laser scanning are useful documenting graffiti within the
context and to demonstrate their association with each other, thus appropriate for large scale
documentation. RTI is useful to enhance the visibility of the graffiti, especially when they
are small and the incisions are shallow104. Depending on the area that the light source can
illuminate, it is possible not to see the graffiti as a whole, particularly when they are large,
because it illuminates one area of the surface and obstructs the rest. By nature, this method
pushes the researcher to pay attention to a single spot and prevents from observing the subject
in its entirety. Moreover, it is not possible to have a grasp of it within its surrounding, and its
association with the location. The method is rather useful when the research focuses on
accurate identification of the subject. This method is more appropriate for individual small
objects that are separated from their context and studied in a controlled and stable lab setting.
If it is used for subjects within a context, other documentation methods that collects data on
context should be employed as well.
Photogrammetry and RTI are low budget methods, whereas laser scanning is a highend
method. Both RTI and photogrammetry need a camera which is a basic equipment every
project possesses to use for many purposes, have free software to process the images
collected, despite the use of Metashape, which is a commercial software, to build
photogrammetry model in this project. Other equipment such as scales and spheres can be
improvised with what is available. On the other hand, laser scanning requires special
equipment and software with limited use only for this job.
Both photogrammetry and laser scanning serve to collect spatial data, hence choosing
one over the other does not influence the research purposes. Laser scanning method is known
for its accuracy. However, as demonstrated above, photogrammetry provides sufficient data
accuracy as well. Furthermore, the spatial appearance of the graffiti on the solid mesh are
similar in both methods but most of the graffiti that have chromatic contrast appear on point
cloud data of terrestrial laser scanner whereas the texture of photogrammetry model reveals
more graffiti (Figure 3.5-3.8). It is still possible that photogrammetry did not capture all the
104 Also suggested by DiBiasie Sammons 2018, 187.
51
graffiti, yet with texture it provides better result than terrestrial laser scanning. Furthermore,
the orthophoto has a better visual than the texture, hence the graffiti are more visible. To have
the best result two methods can be combined using point data from laser scanning and texture
data from photogrammetry. That said, this would require a lot more processing time and
memory space, and may strain the budget. It is also possible to combine photogrammetry and
RTI105. This comparison demonstrated that photogrammetry was best for this environment
and use, hence the subsequent catalogue, and some of the images used throughout the thesis
were created using this technique.
Figure 3.5: The solid view of photogrammetry model mesh, quality setting medium
105 Solem and Nau 2020 demonstrates the effective use of IBM (image based modelling) and RTI.
52
Figure 3.6: The solid view of laser scanning model mesh
Figure 3.7: The solid view of photogrammetry model mesh, quality setting high
53
Figure 3.8: The orthophoto from the medium quality
Aside from digital methods, photogrammetry was also advantageous compared to the
more traditional methods such as tracing or rubbing. It allowed the documentation of space
together with the graffiti and made it accessible after the field work. This allowed more time
to survey the walls and identify more graffiti. The orthophotos (or photos) exported from the
model can be adjusted using filters and other tools to enhance the visibility. Furthermore,
since the graffiti were documented with the space, it was possible to develop further questions
to investigate without going back to field which is a cost benefit especially for students. The
spatial information stored in the model enabled me to take measurements after the field work
which shortened the field time.
Another benefit that was essential for the interpretation of the graffiti in the mosque
is that the model made it possible to observe the graffiti all together rather than looking at
them individually. This allowed me to notice the connections between the graffiti, the
patterns, and the relation with the space which is discussed in depth throughout Chapter 5. In
this sense RTI is like the traditional methods, a conclusion that became clear as the methods
were tested, and the results were compared. However, RTI still has an advantage over the
traditional methods as it increases the visibility of the lines that might not be visible to naked
eye. This method serves better when the purpose of the research is based on the identification
of the lines.
54
The traditional methods have some logistical problems as well. The supply of the
tools used for tracing or rubbing such as paper may be problematic. It is possible to run out
of these tools during the documentation. Because of the number of graffiti in the case of Ayşe
Kadın graffiti, the transmission and the storage of the drawings can be difficult in terms of
dealing with drawings on paper versus in hard disk. This can be a further problem with the
accessibility of the data and sharing with others.
It is important to acknowledge that the model is stripped from some aspects of the
space. In the model the environment looks bright because of the lights used whereas the
natural environment is much darker. The space seems wider since the screen and floor can
be removed. It provides endless viewpoints that may overcome the spatial limitations and the
eye line.
3.5 Building the Catalogue
The catalogue of the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque (Appendix 1) is the result of
the documentation process. It includes the basic information of each graffito: the catalogue
number of the graffito, location of the graffito in the mezzanine based on the area separation
(Figure 3.1), propulsion type (whether sailed or oared), the rigging type if the vessel is sailing,
side of the vessel depicted, preservation state (any wear like cracks and dents or flaked fresco,
renovation and restoration applications affecting the graffiti), maximum measurements of the
height and length of the graffiti, a detailed description, a photo, and a drawing. The graffiti
are numbered based on the following system. Taking AK 3015 as an example, AK refers to
the site Ayşe Kadın, 3 refers to the Area 3 where the graffito is located, and 15 refers to the
number of that graffito within that Area.
By using the orthophotos created from the photogrammetry model, digital drawings
of graffiti are made, and images of each graffiti are extracted. The orthophotos are placed in
Illustrator and digitized. However, a slight decrease on the quality of the photo is observed
in Illustrator. The drawing of each graffito is extracted from the area drawing. The photos
are captured from the orthophotos in Metashape.
55
Orthographic measurements are taken from the orthophotos to have a general idea of
the size of the graffiti and height from floor. These data do not serve to collect nautical
information but to help with the interpretation of the graffiti in topics such as whether the
size of graffiti matters, if there is a preference, or whether people were standing as they
scratched them. However, because the current floor level is not original, as demonstrated by
the graffiti extending below the present floor level, the measurement of the height from floor
is not the original height.
56
Chapter 4:
IDENTIFYING SHIP GRAFFITI
Even though some researchers use the ship graffiti as a source of nautical
information106, it should be remembered that the graffiti is the outcome of an artistic activity
with various possible intentions depending on the context, such as a votive offering in
religious context. In this regard they are not technical drawings but schematic
representations. They do not provide technical details, such as (scaled) dimensions of a vessel
or hull form, but narrate the concept of a vessel, like two-masted sailing vessel. Hence in this
thesis the types of the ships are not intended to be identified accurately but provide a broad
categorization based on propulsion type and the sail type. The purpose of such categorization
is to understand the maritime activity of the peninsula. The catalogue is also built based on
this strategy. In this chapter a general overview of the ship and sail types of that period in the
region is provided to familiarize the reader with them. The overview can be helpful for the
catalogue as well. The common elements of these vessels and graffiti are analyzed and tried
to be identified where possible.
Among the graffiti the most identifiable element is the rigging of the sailing vessels,
because it is the most visible part of a ship with distinctive features. The hull is mostly
standard other than the rake of the ends and the wale(s) supporting the hull. The size of the
hull can be deceiving in terms of ship type because the vessel’s cargo weight can change the
observed waterline and overall appearance. The bowsprit (together with jib-boom) is another
element that can be distinctive based on its length (whether involve jib-boom and flying jibboom)
and rake, however for such identification the graffiti needs to depict a vessel
accurately.
4.1. Sail Plans
106 See the Story of Ship Graffiti Studies in chapter 2.
57
The following are general sail types used in the Mediterranean during the Ottoman
Period that appear to be depicted on the graffiti at Ayşe Kadın Mosque. These riggings are
categorized under two main groups: square rigging and fore-and-aft rigging. Under the foreand-
aft rigging are lateen sail, sprit sail, lug sail, gaff sail (Figure 4.1.)107. Accompanying
these primary sails are secondary sails such as stay sails and jibs which are supplementary
sails. These sails are used individually, or a combination of these types are used to create
more specific riggings that have individual names such as brig, brigantine, schooner, ketch.
These specific sail types are strongly associated with the ship types, thus ships are categorized
based on their sail, even though they have characteristic features on the hull as well. On the
other hand, these general sail types have local variants with different names, for example
sprit sail has a local adaptation in the Aegean as saccoleva, which extends lengthways
more108.
Figure 4.1: The rigging types: square sail, lateen sail, sprit sail, gaff sail, lug sail
(illustrations from Moore 1925)
107 Moore 1925; Underhill 1978 are good sources to get detailed information on sail types and vessels that use
these sails.
108 For difference between sprit and saccoleva see Leontidis 1993, 92.
58
4.2. Vessel types
The waters surrounding the Karaburun Peninsula were active in terms of maritime
activity for two reasons. First the peninsula depended on the maritime routes for trade,
transportation and communication. Furthermore, because the terrain of the peninsula has
limited arable lands, the sea was a significant source of food and income. Second due to its
positioning between Chios and Izmir, which are two of the major Ottoman maritime trade
centers, the community of the peninsula encountered many different types of vessels from
different regions. Especially with the 17th century, the Port of İzmir became more important
in international trade. European countries established general consulates in Izmir and state
vessels were accompanying these consulates. A traveler’s account from early 1800s mentions
these foreign vessels he encountered during his visit to Smyrna: several British, American,
Austrian, Dutch and French frigates, some corvettes, a schooner and a brig109. Nevertheless,
the maritime community of the peninsula probably interacted with small merchantmen like
coasters and barges more than big ships. This characteristic was reflected in the graffiti of
the Ayşe Kadın Mosque that is discussed more in detail further below.
The Ottoman naval ships are better documented, hence more studied, than the
merchantmen and local boats110. Ethnographic studies on shipbuilding in a region are the
most useful source111. In the absence of these studies the information on merchantmen can be
gathered mostly through customs office records, consulate reports and travelers’ accounts or
logbooks of vessels in the case of big steamship companies such as İdare-i Mahsusa (later
became Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi), and Şirket-i Hayriye. For specific information around
Karaburun peninsula Hamidiye Vapur Hizmetleri (Hamidiye Ferry Services) which served
in İzmir could be useful as there was a ferry service provided by the company between
Karaburun and İzmir. Additionally, Aydın Vilayet Salnameleri (official annals of Aydın
province) could be another source as İzmir, hence Karaburun peninsula, was under the district
109 Frankland 1829, 245.
110 Some major studies on Ottoman naval vessels are Uzunçarşılı 1988; Bostan 1992; Güleryüz 2004; Bostan
2005; 2006. On boats Denham 1986; Ertuğ 2001.
111 A number of studies in Aegean and Anatolian coasts are Damianidis 1989; Çoban 2012.
59
of Aydın during the Ottoman Period. However, these primary textual sources mostly do not
provide detailed technical information that would help to visualize the vessels, except the
accounts or publications of the naval officers about the topic. Furthermore, due to the
language problems, the Ottoman records such as custom records, salnameler, and the
logbooks of Ottoman companies are not included among the sources of this thesis unless they
have been studied, translated, and published by researchers. The only visual sources are the
photo archives, miniatures, and illustrations on travel accounts. A prominent example is
François-Edmond Pâris, a French admiral in 19th century who gathered technical drawings
of contemporary vessels from all around the world in his three-volume work, Souvenirs de
marine conserves, which also contains drawings of Ottoman vessels.
Merchantmen and local boats adapt to the sea conditions and availability of sources
with heterogenous mix of hull forms and rigging arrangements which creates types of vessels
particular to a region. The studies on Ottoman merchant vessels112 and small boats indicate
Ottoman coasts were navigated by small coasters and barges like pereme, çektirme (tserniki),
tırhandil (trehandiri)113, mavna (mauna or barge), kayık (caïque), şayka (saïka), çekevele
(sakoleva, or saccoleva), uskuna (schooner). These are mostly single-masted vessels but can
also accommodate a second mast. Most of them can be rowed as well. Among the larger
vessels with two or more masts are brig, pergende (brigantine), gagalı (bumbarta).
Pereme is a typical Aegean coaster trafficking the sea-trade in the archipelago
between Smyrna and islands like Chios and Crete114. They were built in Smyrna shipyards
starting in 1870115. Kayık is rather a general term for small boats, referring to the hull type,
and takes different names depending on the usage/cargo and region such as İzmir kayığı
(Smyrna caqïue), Pazar kayığı (market caique). Pereme and mavna are categorized as larger
types of kayık. Even tırhandil is considered as a type of kayık with a slight curvature
difference on the bow compared to pereme116. Unfortunately, there is no standard naming of
112 Moore 1925; Prins 1992; Ertuğ 2001; Bostan 2006
113 There are various versions of this word like trehandiri (Delis 2014), trekandiri (Prins 1992), trechadiri
(Damianidis 1989)
114 Prins 1992, 79–80
115 Güleryüz 2004, 72
116 Denham 1986, 280
60
boat types as demonstrated on the study on İnebolu Kütüğü117. The locals categorize the boat
as a pereme and refer to the boat using various terms such as İnebolu Kayığı, İnebolu Kütüğü,
İnebolu Peremesi, Kütük Kayığı (log caique)118.
Some of these vessels can operate regionally or seen more in a particular region such
as çektirme in Black Sea region or tırhandil around Datça-Bodrum in south Aegean. The
Karaburun community used pereme and other sailing vessels for transportation119. However,
some vessel types such as pereme were not limited to certain areas as evidenced by İnebolu
Kütüğü from Black Sea region and pereme from İstanbul and İzmir mentioned in the
studies120.
In the 18th and 19th centuries there were two shipyards in the vicinity of Karaburun
that could provide boats: Çeşme, and Chios - maybe even Psara until the Greek War of
Independence121. Even though there are regional characteristics among ship types, there are
many shipwrights transferring traditions originating from other regions as they were
summoned to work in the state arsenals122. Hence it is likely that regional vessel types do not
necessarily have standard forms.
4.3. Graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque
The walls of the women’s mezzanine in Ayşe Kadın Mosque bear 249 graffiti carved
on the fresco. Unfortunately, there are some issues regarding the identification of the graffiti.
The following few paragraphs discuss these issues.
The major problem is that the renovation and restoration projects prior to this study
(discussed in Chapter 2) altered the original state of the walls on which these graffiti were
carved. Some areas of the walls are densely painted over where there were most probably
117 İnebolu Kütüğü is a traditional boat survived from the 19th century located in İnebolu at the Black Sea
region of Anatolia. The boat is studied by Çoban 2012. The boat was also documented by Pâris 1882.
118 Çoban 2012, 171
119 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 20
120 Prins 1992; Ertuğ 2001; Güleryüz 2004; Çoban 2012
121 These shipyards are studied by Damianidis 1989.
122 Damianidis 2010, 164
61
more graffiti. Now these graffiti are covered with paint leaving no trace behind. On the areas
where the paint is lighter one can trace the lines of the graffiti. Still the paint complicates the
identification and interpretation of the graffiti. Furthermore, it is possible that the tools used
during the restoration add pseudo-lines to the graffiti which might be misleading for the
interpreter (e.g. AK 2004). The plaster and paint perplex distinguishing graffiti from each
other.
This is further exacerbated with the change of floor level and screen positioning in
some cases. It affects the quantitative survey of the graffiti, increasing the number graffiti
and altering the categorization of them. A prominent example demonstrating all these aspects
is AK 2047 with AK 2048 and AK2049 (Figure 4.2). Because of the paint and the floor level
change it is not possible to distinguish whether AK 2048 and AK2049 are separate from each
other or a part of AK 2047 as a second mast with square sail.
Figure 4.2: AK 2047, AK 2048, and AK2049. The lines are highlighted to enhance the
visibility of the graffiti
Among 249 graffiti 142 are clearly identified as ships. Any level of uncertainty is due
to either vague depictions (discussed later) or heavy disturbance by the restoration. These are
indicated in the catalogue.
62
The level of detail depicted on the graffiti is important in identifying the ships. Yet,
in general ship graffiti are carved in a simplified, almost schematized, manner with only few
essential elements depicted: hull, mast or oars (or both), sail and some rigging elements such
as stays, shrouds, and sheets. These rigging elements are sometimes depicted rigorously.
Overall, the graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque are quite plain with minimum detail. Nonetheless,
some graffiti incorporate additional elements into these schematical representation, which
individualizes the vessel, such as a possible decorative pattern, wale(s), a beak-head, flag(s),
ratlines, even people on board.
Most of the graffiti are clearly identified as ships or smaller boats. There are few
vague depictions that are interpreted as ship graffiti because of the overall nature of the
assemblage. Since there are no other subjects depicted on the walls that can be clearly
identified, the unclear depictions are interpreted as vessels as well, even though the artist may
have intended to create something else. These vague depictions either lack the details that
are sufficient enough to identify what is depicted (e.g. AK 9011) or the details are poorly
shaped to a level that makes the viewer impartial regarding the identification (e.g. AK
10022). Additionally, the paint affects the identifying elements of the graffiti.
One reason there are many graffiti is that there are numerous unfinished ones (Table
4.1, also see the unfinished category in catalogue). The unfinished graffiti in the mosque lack
the identifying features of a schematical depiction of a vessel, in particular a polygonal shape
of a hull, but the overall assemblage gives one the sense that they were intended to be vessels
as well. In a way unfinished graffiti can be interpreted as vague depiction as well. The
unfinished graffiti are further discussed in the next chapter in association with the nature of
the act.
As stated previously the thesis attempts to categorize the graffiti rather than identify
the ship types. The graffiti is first categorized based on propulsion: sailing, oared and
bareboat. About 65 percent of the graffiti (162 graffiti) are sailing vessels. Twelve of these
sailing vessels are depicted with oars as well. There are eleven boats that are rowed without
a sail. Even though a boat is a sailing vessel, it is possible to remove the mast and just row
the boat. In some cases, rowing is preferred, and even forced by the authorities, especially in
the busy harbors to prevent accidents. And depending on the hull shape, some kayık types
63
are rowed in difficult weather conditions because the wind in the sail capsizes the boat. There
are many cases in Bosporus where the boats, particularly peremes, are capsized, hence the
use of sail is restricted123.
Table 4. 1: The propulsion types and number of graffiti in each category.
Sailing 127
Sailing (?) 21
Oared 11
Sailing + oared 13
Sailing + steam (?) 1
Bareboat 8
Bareboat (?) 28
Unfinished 5
Unfinished (?) 10
Unidentified 22
Other (day count + fishing cabin) 3
Total: 249
Following the sailing vessels are the boats with no clear indication of propulsion
(indicated as bareboat in the catalog). These boats were probably either moored or the
propulsion means had no significance for the artist. The other possibility is they were
incomplete. Nevertheless, it is difficult to distinguish whether a graffito is depicting a
bareboat. For example, AK 1006 has a line protruding from one end of the hull that may
represent a bowsprit, which would indicate that the boat is a sailing vessel, but the mast and
sail are not evident. In that case the graffiti might be unfinished. However, it is also possible
that the line protruding from the end is a rope that fixes the boat to the docks, even though
the dock is not depicted. Moreover, some of these graffiti are disturbed by the previous
applications mentioned earlier. This disturbance may have altered the traces of any kind of
propulsion. For example, AK 2005 was probably depicted with a mast as suggested by the
vertical line in the middle above the sheer line. Unfortunately, the paint covers the upper part
of the boat and makes it impossible to clearly identify. Since the majority of the walls with
graffiti are painted over, it is likely that what is categorized as bareboat may be a sailing
123 Ertuğ 2001
64
vessel. If it was an oared vessel the traces of propulsion would have been preserved along
with the hull.
Table 4.2: Number of masts depicted in sailing vessels. The number following “+”
indicates the aft sail
Number of masts Number of graffiti
1 103
1 (?) 18
1 + ? 1
1 + 1 5
1 + 1 (?) 6
2 7
2 (?) 1
2 + 1 4
2 + 1 (?) 1
3 1
Then the sailing vessels are further categorized under different rigging types and
number of masts. The sailing vessels depicted on graffiti are mostly small boats with single
mast. There are few larger vessels with two or more masts. Some of the small single masted
vessels have a smaller mast at the aft. Many of the vessels have one type of sail. The most
common sail is the lateen sail. The sprit sail is mostly accompanied with a square topsail and
sometimes two square sails. The rarest sail type is the gaff sail which appears as the aft sail.
Table 4. 3: The sail types and number of graffiti in each category. The unidentified sail
types, in which mast is present but the sail is not identifiable, are not included.
lateen 24
lateen (?) 11
lug 22
lug (?) 3
square 9
square (?) 8
sprit 4
square + sprit 20
square + sprit (?) 2
square + lateen 3
square + lateen (?) 2
square + lug 1
65
lug + gaff 3
lateen + gaff 1
square + gaff 5
square + gaff (?) 2
square + sprit + gaff (?) 1
lug or lateen 2
lug or square 1
lateen or sprit (?) 1
Even though a general categorization is preferred, identifying elements of ships on
graffiti can be problematic because of artistic license: mainly regarding the perspective in
sail depiction. The hull and fore-and-aft rigging such as lug, lateen and gaff sail are fittingly
depicted sideways whereas square sail depictions are pivoted. This can be a further issue in
identifying the lug sail (specifically a balance lug which has its one third to the fore of the
mast) and single square sail, because with the artistic license both can have the same shape.
The only distinguishing factor between them would be the braces if positioned correctly: in
square sail they would attach to the side which would reflect as a line close to the mast in
graffiti, whereas lug would be attached towards ends.
It may be possible to identify the ship types of some of the graffiti by comparing them
to the illustrations provided in the publications of naval officers who collected information
on local ship types during their trips to those regions 124. These identifications are based on
the sail similarities rather than hull shape, because the artists seem to prioritize the sail over
hull form. The following section discusses few of the graffiti that are identified based on
these similarities.
The following vessel is the most documented vessel. It is called a coaster by Smyth
and Pâris125, Moore refers to this type of vessel as çektirme. The sail is a combination of sprit
sail and one topsail or two square sails above the sprit sail attached to the single mast, so
instead of mainsail in regular square sail there is a sprit sail. The example Paris provides from
Istanbul has the third square sail as main sail in addition to sprit sail. There are up to three
jibs accompanying the sail. Çektirme is more common in Black Sea and Marmara regions,
124 The main sources of ship plans used in this thesis are Moore 1925, Pâris 1882, Smyth 1906.
125 Pâris 1882, No 77 “Cabotuers de Constantinople”
66
however Damianidis mentions it was built and commonly used in eastern Aegean as well and
Smyth refers to an illustration of this type of coaster as a Smyrna coaster126. The second
example Pâris127 provides is the İnebolu coaster which is associated with the İnebolu Kütüğü
that is identified as a pereme by other scholars128. This example does not have a main sail but
a sprit sail and two square sails at top mast. Prins indicates there are at least two different
hull shapes and three different rigging plans that are associated with çektirme129. He seems
to approach the vessel type as a broad category like kayık130. Among the graffiti in Ayşe
Kadın AK 3001, AK 5010, AK 8003, AK 9001, AK 9010, AK 9018 are few examples that
shows resemblance to the drawings of çektirme (Figure 4.3).
126 Damianidis 1989, 52; Smyth 1906, 324.
127 Pâris 1882, No 59 “Caboteur a Livarde D’Inebolu”
128 Çoban 2012; Çubuk 2014.
129 Prins 1992, 80
130 Prins’ categorization is rather unreliable as his primary source of information seems to be the drawings of a
model builder. It is not clear how he gathered the information on the variations of the vessel type. Yet Smyth
gives an illustration labeled as çektirme from Marmara that has a pena rigging which is the same as one of the
riggings Prins suggests.
67
Figure 4.3: Coaster from Istanbul by Paris, çektirme from Moore, Smyrna coaster from
Smyth, İnebolu coaster by Paris
Another type of vessel documented in Pâris is a pereme that is commonly used around
Smyrna. An ethnographic study in Karaburun mentions the use of pereme for transportation
as well131. Yet the example Pâris provides is from Istanbul and has two lug sails. However,
there are examples with single mast and other sail types such as lateen mentioned by
Damianidis132. Furthermore, Prins states that the boat is characteristic in terms of its hull
shape133. This shows pereme is a term derived from hull characteristics and different sails can
be used with it. Thus, majority of the graffiti depicted on Ayşe Kadın Mosque can be
peremes, as the hull in graffiti has a general form. On the other hand, there is another boat
documented by Pâris called İzmir kayığı (Smyrna caique) which can be confused with the
single masted pereme, because the main difference between these types is the hull shape
based on the examples provided by Pâris, more specifically the curvature on the stem and the
positioning of the rudder. This might not be detectable in graffiti since most graffiti do not
depict rudder and the hull has a general form. This dynamic and flexible use of sails creates
a group of graffiti that cannot be identified accurately in terms of vessel type. Among the
graffiti in Ayşe Kadın AK 2016, AK 2025, AK 3005, AK 3018, AK 8001, AK 8010, AK
9012, AK 10011, AK 10034 are few examples that shows resemblance to the drawings of
pereme and Izmir kayığı (Figure 4.4)
131 Telci and Güntürkün 1996
132 Damianidis 1989, 55.
133 Prins 1992, 80
68
Figure 4.4: Pereme and Izmir Kayığı from Pâris
The large vessels with clearly identifiable elements scratched on the walls of Ayşe
Kadın Mosque are probably brigs which are large merchantmen that are common in Aegean,
especially among Greek merchants. A brig is characterized by its rigging composed of two
masted square sail with an addition of a spanker. The Turkish adaptation of this type is called
gagalı with a two leveled bowsprit. There are 11 graffiti with two large masts. Most of them
are both square sails (e.g. AK 1004, 1005, 3006, 5013, 10017) or one square and one other
sail type (e.g. AK 7002). Some of these graffiti have additional gaff sail at the aft (e.g. AK
1004, 1005). There is only one three masted square sail ship among the graffiti (AK 2030).
Unfortunately, the paint and floor level change affected the identification of some of the large
vessels as well. Even though there are traces or indications of two masts (with additional aft
sail in some cases) among the graffiti that are disturbed by these factors, it is difficult to
recognize the elements of a sail accurately. For example, AK 4017 might have had a
mizzenmast, because the mainmast is towards the fore of the vessel and there is an empty
area towards the aft of the vessel before the aft sail. Or AK 8006 clearly has masts as indicated
by the ratline, yet the vertical lines are quite disturbed that it is difficult to distinguish whether
that line is part of the mast or the sail cloth.
Although the only subject that is clearly identified is boats, there is one graffiti that
may represent another activity in the peninsula that is related with sea. The graffito AK 3037
resembles the fishing cabins built at the steep cliffs by the sea (Figure 4.5). It is a small cabin
elevated on poles. Fishermen use this cabin to watch for fish and use a pulley system to
collect the net. These cabins are spread throughout the peninsula. Currently there are no
69
examples of the cabin on the harbor bay of Mordoğan but the bay north of harbor called Ardıç
has few cabins still in use.
Figure 4.5: A fishing cabin in Ardıç
Identifying ship type in graffiti is a debatable undertaking since graffiti in general
reflect the artist’s ideas, skills, aesthetic concerns that can alter the depiction. Ship graffiti in
Ayşe Kadın Mosque is further problematic in terms of two aspects: the conditions of the
graffiti, and the inadequate and inconsistent sources and research on Ottoman merchant
vessels and small boats. In Ayşe Kadın Mosque main factors that complicate the
identification of the ship are: (1) areas with plaster and paint which covers the graffiti on
walls, (2) vague and unfinished graffiti, (3) poorly shaped lines. Furthermore, identifying the
ship type is complicated because it seems the small merchant vessel types mentioned above
are mostly derived from the hull shape, rather than rigging. However, the ship graffiti in Ayşe
Kadın Mosque are more characterized by the sail rather than hull. More effort by the artists
seems to be made on shaping the sail than the hull. This is understandable given the fact that
the sail is most visible element of a vessel while it is at sea. And sailors interact with sails
quite often. The visual sources and ship graffiti from Ayşe Kadın Mosque show some
similarities but these similarities can be deceiving as the primary identifying element, i.e.
sail, can be used interchangeably among ship types as demonstrated by the pereme and kayık
70
example or the various sail plans used on çektirme as demonstrated by Prins134. Nevertheless,
it is safe to state that majority of the vessels are small single masted sailing boats that are
used for short distance trade or fishing and sponge diving. There are few large vessels that
are probably not directly associated with the economic life in Karaburun peninsula but
connected through İzmir. This shows the maritime activity in the peninsula was small scale,
probably locally oriented. This will be discussed further in the next chapter.
134 Prins 1992, 81–83
71
Chapter 5:
INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAFFITI
In this chapter the ship graffiti found on the walls of women’s mezzanine is
interpreted within their spatial, social and economic contexts. The area separation (Figure
3.1) used during the documentation (Chapter 3) and the catalog are used in this chapter to
communicate the space more precisely particularly during the discussion on distribution of
graffiti. The materiality of the graffiti is discussed through the relation between environment,
graffiti, and the carver. The chapter tries to analyze the characteristics of graffiti as votive
offerings for a safe voyage. It includes interpretations within religious and belief systems,
spirituality, rituals and practices, and tries to understand how the graffiti fit into these
frameworks. It points to the regional perceptions and experiences of Islamic traditions and
culture. The next part of the chapter focuses on what can be interpreted about the maritime
activity in the peninsula through this group of graffiti. Women, as the carver of ship graffiti,
are given particular interest at the end of the chapter.
5.1 Spatial interpretation of the graffiti
The current evaluation of the building suggests the ship graffiti are exclusively
located on the walls of women’s mezzanine, although this interpretation is heavily influenced
by the preservation of the walls. The only wall surface that survived since the nineteenth
century with contemporaneous frescos is the majority of the dome down till the squinches,
which is the level of the women’s mezzanine. Furthermore, the walls of the mezzanine have
patches of modern plaster and paint that limits the visibility of the graffiti, and most possibly
seals some graffiti entirely. The lower middle region of Area 9 (Figure 5.1) is a very
prominent case for this. The dense paint smooths the wall surface leaving no traces of lines
that can suggest the presence of graffiti in that part of the wall. Yet, the overall nature of this
wall in Area 9 strongly suggests there were graffiti there as well, but presently concealed.
72
Figure 5.1: Densely painted wall on Area 9
One area that is heavily covered with plaster is Area 6 (Figure 5.2.). This area is quite
suitable for graffiti because it provides a wide, straight, and flat surface with a space enabling
people to move more flexibly unlike the squinches and the arches over them. Area 6 is also
next to the entrance to the mezzanine which provides additional light. These factors promote
the use of that area. Area 5, which mirrors Area 6 at the entrance, demonstrates that these
factors favor the use of that part of the walls as there are 14 graffiti in various sizes.
Unfortunately, because of the plaster, Area 6 has little trace of only two graffiti, one occupies
almost half of the area.
73
Figure 5.2: Area 6
Area 1 has similar characteristics to Area 6. The wall under the arch on the left of the
squinch is plastered and whitewashed entirely leaving no trace of graffiti. But there is a high
chance there was graffiti on that part of the wall as well because its mirror, Area 10, has
several graffiti that survived on the corresponding region of the wall.
The other elements that alter the spatial interpretation of the graffiti are the change of
floor level and the screen that separates the mezzanine from the main hall. These changes
made some parts of the wall inaccessible, and probably affected the perception of the space,
such as how low the squinches were and how narrow the mezzanine was. It is difficult to
determine how much the screen moved but it is clear that the floor level change is minimal
because of the entrance to the mezzanine, which used to be a window, and the height of the
graffito AK 10043. It is most likely that the floor was as leveled as possible with the bottom
of the window. Moreover AK 10043’s current height from floor (144 cm) suggests a small
change. However, little alterations can still change the perception of such narrow space, thus
the current feeling of the space can be different than what it used to be.
Even though the floor level unlikely changed more than 10 cm, it still changes the
body posture when the graffiti were carved. Hence, it changes the way people hold the sharp
tool that is used to carve the graffiti and how this affected their lines. This may cause a level
of discomfort during carving some of the graffiti. Discomfort during the activity changes the
74
nature of the activity, altering it from simple idling or a leisure activity to an act of seriousness
and sincerity. The effort put on the carving of the graffiti brings out the devotional aspect of
the ritual. Furthermore, the simple idling would likely have a variety of subjects and not only
vessels. The screen causes some discomfort as well since Areas 1 and 10 are limited by the
screen, which may have influenced the tendency of the carver to choose parts of the wall
restricted by the screen. On the other hand, despite the physical discomfort, smooth texture
of the fresco creates a favorable condition for carving graffiti since the surface is softer than
plain stone. The current state of the plaster of the fresco is very soft and crumbling because
of the deterioration, however, the original state of the fresco was likely smooth as well.
Table 5.1: Number of graffiti in each area
Area 1 11
Area 2 51
Area 3 39
Area 4 19
Area 5 14
Area 6 2
Area 7 6
Area 8 32
Area 9 32
Area 10 43
Within the walls of the mezzanine where graffiti survived, the squinches (areas 2, 3,
8, 9) are the most preferred areas to carve the graffiti as they provide the most space on the
wall. Furthermore, the low ceiling of the squinches provides a sense of compartmentalization
which helps to isolate one from the rest of the space. Combined with the dark nature of the
space, it provides privacy (and secrecy if preferred) during carving the graffito and praying
for the safety of the voyagers and possibly the vessel and the cargo.
In contrast carving in these squinches would require an uncomfortable posture
because of the limited space and the curvature of the wall which may affect the quality of the
graffiti. A prominent example can be AK 8004. Even though clearly the carver has a good
understanding of the basic elements of a vessel and capable of providing additional detail,
75
the lines are not elegant enough that gives a sense of simple idling almost like a child’s
drawing. This is due to the position of the graffito on the wall where the squinch curves and
the carver should slightly lean back or stand further distant and reach to the wall to carve the
graffito. Considering the detail, hence the time spent on the graffito, the carver clearly put a
lot of effort on it, highlighting the devotional aspect of the graffiti.
The graffiti is distributed to a certain height which seems to be determined by the
height of the screen to ensure the non-visibility of the graffiti and the act from the main hall.
The highest graffiti (except AK 10043 which is located away from the rest of the graffiti over
the arches in Area 10) are the ones on the arches over the squinches. Most graffiti were
presumably carved by kneeling or sitting, and some even prostrating, which would be fitting
as it is a major part of the act of prayer. On the other hand, standing up might catch attention
in the presence of other people, as conventional acts in mosque such as praying or counting
one's beads involve sitting mostly.
Figure 5.3: The women’s mezzanine from the main prayer hall
76
There is a certain respect towards the graffiti made previously, as new images do not
spoil the already-existing ones. Most do not overlap except in very compact spots, which is
very rare. This characteristic reinforces the ritualistic nature of the act, as well as the
communal recognition of the ritual’s value. There are only a few cases where two or three
graffiti interact by sharing a line or crossing over each other. One of the complex examples
is a group of graffiti in Area 2 (Figure 5.4). Several graffiti are almost commingled, sharing
lines and overlapping each other, which makes it slightly difficult to separate one from
another. There are at least five vessels depicted. They seem to be made by different people
at different times as the scales and positioning of them do not fit together.
Figure 5.4: Several graffiti overlap in Area 2
The most complex area with tight spots and jammed graffiti is the arch part of Area
10 (Area 10a) that extends over the squinch over Area 9. In Area 10a, there are more graffiti
that overlap each other. A curious group is on the lower mid-section of Area 10a (Figure 5.5).
The graffiti are so densely clustered that it seems to be intended to almost touch each other,
but do not overlap. Some are attached to each other with what might be a rope. It’s very
unlikely that the same person made these graffiti since they have different styles, but it is
possible that they were connected. Yet it is also possible that this abutting was not intentional,
but a result of the limited space.
77
Figure 5.5: Graffiti overlap in Area 10a.
The less complex areas involve two graffiti that cross each other because of the
limited space and miscalculations. A peculiar example is at Area 9 (Figure 5.6) where bows
of two single masted vessels (AK 9016 and AK 9017) cross each other. This is either due to
limited space or for the sake of a story in which the vessel leaves and returns safely. Or it is
just a busy day in the harbor. This pair of depictions can represent the same vessel as they
have the same rigging, even though the fashion of the lines is quite different. They are likely
carved by different people; but still can be the same vessel, since the vessel would have many
crew members and each member may receive a votive.
78
Figure 5.6: AK 9016 and AK 9017 overlap.
Throughout the wall, graffiti depicting the same type of vessel or graffiti likely made
by the same person tend to be closer to each other. The following examples demonstrate this:
The group with lug sails and jibs on the higher level of Area 2, the vessels with combination
of sprit and square sails in Area 9, particularly AK 9001 and AK 9002, the possible two brigs
in Area 1 (AK 1004 and AK 1005). The latter two examples are most likely made by the
same person respectively. Even though there are slight differences that are mostly technical
between AK 1004 and AK 1005, their stylistic similarities are far greater compared to other
graffiti. As for AK 9001 and AK 9002, they are almost identical (Figure 5.7). This indicates
that people have a choice of location: where they either feel comfortable carving, or relates
to the characteristics of the location such as being on the east or west side, or the apparent
direction of the vessel (both pairs are facing the same direction), or the features of the fresco
the graffiti was carved on.
79
Figure 5.7: AK 9001 and AK 9002 that are almost identical
It is not clear whether the depiction of the vessel’s port or starboard side indicates
something about the voyage of the vessel. In relation to the orientation of the walls of the
mezzanine, the starboard side (sailing right) would indicate sailing towards Izmir and port
side (sailing left) would indicate sailing out from the gulf towards the open sea, possibly Foça
or islands. This assumes the graffiti depicts the beginning of the voyage. On the other hand,
the graffiti might represent the end of the voyage which means the end of the journey in
safety. In this case the sides would portray different voyages. Or like in the case of AK 9016
and AK 9017 it is possible that both departure and return can be depicted together.
There seems to be no consistent relation between the frescoes and the graffiti. There
are some graffiti where lines of the figure of the fresco may be interpreted as a line of the
graffito like in AK 3028 (a possible oar) and AK 1005 (a possible sail) or use the fresco as a
frame like AK 4009, AK 4010, AK 10043. The circular medallions with Arabic calligraphy
have no direct connection with the graffiti either. The medallions are further higher than the
graffiti. There are no graffiti around them, except the AK 10043 which is located at the
bottom meander of the medallion. However, the use of the medallion is most likely related
with the framing rather than what is written in the medallion. Even if people looking at the
medallion cannot read the text, they would have a sense of what it means and its sacred
80
character135, which may impel people to benefit from it. Yet this is not the case with the
graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque.
Furthermore, there is no clear association between the qibla and the location of the
graffiti136. In fact, most graffiti are made by turning your back to the qibla as most of the wall
available is on the north. In order to face the qibla one must be in the outer room which does
not preserve any evident graffiti. Some graffiti are broadly facing the qibla in Areas 1 and
10, yet it is not clear whether this is intentional. During most of the prayer ritual, the graffiti
are not on the field of vision. The worshippers, who do not carve the graffiti, have a little
glimpse at the graffiti, which is further limited with the darkness, when they turn their head
right and left during the prayer or when they are positioning in the mezzanine or leaving the
mezzanine.
135 Since the Qur’an was the direct words of the God, the Qur’anic verses became a significant decorative
element in İslamic architecture.
136 A study looking at the relation between the graffiti and qibla is Redford 2007.
81
Figure 5.8: The left arch of Area 1 (Area 1a)
82
Figure 5.9: The right arch of Area 1 (Area 1b)
83
Figure 5.10: Area 2
84
Figure 5.11: Area 3
85
Figure 5.12: The left arch of Area 4 (Area 4a)
86
Figure 5.13: The right arch of Area 4 (Area 4b) and Area 5
87
Figure 5.14: Area 6 and the left arch of Area 7 (Area 7a)
88
Figure 5.15: The right arch of Area 7 (Area 7b)
89
Figure 5.16: Area 8
90
Figure 5.17: Area 9
91
Figure 5.18: The left arch of Area 10 (Area 10a)
92
Figure 5.19: The left arch of Area 10 (Area 10a)
93
5.2 Religious and ritual aspect of the graffiti
Even though graffiti in churches is a common practice and well-studied subject, and
might give the impression of a practice specific to Christianity, it is not restrained to Christian
beliefs and rituals. Graffiti are encountered in Islamic contexts as well137. In his accounts
Evliya Çelebi gives examples of inscriptions on the walls of several shrines he visited and
mentions him carving a few of his own, as well 138. Moreover, there is a tradition of
commissioned graffiti on the columns of mosques called bilezik yazısı which seems to be
legal and made with the knowledge of the caretaker of the mosque. These graffiti were carved
on a hard surface with special tools rather than any sharp tool available with mostly proper
syntax, which suggests a profession.
Ship graffiti, particularly, are encountered in various Islamic complexes. Graffiti
from masjids and tombs in Alanya Castle139, Ayasofya (Orhan) Mosque in İznik140, the masjid
of Kargı Han in Alanya141 and Hüdavendigâr Mosque in Behramkale142 are examples that
have been studied and published. Some restoration projects and studies on structures mention
few ship graffiti that are carved on the tombs in Selçuk143 (Ayasuluk, the capital of the
Aydınoğlu Beylic) and Kemer prayer courtyard in Aydın144. Yürekli includes ships among
the common graffiti created by visitors in shrines145. It is likely there are more examples
discovered and mentioned (but not studied thoroughly) in restoration reports and publications
that are not located during this study. However, most cases have small number of graffiti,
scattered throughout the structure. In Ayşe Kadın Mosque there is a dense concentration of
249 graffiti. This high occurrence of the activity intensifies the purpose and the validity of it
within a small community which makes this case unique.
137 Some examples of graffiti studies on a tombstone Günsenin 2005; in mosques Köse 2016; shrines in Allen
2020, Yürekli 2012, in khanqah Personal communication with Yeliz Teber in 17 September 2020.
138 Yürekli 2012, 148; Arıman 2018, 14–15; Allen 2020, 2
139 Bilici 2008
140 Aydın 2019
141 Redford 2007
142 Altıer 2016
143 Bellibaş et al. 2013; Bellibaş 2015
144 Özkan 1998
145 Yürekli 2012, 148
94
The second concept that should be discussed is the votive offering. The ship graffiti
in churches are interpreted as votive offering for safe travel. Notably the ship concept has a
significance in Christian theology as it has a metaphoric connotation as the body/vessel,
transferring souls between realms – symbolizing the church 146. A ship does not have such
significance in Islam, however the notion of votive offering for safe travel can be applied to
the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque.
There is no unified interpretation of Islam, since it is interacting with a wide variety
of cultures. Hence the practices and attributions to elements of Islam can vary147. Even though
it is heterodox, votive offering is a significant part of Islamic culture in Anatolia, especially
in women’s piety, and highly associated with the shrine visitation148. Sunni Orthodoxy rejects
a mediator between the God and the believer. However, Sufism unorthodoxly perceives
saintly people resting in shrines as mediators with God because they are favored by God for
their spirituality149. Believers would like to benefit from the spiritual power of the saint and
the votives act as the means of communication.
In Hanafism, which is the Islamic branch the Ottoman Empire was ruled under150,
votive offering is not forbidden - but also not encouraged. Furthermore, if one offers a votive,
they must fulfill their vow as it is a promise to God151. Moreover, votive offering (along with
the shrine visitation) is a custom in Alevism, which is another strong branch in Anatolia and
present in İzmir as well152.
In Anatolia one of the forms of votive practice is writing or drawing your wish on a
piece of paper or a cloth, or a surface. This is commonly practiced during Hıdırellez153 but it
is also practiced at shrines and wishing trees. It is believed that drawing (or writing) the wish
146 Baader 2016
147 The different interpretations of Islam is discussed extensively in Ahmed 2016.
148 Some studies on votive offering are Özel 1988; Günay 2003, studies focus on women Mazumdar and
Mazumdar 2002; Keser 2010; Allen 2020; Fliche and Pénicaud 2020, focus on İzmir region Güzey 2020
149 Yavuz 2001
150 It is important to indicate that the religion of the state was imperious mostly on the administrative and
judiciary matters.
151 Özel 1988, 338
152 For Alevi visitation practices and votives in İzmir see Güzey 2020. Further research can be done through
Tahtacılar, who are the Alevi groups in Aegean and Mediterranean coast.
153 Hıdırellez is a celebration of the arrival of spring. On that day two brothers Hızır (the protector of people
on land) and Ilyas (the protector of people on sea) comes together on Earth. People believe if they pray on this
day their wishes come true. St. George's day for the Christians.
95
enhances the power of the votive. Hence an offering in the form of ship graffiti is not
unexpected. However, maritime community in Karaburun might have been more inclined to
carve ship graffiti.
Today a votive offering is not an unfamiliar custom in the village. There is a famous
offering tree by the spring called Narcissus Dilek Pınarı (Figure 5.20) in the old Mordoğan
village that attracts visitors around Turkey to make wishes. The tree is filled with material
(textile, tissues, masks) tied to its branches. Even though this wishing tree seems to be
introduced in the last few decades, it shows the community in the area is perceptive to a
votive culture.
Figure 5.20: Narcissos/Dilek Pınarı and the wishing tree in Mordoğan
A possible reason ship graffiti as votive offering for safe voyage may have been
embedded in the community is due to their interaction with the Greek community in the
village. Even though Börklüce Mustafa’s doctrine was far earlier in the history of the
peninsula, his pursuits of bringing Muslim and Christian communities together without the
boundaries of religion and sharing everything likely evolved into a community more open to
(even keen on) adapting traditions of others. However, this does not necessarily indicate that
96
ship graffiti is a cultural appropriation from the Christians in the peninsula. Ship graffiti has
a long history in many different cultures before Christianity and there are number of graffiti
(and ship graffiti) examples in Islamic structures in different regions. Moreover, depictions
of things as a votive offering is a part of Turkish Islamic belief system. Only Mordoğan
villagers were just more receptive.
Figure 5.21: Remains of the church in Mordoğan
Since the graffiti is in a mosque it is safe to state that Muslim community of the
village was part of the maritime activity in the peninsula – even maybe dominant. One may
argue that these graffiti may have been made by the Christian Greek community of the
village154, but this is very unlikely for two reasons. First, the mosque was built as a mosque
and not converted from a church, which makes the structure irrelevant for the Christian
community. Second there are the remains of a church (Figure 5.21) further up in the village.
If the Greek community were carving graffiti, that church would be the place they would
154 Because even though the church is converted to a mosque, they would still perceive this space as a church
and it would have a sacred connotation for them.
97
prefer. Unfortunately, the current state of the church makes it difficult to investigate any
surviving graffiti. The majority of the walls did not survive and the inside is filled with soil.
Unlike the sanctity attributed to church in Christianity, Islam does not consign any
sacred feature to mosque as a structure and the elements of it, but the human agency
practicing Islamic piety in the structure grants the sanctity of it155. This is mostly related with
the ability to pray anywhere rather than a specific structure which blurs the line between
‘sacred’ and ‘profane’, religious and social156. This creates a distinction between the sanctity
of the mosque (congregational mosque in which Friday prayers are performed) and the masjid
(neighborhood mosque which does not have pulpit since the Friday prayer are not done)157.
Even though this distinction is more prominent in the urban setting (since the urban context
turns the mosque to a political tool), it reflects on the use of space and the practices in the
structure. The location of the graffiti (except being in the women’s section) could be related
with the level of sacredness of a particular space within the mosque. Unfortunately, since the
walls of the outer room in women’s section is replastered beyond the ability to trace any
graffiti, it is not possible to state that the only preferred area for graffiti was the mezzanine,
which is inside the main prayer hall. But if so, it is likely that the carvers perceived inside the
prayer hall more sacred than elsewhere.
An interesting aspect of the graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque is that ships are the only
subject depicted on the walls. No fish for plentiful fishing, or fruits or plants for fertile
harvests. The votive offerings were specific to sea voyages and the subject chosen for this
was a ship. Moreover, the other Islamic sites mentioned with ship graffiti (see Chapter 2 and
the beginning of this section) also had other subjects such as geometric designs, architectural
features, animals, Islamic symbols (hamsa, stars). Aside from figurative graffiti it is common
to encounter textual graffiti in churches denoting prayers for their loved ones or
themselves158. In Islamic contexts there are various tombs and dervish lodges where textual
graffiti appears (as demonstrated by Evliya Çelebi), yet this is not the case in Ayşe Kadın
Mosque. This is most likely related with the literacy of the population. Until 1928 Ottoman
155 Frishman 1994, 30–32
156 Discussions on what is sacred and profane see Frishman 1994; Ahmed 2016.
157 Uğurlu and Yalman 2020, 3-4.
158 Yasin 2015
98
people were writing in Arabic letters which is difficult to read and write, and the average
population was mostly illiterate. The situation was even worse for women in rural areas, as
most did not get an education at school. Furthermore, considering it is a very sinuous letter
system, it would have been more difficult to write compared to carving the straight lines of
a ship.
Nine graffiti depict people on board, even though two of these (AK10018 and AK
10021) are poorly depicted. They are engaging with vessels: some are interacting with the
equipment, which seem to be ropes on the vessel used for fishing, mooring, or they are fixing
the sail, and some stand on the deck or crow’s nest for a lookout. These people depicted on
board are not just ancillary to the image, but most likely the subject of the ritual. Their activity
individualizes the ship and the ritual. Their activity may be related with the purpose of the
ritual. For instance, fixing sail or lookout can be associated with the safety of the vessel. Or
fishing net can be related with fruitful fishing, even though there is not much example for
fishing. By contrast, graffiti depicting humans in a mosque is a conflicting case in terms of
the conventional figures in a mosque159.
It is clear that carving ship graffiti is recognized by members of the community (but
not necessarily approved by everybody) and practiced by a particular group of the members
of the village. Based on the stylistic differences such as level of detail, size, how these
elements formed, in which order the different elements were scratched, etc., there were likely
several women creating these votive offerings. On the other hand, there are graffiti made by
the same people. The possibility that same person carves the same vessel repeatedly suggests
that the protective nature of the votive is not everlasting but needs to be repeated periodically
or for each trip. This may also explain the high number of graffiti. However, big vessels are
only depicted once and are clearly depicted by different people as they have different styles
(except AK 1004 and AK 1005). Does that mean they were one-time voyages? Or did they
retain their protective influence?
Whether these votives were commissioned is another matter. It is possible that some
of these graffiti were carved by skilled people. Most of the graffiti have very confident lines.
There is almost no confusion on how to shape a hull or sail and corrections are not evident.
159 For figurative decoration in mosques see Hill and Grabar 1964.
99
They may even have practiced elsewhere before carving the graffiti in the mosque or planned
how to carve. This is more evident with the elaborate graffiti, as they are executed with
minimum error, even though the lines and the vessel plan get more complex. Nevertheless,
despite these fine graffiti, there are several examples that have a poor accuracy and fail to
depict a vessel well, or are aesthetically disastrous such as AK 2027, AK 3025, AK 8008,
AK 9022, AK 10014 and AK 10018 (the graffiti obscured by the paint and plaster are
excluded from these examples). This indicates that the act itself is more important than the
quality of the graffiti, hence using an intermediary might not have been preferred not just for
economic reasons but for faith.
In the case of a lack of skill, the carver seems to prefer vague depictions. One peculiar
example is the graffiti that depict only the fore section of a vessel in schematic form with
very few details. The fact that this type is repetitive indicates that this is not an error but a
conscious stylistic choice. However, all fore depictions do not have the same style. For
example, AK 4003 and AK 4004 have a similar style but are different from AK 2039, and
the possible fore depictions AK 10023 and AK 10024. Fore depiction is a concept in which
characterization of the vessel is not a concern, but is the purpose of the ritual. It is possible
that the carver is not good in carving a whole vessel, which is clearly evident with the coarse
lines (some are misjoined), but also wants to take advantage of the ritual, so she makes
something symbolic that is vaguely depicted. Possibly once the carvers gained more
experience (and with that confidence) their graffiti depicted a full vessel. The artist’s
preference as the fore rather than aft section might be related with an association between the
frontal view of a vessel and the notion of arrival.
Furthermore, the unfinished graffiti could have been associated with this notion of
act before quality - even though I think the reason of the unfinished graffiti is mainly related
with the privacy of the act which is discussed next in this section. The viewers of the graffiti
may interpret them as unfinished or do not perceive them as ship imagery, whereas the artists
think otherwise. Based on stylistic differences, it is possible to suggest there are several
people making unfinished graffiti.
Although the practice of making the graffiti was seemingly recognized by certain
members of the community, it seems like there was a certain secrecy about the activity. The
100
ritual is most likely conducted privately. This is supported with three aspects of the case: the
visibility (or invisibility) of graffiti, compartmentalization of the space, and unfinished
graffiti.
Graffiti is distributed to a certain height which seems to be determined by the height
of the screen to ensure the non-visibility of the graffiti and the act from the main hall.
Furthermore, despite the physical comfort of working in the location, the arcs over the
squinches are not much preferred as they are the most visible sections of the mezzanine.
Instead, the graffiti on the arches are distributed on the lower parts of the wall where it is less
visible, avoiding the eye level. The graffiti high in the arcs, especially ones that might be
spotted easier due to their size (AK 1004 and AK 1005), are also partially hidden by the
screen because the screen limits the direct sight.
Compartmentalization of the space creates a sense of division of the space and
separates the person from the rest of the mezzanine. It cuts the connection and interaction
with the surroundings. This separation provides a sense of privacy and fosters focusing on
the act. The squinches, which are the most preferred area for graffiti, furnish this setting.
Combined with the darkness of the mezzanine, the squinches provides less visibility of the
action as well.
Unlike the fore section depictions, unfinished graffiti is probably not a stylistic
choice. In these cases, it is likely that the privacy of the ritual was interrupted. Because the
ritual involved the defacement of frescos of the mosque, which is a sacred space, the votive
act had an illicit nature that disturbed the integrity of the mosque. Furthermore, based on the
tales of mosque’s renovation (mentioned in Chapter 2), there seems to be a veneration
towards the pious contribution of Ayşe Kadın which is symbolized by the frescos, making
them precious to the community. This led people to keep this ritual clandestine. It is likely
that the plaster removed during the 2006 restoration was made to seal the graffiti. Even
though the current state of the wall is not very good, it does not suggest there was a need to
plaster the wall. This is endorsed by the fresco surviving in Area 5 which was plastered before
the restoration as well. So, there is a high chance when someone who did not approve this
act entered the space the carver stopped. Once the ritual stopped, they had to start over. The
101
fact that they did not continue from where they left and perhaps started over elsewhere
increased the number of the graffiti in the mezzanine.
In the courtyard of the mosque a tombstone of an Ayşe Kadın was located, which
likely belonged to the Ayşe Kadın who renovated the mosque160. It has been suggested that
this tombstone depicted a mosque with two tombs on the grounds of the mosque and this
depiction was the Ayşe Kadın Mosque itself161. Unfortunately, today there are no traces of
these tombs. Clearly Ayşe Kadın was important for the mosque and the community since the
mosque bears her name. It is possible that she was buried there as well. Considering the
presence of the Ayşe Kadın waqf, it is also possible that one of these tombs belonged to her
as she was the commissioner of the renovations of the mosque. If this interpretation is correct,
it adds further to the spirituality of the complex and accommodates more rituals by involving
shrine visitation culture. However, this has to be further investigated.
5.3 Graffiti and the maritime activity of the peninsula
As discussed in chapter 2, the Karaburun peninsula has a rough terrain that makes
both transportation and agricultural production on a large scale difficult. Hence the sea was
a predominant source of income and a means to connect with the other regions. The villagers’
dependence on the sea is likely the primary motivation for these votive offerings. Even
though the village was not on the seaside, it was still in contact through the harbor town and
the bays in proximity. Additionally, the village is not far from the sea compared to more
inland villages such as Yaylaköy. The next few paragraphs discuss the relation between
villagers and the sea in terms of trade and various occupations such as fishing and sponge
diving.
Considering the geoeconomics of the peninsula (discussed in Chapter 2), it would
have been expected to see a small-scale, relatively local (or short distance) maritime trade
activity in the peninsula, possibly coasting around in the southern Aegean. This is reiterated
160 The tombstone was discussed further in chapter 2.
161 Telci and Güntürkün 1996, 21 mentions that the presence of tombs had been brought forward and
describes the depiction on the tombstone.
102
in the graffiti as most of the boats depicted are small single-masted vessels that are suitable
for short voyages. There are several big ports in close range such as İzmir and Chios, and a
little further to the north Mytilene which are important in both domestic and international
trade. Also, Foça was an alternative port for İzmir in domestic trade and had an important
role in salt trade. Through these trade centers merchants of the peninsula could sell the grapes
and olives from the peninsula and bring back the goods in demand. These voyages would
probably take two to five days, which might be demonstrated by AK 4009 and AK 7006 that
are interpreted as possible day count.
Piracy had a considerable impact on the peninsula. Turkish people preferred to settle
on the sides of valleys to ensure the invisibility of the village from the sea to avoid pirate
raids. The region was perilous as Foça, İzmir and Sığacık (the harbor of Seferihisar) were
among the harbors involved in piracy in the 15th - 16th century162. Passages around Chios were
regularly targeted163. Furthermore, Rhodian pirates were reaching all the way to Karaburun
in their raids164. As the Ottoman lands expanded the piracy shifted to Levant and North
African shores because the raids in this region were more profitable. But because Ottoman
sea power has declined, Aegean Sea became a haven for piracy in the 18th century. The
political disturbances (see Chapter 2) affected the seafaring activity and the profit of the
seamen. Additionally, refugees from Ottoman territory caused extra shortage on the
resources available which drove both groups to banditry. Hence during the Greek War of
Independence (1821-1829) Greek piracy reemerged as a problem. This caused a very
dangerous sea that European powers such as French, British and Austrian as well as
Americans had to intervene in the Aegean Sea to ensure the safety of their merchant vessels
as they were targeted along with the Greek merchantmen165.
It is difficult to determine how much the vessels of Karaburun were affected by the
Greek piracy in 19th century, since these vessels had small cargo that might not satisfy the
pirates. Moreover, according to accounts the Greek pirates were mostly attacking European
and Greek merchantmen 166. However, these accounts were probably focused on the European
162 Vatin 2004, 73
163 Vatin 2004, 117
164 Vatin 2004, 111
165 Delis 2016, 41
166 Accounts that were sourced by Delis 2016.
103
and Greek interest and neglected the insights from the Ottomans. A significant example from
the accounts might be Samos, the island to the south of Karaburun that houses pirate activity,
which creates a significant threat for small merchant boats of Karaburun. The Samos case
exemplifies a small-scale operation with two peremes attacking a martigo167 (a downgraded
version of çektirme) which suggests small scale banditry was at work as well. Consequently,
the graffiti may have been made for protection against pirates as some of the graffiti may be
contemporary with the dreadful days of piracy; since terminus post quem provided by the
fresco is early 19th century latest. Although the European and American intervention ended
the Greek piracy in Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, the fear of their return would remain
for some time. This might have encouraged villagers to keep carving graffiti as votive for
protection from the pirates.
Throughout this thesis it has been stated several times that the graffiti was made as a
votive offering for the safety of the loved ones who were at sea, praying for their safe return.
Yet the number of graffiti depicting humans on board is very low (nine) which suggests the
graffiti may be prayers not only for the humans but also for the vessel as a whole including
the cargo as well. Considering both the vessel and the cargo are important assets, it is natural
to wish for their protection as well. The soundness of the vessel ensures a sanctuary in the
middle of an unpredictable setting. Safe shelter means safety of whatever is on board - the
crew and the cargo.
Aside from trade, it is possible that some of these votives represent fishing boats but
there is not a clear indication that these boats are engaging in fishing activities. The only
portrayal implies these are fishing boats is the humans interacting with ropes which might be
a net. AK 8004 illustrates one person at the bow and the other person at the aft, doing
something with ropes reaching out from the vessel. They are possibly setting up a seine net,
which was commonly used in Karaburun. AK 9020 depicts two men at the aft each holding
a rope which might be the two sides of a net. Another human who might be fishing is in AK
10015. Yet these ropes might have represented something else. Additionally, although AK
3037 is not clearly identified as the fishing cabin, this graffito is the only other depiction that
can be associated with fishing. There are no fish depictions identified. Nevertheless, fishing
167 Delis 2016, 46
104
was an important part of the economy in the peninsula, hence it is very likely represented in
this group of graffiti.
Due to the dangers of sponge diving, the votives may have been related to sponge
diving as well. Even though today sponge diving has mostly disappeared, and the Aegean
islands, especially Rhodos and surrounding islands such as Symi and Kalimnos, and Bodrum
region are more known with sponge diving, Çeşme was home for sponge divers as well, and
east coast of Karaburun peninsula is involved in sponge fishery168. Sponge was a considerable
export in İzmir in the 19th century (up to 8% of the exports)169. It is quite likely Mordoğan
(and the Karaburun peninsula in general) depended on sponge diving. Insomuch that one of
the bays close to the village is called Süngerci (sponge diver). Unlike trade and regular
fishing, sponge diving can be quite dangerous depending on the method of obtaining it170.
One can get decompression sickness or never surface. Potentially fatal situations are much
more common than sailing. Hence, sponge divers were likely to receive graffiti in the hope
of safe return home.
Why are graffiti made by many different people? There are two possible explanations.
One is that there are a great number of boats in the village. The second, and more likely, is
that every votive is a praying for one person and does not integrate others. Hence a boat can
have as many votives as crew number. Deveciyan gives possible number of crew on a fishing
boat based on his experience in the Bosporus. Depending on the fishing method, a crew
ranges 20-24 people171. Similar data can be obtained for sponge diving as well. Depending
on the methods (whether they use diving gear) and the size of the boat, the crew ranges 10-
27 people172. However, I should clarify that these numbers are average for İstanbul in the late
19th- early 20th century. This number would be smaller for the boats used in Karaburun
because they were likely smaller in size and the maximum crew they can accommodate to
match the economy of the peninsula.
168 Şahin 2013, 2; Yürekli 2016, 81; Sponge fishery in Karaburun: Izsu website (Accessed: 12.06.2022)
https://www.izsu.gov.tr/tr/TesisDetay/1/6/2.
169 Yürekli 2016, 75
170 For the methods of sponge collecting among Ottoman fishermen see Deveciyan 2006.
171 Deveciyan 2006, 403
172 Deveciyan 2006, 305
105
Even though the ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın are affiliated with the trade and the
economic life of the peninsula, larger vessels should be excluded from this direct association
because they would be redundant and difficult to maintain with the logistical and capital
resources of the peninsula. The few votives of larger vessels with two or three masts of square
sails were probably representing vessels from the bigger trade ports like İzmir and others
mentioned. These may be associated with voyages to distant regions, such as pilgrimage.
Any long-distance travel would likely begin from a main port such as İzmir. Another
possibility is that these graffiti of large vessels were made for sailors of the town who found
jobs as crew members on large trade ships such as brigs. Greek merchants predominantly
used brigs on their fleet and they were operating through Izmir. The sailors of the village
could work on these ships.
As discussed in chapter 2, from the late 18th to early 20th century, the Aegean coast
underwent several immigration movements due to political disturbances. The wars created
difficult and dangerous conditions for passengers of ships. It is possible that some of these
graffiti could have been made for the non-Muslim community of the village who had to sail
away during this period, especially during the population exchange between Turkey and
Greece, as a farewell and wish for a safe voyage during those troubled times.
In addition to votive offerings, maritime superstitions hold a strong place in the
peninsula with a local interpretation of the week of eyyamı bahur, known as the “dog days”
in the western world. It is a period in early August that lasts about a week to 10 days. The
general conception of these days in Turkey is if you go in the water on these days your skin
would get spots and to prevent that you need to carry some metal on you (generally an iron
nail as a necklace or bracelet). On the peninsula, however, the local interpretation of this time
of the year is used as a weather forecast173. The elders would monitor the weather on these
days and make predictions for the weather forecast of the year. Approximately, each day
would represent a month of the year and the time of the day represents the weeks of this
month. They would follow it through the year. Based on these predictions, seamen would
decide whether to sail or not.
173 This tradition is told by a villager, Mehmet Karadayı. His aunt used to follow the weather based on this.
106
5.4 Women as the carver of ship graffiti
Due to the location of the graffiti, which is the walls of women’s praying area in the
main hall, the artists of the graffiti are presumably the women of the village, since the
frequent presence of men in the mezzanine would have been unwelcomed by the community.
Men as the artists could have been suggested if the number of graffiti was much less.
Although it is not possible to estimate the frequency of the event, the large number of graffiti
suggests a regular activity which would require a justified access by many individuals. A
similar case appears in Hagia Sophia’s (İstanbul) upper galleries which provide exclusive
access to women and the imperial family according to the traditional view, however Thomov
seems to hesitate to accept this view and narrows his artists to these groups; in fact he seeks
evidence for the use of these galleries by the ordinary people and stays gender neutral174. This
is perhaps because the number of graffiti (35) and some vessel types identified (Viking ships)
do not indicate regular activity like in Ayşe Kadın Mosque.
The scholars investigating ship graffiti did not consider women as the creators of ship
graffiti. The majority of the studies tend to stay gender neutral or hesitate (even avoid) to
affiliate ship graffiti with women. This is mostly due to the androcentric perspective towards
maritime activity. A further issue might be the neglect of women’s agency in religious
contexts (in Christian world), but this is a different discussion topic. Moreover, since praying
in the mosque is not a requirement for the worshiper, as a consequence women were alienated
from the mosque and Friday prayers, asserting their domestic roles. Hence mosque became
a male dominated setting.
Ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque, however, indicates that women were not passive
in the religious context and were not excluded from the maritime community. The ship image
was a part of their everyday through the dowery chests (see Chapter 2) which is a very
personal item that represents their life. More than that they could be active agents in maritime
activity via an ownership through their family if not aboard like crew or operate the trade and
174 Thomov 2014, 168–170. The main problem with the structure is the lack of primary sources and research
on the use of the galleries during the Byzantine. Furthermore, the dating of the graffiti is open to discussion.
107
voyages. Women in Ottoman society were able to own a business and property, involve
themselves in commerce and trade, make investments, run a workshop, and work in certain
occupations175. This ownership was mostly possible due to an inheritance, yet there are cases
where women bought property176. Foreign merchants used local women as figureheads
because they could not hold a property until 1867177. Ottoman records show women owned
boats and even rowed in the 17th – 18th century Bosporus178. It is unlikely that women directly
owned the business in a small peninsula (because such ownership was seen mostly in urban
settings), but it is quite possible that they temporarily managed the operations in the absence
of the husband or son by using the butler or a trusted attendant as a proxy. Although it was
an indirect participation, they were still active members of the maritime community.
Moreover, the carvers had a considerable knowledge on how to shape a boat with great detail
and had an understanding on the essential elements of a boat, which demonstrates their
involvement. The ship image was a part of their life through the dowery chests with a steam
ship on the lid (see Chapter 2) as well.
It is highly possible that Ayşe Kadın was from a merchant family instead of an
agricultural one, because the agricultural activity on the peninsula was limited because of the
topography. Moreover, the sole maritime connectivity monopolized the movement of goods
of the peninsula, which would increase the profit of certain families involved in maritime
activity (which are mentioned in chapter 2). Since the renovations and the waqf would require
a certain level of finance, the family should have been involved in a profitable business.
Hence it is possible that the patron of the mosque was a part of the maritime community, thus
creating stronger ties between the mosque and the maritime community.
Past graffiti studies that made efforts to identify the carvers considered the travelers
and pilgrims or sailors passing by the villages, where the ship graffiti are located, as the artists
of the graffiti179. So, the artists were most likely the visitors rather than the regulars from the
local community. However, in Ayşe Kadın Mosque it is much more likely the local women
made the graffiti for two reasons: First, Ayşe Kadın Mosque was not a site visited by many
175 Dengler 1982, 235; Zarinebaf 2014, chaps. 4
176 Zarinebaf 2014, chaps. 4–5
177 Zandi-Sayek 2012, 53
178 Ertuğ 2001, 55
179 Michail 2015; Altıer 2016; Demesticha et al. 2017. See Chapter 2 for discussion of the studies.
108
visitors as Mordoğan is not a prevalent destination or a port of call like İzmir and the mosque
is far from the shore. Second, the examples in other studies referred are not as dense as the
group of ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque.
Since the walls with frescos only survived at the mezzanine, one cannot be entirely
sure that these graffiti were made only by the women of the community. Nevertheless, even
if men in the community were also creating graffiti elsewhere in the mosque, these are no
longer preserved. Women were a part of the maritime belief system. Ayşe Kadın, being a
female member of the maritime community and with a connection with the mosque, created
an affable environment for women in the mosque. More than that, she inadvertently created
an environment that gave women another means of expressing their role within the maritime
community, even if that expression is a secret.
109
Chapter 6:
CONCLUSION
Graffiti is a growing research field, in which different approaches and methodologies
are tested in order to study different aspects of the subject. Ship graffiti is a substantial part
of this topic. They are encountered more frequently than could be expected. The key
components of ship graffiti studies are the identification of the vessels depicted and the
interpretation of the graffiti within the context. As discussed in chapter 2 in some studies one
of these elements overrides the other or the study creates a hybrid approach trying to balance
both aspects.
In this study a group of ship graffiti located on the walls of the women’s mezzanine
in Ayşe Kadın Mosque in Mordoğan, İzmir is documented, catalogued and interpreted. The
fresco which the graffiti were carved on provides the terminus post quem of 19th century. The
2006 restoration project uncovered graffiti that was partially sealed by a previous plastering.
Unfortunately, the paint and plaster applied during this restoration also disturbed the graffiti.
For the documentation of the graffiti three methods have been tested to evaluate their
applicability for this research. These methods are photogrammetry, laser scanning and
Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI). The three-dimensional documentation enabled
constant access to the subject, provided spatial information and measurements, and facilitate
a broader view by eliminating the limitations of space. The photogrammetry model is used
to extract orthophotos to draw the graffiti in wall sections (Figure 8-19). These drawings and
photos are used in the catalogue. Even though it is not the most preferred method for graffiti
documentation, photogrammetry was the most efficient and feasible method that served the
needs of this research project. Furthermore, although the method required additional
equipment specific to this case such as lights, photogrammetry is the least demanding and
most flexible among the three methods. It decreased the time needed in the field to document
the graffiti compared to traditional methods.
The investigation of the wall provided 248 graffiti. 142 of these are clearly identified
as ships. The others are rather vague depictions that look like watercraft but may be
something else, or they are heavily disturbed by the paint and plaster to the point that
110
complicates the identification. The majority of these ships are small vessels with one mast
serving for short distance voyages and carrying small cargoes. This is compatible with the
economic activity of Karaburun peninsula. The larger vessels with at least two masts are
employed for bigger expeditions and are likely associated with the vessels navigating through
İzmir.
The specific identification of the vessel types is avoided as the aim of the research is
to understand the relation between people and the sea and how this relationship is reflected
in the graffiti rather than nautical research. Furthermore, the inconsistency and inadequacy
of the sources and research on vessel types from Late Ottoman, especially on small vessels,
complicates the identification. The sail types depicted are square, lateen, lug, sprit and gaff.
The most common rigs are lug and lateen sail, then the combination of sprit sail with square
sail. This diversity indicates that rigging types employed by the maritime community of the
peninsula are adaptable to needs and availability rather than having a rigid standard.
The ship graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque emerges from the Karaburun community’s
dependence on the sea in terms of their connection with the world and source of income. The
hazards of open water and risks of occupations like sponge diving generated precarious life.
Additionally, the Aegean Sea was particularly dangerous for merchantmen in the 19th century
because of the piracy. These dangers propelled the villagers carve ship graffiti as votive
offerings.
The distribution of the graffiti, unfinished examples, and the sense of space suggest
that the act of carving ship graffiti is a private ritual in the case of Ayşe Kadın Mosque –
other cases may have a different nature. Furthermore, the poorly shaped graffiti and few fore
depictions of boats show that the act is more important than the quality of the depiction. The
repetitive examples indicate the protective nature of the votive offering is temporary and
possibly should be repeated periodically or for each voyage. Additionally, the votive offering
maybe particular to an individual, hence the same vessel might have been depicted several
times. These may be keys to unravel the puzzle of large quantity of the graffiti.
Due to their location, this group of ship graffiti was likely made by the women in the
maritime community of the village. Women are mostly overlooked in the maritime studies.
This study provides a strong case demonstrating their active agency in the maritime
111
community. Even though most graffiti are simple and only depict principal elements of a
vessel, the elaborate details on some of the graffiti illustrate the women’s knowledge of
sailing. Furthermore, the dowry chests with ship depiction reflects the presence of maritime
activity in their daily life. Additionally, in broad sense, shrine visitation (ziyaret), and
associated with that votive offering, are a significant part of Islamic culture, especially in
women’s piety. Hence, women can be perceptive on carving ship graffiti as votive offerings.
Even though, women were not a vocal group within the maritime community, because we
may not have their diaries or records, this ancillary material data (graffiti, dowry chests)
demonstrates that they had key roles in the community.
Further research can be developed from this study. The first potential agenda is to
investigate the question of maritime connection of Ayşe Kadın and her position in the
community that is briefly addressed in chapter 5. For this research various records such as
registries and archives of foundations would need to be studied which requires language skills
as these records are Ottoman and mostly not translated. Another opportunity is to do a
regional survey for structures with ship graffiti. Villages with harbors like Kösedere (and the
larger region with settlements like Urla and Çeşme) have high chance of having ship graffiti.
After all, Kösedere and Urla adorned their mosques with seascapes and ships. In this study
the graffiti in Ayşe Kadın Mosque are not visually compared with contemporary examples
such as graffiti from Alanya or Hagia Sophia in İznik, which have large amounts of graffiti
as well, primarily because the research did not seek for nautical information. Yet this
comparison can reveal stylistic tendencies and choices in addition to ship types.
112
Bibliography
Abate, D., and M. Trentin. 2019. “Hidden Graffiti Identification On Marble Surfaces
Through Photogrammetry And Remote Sensing Techniques.” International Archives of
the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences - ISPRS
Archives 42 2/W15: 1–8. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-1-2019.
AgisoftLLC. 2020. “Agisoft Metashape User Manual: Professional Edition.” .
Ahmed, S. 2016. What is Islam? : the importance of being Islamic. Princeton University
Press. http://books.google.com/books?vid=isbn9780691164182.
Allen, J.P. 2020. “Sanctifying Domestic Space and Domesticating Sacred Space: Reading
Ziyāra and Taṣliya in Light of the Domestic in the Early Modern Ottoman World.”
Religions 11 2.
Altıer, S. 2016. “Çanakkale ve Çevresindeki Bazı Türk Dönemi Yapılarında Görülen
Denizcilikle İlgili Kazıma (Grafiti) Tasvirler.” Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı 21:
1–26.
Anon. 2017. Uluslararası Börklüce Mustafa sempozyumu 2-5 Haziran 2016. İzmir: Egeus
Matbaacılık.
Arıman, N. 2018. İstanbul’un bilezik yazılarıKültür medeniyet serisi ; 48. Topkapı, İstanbul:
İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Artzy, M. 1999. “Carved ship graffiti—an ancient ritual?” In Tropis V: 5th International
Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Nauplia 26–28 August 1993, edited by
H. E. Tzalas, 21–27. Athens.
Aydın, Ç. 2019. “Nikaia Hagia Sophia Kilisesindeki Gemi Graffitolari.” . Bursa Uludağ
University.
Baader, H. ca. 20. J. 2016. “Vows on Water: Ship Ex-Votos as Things, Metaphors, and
Mediatiors of Communality.” In Ex voto, edited by Ittai Weinryb, 217–245. Cultural
histories of the material world. New York: Bard Graduate Center.
Babuin, A., and Y. Nakas. 2012. “Byzantine ship graffiti from the church of Prophitis Elias
in Thessaloniki.” Skyllis: 8–17.
Bagnall, R.S., R. Casagrande-Kim, A. Ersoy, and C. Tanrıver. 2016. Graffiti from the
Basilica in the Agora of Smyrna. Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. New
York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World and New York University Press.
Baird, J.A., and C. Taylor. 2011. Ancient graffiti in contextAncient Graffiti in Context.
doi:10.4324/9780203840870.
Balivet, M. 2000. Şeyh Bedreddin Tasavvuf ve İsyan. Translated by Ela Güntekin. İstanbul:
Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
113
Basch, L. 1987. Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Institut hellénique pour la
préservation de la tradition nautique.
Basch, L. 2012. “Reflections on the Graffiti of Hagia Sophia at Trebizond (Trabzon),
Turkey.” In Between Continents. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and
Ship Archaeology Istanbul 2009, edited by Nergis Günsenin, 165–170. İstanbul: Ege
Yayınları.
Basch, L., and M. Artzy. 1985. “Appendix II. Ship graffiti at Kition.” In Excavations at
Kition V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels Areas I and II, part. 1, edited by V. Karageorghis
and M Demas, 322–336. Nicosia.
Bellibaş, E.S. 2015. “Efes Artemisionu’ndaki Anonim Türbe.” . ITU.
Bellibaş, E.S., S. Ladstatter, and M. Kürüm. 2013. “Sığla Türbesi (İzmir-Selçuk) ve
Restorasyon Yaklaşımları.” In Uluslararası Batı Anadolu Beylikleri Tarih, Kültür ve
Medeniyet Sempozyumu -I Aydınoğulları Tarihi 04-06 Kasım 2010 (Bildiriler), edited
by Mehmet Ersan, Mehmet Şeker, and Cüneyt Kanat, 275–307. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu.
Bertocci, S., G. Verdiani, and M. Şevketoğlu. 2019. “Graffiti photogrammetry, extracting the
signs from the walls of the Kyrenia Castle.” In Graffiti photogrammetry, extracting the
signs from the walls of the Kyrenia Castle, 1–10.
Bilici, Z.K. 2008. Kalenin gemileri : Alanya Kalesiʼndeki gemi graffitileri = The ships of the
castle. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Bollon, M., and B. Imhaus. 2009. Graffiti marins de l’ile de ChypreReport of the Department
of Antiquities Cyprus.
Le Bon, E. 1995. “Ancient ship graffiti: symbol and context.” In The Ship as Symbol in
Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia, edited by C. O. Pedersen and B. Thye, 172–179.
Copenhagen.
———. 1997. “Images out of water: aspects of the interpretation of Ancient maritime
grafitti.” PhD dissertation. University of St Andrews. doi:10.11606/rco.v4i8.34762.
Bostan, I. 1992. Osmanlı bahriye teşkilâtı : XVII. yüzyılda Tersâne-i Âmire. Ankara: Atatürk
Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Türk Tarih Kurumu.
———. 2005. Kürekli ve yelkenli Osmanlı gemileri. İstanbul: Bilge.
———. 2006. Beylikten İmparatorluğa Osmanlı DenizciliğiTarih ve Coğrafya Dizisi. 7th ed.
İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Bryer, A. 1966. SHIPPING IN THE EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND. The Mariner's Mirror. 52:1,
3-12.
Champion, M. 2015. “Medieval Ship Graffiti in English Churches: Interpretation and
function.” Mariners Mirror 101 3: 343–350. doi:10.1080/00253359.2015.1054691.
114
Christensen, A.E.J. 1995. “Ship Graffiti.” In The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval
Scandinavia, edited by O. Crumlin-Pedersen and B. Munch-Thye, 180–185.
Copenhagen.
Cultural Heritage Imaging. 2010. "Reflectance Transformation Imaging: Guide to Highlight
Image Capture v1.1".
Çağlıtütüncigil, E. 2012. “Eski Mordoğan (İzmir) Köyü Camii Süslemeleri.” Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi 25: 139–162.
Çoban, H. 2012. “İnebolu Boat: Last Surviving Black Sea Ship of ‘Shell-First’ Construction
and the Evolution of Boatbuilding in the Western Black Sea Coast of Anatolia.” In
Between Continents. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship
Archaeology, edited by Nergis Günsenin, 171–173. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Çubuk, A.R. 2014. " The boat of Ali Reis: An Inebolu boat built with the ‘Shell First’
technique at the end of the 19th century" In Seapower, Technology and Trade. Studies
in Turkish Maritime History, edited by D. Couto, F. Gunergun, and M.P. Redani, 482–
486. Istanbul.
Damianidis, K. 1989. “Vernacular Boats and Boatbuilding in Greece.” . University of St
Andrews.
Damianidis, K.A. 2010. “Chains of Technology Transfert in the Traditional Shipbuilding of
the Black Sea.” : 161–173.
Damianidis, K. 2012. “Byzantine ship graffiti in the Kilise Mescidi of Amasra.” In Between
Continents, Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology,
edited by Nergis Günsenin, 135–139.
Damianidis, K.A. 2014. “Study of ancient ship-graffiti from the Black Sea and the Aegean.”
In Seapower, Technology and Trade: Studies in Turkish Maritime History, edited by
Dejanrah Couto, Feza Günergün, and Maria Pia Pedani, 450–459. İstanbul: Denizler
Kitabevi / Kaptan Yayıncılık.
Delis, A. 2016. “A Hub of Piracy in the Aegean: Syros during the Greek War of
Independence.” In Corsairs and pirates in the Eastern Mediterranean, fifteenthnineteenth
centuries, edited by Gelina Harlaftis, Dimitris Dimitropoulos, and David J.
Starkey, 41–54. Athens, Greece: Sylvia Ioannou Foundation.
Delouca, K. 1996. “Les graffiti de navires des églises byzantines et post byzantines de l’île
d’égine.” In Tropis IV. 4th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity,
edited by E. H. Tzalas, 175–185. Athens.
Demesticha, S. 2017. “18 KARAVOI: A Programme for the Documentation of Ship Graffiti
on Medieval and post-Medieval Monuments of Cyprus.” In Proceedings of the
115
Fourteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 2015,
edited by J Litwin, 135–141.
Demesticha, S., K. Delouca, M.G. Trentin, N. Bakirtzis, and A. Neophytou. 2017. “Seamen
on Land? A Preliminary Analysis of Medieval Ship Graffiti on Cyprus.” International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 46 2: 346–381. doi:10.1111/1095-9270.12269.
Dengler, I.C. 1982. “Turkish Women in the Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age.” In Women
in the Muslim World, edited by Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie, 229–244. Harvard
University Press.
Denham, H.M. 1986. “Aegean caiques 1915-1980.” The Mariner’s Mirror 72 3: 277–293.
Deveciyan, K. 2006. Türkiye’de Balık ve Balıkçılık. İstanbul: Aras Yayıncılık.
Dhoop, T., C. Cooper, and P. Copeland. 2016. “Recording and Analysis of Ship Graffiti in
St Thomas’ Church and Blackfriars Barn Undercroft in Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK.”
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 45 2: 296–309. doi:10.1111/1095-
9270.12179.
DiBiasie Sammons, J.F. 2018. “Application of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI)
to the study of ancient graffiti from Herculaneum, Italy.” Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports 17 August 2017: 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.08.011.
Emetz, I. 1995. “Iconographic evidence for the ships of the Bosphorus kingdom.”
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. doi:10.1111/j.1095-
9270.1995.tb00722.x.
Ertuğ, N. 2001. Osmanlı Döneminde İstanbul Deniz Ulaşımı ve Kayıkçılar. Kültür eserleri
dizisi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=QIxAAAAIAAJ.
Faro 2020. “Faro Scene User Manual 2020.0.3.” .
Fliche, B., and M. Pénicaud. 2020. “Votive Exopraxis: Muslim Pilgrims at a Christian
Orthodox Monastery (Büyükada, Istanbul).” Common Knowledge 26 2: 261–275.
Frankland, C. Colville. 1829. Travels to and from Constantinople in 1827 and 1828 or
Personal Narrative of a… Second ed.Vol. 1.London: Henry Colburn and Richard
Bentley.
Frangakis-Syrett, E. 2001. “Izmir And The Ottoman Maritime World Of The Eighteenth
Century.” Oriente Moderno 20 (81) 1: 109–128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25817747.
Friedman, Z. 2015. "The Ship Depicted on the North Colonnade of the Great Mosque at
Damascus: A Nilotic Theme or the Representation of Paradise?" . Journal of Mosaic
Research 8: 17-31 . DOI: 10.26658/jmr.306313
Frishman, M. 1994. “Islam and the form of the mosque.” In The mosque : history,
116
architectural development & regional diversity, edited by Martin Frishman, Hasan-
Uddin Khan, and Mohammad Al-Asad, 17–41. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Gharipour, M., and I.C.T.A.-T.T.- Schick. 2013. “Calligraphy and architecture in the Muslim
world.”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Goffman, D. 1990. Izmir and the Levantine World, 1550-1650Publications on the Near East,
University of Washington. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Great Britain Foreign Office. 1886. Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finace:
Turkey: Report for the years 1882 to 1885 on the Trade of Symrna.
Güleryüz, A. 2004. Kadırgadan kalyona Osmanlıda yelken : Mikyas-ı sefain = Ottoman
sailing ships from galleys to galleons and particulars of ships and their
equipmentDenizler Kitabevi. İstanbul: Denizler Kitabevi.
Günay, Ü. 2003. “Türk Halk Dindarlığının Önemli Çekim Merkezleri Olarak Dini Ziyaret
Yerleri.” Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 1 15: 5–36.
Günsenin, S.N. 2005. "Epitaphes de Marins de l’île de Marmara (Proconnèse)." In Travaux
et Mémoires 15. Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, edited by F. Baratte, V. Déroche, C.
Jolivet-Lévy, B. Pitarakis. 371-380. Paris: Association Des Amis Du Centre D’Histoire
Et Civilisation De Byzance
Gürbıyık, C. 2010. Karaburun Yarımadası’nda Türk mimarisi. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları.
Güzey, G.Z. 2020. “İzmir’deki Kutsal Ziyaret Yerleri Etrafında Oluşan İnanç Ve
Uygulamalar.” . Ege University.
Helms, S.W. 1975. “Ship graffiti in the church of San Marco in Venice.” International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 4 2: 229–236. doi:10.1111/j.1095-
9270.1975.tb00916.x.
Hill, D.I., and O. Grabar. 1964. Islamic architecture and its decoration, A.D. 800-1500. A
photographic survey. London: Faber and Faber.
Imhaus, B. 2001. “Graffiti marins de l’ile de Chypre.” Actes du XIIe Colloque International
de Glyptographie de Saint-Christopheen- Brionnais: 177–189.
Işık, S. 2002. Karaburun yarımadası’nın tarihsel coğrafyasıEge Üniversitesi. Edebiyat
Fakültesi Yayınları ; No. 120. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Ege Meslek Yüksekokulu.
Kahanov, Y., V. Shotten-Hallel, and D. Cvikel. 2008. “A graffito of a nineteenth-century
armed ship from akko, Israel.” Mariners Mirror 94 4: 389–405.
doi:10.1080/00253359.2008.10657075.
Kahanov, Y., and E. Stern. 2008. “Ship graffiti from akko (acre).” Mariners Mirror 94 1:
21–35. doi:10.1080/00253359.2008.10657044.
117
Karasu, T. 2005. Alanya gemileri/ships : ortaçağ kalesinde gemi graffitileri = ship graffiti in
the medieval castle. Alanya: Doğu Akdeniz Kültür ve Tarih Araştırmaları Vakfı.
Keegan, P. 2014. Graffiti in antiquity. London ; Routledge.
Keser, U. 2010. “Kıbrıs Adasında Kadın Eksenli Olarak Adak Ve İnanç Dünyasına Kesitsel
Bir Bakış.” Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi 3 6: 108–128.
Köse, F. 2016 .“Tekirdağ Rüstem Paşa Camii Grafitileri”. Rodosto’dan Süleymanpaşa’ya
Tekirdağ Uluslararası Tekirdağ Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildirileri 26-27 Mart 2015 Namık
Kemal Üniversitesi, ed. Murat Yıldız. İstanbul: Kitabevi, 511-524.
Kurt, S. 1991. “İzmir Hamidiye Vapur Şirketi.” Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi
1: 71–107.
Leontidis, T. 1993. “The Rigging Sakkoleva in the Aegean Sea during the 19th Century.” In
The Evolution Of Wooden Shipbuilding In The Eastern Mediterranean During The 18th
And 19th Centuries, edited by Kostas A. Damianidis, 91–96.
Lovata, T.R., and E. Olton, eds. 2015. Understanding Graffiti: Multidisciplinary Studies
from Prehistory to the Present. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Malzbender, T., H. Gelb, and H. Wolters. 2001. “Polynomial texture maps.” In SIGGRAPH
’01 Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques, 519–528.
Mazumdar, S., and S. Mazumdar. 2002. “In Mosques And Shrines: Women’s Agency In
Public Sacred Space.” Journal of Ritual Studies 16 2: 165–179.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44364151.
Meinardus, O.F.A. 1972. “Mediaeval Navigation according to Akidographemata in
Byzantine Churches and Monasteries (πίν. 15-18).” Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής
Εταιρείας: 29–52. doi:10.12681/dchae.807.
Michail, M. 2015. “Ship graffiti in context: a preliminary study of Cypriot patterns.” In
Cypriot Cultural Details. Proceedings of the 10th Post Graduate Cypriot Archaeology
Conference, edited by I. Hadjikyriakos and M.G. Trentin, 41–64. Oxford and
Philadephia.
Milnor, K. 2014. Graffiti and the literary landscape in Roman Pompeii. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Moore, A.H. 1925. Last days of mast and sail. Oxford.
Muscat, J. 1999. “Ship Graffiti - a Comparative Study.” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 9
1: 74–105.
———. 2006. “Ship Graffiti in Malta 1500–1900.” Mediterranean Seascapes: Proceedings
of an International Conference held in Malta in conjunction with Euromed Heritage II,
118
Navigation du Savoir Project ix 1: 143–170.
Nakas, Y., and T. Krapf. 2017. “Medieval Ship Graffiti from Amarynthos, Euboea, Greece.”
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 46 2: 433–437. doi:10.1111/1095-
9270.12260.
Özdaş, H. 2007. “İstanbul Ayasofya Müzesi Duvarlarında Bulunan Kazıma Tekniğinde
Yapılmış Gemi Tasvirleri.” Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 7: 59–68.
Özel, A. 1988. “Adak.” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi.
Özkan, M.K. 1998. “Kemer Secdegahı Temizlik ve Çevre Düzenleme Çalışmaları.” In VIII.
Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 255–277. Ankara.
Pâris, F.E. 1882. Souvenirs de Marine. Collection de plans ou dessins de navires et de
bateaux anciens ou modernes existants ou disparus, avec les éléments numériques
nécessaires à leur construction.
Prins, A.H.J. 1992. “Mediterranean Ships and Shipping, 1650-1850.” In The Heyday of Sail.
The Merchant Sailing Ship, 1650-1850, edited by R. Gardiner, 77–104. London:
Conway Maritime Press.
Lovata, T.R., and E. Olton, eds. 2015. Understanding Graffiti: Multidisciplinary Studies
from Prehistory to the Present. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Ragazzoli, C., O. Harmanşah, C. Salvador, and E. Frood. 2019. Scribbling through history:
graffiti, places and people. London, UK; Bloomsbury Academic.
Redford, S. 2007. “The Kıble Wall of the Kargı Hanı.” Adalya 10: 351–368.
Lovata, T.R., and E. Olton, eds. 2015. Understanding Graffiti: Multidisciplinary Studies
from Prehistory to the Present. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Ragazzoli, C., O. Harmanşah, C. Salvador, and E. Frood. 2019. Scribbling through history :
graffiti, places and people from antiquity to modernity. London : Bloomsbury
Academic.
Smyth, H.W. 1906. Mast and sail in Europe and Asia. London
Solem, D.-Ø.E., and E. Nau. 2020. “Two New Ways of Documenting Miniature Incisions
Using a Combination of Image-Based Modelling and Reflectance Transformation
Imaging.” Remote Sensing . doi:10.3390/rs12101626.
Şahin, G. 2013. “Türkiye’de Yitirilen Bir İktisadi Faaliyet: Süngercilik.” Akademik Bakış 39:
1–22.
Şevketoğlu, M. 2017. “Documenting Ship Graffiti in North Cyprus: Preliminary Results.” In
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of Underwater Science and Technology, edited
by Hayat Erkanal, Vasıf Şahoğlu, and İrfan Tuğcu, 181–199.
119
Telci, C., and B. Güntürkün. 1996. Karaburun. 1st ed. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Thomov, T. 2014. “ Four Scandinavian ship graffiti from Hagia Sophia.” Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 38 2: 168–184. doi:10.1179/0307013114z.00000000043.
———. 2015. “Maritime ex–voto graffito from the church of Hagia Sophia,
Constantinople.” Byzantinoslavica - Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines 73 1–
2: 57–74.
Trentin, M.G. 2010. “Medieval and Post Medieval graffiti in the churches of Cyprus.” In
POCA 2007: Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference, edited by S.
Christodoulou and A. Satraki, 297–321. Newcastle. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.3845.3527.
Uğurlu, A.H., and S. Yalman. 2020. “Introduction.” In The Friday mosque in the city :
liminality, ritual, and politics, 1–17. Bristol, UK: Intellect.
Underhill, H.A. 1978. Sailing ship rigs and rigging. Glasgow: Brown.
Uzunçarşılı, I.H. 1988. Osmanli Devletinin merkez ve bahriye teskilatiTürk Tarih Kurumu
yayinlari, VIII. dizi ; sa. 16b TA - TT -. 3. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.
Ülkü, O. 2016. "Osmanlı Mimarisinde Manzara Resimleri Süslemeciliği Bağlamında
Koçarlı-Cincin Köyü Cihanoğlu Hacı Abdülaziz Efendi Camii Duvar Süslemelerinin
Değerlendirilmesi." Sanat Tarihi Dergisi. 25 (2): 277-293. DOI: 10.29135/std.282189
Valente, R., and L. Barazzetti. 2020. “Methods for Ancient Wall Graffiti Documentation:
Overview and Applications.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 34: 1–13.
doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102616.
Vatin, N. 2004. Rodos Şövalyeleri ve Osmanlılar: Doğu Akdeniz’de savaş, diplomasi ve
korsanlık 1480-1522. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları - Step Ajans.
Walsh, M.J.K. 2008. “‘On of the princypalle Havenes of the See’: The port of Famagusta
and the ship graffiti in the church of St George of the Greeks, Cyprus.” International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37 1: 115–129. doi:10.1111/j.1095-
9270.2007.00171.x.
Westerdahl, C. 2013. “Medieval carved ship images found in nordic churches: The poor
man’s votive ships?” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 42 2: 337–347.
doi:10.1111/1095-9270.12010.
Yasin, A.M. 2015. “Prayers on site: the materiality of devotional graffiti and the production
of early Christian sacred space.” In Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and
Medieval World, edited by Antony Eastmond, 36–60. Cambridge University Press.
Yavuz, Y.Ş. 2001. “İstimdad.” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi.
Yürekli, S. 2016. “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Süngercilik Ve İzmir
Limanından Sünger İhracatı (1850-1900).” Ekonomik Yaklasim 22 79: 71–106.
120
Yürekli, Z. 2012. Architecture and hagiography in the Ottoman Empire : the politics of
Bektashi shrines in the classical age Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman studies.
Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Zandi-Sayek, S. 2012. Ottoman Izmir : the rise of a cosmopolitan port. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Zarinebaf, F. 2014. Women on the margins : gender, charity and justice in the early modern
Middle EastAnalecta Isisiana ; 130. 1st editio. Istanbul: The Isis Press.
121
Appendix 1:
CATALOGUE
Graffiti No: AK 1001
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Flaked fresco
Measurements: H: 6.8 cm W: 5.4 cm Height from floor: 44 cm
Description: Simple sprit sail with lower half brailed up with sheets (?), plain hull with
inclining bow more than stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
122
Graffiti No: AK 1002
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Oared vessel
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Whitewashed over, flaked fresco
Measurements: H: 3.8 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 47 cm
Description: Simple hull, stern is rather steep. Nine (may be ten) oars depicted, some extend
below the waterline. None can be distinguished as a rudder.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
123
Graffiti No: AK 1003
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Plastered and whitewashed, flaked fresco
Measurements: H: 10 cm W: 14 cm Height from floor: 35 cm
Description: Single mast with two yards (or one square sail with disturbed leeches). Simple
hull depicted with sharp edges. Half of the hull is not clear due to heavy plaster.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
124
Graffiti No: AK 1004
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Plastered dents, flaked fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 16 cm W: 34 cm Height from floor: 120 cm
Description: The very detailed graffito depicts two masts of square sail with three sails on
each mast. There is a spanker in addition to mizzen course sail. At the stern there is a small
gaff sail with a flag. One jib is clearly depicted, and there may be two more jibs if not stays.
Few additional rigging elements depicted are sheets, lifts, stays, triatic stay (stay between
two masts). Robust hull is supported with two (possibly three in some places) wales. The hull
is depicted with criss-cross lines which might be a decorative pattern, both ends are steep.
The bow has additional structure supporting the bowsprit.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
125
Graffiti No: AK 1005
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Plastered dents, flaked fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 19 cm W: 33 cm Height from floor: 85 cm
Description: The very detailed graffito depicts two masts of square sail with at least two jibs
and a gaff sail as an aft sail. The foremast has three sails, but the mizzenmast is not clear due
to the disturbance. Only the course sail is recognizable clearly. Rigging elements depicted
are sheets, shrouds, triatic stay (stay between two masts), lifts. The hull is rather slender with
a wale, steep stern, long bowsprit supported with a possible beak-head. There are three flags:
two at the top of each mast and one at the course yard of mizzen.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
126
Graffiti No: AK 1006
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Bareboat or sailing vessel
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, few cracks
Measurements: H: 1.5 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 94 cm
Description: Only a slender hull, no sail or oars depicted. Both fore and aft ends incline.
There is a possible bowsprit, which suggests this boat is a sailing vessel, but it can be a rope
for mooring as well.
Notes: The bowsprit (?) suggests the side to be starboard.
Photo:
Drawing:
127
Graffiti No: Ak 1007
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Plastered dents, flaked fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 9 cm W: 20 cm Height from floor: 72 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail with two stays. These two lines that are interpreted as
stays may indicate a jib as well. Most of the sail and about the half of the hull is disturbed by
the plastering, hence it is difficult to identify the sail in certainty. The horizontal line on hull
may be a wale or a part of the sail (or simply an error).
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
128
Graffiti No: AK 1008
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Port
Preservation state: Plastered over in some parts
Measurements: H: 3 cm W: 17.5 cm Height from floor: 63 cm
Description: Plain hull depiction with steep stern
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
129
Graffiti No: AK 1009
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Dents
Measurements: H: 4.1 cm W: 8.5 cm Height from floor: 39 cm
Description: Plain unfinished hull with one end (probably bow) and a portion of bottom
depicted.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
130
Graffiti No: AK 1010
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Dents
Measurements: H: 6 cm W: 5.3 cm Height from floor: 34 cm
Description: Plain unfinished hull with one end and a portion of bottom depicted.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
131
Graffiti No: AK 1011
Location: Area 1
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Whitewashed, plastered dents
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 11.9 cm Height from floor: 87 cm
Description: Plain hull with one end slightly more inclined, which is probably the bow.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
132
Graffiti No: AK 2001
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Hull and the lower parts of the sail is painted over, the upper parts of the
sail survived on the original fresco, cracks on the fresco
Measurements: H: 16 cm W: 27 cm Height from floor: 95 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail with two jibs at the bow. Jib attachments to the hull and
bowsprit is not clear due to heavy paint layer. The hull is relatively slender but not clear if
there are oars or any details on the hull.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
133
Graffiti No: AK 2002
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, the scratches and dents are filled with restoration
application, no original material or lines of scratches, possible plastering lines
Measurements: H: 17.8 cm W: 28 cm Height from floor: 74 cm
Description: Simple single masted lug sail seems to be echoing at the stern end (may be a
misinterpretation of sheets holding the sail cloth caused by the paint) or some sort of
disturbance caused by the restoration work creating new lines. There seems to be no jib but
two stays (possibly three). The mast is slightly inclined forward. The slender hull is inclining
on both ends.
Notes: Possible to misinterpret the plaster lines as part of graffito
Photo:
Drawing:
134
Graffiti No: AK 2003
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, the scratches are filled with restoration
application, no original material or lines of scratches
Measurements: H: 4.6 cm W: 6.8 cm Height from floor: 66 cm
Description: Simple single masted sprit sail, only the mast and the yard lines depicted (or
survived the paint). The hull is depicted with rather straight lines, both ends are quite similar,
thus it is difficult to determine the side. Yet one end is slightly higher than the other,
combined with the positioning of the sail suggests that this end is the aft.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
135
Graffiti No: AK 2004
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, extensive number of cracks and dents
Measurements: H: 10.5 cm W: 20 cm Height from floor: 32 cm
Description: The only element that is clearly visible is the hull. The sail is not visible due to
heavy paint layer. The lower section of the mast is slightly visible. There is a bowsprit and
two (possibly three) stays, however, the connection to mast is disturbed. No indication of jib.
There is a possible rudder at stern. The ratio of fore and aft ends is rather off: the bow is
higher than the stern.
Notes: The dashed lines on the drawing at the aft end may be a disturbance of restoration
Photo:
Drawing:
136
Graffiti No: AK 2005
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, most of the upper part is sealed
Measurements: H: 7.9 cm W: 24.4 cm Height from floor: 16 cm
Description: Some lines of the hull and the lower part of the possible mast is visible, no clear
identifying element of stern or bow, and the type of sail
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
137
Graffiti No: AK 2006
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 8.1 cm W: 13.6 cm Height from floor: 14
Description: Only the hull and the mast are visible. No clear identification regarding the sail
type, but the very vague triangular line crossing the mast suggests a possible lateen sail, but
this might be a stay as well. Both the top and bottom line of the hull is slightly curving and
parallel to that is a line in the hull that may indicate a wale. Bowsprit indicates the side of the
vessel as port. The bow of the vessel is more immense whereas stern curves into a slimmer
tip. There are two stays that are not very clear due to paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
138
Graffiti No: AK 2007
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 4.1 cm W: 6.4 cm Height from floor: 14 cm
Description: Only the top part of the sail is visible, the hull and the mast are not visible. It is
probably a lateen sail.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
139
Graffiti No: AK 2008
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 16.4 cm W: 21 cm Height from floor: 12 cm
Description: Single masted sprit sail. Only the yard and the braces are clearly identifiable.
There are three jibs: two of them tied to the bowsprit and one to the hull. The hull is slender
compared to the rest of the vessel. The bottom line is curved parallel to the top line. The bow
is inclined whereas the stern is rather steep.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
140
Graffiti No: AK 2009
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over accept the tip of the sail and the mast, dents on
couple of places
Measurements: H: 28 cm W: 36 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail is accompanied with at least one jib. The mast is not
clear due to the paint. In addition to stays, the supporting elements of the rigging such as
sheets and braces are present. The vessel has oars as well. Some of the inclined lines that are
interpreted as oars can be rudder as well. The bow is inclined but the stern is not clearly
visible.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
141
Graffiti No: AK 2010
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug + gaff
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: The hull and the lower parts of the sail towards the aft end is heavily
painted over, few flakes on the fresco and dents
Measurements: H: 19 cm W: 38 cm Height from floor: 85 cm
Description: Two masted sailing vessel with detailed features. Single mast lug sail is
accompanied with three jibs and a gaff sail at the aft protruding from the stern. Sheets holding
the cloth of sail is depicted densely. The hull is quite symmetrical and has an application
represented as cross lines in an irregular manner. This irregular effect may be because of the
plaster sealing some of the lines.
Notes: (Demesticha et al., 2017) refers this kind of application as sheathing
Photo:
Drawing:
142
Graffiti No: AK 2011
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Lug + square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents plastered
Measurements: H: 13.1 cm W: 24.4 cm Height from floor: 74 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail with a square sail at the top of the mast and one jib
attached to the deck and possibly one to the bowsprit (this can be only a stay as well, but the
lines are misinterpreted due to the disturbance of the paint). In addition to bowsprit there is
a spar extending from the stern which indicates a possible sail at the aft or it might be
representing a rope propelling something (possibly another boat) and this might be sealed by
the paint. It is unlikely to be indicating a mooring vessel, as the sail is set. The lug sail is
elaborated with the sheets. The slender hull inclines on both ends and is supported with a
wale. The slanting lines on the same direction depicted on the hull may indicate a sheathing
or since they are in single direction, they can represent oars, yet the lines do not protrude the
hull (but this may be due to accurate representation of the waterline). They are counted as 8,
yet there might have been more but destroyed by the dent plastered.
Notes: The sail could be lateen instead of lug and misinterpreted due to the artistic license.
Photo: Drawing:
143
Graffiti No: AK 2012
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 5 cm W: 10.5 cm Height from floor: 68 cm
Description: Simple single masted lateen sail. The mast is perpendicular (like Greek pinko).
The bottom line of the hull is slightly curving, both ends are inclined with a little curvature
(more on the bow). A stay fixes the mast to the bowsprit, but it is not clear whether it is a jib
or not.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
144
Graffiti No: AK 2013
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 7.1 cm W: 16 cm Height from floor: 65 cm
Description: The sail or the mast are not visible due to heavy paint layer, however the visible
parts of the boat seem to be detailed. The hull is supported with a wale and the nine slanting
lines can be interpreted as oars. The surviving end of the vessel is probably the bow of the
vessel (due to the pattern of oars represented throughout the graffiti on the wall). The
bowsprit is probably supported with the beakhead, there are two possible jibs. Or this end is
the aft and there is a sail protruding.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
145
Graffiti No: AK 2014
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 0.9 cm W: 10.3 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Plain hull with one end destroyed. The parts of the hull that is visible does not
indicate the side of the vessel. There is a curving slanting line (the dashed line on the drawing)
that might be a part of a possible sail, or it is a disturbance of the restoration work.
Notes: The height is the measurement of the hull
Photo: Drawing:
146
Graffiti No: AK 2015
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 1 cm W: 9.7 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Only half of the hull is clearly visible, the dashed line on the drawing might be
a spar. The visible end seems to have a line starts from the end moves towards the midship
and curves back. This might be a line that meant to represent a deck, but poorly depicted.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
147
Graffiti No: AK 2016
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 7.1 cm W: 13.2 cm Height from floor: 58 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. The hull is slender compared to the rest of the vessel,
has a third line in the middle that is probably a wale. It is difficult to identify bottom line of
the hull, the line that is interpreted as wale can be the bottom of the hull or the bottom line
might be another wale and the actual waterline is destroyed by the paint. The ends are
disturbed by the paint which complicates the interpretation of the hull. The mast is fixed with
stays to bowsprit. The fore one might be a jib but it is difficult to tell as the bowsprit and stay
lines are disturbed by the paint. Towards (or at) the aft end of the vessel there is a
perpendicular spar that might be a second mast that is fixed with fore and aft stays.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
148
Graffiti No: AK 2017
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 8.3 cm W: 10 cm Height from floor: 51 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib and a possible square sail. The
horizontal line on the top part of the mast might be the yard of a square sail. Above the yard
is a shorter line that may represent a crow's nest. The jib is shaped like crab craw sail, but
this is rather a result of the fashion of the lines and the shape of the bowsprit. The plain hull
is supported by a wale in the middle of the hull. The bow is slightly inclined. The aft end is
destroyed by a heavy paint layer. The three slanting lines on the hull are likely oars.
Notes: Similar to AK 2011.
Photo: Drawing:
149
Graffiti No: AK 2018
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 15.5 cm W: 9.3 cm Height from floor: 60 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The mast is fixed with a stay, but due to heavy paint
layer it is not clear whether it is a jib. Simple hull inclines on both ends.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
150
Graffiti No: AK 2019
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Square + gaff
Side: Starboard
Level of detail: Detailed
Level of skill of the carver:
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 10.7 cm W: 24.7 cm Height from floor: 45 cm
Description: Three masted vessel: Two masts of square sail and an additional gaff (or lug)
sail at the aft. The foremast is heavily disturbed. The mizzen has four yards. The hull is quite
robust. It is detailed with a wale and a rudder. The bowsprit has a disturbed shape. The
slanting lines on the hull should indicate oars, but the last two at the aft do not exceed the
hull till the waterline, thus suggest something that is only associated with the hull such as a
decorative pattern.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
151
Graffiti No: AK 2020
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 6.9 cm Height from floor: 63 cm
Description: Only the half of the boat is survived: Most of the waterline and one end. The
hull seems to be slender. The surviving end is slightly inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
152
Graffiti No: AK 2021
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 9.3 cm W: 21.7 cm Height from floor: 60 cm
Description: A plain hull, the aft end is disturbed, the line protruding from the fore end is
probably a bowsprit but it can be a rope for mooring as it is rather horizontal. If the line is
not a bowsprit, the side of the vessel can be port. There is a mast towards the fore but the no
clear indication on the type of the sail. The lines over the aft part might be a different boat or
a higher stern with a possible kiosk.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
153
Graffiti No: AK 2022
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 1.6 cm W: 6 cm Height from floor: 46 cm
Description: Plain curving hull with a possible bowsprit. The aft end is disturbed by the
paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
154
Graffiti No: AK 2023
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 43 cm
Description: The plain hull gets slender towards the aft and makes a sharp curve at the steep
stern. The bowsprit suggests a possible sail, but no clear indication of mast and sail. There is
something at the aft that might be a superstructure or a part of the cargo.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
155
Graffiti No: AK 2024
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 19.4 cm W: 24.2 cm Height from floor: 40 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. The sail is disturbed at the aft side. There are 10 oars,
some exceeding the waterline. The hull is depicted with a straight waterline and curving
upper line. The inclined bow is higher than the steep stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
156
Graffiti No: AK 2025
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 15.5 cm W: 19 cm Height from floor: 52 cm
Description: Two masted lug sail with two jibs. One jib is attached to one mast and the other
jib is attached to the other mast. The plain hull is slender with inclining ends. The stern is
higher than the bow. It is depicted with a straight waterline and curving upper line.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
157
Graffiti No: AK 2026
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 3 cm W: 7.1 cm Height from floor: 48 cm
Description: Probably single masted lateen sail. The mast is not visible because of the dent
filled with paint. The top part of what is thought to be sail suggests a lateen sail. The plain
hull is disturbed by the same dent. Both ends are steep.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
158
Graffiti No: AK 2027
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 14.2 cm W: 15.2 cm Height from floor: 28 cm
Description: The sail is poorly depicted. No lines can be clearly identified. Mast and the sail
have a vague shape. The plain hull has a robust shape with one end is slightly more inclined
than the other. It is spoiled by another graffito (AK 2036).
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
159
Graffiti No: AK 2028
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 1.5 cm W: 10.3 cm Height from floor: 38 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull and one end survived the heavy paint layer.
Graffito might be representing something else, but interpreted as a boat because of the overall
assemblage.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
160
Graffiti No: AK 2029
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 6.2 cm W: 10.6 cm Height from floor: 34 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail with a possible jib. The aft of the sail from mast is
disturbed by the paint. The hull is plain and slender. The bow is slightly inclined whereas the
stern is steep. The bowsprit is little longer than usual compared to hull.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
161
Graffiti No: AK 2030
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Painted over, some plastered dents
Measurements: H: 18.4 cm W: 37 cm Height from floor: 18 cm
Description: Three masted square sail. Mainmast and mizzenmast have four yards and
foremast has three yards. The only rigging elements clearly identified are the sheets and the
stay which might be a jib as well. The hull is heavily disturbed. The aft end and some smaller
parts are destroyed by dents. There is a wale supporting the hull. There seems to be a spar
protruding from the stern, but it may be a line of another graffito (AK 2055). It is spoiled by
AK 2032.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
162
Graffiti No: AK 2031
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or Square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 11.8 cm W: 11.2 cm Height from floor: 31 cm
Description: Single masted lug or square sail. The plain robust hull is disturbed on the aft
end. The straight bow is slightly inclined. Spoiled by AK 2055.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
163
Graffiti No: AK 2032
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen + square (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 12 cm W: 21.5 cm Height from floor: 8 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a possible square sail. The plain
hull has inclining ends. The aft end is higher than the fore. It is not clear whether this is a
scene composed of several ships, or several graffiti overlap and the paint and plaster seals
some parts.
Notes: H: 16 cm when measured with the sail at the back
Photo: Drawing:
164
Graffiti No: AK 2033
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 16.2 cm W: 11.7 cm Height from floor: 18 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib. The plain hull has a slightly
higher and steep stern. The bowsprit is more upright than would be expected. There is a line
parallel to mast exceeding down from hull that is disturbed by the application.
Notes: Weirdly elongated. Height measurements are taken from the hull bottom not the line
exceeding.
Photo: Drawing:
165
Graffiti No: AK 2034
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 2.1 cm W: 4.8 cm Height from floor: 36 cm
Description: It is not clear whether the vessel is half or unfinished or disturbed during the
renovation and restoration. Only from one end to a little further from midship of the hull
survived. No sign of propelling means.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
166
Graffiti No: AK 2035
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit + square (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, some dents, floor level change
Measurements: H: 24 cm W: 27 cm Height from floor: 0
Description: The vessel is partially inaccessible due the change of floor level. The sail, upper
part of aft end and tip of bowsprit is visible. It is a single masted sprit sail and possibly
accompanied with a square sail and a jib. The lines interpreted as square sail might be a crow'
nest as well. It is not possible to interpret the hull with what is visible.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
167
Graffiti No: AK 2036
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavy paint, dents
Measurements: H: 19 cm W: 28 cm Height from floor: 14 cm
Description: The vessel is quite difficult to identify. The hull shape is not clear. No clear
remains of scratches. The dashed lines represent what may have been the hull. There seems
to be a sail but very difficult to identify.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
168
Graffiti No: AK 2037
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, some dents (one of them is big)
Measurements: H: 9 cm W: 21 cm Height from floor: 4 cm
Description: It seems to be a plain boat. Majority of the hull is disturbed by the restoration.
There might have been a wale.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
169
Graffiti No: AK 2038
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 11.4 cm Height from floor: 20 cm
Description: A plain boat with steep ends. The slanting line crossing the hull might be a
rudder or an oar
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
170
Graffiti No: AK 2039
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 14 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 6 cm
Description: A plain boat with half of it depicted. It is probably the fore part. The spar
protruding from the bow is either the bowsprit or a mooring rope. The line on the other end
might be the mast or the cut ending the boat as in the similar sense with the partial hull
graffiti.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
171
Graffiti No: AK 2040
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: NA
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents
Measurements: H: 9 cm W: 8.9 cm Height from floor: 5 cm
Description: A plain boat with a mast. The horizontal line might be the yard of a square sail.
The side is not clear. One end is higher than the other. The hull seems to be sturdy, but it
might be related with the skill of artist that she cannot make smooth scratches. The bottom
of the hull is disturbed by the paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
172
Graffiti No: AK 2041
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, some dents
Measurements: H: 12.6 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 41 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. There are two stays running form mast to bowsprit. The
front one might be a jib but disturbed by the plastered dent. The hull is heavily disturbed. It
seems to be a plain hull with no wale.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
173
Graffiti No: AK 2042
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, some dents
Measurements: H: 12.4 cm W: 22.3 cm Height from floor: 53 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The mast is sealed with plaster. The slender hull is
heavily disturbed by the paint and plaster. The aft end is not clear. There is a possible lateen
sail as an aft sail protruding on a spar and a jib at the bowsprit. The hull is supported with a
wale. Additionally, the boat has oars but the number is not clear due to disturbance.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
174
Graffiti No: AK 2043
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Painted over, some dents and cracks
Measurements: H: 7 cm W: 6.5 cm Height from floor: 53 cm
Description: It might be a vessel with a mast. The line crossing the mast is likely a lateen
sail. Or it might be associated with AK 2041 mast, but there is no clear connection.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
175
Graffiti No: AK 2044
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, some dents and cracks
Measurements: H: 6.4 cm W: 6 cm Height from floor: 6 cm
Description: Only an end of the hull is survived
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
176
Graffiti No: AK 2045
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, some dents
Measurements: H: 23.5 cm W: 20 cm Height from floor: 42 cm
Description: The shape of a hull is clearly identifiable on one side. One end is disturbed by
the plaster. The line in the middle seems to be a wale. The vertical and horizontal lines above
the hull seems to represent the sail but it is quite difficult the identify.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
177
Graffiti No: AK 2046
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over
Measurements: H: 1.9 cm W: 4.3 cm Height from floor: 40 cm
Description: A boat with a curving bottom. Only half of the boat survived. No evidence for
propelling means.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
178
Graffiti No: AK 2047
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over, a chunk of plaster broken off
Measurements: H: 11 cm W: 18.9 cm Height from floor: 0
Description: The vessel is heavily disturbed. The hull and most of the mast is destroyed. The
surviving lines suggest it is a single masted square sail.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
179
Graffiti No: AK 2048
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over
Measurements: H: 1.4 cm W: 5.3 cm Height from floor: 6 cm
Description: Plain boat. The shape is not clear due to the applications. The graffito above
(AK 2049) might be the sail of this
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
180
Graffiti No: AK 2049
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 4 cm Height from floor: 8 cm
Description: Probably a plain boat. The half of it survived due to the applications. Might be
the sail of the graffito below (AK 2048)
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
181
Graffiti No: AK 2050
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + gaff (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over
Measurements: H: 17 cm W: 17.5 cm Height from floor: 21 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail with possible square sail (?) commingled with AK
2030. The hull shape is not clear due to restoration plaster
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
182
Graffiti No: AK 2051
Location: Area 2
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted and plastered over
Measurements: H: 2.5 cm W: 16.8 cm Height from floor: 11 cm
Description: A possible boat.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
183
Graffiti No: AK 3001
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: All original surface, few flakes and dents on the fresco
Measurements: H: 16.5 cm W: 31.3 cm Height from floor: 88 cm
Description: Single masted square sails with sprit sail. The mast holds two square sails. It is
quite detailed. Lifts, shrouds, and braces of the rigging are easily identifiable. No sheets are
depicted. The yard of sprit sail is supported with rigging from mast and yards of square sails.
There are three jibs, one attached to the top of the mast and two attached to each yard. The
stern has a small superstructure which is too small to be the steering deck. It might be a
counter or a very small sterncastle. The waterline is not straight but gives a wave affect. The
hull is supported by a wale. The extraordinarily long bowsprit is supported by two leveled
head: one from the waterline and one from the wale level. It is unlikely that these lines under
the spar are ropes.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
184
Graffiti No: AK 3002
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + gaff
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: The upper parts of the sails are on the original fresco surface, but the
entire hull and lower parts of the sails are painted over.
Measurements: H: 29.6 cm W: 63.3 cm Height from floor: 60 cm
Description: Three masted vessel: two masts of square sails and a gaff sail at the at the stern
accompanied with three jibs. The vessel is depicted in detail with proper lines. The foremast
has four square sails and two ratlines going up to the skysail. The fore ratline ends at the yard
of royal sail and the aft one ends at the yard of skysail and goes all the way down to the
waterline. The braces of the skysail crosses on the royal. The mizzen has three square sails
(maybe four), the braces of skysail and royal crosses. No indication of crow's nest. The third
sail, a gaff sail, protrudes from the aft end of the vessel, its mast being placed on a thick spar
protruding from the steering deck (?). The hull is supported with a wale and the bowsprit is
supported with a nicely curved head. The bow is slightly inclined whereas stern is steep.
Photo:
Drawing:
185
Graffiti No: AK 3003
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted over
Measurements: H: 2.9 cm W: 8.6 cm Height from floor: 69 cm
Description: Nonproportional simple hull. One end is higher than the other. The higher end
is disturbed by the paint. Because of the overall assemblage this graffiti is interpreted as a
sailing vessel.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
186
Graffiti No: AK 3004
Location: Area3
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Painted over
Measurements: H: 1.4 cm W: 4.1cm Height from floor: 64 cm
Description: A slender hull piece. Both ends are disturbed but one shows the curvature.
Because of the overall assemblage this graffiti is interpreted as a sailing vessel.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
187
Graffiti No: AK 3005
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 4 cm W: 6.6 cm Height from floor: 59 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. Two forestays fix the mast from top to bowsprit. They
are probably not jibs as there is no disturbance that spoils the lines. The mast is slightly
inclined to the aft. The hull is plain. The aft end steeper and higher than the bow.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
188
Graffiti No: AK 3006
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 15.8 cm W: 18 cm Height from floor: 39 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail with at least one jib. One of them is clear but a possible
second one is disturbed by the previous applications. The third line can be either a stay or a
jib as it vaguely touches the lateen sail and creates a triangular shape going down to the hull.
It is possible that carver perceived that as a jib as well and did not scratch an extra line as it
demands extra effort and further skill because there is no more space to scratch the second
line of the jib. The mast is towards the aft of midship. From mast to stern the hull gets thicker.
The hull is simple with no wale. The steep stern is higher than the inclining bow. The
bowsprit is disturbed by the applications. The mast and the stays exceed to the waterline.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
189
Graffiti No: AK 3007
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 3.7 cm W: 13.5 cm Height from floor: 53 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of hull is scratched. It seems to have a bowsprit which
also suggests the side of the vessel being port. The length of the hull is quite short compared
the bow which suggest that maybe only the fore section of the hull is depicted.
Notes: The graffito might be left unfinished. Also, it may be part of the group that is presented
as the fore half of a vessel. Similar ones are seen in Area 4&10.
Photo:
Drawing:
190
Graffiti No: AK 3008
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 1.3 cm W: 16.3 cm Height from floor: 49 cm
Description: It is a bare hull with one end destroyed. The lines are not straight. It gets slender
towards one end that is destroyed. Because of the overall assemblage this graffiti is
interpreted as a sailing vessel.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
191
Graffiti No: AK 3009
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 11.4 cm W: 13.8 cm Height from floor: 47 cm
Description: Probably single masted sail with one jib. The lines are quite difficult to interpret
due to the previous applications. The sail is not identifiable. The mast is either sealed by the
previous applications or is not depicted, but the lines which may be stays suggest the presence
of a mast. The simple hull is slender and inclines on both ends.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
192
Graffiti No: AK 3010
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered dent
Measurements: H: 25 cm W: 31 cm Height from floor: 26 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail. The square sails cannot be clearly
identified. There are yards indicating their presence. The rigging elements such as stays and
braces are not depicted. The hull is supported with a wale. The fore section of the hull is
sealed by the plaster. The aft end is inclined and curves from waterline to wale. The waterline
is wavy rather than straight. The rectangular shape connected to the vessel with a line is
probably the flag of the ship.
Notes: The flag is not included in the measurement because it is not clear if these are two
separate graffiti.
Photo: Drawing:
193
Graffiti No: AK 3011
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit + square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, some
dents
Measurements: H: 31 cm W: 21 cm Height from floor: 18 cm
Description: Single masted sprit sail with two square sails at the top of the mast. It is depicted
in detail. The tip of the yard of sprit sail is attached to the tip of the mast. A jib is attached to
the yard of the sail at top. The sprit sail is depicted with sheets. The hull is supported with a
wale and has a pattern with criss-cross lines which might be decorative. The inclined bow is
depicted higher than the steep stern. The rectangular shape with wavy lines that is connected
to the yard of square sail is probably the flag of the ship rather than another boat.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
194
Graffiti No: AK 3012
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 3.1 cm W: 11.7 cm Height from floor: 35 cm
Description: Only the bottom of the hull and a flat end is scratched. Probably unfinished.
Notes: Graffito is interpreted as a boat due to the overall assemblage.
Photo: Drawing:
195
Graffiti No: AK 3013
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 1.1 cm W: 7.7 cm Height from floor: 15 cm
Description: Simple hull. No indication of sail or oar. Very high ends compared to the
thickness of the hull. One end is higher than the other.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
196
Graffiti No: AK 3014
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 2.8 cm W: 3.8 cm Height from floor: 13 cm
Description: Only the hull is clearly visible. The hull has rather straight upper line and wavy
waterline. There is a mast towards the fore of midship. The sail type is not clear. The
perpendicular spar at the aft might be a mast.
Notes: The height from the top of the dashed line of mast is 5.1 cm (see the drawing)
Photo: Drawing:
197
Graffiti No: AK 3015
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 6 cm W: 16.6 cm Height from floor: 9 cm
Description: Simple hull with only the bottom line depicted. Because of the overall
assemblage this graffito is interpreted as a sailing vessel.
Notes: The width from the dashed line is 25 cm (see the drawing)
Photo:
Drawing:
198
Graffiti No: AK 3016
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Oared (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 2.2 cm W: 16.4 cm Height from floor: 23 cm
Description: Plain boat probably oared. One end is disturbed. Both ends are inclined but the
disturbed end seems to be higher.
Notes: Disturbed end crosses 3011
Photo:
Drawing:
199
Graffiti No: AK 3017
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, heavily
painted over
Measurements: H: 4.6 cm W: 8cm Height from floor: 4 cm
Description: Single masted lateen with one jib, maybe the stay can be a second jib. Only the
top part of the sail is visible. The hull is sealed with paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
200
Graffiti No: AK 3018
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 4.4 cm W: 6.2 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: There is vertical line that seems to be the mast and associated lines that probably
represent the sail and rigging elements. The mast is towards the fore end of vessel and goes
through the hull. The sail is not clear. It can be a lug sail or square sail. The hull gets slender
towards the bow. It is not clear whether the hull has a bowsprit or the stay is attached to the
tip of the bow, but it seems to be the latter.
Notes: Overlaps with the mast of AK 3011
Photo: Drawing:
201
Graffiti No: AK 3019
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 6.4 cm W: 13.5 cm Height from floor: 14 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of half of the hull and one end survived the plaster and
paint.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
202
Graffiti No: AK 3020
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, heavily
painted over
Measurements: H: 1.3 cm W: 16.6 cm Height from floor: 67 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull with one end survived the paint. The upper
parts of the vessel are not clear because of the restoration.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
203
Graffiti No: AK 3021
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 2.6 cm W: 16.8 cm Height from floor: 43 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull survived with the upper part of one end
disturbed
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
204
Graffiti No: AK 3022
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 6 cm W: 8.2 cm Height from floor: 17 cm
Description: Single masted lug or lateen sail with a possible jib. Sheets holding the sail is
represented as well. The mast exceeds till the waterline. The simple hull is slender. Both ends
are inclined. The waterline is straight.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
205
Graffiti No: AK 3023
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: All original surface, few cracks and a dent on the fresco
Measurements: H: 4.9 cm W: 21 cm Height from floor: 87 cm
Description: Bareboat, no clear indication of sail or oar. The hull is quite robust. Both ends
incline similarly. It is not clear if the line protruding from one end is a spar or a rope for
mooring, or simply a miscalculation of the joint of two scratches.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
206
Graffiti No: AK 3024
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: All original surface
Measurements: H: 8.6 cm W: 15.6 cm Height from floor: 78 cm
Description: The single masted oared vessel. The horizontal line and the slightly curving
one that is very close to the other might represent a square sail. It is possible that the sail is
brailed up as there are the oars in use or sail might be unfinished. The robust hull is supported
with a wale. There are 10 oars. None of them exceeds the waterline. It is not clear whether
one of these oars is a rudder.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
207
Graffiti No: AK 3025
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered
Measurements: H: 1.4 cm W: 12 cm Height from floor: 80 cm
Description: This is probably a small boat. Only the hull that slims down on one end is
depicted. The other end is disturbed by the plaster.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
208
Graffiti No: AK 3026
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Only upper part of the foresail is on original surface, the fore section of
the vessel has discoloration because of the removed plaster, aft section is plastered over
Measurements: H: 43.4 cm W: 84 cm Height from floor: 38 cm
Description: Two masted square sail accompanied with jibs. The mizzen is mostly covered
with plaster. The foresail has three square sails. There might have been a third mast at the aft
but it is not visible due to paint and plaster. There seems to be at least three jibs, but it is not
clear because of the previous applications. The shrouds and braces are depicted densely. The
hull is supported with a wale. The fore end is slightly inclined but the aft is not clear.
Photo:
Drawing:
209
Graffiti No: AK 3027
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 17.4 cm Height from floor: 24 cm
Description: Simple, slender hull with no clear indication of sail or oar. Both ends inclined.
One end is higher than the other, but it is not clear because of the plaster from restoration.
The waterline is relatively straight. The line protruding from one end might be a spar or
miscalculated joint of lines.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
210
Graffiti No: AK 3028
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 14. 6 cm Height from floor: 27 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull is depicted. Both ends are present. One is more
inclined than the other. There might be a bowsprit.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
211
Graffiti No: AK 3029
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted
Measurements: H: 11.8 cm W: 21 cm Height from floor: 25 cm
Description: Probably single masted vessel. The sail is not depicted but the only the mast.
Or it’s disturbed by the previous applications. The robust hull has a curvy shape rather than
straight. The line in the middle of the hull is probably a wale. One end is covered with paint
almost until the mast, the other end is disturbed less by the paint. It is possible that it has a
spar on the end that is less disturbed.
Notes: The mast of the vessel crosses the hull of AK 3026.
Photo:
Drawing:
212
Graffiti No: AK 3030
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over, cracks
Measurements: H: 0.8 cm W: 3.9 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull (waterline) is depicted. One end is slightly
curved and more inclined than the other. The steeper end is rather straight, and suggests it is
the aft end. No clear indication of sail or oar.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
213
Graffiti No: AK 3031
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over, cracks
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 6.1 cm Height from floor: 25 cm
Description: Simple hull with both ends inclined. The waterline is straight. The upper line
is unproportionate, shifting the midship and making one end narrow.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
214
Graffiti No: AK 3032
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 3.4 cm W: 6.5 cm Height from floor: 20 cm
Description: Simple hull with no clear indication of sail or oar. One end is more inclined
than the other. The form is not symmetrical.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
215
Graffiti No: AK 3033
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 3.9 cm Height from floor: 35 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a jib. The sail is not clear because
of the restoration. The simple hull is slender. The aft end is steep, but bow is disturbed by the
restoration.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
216
Graffiti No: AK 3034
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
and plastered over
Measurements: H: 20 cm W: 17.8 cm Height from floor: 54 cm
Description: Only the hull and possible ratlines are clearly visible. The mast or the sail might
be disturbed by the previous applications. The hull is simple and robust. One end is inclined
and links to the rigging of AK 3026. The other end is rather steep. Because the ratlines are
depicted, the vessel should have a mast.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
217
Graffiti No: AK 3035
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + gaff (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted,
plastered dents
Measurements: H: 14.4 cm W: 32.4 cm Height from floor: 26 cm
Description: Two masted vessel: mainmast is square sail accompanied with a gaff sail at the
aft. The mast of square sail and aft sail is heavily disturbed by the restoration. The sail parts
are disturbed as well. It is not possible to identify the yards of the square sail. Some rigging
elements survived the restoration. There is at least one jib. The forestay is most likely a jib
as well, but it is difficult to clearly identify due to restoration applications. The hull is plain.
The aft end is quite perpendicular, but the bow is not identifiable. The horizontal dashed line
at the fore of vessel on the drawing is probably a bowsprit.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
218
Graffiti No: AK 3036
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square sail + gaff
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted,
many dents
Measurements: H: 8.9 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: Two masted vessel. Mainmast is square sail and there is a combination of
square sail and gaff sail at the aft. The main sail has four square sails. The sheets are densely
depicted on both sails. Because of the sheets and disturbances from restoration it is not clear
whether the mast is depicted on the main sail. There are at least two jibs attached to bowsprit.
The hull seems to be plain. Most of the hull is disturbed by the previous applications. The
vessel is a possible ketch.
Photo:
Drawing:
219
Graffiti No: AK 3037
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type:
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
and plastered over
Measurements: H: 17.8 cm W: 36 cm Height from floor: 4.6 cm
Description: This graffito might be depicting the fishing cabins they have in Karaburun
peninsula. These cabins are located on the edge of cliffs sitting on the poles to elevate the
fishermen. Attached to this cabin there is a pulley system that manages the net.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
220
Graffiti No: AK 3038
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
and plastered over, floor level change seals the lower parts of sail and the hull
Measurements: H: 8.7 cm W: 10.5 cm Height from floor: 0
Description: Only the upper part of the sail is accessible due to floor level change. It seems
it is a single masted square sail. The rigging elements depicted are probably stays and braces.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
221
Graffiti No: AK 3039
Location: Area 3
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, dents
Measurements: H: 5.6 cm W: 5.4 cm Height from floor: 58 cm
Description: Simple boat with a possible single masted lateen sail. Both ends are inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
222
Graffiti No: AK 4001
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface and restoration application, plastered, cracks
Measurements: H: 9.4 cm W: 8.8 cm Height from floor: 68 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The mast is fixed with a rigging element to the fore
of the vessel, but it is not clear whether this is a jib, or it is attached to the bowsprit. The fore
of vessel is not clear because of the restoration. The slender hull is simple. The stern is steep,
but the bow is not clear.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
223
Graffiti No: AK 4002
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 7.5 cm W: 6 cm Height from floor: 59 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. The sail is not depicted. The vertical line is
probably the mast. The hull is plain. Only one end survived the previous treatments.
Notes: It is possible that this graffito may depict something else but because of the overall
assemblage, it is interpreted as a vessel.
Photo: Drawing:
224
Graffiti No: AK 4003
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface and restoration application, cracks
Measurements: H: 7 cm W: 11.5 cm Height from floor: 58 cm
Description: Only the fore section of the vessel is depicted. It is not clear whether the vessel
is cut at midship. The hull is poorly shaped and lines do not join nicely. It is connected to
AK 4004.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
225
Graffiti No: AK 4004
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface and restoration application
Measurements: H: 7.1 cm W: 12 cm Height from floor: 51 cm
Description: Only the fore section of the vessel is depicted. It is not clear whether the vessel
is cut at midship. There seems to be a spar at the bow, or the lines are just poorly joint. It is
connected to AK 4003.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
226
Graffiti No: AK 4005
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen + gaff
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Some part is on original surface and restoration application, plastered
and painted, cracks
Measurements: H: 6.3 cm W: 10 cm Height from floor: 52 cm
Description: Two masted vessel: main sail rigged with lateen sail and a gaff sail at the aft.
There are no additional rigging elements depicted such as stays and sheets. The sail seems to
be attached to the bowsprit which makes the line look like a stay. The robust hull is supported
with a wale. Both ends are steep. There is a superstructure at the aft of the mast.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
227
Graffiti No: AK 4006
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Some part is on original surface and restoration application, plastered
and painted
Measurements: H: 3.4 cm W: 9 cm Height from floor: 48 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull is depicted. Both ends are inclined.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
228
Graffiti No: AK 4007
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Some part is on original surface and restoration application, plastered
and painted
Measurements: H: 2.6 cm W: 11 cm Height from floor: 45 cm
Description: Simple boat. No clear indication of sail or oar. One end is more inclined. The
steeper end is higher than the inclined end.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
229
Graffiti No: AK 4008
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
and plastered over
Measurements: H: 8.8 cm W: 6.8 cm Height from floor: 35 cm
Description: Possibly a sailing vessel. It is difficult to distinguish elements because of the
restoration.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
230
Graffiti No: AK 4009
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type:
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state:
Measurements: H: W: Height from floor:
Description: Parallel lines which may represent a counting activity such as day count. Some
lines are closer to each other than others or the distance is slightly consistent in among some
lines. These may indicate groups of scratching.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
231
Graffiti No: AK 4010
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted,
dents
Measurements: H: 5.2 cm W: 4.5 cm Height from floor: 11 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The hull is simple and both ends are steep. Mast is
depicted down till the waterline.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
232
Graffiti No: AK 4011
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted, dents
Measurements: H: 5.1 cm W: 5 cm Height from floor: 3 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. There is a possible forestay, but the attachment to
hull is not clear. The hull is plain. Only the fore from mast is clearly identifiable. The bow
(and possibly stern) is inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
233
Graffiti No: AK 4012
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 9.3 cm W: 19 cm Height from floor: 72 cm
Description: Plain boat with side rudder. No clear indication of sail.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
234
Graffiti No: AK 4013
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Some original surface, cracks and dents, plastered
Measurements: H: 13.3 cm W: 15.3 cm Height from floor: 56 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with two jibs. The hull is mostly sealed
with plaster or disturbed by dents. The stern is steep and there is a triangular stern rudder.
The survived hull has criss-cross lines. However, the pattern cannot be identified through the
entire hull because of the plastering. The most important part of the graffiti is the human
depicted as standing at the aft of the mast.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
235
Graffiti No: AK 4014
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application
Measurements: H: 2.7 cm W: 6.7 cm Height from floor: 53 cm
Description: Single masted sail accompanied with at least two jibs. The sail is mostly
disturbed by the applications and mixed with the lines of jibs. The hull is mostly disturbed
by the previous applications as well. Only the bow is clearly visible. Both the top and the
bottom line of the hull seems to be straight. The bow is inclined and curves for the bowsprit.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
236
Graffiti No: AK 4015
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 1.4 cm W: 9.4 cm Height from floor: 49 cm
Description: Plain boat with no clear indication of sail or oar. The lines are not clearly visible
because of the previous applications. One end seems to be inclined whereas the other is steep.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
237
Graffiti No: AK 4016
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 3.7 cm W: 5.5 cm Height from floor: 43 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. The mast is not straight but curves parallel to the sail.
The hull is plain with a slightly curving stern. The bow is disturbed by paint.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
238
Graffiti No: AK 4017
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared (?)
Rigging type: Square + lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 6.1 cm W: 14.8 cm Height from floor: 37 cm
Description: Two masted vessel: mainmast is a square sail accompanied with a lateen sail at
the aft. It is difficult to identify the lines of the vessel because of the previous applications.
The square sail is towards the fore of the vessel. Aft of the square sail, there are lines parallel
to the lines of fresco which suggest them to be some kind of guiding lines for the artists of
frescos, rather than being associated with the graffito. There are several areas where scratched
lines guide the artists of the fresco. It is also possible that these lines are scratched later
following the paint. These lines are probably why the main sail is towards the fore of the
vessel. Or there was a mizzenmast as well, but because of the renovations it is disturbed. The
hull is supported with a wale. The bow is disturbed but the steep stern is clearly identifiable.
It is possible that the vessel had oars as well which are shown with the dashed lines across
the hull in the drawing.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
239
Graffiti No: AK 4018
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: 3.4 cm W: 5.1 cm Height from floor: 32 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib attached to bowsprit. The mast
is not straight but curves parallel to the sail. The plain hull has a slightly inclined stern. The
bow is disturbed by a plastered dent and paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
240
Graffiti No: AK 4019
Location: Area 4
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application,
plastered and painted over
Measurements: H: W: Height from floor:
Description: The graffito is heavily disturbed. It is quite difficult to identify it as a vessel but
because of the similar sails on graffiti in Area 9 (AK 9001, AK 9002), this graffito is
identified as a single masted square sail. Some parts of the top and bottom line of the hull
and the mast are visible. The dense horizontal lines on the mast are likely the stiches on the
sail cloth rather than indicating yards.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
241
Graffiti No: AK 5001
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + steam (?)
Rigging type: Sprit or lateen (?)
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 37.5 cm W: 64.8 cm Height from floor: 56 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. There may be more masts but disturbed by the
plaster. There is not enough rigging elements to distinguish the sail type but it is a sprit or a
lateen sail - more likely the former. On the other hand, what is interpreted as the yard of the
sail might be a spar that is part of a system collecting a net which might be represented by
the cross-hatching lines. Or this cross-hatching pattern might be representing the cargo and
the cargo net. To the aft of the mast is the other possible mast with lateen sail. To the fore of
the mast is a possible smokestack. This group of lines can be interpreted as a ratline, but it is
not connected to the mast or a yard that is visible. Towards the fore of the vessel there is a
possible rudder, but the location within the vessel is confusing as the rudder is usually at the
aft side. The hull is slender. The line that runs through the hull is the upper edge of the side
rather a wale, hence the hull is depicted in an angled view. The crisscrosses on the hull are
likely a representing a pattern of decoration.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
242
Graffiti No: AK 5002
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, flaked
off fresco
Measurements: H: 1.2 cm W: 3.6 cm Height from floor: 76 cm
Description: Plain boat with both ends similarly inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
243
Graffiti No: AK 5003
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 3.3 cm W: 9.7 cm Height from floor: 60 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. Plain hull with both ends inclined. The stern is higher
than the more inclined bow.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
244
Graffiti No: AK 5004
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 6.8 cm W: 7.8 cm Height from floor: 50 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The hull and the sail are not clearly visible due to
paint. It is difficult to identify the lines of the hull.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
245
Graffiti No: AK 5005
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 8.9 cm Height from floor: 40 cm
Description: Plain boat with both ends inclined.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
246
Graffiti No: AK 5006
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit (?)
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 8.5 cm W: 12 cm Height from floor: 49 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. The line crossing the mast is probably the yard of
a sprit sail. The details of the hull is not clear and one end is heavily disturbed by the
applications. The surviving end is quite steep.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
247
Graffiti No: AK 5007
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 5.5 cm W: 10.8 cm Height from floor: 28 cm
Description: A plain boat with a deformed hull shape. One end is not depicted.
Notes: Might be a whale as well.
Photo: Drawing:
248
Graffiti No: AK 5008
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 1.3 cm W: 9.1 cm Height from floor: 22 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the hull seems to be depicted, but it is difficult to see
clearly due to previous applications
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
249
Graffiti No: AK 5009
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 4.3 cm W: 10.3 cm Height from floor: 44 cm
Description: The boat is poorly shaped. The bottom line is curved. One end is disturbed but
inclined inboard and the other is inclined outboard. The top line of the boat inclines towards
middle from both ends and joins to the bottom line.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
250
Graffiti No: AK 5010
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 13.3 cm W: 16.3 cm Height from floor: 31 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with a sprit sail instead of square mainsail. Three
stays are depicted, two of them attached to bowsprit. The third one that is attached to hull
and might be a jib. The hull has a curved waterline. Parallel to waterline is depicted a wale.
This curvature on both elements also suggest that the bottom line is not a waterline but the
bottom of the vessel underneath the water. The aft end is disturbed by the previous
applications. The bow is following the curvature of the bottom line.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
251
Graffiti No: AK 5011
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration, restoration application, painted
over
Measurements: H: 20.4 cm W: 21.9 cm Height from floor: 31 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The hull is plain. Both ends are inclined. There might
be a forestay and a superstructure at the aft like a deck, but it is difficult to identify because
of the previous applications. Furthermore, the lines do not join nicely which makes
identification difficult.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
252
Graffiti No: AK 5012
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration and flaking off fresco, restoration
application, painted over
Measurements: H: 16.9 cm W: 18.9 cm Height from floor: 12 cm
Description: It is probably a single masted lateen sail. The hull is plain. The bow is inclined
whereas stern is steep. It is difficult to identify other elements because of the disturbance of
previous applications.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
253
Graffiti No: AK 5013
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration and flaking off fresco, restoration
application, plastered wall, floor level change
Measurements: H: 7.6 cm W: 19.8 cm Height from floor: 0
Description: Probably two masted square sail. Only the upper parts of the sails survived.
Lower parts of the sail and hull is destroyed by the plaster. There seems to be additional
rigging elements such as stays and braces, but it is not possible to identify accurately.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
254
Graffiti No: AK 5014
Location: Area 5
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration and flaking off fresco, restoration
application, plastered wall, floor level change
Measurements: H: 7.3 cm W: 18.4 cm Height from floor: 0
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. There seems to be
additional rigging elements such as stays, jibs and braces. The hull is destroyed by the plaster.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
255
Graffiti No: AK 6001
Location: Area 6
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit + square (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration and flaking off fresco, restoration
application, plastered wall
Measurements: H: 67.6 cm W: 58 cm Height from floor: 19 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. The sail is not visible because of the plaster but
the rigging suggests it is a spirit sail. The mast is fixed with at least three stays. One in the
middle might be a jib but it is not clearly visible. If it is a jib, other stays, especially the fore
one, are likely jibs as well. The vertical lines on the mast are likely yards which indicate
square sails. Only the fore half of the hull is visible because of the plaster. It seems the hull
is supported with a wale. The bowsprit is depicted with two parallel lines to give a thickness.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
256
Graffiti No: AK 6002
Location: Area 6
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Removed plaster causing discoloration and flaking off fresco, restoration
application, plastered dents
Measurements: H: 7.7 cm W: 9.7 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The hull is not clear but seems to be plain.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
257
Graffiti No: AK 7001
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered and painted
Measurements: H: 6.8 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 78 cm
Description: Plain boat. One end is destroyed by the plaster and paint. No clear indication
of sail or oar.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
258
Graffiti No: AK 7002
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen + square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered and painted areas
Measurements: H: 11.9 cm W: 27 cm Height from floor: 84 cm
Description: Two masted sail. Foremast is a lateen sail and the mizzen is a square sail. The
hull is supported with a wale. Both ends are steep. The bowsprit is poorly joined with the
bow. Midship is covered with plaster and paint. There seems to be a second wale but because
of the plaster and paint, it is difficult to distinguish the wale and waterline. If there is the
second wale either the waterline or the second wale is not finished from the aft of midship.
It is also possible that the line which is interpreted as the second wale was joining to the
waterline at the plastered area.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
259
Graffiti No: AK 7003
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered and painted areas
Measurements: H: 4.9 cm W: 2.5 cm Height from floor: 78 cm
Description: Seems to be a plain boat. More than half of it is covered with plaster and paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
260
Graffiti No: AK 7004
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered and painted areas
Measurements: H: 5.6 cm W: 5.9 cm Height from floor: 76 cm
Description: Only the upper part of the sail survived the plaster. From the overall shape the
sail is interpreted as lateen. The hull is not visible. Because of the overall assemblage this
graffiti is interpreted as a sailing vessel.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
261
Graffiti No: AK 7005
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Plastered and painted
Measurements: H: 9.2 cm W: 18.9 cm Height from floor: 48 cm
Description: Seems to be a plain boat with a curved hull. Because of the overall assemblage
the graffito is interpreted as a boat.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
262
Graffiti No: AK 7006
Location: Area 7
Propulsion type:
Rigging type:
Side:
Preservation state: Plastered and painted
Measurements: H: W: Height from floor:
Description: Parallel lines which may represent a counting activity such as day count. Some
lines are closer to each other than others. These may indicate groups of scratching. A similar
group of lines is present on Area 4 as well.
Notes: This may be the disturbance of the plaster and paint.
Photo: Drawing:
263
Graffiti No: AK 8001
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared (?)
Rigging type: Lug + gaff
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 9.8 cm W: 17.3 cm Height from floor: 81 cm
Description: Two masted vessel. The mainmast is a lug sail. There is an additional gaff sail
that intersects with the lug sail. The mast is fixed to bowsprit with three stays. The hull is
supported with two wales. The stern is inclined but the bow is not clear. The inclined lines
on the hull are likely oars. There are at least five of them.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
264
Graffiti No: AK 8002
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Restoration application, plastered and painted
Measurements: H: 7.5 cm W: 13.6 cm Height from floor: 72 cm
Description: Probably single masted square sail with a sprit sail instead of mainsail. The hull
is not visible because of the paint.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
265
Graffiti No: AK 8003
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, paint
Measurements: H: 17. 6 cm W: 24.7 cm Height from floor: 69 cm
Description: Single masted square sale with a sprit sail instead of mainsail. There is at least
one stay. The braces are attached to bowsprit as well. The yard of sprit sail is connected to
top of the mast. The hull is heavily disturbed by the paint. The bow is inclined whereas stern
is steep. The hull seems to be supported with a wale.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
266
Graffiti No: AK 8004
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 35.8 cm W: 96.4 cm Height from floor: 74 cm
Description: Single masted square sale with a sprit sail instead of mainsail. Some braces are
attached to the bowsprit which suggest they may actually be stays but not depicted accurately.
There is only one rigging element that fixes the mast to bowsprit directly. The yard of the
sprit sail is connected to mast and square sails. The hull seems to have a v-shaped or possibly
criss-cross pattern which may indicate a decorative component of the vessel. The aft end is
steep and the There are six humans depicted on board. The one at the fore of the vessel is
holding some kind of a rope or a chain that has a pattern depicted as v-shaped lines. This may
be an anchor or a net. Another human at the aft is interacting with two ropes: one pulls another
vessel and the other is extends down into the water but because of the paint it is not possible
to identify what it is. This might be another anchor. There are four small boats probably a
lifeboat each placed in a compartment on the deck. There are two humans depicted on these
boats. The last human is depicted under the deck level.
Notes: The vessel pulled is cataloged as AK 8009.
Photo:
267
Drawing:
268
Graffiti No: AK 8005
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 3.5 cm W: 16 cm Height from floor: 103 cm
Description: Poorly shaped and possibly unfinished boat. The lines do not join nicely. One
end and most of the bottom line are not depicted.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
269
Graffiti No: AK 8006
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?) + oared
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks, restoration application
Measurements: H: 4.8 cm W: 10.5 cm Height from floor: 109 cm
Description: The sail is not clearly identifiable. There are several vertical lines that can be
mast. There are possible rigging elements such as stays. At midship there is a ratline. Ratline
suggests possible square sail. The robust hull is supported with a wale. The bow is slightly
inclined whereas stern is quite steep. There are at least six oars in addition to a possible side
rudder at the end. This rudder can be identified as an anchor as well.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
270
Graffiti No: AK 8007
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 2.9 cm W: 17.3 cm Height from floor: 99 cm
Description: Only the bottom line is depicted. Both ends are inclined. The boat is probably
unfinished.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
271
Graffiti No: AK 8008
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen or lug
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 4.3 cm W: 4.9 cm Height from floor: 94 cm
Description: Single masted lateen or lug sail. The vessel is poorly depicted. It is quite
schematized, and lines do not connect nicely. The ends are not shaped properly. Rigging
elements are not depicted accurately. This may be due to size. The side of the vessel is
interpreted via the inclination of the sail.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
272
Graffiti No: AK 8009
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, painted
Measurements: H: 7.5 cm W: 11 cm Height from floor: 80 cm
Description: Single masted sprit sail. The mast is fixed with two stays. Additional rigging
attaches the yard of sail to the mast. The plain hull has a slightly curved and inclined bow
whereas the stern is straight and steep. The line from the stern towards midship suggests the
carver may have intended to have a wale or made a mistake shaping the hull. The vessel is
attached to the AK 8004 in a way that seems to be propelled by that vessel.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
273
Graffiti No: AK 8010
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, painted
Measurements: H: 7.5 cm W: 16 cm Height from floor: 74 cm
Description: Single masted lug or lateen sail accompanied by one jib. The slender hull is
plain. The bow is more inclined than stern.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
274
Graffiti No: AK 8011
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 10.2 cm W: 17.6 cm Height from floor: 85 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. The mast is
scratched in two pieces. The hull is supported with a wale. Both ends are similarly inclined.
There is a possible stern rudder.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
275
Graffiti No: AK 8012
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 11.3 cm W: 15.5 cm Height from floor: 81 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib. The vertical spar at the aft might
indicate a steering tool but not clear if it is a rudder. The hull is supported with a wale. There
is another line on hull starting from mast towards aft. This may meant to be a wale as well.
The bow is more inclined than the stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
276
Graffiti No: AK 8013
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Oared (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, heavily painted
Measurements: H: 4 cm W: 9.8 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Plain boat with a possible oar. Both ends are similarly inclined.
Notes: The height measurements include the oar
Photo:
Drawing:
277
Graffiti No: AK 8014
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit (?) + gaff (?)
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, heavily painted
Measurements: H: 4.9 cm W: 11 cm Height from floor: 70 cm
Description: At least two masted square sail. There might be a sprit sail associated with one
of the square sails but the connection and the identification of the sprit sail are not clear
because of the paint. There might be a gaff sail as well. The hull is not visible because of the
paint.
Notes: The measurements only include the square sails that are clearly identifiable
Photo:
Drawing:
278
Graffiti No: AK 8015
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 7.7 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 52 cm
Description: Possibly two masted square sail. The hull and the details of the sail are not clear
because of the paint. The dense horizontal lines probably reflect the stitching on the sail cloth
rather than yards.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
279
Graffiti No: AK 8016
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 9 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 62 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail with plain hull. The graffito is heavily disturbed by
the paint, hence it is difficult to identify each element.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
280
Graffiti No: AK 8017
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Sprit (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 12 cm W: 17.5 cm Height from floor: 57 cm
Description: Probably single masted sprit sail with plain hull. The stern is steep. The graffito
is heavily disturbed by the paint, hence it is difficult to identify.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
281
Graffiti No: AK 8018
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen + square (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 32 cm W: 60 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a possible square sail. Some sheets
are depicted on the sail. The hull is supported with a wale. There is a possible stern rudder.
However the paint complicates the identification of elements. The lateen may be sprit as well.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
282
Graffiti No: AK 8019
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 4.7 cm W: 8 cm Height from floor: 37 cm
Description: Single masted lug or lateen sail with plain hull. Both ends are inclined. There
is a possible rudder or an oar towards the aft.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
283
Graffiti No: AK 8020
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted
Measurements: H: 10.5 cm W: 18.8 cm Height from floor: 30 cm
Description: Possibly a sailing vessel. Even though the lines are not clearly depicting a sail,
the orientation and form seems relevant. The hull is disturbed by the paint as well. The
surviving end has a slight curvature rather than straight inclination.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
284
Graffiti No: AK 8021
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 5.6 cm W: 14.2 cm Height from floor: 16 cm
Description: A possible single masted sail. It is difficult to determine the sail type. The
elements are rather abstract and not clearly identifiable, hence open to broad interpretations.
The lines might have been poorly joined or it is only the paint abstracting the depiction.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
285
Graffiti No: AK 8022
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 9.5 cm W: 14.4 cm Height from floor: 12 cm
Description: A possible single masted sail. It is difficult to determine the sail type. The
elements are rather abstract and not clearly identifiable, hence open to broad interpretations.
The lines might have been poorly joined or it is only the paint abstracting the depiction. It is
not clear whether the vessel is depicted with only one end.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
286
Graffiti No: AK 8023
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen or sprit (?)
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 16 cm W: 14 cm Height from floor: 17 cm
Description: It is possibly a sailing vessel. Only the aft of the sail survived the paint. The
sail type is not clear due to paint, but it is possibly a lateen or a sprit sail.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
287
Graffiti No: AK 8024
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square (?)
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 18.7 cm W: 16 cm Height from floor: 10 cm
Description: Possibly single masted square sail. The hull has a convex curvature. The ends
are not visible.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
288
Graffiti No: AK 8025
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 23 cm W: 46 cm Height from floor: 10 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The hull is supported with a wale.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
289
Graffiti No: AK 8026
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, floor level change
Measurements: H: 4.6 cm W: 16.2 cm Height from floor: floor level
Description: Only the top of the sail is visible because of the floor level change. It seems to
be a single masted sailing vessel. The sail type is not clearly identifiable, but it is a possible
sprit sail.
Notes: The width measurement is not the measurement of the entire graffiti because it is
inaccessible because of the floor level change.
Photo:
Drawing:
290
Graffiti No: AK 8027
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 2.5 cm W: 5.7 cm Height from floor: 65 cm
Description: Only the bottom line and one end is depicted. Probably unfinished or disturbed
by the paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
291
Graffiti No: AK 8028
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 8.7 cm W: 10 cm Height from floor: 59 cm
Description: Probably a single masted sailing vessel. The sail is not clearly identifiable. Only
the fore section of the hull is visible.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
292
Graffiti No: AK 8029
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 5 cm W: 15 cm Height from floor: 49 cm
Description: Plain boat with one oar.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
293
Graffiti No: AK 8030
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 9.9 cm W: 12 cm Height from floor: 40 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib. The plain hull has similarly
inclined ends. The details are not clearly visible because of the paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
294
Graffiti No: AK 8031
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over, dents
Measurements: H: 10.5 cm W: 16.5 cm Height from floor: 21 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. Only the mast is visible. Either the sail is not
hoisted or the paint abstracts the sail. The slender hull is plain. Both ends seemed to be
inclined but one is disturbed by a dent.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
295
Graffiti No: AK 8032
Location: Area 8
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 10 cm W: 31 cm Height from floor: 14 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the boat is depicted. It is not clear whether it had a sail
because of the paint. The bow has an amplified curvature.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
296
Graffiti No: AK 9001
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 10.2 cm W: 20.8 cm Height from floor: 87 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied by
three jibs. The hull is supported with a wale. Both ends are similarly inclined. The triangular
piece at the bow is probably a beakhead.
Notes: Very similar to AK 9002
Photo:
Drawing:
297
Graffiti No: AK 9002
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 11 cm W: 20 cm Height from floor: 94 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied with
two jibs. The slender hull is supported with a wale that starts from stern and links to the
waterline towards midship. Bow is inclined whereas stern is quite steep.
Notes: Very similar to AK 9001
Photo:
Drawing:
298
Graffiti No: AK 9003
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, painted over
Measurements: H: 20.2 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 79 cm
Description: Probably single masted sail. The rigging type is not clear. The only rigging
elements are the fore and aft stays. Or this can be a poorly shaped sail as well. The hull is
disturbed by the paint. The graffito is interpreted as a sailing vessel based on the overall
assemblage.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
299
Graffiti No: AK 9004
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 3 cm W: 9.4 cm Height from floor: 81 cm
Description: Plain boat. Both ends similarly inclined. One end is poorly joined.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
300
Graffiti No: AK 9005
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, painted over
Measurements: H: 10.7 cm W: 18.3 cm Height from floor: 67 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied with
three jibs. The hull is disturbed by the paint. The square sail can be a crow’s nest as well.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
301
Graffiti No: AK 9006
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily panted over
Measurements: H: 1.1 cm W: 11.3 cm Height from floor: 59 cm
Description: Simple slender boat. No clear indication of sail or oar. Ends are not clear, but
one seems to be more inclined than the other.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
302
Graffiti No: AK 9007
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily panted over, dents
Measurements: H: 12 cm W: 18 cm Height from floor: 50 cm
Description: The entire graffito is covered with paint and the only part survived is the fore
section of the vessel with two jibs and bowsprit as well as some lines that may be a part of
the hull.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
303
Graffiti No: AK 9008
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily panted over
Measurements: H: 21.4 cm W: 17.6 cm Height from floor: 22 cm
Description: Probably single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. The hull
is slightly curved. The ends are not visible. Both the sail and hull are heavily disturbed by
the paint which makes it difficult to clearly identify the elements.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
304
Graffiti No: AK 9009
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily panted over
Measurements: H: 17.4 cm W: 19.8 cm Height from floor: 21 cm
Description: Only the aft of the vessel survived but still the lines are difficult to identify. It
is likely a sailing vessel. The hull might have a wale. Both ends are likely slightly inclined.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
305
Graffiti No: AK 9010
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, dents
Measurements: H: 14 cm W: 24.4 cm Height from floor: 87 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied with
two jibs. The hull is supported with three wales. The stern is straight and steep whereas bow
is slightly curved and inclined. The flower depicted on the fresco appears like a rudder. No
additional details on rigging.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
306
Graffiti No: AK 9011
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 3 cm W: 5.9 cm Height from floor: 89 cm
Description: Only one end and some of the bottom line is scratched. No error identified.
Possibly unfinished.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
307
Graffiti No: AK 9012
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 4.8 cm W: 6.4 cm Height from floor: 90 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib. The hull is plain. Bow is more
inclined than stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
308
Graffiti No: AK 9013
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 15 cm W: 25 cm Height from floor: 70 cm
Description: Majority of the vessel is painted over. Only the fore and top of the vessel
survived. These parts include two jibs and possible lifts and the possible upper most square
sail with the mast. If the graffito had survived the paint, the lower part of the sail would
probably depict a sprit sail.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
309
Graffiti No: AK 9014
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 2.5 cm W: 17 cm Height from floor: 103 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of a boat is scratched. Possibly unfinished.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
310
Graffiti No: AK 9015
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 7.8 cm W: 14.3 cm Height from floor: 102 cm
Description: Only one end and some of the bottom line is scratched. No error identified.
Possibly unfinished.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
311
Graffiti No: AK 9016
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 13.1 cm W: 19.5 cm Height from floor: 80 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. The hull is
supported with two wales. In addition to sail the vessel is rowed with at least 16 oars (plus
three possible oars towards stern). The bow is more inclined than bow.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
312
Graffiti No: AK 9017
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 10.6 cm W: 24.2 cm Height from floor: 83 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied with
a jib. Braces are depicted as the rigging elements. The hull is plain. The bow is more inclined
than the stern.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
313
Graffiti No: AK 9018
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, dents
Measurements: H: 10.1 cm W: 23.5 cm Height from floor: 97 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail accompanied with
two jibs. Additional rigging elements such as braces and lifts are depicted. The hull is
supported with a wale. The waterline is slightly curving. Both the bow and stern are similarly
inclined. There is a superstructure at the stern. It seems to be too small to be a steering deck.
The bowsprit is supported with a beakhead.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
314
Graffiti No: AK 9019
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, dents, painted over
Measurements: H: 12.5 cm W: 26.2 cm Height from floor: 68 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. The mast is
supported with three stays. The hull is plain. The bow is inclined but the stern is disturbed by
the paint. The sail does not have smooth lines.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
315
Graffiti No: AK 9020
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, cracks
Measurements: H: 7.6 cm W: 12.4 cm Height from floor: 96 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. The square sails
might be brailed up, especially the top yard, and the lines on the corners of the sails may
indicate the braces. The hull is supported with a wale. The stern is inclined but the bow is not
clear because of the cracks. There are two humans depicted on board. They are both at the
aft and they are interacting with what might be ropes. The fact that there are two ropes recalls
the two sides of a net. Hence these two people are possibly collecting the net.
Notes: The height measures do not include the lines that are possibly ropes going down from
the hull.
Photo: Drawing:
316
Graffiti No: AK 9021
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 5 cm W: 5.9 cm Height from floor: 84 cm
Description: There seems to be two sails. The foresail is difficult to identify but the aft one
is a lateen sail. Hence the foresail is likely to be a lateen or a triangular sail like pena (or
penne). However the aft sail does not depict the mast but the foresail does. Furthermore there
is a staysail between these two sails. The hull is plain. The bow is more inclined than stern.
It is not clear whether the protruding line from the bow is a bowsprit or a miscalculated joint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
317
Graffiti No: AK 9022
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 7.7 cm W: 11 cm Height from floor: 77 cm
Description: Single masted sailing vessel. Only the mast and the hull are depicted. The hull
is plain and has a curving bottom line with no clear change on direction of the line at the
ends.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
318
Graffiti No: AK 9023
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application
Measurements: H: 6.2 cm W: 8.7 cm Height from floor: 75 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a large jib. The mast is slightly
concaving to the fore, as if the jib is pulling the mast. The hull is plain with a long and high
bow, whereas the stern is perpendicular. The unfinished line at the bow suggests an error.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
319
Graffiti No: AK 9024
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, restoration application, dent
Measurements: H: 0.7 cm W: 3.6 cm Height from floor: 76 cm
Description: Plain boat. The line parallel to the end on the right of the graffito is probably
an oar. The bottom line is straight whereas the upper line is curved, however this curvature
is created using rather straight lines making a ‘v’ shape probably because of the size
limitations.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
320
Graffiti No: AK 9025
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 3 cm W: 25 cm Height from floor: 61 cm
Description: Probably a plain boat with no clear element of propulsion. Only one end is
visible. It seems inside the boat is represented as well using an angled view. This is indicated
by the convex top line and the change of direction form outward to inward at the visible end.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
321
Graffiti No: AK 9026
Location: Area9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Square + sprit
Side: Port
Preservation state: The upper parts of the sail is on the original surface, the lower parts and
hull are heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 16.7 cm W: 22 cm Height from floor: 55 cm
Description: Single masted square sail with sprit sail instead of mainsail. There are at least
two jibs with additional stays. At least one of these stays can be a jib but it is difficult to
determine because of the paint. The sprit sail seems to have sheets depicted as well. The
robust hull is supported with a wale. The stern is disturbed but the bow is less inclined than
usual within the assemblage. In addition to sail the vessel is rowed as well. There are at least
four oars identified towards the bow, but the original number cannot be determined because
of the paint.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
322
Graffiti No: AK 9027
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 4.6 cm W: 10.7 cm Height from floor: 53 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The sail is poorly depicted in a way that creates
confusing features which makes it difficult to distinguish the elements of sail. The mast (or
what is interpreted as mast) is towards the very aft of the vessel, which is possible, but the
positioning of the sail is odd. The stay is weirdly elongated. The hull is plain with a straight
waterline. The bow is slightly disturbed, but it seems it is extremely inclined whereas as the
stern is perpendicular.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
323
Graffiti No: AK 9028
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 6 cm W: 12.6 cm Height from floor: 42 cm
Description: Probably an oared boat. The hull seems to be slender. One end is inclined. The
other end is disturbed by the paint. This end seems to have a superstructure. There are at least
two oars but the pattern of the paint complicates the identification of these details.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
324
Graffiti No: AK 9029
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 21.4 cm W: 31 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: Probably a single masted lateen sail. It is difficult to identify the elements of
the sail because of the pattern of the paint. The hull is supported with a wale. The ends are
mostly disturbed but the bow seems to be poorly joined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
325
Graffiti No: AK 9030
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 1.1 cm W: 10.8 cm Height from floor: 47 cm
Description: It is likely a plain boat with no clear indication of propulsion elements. Mostly
disturbed by the paint.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
326
Graffiti No: AK 9031
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 17.3 cm W: 34.4 cm Height from floor: 29 cm
Description: Possibly single masted sail. It is not possible to identify the sail type because
of the disturbance by the paint. The hull seems to be slender. Both ends seem to be inclined
and become pointy.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
327
Graffiti No: AK 9032
Location: Area 9
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type:
Side: Port
Preservation state: Heavily painted over
Measurements: H: 16.9 cm W: 43.7 cm Height from floor: 4 cm
Description: Possibly two masted sailing vessel. It is difficult to identify the sail elements
because of the paint. There is at least one jib. The hull seems to be plain. Only the fore half
of the hull is visible. It seems inside the vessel is depicted using an angled view.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
328
Graffiti No: AK 10001
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 11.2 cm W: 20.7 cm Height from floor: 123 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with two jibs. The hull is plain. Both ends
are similarly inclined.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
329
Graffiti No: AK 10002
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 3.3 cm W: 19.8 cm Height from floor: 125 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the boat is depicted. Possibly unfinished. No errors
identified.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
330
Graffiti No: AK 10003
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 11.2 cm W: 18 cm Height from floor: 102 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with a jib. A flag is attached to the tip of
the yard. The hull is plain. The bow is more inclined than the stern. There is a perpendicular
spar at the aft which might be a possible small mast or steering tool if not rudder.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
331
Graffiti No: AK 10004
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 6.6 cm W: 14 cm Height from floor: 111 cm
Description: The graffito does not provide sufficient detail to identify as a certain type of
boat. Only the bottom line is depicted. One end is higher than the other.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
332
Graffiti No: AK 10005
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 12.6 cm Height from floor: 119 cm
Description: The depiction on the fresco abstracts the elements of the vessel, especially the
dashed lines. It seems to be a plain boat with no clear identification element for propulsion.
The line protruding from one end suggest it is moored. On the other hand, it is possible that
it is a bowsprit and this is a sailing vessel.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
333
Graffiti No: AK 10006
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 7.4 cm W: 10.9 cm Height from floor: 113 cm
Description: The perpendicular lines probably represent mast and sail. The robust hull is
plain. Both ends are similarly inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
334
Graffiti No: AK 10007
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen or lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered dent
Measurements: H: 18.6 cm W: 24.8 cm Height from floor: 93 cm
Description: Single masted lateen or lug sail accompanied with two jibs. The additional
rigging elements depicted are sheets and braces. The slender hull is plain. The bow is more
inclined than stern.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
335
Graffiti No: AK10008
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered dent
Measurements: H: 12.3 cm W: 14.1 cm Height from floor: 97 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a jib. The hull is plain. Both ends
are similarly inclined, but bow has more curvature than stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
336
Graffiti No: AK 10009
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Oared (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 4.9 cm W: 14.5 cm Height from floor: 85 cm
Description: Plain boat. The two lines may represent oar or side rudder used for rowing. The
rectangular shape at one end may be a rudder.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
337
Graffiti No: AK 10010
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 9.8 cm Height from floor: 90 cm
Description: Plain boat that is moored with a rope protruding from one end. The line that
runs through the hull is the upper edge of the side rather a wale and the boat is depicted in an
angled view.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
338
Graffiti No: AK 10011
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, restauration application
Measurements: H: 26 cm W: 24.8 cm Height from floor: 61 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. The additional rigging elements depicted are stays and
lifts. The two lines crossing the mast that are parallel to the yard of the sail may indicate
another sail. The hull is plain. The bow is more curved and inclined whereas the stern is
rather straight and reaching higher. The most important element of this graffito is the people
depicted on board. There are four people on the deck and at least one on the yard. They are
made as stick figures to probably ease the scratching.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
339
Graffiti No: AK 10012
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks, dents
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 7.8 cm Height from floor: 73 cm
Description: Plain boat with both ends similarly curving. No clear indication of sail or oar,
except what is interpreted as crack.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
340
Graffiti No: AK 10013
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 6.8 cm W: 8.4 cm Height from floor: 56 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail. The mast is fixed with a stay. The perpendicular line
towards the bow, which seems a disturbance, might be another mast and create another sail
using the line what is interpreted as stay. The hull is plain. The bow is quite inclined whereas
the stern is rather steep. The overall graffito has a problem with lines joining smoothly. Some
parts such as bow and stay are scratched repeatedly.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
341
Graffiti No: AK 10014
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lug (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 1.7 cm Height from floor: 57 cm
Description: Possibly sailing vessel. It is likely a lug sail. Seems to attach to AK 10017 as if
it is propelled by it.
Notes: The attachment to AK 10017 is not included in the measurements.
Photo: Drawing:
342
Graffiti No: AK 10015
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 3.5 cm W: 6.6 cm Height from floor: 54 cm
Description: A plain boat that seems to be propelled by AK 10017. One end narrows to a
pointy end whereas the other is steep. The hull depiction is quite similar to AK 4003 and
4004, hence this graffito may only depict the fore section of the boat. The perpendicular detail
is interpreted as human.
Notes: The attachment to AK 10017 is not included in the measurements.
Photo:
Drawing:
343
Graffiti No: AK 10016
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 7.3 cm W: 6.9 cm Height from floor: 45 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The mast is fixed with a stay but towards the bowsprit
the line ramifies into three lines which suggests a possible jib. The hull is plain. The stern is
quite steep whereas the bow is inclined. There is a human figure standing on the yard. This
figure also looks like the top part of a mast as well, however there are no examples of partially
depicted mast within the assemblage. If we take this as the mast in this graffito, then the part
until the yard is not depicted which is a unique case in the assemblage. Furthermore, the
vessel is small to have two masts compared to other graffiti on the walls.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
344
Graffiti No: AK 10017
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared
Rigging type: Square
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, flaked off fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 8.8 cm W: 9.4 cm Height from floor: 51 cm
Description: Two masted square sail accompanied with at least two jibs and a possible third
one, but it is not clear because of the crack. There is a ratline to the fore of the mainmast. The
hull is quite robust and supported with a wale. The inclined lines on the hull are most likely
oars but they have an odd curvature that is mostly oriented according to the wale, which
suggests a decorative pattern as well. The stern is quite steep whereas the bow is inclined and
relatively higher. Below the waterline there is a possible side rudder or an anchor depicted,
but the cracks and worn fresco complicates the identification of the elements of it. The most
important part of the graffito is the human figures depicted on the highest yards and one at
the aft of the vessel. The human figures on the yards are not interpreted as the top part of the
mast because they are neither connected nor aligned with the mast. The mast follows a
continuous line throughout each level of sails. Other interesting aspect of this graffito is that
several graffiti seem to be attached to this vessel. These are 10014, 10015, 10018 and 10020.
Notes: The bowsprit continues to Area 10b whereas the rest of the vessel is in 10a.
Photo: Drawing:
345
Graffiti No: AK10018
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks
Measurements: H: 3.1 cm W: 4.8 cm Height from floor: 51 cm
Description: A possible single masted sail. It is difficult to determine the sail type. The line
group that is interpreted as sail might be a poor depiction of a human figure as well. The
graffito is associated with AK 10015, AK 10016 and AK 10020 with connecting lines.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
346
Graffiti No: AK 10019
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, flaked off fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 6.9 cm Height from floor: 48 cm
Description: Possibly a plain boat. Only the bottom line is depicted. One end is clearly
identified but the other end is disturbed by the worn fresco and the presence of AK 10016
very close to AK 10019 complicates the identification of the other end. The two graffiti may
be sharing lines or one end of 10019 is not depicted and can be unfinished.
Notes: The width measurement is taken from points that are clearly associated with the boat.
Photo:
Drawing:
347
Graffiti No: AK 10020
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Lateen (?)
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, flaked off fresco, cracks
Measurements: H: 2.3 cm W: 3.8 cm Height from floor: 50 cm
Description: A possible single masted lateen sail. The hull is plain and has a triangular form
with a high steep stern. The elements are rather abstract and not clearly identifiable, hence
open to broad interpretations.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
348
Graffiti No: AK 10021
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel (?)
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks
Measurements: H: 4.3 cm W: 8 cm Height from floor: 42 cm
Description: A possible single masted sail. It is difficult to determine the sail type. The line
group that is interpreted as sail might be a poor depiction of a human figure as well. The hull
is plain and has a triangular form with a high steep stern and a possible bowsprit. The
elements are rather abstract and not clearly identifiable, hence open to broad interpretations.
Notes: Similar to AK 10020
Photo: Drawing:
349
Graffiti No: AK 10022
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks
Measurements: H: 4.7 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 35 cm
Description: A plain boat with a deformed hull.
Notes: Similar to AK 5007.
Photo: Drawing:
350
Graffiti No: AK 10023
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unidentified
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plaster, cracks
Measurements: H: 2.1 cm W: 6 cm Height from floor: 31 cm
Description: A possible boat with fore section depicted. The interpretation is mostly based
on the nature of the overall assemblage. This graffito may be representing something else.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
351
Graffiti No: AK 10024
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Not identifiable
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, flaked off fresco, cracks, plaster
Measurements: H: 2.9 cm W: 5 cm Height from floor: 28 cm
Description: A possible boat with fore section depicted.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
352
Graffiti No: AK 10025
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel + oared (?)
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, dents, plaster
Measurements: H: 4.5 cm W: 4.9 cm Height from floor: 7 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The line from mast top to fore of the vessel might be
a jib or only a stay, but it is not distinguishable because of the plaster. The robust hull has
vertical lines which may indicate oars, but these oars are different from the rest of the graffiti
in which the oars are inclined. Both ends are steep.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
353
Graffiti No: AK 10026
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, dents, plaster
Measurements: H: 2 cm W: 4.8 cm Height from floor: 2 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the boat is depicted. It is probably unfinished. One end
is destroyed because of the dent.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
354
Graffiti No: AK 10027
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 2.9 cm W: 9.9 cm Height from floor: 87 cm
Description: Only the bottom line and one end of the boat is depicted. It is probably
unfinished. No clear indication of error.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
355
Graffiti No: AK 10028
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen + square
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, screen blocking the graffiti
Measurements: H: 18.8 cm W: 20 cm Height from floor: 115 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a jib and a square sail at the top of
the mast. What is interpreted as square sail has the same form as some of the other square
sails in the assemblage, but it can be a crow’s nest as well. The sheets of the lateen sail are
densely depicted. Some exceeds to the hull which is likely an error. Additionally, there is a
spar protruding from the stern holding something triangular, which might be an aft sail, but
the screen blocks it which makes it difficult to identify. The hull is supported with a wale.
Both ends are similarly inclined.
Notes: Width measured until the screen
Photo: Drawing:
356
Graffiti No: AK 10029
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 5 cm W: 3.2 cm Height from floor: 110 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail. The mast is fixed with a stay. The plain hull has a
curving bottom line. The stern is steep, but the bow follows the curvature. The hull is given
its form using several lines like sketching.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
357
Graffiti No: AK 10030
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lateen
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, dent
Measurements: H: 6.6 cm W: 6.9 cm Height from floor: 102 cm
Description: Single masted lateen sail accompanied with a jib. The hull is plain with
similarly inclined ends with higher stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
358
Graffiti No: AK 10031
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug or lateen
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 10 cm W: 13 cm Height from floor: 101 cm
Description: Single masted lateen or lug sail accompanied with a stay. The hull is plain with
similarly inclined ends.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
359
Graffiti No: AK 10032
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Not identifiable
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, screen blocking graffiti
Measurements: H: 8.4 cm W: 7 cm Height from floor: 92 cm
Description: Only the fore section of the vessel is visible because of the screen. The jibs
suggest this is a sailing vessel. The hull is supported with two wales. The bow is straight and
inclined. There are two human figures depicted between the jibs. There might be a third one
that shares lines with the jib.
Notes: Measurement are taken from the fore section that is not blocked by the screen.
Photo: Drawing:
360
Graffiti No: AK 10033
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug (?)
Side: Port
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered dent
Measurements: H: 26 cm W: 23.5 cm Height from floor: 72.6 cm
Description: Probably single masted lug sail accompanied with at least two jibs. The
identification is difficult because of the large plastered dent. The hull is plain. The bow is
inclined whereas the stern is steep. The bowsprit is leveled into two making a “v” shape.
There are two human figures depicted at the bow and there are probably more around the sail
but cannot be identified clearly because of the dent. These people are interacting with ropes.
Their positioning suggest they are fishing.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
361
Graffiti No: AK 10034
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface, plastered
Measurements: H: 9.1 cm W: 12.5 cm Height from floor: 75 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied by a jib. The hull is supported with a wale.
Even though the stern is disturbed by the plaster it seems to be steep whereas the bow is
inclined. Towards the aft there is a possible two forked anchor facing down.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
362
Graffiti No: AK 10035
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plaster
Measurements: H: 4.6 cm W: 10.8 cm Height from floor: 61 cm
Description: A possible boat with cargo.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
363
Graffiti No: AK 10036
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 2.2 cm W: 6.9 cm Height from floor: 54 cm
Description: Plain boat with both ends similarly inclined.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
364
Graffiti No: AK 10037
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plaster
Measurements: H: 2.7 cm W: 6.4 cm Height from floor: 52 cm
Description: Plain boat with one end survived the plaster. The surviving end has a high
pointy end.
Notes: Width is measured until the plaster.
Photo: Drawing:
365
Graffiti No: AK 10038
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plaster
Measurements: H: 1.8 cm W: 2.8 cm Height from floor: 48 cm
Description: Plain boat with one end survived the plaster.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
366
Graffiti No: AK 10039
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, plaster
Measurements: H: 1 cm W: 2.7 cm Height from floor: 46 cm
Description: Only the bottom line of the boat is depicted. Possibly unfinished.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
367
Graffiti No: AK 10040
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Oared
Rigging type:
Side: Starboard (?)
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks, dents
Measurements: H: 5.5 cm W: 17 cm Height from floor: 40 cm
Description: Possibly oared boat. Both ends are similarly steep.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
368
Graffiti No: AK 10041
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Bareboat (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks, dents, plaster
Measurements: H: 1.3 cm W: 6.6 cm Height from floor: 23 cm
Description: Plain boat with one end survived the plaster.
Notes:
Photo:
Drawing:
369
Graffiti No: AK 10042
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Unfinished (?)
Rigging type:
Side: Not identifiable
Preservation state: Original surface, cracks, dents, plaster
Measurements: H: 1 cm W: 5.5 cm Height from floor: 18 cm
Description: Only the bottom line and one end of the boat is depicted. Possibly unfinished.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing:
370
Graffiti No: AK 10043
Location: Area 10
Propulsion type: Sailing vessel
Rigging type: Lug + gaff
Side: Starboard
Preservation state: Original surface
Measurements: H: 9 cm W: 14.1 cm Height from floor: 144 cm
Description: Single masted lug sail accompanied with two jibs. One of the jibs is attached
to yard rather than mast. There is a possible small gaff sail at the aft, but the size puzzles the
clear identification. The plain hull is slender. Both ends are inclined, bow more than stern.
Notes:
Photo: Drawing: