The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2006) 35.

1: 137–140
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2005.00087.x

Notes

A Presumed Greek Stone Anchor Stock Recovered off Venice,

NAUTICAL
A PRESUMED
Blackwell ARCHAEOLOGY,
GREEK
Publishing Ltd STONE35.1
ANCHOR STOCK RECOVERED

Italy

I
n the Adriatic sea off the Lagoon of Venice, but we have no proof either of the presence of
probably in the 1970s, a stone anchor stock Greek merchants or of the passage of Hellenic
was recovered by a ship of the Italian Navy.1 ships in the zone.2
At present, the find is displayed on the first floor
of the Museo Navale of Venice, in a section
dedicated to antiquity. The stock is 950 mm long,
Discussion
with a maximum section of 155 × 85 mm. It shows Although there is no archaeological evidence, it
the classic ‘banana shape’ (to be distinguished is reasonably and commonly believed that stone
from the ‘cigar shape’) and the typical narrowing anchor stocks were part of a wooden anchor.
in the centre to accommodate a wooden shank.
Although it has been heavily deteriorated by
marine borers, on one extremity one may still
notice that the stone has been cut on two faces
(Fig. 1). Considering the lively debate about
Greek presence in the Upper Adriatic Sea and,
in particular, about the passage of Greek ships
along the littoral of the Veneto region (Braccesi,
1979; Braccesi and Luni, 2004), it seemed
interesting to try to understand whether this
object could have belonged to a Hellenic vessel.
In fact, although in the second half of the 6th
century BC the presence of Greek merchants is
already documented in Adria and San Basilio
(Rovigo) and from the beginning of the following
century the emporium of Spina became an
important centre for maritime traffic between the
Greek world (especially Athens) and the
population living in Veneto (Capuis, 1993: 175–
7), there is no clear evidence for the presence of
Greeks north of these sites (Fig. 2). For example,
since the 5th cent. BC we have evidence of
importation of Greek objects in the city of Altino
(north of Venice) (Capuis and Gambacurta, 2003), Figure 2. Map of the North Adriatic western littoral.

Figure 1. Stone anchor stock in the Museo Navale, Venice. (C. Beltrame)

© 2005 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1
Figure 3. Proposed reconstruction of a wooden anchor with
stone stock. (after Kapitän, 1984, fig. 2)
This, in Kapitän’s 1984 reconstruction, would have
been composed of two symmetrical elements—
each provided with an arm—jointed together
(Fig. 3). The dating of this kind of anchor varies
from the 7th to the 4th century BC (Gianfrotta
and Pomey, 1981: 301–4), although we propose
to exclude the 7th century for which there seems
to be no archaeological evidence (Gianfrotta,
1977: 289). The contexts of finding are:
Shipwrecks: Punta Braccetto (Ragusa) (?),
Giglio Isle (Tuscany region), Pointe du Dattier
(Baie de Cavalaire), El Sec (Mallorca).
Isolated conditions in the sea;
Sanctuaries as ex-voto: Bamboula (Cyprus),
Egina, Crotone (?), Gravisca, Selinunte;
Sanctuaries, perhaps as aniconic cults (argoi
lithoi) in the Greek city of Metaponto (Boetto,
1997 and references);
Necropolis as presumed memorial stones: in
Valle Trebba near the Greek city of Spina (Ferrara)
(Gianfrotta, 1982);
Re-used elements in buildings: in the emporium
of Gravisca—attended by Greek merchants, in
the indigenous sanctuary of Punta Ristola (Santa
Maria di Leuca), and in the Greek sanctuary of
Locri Epizefiri.
These contexts, together with the inscriptions
found on some of the stocks, suggest a Greek
origin for these objects. This conclusion is also
indicated by the kind of stone used to make them,
which often seems to be marble from Greek
quarries (Gianfrotta, 1977: 291). We believe that
their traditional attribution as Greek should be
proved by the identification of the stone-type
and of the location of its quarry. To achieve
this scientifically demands archaeometric analysis:
very rarely has such investigation been carried
out on ancient anchor stocks. A rare case is the
identification of the stocks from Secca del Bagno,
Lipari (Agnesi et al., 2002: 203). Almost always,
after archaeometric analysis, the visual identification
turns out to be wrong or too generic (Renfrew
and Springer Peacy, 1968); in addition, visual
138 © 2005 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society
identification cannot prove the exact quarry of
origin, which is the most important information.
In the case of marble stocks, thanks to the
available data-bank, there is a good chance of
arriving at a clear result (Lazzarini, 2004).
Results of petrographic examination
Study of the thin section of a small sample from
the anchor allowed the classification of its stone
as biocalcarenite, more specifically a poorly-washed
biosparite (Folk, 1962) or grainstone (Dunham,
1962). The bioclasts contained belong mainly to
bivalves, algae, mono- and biseriate microphora-
miniphera, whose chambers are sometimes filled
by phosphates (Fig. 4): micritic intraclasts are also
present. The silico-clastic fraction is composed
of: abundant plagioclase in single, twinned and
often zoned individuals (Fig. 5) of andesinic
composition; a few small crystals of greenish
clinopyroxene; some flakes of corroded, partly
chloritized biotite; rare glauconite granules;
sparse opaque minerals, and several clasts of a
fine-grained vulcanite. The cement is mostly
microsparitic.
Rocks such as this are abundant in all the
central Mediterranean areas, from Spain to
Syria, including Sicily, Crete and Asia Minor;
they are mostly of Miocenic age, and being
soft limestones were much used in antiquity as
building materials. The type considered here,
owing to its vulcanoclastic fraction, may be
formed in the Eastern Aegean, where the famous
volcanic arc has produced a large series of lavas
and volcanoclastic rocks often present in the
silico-clastic fraction of local biocalcarenites.
Conclusion
Archaeometric study has concluded that the site
of quarrying of the stone cannot be located on
the Adriatic coasts, but has to be found in the
central or eastern Mediterranean. From this we
may suppose that the stock was not worked by
a pre-Roman population living in the Veneto
region, like the Paleoveneti, who would more
probably have used a local stone. This supports
the idea that this anchor stock found off Venice
belonged to a Greek ship navigating not far from
the coast, between the 6th and the 4th century
BC. In the light of the lack of other similar Greek
finds from the Italian North Adriatic sea, this
evidence is of great importance and a useful
addition to the reconstructive study both of the
NOTES

Figure 4. Micrograph of the thin section of the anchor showing bioclasts of bivalves and of a uniseriate microphoram with
phosphate filling, together with opaque minerals, in a microspatrictic cement. N//, 66 X. (L. Lazzarini)

Figure 5. As above, but N * and showing a twinned and a zoned plagioclase. (L. Lazzarini)

© 2005 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 139
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1

presence of Greeks in the North Eastern region
of Italy and of navigation in the Adriatic sea
before the arrival of the Romans.
As regards a possible methodological approach,
this study can give an idea of the potentialities of
archaeometric analyses of the stone to identify its
original quarry. Further studies will take into
consideration geological maps of the Aegean area
to have a glimpse of the possible provenancing
zone for our anchor. We will also consider several
other marble anchors found in Italy. In this case,
given the existence of a good reference database,
we hope the results will be of greater importance
because of the easiness of recognizing marble
quarries from the Greek period.3
Carlo Beltrame
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino
Oriente
Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, I-30123, Italy
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi, DSA
Università Iuav di Venezia, I-30125, Italy

Acknowledgements
We want to thank Dr M. De Min and L. Fozzati (Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto,
NAUSICAA), for permission to study this find, and Admiral Lorenzo Sferra, Keeper of the Museo
Navale di Venezia, for his kindness in allowing us to analyse it.

Notes
1. Information from the archives of the Museo Navale, Venice.
2. The only maritime evidence known is the wreck of a cargo of amphoras from Megale Hellas lying off the lagoon of Grado
(Tortorici, 2000), which has been dated in the middle of late 3rd century BC, that is probably when the Romans were
already controlling southern Italy.
3. The archaeological observations have been written by C. Beltrame while the archaeometric analysis was conducted by L.
Lazzarini.

References
Agnesi, V., Consiglio, M., Sardella, A., and Vanaria, M. G., 2002, Indagini archeologiche e geomorfologiche sul Banco del
Bagno (Isola di Lipari), Archeologia subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti, III, 187–207.
Boetto, G., 1997, Ceppi litici ‘Sacri’ e culti aniconici a Metaponto e a Locri, Archeologia subacquea. Studi, ricerche e
documenti, II, 51– 64.
Braccesi, L., 1979, Grecità adriatiche. Un capitolo della colonizzazione greca in occidente. Bologna.
Braccesi, L. and Luni, M. (eds), 2004, I greci in Adriatico. Rome.
Capuis, L. 1993, I Veneti. Società e cultura di un popolo dell’Italia preromana. Milan.
Capuis, L. and Gambacurta, G., 2003, Altino: importazioni e direttrici commerciali in epoca preromana, in G. Cresci
Marrone and M. Tirelli (eds), Produzioni, merci e commerci in Altino preromana e romana, 27–45. Atti del convegno,
dicembre 2001. Rome.
Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture, in W. E. Ham (ed.), Classification
of Carbonate Rocks, 108 – 21. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 1, Tulsa.
Folk, R. L., 1962, Spectral subdivision of limestones types, in W. E. Ham (ed.), Classification of Carbonate Rocks, 62–4.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 1, Tulsa.
Gianfrotta, P. A., 1977, First elements for the dating of stone anchors stocks, IJNA 6: 285–92.
Gianfrotta, P. A., 1982, L’ancora di Klutikuna (ovvero, considerazioni sulla tomba n. 245 di Valle Trebba), Bollettino Annuale
dei Musei Ferraresi 12: 59 – 62.
Gianfrotta, P. A. and Pomey, P., 1981, Archeologia subacquea. Storia, tecniche, scoperte e relitti. Milan.
Kapitän, G., 1984, Ancient anchors — technology and classification, IJNA 13.1: 33–44.
Lazzarini, L., 2004, Archaeometric aspects of white and coloured marbles used in antiquity: the state of the art, Periodico di
Mineralogia (An International Journal of Mineralogy, Crystallography, Geochemistry, Ore Deposits, Petrology, Volcanology) 73:
113 – 25.
Renfrew, C. and Springer Peacy, J., 1968, Aegean marble: a petrological study, Annual of the British School at Athens 63:
45 –66.
Tortorici, E., 2000, Un nuovo relitto di età repubblicana nel mare di Grado, Archeologia delle acque 4: 91–8.
Animal
F. TiboniFigureheads on Nuragic Bronze Boat Models

140 © 2005 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society