Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

An Assemblage of Early Modern Ordnance and Ground Tackle from South-west Cyprus

2016; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 45; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/1095-9270.12142

1095-9270

Duncan Howitt-Marshall, Toby N. Jones, Justin Leidwanger, Troy J. Nowak,

Global Maritime and Colonial Histories

This note summarizes preliminary findings from a shallow-water site off the south-west coast of Cyprus in the vicinity of Paphos Airport (Figs 1 and 2). The site was first reported to the authors by a local historian and recreational fisherman in May 2005, after which a brief non-intrusive survey was carried out by a small collaborative team under the joint aegis of the Centre for Maritime Archaeology at Southampton University and the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (Leidwanger and Howitt-Marshall, 2006). The locations of objects were recorded and a site plan was developed using the Direct Survey Method and a rudimentary photomosaic (Fig. 3). The site is located approximately 100 m offshore in a slight embayment that is exposed to prevailing westerly winds. It rests in 6–8 m of water at a break along the seaward limit of a rocky shelf in a sandy patch among boulders and marine vegetation. Artefacts are visible over an area of 50 m2 including ordnance, ground tackle and iron concretions. Observations made during the inspection of several concretions suggest the presence of small firearms, edged weapons, and iron straps. No other artefacts were discovered during the 2005 campaign, although additional finds may be buried in the sand and hidden among the boulders and marine vegetation. The present contribution represents the first attempt to consolidate the current data and provide some tentative hypotheses about the nature and historical context of the site. Given the collection of objects, its proximity to shore, and its general accessibility, the site is certainly at risk, making a general account of this maritime heritage all the more important. The assemblage contains jettisoned or shipwrecked artefacts probably dating from the late 16th or 17th centuries, a period of Venetian and Ottoman domination of the island. Additional detailed survey or excavation along with careful artefact study would be necessary to provide more details or certainty, so the current discussion should be understood as a record of the site for heritage management purposes as well as a baseline for further analysis. With more comprehensive study, this potentially important site may shed light on a poorly understood period of Cypriot maritime history and further insight into the arming and outfitting of ships in the eastern Mediterranean during the early modern era. Assigning dates and origins to artefacts recorded through non-intrusive survey can be a difficult task. Concretion and marine growth make accurate measurement impossible, and often mask diagnostic features that would allow direct comparisons with existing archaeological and historical records. However, some basic morphological characteristics occasionally can be discerned that offer clues to artefact composition, manufacturing technique, origin, and date. This is the case with some of the artefacts described here. The discussion and conclusions presented below are preliminary; all measurements were taken to the nearest 0.005 m and include concretion and marine growth. In any future investigation, it will be useful to measure the thickness of the concretion in order to calculate mass, volume and density of the artefacts through digital modelling. A group of four swivel guns define the southern boundary of the site (Fig. 4). All appear to be constructed entirely from wrought iron and are encased in thick concretion. Measurements were taken from the most accessible and complete example as all four swivel guns appeared to share similar construction, morphology, and size. It has a total length of 1.53 m. Its tiller measures 0.40 m long and 0.055 m in diameter and terminates in a button 0.09 m in diameter. The chamber holder is rectangular in plan and measures 0.30 m long by 0.20 m wide. It is open at its top and bottom and has an understrap 0.075 m wide positioned near its centre. The understrap supported a removable chamber, which fitted into a space measuring 0.22 m long by 0.12 m wide, and would have been secured using a wedge for firing. There is a clear demarcation between the barrel and the chamber holder, but no evidence is available to suggest the method of attachment. The chamber holders of similar guns were manufactured separately and fitted over lugs that protrude from their barrels; this connection was secured by either inserting locking wedges though holes in the lugs or by hammering over the ends of the lugs (Smith, 1995: 107). Trunnions are located on the barrel 0.15 m forward of the chamber holder, and the yoke and swivel peg survive. The yoke measures 0.05 m wide and the swivel peg measures 0.15 m long. The barrel measures 0.85 m long and was likely constructed from wrought-iron hoops and staves. It has a slender muzzle ring measuring 0.015 m wide, a flat face measuring 0.15 m in diameter, and a bore measuring 0.05 m in diameter. There appear to be seven hoops between the trunnions and the muzzles of three swivel guns; the fourth swivel gun is damaged. Its barrel is broken and retains only four hoops and is missing its tiller. Three chambers were identified among two scatters of marine concretions: one within 0.50 m and the other within 1.50 m of the cluster of wrought-iron swivel guns (Fig. 4). All three chambers are encased in thick concretion. Each measures 0.20 m in length, 0.10 m in diameter, and has a 0.03 m-diameter handle that rises 0.05 m from the chamber base. Concretion obscured recording the form of the neck, the bore, and the position and diameter of the touch hole. A composite swivel gun with a total length of approximately 1.65 m defines the northern boundary of the site (Fig. 5). Its tiller, chamber holder, and swivel, seem to be wrought iron and are encased in thick concretion. The tiller measures 0.30 m in length and 0.06 m in diameter and terminates in a button 0.09 m in diameter. The chamber holder is approximately rectangular in plan and measures 0.45 m long by 0.20 m wide. It is open at its top and bottom and has an understrap measuring 0.05 m wide, positioned with its after end at the centre of the chamber holder. The understrap supported a removable chamber, which fitted into a space 0.30 m long by 0.12 m wide, and would have been secured using a wedge for firing. As was the case with the wrought-iron guns, there is a clear demarcation between the barrel and the chamber holder, but no evidence is available to suggest the method of attachment between the chamber holder and the barrel. The chamber holders of similar guns typically were secured using barrel lugs like their wrought-iron relatives. Trunnions protrude from the barrel 0.10 m forward of the chamber holder. At least a portion of the yoke survives; the preserved extents of this and the swivel peg are unknown. The barrel is smooth, measures 0.95 m long, and appears to be bronze. It has a heavy muzzle ring measuring 0.04 m wide, a flat face 0.15 m in diameter, and a bore 0.08 m in diameter (Fig. 6). Swivel guns were close-range weapons that fired a range of anti-personnel ammunition used to repel potential boarders and to attack the exposed crews of enemy vessels. They were commonly mounted along the rails of roundships and on the bow fighting platform, the stern castle, and along the rails of galleys (Guilmartin, 2003: 171; Morin, 2011: 2). The guns from the present site represent two similar breech-loading styles, one most likely constructed entirely from wrought iron, and the other a combination of a cast-bronze barrel and a wrought-iron chamber holder, swivel, and tiller. The four wrought-iron examples represent the Type SW-1, which is considered the most common type of swivel gun (Smith, 1988: 8). This type is identified by its long barrel with alternating hoops and bands, trunnions forged to a hoop forward of a separate chamber holder that is rectangular in plan and fastened to the barrel, and a simple tiller ending in a button or finial. Guns of this type were easy to manufacture and were in use from roughly the 16th to the 18th centuries (Guilmartin, 2003: 169; Morin, 2011: 2). R. D. Smith (1995: 107) proposed that Type SW-1 swivel guns may have been referred to as slings in England during the 17th century based on a comparison between a passage in Robert Norton's 1628 manuscript The Gunner and surviving examples that have barrels of 12–15 calibres. Norton (1628: 58) describes barrels of three sizes of breech-loading swivel guns, the base, sling, and murderer: ‘… the lengths of the Portingale Base is about 30 times her Calibre; the Sling about 12 times, the Murtherers, Port Peeces, and Fowlers 8 at the most besides their Chambers’. The wrought-iron swivel guns discovered near Paphos were recorded with barrels of 17 calibres; however, this was calculated using measurements that include concretion. The actual bore diameters of the Paphos examples could be larger, resulting in barrels of 15 calibres similar to the examples identified by Smith as slings. Composite swivel guns, known as petriere da braga in Venice and smerigli petrieri alla veneziana in Genoa, were seemingly manufactured only in Venice and Genoa and may have been invented by M. Matthio Beccalua during the 16th century (Scordato, 2011: 28, 30; Capo Bianco 1618 [1598]: 7). Some surviving examples are marked on the breech with barrel weights in Venetian libre or Genoese cantari, and have distinctive mouldings and markings that can be attributed to specific foundries or show state or private ownership (Scordato, 2011: 30). Sardi (1621: 127) mentions that swivel guns formerly were manufactured from wrought iron, but were produced using iron and bronze at the time of his writing and both wrought-iron and composite swivel guns co-existed during the early 17th century (Scordato, 2011: 28). Moretti (1665: 23, Ch. 5, fig. 8), Sardi (1621: 128, Ch. 57, fig. 1), and Capo Bianco (1618 [1598]: 7) attest to the existence of guns of this type with barrels of 10–12 calibres (Scordato, 2011: 30). This corresponds well with the composite swivel gun from Paphos, which was recorded with a barrel of 12 calibres. Composite swivel guns have been found on five shipwrecks dating from the late 16th or early 17th centuries, including the Gnalić shipwreck (Morin, 2006; Beltrame, 2011: 12–14), the Teignmouth shipwreck (Preece and Burton, 1993: 263), La Trinidad Valencera, the Venetian ship Balancera (Beltrame, 2011: 17; Martin, 2011: 95), La Lavia, the Venetian ship Labia (Birch and McElvogue, 1999: 273; McElvogue, 2002: 41–42), the Messina Strait shipwreck (Beltrame, 2011: 18; Scordato, 2011: 28–33), and one shipwreck that has been variously dated from the 16th to the 18th centuries near Capo Graziano (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier, 1977: 165; Kapitän, 1977: 42–46; 1985). An anchor is oriented with its crown pointing south-west; its head rests beneath a grapnel near the centre of the site (Fig. 6). The anchor is wrought iron and encased in thick concretion. It measures 3.25 m from head to crown. Its head is distinguished by a distinctive widening of the shank from 0.08 to 0.09 m and its obvious rectangular cross-sectional shape extends for a distance of 0.32 m. The remainder of the shank is rounded, but concretion inhibited recording its exact cross-sectional shape. The head is pierced and retains an iron ring with a thickness of 0.05 m and an outer diameter of 0.42 m. No nuts or other features intended to facilitate the attachment of a wooden stock were noted during field inspection; they may be obscured by concretion. The shank tapers from a width of 0.08 m below the head to 0.10 m near the crown. The arms span 1.80 m; each measures 1.00 m long and extends from the crown at an angle of roughly 60˚. One arm preserves what appears to be an eroded triangular palm, while the crown ends in a slight protrusion that is flanked by shallow dimples. A grapnel with four arms is oriented with its head pointing north-west. It is also manufactured of wrought iron and encased in thick concretion. It measures 3.35 m from its head to the bottom of the trough created by the curvature of its arms. Like the anchor, the head is distinguished by its clear rectangular cross section in contrast to the remainder of the more-rounded shank. The head is pierced and includes an iron ring with a thickness of 0.06 m and an outer diameter of 0.47 m. The shank is 3 m long and tapers from a width of 0.10 m below the head to 0.20 m at the junction of the arms and the shank. The arms span 2.10 m, each with a length of 1.10 m from the bottom of the shank to the tip of the palm. One arm is broken; the other arms end in large palms measuring 0.40 m wide and 0.45 m long. The types, sizes, and numbers of anchors generally are indicators of the size of the ship that carried them and can provide clues to the type of ship they served. However, it is difficult to estimate ship size and type when the ground tackle assemblage is incomplete and especially problematic for Mediterranean ships dating from the Renaissance (de la Roche, 2011: 78). The morphological characteristics of anchors and the materials and methods used to produce them could assist in determining their manufacturing date, but the examples under consideration here are covered with concretion and marine growth making scrutiny of the details needed for thorough analyses difficult. Nevertheless, some common morphological characteristics can be found between the anchor and examples discovered during archaeological investigations of Renaissance-era ships. The proportions of the anchor and the angle of its arms to the shank are similar to anchors dating from the 16th century discovered during investigations of San Juan (Moore et al., 2007: 76–7); Mary Rose (McElvogue, 2009: 277–80); San Esteban (Arnold and Weddle, 1978: 224–30, Table J.1); La Trinidad Valencera, the Venetian ship Balancera (Martin, 1979: 31); Vasa (Cederlund, 2006: 99, fig. 3-5); and the Mortella II and III (de la Roche, 2011: 76–7); Emanuel Point (Burns, 1998: 72–6); and Kravel shipwrecks (Adams and Rönnby 2013: 108, fig. 3; pers. comm. Fred Hocker); among others. Like many shallow-water sites in dynamic marine environments, the Paphos Airport assemblage presents significant challenges of recording, analysis, and interpretation (see generally Muckelroy, 1975; Parker, 1981). All observations were made on the basis of non-intrusive survey intended to document cultural artefacts in situ and provide a baseline for subsequent fieldwork and research. While consideration of the finds in light of textual and archaeological comparanda provide evidence for the inference of a late 16th or 17th century date, more intensive future study is necessary to build and expand on the preliminary suggestions offered here. The environmental context of the site may provide some clues to the location of the wreck and its dispersal. Ships with deep drafts had to exercise extreme caution when navigating the coastal waters of south-west Cyprus. Strong gusts from the west or north-west would have threatened vessels sailing close to shore, and the jettisoning of heavy equipment was common in cases of threatened shipwreck. Indeed two large bronze cannon that may have been cast overboard—one off the Akamas Peninsula and the other close to Xeros River mouth west of Kouklia—were recovered from the shallows along south-west Cyprus and are now exhibited in the nearby museum at Kouklia, where they are recorded as ‘accidental finds’ in the museum inventory. Given the extent and compact nature of the site, the dense clusters of iron concretions throughout the area, and its location in shallow water at a break along the seaward limit of a rocky shelf, it seems plausible that the observed artefact concentration could mark the site of a shipwreck or represent jettison from a vessel that narrowly escaped destruction. While identifying the type of ship that carried these materials is impossible with the information currently available, it seems reasonable to suggest that the assemblage derived from a lightly armed vessel sometime during the late 16th-century Venetian or 17th-century Ottoman occupations of Paphos. These centuries witnessed near-constant vying for political and economic hegemony in the waters around Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean more broadly (Goffman, 2002: 137–64). Intense levels of maritime activity included not only trade but forms of piracy and privateering typical of areas lacking naval dominance by a single power (Tenenti, 1967; Wilson, 1995). Cyprus's harbours and coves became the scene of routine naval skirmishes and preying on shipping, particularly among Ottoman and allied Venetian-Spanish fleets (see Fernández Duro, 1885; Rodríguez González, 2004: 312–14). Although the probable origin of one of the canon in the Italian peninsula—perhaps more specifically Venetian—need not reflect the origin of the vessel itself, it does provide some indication of maritime material culture connections that spanned the waters of the Mediterranean during this formative period of early modern maritime history. This site was found and reported by Filios Saziedes, to whom particular debts of gratitude are owed. The authors gratefully acknowledge the hard work of the 2005 survey team, Bill Utley for advice during preparation of the ordnance section, and Fred Hocker for helpful expert critique. The survey was possible thanks to the kind permission of then Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, Pavlos Flourentzos, while information on the cannon displayed in the Palaipaphos Museum was kindly provided by Marina Solomidou-Ieronymidou. Logistical and financial support was generously provided by the Cyprus Society for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology and the RPM Nautical Foundation.