About the Metallic Ram of Acqualadroni (Messina), Skyllis 2020, held 2.

Abstract

Study of the Ram of a warship. In 2008, a naval rostrum was found in a few meters of water off Acqualadroni. Dated in the first century BC, it was then backdated between the middle and the end of the 3rd century BC. In this study, we come back to the internal structure of the rostrum, to the rostrum-bow connection, and to the method of fusion of the rostrum.The results confirm the complexity of the rostrum-ship ensemble, and open the door to new interpretations.

Full text

20. Jahrgang 2020
1
Vorwort 3
30 Jahre DEGUWA e.V. –20 Jahrgänge Skyllis 4
Ein kurzer Rückblick
Christoph Börker –Peter Winterstein
Ein Leben mit dem Schiff 6
Nachruf auf Karin Hornig (2.8.1963 - 23.11.2020)
Alexandra Villing –Susanne Ebbinghaus
Investigation of a Roman Shipwreck off Velika Sestrica Island Near Rovinj 10
Luka Beki´c
Reinvention or Imitation of an Innovation ? 17
Mediterranean Shipbuilding Principles in Iron Age South-East Asia and North-West Europe
Ronald Bockius
Die Häfen der südlichen Troas (TR) in der Spätantike und byzantinischen Zeit 44
Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan
The Yacht of the Prussian Kings Presented to Peter the Great 54
Vladimir Romanovich Chepelev
Mediterranean Sea: Continental Waters 59
Garum and Exotic Animals Maritime Trade in the Roman Period
Zaraza Friedman
69
The Trade of Tel Michal
Eva Grossmann
‘Operation Zwammerdam Ships’ 73
A Contribution to Archaeology and Society along the Dutch Frontiers of the Roman Empire
Tom Hazenberg
Eine neue Deutung einlochiger Steinanker als Hakenanker 85
Eine experimentalarchäologische Untersuchung
Matthias Link
Inhalt
Vorwort
Ein Leben mit dem Schiff
Nachruf auf Karin Hornig (2.8.1963 - 23.11.2020)
Alexandra Villing –Susanne Ebbinghaus
30 Jahre DEGUWA e.V. –20 Jahrgänge Skyllis
Ein kurzer Rückblick
Christoph Börker –Peter Winterstein
Investigation of a Roman Shipwreck off Velika Sestrica Island Near Rovinj
Luka Beki´c
Reinvention or Imitation of an Innovation ?
Mediterranean Shipbuilding Principles in Iron Age South-East Asia and North-West Europe
Ronald Bockius
Die Häfen der südlichen Troas (TR) in der Spätantike und byzantinischen Zeit
Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan
Mediterranean Sea: Continental Waters
Garum and Exotic Animals Maritime Trade in the Roman Period
Zaraza Friedman
The Trade of Tel Michal
Eva Grossmann
‘Operation Zwammerdam Ships’
A Contribution to Archaeology and Society along the Dutch Frontiers of the Roman Empire
Tom Hazenberg
Eine neue Deutung einlochiger Steinanker als Hakenanker
Eine experimentalarchäologische Untersuchung
Matthias Link
3
4
10
44
54
6
17
59
69
73
85
The Yacht of the Prussian Kings Presented to Peter the Great
Vladimir Romanovich Chepelev

91 Ein
portus
bei
Augusta Vindelicum
Tünde Kaszab-Olschewski
97 Geological Studies as a Source of Data on the Maritime Trade between
the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Mediterranean in the 1st Millennium BCE
Alexey Khotylev - Sergey Olkhovskiy
108 Survey of the Coasts of the Karian Chersonesos
The Coastal Necropolis of Thyssanous
Harum Özda¸s –Nilhan Kızılda˘g –Winfried Held
119 Remains of an Ancient Shipwreck near Cape Zanavin on Rivanj Island, Croatia
Mladen Pesi´c
128 About the Metallic Ram of Acqualadroni (Messina)
Philippe Tisseyre –Massimiliano Ditta
145 Zwischen Aare, Rhein und Bodensee: die
barcarii
und das spätantike
Confluentibus
Daniel Wacker
153 Informal Economies and
navicularii
in the Balkans, ca. 4th - 7th century CE
Philip L. Watson
162 Das Bücherbrett
Nilhan Kızılda˘g, Rezension zu: Geoff Bailey –Nena Galanidou –Hans Peeters –Hauke Jöns –
Moritz Mennenga (eds.), The Archaeology of Europe’s Drowned Landscapes
Maria Stemmler, Rezension zu: Jens Askan Brückerhoff, Schiffs- und Wrackbergung auf Hoher See.
Eine vergleichende Untersuchung deutschen, französischen, englischen und US-amerikanischen Rechts
Titelmotiv
Logo:
30 Jahre DEGUWA
20 Jahrgänge Skyllis
Ein
portus
bei
Augusta Vindelicum
Tünde Kaszab-Olschewski
91
Geological Studies as a Source of Data on the Maritime Trade between the
Cimmerian Bosporus and the Mediterranean in the 1st Millennium BCE
Alexey Khotylev - Sergey Olkhovskiy
Survey of the Coasts of the Karian Chersonesos
The Coastal Necropolis of Thyssanous
Harum Özda¸s –Nilhan Kızılda˘g –Winfried Held
Remains of an Ancient Shipwreck near Cape Zanavin on Rivanj Island, Croatia
Mladen Pesi´c
About the Metallic Ram of Acqualadroni (Messina)
Philippe Tisseyre –Massimiliano Ditta
Zwischen Aare, Rhein und Bodensee: die
barcarii
und das spätantike
Confluentibus
Daniel Wacker
Informal Economies and
navicularii
in the Balkans, ca. 4th - 7th century CE
Philip L. Watson
Das Bücherbrett
Nilhan Kızılda˘g, Rezension zu: Geoff Bailey –Nena Galanidou –Hans Peeters –Hauke Jöns –
Moritz Mennenga (eds.), The Archaeology of Europe’s Drowned Landscapes
Maria Stemmler, Rezension zu: Jens Askan Brückerhoff, Schiffs- und Wrackbergung auf Hoher See.
Eine vergleichende Untersuchung deutschen, französischen, englischen und US-amerikanischen Rechts
97
108
119
128
145
153
162

Die DEGUWA feierte am 11.
Januar 2021 den dreißigsten Jah -
restag ihrer Gründung. Kurz zuvor
begingen die DEGUWA-Tagungen
„In Poseidons Reich“ mit der IPR
XXV in Frank -
furt 2020 ihr
fünfund zwan -
zigstes Ju bi -
läum. Und
schließ lich
liegt mit die -
sem Band der
zwanzigste
Jahr gang der
Zeit schrift
SKYLLIS vor.
SKYLLIS 1 er -
schien bereits
1998; eine Dis -
krepanz ergab
sich aufgrund
von drei Dop -
pel-Jahrgän -
gen 2003–2008.
Christoph Bör -
ker und Peter
Winterstein würdigen die bisherige
Geschichte der DEGUWA in ihrem
Beitrag für diesen Band.
Wie bereits im Vorwort zu SKYL-
LIS 19 angekündigt, erscheint un -
sere Zeitschrift nunmehr nicht
mehr in zwei Teilheften, sondern
einem einheitlichen Band pro Jahr.
Eine weitere Neuerung wird ab
dem kommenden Band zum Tra -
gen kommen: Der DEGUWA-Vor -
stand hat sich darauf geeinigt, die
Beiträge künftig einer fachlichen
und formalen Begutachtung in
einem beidseitig anonymen Peer-
Review-Verfahren zu unterziehen.
Damit soll die Attraktivität des
SKYLLIS vor allem für jüngere
Wis senschaftler, die ‚peer-re viewed‘
Publikationen in ihrer Pub li ka -
tionsliste benötigen, gesteigert wer-
den.
Den Kern des vorliegenden Bands
bilden elf Beiträge, die auf Vorträge
auf der Tagung „In Poseidons
Reich XXV. Ökonomie und Lo -
gistik auf Binnengewässern im
Römischen Reich“ zurückgehen.
Diese fand vom 12.–17. Februar
2020 im Archäologischen Museum
Frankfurt statt. Dank der Gast -
freundschaft des Direktors Wolf -
gang David und seiner Mitarbeiter
konnten wir dort eine ebenso
konzentrierte wie unbeschwerte
Tagung abhalten. Die schöne Er -
innerung daran half über viele
schwierige Monate der bis heute
andauernden Pandemie hinweg.
Zwei weitere Beiträge von Alexey
Khotylev und Sergey Olkhovskiy
sowie von Harun Özdas, Nilhan
Kızıldagund Winfried Held gehen
noch auf die IPR XXIV in Bodrum
2019 zurück.
Hin zu kommen
zwei weitere Bei -
träge: Vladimir
Chepelev be -
schäf tigt sich
mit einer Jacht,
die der preußi -
sche König Fried -
rich Wilhelm I.
dem russischen
Zar Peter dem
Großen ge -
schenkt hatte.
Matthias Link
stellt eine neue
These für die
Funktionsweise
bronzezeitlicher
Steinanker vor
und löst damit
überzeugend das
Problem, dass
diese in der bisher angenommenen
Funktionsweise als Gewichtsanker
für große Schiffe wie das Ulu bu -
run-Schiff eine viel zu geringe
Haltekraft haben.
Alexandra Villing und Susanne
Ebbinghaus gedenken in einem
Nachruf der verstorbenen Karin
Hornig, die über viele Jahre auf
den DEGUWA-Tagungen präsent
war und in SKYLLIS etliche Bei -
träge veröffentlicht hat. Zwei Re -
zensionen im Bücherbrett runden
den Band ab.
im Mai 2021
Winfried Held
heldw@uni-marburg.de
20. Jahrgang 2020
3
Vorwort
Die Teilnehmer der IPR XXV vor dem Archäologischen Museum in Frankfurt
(Foto: Mathias Orgeldinger)

In 2008 a naval ram, decorated
with swords (
kopis
and
xiphoi
) was
recovered by the Soprintendenza
del Mare off Acqualadroni in
Messina. This ram was then attrib-
uted to the Battle of Naulochus
and in a preliminary study dated to
the first century BC
1
. In 2013, addi-
tional evidence like metal analysis
of the spikes, chemical analyses on
the timbers, and a new C14 dating
with OxCal analysis placed the
construction to the 3rd century BC
(median 287–279 BC), in the con-
text of the first Punic War
2
. The
recent restoration of the ram and
its exhibition in Messina allowed
us to return archaeologically to the
internal stratification of the tim-
bers. 17 core samples had in fact
determined three species of wood
used in the construction of the
ram
3
.
In the first part, the stratigraphic
position of the timbers is de -
scribed, followed by their theoreti-
cal arrangement in the metallic
ram. We propose here a new possi-
ble stratigraphy of the internal
arrangement of the timbers of the
ram, characterized by the presence
of one or two internal metal
sheaths. Furthermore, this paper
proposes a new construction tech-
nique of the assembly, through an
analysis on the construction and
installation of the ram on the ship.
Timber stratigraphy
Based on the arrangement of the
wood species found in the ram, a
new cross-sectional stratigraphy
was established. It is made of at
least eleven different elements, and
the samples prove the existence of a
vertical separation of the timbers.
Thus, the existing drawings of the
arrangement of the timbers in the
ram, made by Cecilia Buccellato,
need to be revised. However, the
position of each element has not
been determined exactly, since the
timbers were not removed, but the
following analysis will propose sev-
eral possible interpretations.
The study of the arrangement of
the timbers and their forced dis-
placement due to the ram impact
or breakage are also considered in
the stratigraphic analysis and for
the interpretation. First of all, it is
necessary to give an overview of
the arrangement of the timber
after the core drilling results. These
are hypothetical results, and as
such they are presented, allowing a
new discussion on the topic (
fig. 1
).
– In the upper part of the ram, the
division is clear: there is a separa-
tion between at least two elements
(samples 11-3/15-2), visible in the
upper part of the preserved tim-
bers. We also note that two ele-
ments are inserted inside the inner
metal jacket, as the latter continues
upwards the ram wall. The mass of
timber 11 encases the upper spikes
(or bolts) A-A’ (which passes
through it).
– Below 11, still inside the inner
metal plate 1, four other ele-
ments belonging to a different
subspecies of pine (sample 4, 5,
6, 7) are observed, showing an
additional vertical separation
below the level of the spike B-B’.
– Sample 17 supports such inter-
pretation, i. e. additional verti-
cal differentiation of the wood
species; for sample 17, used for
the wiggle matching, we no -
128
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
About the Metallic Ram of Acqualadroni
(Messina)
Philippe Tisseyre – Massimiliano Ditta
Abstract – In 2008, a naval rostrum was found in a few meters of water off Acqualadroni. Dated in the first cen-
tury BC, it was then backdated between the middle and the end of the 3rd century BC. In this study, we come back
to the internal structure of the rostrum, to the rostrum-bow connection, and to the method of fusion of the rostrum.
The results confirm the complexity of the rostrum-ship ensemble, and open the door to new interpretations.
Inhalt – Im Jahr 2008 wurde bei Acqualadroni in einigen Metern Wassertiefe ein Rostrum gefunden. Es wurde
zunächst in das 1. Jh. v. Chr., später zwischen der Mitte und dem Ende des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. datiert. Die vorliegende
Studie beschäftigt sich mit der inneren Struktur des Rostrums, der Verbindung zwischen Rostrum und Bug und der
Methode der Konstruktion des Rostrums. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen die Komplexität des Rostrum-Schiff-Ensembles
und eröffnen neue Interpretationsmöglichkeiten.
1
Tusa – Buccellato 2012. The same text
was translated in Buccellato – Tusa 2016.
2
Frank – Caponetti 2010; Tisseyre 2013.
3
Romagnoli et al. 2010: “Pinus nigra Arn.
(Black Pine) or similar taxonomic species
(Pinus laricio Poiret) for samples 9, 10, 11,
19. Pinus halepensis Mill. or Pinus L. sam-
ples 4, 5, 12, core 15 portion 4 be long to the
second group. Tenon (Sample 8): Genus
Quercus subgenus Sclero phyllodris (cf.
Quercus ilex).”

ticed at least 25 growth rings on
its upper part, with a width
between the rings increasing
from right to left over about 13
cm (i. e. 19 mm average dis-
tance between the rings). The
visible sided dimension of the
block is about 31 cm. The tim-
ber was fashioned from a
halved trunk, placed with its
greatest density of growth rings
towards the outside (25 rings
for 13 cm, visible 31 cm, or 59.6
rings assumed).
– Outside the metal mass, on the
left side, the wood species are
equally vertically divided (sam-
ples 10/13), whereas this is not
the case on the right side (sam-
ples 9/17b). However, the exis-
tence of a constructive symme-
try, as in Athlit, can be assumed.
Thus, probably at least two ver-
tical timbers were used for each
side
4
.
– The presence of at least two
pegs (7 × 2 cm long in oak,
sample 8) on the right side of
area 17b indicates the existence
of several other missing ele-
ments. The connection between
the two timber parts was made
with a dissymmetrical Jupiter’s
shaft joint, with four wooden
pegs covered by the brass of the
metal jacket, which separates
them from the upper central
block
5
.
– At least two cylindrical pegs
were visible
6
(length 6.2 × 1.7
cm). The symmetry of con-
struction, and the trace of two
other specular pegs on the side
of the samples 4 and 5, suggest
at least four other elements in
this part of the ram were fas-
tened using the mortise and
tenon technique.
– Samples 18 and 19, highly pol-
luted by metals, show however a
further alternation of taxa, 19
having been determined as
Laricio
pine.
Evidence of impact and displace-
ment of the timbers
During the drilling for core sam-
ples, a void
7
was found in the
frontal wooden area wedged into
the ram. This is probably due to the
backward twisting of the entire
wooden structure and the metal
jacket, with the consequent defor-
mation of the timbers. It is notice-
20. Jahrgang 2020
129
4
For the wreck of Kızılburun, coexis-
tence of different species on apparently
solid parts, cf. Littlefield 2012, 81.
5
Distance peg centre to peg centre: 7,3
cm, 4,2 cm.
6
They disappeared during transport in 2017.
7
Romagnoli et al. 2010. For a chemical
ana lysis of wood residues: Bastone et al.
2013.
8
Caruso et al. 2011; Tisseyre 2013.
Contrary to Buccellato 2016, 22, it is cer-
tainly not a melting defect, as the restora-
tion has clearly shown.
Fig. 1: On the right (on a 3D base), indicative sketch of the distribution of wood species in the Acqualadroni ram according to the
core sampling. The numbers correspond to the core sample taken (e.g. 11). Red arrows: Pinus laricio Poiret; Blue arrows: Pinus
halepensis Mill. or Pinus L. The numbers in black are cores with negative results (P. Tisseyre)

able that the spikes (or spikes) have
been displaced from their bearing
points
8
. The heads of the spikes are
located on the sides of the ram, in
front of the eagles’ beaks of the
swords (
kopis
), and go through the
two internal metal plates and the
bronze ram. The shaft of spikes B-
B’ does not reach its outer exit. For
the upper spikes A-A’, on the left
side the recoil movement inside the
bronze ram is about 11 cm, while it
is only 5 cm on the right side. It
must therefore be assumed that
this spike was moved transversally
by a collision, either in combat,
during a landing, or after the ship
was destroyed during storms in
these shallow waters.
This slipping and retraction, evi-
denced by the spikes moving off
their axis at an angle of 15°–30°,
moved the timber away about 15
cm from the head of the ram,
hence the void in the cores at the
tip of the ram. This angle of twist
can be calculated to be about 30°
from the axis of the ram. If it is due
to the impact, which left its visible
trace on the right wing of the ram,
this torsion could probably have
caused the whole wooden structure
to move backwards. Thus moving
the bolts and the structure in an
anti-clockwise direction (but noth-
ing can really link the two facts
chronologically). Therefore, the
method of attaching the ram to the
structure raises new questions.
Connecting the timbers at the bow
In view of the recent analysis of
ancient cutwaters and rams
9
, the
internal stratigraphy of the timbers
and the dynamics of their displace-
ment, the arrangement of Acqua -
ladroni timber structures lead to a
revision of the ram attachment at
the bow (
fig. 2
).
Upper part of the ram
The state of preservation of the
timbers makes it difficult to deter-
mine exactly how the ram was fas-
tened to this part of the bow. The
upper part of the ram is fixed to
the counter-stem with six copper
nails, equidistant 22 cm. Vertically,
it may also have been protected up
by a metal cladding, which was not
preserved. Archaeologically, this
level corresponds exactly to the
level where the top of the ram was
at the time of discovery, subject to
attack by marine agents, particu-
larly
teredina navalis
and bacte-
ria
10
.
According to the proposed hypoth-
esis, each nail could have matched
the mid-height of the planking
strakes, thus reinforcing their con-
nection at the stem, along the cen-
tral axis of the upper strakes. On
several monumental representa-
tions, and on real rams, are found
at least three bottom strakes in cor-
respondence with the upper part of
the ram
11
. These ‘bottom strakes’
are often described as ‘waterline
strakes’
12
.
Contrary to Athlit, the Acqua la -
droni ram has not kept its internal
counter-stem or
gripe
(
fig. 2, no.
13
) nor the stem itself (
fig. 2, no.
12
). This difference may simply be
due to the dimensions of the two
rams. At Acqualadroni, the upper
part of the cowl and cowl flange
has a section shape of an isosceles
trapezium (13.2/16.5/27cm) that
does not exceed 16.5 cm in mould-
ed dimensions, while for Athlit
exceeds 50 cm. This massive bow
construction allowed Richard Stef -
fy to draw a set of lateral strakes at
the bow, which seems difficult in
our case
13
. A comparative analysis
of stem dimensions suggests that
timbers of 16/17 cm in moulded
di mensions were used as early as
the Classical period
14
. Therefore,
here is presented a hypothesis for
the upper part of the bow assembly
(no. 12).
The presence of one or more spikes
in the axis of the counter-stem (no.
16), clearly visible after restoration,
allows us to see other structural
solutions, no doubt like in Athlit.
On the upper part and in the cen-
tral wooden mass (as well as in
radiography), at least three vertical
metal elements are visible, proba-
bly made of copper
15
. Questions
arise whether it is a fragment of the
longitudinal spikes, loosened from
their original position by the
movement of the timber, or per-
130
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
9
Averdung – Pedersen 2012 ; Murray et
al. 2017.
10
Caponetti 2016.
11
Frost 1981; Steffy 1983.
12
Tusa – Royal 2012, 14.
13
On the small ship ALKEDO in Pisa,
these strakes are joined at the angle of the
inverted bow in a pointed ram. No internal
drawing has been published to date.
14
Kahanov 1998.
15
Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 25 fig. 10.
Fig. 2: Hypothesis of the arrangement of the metal liners of the ram of Acqualadroni
(P. Tisseyre – M. Ditta)

haps vertical ‘ring spikes’ with a
semi-circular head, for fastening
the ram to the counter stem.
This ‘broche à oeillet’ is also a clue
that points towards a completely
different arrangement of the tim-
bers compared to the one in Athlit,
specifically regarding the presence
of the two different species at the
base of the counter-stem (no.
10/11) (
fig. 6
). The hole of the
spike is placed in behind the
counter-stem: it is possible that a
metal counter axis has been placed
to strengthen connection with the
stem/counter-stem/gripe elements,
probably passing through a set of
parts whose arrangement is un -
known
16
. At Athlit, the tenon fas-
tening the counter-stem (“stem”)
to the horizontal central ramming
timber is located at the same point
of contact, in front of the ‘trough
ears’
17
.
At Acqualadroni this wooden mor-
tise-and-tenon system seems to
have been replaced by one or more
metal spikes. On the Orange Arch
(France), we could observe rectan-
gular elements, schematically
carved behind the isolated rams:
probably the trace of this type of
internal fastening, composed of
two or three connecting elements
at the bow. It may be a system of
filling timbers, which may have
been replaced or reinforced by
spikes at Acqualadroni. Moreover,
the presence of internal spikes is
not uncommon in bronze statuary
to fix elements by means of eyelet
hooks
18
. Was this technique used to
consolidate the entire stem to the
horizontal parts of the central
group (no. 10-11-9)? In any case,
the spikes would have been insert-
ed before the brass and lead liners
were prepared
19
.
According to certain hypotheses
based on the observation of repre-
sentations of the bow, if some
sto-
los
20
was covered with metal, it is
legitimate to think that these plates
also covered the upper part where
the timbers of the ram ended. On
the graffito of the house of
Dionysus in Delos
21
dated around
320 BC, the ram is connected sepa-
rately to the ship by means of a
harness, extended and reinforced,
and in its upper part by a flat trian-
gular part, possibly covered with
metal. The area of the proembolion
immediately above contains a tri-
angular plate, possible an indica-
tion of a metal covering. These fea-
tures are in contrast with the idea
of ‘filler strakes’ proposed by Jeff
Royal, but could in fact be a frontal
reinforcement design for trifid
naval rams
22
.
These are, obviously, only hypo-
thetical possibilities for the attach-
ment of rams to the bow based on
the pattern of the cutwaters, partic-
ularly in the central part of the
ram, at the intersection of the
waterline wale and the gripe. Some
of these parts are found in the dia-
gram proposed by Marco Bonino
for the Aquileia ram
23
. This accu-
mulation of filler pieces in the ros-
tral part can also be found at Athlit.
However, Steffy had a set of strakes
around the timber of the counter-
stem itself that reinforced and kept
in place the metal ram (
fig. 3
).
An indication of these filler strakes
at Acqualadroni are probably the
copper nails attached to the cowl.
Rather short (4.5–7 cm, internal
20. Jahrgang 2020
131
16
Gassend 1982, fig. 41: examples of close
double spikes.
17
The discovery of the Athlit ram and its
uniqueness imposed new descriptive vo -
cab ulary on researchers. See Casson –
Steffy – Linder 1991; here we will follow
the vocabulary developed by Royal in
Tusa–Royal 2012, 18.
18
Azéma 2013. The position of this metal
piece in the mass of the under counter
stem timber occurs at the crossing of the
lower line of the cowl and the port wale in
the ram, and can in no way be a residual
distancing bar from the cast, because it is
enclosed in the mass of the wood.
19
The use of spikes is attested since the
5th–4th c. BC (wrecks of Gela 1, Ma‘agan
Michael, Punic ship from Marsala) and
“broches” (spikes/bolts) are not uncom-
mon in Roman marine architecture (wrecks
of la Bourse de Marseille, Fiumicino, Mo -
naco, Pointe de La Luque, Port Vendres)
Recently discovered bolts at the site of the
Battle of the Egades are presented by Royal
as “shipboard objects”, but it is possible
that they are in fact fasteners identical to
those found at Acqualadroni. cf. Royal –
Tusa 2019, 230 fig. 10,6.
20
We use this term here in a generic way,
while taking into account Pomey’s 2001
introductory remarks.
21
Basch 1996, 46–47.
22
Murray et al. 2017, 7 fig. 4.
Fig. 3:
Comparison of the
position of the
timbers according
to current theories.
a. Athlit (Casson –
Steffy – Linder
1991, 15 fig. 2). –
b. Acqualadroni
(Buccellato 2016,
29 fig. 12), –
c. Egadi 1 (Tusa –
Royal 2012, 13 fig. 3)

measurements, some nails being
very deteriorated), their length
would not have allowed them to go
through the planking and reach the
stem, after also probably piercing
through the internal lead protec-
tion as well as the bronze of the
ram (about 2–3 cm in total). How -
ever, keeping the maximum size of
the nails, their symmetrical pene-
tration was limited by the distance
between the wings of the cowl, 20
cm for the first upper row of nails,
or 10 cm on each side. The nails
therefore penetrated an average of
6 cm on each side, leaving 8 cm of
space in the upper and lower part
of the timber, but only 4 cm in the
narrower middle part.
In top view, their bilateral triangu-
lar arrangement is perfectly sym-
metrical and leaves no empty
spaces. Here too, the length of the
copper nails cannot be interpreted
as an “only decorative”24, as the
counter-stem is also firmly an -
chored to the cowl of the ram. In
this area elements have disap-
peared, notably the gripe (no. 13),
that would have been necessary to
fill the void in the cowl, and per-
haps also covered by the outer
metal jacket.
The thinning of the upper part of
the ram (reduced by 4 cm in con-
tact with its central part) also caus-
es the appearance of lines that
reveal a rostral pattern completely
different from Aegates 1, 11, and 13,
which are very straight in their bow
profile. The diversity of right-left
wood species in the upper part of
the ram could have continued for
the planking, perhaps reinforced
with additions (such a choice was
proposed for the OLYM PIAS). We do
not know if this alternation of
right-left species continued up wards
and we can only make hypotheses.
However, planking boards of 4 cm
in thickness could have been
inserted in the upper part (then
reinforced with nails, following the
example of the ship ALKEDO in
Pisa), although such a solution
contrasts with the finish of the
Acqualadroni ram. It is therefore
much more likely that only one ele-
ment occupied this part, the
counter-stem, while the planking
was placed in a rabbet behind it.
The upper part of the counter-
stem recess can have several vari-
ants with butt joints or reinforced
by the planking. The proposed il -
lustration is therefore only one of
the possible choices among others.
Indeed, if the space between the
upper part of the isosceles triangle
of the ‘cowl’ allows it (cowl flange),
it is possible to fasten the planks
differently on the bow. Either flush
to the hull, as in the ALKEDO, or
with different boards and different
angles as for the OLYMPIAS of John
Coates and John Morrison, or the
different reconstructions proposed
for the ships of Marsala. The angle
of the counter-stem will therefore
determine a different image.
The current debate on construction
and typologies of boats
25
can help
draw some conclusions. Few vessels
with inverted bows have been exca-
vated to date, and the con -
ceptualization of such vessels, includ-
ing rams, is still very little under-
stood. The ram increases the hydro-
dynamic capabilities of the vessel, as
model studies have shown
26
.
At Acqualadroni, the upper part
and the cowl appears to slightly
narrowing, showing a hitherto un -
suspected design. The cowl flange
of the Athlit ram, proportionally
lower, is much more triangular.
While looking for this shape on the
monumental representations, we
did not find it on the Samothrace
Victory, or on the Delos monu-
ment
27
. This part of the ram also
disappeared on the ram of the
Agora of Cyrene, probably the clos-
est monument to the ram of
132
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
23
Bonino 2001.
24
Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 21.
25
Olaberria 2014.
26
Murray et al. 2017.
27
Hamiaux 2006, 5–60, places the Athlit
ram on Samothrace Victory monument.
The frontal part of the connection with the
missing ram is composed of two juxta-
posed ideal circles, which would not allow
our ram to fit in, especially because of the
narrowness of the lateral wales, which
makes the image of the Athlit ram very
hypothetical in this place. If we compare a
frontal view of the Delos and Samothrace
rams, we find that their attachment to the
structures is in fact in a frontal circle,
which poses a problem in view of the rec-
tangular profile of the Athlit ram. In the
monumental series, only the ship from the
Tiber island allows us to preserve the rec-
tangular starting line of the wales of the
ram, barely sketched out. Mocchegiani
Carpano 1983, 22.
Fig. 4: Hypothesis for the frontal view.
On the left, the proposed model. On the right, hypothe-
sis of the bow lines following the ‘narrowing’ or with
the planking covering the counter-stem (P. Tisseyre)

connection with the stem of the
ship. One possibility is that the
structure would extend along the
stem, as far as the external plate in
contact with the rostral bronze.
Following the stratigraphy of the
species, however, we can no longer
speak of a single ‘central beam’ but
of a complex construction, com-
posed of at least 10 elements, of
which at least 5 form the ‘central
group’, reinforced by a double
metal jacket and bolts.
The central group seems indeed to
be the main element of the con-
struction, aiming at the warlike
shock, the so-called ‘driving center’.
Moreover, two long horizontal lead
blades are observed to longitudi-
nally divide timbers (no. 14). It
seems that the central part is there-
fore not a closed rectangular ‘box’
as shown by Buccellato and Tusa35.
This metal structure
36
could open
on both sides, two ‘fins’ supporting
other wooden elements covering
the pegs of the two filling timbers
(no. 6–7). Because of the presence
of the mortises and tenons of the
visible part of the wood, other side
pieces now disappeared (no. 5–8)
would have been installed (
fig. 6
).
Already in 2008 it was questioned
whether the structure would not
follow the shape of the fins
37
. The
timbers are crossed by at least two
large horizontal nails 52 cm long
(their diameter − deformed by
Acqualadroni
28
. Obviously, the very
shape of the bow was closely relat-
ed to the shape of the ram
29
(
fig. 4
).
Central part of the ram
In the construction drawings of the
galley OLYMPIAS
30
made using infor-
mation from the Athlit ram, Oaks
produced a plan (no. 20) with a
lower angle for the oblique
counter-stem reinforcing the stem.
The section of the ram also reveals
a stem timber arrangement very
close to that of Acqualadroni
(“Hull datum”, section 2). At
Acqualadroni, the angle of the
counter-stem (in the cowl) with
the upper fin is 65°. For the
OLYMPIAS, the extension of
the stem in the metallic
ram was connected to
the keel with a Jupiter
shaft joint and reinforced with
large nails
31
. This is in accordance
with the model proposed by Steffy
− a metallic reinforcement of the
wooden elements, on older models
− , a wooden assembly organic to
the construction of the ship, in
extension of the keel and forefoot
supported by what was called the
‘Samian’ modification
32
(
fig. 5
).
At Acqualadroni, if the position of
the ‘central group’ (no. 10/11/9/
6/7) is also in extension to the
ship’s keel, the term keel for such
element is misused. (no. 9). In the
upper part of the central ramming
are found keel extensions, as seen
on commercial ships as early as the
5th century: at Ma‘agan Mikael, a
mixed-build ship, and on the
Roman wrecks of Cap Dramont or
Anse des Laurons
33
. The angle of
insertion of these keel extensions,
calculated from the tail, is about
73° in relation to the counter stem
axis. Technically, the presence of
several elements would favour the
internal dispersion of forces in case
of a frontal impact
34
.
Other elements are difficult to
inter pret. After having noted the
presence of more metal elements
(spikes, etc.) visible after restora-
tion, it remains unclear how the
metal ‘case’ would close in the rear
or upper part of the ram, nor of its
concretions − is 6 cm at the head),
almost rectangular in section, but
with round heads. These nails
twisted and bent downwards
would not pass through according
to Buccellato and Tusa, specifying
that they intersect in the mass of
wood. Moreover, they state that the
wood of the lateral wales would be
held together only by these nails,
the holes of which would have
been drilled before the ram was
placed in its metal casing
38
.
These nails would therefore have
been set before the ram was put in
place, on which they would
have been attached. However,
we noted that the recoil of
the timbers in the ram surely
caused them to break and move,
at least for the bolts B-B’. Ob serving
various monumental rams of the
Hellenistic period, especially the
Cyrene ram
39
, a similar design of the
heads of the nails is seen, either in
front of or behind the hilt of the
swords. Traces of ‘bolt/spikes heads’
can also be found on commemora-
tive and fu nerary monumental
rams, and on real rams
40
, thus attest-
ing to the existence of this method
of fastening.
20. Jahrgang 2020
133
28
Ermetti 1981; Tisseyre 2013.
29
We should question whether the boat
was in fact built around the rostral appara-
tus, and not the latter adapted to it.
30
Morrison – Coates 1996: This is there-
fore a practical choice, given the theoretical
chronological difference between the two
structures, an Athenian galley from the
century of Pericles and a late Hellenistic
ram.
31
Drawings freely available on the site:
<www.triremetrust.org.uk> (8.1.2021).
32
Steffy 1994; Basch 1987, 355–359.
33
Santamaria 1975, 189 fig. 5; Gassend et
al. 1984, 97 fig. 19; Kahanov 1998 159 fig. 5.
34
Steffy 1994.
35
Buccellato – Tusa 2012, fig. 12.
36
Caruso 2009; Tisseyre 2019: The analy-
sis has determined a Cypriote origin for
this lead.
37
Tisseyre 2013, 4.
38
Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 26.
39
Ermetti 1981.
40
Steinhauer 2001.
Fig. 5:
connection counter
stem/forefoot/
ramming center
with hypothe -
tical angles
(P. Tisseyre)

Lateral parts of the ram:
wales and bottom strakes
The lateral fastening to the lateral-
bottom strakes
41
(no1. 2. 3. 4) is
also not obvious. At least four tim-
bers, or even six, stem from the
widest horizontal part of the ram,
occupying the lateral pockets of the
bronze ram, instead of the two ele-
ments proposed by Buccellato.
However, the system of the metallic
inner linings, whose presence is
intended to reinforce the internal
structure of the timbers
42
, indicates
a complex construction of mixed
techniques
43
.
For the Marsala sister ship, the fas-
tening of the two elements suggests
an abutment on the forefoot, or
keel, at right angles to the stem.
The linked parts are in the form of
two half-skis or ‘tusks’, a feature
either linked to a cutwater
44
, or a
practical landing system
45
, or to a
ram missing few parts
46
. The obvi-
ous traces on these parts support
the latter hypothesis: the ram was
probably covered by a metal as -
sembly. The keel is therefore no
longer directly related to the ram,
and if the keel were, it would in any
case be a forefoot, extending the
rostral axis.
For the Athlit ram, the hypothetical
solution proposed by Coates and
Morrison uses an arrangement
angled at 90° between the stem and
the keel. The ‘preceintes’ (here
called ‘wales’ and assumed to be ex -
ternal to the planking) were in fact
keeping the ram horizontally in
place. Vertically, this was ensured
by the counter-stem and three
more timbers, one of which is the
keel or rather a forefoot.
It must be noted that in the Athlit
ram, the keel is undersized in rela-
tion to the frontal ramming. The
separation of the keel in a forefoot
is well known for the trading ships
of the Roman period and in partic-
ular the large ship of the Madrague
de Giens (with inverted bow). On
the Madrague de Giens, this part
was divided into three consecutive
elements, reinforced from under-
neath by a small piece by means of
so-called Jupiter’s shaft joints, a
134
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
41
The term “bottom strake” in Italian
does not correspond to the garboard tim-
ber, the first wale laid next to the keel: the
internal layout of the rams is not that of
the ship. The term therefore indicates the
boards located on the underside of the
ram. However, the angle of the section of
the lateral pockets of the ram can give us a
clue about the angle of the garboard at this
level, following the waterline.
42
Opposite to Buccellato – Tusa 2017, 23,
nothing indicates why these strakes would
“not be robust”. The double reinforcement
tends to prove the contrary. Thus, this
hypothesis of ‘non-robust’ wales tries to
make the studied piece coincide with the
descriptions of the Pompeian ships by
Appian and Dion Cassius during the Battle
of the Naulochus.
43
Basch 1996, 69 n. 8. saw in the continu-
ity of Athlit’s lateral strakes a “novelty”,
while he deemed the ram of the Sister Ship
of Marsala “archaic”. The discovery of
Phanagoria ram shows us other ways for
this too linear evolution: cf. Kuzmin 2017.
44
Murray et al. 2017.
45
Averdung – Pedersen 2012.
Fig. 6: a. The tenons still in place (2008). – b. The brass and the ring under the
counter stem (P. Tisseyre)
46
Basch 1996, fig. 37; Wegener Sleeswyk
1996, 100.
47
Pomey 1996. The ending of the plank-
ing (bordé) on a straight stem causes the
final structures of the rostral apparatus to
widen: the rams, depending on the size of
the vessel, become wider at their base and
are more voluminous. This causes an
increase in rostral structural elements. The
appearance of the stolos changed the pro-
file of the triers as early as the 6th century,
also causing the rams to lengthen along the
axis of the keel. The width and weight of
the ships, however, led to a profound mod-
ification of the hull lines, which resulted in
a rostral modification. The stem angle of
some of the small Aegadian rams also sug-
gests other possible designs on keels/fore-
foot, which are much more rounded than
in Acqualadroni. In turn, this widening at
the stem for large ships thus leads to a pro-
found change in the internal rostral struc-
tures. The central ramming device, which
is more imposing, must be firmly attached
to the bow of the vessel. The upper angle of
the ‘cowl’ gives the counter-stem line.

of the Aegates, which were lighter
(1/3), while the waterline wale was
probably lower
52
. The Acquala dro -
ni ram is elongated at its base, and
its angle of support and attach-
ment to the bow is completely dif-
ferent – clearly not the same type
of bow design between these ships,
nor the same type of ship, without
the possibility to determine whe -
ther there is any evolution.
The Configuration 2, redesigned
by Royal
53
, re-examines the attach-
ment of the timbers to the keel: the
waterline of the trireme armed
with a cutwater being much lower,
to the detriment of the reconstruc-
tion of the Athenian trireme of
Mor rison and Coates, in ‘duck’s
beak’, closer to the Hellenistic mo -
dels, whose waterline was calculat-
ed between 1.15 and 1.35 m, ac -
cording to the hypothetical weight
of the triremes
54
. The straightening
of the ram on the keel causes a
reduction in the width of the stem,
as the small rams of the Aegates
seem to indicate. On their model
(inspired by the Athlit ram), Mor -
rison and Coates had compensated
for this problem by adding side tri-
angular parts outside the ram,
fixed by oblique fillers strakes. In
the absence of calculations taking
again the specific drawing of the
ram of Acqualadroni, the waterline
at the height of the ‘trough ears’
can be suggested by the presence of
marine wear of the beaks of the
kopis
.
20. Jahrgang 2020
135
48
Basch 1996.
49
Murray 2006, 340 fig. 15–16.
50
The model proposed by Bonino to
Aquilea seems too weak, because of its sca-
lene triangulation in opposition to the
right angle of the other architectures. But
maybe this model was useful for little
ships. See Duval 1949, pl. III.
51
Tusa – Buccellato 2012.
52
Tisseyre 2013; Allard 2018.
53
Murray et al. 2017, fig 4. This hypothet-
ical representation was made to try to
guess the structure of an 8th/7th century BC
forefoot as depicted in various pottery
illustrations, using the Marsala Sister Ship
profile for comparison.
54
See Morrison – Coates 1996; Poveda
2013; Polakowski 2016.
Fig. 7: Rams and geometrical characterization of the trough ears (Egadi 1, 12:
Soprintendenza del Mare; Egadi 6: Royal – Tusa 2012, 23 fig. 9; Acqualadroni:
P. Tisseyre)
technique attested as early as the 4th
century BC
47
. A double forefoot is
also seen in the model of the Delos
ships graffiti
48
. As the forward parts
are no longer along the axis of the
keel, the solutions are several.
Stems are getting longer, thus the
angle of the stolos and the counter-
stem are changing.
At Acqualadroni the system of
forefoot under the ramming front
may reveal a mixed structure, as
result of oriental or even Punic
influences (the double ‘ski ram’ of
the Marsala ship). In Acqualadroni
these are tightened to support the
central core, independent of the
keel, as shown by the timbers of
Athlit and the tenons pegged in the
forefoot. When the ram was
removed from the ship, more or
less abruptly, the trace of this sup-
port elements remained, readable
on the arch of Orange (but disap-
peared in Nicopolis, then re-invert-
ed in their stilts sketching in nega-
tive their central ramming)
49
.
It is also necessary to observe the
external design of the Aegates
rams: the appearance of the ears
can now be dated to at least the
third century BC. There is a differ-
entiation between the concave and
convex series (fin tail/inlet), which
undoubtedly reflects diversifica-
tions in the connections between
the stems of the ships and the rams
(
fig. 7
). In this context, the low line
(tail place) of the rams gives a
glimpse of the constructive choic-
es: sharper (Athlit, Acqualadroni)
or rounder (Egadi 1, 6 etc.). But for
the Nicopolis monument, the rams
are truncated from an essential ele-
ment of this rostral part, their ‘ears’
which would protect the connec-
tion between forefoot, filling tim-
bers and keel.
The abutments of lateral wales are
also modified (probably already in
the classical period). This evolu-
tion of the
hypozomata
of Classical
and then Hellenistic ships is thus
reflected in the rostral architecture.
These rams were probably better
able to withstand shocks
50
.
Lower part of the ram
No wooden elements are inserted
under the central metal ‘box’ as
shown by Tusa and Buccellato
51
(
fig. 3
). The metal casing seems to
surround the central assembly
(nos. 10, 11, 9, 6, 7), from which
the two elements attached to the
‘false keel/forefoot’ (5, 8) begin.
The lines of the Acqualadroni ram
allow to assess its positioning over
the bow, similar to Athlit, but lower
than to those of the Roman ships

This hypothesis is supported by the
absence of wooden elements under
the metal plate, at the level of the
tailpiece (fr: empennage): either
the two plates fit into the lower part
of the keel, and without other ele-
ments, or the latter are so crushed
that they are not identifiable. The
movement of the mass of wood
inside the ram could have crushed
or displaced wooden parts located at
the level of the ‘false keel/forefoot’, or
rather the ‘lower central group’. As
we see before, the cores carried out
in 2009 only yielded wood and
metal dust in this area
55
.
The presence of two different spe -
cies of wood in the lower part of
the ram, with their tenons and
mortises, as well as the oak pegs, in
fact constitute the filling of this
substrum
(under tailpiece), at least
in the part still in place at the time
of discovery. This division of the
timbers, visible to the naked eye,
raises the question of the connec-
tion between these elements and
the ram’s stem.
On the right side of the ram, we
can observe two asymmetrical
joints with notched tenons (dist. 11
cm) between the ‘false-keel/fore-
foot’ and other existing parts inside
the ram
56
. This arrangement seems
to be repeated on the left side, as
indicated by a pin still in place and
the visible shaft hole of a second
pin. We therefore have two parallel
pieces (no. 5–8). These pieces are
probably not an extension of the
keel, but rather in the extension of
a ‘false-keel/forefoot’, at least in the
lower part of the tail. Similarly, it is
possible, given the height of the
mortises placed less than 2 cm
from the under-tail, that some of
these pegs may have been placed
under the forward part. The false-
keel/forefoot extension, which
doubles the keel externally, is made
of strong planking placed along the
entire length of the latter and giv-
ing it protection in case of ground-
ing, reinforced by a copper lining.
It is obvious that other elements,
the external parts of which have
been torn off, were connected aft to
the ship’s bow, the latter being
reinforced by these parts (no. 5, 6,
7, 8), placed under the keel. Their
butt joint is located at the level of the
trough ears, whose role would be to
protect this joint later, by reinforcing
it at the level of the strakes.
It is therefore likely that other fill-
ing pieces were inserted at the ros-
tral tail, especially laterally, as
shown by the tenons. Here a simi-
lar design to Athlit (plank/keel/
plank) would be plausible, but with
a different layout; perhaps with a
bottom keel reinforcement, as
Royal had foreseen for the naval
rams of the Aegates
57
.
The configuration of the
substrum
,
the lower part of the line of the
ram under the tail, triangular and
not quadrangular as in Athlit, must
be reviewed
58
. In Athlit, such a qua -
drangular configuration was neces-
sary over the width of the ram to
support the insertion of the tim-
bers at this height, i. e. at the keel
according to Steffy. In Acqua la -
droni the ‘false keel/forefoot’, al -
ready inserted in the second ‘lead
shell’, does not need this continu-
ous width, because it is embedded
only in its final part (width 7 cm),
which obviously does not corre-
spond to its total width. The trian-
gular shape of the underside of the
tailpiece reflects a hydrodynamic
design, more than a real need for
support, if not in its part in contact
with the bow.
This implies that the lead shell
probably extended on the ‘keel/
forefoot/keel block’ assembly, which
the tailpiece covered, and the keel
block may have had a triangular
section to fit in the channel.
Other Construction techniques
To conclude, other details relating
to the attachment of the ram to the
bow can be highlighted. According
to Tusa and Buccellato, the internal
metal plate (‘lamina 1’, no. 14) is a
fungicide
59
, due to traces of copper
sulphides.
In the research conducted by
Patrick Frank
60
, the presence of sul-
phides is indeed determined, but it
is the product of a chemical reac-
tion between seawater and the
metal, an issue that is endangered
is conservation in open air. The
timbers are heavily contaminated
by the presence of the metal plates
made of copper and by the lead
alloy, as shown by the analyses of
Tusa and Caponetti on the decom-
posed chemical elements
61
.
Romagnoli had identified an “un -
usual tissue” of the wood, probably
the under-bark and its resin, called
“black sample” by Caruso
62
. Frank’s
analysis also explains this by pres-
ence of resinoid acid: as proof that
pine pitch has been used between
the lateral filler strakes as caulking
material
63
. However, this by-prod-
uct can have different explana-
tions:
136
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
55
Romagnoli et al. 2010. For sketches of
keels of commercial ships: Dubois 1976.
For studies of keel volume: Littlefield 2012;
Royal – Tusa 2019; Allard 2018.
56
The connection with the bow depends
on the constructive choice: the flange fol-
lows the curve of the bow but may have
been extended. False keels have been
observed on the wrecks of Ma‘agan
Mikhael: Kahanov 2003, 58–63 figs. 13. 17.
19. 20. 21; Kyrenia: Steffy 1994, 43. 54, and
Herculaneum: Steffy 1985, 520, see
Littlefield 2012. For the false-keel,
Theophrastus describes the types of wood
used (On plants 5,7,2–3; 5,8,3) suggesting
that their use was common for merchant
ships. Julius Pollux defines the term (Ono -
masticon I,86): “That which is nailed to the
underside of the keel as a finishing piece so
that the keel is not rubbed is called
Chelysma.”
57
Royal – Tusa 2019, 41.
58
Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 22.
59
Tusa – Buccellato 2012; and therefore a
sign of the “long conservation of wood in
shipyards”: it would therefore be the trace
of a “voluntary ageing of the wood”, useful
to his theory.
60
Frank et al. 2012. His research excludes
beeswax as caulking, which Pliny quotes
(Hist. Nat. 16,23), usually mixed with pine
resin for caulking ships. It is possible that
this ‘black patina’ is also the result of a par-
ticular biological attack due to low water:
cf. Antonelli et al. 2020.
61
Tusa – Caponetti 2016.
62
Romagnoli et al. 2010; Caruso et al. 2009.
63
Oron 2006, 75–76. Analysis did not
reveal any evidence of pitch caulking, to

– The central timbers could have
been covered with a layer of
pine resin to prevent the attack
of marine agents. However, the
application of pitch seems
unnecessary. Firstly, these tim-
bers are sealed by metallic lay-
ers, and secondly such resin is
inflammable, which would not
be compatible with Buccellato’s
‘horizontal casting’ theory.
– The remains of the pine bark,
more precisely the under-bark,
is rich in resin which would
have penetrated into the wood
under the pressure of the
metallic ram, and it is still visi-
ble in section as a darker line;
– Another explanation could be
found in the Greek term
κόλλα
,
kolla,
alluded to by Aristo pha -
nes and already discussed by J.
André and then Lucien Basch.
This substance was used where
unhardened bent timber creates
voids and cracks, especially in
hastily built fleets. The mixture
would have been used more like
a filler than a glue
64
.
Finally, it is clear that other ele-
ments are missing and many ques-
tions cannot be answered, especial-
ly concerning the butt joint of the
stem. Moreover, the central ‘lami-
na’, probably made of separate ele-
ments, seems to extend also verti-
cally on the upper edges of the
ram, and not horizontally like
Buccellato sketched
65
(
fig. 3
).
It is possible that there are several
independent plates placed on the
central ramming timber, following
the design of the blades of the ram,
spaced about 15 cm from the base.
The lateral mortises do not seem to
be obstructed by a metal covering,
unless the metal parts that covered
the pegs (which disappeared dur-
ing the restoration) are actually the
trace of this closed part, which was
then exposed to marine agents (
fig. 8
).
Results
The “simplicity”
66
of the arrange-
ment of the timbers is far from
being proven, but can we speak of
an ‘evolution’? The presence of
tenons and mortises is currently
attested on the keels of Late Bronze
Age to Hellenistic ships, and before
them on Phoenician ships. There -
fore it isn’t a chronological clue for
the ‘romanization’ of the ram
67
.
The recent discovery of a small ram
decorated with the medallion of
Mithridate VI King of Pontus, at
Phanagoria
68
gives us a glimpse on
the continuity of certain construc-
tive legacies, whose history is un -
known for now: Are these traces of
archaisms and/or innovations? What
were the changes, limits and adap-
tations of these models? At Acqua -
ladroni, the double metal plates are
20. Jahrgang 2020
137
oversize the pattern of the primary core as
in Athlit.
64
Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusai V,52;
Basch 1978, 26. 28. However, if the pres-
ence of pine bark is considered a sign of
constructive haste, other researchers have
also linked the use of green wood with its
workability. Green timbers can be bent
quickly without waiting for drying, as
found on the wreck of Madrague de Giens:
Pomey 1998. This aspect would therefore
show, on the contrary, that great care was
taken in the construction, even though sea-
soned timbers were not used.
65
Buccellato 2016.
66
Tusa – Buccellato 2012.
67
The mortise-and-tenon technique is at -
tested on the wrecks of Ulu Burun (14th c.
BC), Cape Gelidonya (13th c. BC), Mazar -
rón (7th c. BC). It is to this Phoenician her-
itage that Cato (ad Agr., XXI,18,9) perhaps
alludes as coagmenta punica: cf. Pomey
2009; Poveda 201; Littelfield 2012, 149–159
table 5,1. 2.
68
Kuzmin 2017.
Fig. 8: a. The pins still in place with their metal heads (lost after restoration).
Distance between pins. – b. On right, trace of brass liners (after restoration)
(P. Tisseyre)

an
unicum
, but cannot be de scribed
as innovative in ab solute terms,
since there nothing to compare to.
The origin of this innovative mo -
del, if there is one, can undoubted-
ly be traced to two crafts: ship-
wrightery and metallurgy. Metal
has long been used in statuary and
ship repairing, no tab ly by the
installation of repair patches or
lead roofing skirts
69
. Such com-
plexity, however, invites to rethink
how the ram was fastened to the
ship and raises new questions.
Repairs on cargo ships are known
70
,
and historical sources describe
such practice in times of war
71
. The
salvaging of timbers for the Acqua -
ladroni ram would have meant that
three centuries old wood would
have been used to rebuild almost
the entire ship in the urgency of a
military action
72
. According to Tusa
and Buccellato, a new piece of
wood could have been used with
the other older salvaged timbers.
Therefore, it would mean that the
ram was removed from a ship (or
rather a wreck) from the 4th century
BC, and then repaired with a new
wooden piece from the 2nd cent ury
BC, covered successively by the var-
ious metal elements of the ram
73
.
The wooden samples taken by Tusa
and Buccellato, however, do not
allow to pinpoint the exact loca-
tion of these ‘repairs’ because their
provenance is unclear. The first
sample, dated to the second centu-
ry BC, was taken from the ‘lateral
strakes’, the wales (no. 1–2), and is
therefore supposed to be outside
the central metallic ‘box’ (no.
10/11/9/6/7). However, all the tim-
bers used for the connection in the
central group are dated between
the mid-4th and the mid-3rd century
BC, including their second sample
(end 5th to mid-4th century BC) and
no repairs seem to have been made
there
74
.
In any case, the first external pro-
tection should have been melted
down again, as a result of this
repair. It is indeed essential not to
lose sight of the fact that these
repairs would only be made under
the double or triple rostral shell:
unlike the examples of civilian
repaired wrecks, any salvaging/
reuse/repair was to be carried out
on the Acqualadroni ship, either
before the metallic ram was placed,
or after removal and before each
naval operation.
Thus it should be asked whether
the large transverse spikes could be
interpreted as evidence of these
‘repairs’
75
. However, the presence
of comparative elements on the
Hellenistic monumental rams and
the homogeneity of the assemblage
do not suggest any later repairs or
reinforcements. It is possible that
the vessel was repaired, and the fre-
quency of repairs on ships shows
that it was the norm and not the
exception. However, in the pre-
served portion at least, there is cur-
rently no evidence that such oper-
ations took place.
Other elements support this view:
the use of oak tenons, chosen for
their much higher density, ideal for
resisting cracks under the pressure
of the wooden dowels covered by
the metal; the quality of the tim-
bers and the homogeneity in the
wood species; other points in
favour are the homogeneity in the
calibrated dating of the timbers, as
well as the complexity of the fas-
tening between metal, timbers, and
the bolts. These last elements made
a solid construction at the level of
the ‘trough ears’
76
, thus difficult to
repair structure
77
(
fig. 9
).
138
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
69
Kahanov 1999. The total coverage of
warships with lead cladding has been con-
tested because of the resulting weight,
which could have affected their manoeu-
vrability: Lytle 2013. But it is also possible
that protection existed on the bow of the
ship, according to the iconography. For the
lead protection of the ship of Hieronymus
II of Syracuse cf. Athenaios, Deipno so -
phistae V,10,206d–207b.
70
see Steffy 1985; Steffy 1994; Steffy 1999;
Allevato et al. 2010; Rossi 2014.
71
Polybius, Hist.1,29,1; Caesar, Gallic
Wars 4,31,1–3.
72
Blackman 1996. Cf. Thucydides, The
Peloponnesian War VII,25,1–2.
73
Data corrected with median OxCal
2013 at 99.7 %. No. 1: 2116 (27) “203–50
BC” = 353–41 av. J.-C. median 139 BC. No.
2: 2277 (30) “III BC” = 406–211, median
364 BC.
74
All the data have been reviewed with
Oxcal 2017 and wiggle matching. Median
for central ram: 287–279 BC. Tisseyre
2019, 83–105.
75
Postieux 2015; Rossi 2014.
Fig. 9: Overview of the assembling (M. Ditta)

Assembling the metal parts of
the ram
Technical legacies are the result of
experiments, or revolutions that in
time became traditions. The inno-
vative traits found in the ram of
Acqualadroni can be seen as ‘evolu-
tion’ compared to the rams of
Athlit (214–164) or the Aegates
(260–241), neither of which has
evidence of double metal linings
(internal and external).
Little is known about the moderni-
sation of the Republican fleet
described by Polybius, except that
the Romans seized Rhodian ships
and copied their models at least
twice between 260 and 241 BC
78
.
Dif ferences in production were
highlighted by Royal for the rams
of the Aegates
79
. For at least three
series, a repetitive and design and
system is seen with very slight vari-
ations over 20 years (according to
the archaic inscriptions
80
), reflect-
ing in part the standardization of
the bow lines of Roman ships for
the Aegates. For at least a dozen
rams, the difference between a
Roman ram and a Punic copy does
not seem to emerge
81
.
According to the Tusa and Buc cel -
lato’s theory, “the precision of the
decorations suggests that the ram
was made using the technique of
lost wax casting directly on the part
of the boat that housed it”
82
. This
‘horizontal casting theory’ would
therefore have been an alternative
to the theory of modified vertical
direct casting
83
, which suggests a
direct shaping of the ram on the
bow. This notion creates confusion
with the direct process of invest-
ment casting, a cast in a single pour
through. In 2017, Buccellato adds
that the metal inner lining of the
ram no. 15 would have allowed this
process. However, if wood can tol-
erate small castings of molten lead
without burning
84
, the melting
point of bronze is 890° C or even
higher for its treatment. At these
temperatures, wood burns irreme-
diably (the point of self-combus-
tion is around 250 °C), even if pro-
tected by a 4–5 mm thick lead
sheeting. On the ram of Acqua la -
droni, the lead of the sheath/plate
no. 15 has not melted. Thus, the
bronze has certainly been placed
coldly on the timbers of the bow.
Buccellato further specifies: “the
nails were not manufactured in
advance, but were probably created
by casting molten lead into perfo-
rations in the assembled wooden
structure. This theory is supported
both by traces of burnt wood
attached to the nails and by the
irregularity of their surfaces”
85
.
However, the deformation of the
bolts is simply due to the chemical
process of degradation of metals in
seawater. The latest chemical stud-
ies have established that these
‘molten lead’ spikes are made of
copper, a metal with a melting
point of 1083° C
86
. Therefore, there
is no doubt that these spikes were
prepared in advance. Moreover, by
pouring metal at this point, the
ram would have been considerably
weakened in its structure precisely
where these bolts should have rein-
forced it. As for the traces of burnt
wood, neither the photographic
close-ups nor the autoptic exami-
nation show any carbonization
around these spikes, which no che -
mical analysis has revealed
87
. The
heads of the spikes could have been
heated to flatten them, but this
operation could only have taken
place, in any case, after the installa-
tion without any contact with the
timbers.
For some Aegadian rams, the hy -
po thesis of an indirect investment
casting has been put forward.
Thus, the welding of several parts
would have been the most com-
mon constructive techniques for
Aegadian rams in the 3rd century BC.
On some small Aegadian rams
such traces are preserved only in -
side the rams, and perhaps some
parts were welded later, especially
inside the tail
88
.
Direct/modified investment cast-
ing with lost wax of the bronze is
still the most probable for a com-
pact object of this size (± 300 kg).
As for the Athlit ram (465 kg), for
the Acqualadroni ram neither
autoptic examination nor radi-
ographic analysis have led to the
identification of a division into two
shells, or a central weld line. The
trace of spacers external to the hull,
arranged in a T-shape on the sur-
face of the upper wing of the ram
and under the tailpiece, suggests
the existence of a direct shaping,
usually used for casting. Such as
Athlit, the final casting was proba-
bly carried out in a single, and
therefore effectively direct mould.
Even if primary mould could have
been shaped in part on the timbers,
undoubtedly the ram was cast sep-
arately and then applied to the ship.
Therefore, this technique is a varia-
tion in the operational sequence of
casting proposed by Asaf Oron,
with a primary shaping for the
lead, which could be done indiffer-
ently with both direct and indirect
techniques. It is not possible to
know whether the inside of the
20. Jahrgang 2020
139
76
They could be used to protect the wood
later on when they were shaft-jointed from
the ram. These elements constitute, in our
opinion, a technical marker and have only
been found on rams from the final
Hellenistic period. On the small ram Egadi
12, we notice a sketch of this part.
77
Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 27. Although
they state that the ship could not, under
any circumstances, “be reused or even re -
paired in its internal structures”, the author
proposes a repair with timber from the 2nd
century BC.
78
Basch 1987, 355–359.
79
Royal–Tusa 2019.
80
Gnoli 2016; Prag 2014 .
81
In 2017, Egadi 12, a new ram decorated
closer to the Acqualadroni’s sword has
been recovered by the RPM–Soprin ten -
denza del Mare team.
82
Theory of casting on wood in Buc -
cellato 2016, and confirmed in Buccellato –
Tusa 2017.
83
Oron 2006; Murray 2012.
84
The melting of lead at 327.5° C in a
wooden mould can only be done by adding
antimony to lower this temperature later,
but the percentage of antimony found in
our ram is residual: see Caponetti 2016.
85
Buccellato 2016, 23.
86
Caponetti 2016.
87
These traces of burn (final side of the
tail) may be due to chapping (fr: gerce)
caused by a repair of the ram or fire (vol-
untary or not) of the ship after a battle.
88
See Buccellato 2016, 177. The author
divides, however, into three possible series

decorations is flat, which is a char-
acteristic of the direct investment
wax process. A possibility is that
these traces are hidden behind the
lead coating. Thus, it remains un -
known if the side swords and the
decoration were applied succes-
sively, as the tailpiece/tail piece
could have been, as a ‘positive’
addition to the replica of the ram.
So, the only objective limit to a to -
tal indirect casting at Acqua ladroni
is the external absence of a mould
weld. Has the right part of the tail-
piece been visibly repaired (plates
etc.) or did the mould shells consist
of two front/rear parts, the tail-
piece being cast separately ? This
mixed or double technique is not
uncommon in ancient statuary
89
.
For the insertion of metal in the
timbers, the
sphyrelaton
technique,
according to the logic of direct/
modified casting, could be a viable
solution: a metallic sheathing ham-
mered to a central core of certain
statues, in order to ensure the soli -
dity of the core
90
. For large statu-
ary, this technique allowed the me -
chanical welding of internal plates.
The technique, here, could have
been applied to the Acqualadroni
ram, but with a variant, which is
not directly related to the final
casting process, but can be consid-
ered a legacy of statuary. This tech-
nique, seen as a form of archaism
in monumental statuary, is here
associated with the technique of
indirect casting of bronze statuary,
applied in an undoubtedly innova-
tive way on the ram
91
.
Traces of welds and repairs
The ram also bears several indica-
tions of retouching. It is possible
that the starboard aft section of the
tailpiece was heavily repaired, with
molten metal penetrating through
the internal metal liners into the
wood (fr. gerce). Weld marks indi-
cate the fixing of cracks, which do
not seem to have been caused by
fighting or sinking.
During an autoptical examination
in 2009, it was not possible to veri-
fy whether these welds continued
on the opposite side of the tail-
piece/bottom plate. The lack of
continuity of the welds could point
to a crack repair. It was also possi-
140
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
of castings for the rams of the Aegean, only
two of which have a technique close to that
of Acqualadroni (Egadi 1, Egadi 3). Oron
2006 hypothesizes that the rostral pattern
was made in wax directly on the wooden
part of the bow. Buccellato 2017, 178–179
fig. 15, affirms to have found the trace of
this work in positive (sic) into the ram
Egadi 4.
89
Azéma 2013; Oron 2006; Pridemore
1996.
90
Monteix et al. 2008, 439–447.
91
This technique indirectly explains the
supply, reported by Basch 1978, of “com-
plete warships but without their ram” and
highlights the diversity of the workshops’
orders. The metallurgists would have inter-
vened after the finishing of the rostral tim-
ber structures for the installation of the
weapon, but also directly on the building
site. Buccellato – Tusa 2016, 27 presents the
Fig. 10: Topographical recognition of traces inherent to fusion and repairs under the tailplane (P. Tisseyre).
Arrows: - Green: many repair plates: maybe a lot of the cast bronze was corrected by welding. Note the asymmetrical right side,
perhaps a repair. Otherwise, the asymmetrical layout is the trace of the ‘lead pattern’ shell (if indirect mode), which is
reflected in the shape of the secondary mould (direct mode). Contrary to statuary, the uniqueness of the direct casting
strengthens the structure, avoiding the separation of the castings.
- Blue: alignments of chaplets or spacers. - Red: gerce with run-out in the timbers
- Yellow: gas and wax evacuation drills - Black: front area still covered with marine concretions
- Brown: bubble zone

ble to check the alignment of the
external spacers for casting and the
repair inserts scattered on the tail-
piece. The spacers
92
form two par-
allel lines (ten obvious circular
traces) perpendicular to the axis of
the tailpiece, slightly skewed and
per haps in a spiral pattern, sug -
gest ing an upside-down and tilted
position of the ram during casting
in its mould. A proof of this posi-
tion lies in the terminal part of the
tailpiece, which contains numer-
ous fusion bubbles, typical of verti-
cal casting which causes a variation
in the chemical distribution and
porosity of the alloys
93
. Two other
semi-circular holes correspond to
the outlets for the wax, sufficient to
evacuate the mass of wax and air
under pressure. In the absence of
certainty (others evacuations holes
could have been covered with a
plate) their position is indicated.
Other repairs to the metal which
may have been made prior to
installation only concern adjust-
ments related to the direct/alterna-
tive lost wax bronze casting, with
small bronze rectangles of 3–5 mm
side length, T-shaped, inserted
with hammering into the inter-
stices of the ram after casting,
made during finishing. The upper
part of the ram does not seem to
have undergone as much retouch-
ing, except for a small T-shaped re -
pair. Under the tail, repairs seem to
address melting defects, rather
than simple maintenance, in a part
particularly exposed to shocks (
fig.
10
).
Hypothesis for the chaîne
opératoire
The proposed operational se quence,
which may not be comprehensive
(
fig. 11
), is:
– Step 1: Assembling the timbers
in the central part. The ship’s
bow consists of the stem fas-
tened to the stem forefoot or
the keel (as seen e. g. in the Ma -
dra gue de Giens wreck), the
double forefoot is then fixed to
the keel/forefoot (as seen in the
Sister Ship).
– Step 2: This double forefoot is
covered with a cold hammered
brass plate (plate 1), fixed by nails.
– Step 3: Installation of the cen-
tral ramming (no. 9) on the
plate 1 and the double forefoot.
In addition to the central plate,
possibility of side plates (or
wings) on both sides, solidify-
ing the central unit (
sphyrela-
ton
); insertion of the frontal
ramming with fastening into
the ship stem.
– Step 4: Assembly of the upper
parts: counter-stem and gripe,
which give the upper rostral angle.
– Step 5: Insertion, on the inner
metal plates (plate 1, no. 14)
and mourning with tenons and
mortises of the lateral wales. It
is possible that nails may have
reinforced this assemblage.
20. Jahrgang 2020
141
discovery of traces of lead in the ram of
Follonica. However, it is a small proembo-
lion, thus it cannot be used to confirm that
the use of lead in the ram was a “common
practice”.
92
In the absence of chemical analysis, it
cannot be determined whether some of
these traces belong to chaplets rather than
spa cers. See Oron 2016, 67.
93
Selvaggio Bottacin 2012; Tisseyre 2019,
145–146.
Fig. 11: Operational sequence (M. Ditta – P. Tisseyre)

– Step 6: Lead sheathing: Shaping
with direct or indirect method
in atelier and placement over
the timbers; the lead could also
have been placed cold and ham-
mered.
– Step 7: Separate preparation of
the bronze ram: shaping of the
lead pattern (clay, wax) for the
modified direct casting
94
. The
possible repetition of this shape is
not excluded because of the pos -
sibility of alternate techniques:
the pattern of the lead replica can
be modified depen ding on the
geometry of the stems
95
.
– Step 8: Direct casting of the
bronze ram in the workshop,
pro bably in vertical or oblique
position, as evidenced by the
chemical analysis and concen-
tration of melt bubbles in the
final section of the tailpiece.
– Step 9: Sliding of the cold ram
itself on the lead (plate 2). It is
also possible that plate 2, no. 15
has been slightly heated to sol-
der itself to the bronze struc-
ture. However, the weight alone
of the ram would have been
sufficient, even without heat-
ing, to modify the underlying
lead; this type of contact solder
is attested in the statuary
96
.
– Step 10: Insertion of the upper
copper nails in the cowl and
transverse locking spikes in the
central structure where the
access holes have already been
drawn and drilled in the mould
beforehand.
– Step 11: Probable finishing and
smoothing.
– Step 12: Use, repairs under the tail.
Conclusions
The presented analysis has high-
lighted new conclusions:
– The stratigraphy of the species
has revealed a much more com-
plex arrangement of the rostral
timbers, closer to the pluri-stra -
tification of the Athlit ram
97
.
– The presence of the internal
metal plates and the lead cover-
ing demonstrate complexity
behind the fastening of the ram
to the bow.
– The partially revealed traces of
the melting of the ram confirm
a mixed method of manufac-
ture, which belongs to the
ancient statuary but which was
adapted to this specific task. Its
main lines remain those pro-
posed by Asaf Oron
98
.
Furthermore, the main character-
istic of the two rams of Athlit and
Acqualadroni, their lateral ‘trough
ears’, is certainly a marker. The
spikes at the level of these trough
ears on the Acqualadroni ram are
an essential element for fixing the
bronze ram to the ship’s bearing
structure. This element is also
sketched on the very recent Egadi
12 ‘Punic’ ram whose weight does
not exceed 100 kg
99
. For the Athlit
ram, given the much heavier dis-
placement, the system of double
internal plates and spikes simply
could have been not suitable: when
spikes exceed a given length, they
are keener to deformations. They
could have easily bent under
impact against an opponent and
thus not a viable solution for rein-
forcement according to the ship-
builders.
The structure of Acqualadroni ram
would reflect a different construc-
tion technique, perhaps because of
its size. Many wooden parts of the
Athlit ram can compensate for its
size, and one might wonder what
would have been the internal fas-
tening system of the giant rams of
Nicopolis. The discovery of the
Egadi 12 ram (241 B.C.) calls into
question the ‘more compact evolu-
tion”
100
: being much smaller than
the ram of Acqualadroni, if the lat-
ter were more recent, it would thus
attest an evolution towards a late
Hellenistic gigantism clearly visible
on the Nicopolis monument, sup-
porting William Murray’s theo-
ries
101
.
The convergence, parallelism and
alteration of techniques must be
considered, if the semantic of evo-
lutionary biology should be used
102
.
As in Athlit and no doubt else-
where, the shipbuilders of warships
had to surround themselves with
the best specialists of their time.
Founders and sailors had to work
in the shipyards: it is possible that
some techniques could have been
tested with more or less success.
The rams of Athlit and Acqua -
ladroni, surely a few years apart,
and very close in their lines, are
however different in their internal
structures. The development of the
attachment of rams to the prows,
like that of shipbuilding, probably
does not follow a straight path,
with legacies rich in complex tech-
nical diversity.
Bibliography
142
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta
94
In this sense, these methods are more
akin to an indirect casting technique.
95
Contrary to the scenario presented by
Oron 2006, which suggests the difficulties
in adapting rams in series to vessels that
are each time slightly different. It seems
that series have existed for the rams of the
Aegates: see Tusa – Royal 2012, 19; Buc cell -
ato 2016. We can assume that from the
same pattern, a series of identical shapes
are created. It would therefore not be nec-
essary to manoeuvre too much weight on
the shipyard nor to fear slight variations in
the shape of the bow, as the lead copy
would be much more malleable, and sup-
port to be adapted with low temperature.
96
Azéma 2013, 203.
97
The progress of tomography, however,
will no doubt soon allow an internal read-
ing of the ram, which we hope will be non-
invasive. See Agresti et al. 2016.
98
Oron 2006; Murray 2012, 35–38.
99
Tisseyre 2019, 196. This discovery also
disproved the theory (Buccellato – Tusa
2016, 35) on the decoration of rams with
three swords for the mid 1st century BC.
100
Buccellato – Tusa 2017.
101
See Blackman 1996; Bockius 2007;
Murray 2012.
102
Walsh – Riede – O’Neill 2019, 49–69.
Averdung – Pedersen 2012
D. Averdung – R.K. Pedersen, The Marsala
Punic Warships: Reconsidering their na -
ture and function of the ram, Skyllis 12-2,
2012, 125–131
Allard 2018
P. Allard, Caractéristiques nautiques et per-
formances des navires antiques, l’apport de
l’architecture navale associée aux recherch-
es archéologiques, Mémoire de l’École des
Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales 2(Paris
2018)
Agresti et al. 2016
I. Agresti – I. Osticioli – M. C. Guidotti –

N. Kardjilov – S. Siano, Non-Invasive Ar -
chaeo metallurgical Approach to the
In vestigations of Bronze Fgurines Using
Neutron, Laser and X-ray Techniques,
Microchemical Journal 124, 2016, 765–774
Allevato et al. 2010
E. Allevato – E. Russo Ermolli – G. Boetto
– C. Di Pasquale – Pollen-Wood Analysis at
the Neapolis Harbour Site (1st–3rd century
AD), Southern Italy, and its Archeo logical
Implication, Journal of Archeo lo gical
Science 37, 2010, 2363–2375
Azéma 2013
A. Azéma, Les techniques de soudage de la
grande statuaire antique en bronze: étude
des paramètres thermiques et chimiques
contrôlant le soudage par fusion au bronze
liquide (Paris 2013)
Basch 1978
L. Basch, Éléments d’architecture navale
dans les lettres grecques, l’Antiquité Clas -
sique 47-1, 1978, 5–36
Basch 1987
L. Basch, Le musée imaginaire de la marine
antique (Athènes 1987)
Basch 1996
L. Basch, Note sur l’éperon, in: H. Tzalas,
Tropis IV. 4th International Symposium on
Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens
1991 (Athens 1996) 32–90
Blackman 1996
D. Blackman, New Evidence for Ancient
Ship Dimensions, in: H. Tzalas, Tropis IV.
4th International Symposium on Ship Con -
struction in Antiquity, Athens 1991 (Athens
1996) 113–126
Bockius 2007
R. Bockius, Schifffahrt und Schiffbau in
der Antike (Stuttgart 2007)
Bonino 2001
M. Bonino, Una prua in marmo di nave
rostrata al museo archeologico di Aquileia:
analisi e spunti sulle triremi romane, in:
Strutture portuali e rotte marittime nell’
Adriatico di Età Romana, Antichità Alto -
adriatiche XLVI (Trieste 2001) 451–466
Buccellato 2016
C. A. Buccellato, La manifattura dei rostri
delle Egadi, in: La Battaglia delle Egadi, atti
del convegno Favignana 2015 (Palermo
2016) 175–184
Buccellato – Tusa 2016
C. A. Buccellato – S. Tusa, Un’ arma navale
del I sec. a. C.: il rostro di Acqualadroni, in:
Scritti in onore di Claudio Mocchegiani
Carpano (Napoli 2016) 19–46
Caponetti 2016
E. Caponetti, Approccio chimico-fisico allo
studio degli elmi della Battaglia delle Egadi
e del rostro di Acqualadroni, in: La Bat ta -
glia delle Egadi, atti del convegno Favi nana
2015 (Palermo 2016) 63–70
Casson – Steffy – Linder 1991
L.Casson – J. R. Steffy – E. Linder, The
Athlit Ram, The Nautical Archaeology
Series 3 (College Station, Texas 1991)
Duval 1949
P.-M. Duval, La forme des navires romains,
d’après la mosaïque d’Althiburus, Mé -
langes d’archéologie et d’histoire 61, 1949,
119–149
Ermetti 1981
A. L. Ermetti, Il monumento navale, l’Ago -
rà di Cirene III,1, Monografie di Archeo -
logia Libica XVI (Roma 1981)
Frank et al. 2012
P. Frank – Caruso F. – E. Caponetti, An -
cient Wood of the Acqualadroni Ram: ma -
terials history trough gas Chroma to gra -
phy/Mass Spectrometry and Sulfur X-ray
absorption Spectroscopy, Analytical Che -
mistry Reue 84-10, 2012, 4419–4428
Frost 1981
H. Frost, Lilybaeum (Marsala). The Punic
Ship. Final Excavation Report, Notizie degli
Scavi di Antichita suppl. 30 (Roma 1981)
Gassend 1982
J.-M. Gassend, Le navire antique du Lacy -
don. L’épave du navire romain découvert
lors des fouilles de la Bourse (Marseille 1982)
Gassend et al. 1984
J.-M. Gassend – B. Liou – S. Ximénès,
L’épave 2 de l’anse des Laurons (Martigues,
Bouches-du-Rhône), Archaeonautica 4,
1984, 75–105
Gnoli 2016
T. Gnoli, Considerazioni vecchie e nuove
sulle iscrizioni dei rostri, in: La Battaglia
delle Egadi, atti del convegno Favignana
2015 (Palermo 2016) 165–174
Hamiaux 2006
M. Hamiaux, La victoire de Samothrace,
Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation
Eugène Piot 85, 2006, 5–60
Kahanov 1998
Y. Kahanov, The Ma‘agan Mikhael Ship (Is -
raël). A comparative study of its hull con-
struction, Archaeonautica 14, 1998, 155–160
Kahanov 1999
Y. Kahanov, Some Aspects of Lead Sheath ing
in Ancient Ship Construction, in: H. Tzalas
(ed.), Tropis V. 5th International Sym posium
on Ship Construction in An tiquity, Nauplia
1993 (Athens 1999) 219–224
Kuzmin 2017
Y. Kuzmin, Таран корабля, in: В. Кузне -
цова, В. Толстикова. М. (eds.), Панти ка -
пей и Фанагория. Две столицы Бос порс -
кого царства (Moscow 2017) 399 Nr. 362
Lehmann et al. 2017
E. H. Lehmann – R. van Lang – M. Ester -
mann – S. Hartmann – F. Lo Celso – N.
Kar djilov – P. Tisseyre – S. Tusa, Bronze
Sculptures and Lead Objects Tell Stories
About Their Creators: Investigation of Re -
naissance Sculptures and Ancient Ingots by
Means of Neutron Tomography, in: N. Kar -
djilov – G. Festa (eds.), Neutron Methods
for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage,
Neutron Scattering Applications and Tech -
niques (Viligen 2017) 19–39
Littlefield 2012
J. D. Littlefield, The Hull Remains of the
Late Hellenistic Shipwreck at Kızılburun,
Turkey (MA Thesis 2012, Texas A&M Uni -
versity)
Lytle
E. Lytle, Farmers into Sailors: Ship Main -
tenance, Greek Agriculture, and the Athe -
nian Monopoly in Kean Ruddle (IG
II2 1128), GrRomByzSt, 53, 2013, 520–550
Monteix et al. 2008
N. Monteix – M. Pernot – A. Coutelas, La
metallurgia del piombo fra archeometria
ed approcci classici, in: P. G. Guzzo – M. P.
Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeo-
logiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003–
2006), Atti del convegno Roma 1–3 feb-
braio 2007, Studi della Soprintendenza
Archeologica di Pompei 25 (Roma 2008)
439–447
Morrison – Coates 1996
J. S. Morrison – J. F. Coates, Die Athenische
Triere. Geschichte und Rekonstruktion
eines Kriegsschiffs der griechischen Antike
(Mainz 1996)
Mocchegiani Carpano 1983
C. Mocchegiani Carpano, l’isola tiberina,
storia e archeologia, in: La nave di pietra.
Storia, architettura e archeologia dell’isola
Tiberina, catalogo della mostra (Milano
1983) 23–32
Murray 2012
W. M. Murray, The Age of the Titans. The
Rise and Falls of the Great Hellenistic
Navies (Oxford 2012)
Murray et al. 2017
W. M. Murray – L. D. Ferreiro – J. Vardalas
20. Jahrgang 2020
143

– J. G. Royal, Cutwaters Before Rams. An
experimental investigation into the origins
and development of the waterline ram,
IntJNautA 46-1, 2017, 72–82
Olaberria 2014
J.-P. Olaberria, The Conception of Hull
Shape by Shell-builders in the Ancient
Mediterranean, IntJNautA 43-2, 2014,
351–368
Oron 2006
A. Oron, The Athlit Ram Bronze Casting
Reconsidered: Scientific and technical re-
examination, Journal of Archaeological
Science 33-1, 2006, 63–76
Polakowski 2016
M. Polakowski, Warships of the First Punic
War. An Archeological Investigation and
Contributory Reconstruction of the Egadi
10 Warship from the Battle of the Egadi
(MA thesis East Carolina University 2016)
Pomey 1998
P. Pomey, Conception et réalisation des
navires dans l’antiquité méditerranéenne,
in: É. Rieth (ed.), Concevoir et construire
les navires. De la trière au picôteux (Ra -
mon ville 1998) 49–72
Pomey 2001
P. Pomey, Préface, in: A. Cartault, La trière
athénienne: étude d’archéologie navale
(Paris 2001) 9–18
Pomey 2009
P. Pomey, Des bateaux cousus aux bateaux
à tenons et mortaises, un exemple d’évolu-
tion des techniques de construction navale,
in: X. Nieto – M. A. Cau (ed.), Arqueologia
Nàutica Mediterrània, Monografies del
CASC 8 (Girona 2009) 357–362
Postiaux 2015
D. Postiaux, La réparation navale antique
en Méditerranée (MA thesis Université
Charles de Gaulle, Lille 3, 2015)
Poveda 2013
P. Poveda, Méthode de restitution des
navires antiques, nouveaux outils et nou-
velles analyses des restitutions en archéolo-
gie navale, Revue d’Histoire maritime 21,
2013, 157–179
Prag 2014
J. R. W. Prag, Inscribed Bronze Rostra from
the Site of the Battle of the Aegates Islands,
Sicily, 241 BC, in: Acta XIV Congressus
Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et
Latinae 27.–31. Augusti MMXII, Avctarivm
Series Nova 4 (Berlin 2014) 727–731
Pridemore 1996
M. G. Pridemore, The Form, Function, and
Interrelationship of Naval Rams: a study of
naval rams from antiquity (PhD diss. Texas
A&M University 1996)
Romagnoli et al. 2010
M. Romagnoli et al., The Wood of Acqua -
ladroni (ME–Sicily) Roman Ram, in: A.
Fer rari (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Inter -
national Congress Science and Technology
for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage of
the Mediterranean Basin, Cairo 6th – 8th
December 2009, vol. II (Napoli 2010) 53
Rossi 2014
C. Rossi, Il reimpiego navale nel mondo
an tico (PhD diss. Università di Sassari
2014)
Royal – Tusa 2019
J. G. Royal – S. Tusa, The site of the Battle
of the Aegates Islands at the end of the first
Punic War: fieldwork, analyses and per-
spectives, 2005–2016 (Roma 2019)
Santamaria 1975
C. Santamaria, L’épave A du Cap Dramont
(Saint-Raphaël): fouilles 1971–1974, Revue
Archéologique de Narbonnaise 8, 1975,
185–198
Selvaggio Bottacin 2012
F. Selvaggio Bottacin, Indagine archeomet-
riche di rostri e elmi rinvenuti nelle acque
profonde attorno all’isola di Levanzo, (M
thesis Ca’ Foscari University, Venezia, 2012)
Steffy 1983
J. R. Steffy, The Athlit Ram. A preliminary
investigation of its structure, The Mari -
ner’s Mirror 69, 1983, 229–247
Steffy 1985
J. R. Steffy, The Kyrenia Ship. An Interim
Report on its Hull Construction, AJA 89,
1985, 71–10
Steffy 1994
J. R. Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and In -
ter pretation of Shipwrecks (London 1994)
Steffy 1999
J. R. Steffy, Ancient Ship Repairs, in: H. Tza -
las (ed.), Tropis V. 5th International Sym -
posium on Ship Construction in An ti quity,
Nauplia 1993 (Athens 1999) 395–408
Steinhauer 2001
G. Steinhauer, Το Αρχαιολογικ ό Μουσείο
Πειραιά/ The Archaeological Museum of
Piraeus (Athens 2001)
Tisseyre 2013
P. Tisseyre, Il rostro di Messina-Acqua la -
droni C: un rostro del III sec. a. C., in: Una
Scuola da Mare 1 (Palermo 2013) 36–49
Tisseyre 2019
P. Tisseyre, Retour sur le rostre d’Acqua -
ladroni, in: P. Tisseyre, 27 ans d’archéologie
en Sicile (St. Ouen 2019) 91–223
Tusa – Buccellato 2012
S. Tusa – C. A. Buccellato, The Acqua la -
droni Ram Recovered Near the Strait of
Messina, Sicily: dimensions, timbers, ico -
nography and historical context, IntJNautA
42-1, 2012, 76–86
Tusa – Royal 2012
S. Tusa – J. G. Royal, The landscape of the
naval battle at the Egadi Islands (241 B.C.),
JRA 25, 2012, 7–48
Walsh – Riede – O’Neill 2019
Walsh, M.J. – Riede, F. – S. O’Neill, Cultural
Transmission and Innovation in Archaeo -
logy, in: A. M. Prentiss (ed), Handbook of
Evolutionary Research in Archaeology
(Cham 2019) 49–69
Wegener Sleeswyk 1996
A. Wegener Sleeswyk, Some Remarks Con -
cerning the Punic Ram, in: H. Tzalas,
Tropis IV. 4th International Symposium on
Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens
1991 (Athens 1996) 91–101
Addresses
Philippe Tisseyre
Free researcher Ex. Soprintendenza del Mare
Via Lungarini 9
I-90133 Palermo
philippetisseyre@hotmail.com
Massimiliano Ditta
Stavanger Maritime Museum
Strandkaien 22,
Stavanger, NO 4005
massimiliano.ditta@museumstavanger.no
144
The Metallic Ram ·Ph. Tisseyre - M. Ditta