For convenience sake the many depictions of ships on the square are listed here.[1]
Statio 3: NAVICVLARIORVM LIGNARIORVM - Lighthouse, two ships, geometric design - Various regions - Wood for ship building and repair.
Bows: convex, convex. Friedman 2011, 92-96.Statio 10: NAVICVLARI MISVENSES HIC - Two ships, three fishes, two joined dolphins (Pisces), tower with buttresses (Castra Praetoria?) - Misua (Tunisia) - Fish and fish sauce.
Bows: convex-concave. Friedman 2011, 96-98.Statio 15: NAVICVLARI ET NEGOTIANTES DE SVO - Ship - Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Sardinia.
Bow: convex. Friedman 2011, 98-101.Statio 18: NAVICVLARI KARTHAGINIENSES DE SVO - Two ships, fish, small ship - Karthago (Tunisia) - Various commodities?.
Bows: convex-convex. Friedman 2011, 101-103.Statio 19: NAVICVLARI TVRRITANI (LIBISONES?) - Ship - Turris Libisonis (Sardinia) - Grain.
Bow: convex. Friedman 2011, 103-105.Statio 21: NAVICVLARI ET NEGOTIANTES KARALITANI - Ship, two grain measures - Caralis (Sardinia) - Grain.
Bow: concave. Friedman 2011, 105-107.Statio 23: NAVICVLARI FRVMENTARI | NAVICVLARI SYLLECTINI - Lighthouse, two ships, two dolphins and crab or octopus - Syllecthum (Tunisia) - Fish and fish sauce (grain).
Bows: concave-convex. Friedman 2011, 107-110.Statio 25: [Statio saccariorum] - Man transferring amphora from ship to ship - Local - Various commodities.
Bows: convex-concave. Friedman 2011, 110-111.Statio 32: NAVICVLARI NARBONENSES - Two ships, water tower, dolphin - Narbo Martius (France).
Bow: concave. Friedman 2011, 111-114.Statio 45: Two ships.
Bows: convex-convex. Friedman 2011, 114-116.Statio 46: Lighthouse, two ships, dolphin.
Bows: concave-convex. Friedman 2011, 116-119.Statio 47: Two ships, dolphin, two grain measures - Grain.
Bows: convex-concave. Friedman 2011, 119-121.Statio 49: Nereid sitting on rock between two branches, lighthouse, two ships, dolphin - Province of Achaea (Greece).
Bows: concave-convex. Friedman 2011, 121-124.Statio 51: Ship with amphorae, dolphin - Provinces of Hispania Tarraconensis and Baetica - Olive oil.
Bow: convex. Friedman 2011, 124-126.Statio 52: Ship with amphorae, dolphin; hunter and bull (lower level) - Provinces of Hispania Tarraconensis and Baetica - Olive oil.
Bow: convex.Statio 54: Two ships, geometric design.
Bows: convex-convex. Friedman 2011, 126-127.Statio 55: S[TATI?]O - Grain measure and rutellum, ship, geometric design - Grain.
Bow: convex. Friedman 2011, 127-128.To the list we should add the well-known mosaic in the Isola Sacra necropolis in front of tomb 43, from the late second or early third century AD.[2] It uses the lighthouse and the safety of the harbour as a metaphor for the final, safe destination of happy eternal life. It is clearly inspired by the mosaics on the square. In the centre is the lighthouse, pointing like an arrow to the centre of the entrance to the tomb. Two ships are sailing towards the lighthouse. Behind both is a small boat. On deck some details are visible (perhaps posts for fastening ropes, a cargo of amphorae, and a steersman). Both are under full sail. The top of the sails is running diagonally, creating room for a Greek inscription: ὧδε παυσίλυπος, "here is the end of all sorrow". A parallel is offered by a funerary inscription from Rome, from the second century AD: Ὁ παυσίλυπος οἶκος οὖτός ἐστιν ἀσφαλῶς, "in safety, this is the house ending sorrow".[3]
The Latin equivalent for ὧδε is hic, encountered three times on the square (stationes 2, 10, 11). The mosaic was most likely laid by a mosaicist who had been active on the square. This also seems to be suggested by a visual effect, similar to the visual effects on the square.[4] On the left ship the mast is indicated clearly in front of the sail, whereas the mast of the right ship is behind the sail. The suggested directions of the wind, combined with the movement of the ships towards the lighthouse, suggest that the left ship will disappear behind the lighthouse, whereas the right ship will continue in front of it. I do not believe it is far-fetched to think that the ships circle around the lighthouse, stressing the "here".
The ships depicted on the mosaics of the Piazzale are described in detail by Becatti in his publication of the Ostian mosaics (Scavi di Ostia IV), and are mentioned and discussed in countless other modern publications.[5] It is often stated that the mosaicists and ancient restorers frequently made big mistakes in the depiction of the ships, due to a lack of understanding. This view I cannot accept: ships at the Tiber quay were only 70 metres away from the square, ships in Portus 5 kilometres. The mosaicists, working in the most important harbour of the Empire, had ample opportunity to study and discuss the cargo ships. Also, the people employing the mosaicists will not have accepted obvious major errors.
The ships are depicted in an expressionistic way. They are similar to graffiti drawings of ships, in- and outside of Ostia and Portus. Some well-preserved examples are listed below.
Langner 2001, 68-69 with note 431, nr. 2012, Taf. 129.[6] Langner 2001, 69, nr. 1992, Taf. 126.[7] Langner 2001, 68-70, nr. 2009, Taf. 128.[8] Langner 2001, 66, 68-70, nr. 2010, Taf. 128.[9] Langner 2001, 68, nr. 2044, Taf. 132.[10] Langner 2001, 68, 70, nr. 2202, Taf. 141.[11]
Graffito of a ship in the Mitreo dei Marmi Colorati, room 3 (IV,IX,5).
David 2018, fig. 17.
Graffito of a two boat, navis codicaria, in the Insula delle Ierodule (III,IX,6).
Second half of the 2nd, or 3rd century AD. Molle 2014, 216-220, 229 fig. 167,4.The depictions reflect only the two major features of mediterranean transport: first of all navigation and steering, with two rudders, and secondly wind, caught with various sails and their rigging. The crew, the cargo, and details like pumps are rare. Often two ships are depicted in a heraldic way, and then the shape of the bows catches the eye. The bows are either convex or concave,[12] and they could fit, as it were, like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle (the two types of bow are listed above).
In modern literature the ancient name corbita is often assigned to the convex type, ponto to the concave type. This is a complex issue, based to a large extent on a "catalogue" of ships on a mosaic from Althiburos (Medeina, Tunisia), with depictions and names of many ships. The mosaic is probably to be dated to c. 280-290 AD and has poetic, republican roots.[13] The descriptions by ancient authors are confusing and contain mistakes.[14] I will therefore not use the proposed ancient names for explaining the depictions on the square, just noting that the characteristics mentioned by the ancient authors are speed, size, and sea-going or river-going.[15]
The concave bow is seen very often as part of military ships.[16] A ram could be attached to the lower part of it. The bow can also be part of commercial ships: small ships, such as fishing vessels, and large cargo ships.[17] As to the cargo ships, Casson sees no difference in function. Referring to the Piazzale he says: "Indeed, the ancient artists seem to go out of their way to show the two types together performing the same work".[18] That is unlikely. A radical change of the bow has significant hydrodynamic consequences,[19] and must have been well-motivated. Most likely the concave bow (in profile), or cutwater bow (viewed from the front), provided more speed.[20] The bow should not be viewed in isolation. Davey notes that the two ships of statio 23 have a different sailing-plan: the ship to the left, with a concave bow, has three masts and a large foresail, the ship to the right, with a convex bow, two masts and a smaller spritsail.[21]
When the mosaics on the square were laid the concave bow was not a novelty, that is not what the people working in the offices wanted to stress. A cargo ship with a concave bow, dated to the middle of the first century BC, was found near Toulon, France.[22] Another cargo ship with (most likely) a concave bow, dated accurately to c. 150 AD, was excavated in the Golfe de Fos, France.[23]
The mosaics on the square document that the fleets of the navicularii from a particular city could consist of two kinds of cargo ships: some relatively fast, some relatively slow. Speed is of course preferable. So why did the navicularii also operate slower ships? We can rule out the possibility that fragile cargoes had to be transported in slower ships. The ship found near Toulon carried wine amphorae and ceramics; the ship found in the Golfe de Fos carried Dressel type 20 amphorae; in statio 25 an amphora is being unloaded from a ship with a concave bow. This seems to leave only one explanation: transport costs. But why would the fisc or a private trader pay more for faster transport?
One possibility is, that the faster ships were used not only for the transport of grain, olive oil, wine, marble et cetera, but also for the transport of passengers and messages. Wealthy merchants may well have been willing to pay extra for fast transport of their personnel and important messages, instead of using cost-effective, but slow cargo ships.[24] This is also suggested by texts of Ulpianus in the Corpus Iuris Civilis: "The captain is appointed to hire out the ship for the carriage of cargo, to take on passengers, or to purchase provisions or equipment"; "For some ships are freighters or "coasters," as they call them, and I know that most shipowners give instructions to turn away passengers and to confine operations to a certain area or a particular stretch of sea. And those ships which ferry passengers to Brindisi from Cassiopa or Dyrrachium are quite unfitted for carrying cargo, just as other ships are suitable for river traffic, but not adequate for sea voyages".[25] The presence of cargoes in the faster ships would then point to flexibility in their use, depending on the availability of cargo and the number of passengers asking for transportation.
Finally we may note, because of the date, a few coins from the reign of Commodus with depictions of a cargo ship. Both types can be seen: a cargo ship with a concave bow on a coin from 186-187 AD,[26] and a ship with a convex bow on an Alexandrian coin.
Graffito of a ship called Europa, from the Casa della Nave Europa in Pompeii.
Langner 2001, nr. 2019, Taf. 129.
(1) Some of the English names of ship parts are illustrated on a drawing of the ships in statio 23 (Royal 2002, 284 fig. 11). A wonderful example of the hull, sails and rigging of a sailing ship is offered by a replica of the very large Dutch cargo ship Batavia, from the seventeenth century.
(2) Becatti 1961, tav. 183. Photo: Gerard Huissen.
(3) IG XIV, 2136.
(4) Photo: Parco Archeologico di Ostia.
(5) Especially Friedman 2011, 90-133. Pomey wrote a thesis about the ships on the square (unpublished; non vidi): Patrice Pomey, Études des navires figurés sur les mosaïques de la Place des Corporations à Ostie, Thèse, École pratique des hautes études, Paris 1971. Also unpublished is his Étude iconographique des 'naves onerariae' d'Ostie, Thèse de doctorat, Sorbonne, Paris 1974 (non vidi). For a very complete overview of all depictions of ships from Ostia and Portus see Pekáry 1999, DK-7, I-03 - I-052, Rom-M54 - Rom-M57, Vat.-2, -23, -28, -31, -32.
(6) Casa di Giove e Ganimede (I,IV,2). L. 0.25.
(7) Sacello delle Tre Navate (III,II,12). H. 0.32.
(8) Casa delle Muse or Case a Giardino (III,IX) (temporarily stored in the Horrea Epagathiana).
(9) Casa delle Muse or Case a Giardino (III,IX) (temporarily stored in the Horrea Epagathiana).
(10) Casa delle Muse or Case a Giardino (III,IX) (temporarily stored in the Horrea Epagathiana).
(11) Place of discovery unknown.
(12) The two types are discussed briefly by Becatti (1961, 346).
(13) Duval 1949; Redaelli 2014.
(14) Rougé 1966, 74, especially notes 2 and 4.
(15) Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina XIII,533: corbita est genus navigii tardum et grande; Isidorus of Sevilla, Origines XIX,1,24: pontonium, navigium fluminale tardum et grave quod non nisi remigio progredi potest.
(16) Royal 2002, 259 chart 53.
(17) Duval 1949; Royal 2002, 256 chart 50. Large cargo ships on mosaics, apart from the Piazzale: from Althiburos (the ships labelled ponto and cladivata), Thabraca (Tabarka, Tunisia), Theveste (Tébessa, Algeria), Themetra (Chott Merium, Tunisia).
(18) Casson 1971, 174.
(19) Cf. Davey 2015 and 2016 on the spritsail, its importance for steering and sailing windward.
(20) Royal 2002, 84-85; Murray et al. 2017, esp. p. 81: the cutwater reduces the wave profile.
(21) Davey 2015, 35-37, 42.
(22) Pomey 1982.
(23) Liou et al. 1990.
(24) Cf. Rougé 1984.
(25) Digesta 14.1.1.3: Magistri autem imponuntur locandis navibus vel ad merces vel vectoribus conducendis armamentisve emendis; 14.1.1.12: Quaedam enim naves onerariae, quaedam (ut ipsi dicunt) epibatygoi sunt: et plerosque mandare scio, ne vectores recipiant, et sic, ut certa regione et certo mari negotietur, ut ecce sunt naves, quae Brundisium a Cassiopa vel a Dyrrachio vectores traiciunt ad onera inhabiles, item quaedam fluvii capaces ad mare non sufficientes.
(26) Cohen III, Commodus nrs. 635-640.
