The Mercurio: Archaeology of a Brig of the Regno Italico Sunk During the Battle of Grado, 1812 9782503581033, 250358103X

Citation preview

The Mercurio

The Mercurio A Brig of the Regno Italico Sunk During the Battle of Grado (1812) Carlo Beltrame with contributions by Stefania Manfio, Sophia Donadel, Francesca Bertoldi, Paolo Biagi, Piero Crociani, Giuseppe Moretti, Tomaso Lucchelli, Elisabetta Starnini, Tiziana Lanave, Roberto Cameriere, Carlotta Sisalli, Neculina Condrache, and Fiorella Bestetti, and a presentation by Luigi Fozzati. Illustrated by Serena Zanetto

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

© 2019, Brepols Publishers n. v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2019/0095/231 ISBN: 978-2-503-58103-3 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

Contents

List of Illustrations ix Foreword xxiii Preface xxv Acknowledgements xxvii Introduction 1 Carlo Beltrame Part i Historical Context and the Battle of Grado 1. Napoleon’s Italian Navy Piero Crociani 2. The Event in its Context Carlo Beltrame 3. The Mercurio According to the Historical Data Carlo Beltrame

7 13 19

Part ii The Discovery, the Site and the Methodology of Investigation 1. The Discovery of the Shipwreck and its Identification Carlo Beltrame 2. The Environmental Characteristics of the Site and its Aspect at the Moment of the Discovery Carlo Beltrame 3. Conditions of Preservation of the Objects Carlo Beltrame 4. The Dynamics of the Sinking and the Formation Processes Carlo Beltrame 5. Methods and Techniques of Investigation Carlo Beltrame

25 27 33 37 39

vi

Contents

Part iii The Ship 1. The Hull Carlo Beltrame 2. Equipment Carlo Beltrame 3 Furniture and Lighting Carlo Beltrame and Stefania Manfio 4. Armament Carlo Beltrame 5. Projectiles Carlo Beltrame 6. Galley Stefania Manfio 7. Sanitary and Medical Arrangements Stefania Manfio

49 89 115 119 125 129 141

Part iv The Crew 1. Osteological Analysis of the Crew 145 Francesca Bertoldi, Fiorella Bestetti, Roberto Cameriere, and Carlotta Sisalli 2. Crew, Uniforms, and Weapons 155 Sophia Donadel 3. Gunflints 189 Paolo Biagi and Elisabetta Starnini 4. Personal Possessions 193 Carlo Beltrame 5. Coins 199 Tomaso Lucchelli Conclusions 203 Carlo Beltrame References 207

Contents

vii

Appendices Appendix A: Conservation of the Waterlogged Wood Tiziana Lanave Appendix B: The Conservation of the Leather Neculina Condrache and Sophia Donadel Appendix C: The Restoration and Conservation of some Metallic Finds Giuseppe Moretti Appendix  D: Transcriptions of Documents — Documents from Tracy, 2000,  502–04; and Archivio di Stato di Venezia

221 225 229

239

Catalogue Catalogue 247

List of Illustrations

Plate 1. The wreck site of the Mercurio. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxix

Plate 2. Area A of the wreck site. Sectors of excavation and progress of the documentation of the site from 2001 to 2011. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxx

Plate 3. GIS showing the organic finds in Area A of the wreck site. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxi

Plate 4. GIS showing the location of the skeletal remains and of the coins. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxii

Plate 5. Area A. GIS showing the wreck site overlapping the plan of the model of the Cygne. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxiii

Plate 6. Area B, the stern post of the shipwreck. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxiii

Plate 7. GIS of the wreck site showing the hull (brown), the ballast (red), and the metal components of the hull (yellow), including items such as lead objects, and copper alloy bolts and nails. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxiv

Plate 8. GIS showing the rigging elements. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxv

Plate 9. GIS showing the distribution of the gunflints recovered from Area A, Sectors 8 and 9. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxvi

Part i Historical Context and the Battle of Grado Figure i.1.1. Maffioletti’s plan of the Arsenale of Venice (1798). Image after Marzari 1990, 17.

9

Figure i.2.1. Map of the Kingdom of Italy (Regno Italico) at the moment of the shipwreck of the Mercurio. 14 Figure i.2.2. Model of the Rivoli on the camels (Musée National de la Marine Toulon). Image after Boudriot, 2006a.

15

Figure i.2.3. Oil painting of the Battle of Grado showing the explosion of the Mercurio. Painting by Thomas Luny, 1833 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford AN1916.24), reproduced with permission.

17

Figure i.2.4. Location of the sitewreck of the Mercurio and routes of the squadrons. Figure: S. Manfio.

18

Figure i.3.1. The model of the brig Cygne, twin of the Mercurio. Image after Boudriot, 2006a.

20

Figure i.3.2. Drawings of the decorations of the Mercurio by Felix Brun (4/9/1805). Image reproduced courtesy of Musée National de la Marine, Paris.

21

x

List of Illustrations

Part ii The Discovery, the Site and the Methodology of Investigation Figure ii.1.1. Carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035) after recovery. Photo: C. Beltrame.

25

Figure ii.1.2. Copper cauldron no. 39.4 (n.i. 334.048) recovered by fishing nets. Photo: C. Beltrame.

26

Figure ii.1.3. Engraving ‘du Creusot’ on carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

26

Figure ii.1.4. Engraving ‘An 1806 Fond.’ on carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

26

Figure ii.2.1. Wreck site of the Mercurio. Figure: S. Manfio.

27

Figure ii.2.2. Wreck site with bathymetry (the dune is to the east). Figure: S. Caressa.

28

Figure ii.2.3. Core no. 2 showing the level of phanerogams. Photo: A. Rosso.

29

Figure ii.2.4. Empty space created by the decay of the keelson on the mound of ballast. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

29

Figure ii.2.5. Carronade no. 3 vertically planted in the seabed. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

30

Figure ii.2.6. Carronade no. 6 at the moment of discovery. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

30

Figure ii.2.7. Carronade no. 1 with modern steel cables. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

30

Figure ii.2.8. Small mound of concretions, no. 4. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

31

Figure ii.2.9. Carronade no. 7. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna). 31 Figure ii.2.10. Carronade no. 8. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna). 31 Figure ii.3.1. Ropes over the orlop deck. Photo: C. Beltrame.

33

Figure ii.3.2. Skull of skeleton. Photo: S. Caressa.

34

Figure ii.3.3. Copper alloy button no. 143.2 (n.i. 333.886), before restoration. Photo: G. Merighi.

34

Figure ii.3.4. Copper coins of the Stato Pontificio after restoration, no. 781 (n.i. 334.130–34). Photo: E. Costa. 34 Figure ii.3.5. Iron chain plate. Photo: S. Caressa.

34

Figure ii.3.6. X-ray photography of iron object. Photo. G. Moretti.

35

Figure ii.4.1. Remains of Skeleton 1 under wooden timbers and iron concretions. Photo: S. Caressa.

37

Figure ii.5.1. Photogrammetrical documentation on a tower-shaped scaffold. Photo: S. Caressa.

39

List of Illustrations

xi

Figure ii.5.2. Photogrammetrical documentation on a tower-shaped scaffold. Photo: S. Caressa.

40

Figure ii.5.3. Sequence of the phogrammetrical documentation (photomosaic) from 2004 season. Photos and drawings: S. Caressa.

40

Figure ii.5.4. Photomosaic for photogrammetry from 2004 season. Photos and drawings: S. Caressa.

40

Figure ii.5.5. Starboard side of the hull from east. Photo: G. Merighi.

41

Figure ii.5.6. The anchor on the starboard side of the bow. Photo: S. Caressa.

41

Figure ii.5.7. Sector Q6, with a cannon, 2005 season. Photo: S. Caressa.

42

Figure ii.5.8. Excavation in Sector Q8. Photo: D. Della Libera.

42

Figure ii.5.9. Remains of Skeleton 2 in Sector Q8. Photo: R. Pertoldi.

42

Figure ii.5.10. Sector Q9 from the top. Photo: S. Caressa.

43

Figure ii.5.11. Barrel no. 708 in Q9, in the third level. Photo: S. Caressa.

44

Figure ii.5.12. Remains of ropes in Q9, in the third level. Photo: S. Caressa.

44

Figure ii.5.13. Skeletal remains in Q9. Photo: S. Caressa.

44

Figure ii.5.14. The recovery of the carronades by the Gino Cucco ship. Photo: C. Beltrame.

45

Figure. ii.5.15. Excavation by water dredger. Photo: S. Caressa.

45

Part iii The Ship Figure iii.1.1. Schematic frame of the US brig Eagle. Figure: Crisman, 1987, Fig. 46.

50

Figure iii.1.2. Schematic frame pattern used in a replica of a clipper at Douarnenez and used in various ships in the nineteenth century. Figure: Ballu, 2003, 71.

50

Figure iii.1.3. Schematic frame composition of a 74-gun ship. 1: floor-timbers; 2, 5, 6: futtocks; 3: half-floor-timbers; 4: futtocks heel. Figure: Boudriot, 1997, 81.

50

Figure iii.1.4. Possible transverse section of the hull of the Mercurio. In grey is the part of the hull and the sediments that have not been excavated. Drawing: C. Beltrame.

51

Figure iii.1.5. The starboard side of the hull. Note that there is no space between the frames, and they seem to be one piece. Photo: C. Beltrame.

52

Figure iii.1.6. The starboard side of the hull. Detail of the copper sheathing applied on the outer planking (note the junction of two planks). Photo: S. Caressa.

52

Figure iii.1.7. Detail from the starboard side of the hull. Photo: S. Caressa.

52

Figure iii.1.8. Latin number XII embossed on the copper sheathing (shown beneath the fingers of the diver). Photo: S. Caressa.

52

Figure iii.1.9. Top view of the frames and planking of the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

53

Figure iii.1.10. Sketch of the port side. The direction of the side is north-south. Drawing: E. Costa.

53

Figure iii.1.11. Drawing from the photogrammetry of the port side, 2011 season. Drawing: S. Caressa and C. Beltrame.

54

xii

List of Illustrations

Figure iii.1.12. Top view of the frames and planking of the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

55

Figure iii.1.13. Futtock with intact extremity on the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

56

Figure iii.1.14. Caulking in the inner planking seams and pitch on the surface. Photo: C. Beltrame.

56

Figure iii.1.15. Caulking in the inner planking seams after sampling. Photo: C. Beltrame.

56

Figure iii.1.16. Photomosaic of the internal port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

57

Figure iii.1.17. Hanging knee K2 inclined towards the bow. Photo: C. Beltrame.

57

Figure iii.1.18. Hanging knee K1 inclines towards the bow. Photo: C. Beltrame.

57

Figure iii.1.19. Large heads of copper bolts on a hanging knee (K2). Note the fingernail shape of the knee. Photo: C. Beltrame.

57

Figure iii.1.20. Transverse section of the model of the Cygne. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 65.

58

Figure iii.1.21. Bolts fastening the hanging knees to the side of a 74-gun ship. Figure: Boudriot, 1997 101.

58

Figure iii.1.22. Third knee (K3) from the bow. Note the square hole. Photo: C. Beltrame.

58

Figure iii.1.23. Trace of lightly planked bulkhead (from the stern). Photo: C. Beltrame.

58

Figure iii.1.24. Trace of lightly planked bulkhead (top view). Photo: C. Beltrame.

59

Figure iii.1.25. Timber no. 792. Photo: C. Beltrame.

59

Figure iii.1.26. Possible shelf (C1), in the centre of the image. Photo: C. Beltrame.

59

Figure iii.1.27. Possible shelf (C1), on the left of the image. Photo: C. Beltrame.

60

Figure iii.1.28. The diver is touching deck beam B3. Photo: C. Beltrame.

60

Figure iii.1.29. The orlop deck (D1, D2, D3) from the stern. Photo: C. Beltrame.

60

Figure iii.1.30. Example of technique of using filling pieces in a large vessel. Here the fillers are very short. Figure: Steffy, 1994, 293.

61

Figure iii.1.31. The port side of the stern (the keel is at the bottom). Photo: S. Caressa.

62

Figure iii.1.32. Drawing from the photogrammetry of the B1 and 2 quadrants (stern). A1: outer sternpost; A2: sternpost; A3: inner sternpost; A4, 5, 6, 7: fillers; T1, 2, 3: tablets. Top view of the starboard side. Drawing: S. Caressa.

63

Figure iii.1.33. Bronze plate under the keel. Photo: S. Caressa.

64

Figure iii.1.34. Lead cap over the stern post. Photo: S. Caressa.

64

Figure iii.1.35. Lead cap over the stern post. Photo: C. Beltrame.

64

Figure iii.1.36. Bronze ring connecting the rudder to the stern with a rope. Photo: S. Caressa.

64

Figure iii.1.37. Bronze ring connecting the rudder to the stern with a rope. Photo: C. Beltrame.

64

Figure iii.1.38. Lowest bronze gudgeon. Photo: S. Caressa.

65

Figure iii.1.39. Bronze nails of the starboard external planking. Photo: S. Caressa.

65

Figure iii.1.40. Rabbet in the sternpost to host the port side planking. Photo: C. Beltrame.

65

Figure iii.1.41. Stern recovered from the sea and exhibited in the National Depot for Ship Archaeology of Lelystad. Photo: C. Beltrame.

66

List of Illustrations

xiii

Figure iii.1.42. Copper alloy bolts joining the outer sternpost with the sternpost and the inner post. Photo: C. Beltrame.

66

Figure iii.1.43. Sample of felt recovered from between the components of the sternpost. Photo: C. Beltrame. 66 Figure iii.1.44. Typical bolts of copper alloy, nos 53, 91, 93, 102 and 103 (n.i. 91: 333.879; 93: 333.881). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

67

Figure iii.1.45. Copper alloy clinch ring near the round hammered head of a bolt Photo: C. Beltrame.

68

Figure iii.1.46. Bolt square headed with pointed end after conservation, no. 35. Photo: E. Costa.

68

Figure iii.1.47. Square head on a bolt. Photo: C. Beltrame.

68

Figure iii.1.48. ‘Blunt’ bolts from B (stern) area, nos 161.45 and 161.46. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

69

Figure iii.1.49. Copper spikes, nos 154.7, 160.21, 160.65, 161.6 and 161.37. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

69

Figure iii.1.50. ‘Ragged’ nail with scales. Photo: S. Manfio.

69

Figure iii.1.51. Possible ‘rudder nails’, with circular cross-section and mushroom head, nos 160.53, 160.54 and 161.20 (n.i. 333.891, 333.892 and 333.894). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

69

Figure iii.1.52. Square section copper nail no. 160.89 (n.i. 333.893), with double point and bent to a U, which can be defined as a brace. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

70

Figure iii.1.53. Traces of iron nails or bolts in the inner planking. Photo: C. Beltrame.

70

Figure iii.1.54. Copper sheathing on the upper part of the gripe (stem). Photo: S. Caressa.

70

Figure iii.1.55. Copper sheathing nailed to the stern. Photo: S. Caressa.

71

Figure iii.1.56. Copper sheathing on the edge of the outer sternpost. Photo: C. Beltrame.

71

Figure iii.1.57. Copper sheathing fragment no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Photo: S. Manfio.

71

Figure iii.1.58. Detail of copper sheathing fragment no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Photo: S. Manfio.

72

Figure iii.1.59. Sketch of the construction technique of fragment of sheathing no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

72

Figure iii.1.60. Copper alloy nails for fastening the sheathing to the hull. Photo: C. Beltrame.

72

Figure iii.1.61. Fragments of Latin letters VI for the draft marks, no. 286 (n.i. 334.172). Photo: E. Costa.

73

Figure iii.1.62. Fragment of Latin letter X for the draft marks, no. 287. Photo: E. Costa.

73

Figure iii.1.63. Fragments of Latin letters II for the draft marks, no. 288, after restoration. Photo: E. Costa. 73 Figure iii.1.64. Fragment of lead sheet no. 620. Photo: S. Manfio.

74

Figure iii.1.65. Lead scupper no. 19.2 (n.i. 333.874). Photo: C. Beltrame.

74

Figure iii.1.66. Detail of lead scupper no. 19.2 (n.i. 333.874). Photo: C. Beltrame.

74

Figure iii.1.67. Long lead scupper no. 341 in situ. Photo: C. Beltrame.

75

Figure iii.1.68. Lead scuppers nos 844 and 845 outside the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

75

Figure iii.1.69. Lead scupper no. 344. Photo: C. Beltrame.

75

Figure iii.1.70. Lead scupper no. 344. Photo: C. Beltrame.

75

Figure iii.1.71. Lead scuppers on the side of a 74-gun vessel. Figure: Boudriot, 2000, Fig. 121.

76

xiv

List of Illustrations

Figure iii.1.72. Lead hawsepipe no. 203. Photo: C. Beltrame.

76

Figure iii.1.73. Trench in the iron ballast that hosted the keelson. Photo: S. Caressa.

77

Figure iii.1.74. Stowing of ballast in the Hussard (1811). Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 33.

77

Figure iii.1.75. Iron ingot of ballast (pig). Photo: C. Beltrame.

77

Figure iii.2.1. Large sheave no. 525.1 (n.i. 333.933), in very good condition and with no sign of attack by Teredo. Photo: C. Beltrame.

89

Figure iii.2.2. Sheave with triangular coak no. 259 (n.i. 333.936). Photo: C. Beltrame

90

Figure iii.2.3. Brass coak from sheave no. 259 (n.i. 333.936) with a big hole. Photo: S. Manfio.

90

Figure iii.2.4. Sheave with circular brass coak no. 687. Photo: E. Costa.

90

Figure iii.2.5. Sheave no. 60 (n.i. 334.066/333.878) with brass coak. Photo: G. Merighi.

90

Figure iii.2.6. Circular coak sheave. Figure: Steel, 1794, pl. 1.

91

Figure iii.2.7. Triangular coak sheave. Figure: Steel, 1794, pl. 1.

91

Figure iii.2.8. A treble block, no. 516, left in situ. Photo C. Beltrame.

91

Figure iii.2.9. Cathead-block. Drawing: Boudriot, 1975, Fig. 269.

92

Figure iii.2.10. Treble block ? in situ, no. 616. Photo: C. Beltrame.

92

Figure iii.2.11. Cat tackle and cat hook. Drawing: Falconer, 1769.

92

Figure iii.2.12. X-ray of concretion of hook no. 492. Photo: G. Moretti.

92

Figure iii.2.13. X-rays of iron objects no. 283.1, 252 and 515 covered by concretions. Photo: G. Moretti.

92

Figure iii.2.14. Violin block no. 618 (n.i. 333.942) in situ. Photo: C. Beltrame.

93

Figure iii.2.15. Violin block no. 618 (n.i. 333.942) with its strop. Photo: E. Costa.

93

Figure iii.2.16. The violin block on the starboard side of the model of the Cygne. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 39.

93

Figure iii.2.17. A long tackle block in use. Drawing: Lescallier, 1791, pl. 16.

93

Figure iii.2.18. Fragment of a shell, no. 513 (n.i. 333.928). Photo: C. Beltrame.

94

Figure iii.2.19. Fragment of a shell and its sheave, no. 242.1 (n.i. 334.076). Photo: C. Beltrame.

94

Figure iii.2.20. Fragment of a shell with its sheave and a brass coak, no. 503 (n.i. 333.925). Photo: C. Beltrame. 94 Figure iii.2.21. Possible iron thimble, no. 282 with traces of rope. Photo: C. Beltrame.

95

Figure iii.2.22. Wooden eyelet, no. 853 (n.i. 333.994). Photo: E. Costa.

95

Figure iii.2.23. Wooden eyelets. Drawing: Romme, 1781, pl. 4.

95

Figure iii.2.24. Range cleat, no. 277 (n.i. 334.080). Photo: S. Manfio.

95

Figure iii.2.25. Cleats with and without bolts. Drawing: Romme, 1781, pl. 4.

96

Figure iii.2.26. Chain plate, no. 629. Photo: C. Beltrame.

96

Figure iii.2.27. Chain plate, no. 630. Photo: C. Beltrame.

96

List of Illustrations

xv

Figure iii.2.28. Chain plate no. 305. Photo: S. Caressa.

96

Figure iii.2.29. Chain plates on the plan of the Faune. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 22–23.

97

Figure iii.2.30. No. 617 element of chain plate, in situ. Photo: C. Beltrame.

97

Figure iii.2.31. Chain plate. Figure: Boudriot, 1975, Fig. 277.

97

Figure iii.2.32. Chain-plate with square ‘head’ no. 323. Photo: S. Caressa.

97

Figure iii.2.33. Chain plates of the model of the Cygne. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 75.

98

Figure iii.2.34. Iron rail no. 613 in situ. Photo: C. Beltrame.

98

Figure iii.2.35. Iron rail no. 613. Photo: C. Beltrame.

98

Figure iii.2.36. Iron rail no. 628. Photo: C. Beltrame.

98

Figure iii.2.37. Rail on the deck of a model of gunboat in the Naval Museum of Venice. Photo: C. Beltrame. 99 Figure iii.2.38. X-ray of iron objects nos 510, 512 and 492 covered by concretions. Photo: G. Moretti.

99

Figure iii.2.39. Wooden ‘tube’ no. 264 (n.i. 334.171). Photo: C. Beltrame.

99

Figure iii.2.40. Coiled rope on the orlop deck in Q 9. Photo: S. Caressa.

99

Figure iii.2.41. Fragments of ropes (nos 784, 785, 786 and 787). Photo: E. Costa.

100

Figure iii.2.42. Sample no. 784 seen with optical microscope. Photo: ArcheoTex.

100

Figure iii.2.43. Sample no. 787 seen with the SEM. Photo: ArcheoTex.

100

Figure iii.2.44. Fragment of leather no. 764. Photo: E. Costa.

101

Figure. iii.2.45. The anchor under the bow. Photo: S. Caressa.

102

Figure iii.2.46. The ‘large’ anchor of the Cygne. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, pl. XIII.

102

Figure iii.2.47. Fragment of iron anchor, no. 48 (n.i. 333.877). Photo: C. Beltrame.

103

Figure iii.2.48. ‘Chat’, no. 32 (n.i. 334.044). Photo: C. Beltrame.

103

Figure iii.2.49. ‘Chat’. Figure : Boudriot, 2000, pl. XXXIV.

103

Figure iii.2.50. Sounding lead, no. 689 (n.i. 333.943). Photo: C. Beltrame.

103

Figure iii.2.51. The reel of the log. Figure: Falconer, 1784, table V.

104

Figure iii.2.52. Fragment of reel of log-line, no. 509 (n.i. 333.927). Photo: C. Beltrame.

104

Figure iii.2.53. Tacks in the caulker’s storeroom. Photo: C. Beltrame.

104

Figure iii.2.54. Caulking mallet. Image: Recueil général des outils dont on se sert dans les ateliers d’un port de marine [1738], 48.7.

105

Figure iii.2.55. Caulking mallet no. 731 (n.i. 334.125). Photo: E. Costa.

105

Figure iii.2.56. Caulking mallet no. 789 (n.i. 333.948). Photo: S. Manfio.

106

Figure iii.2.57. Caulking mallet no. 762 (n.i. 333.944). Photo: C. Beltrame.

106

Figure iii.2.58. Small auger’s handle, no. 813 (n.i. 333.952). Photo: S. Manfio.

106

Figure iii.2.59. Auger no. 766 in the caulker’s storeroom, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

106

xvi

List of Illustrations

Figure iii.2.60. Tar scraper, no. 33 (n.i. 334.043). Photo: E. Costa.

106

Figure iii.2.61. Long-handled tar scraper. Drawing: Witsen, 1719, 44.

107

Figure iii.2.62. Handle of a presumed awl, no. 783 (n.i. 334.136). Photo: E. Costa.

107

Figure iii.2.63. Presumed handle of small tool, no. 727.44. Photo: E. Costa.

107

Figure iii.2.64. Handle of a tool, no. 817 (n.i. 333.955). Photo: S. Manfio.

107

Figure iii.2.65. Wooden object no. 705.1. Photo: S. Manfio.

107

Figure iii.2.66. Repairing of the planking with a gala and a morelo. Photo: Penzo, 1992, Fig. 67.

107

Figure iii.2.67. Wooden object no. 832 (n.i. 333.959). Photo: S. Manfio.

107

Figure iii.2.68. Wooden brush, no. 820, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

108

Figure iii.2.69. Wooden brush, no. 490 (n.i. 333.924). Photo: E. Costa.

108

Figure iii.2.70. Lower-valve body of a suction bilge pump, no. 767. Photo: C. Beltrame.

108

Figure iii.2.71. Rendering of two types of upper valves. Figure: Oertling, 1996, 27.

108

Figure iii.2. 72. Wooden cases for needles, nos 442 and 514 (n.i. 333.918 and 333.929). Photo: C. Beltrame. 109 Figure iii.2.73. Whetstone, no. 505 (n.i. 334.095). Photo: S. Manfio.

109

Figure iii.2.74. Millstone, no. 29, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

110

Figure iii.2.75. Grinder. Drawing: Witsen, 1719, 53.

110

Figure iii.3.1. Scattered wooden tables in Q9. Photo: C. Beltrame.

115

Figure iii.3.2. Posts of racks for muskets, nos 438 and 542.1b (n.i. 334.093 and 334.107). Photo: S. Manfio. 115 Figure. iii.3.3. Base of a musket rack, no. 524.1a (n.i. 334.106). Photo: S. Manfio.

115

Figure iii.3.4. Presumed upper part of a rack for muskets, no. 521 (n.i. 333.931). Photo: E. Costa.

116

Figure iii.3.5. Reconstruction of a rack for muskets of a 74-gun ship. Figure: Boudriot, 2000, 180.

116

Figure iii.3.6. Spacer for hammock, no. 414 (n.i. 333.914). Photo: E. Costa.

116

Figure iii.3.7. Reconstruction of a hammock: Figure: Boudriot, 2000, 146.

117

Figure iii.3.8. Candlestick copper-alloy tip in Q8, no. 416 (n.i. 334.092). Photo: C. Beltrame.

117

Figure iii.4.1. 24-pounder, model AN XIII carronade. Figure: Boudriot, 1969, 3.

120

Figure iii.4.2. 24/36-pounder, model AN XIII carronade. Figure: Boudriot, 1992, 100.

120

Figure iii.4.3. Component of carronade, no. 685, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

120

Figure iii.4.4. Carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

121

Figure iii.4.5. Breech and elevation screw of carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

121

Figure iii.4.6. Carronade n. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

121

Figure iii.4.7. Carronade n. 0 (n.i. 334.035), the elevation screw. Photo: C. Beltrame.

121

Figure iii.4.8. Cannon no. 201, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

122

List of Illustrations

xvii

Figure iii.4.9. 8-pounder short cannon, model 1786. Image: Boudriot, 1992, pl. 43.

122

Figure iii.4.10. Bronze swivel gun no. 202, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

122

Figure iii.4.11. Bronze swivel gun no. 202 (n.i. 333.873). Photo: S. Manfio.

122

Figure iii.4.12. 1-pounder, bronze swivel gun. Photo: Boudriot, 1992, pl. 82.

122

Figure iii.4.13. Bronze swivel gun no. 202 (n.i. 333.873) and details of its inscriptions. Photo: S. Manfio.

123

Figure iii.4.14. Complete and incomplete plates of flintlock nos 614.4 (334.113) and 645 with the signature Bringol Paris An 13. Photo: S. Manfio.

124

Figure iii.4.15. Bronze espingole model An IX. Photo: Boudriot, 1992, 170.

124

Figure iii.4.16. Wedge, no. 529 (no. 333.936). Photo: C. Beltrame.

124

Figure iii.4.17. Head of a rammer, no. 841 (no. 333.962). Photo: E. Costa.

124

Figure iii.5.1. Grape-shot no. 43. Photo: C. Beltrame.

125

Figure iii.5.2. Grape-shot no. 43 (no. 334.053–64), dismantled after restoration. Photo: C. Beltrame.

125

Figure iii.5.3. Grape-shot. Photo: Boudriot, 1992, 18.

125

Figure iii.5.4. Bar shot, no. 163 (no. 334.072). Photo: C. Beltrame.

126

Figure iii.5.5. Lead bullets along the starboard side of the shipwreck. Photo: S. Caressa.

126

Figure iii.5.6. Wooden plug, no. 314. Photo: C. Beltrame.

126

Figure iii.5.7. Wooden plug, no. 793. Photo: C. Beltrame.

126

Figure iii.5.8. Case for cartridge. Photo: Boudriot, 1992, 70.

127

Figure iii.6.1. The iron fire-hearth of the Dorsetshire of 1757. This is one of the first recorded examples of this type of stove. Figure: Lavery, 1987, 197.

129

Figure iii.6. 2. Kitchen detail of the Cygne: view from the starboard deck before the mast. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 43.

130

Figure iii.6.3. Model kitchen iron dated back to 1770. Image: Collection of the Musée de la Marine in Paris, from Boudriot, 1985, 10.

130

Figure iii.6.4. Area A — Q9. Wooden elements: barrels and spoons. Drawing: QuantumGIS, created by S. Manfio.

132

Figure iii.6.5. Barrels no. 708, in situ. Photo: S. Caressa.

132

Figure iii.6.6. Oval bowl of a spoon, no. 856 (n.i. 333.997). Photo: S. Manfio.

133

Figure iii.6.7. Three long bones of a cat, identified as tibia, fibula and femur, no. 543 (n.i. 334.108); pelvic bone of cat, no. 605 (n.i. 334.112); diaphysis probably belonging to a thigh-bone of a bird, no. 131. Photo: S. Manfio.

133

Figure iii.6.8. 3D reconstruction of the copper cauldrons. Figure: E. Costa.

135

Figure iii.6.9. Portions of two different tins, no. 342 (n.i. 334.087). On the left: part of the cover. On the right: bottom of the tins. Photo: S. Manfio.

136

Figure iii.6.10. Dark amber bottle, no. 260.1 (n.i. 334.079). Photo: S. Manfio.

137

xviii

List of Illustrations

Figure iii.6.11. Types of pottery from the wreck of Mercurio. Drawing: S. Manfio.

138

Figure iii.6.12. Bottle with handles, no. 340 (n.i. 334.086). Photo: S. Manfio.

138

Figure iii.6.13. Majolica plates, nos 761.1–2 (n.i. 334.128–29) and 843.1. Photo: S. Manfio.

138

Figure iii.6.14. Majolica plate, no. 129 (n.i. 334.070), with polylobated profile and decorated with a blue monochrome a lambrecchini. Photo: S. Manfio.

139

Figure iii.6.15. Coffee cup in porcelain, no. 695 (n.i. 334.117). Photo: S. Manfio.

139

Figure iii.7.1. The flacons recovered in the Mercurio, nos 698.1 (n.i. 334.118), 128 (n.i. 334.069), and 119. Photo: S. Manfio.

141

Figure iii.7.2. An example of a ship’s medicine chest. From http://americanhistory.si.edu/ onthewater/collection/MG_302606.154.html). 142 Figure iii.7.3. Small jar for oils and balms, no. 759.1 (n.i. 334.127). Photo: S. Manfio.

142

Figure iii.7.4. Calibration weight of the scale, no. 782 (n.i. 334.135). Photo: S. Manfio.

142

Part IV The Crew Figure iv.1.1. Ceremony held to honour the mariners killed in the shipwreck of the Mercurio. Photo: P. Spirito. 145 Figure iv.1.2. Distribution of underwater sites with human remains found in shipwrecks (1–8, 10, 12–17) together with dryland cemeteries or sites associated with shipwrecks (9,11,18). Drawing: C. Sisalli.

146

Figure iv.1.3. The area of the ship in which single burials and sparse human remains were found (Q8 and Q9). Drawing: S. Manfio.

147

Figure iv.1.4. The single burials and sparse human remains. Drawing: S. Manfio.

148

Figure iv.1.5. The single burials and sparse human remains. Drawing: S. Manfio.

148

Figure iv.1.6. The single burials and sparse human remains. Drawing: S. Manfio.

149

Figure iv.1.7. The single burials and sparse human remains. Drawing: S. Manfio.

149

Figure iv.1.8. The single burials and sparse human remains. Drawing: S. Manfio.

150

Figure iv.1.9. Metal, wood, and sediments in some cases adhering to the bones. Photo: C. Sisalli.

150

Figure iv.1.10. Metal, wood, and sediments in some cases adhering to the bones. Photo: C. Sisalli.

151

Figure iv.1.11. Metal, wood, and sediments in some cases adhering to the bones. Photo: C. Sisalli.

151

Figure iv.1.12. Os coxae all belonging to male subjects. Photo: C. Sisalli.

151

Figure iv.1.13. Digital imaging and tooth areas’ calculations following Cameriere’s method. Photo: F. Bestetti.

153

Figure iv.1.14. X-rays of a sample with total area and pulp area of the tooth. Photo: F. Bestetti.

153

Figure iv.1.15. Notch-like defect (syndesmopathy of the costo-clavicular ligament) on a clavicle (SP 6). Photo: C. Sisalli.

154

List of Illustrations

xix

Figure iv.1.16. Schmorl’s nodes, by far the most common pathology recorded on vertebrae (SK 2). Photo: C. Sisalli.

154

Figure iv.1.17. Traces of infection on the maxillary bone of SK 1. Photo: C. Sisalli.

154

Figure iv.1.18. SK 3 upper and lower jaws. Photo: C. Sisalli.

155

Figure iv.1.19. SK 7 upper and lower jaws. Photo: C. Sisalli.

155

Figure iv.1.20. SP 5 upper and lower jaws. Photo: C. Sisalli.

155

Figure iv.2.1. Cannonier-matelots with edge and ceremonial uniforms (Regno d’Italia 1812). Figure: Boeri, Crociani and Paoletti, 1996, 101.

165

Figure iv.2.2. Officers’ uniforms (Regno d’Italia 1812). Figure: Boeri, Crociani and Paoletti, 1996, 94–96. 165 Figure iv.2.3. Simple sailor. Drawing: G. Marzin.

166

Figure iv.2.4. Construction of a welted shoe. Figure: Evans, 2005, figs 2.32–34 and Davis, 2007a, Fig. 10.1.5a.

168

Figure iv.2.5. Welt, leather fragments, small nails, bone button, no. 680. Photo: C. Beltrame.

168

Figure iv.2.6. Leather fragments no. 751.2. Photo: E. Costa.

169

Figure iv.2.7. Leather fragments no. 751.3. Photo: E. Costa.

169

Figure iv.2.8. Mid-sole, no. 763. Photo: E. Costa.

170

Figure iv.2.9. Sole no. 823a (n.i. 334.019). Photo: E. Costa.

171

Figure iv.2.10. Star-shaped signs in the heels of the sole no. 823a (n.i. 334.019). Photo: E. Costa.

171

Figure iv.2.11. Detail of the sole no. 830a (n.i. 334.027). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

171

Figure iv.2.12. Part of cartridge case, no. 824b (n.i. 334.025). Photo: E. Costa.

172

Figure iv.2.13. Brass buckle, no. 538.2 (n.i. 334.102). Photo: S. Manfio.

173

Figure iv.2.14. French cartridges of the so-called pocket type, ‘Modele 4 Brumaire An X’ (1801–14). Figure: G. Marzin after Rousselot, 1978, figs 13, 15–16, tab 48 and Petard, 1979, 22.

173

Figure iv.2.15. Small size brass buckle no. 539 (n.i. 334.103). Photo: E. Costa.

173

Figure iv.2.16. Sailor gunner buttons nos 534.12 (n.i. 334.148), 528, and 500.3. Photo: S. Manfio.

175

Figure iv.2.17. ‘Smooth buttons’ nos 351.2, 506.2, and 727.25. Photo: S. Manfio.

176

Figure iv.2.18. Gilted button on which the word ‘London’ is engraved, no. 556.2. Photo: S. Manfio.

176

Figure iv.2.19. Buttons with images, nos 498.1 (officer; n.i. 334.152), 496.1 (Italian Royal Garde), 534.22 (English officer?; n.i. 334.154), 559.7 (7th Artillery Regiment; n.i. 334.156), and 534.20 (African Royal Corp). Photo: S. Manfio.

177

Figure iv.2.20. Button nos 161.66 (n.i. 333.895), 852.1 (n.i. 333.991), and 544.2 (n.i. 334.158). Photo: S. Manfio. 178 Figure iv.2.21. Bone and wooden buttons, nos 799.1 (n.i. 334.161), 842.29, 496.3, 842.33 (bone), and 848 (wooden) (n.i. 333.989). Photo: S. Manfio.

178

Figure iv.2.22. Location of the buttons in the uniform of the French navy. Figure: Petard, 1989.

179

xx

List of Illustrations

Figure iv.2.23. Hilt of French sabre de bord, no. 44 (n.i. 334.065). Photo: S. Manfio.

180

Figure iv.2.24. Golden brass hilt of short sabre no. 306 (n.i. 334.083). Photo: S. Manfio.

180

Figure iv.2.25. Austro-Hungarian sabre no. 720 restored (n.i. 334.121). Photo: S. Manfio.

181

Figure iv.2.26. Sabre model 1775 of an Austro-Hungarian grenadier. Photo: Wagner, 1967, 135, pl. 65.

181

Figure iv.2.27. Punches on the hilt of sabre no. 720 (n.i. 334.121). Photo: S. Manfio.

182

Figure iv.2.28. Part of un-restored sword no. 405, found broken into three pieces (n.i. 333.912). Photo: S. Manfio. 182 Figure iv.2.29. Brass bouterolle (drag) with remains of the blade inside, no. 45 (n.i. 333.876). Photo: S. Manfio. 183 Figure iv.2.30. Brass chape, no. 116 (n.i. 334.067). Photo. S. Manfio.

183

Figure iv.2.31. Brass button of a hilt, no. 536.4 (n.i. 334.098). Photo: S. Manfio.

183

Figure iv.2.32. Possibly a brass plate or inlay from a sword, no. 486.1. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

183

Figure iv.2.33. Naval axe, no. 707, before restoration. Photo: S. Manfio.

184

Figure iv.2.34. Marine Pistol, Modèle 1786. Figure: Boudriot, 1966, 22–23.

184

Figure iv.2.35. Marine pistols, Modèle 1786, nos 511.1 (n.i. 334.038), 511.2 (restored; n.i. 334.039), 788 (n.i. 333.947), 603 (n.i. 334.110), and 604 (not restored; n.i. 334.111). Photo: S. Manfio. 184 Figure iv.2.36. Crowned ‘M’ and PN or PH punched on pistol no. 511.1 (n.i. 334.038). Photo: S. Manfio. 185 Figure iv.2.37. ‘B’ punched on pistol no. 511.1 (n.i. 334.038). Photo: S. Manfio.

185

Figure iv.2.38. ‘V’ punched on pistol no. 511.2 (n.i. 334.039). Photo: S. Manfio.

185

Figure iv.2.39. ‘M’ punched on the pistol no. 603 (n.i. 334.110). Photo: S. Manfio.

185

Figure iv.2.40. Possible ‘K’ punched on pistol no. 604 (n.i. 334.111). Photo: S. Manfio.

185

Figure iv.2.41. Musket punched with ‘RI’, no. 474 (n.i. 334.094). Photo: S. Manfio.

187

Figure iv.2.42. Brass firearms pan no. 312 (n.i. 334.085). Photo: S. Manfio.

187

Figure iv.2.43. Flintlock, consisting of: a) lockplate, b) hammer, c) upper jaw, d) hammerscrew, e) frizzen, f ) pan, g) mainspring, h) frizzen spring, i) tumbler, l) sear, m) sera. Figure: Salvatici, 1985, 10.

187

Figure iv.2.44. Copper alloy butt of musket, no. 309. Photo: C. Beltrame.

188

Figure iv.2.45. Lead bullets of various diameters, nos 141 (n.i. 334.162), 800, 727.3, and 838 (n.i. 334.164). Photo: S. Manfio.

188

Figure iv.2.46. Large pin joined from a loop on a chain, no. 727.26 (n.i. 334.122–24), used by sailor-gunners to remove unexploded powder from the rifle. Photo: S. Manfio.

188

Figure iv.3.1. Gunflint partly covered by a lead sheath (1), used gunflints (2, 4), and micro-photograph of the utilization traces of specimen 4 (3). Photos: E. Starnini.

189

Figure iv.3.2. Gunflints of Class 4 (1, 2), and Class 1 (3). Photos and drawings: E. Starnini.

190

List of Illustrations

xxi

Figure iv.4.1. Brass thimble no. 538.1 (n.i. 334.101). Photo: E. Costa.

193

Figure iv.4.2. Brass fob seal no. 540 (n.i. 334.104). Photo: E. Costa.

193

Figure iv.4.3. Mould of a Lira Veneta no. 352.1 (n.i. 334.089). Photo: S. Manfio.

193

Figure iv.4.4. Mould of a Kreuzer no. 536.3 A. Photo: S. Manfio.

194

Figure iv.4.5. Pio VII Baiocchi nos 781 A-E (n.i. 334.130–34). Photo: E. Costa.

194

Figure iv.4.6. Coin of the Regno d’Italia nos 808 B and 808 C (n.i. 334.139–40). Photo: S. Manfio.

194

Figure iv.4.7. Wooden comb no. 812 (n.i. 334.142). Photo: E. Costa.

195

Figure iv.4.8. Toothbrush no. 533 (n.i. 334.096). Photo: E. Costa.

195

Figure iv.4.9. Animal bone, engraved, whistle (?) no. 751.11 (n.i. 334.126). Photo: E. Costa.

195

Figure iv.4.10. Carved wooden object, no. 854 (n.i. 333.995). Photo: E. Costa.

195

Figure iv.4.11. Presumed game-balls made from wood, nos 419 (n. i 333.915) and 478. Photo: C. Beltrame. 196 Figure iv.4.12. Gold wedding ring, no. 219.2 (n.i. 334.074). Photo: E. Costa.

196

Figure iv.4.13. Gold ring, no. 219.1 (n.i. 334.073). Photo: E. Costa.

196

Figure iv.4.14. Small gold chain, no. 246. Photo: E. Costa.

197

Figure iv.4.15. Gold pendant, no. 400 (n.i. 334.091). Photo: E. Costa.

197

Figure iv.4.16. Locket pendant of brass, no. 541 (n.i. 334.105). Photo: E. Costa.

197

Figure iv.4.17. Aluminium pendant, no. 535a (n.i. 334.097). Photo: E. Costa.

197

Figure iv.4.18. Brass medal with the images of Joseph with baby Jesus on the one side, and of Saint Anne on the other side, no. 546.1 (n.i. 334.109). Photo: S. Manfio.

197

Figure iv.4.19. Clay pipe, no. 120 (n.i. 334.068). Photo: S. Manfio.

198

Figure iv.5.1. Tariffa B from decree no. 281 of 21 December 1807. Figure: courtesy of Società Numismatica Italiana. Appendices

200

Figure A.1. Pulley no. 307 (n.i. 334.084/333.911) with concretion. Photo: T. Lanave.

222

Figure A.2. Pulley no. 307 (n.i. 334.084/333.911) without concretion and separated from the bronze bushing. Photo: T. Lanave.

223

Figure A.3. Analysis on the water content with a pin. Photo: T. Lanave.

223

Figure A.4. Objects desalinated in deionized water. Photo: T. Lanave.

223

Figure A.5. Objects immersed in 25% PEG400. Photo: T. Lanave.

223

Figure A.6. Controlled drying in a room with air conditioner and thermostats. Photo: T. Lanave.

224

Figure B.1. Traces of oxidation on the heels of find no. 830b (n.i. 334.028). Photo: S. Donadel.

225

Figure B.2. Leather finds in the laboratory before cleaning. Photo: N. Condrache.

226

Figure B.3. Leather after the cleaning process. Photo: N. Condrache.

227

Figure B.4. Measuring the level of pH of the demineralized water where leather is immersed. Photo: N. Condrache. 227

xxii

List of Illustrations

Figure C.1. The copper cauldron (classified with no. 39.9) after a first restoration (front). Photo: G. Moretti. 231 Figure C.2. Solvent mixing test for the copper cauldron no. 39.9: ante (b) and post (c). Photo: G. Moretti. 231 Figure C.3. The copper cauldron no. 39.9 after the restoration work (back). Photo: G. Moretti.

231

Figure C.4. Nail no. 713, as recovered from the excavation of the Mercurio. Photo: G. Moretti.

232

Figure C.5. The electrolysis effect on nail no. 730 after 2 hours. Photo: G. Moretti.

232

Figure C.6. Nails nos 713, 714, and 730 after the restoration and conservation. Photo: G. Moretti.

232

Figure C.7. Lead strip no. 620 as found in the Mercurio wreck underwater site. Photo: G. Moretti.

232

Figure C.8. Lead strip no. 620 after the restoration and conservation work. Photo: G. Moretti.

232

Figure C.9. The swivel-gun ‘petriera’, no. 202 (n.i. 333.873), after the recovery. Photo: C. Beltrame.

233

Figure C.10. The ‘petriera’, no. 202 (n.i. 333.873), during the first washing period (7 days) in demineralized water. Photo: G. Moretti.

234

Figure C.11. The zone close to the swivel-gun ‘petriera’, no. 202 (n.i. 333.873), support where the trunnion lean against the iron support (before the electrochemical cleaning). Photo: G. Moretti. 234 Figure C.12. Part of the inscription on the swivel-gun breech revealed by the fine mechanical cleaning operation. Photo: G. Moretti.

234

Figure C.13. The swivel-gun petriera, no. 202 (n.i. 333.873), constituted the cathode of the electrolytic cell. Photo: G. Moretti.

235

Figure C.14. The swivel-gun petriera, no. 202 (n.i. 333.873), after restoration. Photo: G. Moretti.

236

Foreword

T

he interventions on and around the wreck of the Mercurio, completed across the course of several underwater research campaigns, come to fruition in this final publication, which for several important reasons constitutes a milestone for both the Mediterranean, and more specifically for Italy. The find of this Napoleonic brig, randomly discovered in 2001 by David Scala, supported by his brother Andrea and his father Giovanni Silvestro, was promptly reported to the relevant Superintendence for Archaeological Heritage of the Veneto — namely the Office of underwater archaeology, Nausicaa, in Venice. Explorations of the wreck of the Mercurio were initially carried out by the Superintendency, who, from the very beginning, entrusted this work to Carlo Beltrame. the author of this volume. Subsequently, it was Professor Beltrame, through his position at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, who decided to carry out the research and recovery work on the numerous finds. This continuity in the scientific committee, unprecedented over such a long campaign of excavation, is one of the reasons why work on the Mercurio has proved so successful. The publication of this volume is in fact a first for nineteenth-century nautical archaeology in the Mediterranean area. Individual contributions included here clarify the historical significance of the underwater research carried out, even in those sections that draw on the skills and knowledge of specialists from other disciplines. Furthermore, the attention paid here to modern and contemporary wrecks, due in part to the passing of new laws in Italy (Code of Cultural Heritage, 2004), greatly expands the chronological spectrum of our expertise in nautical archaeology. From this perspective, the painstaking and highly specialized methodology with which the catalogue of the single finds included here has been compiled takes on particular significance. It is clear that this present volume, which forms the final chapter of a field study presented to the public as part of a display at the new Museum of the Archaeology of the Sea (Caorle, Venice), stands out as a model of publication that should be adopted by similar works in the future. It can thus be considered a publication manual, thanks to its unique composition: the analysis of historical sources and their relationship with material finds from the sea bed; the methods and techniques employed to excavate a military vessel sunk as an act of war, with the subsequent associated dispersal of material into archaeological sub-areas; and the anthropological study of similarly dispersed human remains. It is essential to acknowledge these three elements in order to understand the archaeological context that is created, and the subsequent methodologies that must be employed. Thus the position of every individual find can be considered as having a two-fold value: firstly, as a component of the wreck, and secondly, as a result of the effects of war at sea. Awareness of this latter aspect, in particular, can be considered with the larger aim of compiling a selection of case studies that will ultimately comprise a specialized, chronologically differentiated database for us in a defining a new field of study in the context of underwater archaeology: the archaeology of war at sea, and the ways in which maritime war impacts an entire human ecosystem. Ultimately, this publication stands out as a clear invitation to consider the importance of recent wrecks as additional sources of historical data. The protection, research, and enhancement of the modern and contemporary naval heritage discussed here also represent a new challenge for underwater archaeologists, for museums, and for those involved in protecting sea beds of historical interest. Through this unique approach, this volume also offers the reader an unprecedented context on which to reflect. Luigi Fozzati ( former Archaeological Superintendent of Friuli Venezia-Giulia), Venice, 20 June 2019.

Preface

T

he archaeological investigation of the shipwreck of the brig Mercurio began by chance, after a casual discovery made by fishermen in 2001. During the first survey of the site, there was no inkling that this finding (at first only a carronade covered by concretion) would develop into a major research project, one of the most comprehensive projects in Italian maritime archaeology. It was in 2004, during the second campaign, organized by the Università Ca’ Foscari of Venice, that the foundations of a long-term project were laid. The scientific potential of the site was indeed already quite clear, both because of the excellent preservation of the finds, and of the historical importance of the archaeological context. These foundations were firmly based on the interest in the project both of the University and of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto, which welcomed the author’s offer to transform this site into a unique educational opportunity for students of maritime archaeology. By 2011, the excavation had become a field school for students from the University of Venice, and from other universities, both at home and abroad. Thanks to the funding received from many sponsors, but mainly the Regione del Veneto and the Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, this excavation became one of the longest-lasting underwater excavations in the Mediterranean, and one of the first investigations of a modern shipwreck in Italy. The annual campaigns have become a regular attraction for journalists, who publicise them in every branch of the media: local and national newspapers, national and foreign illustrated magazines, regional and national newscasts, television documentaries, and finally, chapters of books where the excavation of this ship has become a subject for novels. If the ideal route of an archaeological excavation leads not only to the publication of the scientific results, but also to the conservation of the entire collection of finds, and to an exhibition, we can say with satisfaction that we have reached our goal. While I am writing these lines, thanks to the initiative of the Polo Museale del Veneto directed by Daniele Ferrara, and Annamaria Larese, to whom the project exhibition was delegated, the conservation of the last finds is being completed, and we are putting the final touches to the permanent exhibition of the research project in the Museo Nazionale di Archeologia del Mare of Caorle. The entire collection of finds recovered in the site will be displayed on the first floor of this building, where the story of the Battle of Grado and the research into the shipwreck will be told through digital and innovative exhibits created in collaboration with the IUAV University of Venice. The exhibition, together with the publication of this book, marks the successful completion of the Mercurio project. This volume, printed after the publication of a number of preliminary reports, is the final edition of the underwater investigation carried out on the shipwreck, which, far from being a full excavation, was concentrated on the port side of the prow. This work is also a comprehensive study, both of the historical sources on the Battle of Grado and on the brig sunk during this event, and of the hundreds of items found during the investigations, with special emphasis on the hull remains. The studies have been entrusted to specialists in different topics and students who worked on the underwater investigations. The book starts with an introduction by the author describing theoretical aspects of the study of a historical shipwreck. In the first part, the historical context is treated by Piero Crociani, a military historian, who describes the organization of the Navy of the Kingdom of Italy, and by the author, who describes the events which preceded the battle and the naval combat itself. The author also presents the few historical facts available about the Mercurio. The second part, edited by the author, is dedicated to the discovery, the site description and the formation of the archaeo-

xxvi

Preface

logical record, and to the report of the investigation, describing the methods and techniques used in the documentation. The topic of the third part, written mainly by the author with the collaboration of Stefania Manfio, a student who took part in the excavations, is the ship. This means that the text focuses on the analysis of the ship’s construction and nautical equipment, together with discussion of the armament and the finds from the galley. The fourth part is dedicated to the crew, who have been studied from various viewpoints. The fortunate survival of skeletal remains has enabled an anthropological study to be made by Francesca Bertoldi, lecturer at Ca’ Foscati University, and Roberto Cameriere, Carlotta Sisalli and Fiorella Bestetti, forensic anthropologists, a very rare opportunity in Mediterranean maritime archaeology. Also virtually unique is the quantity of finds of uniforms, including shoes and arms; these have been studied for a MA thesis by Sophia Donadel, who made in-depth comparisons with both archive sources and collections. Although the same scholar also studied the small arms, the study of the gunflints was entrusted to Paolo Biagi, Professor of Prehistory at Università Ca’ Foscari, and Elisabetta Starnini, prehistorian of the University of Pisa. Although the military aspects are obviously predominant, there is also an analysis of life on board ship, based on personal belongings, such as coins and jewellery. The coins have been studied by Tomaso Lucchelli, Professor at Università Ca’ Foscari. Conclusions by the author are followed by the fully illustrated catalogue of the entire collection of finds, divided into twelve categories presented by various authors. In Appendix A are contributions on the conservation of the waterlogged wood by Tiziana Lanave, a student and restorer who took part in the excavation; the conservation of the leather by the restorer Neculina Condrache and Sophia Donadel; and the conservation of some metallic finds by Giuseppe Moretti, corrosion expert at Università Ca’ Foscari. The book closes with the transcription of official documents concerning the Battle of Grado. Carlo Beltrame, Venice, 28 March 2018

Acknowledgements

I

am in debt to Luigi Fozzati and Alessandro Asta, archaeologists of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto, who kindly supported the requests for permission to investigate the site and study the objects. Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto collaborated throughout the excavation project. The excavation project could not have been carried out without the collaboration of the many people who participated in the research from 2001 to 2011. Among them are students in archaeology, archaeologists, and technicians. They are too many to be mentioned individually here, but I cannot but mention the Nucleo Sommozzatori Vigili del Fuoco (Fire Brigade Divers Unit) and the Nucleo Sommozzatori Carabinieri (Military Police Divers Unit) of Trieste. I must mention Dario Gaddi, my colleague who begun the project with me in 2001, and Stefano Caressa, the chief technician and pilot of the working boat. Without Caressa’s professionalism and enthusiasm, this project would not have been possible. I also want to thank Francesco Dossola, the diver of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto, who participated in all the excavation seasons, and who was really essential to this project, and Roberto Zucco, who put his boat at our disposal, and participated in the underwater work. We also cannot omit the Scala family of fishermen from Marano Lagunare who discovered the site, and who are still important for safeguarding it, and Duilio Della Libera, a volunteer who took photos and videos of the excavation. My friends and colleagues from the University of Haifa, Deborah Cvikel, and the late Yaacov Kahanov who sadly recently passed away, joined us for two seasons. Professor Kahanov was also tutor of my PhD dissertation on the construction of this ship and its equipment. Finally, I wish to thank Giovanni Santi Mazzini, who left this world too soon, for his valuable information and corrections of my mistakes, together with Renato Gianni Ridella and Marco Morin for their advice about the ordnance and shot, and Gianfranco Marzin for his valuable advice about the uniforms and weapons.

This book is dedicated to Yaacov Kahanov: Segui tua stella, non fallirai a glorioso porto (Dante) Follow your star, you cannot fail to arrive at a glorious port (Dante)

PLATES

xxix

Plate 1. The wreck site of the Mercurio. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxx

PLATES

Plate 2. Area A of the wreck site. Sectors of excavation and progress of the documentation of the site from 2001 to 2011. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

PLATES

xxxi

Plate 3. GIS showing the organic finds in Area A of the wreck site. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxii

PLATES

Plate 4. GIS showing the location of the skeletal remains and of the coins. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

PLATES

xxxiii

Plate 5. Area A. GIS showing the wreck site overlapping the plan of the model of the Cygne. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

Plate 6. Area B, the stern post of the shipwreck. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxiv

PLATES

Plate 7. GIS of the wreck site showing the hull (brown), the ballast (red), and the metal components of the hull (yellow), including items such as lead objects, and copper alloy bolts and nails. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

PLATES

xxxv

Plate 8. GIS showing the rigging elements. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

xxxvi

PLATES

Plate 9. GIS showing the distribution of the gunflints recovered from Area A, Sectors 8 and 9. Drawing: C. Beltrame and S. Manfio.

Introduction Carlo Beltrame

Studying a Historical Shipwreck What value can we give to an archaeological context such as the Mercurio? What value can we give to a context only two centuries old? Is its value determined only by the original information the context can offer for an historical reconstruction? Can we also consider those aspects that go beyond the scientific contribution or the commercial/antique worth as having a value? Is it possible to recognize other potential values in this kind of archaeological source? And can we also give a value to the emotions that a ship — aboard which a hundred men, whose names are known to us, died — can generate, or to the social identity, the historical consciousness, and the sense of relationship that we can feel with a young crew who came, in part, from our territory? Is it ‘right’ to give a value to these aspects? Although we do not want to give an academic answer to these questions, we wish to say that we feel a personal relationship with these people, and that we think that this is a good reason to investigate this shipwreck. Moreover, the success of this excavation, at least in the territory of the Friuli Venezia Giulia (and also partially in Veneto), and the significant attention it received from the regional and national mass media (Beltrame, 2014a), could be a good answer to the question. Returning to a purely academic dimension, where the scientific value is still determined only by the original contribution of the context to the knowledge of the subject, it should be noted that the study of shipwrecks of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been neglected in comparison to shipwrecks of the ancient Mediterranean. They have often received greater attention from treasure hunters than from scholars; salvage projects have often been justified by the questionable

idea that ‘complete vessel histories, bills of lading and passenger lists would be extant in libraries’ (Murphy, 1983, 68). We should note that the quality of studies of ship construction in the modern period through the analysis of shipwrecks is poor. In fact, the excavations of these shipwrecks have focused much more on the documentation of the objects than on the analysis of the wooden hull remains, and some modern shipwrecks have been excavated in which the hull has been dismissed as an uninteresting ‘container’. It is curious how well the numerous items found in the Vasa have been studied, and yet how poor remains our knowledge of the construction technique of this most famous and best-preserved seventeenth-century ship recovered from the sea (Eriksson, 2014, 35). The analysis of the post-sinking processes and of the spatial distribution of the objects within the shipwrecks of this period is no better. The number of shipwrecks of the Napoleonic period investigated scientifically is relatively small. The Mercurio is one of the very few Mediterranean brigs to be the subject of a detailed archaeological excavation. Because of the dating, the Mercurio belongs to the school of discipline which in the United Kingdom and the United States is called ‘Historical Archaeology’, but which in Italy is preferably called ‘Post-Mediaeval Archaeology’: ‘a sort of text-aided archaeology, or better yet, an archaeology with several aids coming from nonarchaeological sources, which allows for a better and broader reconstruction of the past’ (Milanese, 2014). Of course, the information about this period is abundant: many historical sources describing battles, life aboard these vessels, and naval architecture are available. Some graphical sources of the plans of ships and models made during the ships’ lives are extant; but in this work

Carlo Beltrame

2 we attempt to demonstrate that, although this relative richness of non-archaeological documentation exists, an archaeological investigation can still tell us much, and moreover, do so in a different way. Archaeological analysis can in fact organize and improve the historical data. The possibility that the investigation of maritime contexts can correct, update, or enrich historical information has been demonstrated in the past, for example by the studies of the personal items from the Dartmouth shipwreck (Muckelroy, 1978, 223), the guns found in the Invincible Armada (Martin, 2001), and by Muckelroy’s analyses of shipwrecks such as the Kennemerland (Price and Muckelroy, 1974; Muckelroy, 1976). Muckelroy, for example, demonstrated that an accurate archaeological investigation and follow-up excavation analysis of the data enabled the reconstruction of the dynamics of the wrecking, which could otherwise have been neglected or misinterpreted by written documents of the post-medieval period. With an analytical approach to study of the hull, we can obtain detailed information that no historical source can offer. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, in fact, the plans of naval architects gave generic instructions to shipwrights, and the carpentry details were decided directly by the latter. In every shipyard, any shipwright could introduce his own solutions, tradition, and style (Beltrame, 2009). This was a period in which the projects were not yet executed in the modern meaning of the term. Archaeometric studies, such as xilotomic and dendrological analysis, as well as archaeometallurgical analysis, can provide original information that cannot be found in the written documents. The great potential of modern wreck-archaeology is also to move from a particularistic approach to a problem-orientated approach (Murphy, 1983, 70). The social interactions of the community on board ship, comprising individuals with defined roles and duties, and who sometimes had little outside contact, can be studied and interpreted based on the variety of finds. This kind of investigation of a shipwreck such as the Mercurio is facilitated by the quality of the archaeological record, and in this case, by the presence of human remains. Studying the Mercurio The first evidence of the presence of the brig Mercurio was discovered in 2001 by a fishing boat, which recovered a carronade (a short large-calibre naval gun) and some copper cauldrons. The site lies at a depth of 17 m

in the northern Adriatic Sea, 7 nautical miles (11 km) from the border between the Veneto and Friuli VeneziaGiulia regions in north-eastern Italy. A side-scan sonar search, organized by the Soprin­ tendenza Archeologica per il Veneto of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, and directed by the author, who was in charge of the site, facilitated the discovery of the shipwreck. It consisted of a mound and several carronades scattered over a wide area. The mound was composed of iron and lead ingots, and cannonballs, and was situated at the centre of the remains of the ship. It was soon possible to identify the ship as the Mercurio, a brig, commanded by Lieutenant Giovanni Palicucchia or Palinucchia and belonging to the fleet of the Kingdom of Italy (Regno Italico), which was sunk by the British brig Weasel in the early morning of 22 February 1812 while the Mercurio was escorting the Rivoli, a French 80-gun ship, built in the Arsenal of Venice, on her maiden voyage. This event is known by historians as the Battle of Grado. The Mercurio was built in Genoa in 1806, and between 1809 and 1810 was transferred to the ‘Italian’ fleet, which had its harbour in Venice. This is the only known shipwreck of a ship of the Kingdom of Italy, and the Mercurio was the first ‘Italian’ ship to sail under the tricolour flag.1 In 2001, and then from 2004 onwards, the author organized nine short periods of excavation at the shipwreck site, directing a team of about twelve divers including free-lance archaeologists, students of maritime archaeology (from Università Ca’ Foscari of Venice, other Italian universities, and abroad), and technicians. The site, although it was discovered accidentally, became a research project and field school. During the excavations and the subsequent documentation using photogrammetric techniques, a part of the hull was investigated and almost 1300 finds were recovered. Some of these items are parts of the hull, nails, bolts, rigging components, nautical, navigation, and piloting equipment, artillery pieces, small arms, tools, pottery, glass, and many personal belongings, including valuable items. There were numerous objects belonging to uniforms, such as buttons and footwear. At least seven incomplete human skeletons were found. The site, at least in the port bow area, which corresponds to where the majority of the excavations were  The Regno Italico or Regno d’Italia (Kingdom of Italy) was a pre-united satellite state of the Napoleonic Empire under the control of Napoleon’s son, the Viceroy Eugenio de Beauharnais. 1

Introduction carried out, has preserved a vast array of objects — many made of wood and leather — in excellent condition. On the port side, the hull is quite well preserved up to the upper deck, and the sternpost has been discovered far from the main section of the ship. Because of the good conditions of preservation of the items and the hull, and because of the extraordinary presence of skeletal remains, this site may therefore be considered as one of the bestpreserved marine contexts along the Mediterranean coastline. As a result of the relative ‘youthfulness’ of this context, and hence the availability of much historical information on this kind of ship, the historical period, and the historical event, it seemed important to us to define clearly the main objectives of the archaeological investigation in order to justify it. They were: –– to answer some historical questions about the battle; –– to study the hull construction technique and the characteristics of the rigging equipment of the ship; –– to study the life of the men on board the ship through the analysis of the tools for maintaining and repairing the ship, nautical and piloting equipment, personal belongings, galley equipment, and the skeletal remains; –– to study the military aspect of the vessel through the analysis of the artillery, small arms, ammunition, and uniforms.

3 These objectives generated the following main research questions that we have tried to answer, sometimes successfully and sometimes not: –– Why did the Mercurio explode? Did the Weasel really hit the powder magazine, as documented in some written sources? –– What were the dynamics of the wrecking, both before the sinking and on the seabed? –– What were the quality, defects, and technical details both of the construction of the Mercurio, and of the rigging equipment? –– What ordnance and ammunition were on board the Mercurio? –– What can we learn from the study of the uniforms and small arms? –– Is it possible to define different living areas in the ship? Is it possible to identify individual men aboard? –– What was the physical status of the men aboard? To answer these questions, it was decided to experiment with importing the photogrammetric plans of the entire site into an intra-site GIS. This tool documents the locations of the find spots of all classes of objects (arms, rigging, tools, etc.) and of the remains of the hull and metal parts of the ship, and it helps to reconstruct the dynamics of the sinking and the subsequent processes.

Part i Historical Context and the Battle of Grado

1. Napoleon’s Italian Navy Piero Crociani

Introduction While the army of the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy has been studied in some depth, no detailed study of its navy existed before the publication of the 2004 book Storia Militare del Regno Italico, the second volume of which has a large section devoted to the navy. When Napoleon became king of Italy in 1805, the new kingdom inherited a very small navy from the former Italian republic. This was largely due to the short length of the coasts of the Romagna Riviera, from the mouth of the River Po to the small town of Cattolica. Moreover, the harbours of these sandy coasts were so few and inadequate that a French naval mission had suggested establishing a naval base along the Po river at Comacchio. Seven gun-boats and two armed drifters were the only boats at sea. On the eve of the Third Coalition War, some other gun-boats and goelettes were rigged in the lakes at the border with the Austrian Empire, and these were also manned by French and Ligurian sailors. In addition to their crews, navy personnel comprised a battalion of Marine Artillery, who served both on board and in the coastal batteries, together with about twenty executive officers, virtually all of whom — with the exception of two individuals — were former officers of the Royal Neapolitan Navy and refugees after the fall of the Neapolitan Republic in 1799. Their commander, Amilcare Paulucci, also came from that navy, despite belonging to a noble family from Modena, in northern Italy. At the beginning of 1806, Venice’s annexation into the Kingdom of Italy wholly changed the Royal Italian Navy; its role and importance became entirely different. It was able to draw on the heritage of the Austrian-

Venetian navy — and indirectly from Venice. This heritage was both material (ships, yards, woods, ports) and human (officers, crews, technicians, and so on), and it was superimposed on to the small Italian Navy. Unfortunately, the navy was only able on a few occasions to fulfil the role and importance that had been planned and wished for by Napoleon; the strategic visions of command and management were lacking in unity, but perhaps there was no other possibility. Orders in fact came from Paris, which was by then far removed from the theatre of war, while in Milan, despite its greater proximity, there was only the administration of the Italian Navy (the 5th Division of the Italian War Office). The viceroy, meanwhile, limited his role to that of passing on his imperial stepfather’s orders, as he was unable to object to, or to alter, plans and nor could he effectively control the implementation of these orders — orders that moreover followed one another and were always pressing and yet simultaneously sometimes belated. An additional issue was that neither Eugene nor Napoleon had much faith in the Italian officers and sailors. Thus from the moment of its inception, Napoleon awarded the top position in the Italian navy to a French ‘Commissaire General’, a role held initially by Louis Bertin, and then, from 1807 onwards, by Etienne Maillot.1 In the same way, the command of the combined Franco-Italian naval forces, on the occasions when this took place, was given to French officers, not least because Venice was the base of the Imperial French Navy, where French ships were also built. The officers of the administration, meanwhile, were almost all Italian. After some reorganization, the administration comprised some sixty officers and clerks,

  Archivio di Stato di Milano, Ministero della Guerra (hereafter ASMI), folder 131. 1

Piero Crociani

8 in addition to the ‘account agents’ who served on ships, frigates, corvettes, and brigs. The Italian Navy was divided into three active divisions: Dalmatia, Albania, and Corfù; the Venice lagoon flotilla; and the reserve division, which included the capital ships.2 It reached the end of the Napoleonic wars with almost all of its capital ships intact, albeit blockaded in Venice. The navy’s partition into ‘divisions’ was modelled on the actual (and more limited) tasks that it held: the defence of the Dalmatian coast (Venetian Albania was limited to the Gulf of Kotor); securing the links with the Ionian Islands; and the protection of traffic along the eastern coast of Italy. This last task became easier when the region of Marche was annexed to Italy. The more ambitious program of keeping Austria separated from Great Britain was achieved, but only when the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea came entirely under French rule. Even on this occasion, however, the ships of the British squadron were able to maintain control of Adriatic waters, at least to a degree, thanks to their technical superiority, to their training, and to British possession of some key islands, such as Lissa. Two FrancoItalian raids were launched against this small island, which was an important store for goods that were to be exported to the mainland despite the Continental blockade. The first of these raids was a success, while the second one led to one of the most important clashes between frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, on 13 March 1813. The greater experience and manoeuvring capacity of the British prevailed over a more numerous FrancoItalian flotilla ultimately undermined by poor command (on this occasion, at least, the commander was a French one, Dubordieu).

The Shipyard and the Naval Construction Venice’s shipyard, the Arsenale (Fig. i.1.1), with its experienced workers and naval engineers, was a key incentive behind Napoleon’s choice of Venice as the main centre of the new Italian Navy and of French naval forces in the Adriatic Sea. The same factors, however, were also strongly to influence the Emperor’s naval construction programmes to a degree that went beyond the difficulties originating from his continuous change of strategic and financial programmes. For all that the shipyard had its own experienced workers, however, their performance turned out to be 2

  Archives Nationales Paris, Secretaire d’Etat-AFIV 1710 B.

limited: they were accustomed to more relaxed systems of work and to a series of fringe benefits that the new commanders were unable to maintain. Moreover, it was necessary to restructure the shipyard’s buildings, channels, and piers in order to build, launch, and rig the capital ships. These ships could leave the waters of the lagoon waters and pass into the open sea only through a channel at Malamocco. There, in order to pass the shallows in the water, the use of a cammelli engine was required. Moreover, for a ship to pass out of the lagoon, it was necessary to reduce its draught; this required the unloading of guns, ammunition, and provisions, which then had to be reloaded once the ship was at open sea where it was exposed to heavy hazards. Furthermore, a rivalry existed between Italian naval engineers (the majority of whom came from the Austrian-Venetian Navy) and their French colleagues, a rivalry that was not fully subdued by the separation of French and Italian naval constructions. Taken together, these reasons, together with other issues of a financial and organizational nature, delayed the time taken to build ships far beyond those that were anticipated by the impatient emperor. As a result, at the end of the wars, some of the ships still remained in the lagoon’s waters or rested — still incomplete — on their slipways. Such was the case for all four Italian men-ofwar and five out of six of the French ships built in Venice for the Imperial Navy. The sixth vessel — the Rivoli — had a crew that was recruited mostly from sailors of the Italian departments of the French Empire. Alongside the capital ships, the Italian Navy engineers in Venice also built four frigates, three sloops, seven brigs, and many other light boats. During those years, the shipyard was enlarged and modernized. Depending upon the work to be carried out on any given day, between 1000 and 1800 dockers would be present in the yard, helped by between two or three times as many casual day workers, and by chain gangs.3 The new government introduced rules to govern daily life in the shipyard. These must have been frequently

3   These figures, like any other figures concerning the strength of crews, officers, servicemen and, in general, the corps of the Italian Navy, have been drawn from the following sources: Archives Nationales Paris, Secretarie d’Etat-AFIV 1710 B (for the years 1807–08), AFIV 1832 (year 1808), AFIV 1833 (years 1810–13). Museo Storico Navale di Venezia, Biblioteca, A 55 and A 56 (Stato Generale della R.  Marina al 1.° novembre 1807 ed al 1.° marzo 1809). ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 2822 bis (Stato gene­ rale del personale e del materiale della R. Marina al 1.° agosto 1809).

1. Napoleon’s Italian Navy

9

Figure i.1.1. Maffioletti’s plan of the Arsenale of Venice (1798). Image after Marzari 1990, 17.

infringed, as indicated by the number of standing orders concerning such infractions. In 1813, these rules were gathered together under the title of ‘Venice’s shipyard and harbour service general rules’. By this date, a part of the Arsenale’s personnel had been militarized and assigned to the company either of the trombieri (firemen), or to two (later three) companies of Navy Military Workers. The first unit was organized by the decree of 31 March 1807,4 which was later modified on 23 August 1811,5 and it was intended for fire-fighting. The unit served four pumps (referred to as trombe, which thus gave rise to the term trombieri), two of which were loaded on to boats. The Navy Military Workers were organized in 1811, and each company comprised 105 non-commissioned officers and workers under the orders of two officers (one engineer and one under-engineer). These companies were mobilized for the campaigns in Russia, and later in Germany, to act as pontoneers. ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 130.   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 142.

The Crews In contrast to the Army, the Navy recruited its personnel according to the needs of the moment and could demobilize troops when ships were put out of commission. Furthermore, the Navy recruited its men from people with a nautical background — fishermen, sailors, naval carpenters, and so on (outlined in the Decree of 25 July 1806).6 In order to recruit people effectively, riverine and coastal areas of the Kingdom were divided by a decree dated 22 June 1808 into seventeen Sindacati Marittimi, each controlled by a Sindaci Marittimi. These sindaci were charged with the task of keeping updated the list of people subject to naval service. In case of need, they also had the task of actively enlisting people (often with the help of the Gendarmeria and using systems that were not dissimilar from the British press-gang ). Sailors were divided into four classes; in addition to these classes, there were also apprentices and ship boys,

4  5

6

  ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 129.

Piero Crociani

10 the latter of whom might be as young as ten years of age. Promotions of apprentices and sailors in the different classes depended on age and on seniority of navigation. Similar criteria, coupled with experience, also formed the basis of promotion for the petty officers, called Ufficiali Marinai, which consisted of five different ranks.7 The progressive increase in the number of ships led inevitably to an increase in the number of serving sailors, which grew from an original base of Istrian and Dalmatians that was inherited from the Austrian-Venetian Navy, or else individuals who enlisted in 1806. The number of sailors grew from 1480 in January 1807 to about 2000 in the first half of 1809, reaching a peak of 2983 on 1 August 1809, before settling back at around 2000. An additional source of recruits was found after 1812 through the organization of the Flotilla Battalion, a unit that had the task of recruiting boys of at least twelve years of age, coming from the orphanages, to a life at sea. The decree of 23 February initially foresaw four companies (later eight), each of them having ninety-seven pupils.8 In general, it was not too difficult to reach the full number of men required — or at least somewhere very close to it — to crew each ship. As an indication of numbers, it is possible to look at the figures laid out in a decree from 24 March 1808: 325 men for each frigate, 232 or 213 for the corvettes, according to their class, 115 or 98 or 77 for the brigs, and 77 for each goelette.9 These figures were slightly modified by two other decrees, the first dating from 5 October of the same year, and the second from 27 January 1811.10 Regardless of the number of sailors, however, the Italian Navy lacked training. Navigation with square sails was almost unknown to the majority of sailors — fishermen, for example, were far more used to sailing boats with lateen sails — and the impact of this was that the navy had to find, choose, and train most hands at the masts. Experience in naval combat was also lacking, and this became especially clear when crews were confronted with British ships that were not only generally bigger but, crucially, were also manned by sailors who were accustomed to prolonged navigation and frequent clashes, and whose artillery fire was far more accurate and rapid.

  ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 137.   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 143. 9   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 132. 10   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folders 133, 139. 7

Naval Corps Two other naval corps also provided personnel: the Marinai Cannonieri (the marine artillery) and the 2  Dalmatian Battalion. This latter group was a unit recruited in 1800 from amongst the Dalmatian Schiavoni by the Austrian government, following in the very old tradition of the Republic of Venice, which recruited its marine infantry regiments from amongst its Dalmatian subjects. The battalion was in service until 1811, at which time it was incorporated into the Dalmatian Regiment. The battalion, with a staff and six companies, was distinguished by the fact that its soldiers could man — alone and without sailors — some of the minor boats. The Battalion of Marine Artillery was organized after a decree dated 29 July 1806, which merged the Italian Battalion (established in 1803) with the Venetian Artillery Battalion, formerly in the service of Austria.11 The new unit was designed to have, in addition to its staff, some twelve companies — eight of gunners, one of bombers, and three of technicians — although one of these latter groups, the armourers, was disbanded in 1811. On board, the gunners acted as gun captains and assistants. The effective strength of the unit seldom reached the numbers proscribed officially, as it varied between 1000 and 1120 men, not least due to losses caused by Venice’s lethal summer climate. The Coast Artillery was another Artillery Corps. It manned coastal batteries, but it was not dependent on the Navy. Instead, it was a branch of the National Guard, possibly drawing on volunteers aged between 25 and 40 years. These individuals drilled twice a month and served in shifts. From 1810 onwards, each company included 2 officers and 114 non-commissioned officers, corporals and gunners, although its strength could be raised to 140 men of all-ranks during the war. There were six companies, with a seventh one being added in 1813 at Grado, a port that had been the object of British raids.12 The main tasks of these companies were to defend anchorages and roadsteds from enemy raids and, above all, to defend merchant ships. These took shelter under the guns during their coastal trade, moving from a gun battery to a harbour, and following the visual signalling of the telegraphs that the sea was clear of enemy sails. A civilian corps manned the visual telegraph. The whole coast was spotted with telegraphic posts, located when

8

11 12

  ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 129.   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 137.

1. Napoleon’s Italian Navy possible on hilltops, and each one was equipped with a telegraphic engine of the Chappe model. These posts, deployed from Istria to Tronto, were arranged into six ‘zones’. The Navy Invalids and Veterans (Invalidi e Veterani di Marina) were assigned to sedentary works. This battalion was organized, according to the decree of 18 April 1807, on the same basis as the pre-existing Battalion of Partial and Entire Invalids of the Estuary, (Battaglione dei Mezzi e Reali Invalidi dell’Estuario). Already in Austrian service, this group was largely composed of former naval personnel and naval infantry from Venice (Fanti da Mar della Serenissima). The battalion was composed of a headquarters, together with two companies of invalids and seven companies of veterans (one of the latter of which included a gunner company), and it was formed of personnel who had at least twenty-five years of service, including ten years of service at sea, or else had wounds or diseases that had rendered them unfit for active duty. They were assigned to watch duties at the port medical office, the salt-pans, the galleys’ penal settlements, and Venice’s shipyard. Between 1810 and 1811, the battalion was re-organized into seven companies, six of which were active and one of which acted as a depot. The first company was assigned to Venice’s port medical office, the second and the third to the galleys’ penal settlements of Venice and Ancona (which eventually became galley warden companies, Guardiaciurme), and the remaining ones to the shipyard.13 In November 1811, the battalion was incorporated into the Army Invalids and Veterans Regiment. The Company of the Sailors of the Royal Guard (Compagnia dei Marinai della Guardia Reale), formed provisionally in 1807 and formalized with a decree on 13 June 1808, was a completely different kind of organization, designed as an elite unit. Once its strength was doubled, it became — according to a decree of 14 February 1811 — the Crew of the Seamen of the Royal Guard (Equipaggio dei Marinai della Guardia Reale), with a total strength consisting of 7 officers, 14 petty and non-commissioned officers, and 126 seamen and shipboys. This unit provided the crew for the royal barge Nettuno and, in shifts, could also man other ships or be on land duty.14 With 3 officers and 103 non-commissioned officers and seamen, the crew took part in the Russian campaign in 1812, where it was assigned to forcing and crossing

11 watercourses, along with bridge-layers and pioneers.15 It was employed for the last time in 1814, when its men were charged with the task of manning Lake Garda’s gunboats. On this occasion they distinguished themselves, beating the Austrians on the waters facing Salò. In 1806, the navy medical corps was formed, which drew together Venetian physicians, surgeons, chemists, and chaplains who were formerly in the service of the Austrians. A Frenchman, however, La Rousy, was charged with organizing and leading the corps. During the three following years, he rearranged the corps. Part of the medical corps personnel served aboard major vessels, with the rest assigned to the Naval Hospital located in Venice on the premises of the Patriarchate, which had an expected capacity of 500 beds.16 In 1811, all medical aid personnel were militarized, and the 4th Military Medical Aid Company (Compagnia Infermieri Militari) was formed in Venice.17

The Officers After the annexation of Venice, at which time most of the Austrian-Venetian navy fell under the control of Napoleon, the Royal Italian Navy (R. Marina Italiana) was able to maintain its name, although in its structure and indeed, in its very existence, it was a very different institution to before. Several factors contributed towards making the new Italian Navy into a different — although by no means the last such — embodiment of the navy of the San Marco Republic following the first AustrianVenetian navy of 1798–1805, and coming before that of the Restoration. These factors included the navy’s location in Venice and along the Istrian-Dalmatian coast (and indeed later on, even in the lonian Islands), as well as the distinct prevalence of officers who followed Venetian traditions, even if they were not Venetian-born. This remained true in spite of the appointment of two French general commissioners (Commissari Generali) to the post of chief of the navy, and the introduction of a certain number of officers of the same nationality. Moreover, the new Italian navy had inherited the manufacturing structures and the institutions of the Serenissima, although these were opposed by the modernization attempts of Napoleonic France. On the other hand, the only officer of the Cisalpine-Italian navy who   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 143.   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 133. 17   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 435. 15

  ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 139. 14   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 139. 13

16

12 would ever have been capable of opposing such a situation had departed from the scene as early as March 1808: Sea-Captain Paulucci was captured when the Friedland, the 16-gun brig on which he was aboard, was intercepted and seized by the British ship Standard and the frigate Active, which between them possessed some 114 guns.18 Initially, six ‘Cisalpine-Italian’ officers joined the forty naval officers who had moved from the AustrianVenetian navy into the Italian navy. Later on, in 1807, they were joined by eight cadets who were promoted to the rank of frigate lieutenant (tenenti di fregata), by nine officers from the French Imperial Navy and by three others, who were appointed by the viceroy. In addition, there also were about forty ‘auxiliary’ officers (who today would be considered reserve officers) and mid-shipmen. A quite strict selection policy helped to limit the number of permanent officers: there were about 70 of them until the end of 1810, when their number reached 83 (together with an additional 30 auxiliaries). This number rose to 87 in August 1811, plus 39 auxiliaries, and reached a peak in October 1813, with 130 officers and 29 auxiliaries. In spite of the increasing number of vessels, the number of officers was quite restrained thanks to various factors: a high level of exchange between armed units, significant losses (about twenty individuals taken prisoner, at least five killed, and two executed for having abandoned their ships), discharge of troops for several reasons, and the selection of cadets and midshipmen from the Naval College (Collegio di Marina), which was instituted with the decree of 21 August 1810.19 This latter institution was intended to ‘support and instruct navy cadets, as well as […] those youth who will orientate themselves toward seamanship, ship-building or naval artillery’. Thirty-six out of one hundred students were appointed to military duties. The age of the new students, whose courses began on 1 January 1811, ranged between 12 and 15 years. The cadets who were by then in service had to be examined and were then admitted — according to their qualifications — into one of the possible three-year study courses provided. For Naval Artillery and Engineer cadets, this consisted of three consecutive years, to be followed by a fourth possible year of study. For all other cadets, there were two years of study, followed by a period aboard, and then a third year of studies. The staff and academic corps 18   Documents concerning the career of Amilcare Paulucci have been preserved in Milan by a private collector, who kindly put them at my disposal. 19   ASMI, Ministero della Guerra, Folder 137.

Piero Crociani of the college included a commander, a director of studies, navy officers, two naval artillery (marinai cannonieri) officers, and a teacher in mathematics, in geography, in hydrography and astronomy, in naval engineering, draughtsmanship, and in Italian and French. There was also a treasurer, navy and naval gunners, and non-commissioned officers. If we consider that the number of officers of Venetian origin (expanded to include Dalmatians, Istrians, and lonians) was overwhelming when compared to the number of those of different origins — a predominance that was maintained, even strengthened, thanks to the fact that many auxiliary officers, mid-shipmen, and most of the cadets of the Naval College had the same origin — it is possible to perceive this group (what we would consider today as ‘staff officers’) as something of a homogeneous group. As such, this ‘officers’ corps’ long remained anchored to its ‘Venetian identity’, and it does not seem to have somehow identified itself with Italy, despite the newly emerging consciousness of a national identity. Rather, there persisted a strong sense of belonging, an ‘ethnical-technical’ identity that arose through membership of an organization such as the Venetian Navy, which had survived the end of the Serenissima in 1798 and, after 1814, also survived the end of the navy of the Regno Italico. The flag and the seat of government might change, but the aim of the Navy was to survive and perpetuate itself. Its officers were hardly replaceable — and they were aware of that — and this situation only saw minor changes until the 1840s, at which time the sense of belonging to a ‘guild’ or organization gradually became replaced amongst young officers by a different, true sense of Italian nationality, which became manifest in 1848 when most of the officers took sides with the insurgents in Venice. For the R. Marina, Italiana was still too early, and its role in the birth of a sense of national identity was, at best, that of a long-life incubator. Its main contribution lay in the activity of the Naval College where, even after Restoration, courses were given in a climate, and against a background, that wholly ignored the country’s relationship with Vienna.

2. The Event in its Context Carlo Beltrame

A

t the beginning of 1812, Venice was part of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (Regno Italico or Regno d’Italia) (Fig.  i.2.1). The Kingdom was born in 1805 when Napoleon was crowned king of the Regno d’Italia and the capital was established in Milan. He appointed his son Eugenio de Beauharnais as Viceroy and divided the Kingdom into six military territorial divisions. Venice was the administrative centre of one of these, and was also the Kingdom’s naval base (Pagano, 2007). From the end of 1805 onwards, Napoleon sought to build and operate warships in as many places as possible in order to overcome and exhaust the resources of the British navy (Sondhaus, 1989, 349). After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, and the defeat of the French navy, the British fleet controlled the entire Mediterranean. The situation in the Adriatic was no different, and it was very difficult for the Franco-Italian ships to move without running the risk of capture. In 1806, as a result of this situation, Napoleon ordered a programme of construction of naval vessels to try and close the gap. A number of ships were to be built in the Arsenal of Venice, which was under the military control of the French navy. In this shipyard, five 74- and 80-gun ships and other smaller ships had to be built entirely from Venetian resources, and this new navy would initially have to rely on former Venetian personnel (Bastide, 1953, 23; Poirier, 1984, 1; Sondhaus, 1989, 350–51; Frasca, 1994; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 397–400). The intention was not to create an Italian navy, but rather, to have a strategic base for the French fleet, and also to apply the strategy of a fleet in being that could discourage and influence its enemy through its mere presence (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 321).

The Napoleonic project also attempted to close the technological and military gap that existed between the British and French fleets by increasing the number of ships (Ilari and Crociani, 2017, 10). Two vessels were assigned to the ‘Italian’ navy (Reale Marina Italiana), the Reale Italiano and the Rigeneratore, while three vessels were assigned to the French Imperial navy, the Rivoli, the Castiglione, and the Mont Saint-Bernard. The construction of the Italian hulls began on 26 December 1806, while the French vessels were begun on 4 January 1807, following the designs of the naval architect Sané (Poirier, 1984, 1; Sondhaus, 1989, 350; Marzari, 1997, 178–79). In December 1806, the brig Jena, named in honour of Napoleon’s recent victory over the Prussians, entered service. By the end of this year, work began on two more brigs and two frigates (Sondhaus, 1989, 352). While awaiting the completion of the new warships, the French could do little to challenge their enemies in the Adriatic. A British squadron blockaded Venice for an entire year from September 1806 to September 1807, preventing both the supply by sea of French troops in Dalmatia, and the transport to Venice of Dalmatian naval conscripts and ship timber (Sondhaus, 1989, 353). On 21–22 October 1810, the French and Italian authorities assembled a squadron at Ancona for an attack on the British base at Lissa (Vis), an island in the Adriatic. The force included three frigates, two corvettes, and two brigs (one was the Mercurio). The raid temporarily buoyed the spirits of the Italian navy and seemed to herald a general change in the strategic balance of the region, until the failure of the second raid on Lissa on 11 March 1811 (Sondhaus, 1989, 357–58).

Carlo Beltrame

14

Figure i.2.1. Map of the Kingdom of Italy (Regno Italico) at the moment of the shipwreck of the Mercurio.

The 80-gun Rivoli, built under the supervision of the engineer Tupinier, was launched, after more than five years’ construction (Ilari and Crociani, 2017, 71), as the first ship of the line on 6 September 1810, following the failure of the first launch on 3 September (Levi, 1896; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 399). The French engineer brilliantly solved the problem of a famous limitation of the Arsenal of Venice: the five miles of shallow water of the lagoon that separated it from the harbour mouth of Malamocco and prevented large vessels from reaching the sea. Tupinier copied the system of ‘camels’ used by Dutch engineers, placing a pair of pontoons along the bottom of the sides of the ship (Fig. i.2.2).

The pontoons were filled with water; then the water was pumped out to raise the ship to allow it to pass over the shallow sandy bottom (Bastide, 1953, 24; Poirier, 1984). On 3 November 1811, this solution was tested, and the Rivoli was towed without damage across the shallow water to the Spignon, a site near the Malamocco harbour inlet where the ships could wait for the best moment to sail. The towing was a success that looked like it might give a new lease of life to the Arsenal (Bastide, 1953, 25; Poirier, 1984,  6; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 88–89). The Emperor wanted the French admiral Barré to take command of a squadron consisting of the Rivoli and two

2. The Event in its Context

15

Figure i.2.2. Model of the Rivoli on the camels (Musée National de la Marine Toulon). Image after Boudriot, 2006a.

Table i.2.1. Source information concerning the number and types of artillery aboard the three brigs

other new ships in an effort to reassert French hegemony in the Adriatic (Sondhaus, 1989, 358). However, the building of the vessels was seriously delayed (Sondhaus, 1989,  358–59; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 88–89), and there was a scarcity of crews. Moreover, according to Crociani and Ilari (Crociani, Ilari, and Paoletti, 2004b, 88–89), these crews were composed mainly of Illyrians — seamen who were both unprepared and unfaithful to the flag — although according to Troude (1867, 155), they were composed of men from Rome, Trieste, Bocche di Cattaro, and Illyria. Barré’s Adriatic cruise finally took place in February 1812, with a squadron consisting only of the Rivoli, three brigs, and two saettie (gunboats). There was one French brig, the Jena, and two Italian brigs, the Mameluck (or Mammalucco), and the Mercurio (or Mercure) (Poirier, 1984,  8). The latter was commanded by Giovanni Palicucchia (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 90). On 16  February, the British 74-gun Victorious, under the command of Captain John Talbot, accompanied by the 18-gun brig-sloop Weasel, led by Captain John William Andrew, arrived off the coast of Venice to observe the activities of the Franco-Italian squadron ( James, 1847, 64; Laird Clowes, 1900, 472; Tracy, 2000, 502–04).

Source

Mercurio

J. W., Andrew’s letter (Tracy, 2000, 502–04)

18 carronades

‘Situazione generale dei bastimenti armati, disarmati ed in costruzione’ (ASVe, Fondo Marina)

14 carronades, 2 guns

‘Ruolo di bordo del brick armato Mercurio …’ (ASVe, Fondo Marina, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104)

14 carronades 2 guns

Jena

Mamelucco

16

8

James, 1847

16

Randaccio, 1864

18

Troude, 1867

16

8 18

10

Laird Clowes, 1900

18

18

10

Bucci di Santafiora, 1916

16 (at launch) 8

6

Levi, 1896

Bastide, 1953

18

Boudriot and Berti, 1981

14 carronades, 2 guns

Crociani et al., 2004b

18

8 8

16 carronades 20 at launch

10 at launch

Carlo Beltrame

16 On 20 February, the Rivoli was towed over the camels by a fleet of 80 boats and 500 rowers from the Spignon to the open sea after crossing the sandbar in front of the harbour (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 88–89). The following night, on 21 February, Barré, taking advantage of a breeze, decided to put to sea with the FrancoItalian squadron (Poirier, 1984, 8). From this moment onwards, the sources are neither very clear, nor in complete agreement. The first problem concerns the destination and the objectives of the mission. Some authors state that Napoleon ordered the squadron to sail to Ancona (Troude, 1867, 155; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 88) to join the fleet, while others (Randaccio, 1864, 153; Sondhaus, 1989, 359) suggest that the destination was first Trieste. Laird Clowes (1900, 472), and Captain Talbot, when he wrote to the Senior Officer in the Adriatic (Appendix  D), meanwhile, thought that the squadron was going to Pola, and Bastide (1953, 26) refers to both destinations. There is also some confusion about other details. For example, Randaccio (1864,  154) and Montanari (1962, 21) write that one of the Italian brigs was the Eridano, while we know that they confused her with the Jena. With regard to the number of guns aboard the brigs, there is also differing information: Based on the information provided in Table i.2.1, the Mercurio could have carried between 14 and 18 carronades, and it is not clear if she also had two guns (but this information has been confirmed by archaeology). The Rivoli, meanwhile, had a crew of either 810 (French version) or 862 (English version), and was armed with either 80 ( James, 1847, 64) or 82 guns (Troude, 1867, 156; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 89). Whatever its intended destination according to the written sources, the squadron — perhaps because of the fog — finally decided to sail to Trieste ( James, 1847, 64; Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 89) or else on to Pola (Laird Clowes, 1990, 472). At 2.30 pm, the English squadron caught sight of the Franco-Italian squadron. The British 74 and brig were presently all under sail in chase, and at 4 pm began to gain upon the French squadron. The Franco-Italian ships were sailing in line of battle with two gunboats, one brig ahead, and the other two brigs in a line astern. At 2.30 am on 22 February, perceiving that the Mercurio in the rear had dropped astern, and that the Rivoli had shortened sail to allow her to close, Captain Talbot hailed the Weasel and directed Captain Andrew to pass the Victorious, and bring the sternmost brig into action. Captain Andrew was so prompt in obeying the order, that at 4.15 am the Weasel overtook the

Mercurio and the Jena and engaged the latter within a half pistol-shot. After the action between these two brigs had lasted about 20 minutes, the Jena shortened sail, and engaged the Weasel distantly on her bow. Nonetheless, the latter still maintained a close and well-directed fire upon the Mercurio for another 20 minutes. Finally, at 5 am, the French brig blew up.1 The Weasel immediately lowered her boats, but only succeeded in saving three men, who were quite injured. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the darkness before dawn and the damaged state of the Weasel’s rigging, the Jena had made off and soon disappeared ( James, 1847, 64–65; Laird Clowes, 1900,  502; Tracy, 2000,  502–04; see Talbot’s and Andrew’s official letters in Appendix D). The French source differs little from the English account except for the timetable. Bastide (1953, 26–27) also recounts that a sailor from the Mercurio was saved by the Rivoli, but died before he was able to explain how the brig exploded. A letter from the consul Borghi, who was diplomatic delegate of the Regno Italico, to his superior, Count Testi of Milan, records that only three men survived because, at the moment of the explosion, they were up the mast.2 The confirmation that these three sailors were rescued can be found on the crew list.3 We know that they were released and sent to the hospital of Trieste, where they stayed until 4 April, at which time they returned to the Arsenal of Venice.4 The cause of the explosion, which has been illustrated in numerous paintings dedicated to the battle (Fig. i.2.3), remains unclear.5 Neither the French, nor the English sources give an explanation. The document Situazione generale dei bastimenti armati, disarmati ed in costruzione (16 February and 1 March 1812), preserved in the   According to the crew list, the brick would have sunk at 4 am, not at 5 am (ASVe, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio…). 2   ASMI, Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Residente a Milano, folder 471, rapporti di Carlo Borghi al Conte Testi di Milano, incaricato degli Affari esteri al Ministero delle relazioni estere del Regno d’Italia. 3   ASVe, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Com­ missariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio… 4   S. Donadel, this volume. 5   Paintings of the battle of Grado were made by many artists. An engraving was made by Gio Luzzo (Collection Viscovich, Perast) and a painting on the glass is in the Church of the Madonna of Perast (Montanari, 1962). 1

2. The Event in its Context

17

Figure i.2.3. Oil painting of the Battle of Grado showing the explosion of the Mercurio. Painting by Thomas Luny, 1833 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford AN1916.24), reproduced with permission.

Archivio di Stato di Venezia (sede della Giudecca-Fondo Marina), gives the same generic information about the end of the duel: Saltò all’aria nella battaglia seguita la notte del 21 al 22 febbraio 1812 nella acque di Grado. Di tutto l’equipaggio non si salvarono che tre marinai, while the relatively unknown Italian historian Randaccio (1864, 154) is the only one to state that accidentalmente piglia fuoco la polvere sul suo legno che scoppia, that is, that by chance the gunpower burned and the ship exploded. Leconte and Girard, in their Chroniques de la marine française (1836, 276–77) put forward a very interesting, but somewhat incredible, theory. They suggest that the captain of the Mercurio, perhaps because the behaviour of his crew led him to suspect that it would not have confronted the enemy with courage, threatened that if there was dishonourable behaviour during the battle, he would blow the ship up. These French scholars assumed that the explosion was simply the action of the captain, who carried out his threat. The circumstances could not be confirmed by other authors who instead maintained that the explosion was accidental: perhaps a lamp, hit by a cannonball, fired the powder magazine, which then exploded (Un officer du Rivoli, 1836, 47).

With regards to the location of the fight between the Mercurio and the Weasel, we have information left by a cadet aboard the Rivoli, who states that the fight began 10 miles off Pirano (Montanari, 1962, 22). However, the Mercurio sank 7 miles off Lignano (Fig. i.2.4); that is, some 14 miles from Pirano.  A  written testimony preserved in the archive of Venice6 by the ‘policeman’ (assistente di finanza) Giulio Veronese, who was able to see some fighting ships from the harbour of Lignano (see Appendix D), would seem to confirm that the combat began and ended very close to the Italian shore (Zaramella, 2013,  103–06). Considering that from Lignano it would have been absolutely impossible to see some ships located at the site of the shipwreck, we can assume that the starting point of the fight must have been closer to the coast than the site at which the Mercurio went down. The location of the sinking is reported in the crew list as being between Lignano and Buso,7 an area just a few miles from the correct location of the wreck. 6   ASVe, Prefettura dell’Adriatico, folder 459, ‘Guerra’. Rapporto di Giulio Veronese, assistente di finanza al Porto di Lignano (1812). 7   ASVe, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Com­mis­sari­ ato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio…

Carlo Beltrame

18

Figure i.2.4. Location of the sitewreck of the Mercurio and routes of the squadrons. Figure: S. Manfio.

After the sinking of the Mercurio, the battle continued for six hours, probably off the coast of Grado, the city which gave its name to the battle. Because of the superior fire power of the Victorious, the Rivoli become unmanageable, and the British guns scored some 400 casualties among the 650 men aboard the French vessel. The Rivoli had to strike her colours, and the Victorious sailed off with the greatest prize of the war in the Adriatic, one of the few ships of the line captured by the Royal Navy after Trafalgar (Sondhaus, 1989, 359). At 4.30 am, just a quarter of an hour after the Weasel had begun her engagement with the Mercure, the Victorious, having a light air of wind on her larboard beam, arrived within half-pistol-shot of, and opened her starboard guns upon the Rivoli; who immediately returned the fire from her larboard broadside, and continued, with courses clewed up, but royals set, standing on towards the gulf of Triest. A  furious engagement now ensued between these two line-of-battle ships, interrupted only when, for a few minutes together, the fog of the smoke hid them from each other’s view. After the mutual cannonade had thus continued for three hours, and the Rivoli, from the superior fire of the Victorious, had become unmanageable and reduced to such a resistance as two quarterdeck guns

only could offer, Lieutenant Peake, by signal, recalled the Weasel, to have the benefit of her assistance, in case either ship, the Victorious herself being in a disabled state, and both ships at this time in seven fathoms’ water off the point of Groa (Grado), should happen to get aground. Having bore up in obedience to the signal, the Weasel stood across the bows of the Rivoli; and, at 8 AM, when within musket-shot distance, poured in her broadside. This the brig, wearing or tacking as necessary, repeated twice. Meanwhile the Victorious maintained a steady cannonade, and at 8.45 am shot away the Rivoli’s mizen mast. In another quarter of an hour the French 74 fired a lee gun, and hailed the Victorious that she had struck. Point Legnian then bore from the latter north-northwest distant seven miles… ( James, 1847, 65–66).

The Rivoli was afterwards added to the British navy, and Captain Talbot, at a subsequent day, was knighted for his gallantry in capturing her ( James, 1847, 67) (see Talbot’s and Andrew’s official letters in Appendix D). In 1812 the British expanded their Adriatic squadron to three ships of the line and half-a-dozen frigates. The enlarged force was more than powerful enough to keep the Franco-Italian fleet in port (Sondhaus, 1989, 359).

3. The Mercurio According to the Historical Data Carlo Beltrame

T

he brig (or brick) was a military ship derived from the two-masted brigantine cargo ship. It is indeed possible that the English name brig is derived from ‘brigantine’. The brig had larger and more complex sails than the brigantine, which made it faster, allowing it to reach speeds of 8–9 knots. It was equipped with two masts, each with two square sails, and a bowsprit; the mainmast (grand mat) was raked astern, and the foremast was vertical. These masts were surmounted by a topmast (mat de hune) and a topgallant (mat de perroquet) which were equipped with topsails. On the mainmast there was also a large spanker overlapped by a triangular topsail. The bowsprit was equipped with a jib and a foresail. Between the two masts there were three staysails (Boudriot and Berti, 1981,  8; Beltrame and Fadda, 2014, 94). Brigs had one deck, and the bow and stern were decorated. The stern had carvings, while the prow had a figurehead and other decoration. The helm was on the deck. They were about 30 m long (overall), 8.5 m wide, and 6.3 m high. The displacement was about 350–400 tons (Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 36). After 1804, the armament consisted of about sixteen carronades (Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 8). French brigs from 1806 were armed with 24-pounder carronades. Sometimes they also had 8-pounder bow-chasers. From 1809, they carried only fourteen 24-pounder carronades and two 8-pounder guns. The carronades were mounted with fixed breeching (a brague fixe) and the guns were the 1786 model, with standard carriages (Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 46). The main source we have for French brigs is the model of the Cygne, a sister ship of the Mercurio (Fig.i.3.1). The model was drawn and analysed in a 1981 monograph by Boudriot and Berti. It is a well-made model, 141 cm in length at a scale of 1:36, and it has been kept in the Musée national de la Marine de Paris since 1829.

This study is also based on plans, such as those of the brigs Milan and Faune which belonged to the class of the Mercurio. For the study of the sails, plans such as that of the Hussard have been used. The Mercurio (called Mercure when it was launched) was built between April 1805 and November 1806 by Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre, following the plans of Sané, who, together with Pestel, was the most important architect of the French Navy (Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 52; Archive of the Musée national de la Marine, Paris).1 The work took place in the Foce shipyard at Genoa (Bucci di Santafiora, 1916,  14). The shipyard was a private building located in an Italian city that, in this case, produced orders from the French Navy. The Mercurio itself belonged to a class of 60 brigs built by the French navy between 1801 and 1813 in both France and abroad. Some, such as the Jena, an 18-carronade vessel that participated in the mission, were constructed in Venice (Boudriot and Berti, 1981; Levi, 1896). The drawings of the sculpture of the stern and the figurehead of the Mercurio are still available (Fig. i.3.2). Between 1809 and 1810, the Mercurio, with other two brigs, was lent to the Italien Naval Division of the Kingdom of Italy in exchange for the frigate Favorita (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 65).2 She was armed in Venice on 17 June 1810,3 and initially she was part of the Alberoni (a site near the Malamocco harbour of the Lido of Venice) Division, before joining the Venetian   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Situazione generale dei bastimenti armati, disarmati e in costruzione, 16 febbraio 1812, 1° marzo 1812. 2   Information from the Archive of the Musée national de la Marine, Paris. 3   ASVe, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Com­ missariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio… 1

Carlo Beltrame

20

Figure i.3.1. The model of the brig Cygne, twin of the Mercurio. Image after Boudriot, 2006a.

3. The Mercurio According to the Historical Data

21

Figure i.3.2. Drawings of the decorations of the Mercurio by Felix Brun (4/9/1805). Image reproduced courtesy of Musée National de la Marine, Paris.

Deep-Sea Division (divisione d’altura) (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 478, 480). The change of flag at this time also justified the change in nomenclature, from the French Mercure to the Italian Mercurio, which we find in the Italian documents. From the archives of the French navy, we know that at the beginning, this ship must have been armed with sixteen 24-pounder carronades (Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 48), but on June 1810 two guns were substituted by carronades.4 On 22 October 1810, she participated in the raid on Lissa (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 66–67). In May and June 1811, she was ‘repaired and careened’ at Trieste because of ‘grounding on a reef off Parenzo’.5 As summarized in Table i.2.1, the historical information we have about the types and number of the ordnance of the Mercurio and other brigs is not unanimous. We do not know if, when some authors indicate the number ‘16’, they mean sixteen carronades or sixteen pieces (which could mean fourteen carronades and two guns). Other sources state that the Mercurio had 18 pieces. However, and as noted, from 1809 onwards, the only armament allowed aboard French brigs was fourteen 24-pounder carronades and two 8-pounder guns (Boudriot and Berti, 1981), and this composition would be confirmed by the official crew list.6 We have

no information about the light armament, such as the swivel-guns (perriers and espingoles), because this kind of ordnance was not taken into account when defining the firepower of a ship. The commander of the Mercurio was the Venetian Lieutenant Giovanni Palicucchia, who, after Lissa, received the Iron Crown (Crociani, Ilari and Paoletti, 2004b, 67). The other officers were the Ensigns (alfieri di vascello) Agostino Armeni from Corfu, Andrea Vucetich from Cattaro, the French Giuseppe Daniel, the Gunnery Lieutenant (tenente ai cannoni)7 or Second Lieutenant (sottotenente dei Cannonieri Marinai) Alvise Forest De Jouy, the Venetian purser (agente contabile) Giambattista Minotto, and the Venetian cadet (aspirante) Tomaso Locatelli. The 3rd-class surgeon (chirurgo di 3° classe ausiliario e sottoaiutante maggiore) Alessandro Carrera was also classed as an officer (member of the Stato Maggiore).8 According to the crew list, at the time of the sinking, the crew of the Mercurio was composed of ninety men and one woman. 9 A  register of retired seamen from the Navy would seem to suggest that an additional three men should be on this list. In this document, which lists the parents of the seamen who were killed when the Mercurio exploded, three names are indeed included that do not feature on the official crew list.10

 ASVe, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima , Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio… 5   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Situazione generale dei bastimenti armati, disarmati e in costruzione, 16 febbraio 1812, 1° marzo 1812; Archive of the Musée national de la Marine, Paris. 6   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio…

7   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Situazione generale dei bastimenti armati, disarmati e in costruzione, 16 febbraio 1812, 1° marzo 1812. 8   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio… 9   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio… 10   ASVe, Governo Provvisorio (1848–49), folder, 1387,

4

22 Thus it appears that the final number of individuals on board the Mercurio was ninety-four, in contrast to the ninety indicated in Consul Borghi’s letter to Count Carlo Testi.11 Almost half the crew were Venetian. The remainder included nine seamen from the Illyrian coast, nine from the Venetian hinterland, six from the Emilia region, four from the city of Chioggia, four from France, and two from Belluno.  Individuals also came from Bergamo, Como, Corfù, La Spezia, Falerone (Marche), Tirolo, and even Constantinople and Saint Petersburg. Among the crew was a single woman, the wife of one of the men.12

Registro dei pensionati di marina, vedove ed orfani dall’anno 1817 all’anno 1848 (Donadel, in this volume). 11   ASMI, Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Residente a Milano, folder 471, rapporti di Carlo Borghi al Conte Testi di Milano, incaricato degli Affari esteri al Ministero delle relazioni estere del Regno d’Italia. 12   ASVe, Sede della Giudecca, Fondo Marina, Ufficio Generale di Iscrizione Marittima, Commissariato agli Armamenti, folder 104, Ruolo di bordo del brick Mercurio…

Carlo Beltrame

Part ii The Discovery, the Site and the Methodology of Investigation

1. The Discovery of the Shipwreck and its Identification Carlo Beltrame

I

n 1988 a student from Trieste, Claudio Grioni, published an article in the scientific journal Archeografo Triestino about the interpretation of some objects recovered by fishermen fifteen miles off the coast of Grado, a small city on the North Adriatic coast, west of Trieste. On 24 August 1985, a fishing boat from Grado had ‘fished’ a number of iron balls with a hole, weighing 24 pounds. Grioni interpreted these balls as chain-shot. Grioni investigated the archives of the French, English, and Italian navies for information about battles in the Upper Adriatic in modern times. After his research he concluded that the source of the chain-shot recovered off Grado had to be the fight between the Rivoli and the Victorious on the night of 22 February 1812, known as the Battle of Grado (Grioni, 1988). Other military objects were recovered in the following years in the area of the site of the Mercurio by other fishermen. A  bar-shot, small balls from grape-shot, a large cannonball, a hilt, a blade, and some bronze nails had been recovered by the original fisherman and his family, who owned the motor-trawler Albatros and were based in Marano Lagunare (a village between Grado and Lignano). On 21 February 2001, in the same area as the previous finds, the Albatros trawled up a 165-cm-long iron ‘cannon’ (now numbered 0), weighing about 1000 kg, together with 21 badly crushed copper cauldrons (Figs ii.1.1 and ii.1.2). The cannon had been retrieved by one of the four harpoons that formed the rapido fishing equipment; this consists of metal boxes equipped with nets and placed a few metres apart. The fishing boats of the upper Adriatic drag these along the seabed at high speed. Another two of the four harpoons snagged in the seabed and subsequently had to be abandoned.

The fishermen informed the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto, the archaeological heritage authority of the Veneto region, of the discovery. The office asked Marco Morin, an expert in weaponry, to identify the piece of artillery. Despite the thick layer of concretions that had built up, he was able to identify it as a carronade, ‘datable to between the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s’. This find was linked to that published by Grioni, and this led to the conjecture that the carronade could also be a relic of the Battle of Grado. As a result of these findings, the Soprintendenza asked the fire-brigade (Vigili del Fuoco) diver group of Venice to organize an expedition, co-ordinated by the author, at the site of the finds. After having retrieved a small concentration of very deformed copper cauldrons from the sandy seafloor, at a depth of 17–18 m, the two harpoons were eventually located. One of these was stuck in the breech of a car-

Figure ii.1.1. Carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035) after recovery. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Carlo Beltrame

26 ronade (now no. 9), which protruded about 30 cm above the seabed. In contrast to the first harpoon that was used to recover the carronade, this one had been trapped on the sea bottom by the artillery piece, which was held firmly in the sand. Recognizing the scientific interest of the discovery, the Soprintendenza organized a research campaign at the site of the finds, appointing the author and the underwater archaeologist Dario Gaddi as directors. At the same time, the carronade was sent to a conservation labora-

tory for cleaning. During the first season of research, the laboratory Morigi e figli of Bologna sent the excavators the photographs of the carronade after the removal of the encrustations. On the cascable of the carronade, the date 1806, the year of the casting, was engraved, together with Du Creusot, the name of a French foundry (Figs ii.1.3 and ii.1.4). These finds made it possible to connect the site, and the findings of the carronade and other objects, with the Mercurio, a brig that was sunk during the Battle of Grado. The Mercurio in fact carried carronades of the type recovered, and it was launched in 1806, the year that the recovered carronade was cast.

Figure ii.1.2. Copper cauldron no. 39.4 (n.i. 334.048) recovered by fishing nets. Photo: C. Beltrame. Figure ii.1.4. Engraving ‘An 1806 Fond.’ on carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure ii.1.3. Engraving ‘du Creusot’ on carronade no. 0 (n.i. 334.035). Photo: C. Beltrame.

2. The Environmental Characteristics of the Site and its Aspect at the Moment of the Discovery Carlo Beltrame

T

he wreck site is 7 nautical miles (11  km) from Punta Tagliamento, the delta of the river bordering the Veneto and the Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (Fig. ii.2.1). It is located off Lignano Sabbiadoro and Bibione, small towns founded in the 1950s and 1960s as seaside resorts, at 45° 33.20’ N, 13° 11.20’ E.

In 1812, Lignano was only a beach with a few houses, but the letter of Giulio Veronese, Assistente di Finanza al porto di Lignano, who informed the Prefetto del Dipartimento Adriatico about the battle and described the sound of cannon fire, also testifies to the presence of a small harbour and a military office (see Appendix D).

Figure ii.2.1. Wreck site of the Mercurio. Figure: S. Manfio.

Carlo Beltrame

28 The sea floor is composed of dunes of fine sand occupying an area of 36 km2. The longest of these dunes lies to the north-east (the starboard side) of the shipwreck. This dune, which is 2 m high, runs from north-northwest to south-south-east, perpendicular to the surface currents. The area is exposed to marine currents of the Upper Adriatic that come from the north-east and move anticlockwise south-westwards (E. Gordini, pers. comm. 2004). This current can easily be felt underwater, with a velocity that sometimes reaches 1 knot or more. The area, in common with the whole coast of the North Italian Adriatic, is subject to the phenomenon of ‘ploughing’, resulting from the use of fishing gear. In 2001, the plots of the side-scan sonar showed clear traces of the furrows left on the sea floor by both rapidi (trawlers) and turbossofianti (trawlers with water dredgers). Both types of fishing gear can have a devastating impact

upon submarine archaeological deposits, causing damage and disturbance (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002, 61–62). During the excavation in 2011, fishing vessels were discovered working over the site, but fortunately they caused no significant damage. Protection of the site proved effective between seasons, even if some traces of the passage of trawling gear have been found. The only evident impact we have recorded happened between the 2001 and 2004 seasons, when carronade no. 6, which was not protected, was moved by a couple of metres, perhaps by trawling. The sea bottom in the area where the shipwreck lies consists of sand, is predominantly flat, and has an average depth of 17–19 m. Five cores, up to about 95 cm deep, were made by the geologists Emiliano Gordini and Antonio Rosso in Areas A and B (see below) (Fig. ii.2.2). These have allowed the stratigraphy of the archaeological site to be reconstructed (Fig. ii.2.3).

A

4

B

Figure ii.2.2. Wreck site with bathymetry (the dune is to the east). Figure: S. Caressa.

2. The Environmental Characteristics of the Site

29

Figure ii.2.3. Core no. 2 showing the level of phanerogams. Photo: A. Rosso.

The upper layer is composed of a layer of fine sand that runs from 30 cm in depth (in Area B) to more than 1  m thick on the dune. Some dozens of centimetres below the sand surface there is a stratum of marine phanerogams. Under the layer of fine sand is a layer of sandy clastic sediment. It is possible that the ship settled on this layer of fine sand, which allowed the hull and some objects to sink partially into it. The sinking was then stopped by the lower layer of compact clastic sediment (A. Rosso, unpubl. report 2004). After the ship had settled on the sea floor, it was partially covered by a layer of sand in which a colony of marine phanerogams grew. More recently, the shipwreck and the phanerogams were covered by another deposit of fine sand, around 20 cm in thickness (A. Rosso, unpubl. report 2004). The discovery of very recent objects (especially ropes and cables belonging to fishing equipment, but also Coca Cola bottles, etc.) under about 20 cm of sand, combined with the absence of organic and small finds in some areas of the site, demonstrate that cyclic episodes of erosion and deposition have taken place in recent years, especially during stormy conditions, as has been documented from one excavation season to another. However, it seems that deposition has been more important than erosion. The preservation of the site has depended on the slow movement of the dune at the foot of the escarpment, which has partially covered the ship, especially in the bow area, with a deposit of sand, and has also allowed the formation of an anaerobic environment in which the organic material has been preserved in good (and sometime excellent) condition. When discovered, almost the only visible objects were of iron. The main nucleus of the wreck consisted of a mound, measuring about 8x4 m, composed of parallelepidal cast-iron ingots (called ‘pigs’), which were used as ballast and placed in rows along the longitudinal axis. These were solidly held together by an overlying concretion that contained a number of cannon balls. The

mound is divided into two by a deep step, created by the complete decay of the keelson, which runs parallel to the rows of ingots (Fig. ii.2.4). The mound forms part of a larger area uncovered during the excavation. This is the bow part of the ship, which has been termed Area A, while the stern area has been termed Area B (Pl. 1). The bow part is orientated north-west (Pl. 2). The excavation exposed evidence of

Figure ii.2.4. Empty space created by the decay of the keelson on the mound of ballast. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

30 the stem and the limits of both the sides. This part of the ship is about 16 m long and ends in the mound of ballast, which when first discovered was protruding from the sand. To the south of this mound, a quick probe has given a negative result, indicating that neither the hull nor the ballast continues towards the stern (that is, to the south). The shipwreck leans to the port (west) side. This position has led to the high level of preservation of the hull as well as the formation of a large deposit of sediments containing many items. In this part of the vessel, in Sectors Q8 and Q9, it has been possible to recover much well-preserved organic material. On the starboard side (the east), the vertical position of the side of the hull

Carlo Beltrame has exposed it to external attack, and in contrast to the port side, does not have the same favourable conditions for the formation of significant sedimentation able to preserve many organic objects. As a consequence, excavation of the eastern sectors revealed fewer organic finds. The difference in depth from the stem area to the mound of ballast, meanwhile, shows that the ship also slopes longitudinally, and that the bow is buried more deeply under sand than the central part of the ship. Area B is composed of the sternpost, which lies on the starboard side, and some small piles of presumed pigiron scattered towards Area A (Pl. 2). Superficial surveys, made between Areas A and B, have not revealed any other items. Around the western side of Area A, how-

Figure ii.2.5. Carronade no. 3 vertically planted in the seabed. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

Figure ii.2.6. Carronade no. 6 at the moment of discovery. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

Figure ii.2.7. Carronade no. 1 with modern steel cables. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

2. The Environmental Characteristics of the Site

Figure ii.2.8. Small mound of concretions, no. 4. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

31

Figure ii.2.10. Carronade no. 8. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

ever, four carronades were discovered (nos 1, 2, 3, and 6). One of them (no. 3) was planted vertically in the seabed with its breech uppermost (Fig. ii.2.5). No. 6, in contrast to the others, had the peculiarity of preserving the fastenings of the carronade to the wooden carriage, although this latter component was not itself preserved (Fig. ii.2.6). Steel cables for fishing equipment were present on the crust of the concretion of carronade no. 1 (Fig. ii.2.7). To the south-west of the mound of ballast, a small mound of concretion, around 90 cm across, is perhaps composed of other ballast elements (Fig. ii.2.8). To the west of the shipwreck, at a distance of more than 100  m, three other carronades (nos 7, 8, and 9) were found (Figs ii.2.9 and ii.2.10). The most distant of these was discovered near the presumed area of recovery of the carronade by the motor-trawler Albatros (no. 0). They were found only partially covered by sand. Other small objects were found at a significant distance from Area A during a survey carried out in 2004. These items largely consisted of fragments of copper sheathing (nos 62, 63, 87a, and 87b) and copper nails (nos 106–09), as well as a bolt (no. 81) and a large cannonball (no. 84).

Figure ii.2.9. Carronade no. 7. Photo: S. Caressa (courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali — Soprintendenza Archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il Comune di Venezia e Laguna).

3. Conditions of Preservation of the Objects Carlo Beltrame

A

variety of materials have been preserved around the excavation site of the Mercurio. Indeed, we can say that it is one of the best preserved marine archaeological sites in the Mediterranean Sea.  Much organic material has been preserved, and the quality of the preservation of leather and wood is impressive. The majority of these organic objects, and the best-preserved finds, lie on the port side because of the thickness of the protecting stratigraphy (Pl.  3). The extraordinary degree of preservation of these materials, and in particular the discovery of human bones, has been possible both because of the presence of the thick deposit of fine sand, which guaranteed an anaerobic environment, and quite probably also because of the presence of many metal objects, which inhibited the process of decomposition among the organic materials (Renfrew and Bahn, 1991, 51). The wooden objects, which are represented mainly by sheaves, appear to be in good condition, preserve their original morphology, and are hard to the touch, but are nonetheless waterlogged. Some items are less wellpreserved and show signs of attack by Teredo navalis (shipworm), but even these are always hard to the touch. Many items of footwear have likewise been preserved. For the most part, these are in quite good condition: they have maintained their original appearance, and they are not too fragile. Another organic item, ropes, occupy much of the space over the orlop deck and the barrels. The majority of these are not well preserved. While they still appeared to maintain their original appearance, their condition was in fact so poor that it was not possible to recover them (Fig. ii.3.1). Only the better-preserved segments of rope have therefore been sampled for documentation and analysis on land.

Although the potential for good preservation of bones under water is generally quite high (Arnaud et al., 1980; Mays, 2008), the Mercurio is one of the very few shipwrecks of the Mediterranean found to contain skeletal remains. In the majority of cases, it seems most likely that the crew had time to abandon ship, while on the Mercurio, which exploded abruptly, there was no such possibility. In those cases where crew members did drown, it is also possible that the bodies floated away,

Figure ii.3.1. Ropes over the orlop deck. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Carlo Beltrame

34

Figure ii.3.2. Skull of skeleton. Photo: S. Caressa.

both while vessels were actually sinking and later, during the post-sinking processes. On the Mercurio, many human bones and a few animal bones have been preserved in good condition. At least seven incomplete skeletons have been found, with skulls presenting the teeth still in situ (Fig. ii.3.2) (Pl. 4). Bones are also present as carved objects. The majority of the metal fastenings, joining the elements of the hull, are made of copper alloy. The copper and brass items are in quite good condition. They present a minor level of corrosion and are often covered by a thin layer of concretion. Other items made of copper alloy present various degrees of preservation. For example, the dozens of jacket buttons discovered sometimes have a good appearance, are sometimes protected by a layer of concretion, and are sometimes partially corroded (Fig.  ii.3.3). Some copper coins have likewise been completely covered by concretion, although after this layer has been removed, they appear to be in good condition (Fig. ii.3.4). This variable degree of preservation is probably due both to the microenvironment and to variations in composition of the alloy (Robinson, 1981, 5–6; 1982). Wrought iron is probably the material which has suffered most in this site. The majority of objects are covered by a thick concretion (Fig. ii.3.5), but the metal is seldom preserved inside. The shape of some elements of the rigging have been shown by x-ray photography (Fig. ii.3.6), but the largest concretions, when accidentally broken, have been empty. The cast iron of the artillery, on the other hand, is in much better condition, although it is also covered by a thick concretion layer. Lead objects, meanwhile, are partially corroded, but are generally in quite good condition, while gold items present a very good appearance, with only a patina of black material.

Figure ii.3.3. Copper alloy button no. 143.2 (n.i. 333.886), before restoration. Photo: G. Merighi.

Figure ii.3.4. Copper coins of the Stato Pontificio after restoration, no. 781 (n.i. 334.130–34). Photo: E. Costa.

Figure ii.3.5. Iron chain plate. Photo: S. Caressa.

3. Conditions of Preservation of the Objects

Figure ii.3.6. X-ray photography of iron object. Photo. G. Moretti.

The presence of flints and other unidentified stones is not unusual. They present a quite perfect appearance. Pottery is also quite well preserved, although — with one exception — it is in fragments. Glass is only occasionally covered by a thick layer of concretion, and it does not present the exfoliation that often distinguishes glass in submerged sites (Weier, 1973, 147–55). The wooden elements of the hull are in quite good condition. The wood is very solid, both the thick components, such as the frames, and the thin components, such as the dozens of small planks scattered inside the hull. Teredo navalis has heavily attacked all the surfaces of the wooden components that protruded from the sand. The iron bolts and nails joining the components of the structure, however, are completely corroded, and have left their empty shapes inside the wood, while the copper alloy parts are still in good condition.

35

4. The Dynamics of the Sinking and the Formation Processes Carlo Beltrame

T

he location of the stern (Area B), which was found some distance from the main part of the ship (that is, Area A, consisting broadly of the area from the bow to the centre of the ship), provides archaeological proof that the descriptions in written sources about a large explosion in the powder magazine of the ship must be true (Pl.  1). The powder magazine was located in the stern area, and we would expect that an explosion in this location would have caused the stern to detach from the rest of the ship, as clearly happened with the Mercurio. However, the cause of the explosion, whether a British shot, an accident, or — as Leconte and Girard (1836,  276–77) have speculated — a mutiny, cannot be explained by the archaeological record. The location of some traces of ballast towards Area A suggests that the ship, without the stern, floated northeastwards, leaving traces of its passage on the sea bed. After about only 70–80 m of agony, it sank to rest at the base of a sand dune.

Figure ii.4.1. Remains of Skeleton 1 under wooden timbers and iron concretions. Photo: S. Caressa.

The distant location of four carronades from the site, to the west of Area A and the north of Area B, can be better explained by the impact of trawlers, which might have moved them (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002, 62–63), than by considering this as the result of the explosion. It is indeed difficult to think that the explosion, which happened in the location of Area B, had the force to launch objects weighing about one ton (with the carriages), over a distance of more than 100 m; however this possibility should not be completely excluded. Written sources testify that the sinking caused the death of the entire crew, with the exception of three seamen who were saved because they were up the main mast. While the explosion was responsible for the death of the crew, the discovery of some skeletal remains in the bow zone, enclosed in the wreck deposit under wooden structures and iron concretions (Fig. ii.4.1), indicates that some members of the crew were under cover at the moment the vessel went down. This is evidenced, not only by the presence of timbers above the skeletons, but also because it provides the only explanation for the discovery of bodies within the wreck. Bodies are largely not to be found in ancient shipwrecks, since in the event of distress there is a tendency to abandon the ship. It is thus only when sailors got caught under heavy equipment, in netting, or in closed compartments that we find their remains enclosed in the wreck deposit. As the artillery on board brigs was located on the main deck, and not beneath it, it is probable that the majority of the crew — or at least all the gun crews – would have been operating on deck and so their bodies would have floated away when the ship went down, rather than being dragged to the sea bottom. The discovery of the bodies in the site could be explained only by the presence, for unclear reasons, of some men below decks, in closed compartments.

38 We can tentatively assume that these bodies were of men wounded early in the combat, who were being treated by a doctor under cover. Thus both the dynamics of the sinking and the winter season, according to the physical anthropologist Francesca Bertoldi (see below), make it possible to explain the extraordinary presence and preservation of the skeletal remains. On the ship’s port side, the starboard side was very exposed and was rapidly attacked both by the energy of extraordinary storms and by the Teredo. The port side, in contrast, was slowly protected by the accumulation of sand. A shipwreck, indeed, is a trap for sediments that are transported by the currents over the sea bottom and then settle, covering the obstacle (Beltrame, 1998, 149–50). Geological analysis demonstrated that the ship was covered by a layer of sand where a colony of marine phanerogams grew, and that more recently, the shipwreck and the phanerogams were covered by another deposit of fine sand, 20 cm thick (A. Rosso, pers. comm. 2004). This sedimentation would have been quite fast if it was able to create the anoxic environment that allowed the preservation of many organic items (wood, ropes, and leather), at least on the port side of the bow zone (Pl. 3). The absence of organic material under the first layer of sand indicates that this was a moving stratum that could periodically expose some zones of the site. A process of concretion of some large iron objects, such as elements of the equipment and artillery, began and contributed to the protection of the underlying items, especially of the organic finds, which also had less chance to move (Beltrame, 1998, 151). The position of the carronades nos 2, 3, and 6, a little outside the shipwreck, must be the result of the collapse of the port wale (Pl. 5). The Teredo of course continued to eat the wood of the hull on both sides of the ship, but it had to stop on the port side a little under the deck, as is evident from the level of preservation of the structure: as we know, Teredo does not penetrate under the sand. Along the starboard side, the presence of an alignment of metal bolts and nails is the evident result of the complete disintegration of the wale (see the yellow colour on Pl. 5). This would mean that this wale did not collapse but was slowly eaten by Teredo. The recent life-story of the site has been influenced by the impact of trawler gear that ploughed it and moved some objects, both over winter, between excavation seasons, and while archaeologists were in fact working on the site. Indeed, in 2011 a motor-trawler was found working in very close proximity to the site, although a permanent legal no-entry sign and a buoy indicated clearly that something was under water.

Carlo Beltrame

5. Methods and Techniques of Investigation Carlo Beltrame

Season 2001 After the survey by side-scan sonar discussed above, a first season of excavation in 2001 was organized directly by the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto under the scientific coordination of archaeologist Luigi Fozzati. The author, together with Dario Gaddi, was charged with directing the excavation (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002; 2003; 2004). For the following seasons, Stefano Caressa’s company from Grado, which specializes in underwater archaeology, was in charge of technical operations. In 2001 and subsequent seasons, the Castorino 2, an 11-m working boat fitted for diving operations, was used, and a small boat was used as a tender.1 The aims of the mission were to document the visible evidence — that is, the mound of ballast and the carronades (Sectors Q1 and Q2); to make a preliminary excavation to determine if anything was preserved under the sand; and to identify the ship in an area north of the mound. Only items at risk of looting were recovered in this first season of investigation. A section of about 3x3 m (Q3) was cleaned by a water dredger, removing the layer of sand, without objects, called “Layer 1” and producing evidence of traces of the bottom of the starboard side and some objects (Pl. 2). A photogrammetric plan was undertaken over an area of three squares of 3x3 m (Q1, 2, 3), obtained by sliding the camera along a track mounted on a steel tower-shaped scaffold (Fig. ii.5.1). Each 3  ×  3-m frame was covered by 32 photos by positioning the camera at 40-cm intervals (Fig. ii.5.2). The resulting plan is photogrammetric, but technically   In 2001, the diving team was composed both of technicians from the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (Ministry for Cultural Heritage), Francesco Dossola and Carlo Leggiero, and a freelance diver. 1

Figure ii.5.1. Photogrammetrical documentation on a tower-shaped scaffold. Photo: S. Caressa.

definable as unconventional, meaning that the images were not taken with photogrammetric cameras, but with a normal Nikonos V with a 28  mm lens. Considering that the precision of a photogrammetric plan is influ-

40

Figure ii.5.2. Photogrammetrical documentation on a tower-shaped scaffold. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure ii.5.3. Sequence of the phogrammetrical documentation (photomosaic) from 2004 season. Photos and drawings: S. Caressa.

enced mainly by the scale factor (i.e. the ratio between the actual area and the dimensions of the photograph), it followed that the completed plan achieved a low-scale

Carlo Beltrame

Figure ii.5.4. Photomosaic for photogrammetry from 2004 season. Photos and drawings: S. Caressa.

ratio between the dimensions of the actual objects and their images, because the field of the image was maintained at approximately 1.5/2 m of the area planned. In this way, it was possible to minimize any errors of distortion caused by the photographic equipment, and thus obtain a high level of accuracy in the plan (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002, 64–66; S. Caressa, pers. comm. 2001). Each artefact was recorded by at least three adjacent photographs for each line. This made it possible to determine its three-dimensional positioning by at least two pairs of images (Figs ii.5.3 and ii.5.4). The accuracy of the area thus obtained was of the order of 5 mm. Particular care was taken when determining the levels. The comparison between the levels measured on the datum points with respect to those planned via the photogrammetic reconstruction showed minimal errors, thus confirming the validity of the method adopted (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002,  66–67; S.  Caressa, pers. comm. 2001). This technique was used in further seasons, but from 2008 onwards, a digital camera was used. The measurement of the position of the carronades was made by trilateration for those nearer to Area A and GPS and a subaqua diastimeter Uvatech for the others (Beltrame and Gaddi, 2002, 64).

5. Methods and Techniques of Investigation

41

Seasons 2004–112 In 2004, the Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente of the Università Ca’ Foscari of Venice asked the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto for permission to restart the excavation with a team of archaeolog y students, and technicians, 3 directed by the author. From 2004 to 2011, the team continued to be composed of students, including from other Italian universities and abroad, as well as technicians, divers from both the fire brigade (Vigili del Fuoco) and military police (Carabinieri) when available, and a few selected volunteers such as Duilio Della Libera and Roberto Zucco. The permanent team was composed of about 12 divers.4 The technique of documentation continued to be the same photogrammetric method used in 2001, but using digital cameras. Videos and photos have always integrated the documentation of the objects, wooden structures, and the various operations.5 Free-hand drawings completed the documentation of the hull structure, both to show it in three dimensions, and to record the technical details of components such as joints and composite parts, while sketches of the various sectors of excavation were made to help in the reconstruction of the photogrammetry. Through this process, it became clear that for a better identification of the objects and of the wooden elements in the pictures, the technician working on the photogrammetry (in our case Stefano Caressa) needs drawings and photographs made of single objects or groups of objects under different light conditions. The excavation was continued at a superficial level, removing only a layer of clear sand some 30-cm thick and containing few objects (Layer 1), and following the starboard side of the ship (Fig. ii.5.5) up to the bow, where an anchor and the stem were discovered (Q 4, 5, 6 and 7) (Fig. ii.5.6). Q 6 was characterized mainly by the presence of large iron elements from the sailing equipment

2   The 2004,  2005,  2006, and 2007 excavation seasons have been already preliminarily reported (Beltrame, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007b, and 2012). 3   The technicians were Stefano Caressa, Francesco Dossola. C. Beltrame was helped by the underwater archaeologist Dario Gaddi as assistant director. 4  The Castorino 2 was always the working boat for the excavations, while the Actarus, belonging to R. Zucco, was the tender from 2006 to 2011. 5   Giorgio Merighi also took photos in the 2005 excavation.

Figure ii.5.5. Starboard side of the hull from east. Photo: G. Merighi.

Figure ii.5.6. The anchor on the starboard side of the bow. Photo: S. Caressa.

(see below), bronze nails and bolts from the hull, and a cannon (Fig. ii.5.7). A small trench was dug on a 1x1 m sector outside the starboard side between Q6 and Q7, with the aim of discovering something about the level of preservation of the hull wale.

Carlo Beltrame

42

Figure ii.5.7. Sector Q6, with a cannon, 2005 season. Photo: S. Caressa.

After the superficial excavation of Layer 1, which covered these objects, from along the entire starboard half of the ship, the excavation moved to the port side of the vessel in 2006. This began from the bow (Q8) (2006– 07) (Fig. ii.5.8), where important remains of a skeleton were found (Fig. ii.5.9), and moved southwards (Q9)

(2008–09) (Fig. ii.5.10), with the aim of understanding whether the shipwreck was also preserved in this part. When, in 2010, the author understood that the hull side was further to the west of the position of Q9, he expanded this last sector, which took a rectangular shape to follow the wooden structure.

Figure ii.5.9. Remains of Skeleton 2 in Sector Q8. Photo: R. Pertoldi. Figure ii.5.8. Excavation in Sector Q8. Photo: D. Della Libera.

5. Methods and Techniques of Investigation

43

Figure ii.5.10. Sector Q9 from the top. Photo: S. Caressa.

On this side of the shipwreck, the author decided to excavate deeper because of the potential of the stratigraphy, the numerous well-preserved finds, and the presence of well-preserved wooden structures of the hull, which could add significant detail to our knowledge of the shipwreck. The excavation was carried down through arbitrary layers (1,  2, and 3) to allow the attribution of items to different heights, and each layer was documented with photogrammetry. Layers 2 and 3 were composed of fine-grained sand with a rich, dark-coloured organic component that contained many wooden and leather objects. In Q9, the excavation was limited by the presence of well-preserved barrel staves (Fig. ii.5.11), ropes (Fig. ii.5.12), and skeletal remains (Fig. ii.5.13). In 2004, Area B was discovered about 80 m from the southern part of Area A (Pls 1 and 6). The excavation of this area was carried out in 2005. It consisted of removing the sand covering the sternpost, documenting two

3x3 m sectors (QB1 and QB2) by photogrammetry, and recovering the few objects found. After the excavation, every interesting object or item at risk of looting was recovered. Because of the large size of some objects, which would have made both their recovery and further storage and restoration complex, we decided that those items completely covered by concretion should not be recovered, but simply documented in situ. When these objects hampered the prosecution of the excavation, it was decided to move them off-site and to bury them in a safe zone west of the shipwreck. During the digging of these small pits, some objects were found and recovered. In 2004, the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto asked that carronades nos 1, 8, and 9 be recovered. There was concern that these arms, which were located far from the site, could be lost or ‘fished’ by a trawler, as had happened with carronade no. 0. Because

44

Figure ii.5.11. Barrel no. 708 in Q9, in the third level. Photo: S. Caressa.

of their weight (each carronade weighed approx. 1 ton), we obtained the help of the divers of the Vigili del Fuoco and of the Carabinieri, as well as the support of the ship Gino Cucco of the La Dragaggi srl company of Venice in their recovery (Fig. ii.5.14). For the additional recovery of the bronze swivel gun, the support of a ship of the Vigili del Fuoco of Trieste was sufficient. After the excavation (Fig. ii.5.15), the site was covered with a sheet of geotextile, plastic sacks filled with sand, and a thick layer of sand. The port side sectors (Q8 and 9) contained not only a great quantity of items, but also many skeletal remains. Some of these skeletons were almost intact (nos 1, 3, and 7), including the skulls. In total the skeletons of probably seven men have been found, but many other bones were scattered in this area under the sand. Many of the objects recovered can be connected to the skeletons: they are personal belongings, pistols, swords, tools, and metal, wood, and bone buttons from uniforms. The excavation of these two sectors has allowed the documentation of the wooden structure and the discovery of four wooden barrels (nos 708, 709, 790, and 837), which have been left in situ.

Carlo Beltrame

Figure ii.5.12. Remains of ropes in Q9, in the third level. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure ii.5.13. Skeletal remains in Q9. Photo: S. Caressa.

5. Methods and Techniques of Investigation

45

Topological Relationships and the Intra-site GIS (Carlo Beltrame and Stefania Manfio)

Figure ii.5.14. The recovery of the carronades by the Gino Cucco ship. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure. ii.5.15. Excavation by water dredger. Photo: S. Caressa.

The facies of this shipwreck and of many other modern shipwrecks are significantly more ‘complex’ than that of a ‘coherent’ or ‘continuous’ ancient shipwreck (according to the definition put forward by Muckelroy (1978: 182–83)). The image that we normally have of a coherent shipwreck of Greek or Roman age is a relatively ordered set of amphorae, pottery, or marble blocks, which present no particular problem of interpretation and documentation (Beltrame, 2012,  33). The disappearance of the amphorae, and the introduction of barrels and elements of iron equipment, have modified the aspect of shipwrecks, which have become a more confused and scattered assemblage of artefacts, composed of wooden pieces and iron objects covered by a thick layer of concretion. Concretions sometimes transform the shape of the objects and hide small items. The situation is of course much more complex in a modern military vessel where instead of a cargo, the presence of numerous soldiers and sailors with their personal belongings, arms, uniforms, and ammunition, make the aspect of the wreck very complex, especially because of the quantity and often small size of the finds, and their variable nature and material, as well as the development of concretions on metal (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014). According to O’Shea (2002,  212), post-medieval ships present a set of features in common with buildings, such as architectural structures, hierarchical distribution of spaces, and associations of heterogeneous sets of objects that identify specific functional areas (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014, 48). For this reason, as in a collapsed building, the position of each item within a layer has not only a stratigraphic significance, but also a topographical importance related to the reconstruction of the building (Carandini, 1991, 54–55). In a shipwreck site, the stratigraphy is generally referred to as being a single event in time, so it loses its temporal meaning and assumes a spatial importance instead (Green, 2004, 244). ‘Thus to decode this archaeological context it is fundamental to understand mutual positions of finds’ (Nicolardi, 2011, 10). Particular care should therefore be taken in the documentation of archaeological remains and data management. Because of either the necessity of a quick recovery for safety reasons (as in the case of leather and other ‘floating’ objects, or in the case of golden objects…!) or for very small items (e.g. buttons), some objects of the Mercurio shipwreck site could not be documented by photogram-

Carlo Beltrame

46 metry. We therefore decided to record at least their ‘topological’ relationships with objects that are clearly visible in the plan. These relationships can be of many types, for example covering/covered, filled/cut, etc. (as commonly used in stratigraphical excavations), but also proximity, connection, surroundings, etc., as proposed by Cattani and Fiorini (2004, 324). However those that we have decided to use for the excavation are the simpler ‘near to’, ‘under’, and ‘over’ (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014). The topological data can be useful both in reconstructing the formation processes (from the dynamics of the sinking to the post-sinking processes) and in interpreting the mutual spatial relationships between the objects (Nicolardi, 2011, 11). A simple data base of the excavation of the Mercurio was created by Stefania Manfio in coordination with Carlo Beltrame on the platform Geographical Infor­ mation System Quantum GIS. In this intra-site GIS (Huggett, 2000), the entire photogrammetric documentation and other graphical data of the site have been geo-referenced over the bathymetry of the sea bottom. This was produced ad  hoc by Stefano Caressa with a Lowrance LcX25 digital ecograph over the nautical map. Shapefiles, corresponding to feature classes of the polygon type, have been created (for example ordnance, osteological remains, items, etc.), in which it has been possible to edit the items and the various elements of the shipwreck. Every object has been put into a data base, reporting attributes such as number, date of discovery, date of recovery, sector (Q1, 2, etc.), topological relationships (near, under, over), layer (Layers 1, 2, or 3), type (tool, nautical equipment, arms, personal belongings,  etc.), material (wood, iron, copper alloy, bone, glass, etc.), and a brief description of each item. (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014). Small objects, not documented in the photogrammetry, have been included in a separate shapefile according to their topological relationships. With these data, it has been possible to interpret the archaeological context in a global and coherent way.

To investigate these objects, the area of excavation was divided with a grid, which allowed us to count the number of polygons (transformed into points) representing each small find (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014, 126). This tool made it possible to maintain better control of the numerous data coming from the excavation, to produce coloured thematic maps that are also useful for dissemination purposes, and to make queries. The queries can allow the analysis of: –– the dynamics of the sinking; –– the depositional and post-depositional formation processes; that is, the potential of the site for the preservation of the various materials (especially organic) or the impact of trawlers; –– the locations of the various types of objects in relation to the skeletal remains and to the wooden structures, such as, for example, the working areas. Because the deck plan of a model of the sister ship of the Mercurio, the Cygne, is available, we have referenced it on the archaeological plan of the shipwreck, matching the profiles of the respective sides and the respective position of the bow cannons of the ships (Pl. 5). In this way, it is possible to compare the locations of the archaeological items with those of the artillery, anchors, and rigging, and with the hull structure and its spatial organization (galley, carpenter’s storeroom,  etc.) (Beltrame and Manfio, 2014, 49–58).

Part iii The Ship

1. The Hull Carlo Beltrame

Ship Construction at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century The Sources Although the plans of the Mercurio are missing, the graphical documentation of ships from the period of the Napoleonic wars is quite rich: plans of most of the military ships built for the state are available. Despite this situation, we have some reservations about the usefulness of this kind of source for the knowledge of ship construction of the period. The author, alongside many other scholars (e.g., Gilberto Penzo, pers. comm. 2009), has become increasingly conscious of the fact that in contrast to today, these plans were often not used as detailed outlines that had to be followed faithfully. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was instead common place for shipwrights to follow the draughts of the architects only in broad outline: they often interpreted the plan and preferred to follow their eye than the draughts. Indeed, it seems that only a small proportion of the plans available to us can be connected to actual projects: for the most part, they are instead surveys made after the construction of the ship, with illustrative aims in mind. The builders’ draughts of French brigs thus represent only their shape and decorations, and in fact show very little detail that would be useful for the study of the ships’ construction. With regard to the models, it must be emphasized that they are, by definition, made to a reduced scale. Obviously, for such scale models, builders had to make choices in terms of how they summarized and interpreted these objects, often skipping details. For example, in the model of the Cygne, both the copper sheath-

ing, which is present on a limited area of the hull, and the Roman numerals showing the draught have been omitted. Due to the great number and small size of the original tacks used to fix the metal sheets, the modelmaker had to reduce their number and make them larger (Frölich, 1985). Some details, which were the product of a combination of both day-to-day experience aboard a working vessel and the practical skills of her crew, are sometimes missing on models. In addition, anachronisms in the models must be taken into account. Boudriot, for example, has expressed the opinion that the galley on the deck of the model of the Cygne is a mistake of the modelmaker ( Jean Boudriot, pers. comm. 2006). On more than one occasion, technical details of the hulls have been omitted, both in the builders’ draughts and in the models, because of problems of scale, and for simplification. This is evident in the Mercurio; although executed under water, the analytical documentation of its stern obliged us to complete and correct the plan executed by Boudriot and Berti on the basis of the model of the Cygne (Beltrame, 2009, 251–52). Similar limits occur in the contemporary treatises on shipbuilding. Most of these classical texts, such as that by Steel (1794) on the construction of the British ships, ‘need to be treated with caution as they were often compiled by non-specialists from other people’s sources, rather than written by people who got their hands dirty’ (Sanders, 2010, 4). As a result, these texts seldom offer more than general observations, which nonetheless cannot be extended to different types of ship. Analysis of particulars of the carpentry are often ignored, limiting the presentation to the main elements of the ship and devoting much space to the problems of design, hydrostatics, and hydrodynamics.

Carlo Beltrame

50 In the face of such difficulties, archaeological investigation and the analysis of material finds acquire great importance for adding to our knowledge of shipbuilding in this period, and in particular relating to the construction of a brig. Different Solutions in the Transverse Carpentry Very sophisticated shapes and strong structures were both key characteristics of military vessels that were constructed at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. In this context, the focus is less on the quality of the bottom shape — that is, the complexity of the lines of the largest vessels, in which respect we still have little information on the Mercurio — but rather on the construction technique that allowed the building of complex shapes. The system of double frames was one of the strengthening factors in all vessels of this period. The frames were typically composed of doubled elements. The architecture of the elements largely follows one of three different models. Firstly, there is the pattern that we find, for example, in American brigs (Fig. iii.1.1), and also in the Akko 1 shipwreck in Israel (Cvikel and Kahanov, 2012), in which we can identify a central symmetrical floor that is constructed from two symmetrical half-frames (or ‘first futtocks’), which are fastened to a central timber and overlap. The difference in length between the floortimber (which was shorter) and the first futtock offered space for the junction of a second futtock. A third futtock could then extend the first futtock up to the top. Alongside the third futtock was a top timber, which closed the gap. In this technique, the only weakness was the presence of an element formed from two pieces, the ‘first futtocks’, over the keel. An alternative pattern construction technique was also used in France and Italy in the nineteenth century.

Figure iii.1.1. Schematic frame of the US brig Eagle. Figure: Crisman, 1987, Fig. 46.

Figure iii.1.2. Schematic frame pattern used in a replica of a clipper at Douarnenez and used in various ships in the nineteenth century. Figure: Ballu, 2003, 71.

Figure iii.1.3. Schematic frame composition of a 74-gun ship. 1: floor-timbers; 2, 5, 6: futtocks; 3: half-floor-timbers; 4: futtocks heel. Figure: Boudriot, 1997, 81.

This has been documented both in the Molo sud shipwreck, interpreted as a possible brig from the second half of the nineteenth century (Beltrame et al., 2008), and in the scattered nineteenth-century wreck of the pier of Le Ceppe, found in the harbour of Malamocco in Venice (Beltrame, 2008a; 2014b). This technique was an economic solution, which allowed for a reduction in the use of naturally curved elements when they were not available. For this reason, it had a certain success in the nine-

1. The Hull teenth and twentieth centuries, and it was documented some years ago in vessels at Bodrum (Dell’Amico, 1998, Fig. 8). For this system, the frame was composed of a pair of overlapping floor timbers featuring arms of unequal length, which had a reduced curve. The futtocks were fastened in an alternating sequence up to the top (Fig. iii.1.2). The system used in French 74-gun ships shows the use of a floor timber with short arms, and another floor timber with long arms that was fastened to the first one. Two futtock heels were fastened side-by-side to the arms of the longest floor timber, extending the arms of the shorter floor timber to match the knees. In this alternate sequence, other futtocks were used to extend the frame up to the top (Fig. iii.1.3). Such a solution probably guaranteed the strongest frames, because they had no junctions near the centre of the ship; however, it required the use of natural curved timbers that were not always easy to find. There are in fact no extant elements for us to identify which of the above techniques was used in the Mercurio. However, it was the latter process that was the most common technique in the shipyards of the French navy (Boudriot, 1997), and it thus seems likely to have been used in the Foce shipyard where the Mercurio was built. Whatever technique was used, the frames were often closely set, but there was some space to allow the circulation of air between the timbers to prevent rot. At the bow (but only here) this space disappeared completely, and the frames touched one other (Boudriot, 1997, 88–91). Another characteristic of ship construction in this period, and a technique that guaranteed the strengthening of the structure, was the general use of metal fastenings. Every element (such as the keel, keelson, frames, and knees), with the exception of the planking, was joined by metal bolts. The planking, meanwhile, was often joined by nails, but use of wooden pegs was also widespread (Boudriot, 1997, 141). The sternposts of these ships had a strong rise of the floor line, and so they became a sort of blade composed of the real sternpost and many pieces of deadwood that filled the space between it and the keelson, and over the keel. The sternpost supported the stern and housed the gudgeons to connect the rudder. It would be possible to go into more detail here, and to present other characteristics of ship construction in this period, focusing on the floor riders, for example. However, many such techniques were only employed on the large vessels, and were not present in the brigs, which had a more traditional and simplified structure. As such, they will not be discussed further in this volume.

51 Analysis of the Construction of the Mercurio1 The study of the hull and its construction was made possible through the analysis of both the wooden remains and the metal finds, which were preserved despite the decay of the surrounding wood. The parts of the hull that have been investigated are located in both Areas A and B. Area A includes a large part of the hull from the stem to the centre of the ship, and Area B corresponds to the stern. In Area A, the excavation has allowed the uncovering and documentation of both the port and starboard sides near the bow. The port side has been uncovered over a length of about 8 m, and the starboard side over about 10 m. While on the starboard side, the excavation exposed only the upper part of the hull, on the port side the excavation went lower, allowing the detailed analysis of a 5-m section of the internal part of the side (Pl. 7). Because the ship is tilted to port, the starboard side is preserved to a lesser height. In fact, after the sinking, the starboard side was exposed almost down to the keel, while the port side lay on the sea bottom. As a result, the port side would have been quickly covered, and protected by sediment up to the deadwood, while the starboard side, which was exposed, was attacked by Teredo navalis until it disintegrated completely. Starting from the transverse half-section of the Cygne, made by Broudriot and Berti (1981, 65), we have created a complete section, which we have inclined to the same angle (about 25° to the left) as the archaeological find. We then removed the drawing of the part of the hull that did not survive, leaving the part of the hull that would have been protected by sediment. With this drawing, we have an idea of the level of preservation of the part of the hull that has been excavated, and of the possible level of preservation of what remains covered by sand (Fig. iii.1.4).

Figure iii.1.4. Possible transverse section of the hull of the Mercurio. In grey is the part of the hull and the sediments that have not been excavated. Drawing: C. Beltrame.

  For the first observations on the construction of the Mercurio, see Beltrame 2008b, 2009, 2010, and 2012, 247–49. 1

52

Figure iii.1.5. The starboard side of the hull. Note that there is no space between the frames, and they seem to be one piece. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.7. Detail from the starboard side of the hull. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.6. The starboard side of the hull. Detail of the copper sheathing applied on the outer planking (note the junction of two planks). Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.8. Latin number XII embossed on the copper sheathing (shown beneath the fingers of the diver). Photo: S. Caressa.

1. The Hull

53

The Starboard Side Looking at the remains of the hull from above, it is possible to see the inner planking, the frames, and the outer planking of the starboard side of the ship (Fig. iii.1.5). The inner planking is 6 cm thick, the frames are 23 cm thick (that is, the space between the outer and the inner planking), and the outer hull planking is 6.5 cm thick. The hull planking is covered by copper sheathing (Fig. iii.1.6). There is no space between the frames — in other words, they lie side-by-side and are in contact — and they appear as one piece of wood (Fig. iii.1.7). The starboard side curves toward the bow, where it is possible to see the starboard side of the upper part of the gripe, believed to be of importance in keeping the ship on a steady course (Lavery, 1984, 34). This is completely covered with copper sheathing. On its right side, the copper sheathing presents the embossed Latin numeral XII (Fig. iii.1.8). This embossing is, of course, a strange way to form the draught-marks, and there is no known parallel. It is also different to the numbering used on the stern, where the numbers were made of sheet metal, and were nailed onto the copper, as documented in other shipwrecks. The embossing technique seems less practical than the technique used on the stern, but it probably had the advantage that it protected the numbers better

Figure iii.1.10. Sketch of the port side. The direction of the side is north-south. Drawing: E. Costa.

against the friction of the water. Because XII would indicate the measurement in French feet, we can say that it marks a height of 12 × 0.32 = 384 cm above the bottom of the keel. This would suggest that the stem is preserved up to the upper part, between the gripe and the main piece. Port Side

Figure iii.1.9. Top view of the frames and planking of the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

On the port side, the first 3 m from the bow have been documented only at a superficial level, that is, by removing only the layer of sand covering the wreck (Layer 1) and documenting the surface of the layer without any deeper excavation or removal of finds, while towards the centre of the ship, over 5 m of this area has been excavated at a deeper level, removing two additional layers. The side has a curved shape and tends to close (that is, to have a less-open shape) from the stem to the centre of the ship. This is normal for the bow of a vessel of this period. Only the highest strake of the outer hull planking, which is some 11 cm thick, has been seen (Figs iii.1.9 and iii.1.10). The frames to which it is fastened have the same characteristics as those seen on the starboard side: there is, in fact, no space between them, and here they are between 9 and 20 cm in width. Because of the difficulty in finding the seams between the frames, dimensions taken from the sides are not precise. In any case, the average side dimension is 14 cm and they are 18 cm high (measuring the space between the outer and inner planking) (Figs iii.1.11 and iii.1.12).

54

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.11. Drawing from the photogrammetry of the port side, 2011 season. Drawing: S. Caressa and C. Beltrame.

1. The Hull

55

Figure iii.1.12. Top view of the frames and planking of the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Not all the frames are complete, and their extremities have been heavily degraded by Teredo. There is only one frame that ends with an intact extremity, and this is located in the sector toward the bow that has been only superficially excavated. This frame demonstrates that the technique of construction was based on double framing that was composed, at the bottom, of alternate long and short floor timbers, and, at the top by many futtocks (Fig. iii.1.13), joined alternately. The inner planking, which can be seen, is composed of six strakes with the following widths (from top to bottom): 28 cm (P1), 26 cm (P2), 25 cm (P3), 22 cm (P4), and 26 cm (P5). The bottom plank (P6) is partially covered by the orlop deck. The planks are covered with pitch and caulked in the seams (see Figs  iii.1.14 and iii.1.15). They are 10 cm thick and are fastened to the frames with iron nails covered by concretion. Where the concretions are broken, there is only a hole, and the iron has disappeared.

On the inner planking, the lower arms of four hanging knees (K1, K2, K3, and K4) have been preserved (Fig. iii.1.16). These supported the deck beams, preventing them from moving in the vertical plane (Lavery, 1984, 41). The hanging knees closer to the bow (K 1 and K 2) are not perpendicular but tend to incline towards the bow (Figs  iii.1.17 and iii.1.18). We do not have an explanation for this, but a similar construction can be identified in some of Boudriot’s (1975) drawings of knees from 74-gun ships. The top end of the hanging knee was fastened to the beam (although this has not been preserved), while the other end was fastened to the side of the ship. Both ends were fixed to the frames and to the external planking through the inner planking by copper bolts of approximately 3–4 cm in diameter, with a large head. The extremities of the lower part of the knees that were preserved have a typical fingernail shape (Fig. iii.1.19).

Carlo Beltrame

56

Figure iii.1.13. Futtock with intact extremity on the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.14. Caulking in the inner planking seams and pitch on the surface. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.15. Caulking in the inner planking seams after sampling. Photo: C. Beltrame.

The knees are between 14 and 16 cm wide, and 17 and 18 cm thick. We have an idea of the complete shape of the arms of the knees and of the system of bolt-fastenings from the drawings made by Boudriot and Berti

(1981, 65) of the model of the Cygne (Fig. iii.1.20), and from the drawing made by Boudriot of a 74-gun ship (Fig.  iii.1.21). Each knee could have had an angle of about 90 degrees.

1. The Hull

57

Figure iii.1.16. Photomosaic of the internal port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.17. Hanging knee K2 inclined towards the bow. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.19. Large heads of copper bolts on a hanging knee (K2). Note the fingernail shape of the knee. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.18. Hanging knee K1 inclines towards the bow. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Four knees have been exposed: they have the following spaces between the sides, respectively from bow to stern: 105, 120, and 50 cm. An alignment of copper bolts that are connected to the planking on the southern part of the exposed side testifies to the presence of another,

unpreserved, knee some 110 cm from the southern one. This identification finds further support in the fact that 110 cm was also the average space between the sides of the knees. On the inner face of the third knee from the prow (K 3), there is a small rectangular recess 7 × 5.5 cm large (Fig. iii.1.22). To the south of the southern knee, a small square-sectioned timber, 8 cm wide, is nailed to the inner planking parallel with the knees. It was used as a support for two wooden shelves, 3 cm thick (Figs iii.1.23 and iii.1.24). This is a trace of a lightly planked bulkhead dividing the living space inside the ship. There is

Carlo Beltrame

58

Figure iii.1.20. Transverse section of the model of the Cygne. Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 65.

Figure iii.1.21. Bolts fastening the hanging knees to the side of a 74-gun ship. Figure: Boudriot, 1997 101.

Figure iii.1.22. Third knee (K3) from the bow. Note the square hole. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.23. Trace of lightly planked bulkhead (from the stern). Photo: C. Beltrame.

an example of this kind of structure in the excavation of HMS Invincible (Bingeman, 2010, 52). Because in this area (that is, the starboard side of the bow) on the 74-gun French ships, this was the location of the poste du maitre-voilier et maitre-calfat (sailmaker and caulker), with the poiste du maitre-charpentier (ship’s carpenter)

being location on the opposite side (Boudriot, 2001, Fig.  366) and because, to the north of this bulkhead many caulking tools have been found, it seems probable that this light structure was the southern partition wall of the caulker’s store (see below). To the south of the second knee from the prow, another timber (no. 792),

1. The Hull

59

Figure iii.1.24. Trace of lightly planked bulkhead (top view). Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.25. Timber no. 792. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.26. Possible shelf (C1), in the centre of the image. Photo: C. Beltrame.

parallel to the knees, and some 7  cm wide and 6  cm thick, has been nailed to the inner planking. The top end is tapered (it has a tenon) to connect to another timber (Fig. iii.1.25). Meanwhile, another element has not been identified with any certainty. It is a fragment of plank (C1) found parallel to the side along the internal face of K 3 and K 4. It presents two rectangular recesses to fit the inner planking over the knees. Because it was found loose, it fell on the deck during the excavation (Figs iii.1.26 and iii.1.27). If we compare it to those finds documented in the excavation of HMS Invincible (Bingeman,

2010, 51–52), we could interpret this as a sort of box shelf, probably for caulker’s tools. Three deck beams (B1, B2, B3) are connected to the wale. The deck planking hides the construction of this junction. The limited sections of the beams (those measured were 16 and 11 cm wide, respectively) suggests that we might interpret them as half-beams rather than main deck-beams (Fig.  iii.1.28). They support three planks of between 18 and 28 cm in width (D1: 18 cm; D2: 24 cm; D3 (28 cm) and 3.5 cm thick, which run north-south. The beams and ‘ceiling’ formed part of the orlop deck, which, because it was not used to carry guns,

Carlo Beltrame

60

Figure iii.1.27. Possible shelf (C1), on the left of the image. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.28. The diver is touching deck beam B3. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.29. The orlop deck (D1, D2, D3) from the stern. Photo: C. Beltrame.

could be made lighter than the others (Lavery, 1984, 39) (Fig. iii.1.29). The orlop deck was located under the gundeck (in the brigs fitted with the upperdeck), which separated the living space from the bilge. If we accept Boudriot’s and Berti’s drawings of the Cygne, the height between the two decks had to be about 2 m: this fits with the height of 216  cm reported by Boudriot (1975,  156) for the

same space in French 74-gun ships. Because the length of the side preserved in the excavation is less than 1.5 m, we have to suppose that it continued for more than 50 cm. The difference in the dimensions of the elements of construction on the port and starboard sides is perfectly logical. The inclination of the ship to port allows the measurement of the dimensions of the components of the vessel at two levels. On the starboard side, the outer

1. The Hull planking is only 6.5 cm thick, unlike the 11 cm measured on the port side. This is likely to be because to starboard, the side of the ship is near the keel and this aligns with Boudriot and Berti’s (1981, 65) drawing of the Cygne, on which the starboard planking is also shown to be thinner than on the port side, where the side is preserved between the two decks. The same difference in the thickness of the outer hull planking has also been documented in the brig Jefferson, where at the top it was 7.5–10 cm thick, and below, only 5 cm (Crisman, 1987, 204). It is likely to be for this same reason that the moulded dimension of the floor-timber on the starboard side measured about 23 cm, in contrast to the 18 cm of the futtocks of the port side. As we can see in Boudriot and Berti’s drawing, the frames of the Cygne tended to become thinner toward the gunwale at the level of the futtocks. This same tendency is also evident in the drawings of French 74-gun ships, where at the bottom, above the keel, the frames were 35 cm in thickness, and this tapered at the top to only 15 cm (Boudriot, 1997, 156). The thickness of the frames of the Mercurio — and indeed, the thickness of the outer planking — thus appears to be the norm if we consider that the frames of both the Jefferson and the Eagle were 22 cm thick, and those of the brigantine Die Frau Metta were 26 x 22 cm (Skelton, 2010, 246). The thickness of the ceiling over the floor timbers of the starboard side is 6 cm, which can be compared with the 5–7.5 cm of the Eagle and the 5 cm of the Jefferson’s ceiling (Crisman, 1987, 157, 204). Only the thickness of the planking between the two decks, 10 cm, seems to be slightly thicker than normal.

Figure iii.1.30. Example of technique of using filling pieces in a large vessel. Here the fillers are very short. Figure: Steffy, 1994, 293.

61 As we have seen, the Mercurio has one particularly interesting characteristic: the frames are close together so there is no space between them as would be normal in a vessel of this period (Boudriot, 1997, 106–07). It seems it was the norm that in this period the frames had at least a space of few centimetres between them, both for economy and to ventilate the wood (Boudriot, 1997, 88). It is possible therefore that what we see under water from above are not only futtocks, and also that between the futtocks, we can see filling pieces or chocks — that is, timbers without a structural role (Fig. iii.1.30). This solution has been documented, for example, in the Eagle at the top of the side (Crisman, 1987, 146, Fig. 54), and in the Akko 1 shipwreck, both at the top and the bottom of the side (Cvikel, Kahanov, 2012, 171), and in these cases it has been explained as a reinforcing element. The side of the Akko 1 shipwreck, in particular, has a very similar aspect to that of the sides of the Mercurio, with very closely-set framing timbers. The oak fillers fill the space between the oak double-frames along almost the entire side (Cvikel and Kahanov, 2009; 2012, 171, Fig. 7). It is thus possible that we can identify a similar kind of construction in the Mercurio, although we are able to see only two levels of the sides (on the port side at a high level, and on the starboard at a low level), and thus do not have a complete view that would enable us to identify this. Indeed, we do not know how the frames are arranged along the entire length of the sides. Are the presumed fillers present only at these levels, for example? Or do the ‘fillers’ follow the frames for the entire height of the sides? A third possibility is that the sides are in fact composed only of ‘real’ frames (we can say ‘full frames’). In other words, they consist not of simple fillers, but of timbers that follow the entire shape of the ship, from the top of the keel to the top of the side, and thus have a structural role. This solution would, admittedly, be quite unusual in Mediterranean ship construction, but it was adopted in the ‘Ibero-Atlantic’ technique of construction used in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and into the beginning of the seventeenth century, and its usage has been documented, for example, in the Ria de Aveiro A (Alves et al., 2001), Nos sa Senhora dos Màrtires (Castro, 2001), and Pepper wrecks (Castro, 2005, 105– 46). This kind of construction utilized frames that were close together in order to form a very strong structure that could withstand long voyages across the Atlantic. As such, although we shall here hypothesize the ‘simple’ use of long fillers, as has been documented in the Akko 1 shipwreck, the evidence that we have until now — notably the complete absence of space between the frames on both the sides of the ship — would also suggest the use of real frames fitting closely together. It should, how-

Carlo Beltrame

62 Stern

Figure iii.1.31. The port side of the stern (the keel is at the bottom). Photo: S. Caressa.

ever, be noted that this last solution is not reported in French and English handbooks of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and nor does it appear in shipyard models of the period of construction of the Mercurio. Thus, if it were this latter technique that we find used on the Mercurio, it would be the only extant example from this time period. What, then, might have been the scope of this technique? Why did the shipwright make use of significantly more wood and spend much more time on shipbuilding than was strictly necessary, in order to produce a heavier ship? What was the presumed benefit of this technique? The explanation that we put forward here to explain the use of this technical solution is that an increase in the number of frames, or else the addition of some simple fillers between frames, was due to the desire to build a ship that was more resistant to cannonball fire. However, it should also be noted that if this were indeed the motivation behind this technique, it would, in practice, have been quite useless: reduced-scale experiments that simulated the firing of cannonballs at the side of the Akko 1 ship, conducted by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd, Israel, in collaboration with Yaacov Kahanov et al. of the University of Haifa, showed that cannonballs could still easily penetrate a hull with this type of reinforcement (Kahanov et al., 2012). However, it is possible that the benefit of this solution against cannonballs was only assumed, and perhaps the technique identified in the Mercurio was only an experiment. Before giving a final answer to this problem, more evidence is needed.

Area B, located 60 m to the south-west of Area A, is the stern of the ship. As we described above when analysing the dynamics of the ship sinking, the explosion of the powder room caused the detachment of the stern from the rest of the vessel. This piece of the hull is 6 m high and less than 3 m wide. It lies on its starboard side. It is largely complete only at the sternpost, and it has been badly degraded on the port side by Teredo. The Teredo has reduced the thickness of the wooden structure, and has in part compromised our ability to interpret the individual components (Figs iii.1.31 and iii.1.32). The remains show traces of the false keel and a section of what is presumed to be the keel itself. The keel is 22 cm high, increasing to 32 cm at a step from the stern. This thickness is not consistent across the keel, but at no point is it less than 14 cm in width. Near to the step is a bronze U-shaped plate that connected the keel to the stern. Its dimension at the side of 25 cm could indicate the original width of the keel (Fig. iii.1.33). This metal element can be noted also in the plan of the French 74-gun ship Colosse (Les archives de la Marine, 8DD1 16, no. 2) and in the shipwreck of the 90-gun DanishNorwegian ship Dannebroge, which sank in 1710 (Christoffersen, 1998, Fig.  9). It is nonetheless quite rare and is not present in the plans of the group of brigs discussed here. Under the keel and the bronze plate is a fragment of timber fastened with two nails. This is probably a remnant of the false keel. Above the keel, in the vertical position, are the outer sternpost (A1), the sternpost (A2), and the inner sternpost (A3). The sternpost is 5.5 m long and is complete; over its head (the extremity of the timber that was inside the deck), is a lead cap nailed to the wood, which is not documented by other sources (Figs iii.1.34 and iii.1.35). It may have been used as protection, as is normal on the exposed end of a wooden timber. The outer sternpost (A1) is 13 cm wide and 30 cm thick. Three bronze gudgeons, about 130 cm apart, are nailed to it. Above the highest gudgeon is a bronze ringbolt with a ring that is 14.5 cm in diameter (Figs iii.1.36 and iii.1.37). The ringbolt is joined to another bronze ring. On this last ring is fastened a smaller iron thimble that was used to secure, through a rope, the rudder to the ship. It gave some control over the rudder in the event of damage. It also prevented the rudder from being completely lost if an accident should break the gudgeons and pintles (Lavery, 1987, 12). In the upper sector, there are two bronze bars that are no longer connected to the ship. These were probably arms from a broken gudgeon. The three gudgeons have bronze cylinder rings, each 11 cm in diameter, through

1. The Hull

63

Figure iii.1.32. Drawing from the photogrammetry of the B1 and 2 quadrants (stern). A1: outer sternpost; A2: sternpost; A3: inner sternpost; A4, 5, 6, 7: fillers; T1, 2, 3: tablets. Top view of the starboard side. Drawing: S. Caressa.

Carlo Beltrame

64

Figure iii.1.33. Bronze plate under the keel. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.36. Bronze ring connecting the rudder to the stern with a rope. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.37. Bronze ring connecting the rudder to the stern with a rope. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.34. Lead cap over the stern post. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.35. Lead cap over the stern post. Photo: C. Beltrame.

which the rudder pintles (which have not been found) would have fitted (Fig. iii.1.38). From the rings led pairs of arms, with holes for bolts and nails. Each arm was shaped to follow the contours of the stern at the level at which it was fitted. The arms at the top had to open at a wider angle to follow the contour of the hull. The angle created between the arms in order to follow the line of the hull might well have been the cause of the tendency for these objects to break at particular points (Stanbury, 1994, 27). All the arms of the gudgeons of the Mercurio are broken in the area where they were perhaps bent. In the shipwreck of HMS Sirius, which sank off Australia, three bronze gudgeons have been found (Stanbury, 1994, 24–28). These are very similar to those found in the Mercurio, and all of them have broken in the same place as the gudgeons from our ship. This further demonstrates that the bars that allowed the fastening of the gudgeons to the sternpost were quite fragile, and it shows their weakest point. Generally, in English ships, a bolt was passed through the first hole, through the sternpost, and through the corresponding hole in the

1. The Hull

65

Figure iii.1.38. Lowest bronze gudgeon. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.40. Rabbet in the sternpost to host the port side planking. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.39. Bronze nails of the starboard external planking. Photo: S. Caressa.

opposite arm, where it was clenched (Lavery, 1987, 11). In the Mercurio, however, there is no evidence of the fastening system because the arms have not been preserved. On the Mecurio, the sternpost (A2) is fastened to the outer stern (A1) and is 36  cm wide. It fits to the keel through a step. The inner sternpost (A3) is fastened to the sternpost. It is 17.5 cm wide and it does not fit directly on the keel, but instead over a short horizontal board (T1) (see above, Fig. iii.1.32). Inside the inner sternpost and between the planking of the two sides, there are a number of vertical wooden elements. The first one is the curved deadwood knee (A4). It does not fit

directly onto the keel, but instead is attached to three short horizontal boards (T1, T2, and T3). Inside this are three curved fillers (A5, A6, and A7). Between the bottom of the deadwood knee and the keel are some elements that have thus far not been clearly identified. Sections of eight strakes (FD1–8) of the outboard hull planking are connected at the point where they end to the stern. The bottom most planks are horizontal, while the others are orientated diagonally. The planks, from bottom to the top, are respectively 35 cm (FD1, incomplete), 32  cm (FD2), 69.5  cm (FD3), 32  cm (FD4), 26 cm (FD5), 33 cm (FD6), 33 cm (FD7) and 21 cm (FD8) in width, and they are all 6.5  cm thick. Many copper nails project from the planking that fastened the planks to the fillers (Fig. iii.1.39). Only traces of two oak strakes (FS 1 and FS 2) of the port planking survive. They are fixed by large copper alloy square-headed nails to the side of the sternpost. These planks, which are 5.5 cm thick, fit in the rabbet cut into the middle of the sternpost (Fig. iii.1.40). The components between the deadwood knee and the keel could be the extensions of the rising wood. In this shipwreck, unlike Boudriot’s draughts, this ‘extension’ is composed of three pieces (T1, T2, and T3), one of which (T1) continues under the inner sternpost (A3). Finally, the tenon of the sternpost (A2), which fits into the step over

66

Figure iii.1.41. Stern recovered from the sea and exhibited in the National Depot for Ship Archaeology of Lelystad. Photo: C. Beltrame.

the keel, shows an asymmetrical shape that is different from that documented in Boudriot’s draughts. All the components described above are connected to each other by long bronze bolts (up to 190 cm in length), which are the longest used on the ship. Inside the deadwood knee are the heads of long bolts, which were inserted via the knee to connect it to all the other elements of the stern, as demonstrated in Boudriot’s drawing of the stern of a French 74-gun ship (Boudriot, 1997, Fig. 100) and in a large stern conserved in the National Depot for Ship Archaeology of Lelystad (Fig. iii.1.41). The two bolts in the highest position in the knee, which were still fastened to the stern post, could have joined the stern to the sternson (which was not preserved) by passing through the transom, as suggested in Boudriot’s drawing (Boudriot, 1997, Fig. 100). The lowest bolts visible have been inserted diagonally, used to fasten the deadwood knee to the keel. At the bottom, the degradation of the outer sternpost above the keel allows us to see two bolts, both inserted from outside, which connected it to the sternpost and the inner sternpost (Fig. iii.1.42). This solution is different from

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.42. Copper alloy bolts joining the outer sternpost with the sternpost and the inner post. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.43. Sample of felt recovered from between the components of the sternpost. Photo: C. Beltrame.

that proposed by Boudriot, who in his drawing shows an outer sternpost that is not connected by bolts to the other inner components. His works show that the outer sternpost would be fastened to the sternpost by simple nails. This is not the case in the Mercurio, where as seen, at least at the bottom, the outer sternpost would also be

1. The Hull bolted to the other components. Between these wooden elements, pieces of felt have been interposed, probably to prevent wood rot (Fig. iii.1.43).2 This solution is also mentioned by Boudriot (1975, 153). Materials Used in the Construction Analysis by Nili Liphschitz of Tel Aviv University has revealed that the outer planking in the bow area, both port and starboard, was constructed with Quercus cerris (Turkey oak). The external planking on the port side of the stern, on the contrary, was of Quercus robur (oak) (Table iii.1.1, see below). French and English specialized literature takes for granted that military vessels of this period would have been made from Quercus robur (e.g. Boudriot, 1997, 50–54): in Western Europe, Q. cerris was generally not considered to be a wood suitable for shipbuilding, probably because it easily rots under water (Giordano, 1976, 406–07). From the Middle Ages onwards, written sources testify to its use as firewood in particular, and it was not recommended for use in shipbuilding (Furio Ciciliot, pers. comm. 2005; Liphschitz and Pulak, 2009, 170). It is therefore quite strange that this species of wood should have been used for the external planking of a French military vessel of this period. However, we should not forget that the use of this type of wood was more prevalent in the Eastern Mediterranean in other types of ships, and was probably widely used by other nations (e.g. in the Akko 1 shipwreck). We must also admit that, although we know what the handbooks prescibed, we do not know what really happened in the Italian shipyards of the Empire and of the Regno Italico, both because of the lack of documentary evidence and because of the possible different traditions of ship-building that might have been followed in private shipyards, such as that of La Foce. Also strange is the use of three different types of Quercus sp. for the construction of the frames and the inner planking of the Mercurio. The shipwright used Q. robur, Q. cerris, and Q. petrea. Q. robur and Q. cerris were also used for the hanging knees. The deck, meanwhile, was made of more varied materials. Two types of pine were used for the beams, and both Q. robur and C. cupressus for the ceiling. The bulkhead was built of Pinus halepensis. All the components of the stern that have been analysed were made of Q. robur, and this same wood was used for the keel and the false keel. The choice of oak for the construction of the majority of the impor  The material was analysed by Doretta Davanzo Poli, Università Ca’ Foscari of Venice. 2

67 tant components of the ship is quite obvious, and largely attested by the written sources, although the use of Q. cerris is in this sense an oddity. The use of pine, which in contrast to oak was not considered a ‘noble’ wood, for less important parts, such as the bulkhead, is another logical choice. Metal Fastenings Metal bolts, with circular cross-section, were used to hold the main components of the skeleton of the hull together. For example, they were used to join the frames to the keel and the keelson, and on the various components of the stern and of the stem. These bolts were cut to the required size, and the end that protruded from the timber was hammered (Stanbury, 1994, 14; McCarthy, 2005, 70–71). The 37 bolts recovered from the Mercurio are all made of copper alloy. Many are about 48 cm long and the longest one, no. 161.47, is 93 cm long (Table iii.1.2, see below). The diameter of the shank is typically between 1.9 and 2.4 cm. The head, which has a diameter of between 2.3 and 3.2 cm, is very rough, and has a copper alloy clinch ring that is between 3.4 and 4.1 cm wide and up to 1 cm thick. The other extremity is hammered flat to lock the bolt (Figs iii.1.44 and iii.1.45). One bolt (no 35), which is about 48 cm in length, has a rare shape. It has a pointed end and the head is 4.8 cm square, and 2.2  cm thick (Figs  iii.1.46 and iii.1.47). Also notable for their shape are a pair of bolts (no 161.45 and 161.46) from Area B. These are 30 and 33 cm long respectively, and are of a particular type. They have no

Figure iii.1.44. Typical bolts of copper alloy, nos 53, 91, 93, 102 and 103 (n.i. 91: 333.879; 93: 333.881). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

68

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.45. Copper alloy clinch ring near the round hammered head of a bolt Photo: C. Beltrame. Figure iii.1.47. Square head on a bolt. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.46. Bolt square headed with pointed end after conservation, no. 35. Photo: E. Costa.

head and the other extremity is pointed (Fig. iii.1.48). This kind of bolt has also been found in the shipwreck at the pier of Le Ceppe of Malamocco (Beltrame, 2008a; 2014b). Boudriot (1975, 141) refers to them as ‘cheville a bout perdue’, and Kerchove (1948, 249) describes them as ‘blunt bolts’, which are ‘bolts driven into a plank and a timber as a partial or extra security’, but that are not driven right through the timber, and which are ‘therefore often referred to as a short driven bolt, also called “dump bolt”’. Such bolts have largely been recovered from the upper layer of the site and along the starboard side, especially in Sectors Q1, Q2, Q5, and Q6. There were sixteen in Sector Q6 (Pl. 7). Nine bolts have also been recovered in Area B (at the stern) (Pl. 6). This situation can be explained by the degradation of the starboard side of the hull, which has largely left only non-perishable finds behind, included among them the copper alloy bolts. On the port side, where the conditions of preservation of the hull are much better, it is possible to identify other metal objects (such as the scuppers) of the upperworks, the only part of the hull that was not protected. The bolts of the stern area (Area B) are testimony to the great quantity of metal fastenings that had to be used in this part of the ship. The longest bolt recovered (no. 161.47, 93 cm long) was of course used for the fastening of the stern components, where it was necessary to

use the longest metal fastenings of the ship (see above). Because of their location and dimensions, the other bolts could have been used to connect the planking to the frames or the knees to the sides. There are no large diameter bolts that could have been used in the longitudinal carpentry. What we have found is only the result of the deterioration of the sides and the upperworks, because the bottom of the ship still remains hidden beneath the sand.

The spikes are all of copper alloy. The shank has a square cross-section, the head has an average square section of 2.2 cm (ranging from 1.4 to 2.9 cm) and is on average 1.5 cm in thickness (with a range of between 1.1 and 2.7 cm). The spikes vary in length from 13 to 26 cm (Fig. iii.1.49; see also Table iii.1.3 below). They could be used everywhere, but they were mostly employed to secure planking to the frames, in the internal fitting of the hull, and to secure the outer planking to the hull. Many of them fastened the ceiling planking to the beams. In the stern, we have seen that they are still fastened to the external planking, where they were used to join the planking to the frames. Some of these spikes (for example nos 41.8 and 41.4) were roughened, or made ‘ragged’ with an axe or hatchet to provide additional grip to secure the timbers to each other (McCarthy, 1996, 186; 2005, 72) (Fig. iii.1.50). This kind of nail has been found in great numbers in the Le Ceppe pier shipwreck of Malamocco of Venice, but there were also some in the eighteenth-century shipwreck from Mercedes Camarines Norte (Ronquillo, 1990, 23).

1. The Hull

Figure iii.1.48. ‘Blunt’ bolts from B (stern) area, nos 161.45 and 161.46. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

69 Three short ‘nails’ (which might plausibly also be interpreted as bolts or spikes) (nos 160.53, 160.54, and 161.20) are very different from the others. They have mushroom heads (between 3.2 and 4 cm wide) and their shanks have a circular cross-section (of between 1.3 and 1.7 cm) and pointed ends (Fig. iii.1.51). Objects like these were also found in the HMS Sirius, where they were interpreted as ‘rudder nails’ (McCarthy, 1996, 184; Stanbury, 1994, 30–31). Given their location, in Area B of the Mercurio, it seems likely that they held the same function here (Table iii.1.4, see below). Item no. 160.89, meanwhile, is a sort of square section copper nail, with double point and bent into a U shape, which can be defined as a brace (Fig. iii.1.52). None of the bolts and nails have any markings, much in contrast to the British fastenings and nails from the Le Ceppe shipwreck of Malamocco of Venice, which were stamped with ‘M I’. Thus far, we have not found any iron nails, but there is evidence that they were used at least in the inner planking. This was evidently fastened to the frames using some kind of iron nail or bolt, but the only evidence left is a large hole with corrosion products in the wood (Fig. iii.1.53). Hull Protection Copper sheathing was introduced by the British Navy in the 1760s, where it was used as a substitute for wood sheathing. However, it was only accepted into general

Figure iii.1.50. ‘Ragged’ nail with scales. Photo: S. Manfio.

Figure iii.1.49. Copper spikes, nos 154.7, 160.21, 160.65, 161.6 and 161.37. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

Figure iii.1.51. Possible ‘rudder nails’, with circular cross-section and mushroom head, nos 160.53, 160.54 and 161.20 (n.i. 333.891, 333.892 and 333.894). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

70

Figure iii.1.52. Square section copper nail no. 160.89 (n.i. 333.893), with double point and bent to a U, which can be defined as a brace. Drawing: S. Zanetto.

Figure iii.1.53. Traces of iron nails or bolts in the inner planking. Photo: C. Beltrame.

usage in the 1770s (Knight, 1973). The French navy first began to investigate with copper sheathing in 1778, where it was used on the frigate Iphigénie, and it was only adopted into general usage in the 1780s (Boudriot, 1975, 242). Copper sheathing was largely used to keep ships free of marine growth, while at the same time protecting the timbers against Teredo navalis. However, it could also guarantee the waterproofing of old ships. It was successful because it forms a solid surface that can-

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.54. Copper sheathing on the upper part of the gripe (stem). Photo: S. Caressa.

not be penetrated by Teredo, and because it interacts with the water to form a slightly poisonous liquid that kills marine growth (Knight, 1973; Lavery, 1984, 120– 21; 1987, 65). It seems that there were different qualities of copper sheathing, containing different levels of impurities, and this could also influence the resistance to marine growth (Stanbury, 1994, 34). The introduction of copper sheathing had dramatic effects not only on the preservation of the hull, but also on the speed at which boats could sail. It allowed for a better performance than the wooden surface of the planking (Knight, 1973; Lavery, 1987, 62). At first it was used on ships that were fastened with iron nails; however, by the 1880s it became clear that the destructive chemical reaction between copper sheathing and iron could compromise the life of the vessel, and iron nails were replaced by copper nails (Knight, 1973; Lavery, 1987, 65). The coppering roughly followed the run of the hull, so that it curved downwards towards midships. The lowest sheet of the planking was covered first, and each sheet overlapped its neighbour by about 2 cm (Lavery, 1987, 63), following the flow of the water from bow to stern. The hull of the Mercurio was protected by copper sheathing. Evidence of this coppering comes both from the hull and from numerous fragments of plates found

1. The Hull

71

Figure iii.1.56. Copper sheathing on the edge of the outer sternpost. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.55. Copper sheathing nailed to the stern. Photo: S. Caressa.

during the excavation. It has been documented on the gripe (stem), on the external planking of the starboard (during a small test excavation), and on the stern. On the gripe, a plate covers only the bottom, and bends on the sides, where it is superimposed on to another plate (Fig  iii.1.54), as shown in Boudriot’s sketches of the stems of 74-gun ships (Boudriot, 1975, 244). The entire stern is protected by copper sheathing nailed to the wood by copper tacks. It is composed of rectangular sheets with overlapping edges of dimensions of 24–28 × 30–32 cm. The sheathing is almost only preserved along the edge of the sternpost (A 2) and at the centre of the port side (Figs iii.1.55 and iii.1.56). Fragments of copper sheathing have been recovered in both Areas A and B. The fragments are quite small, but there is evidence of a piece 175 cm long and 14 cm wide. We can divide them into groups of those pieces with a thickness of 1 mm, and those fragments with a thickness of 3 mm; this difference does not seem to be the result of differential deterioration on the seabed. Different plate thicknesses are not unusual. In fact we know that on British ships at least, there were two or more different gauges of copper

sheathing, a ‘thinner’ and ‘thicker’ variety. The copper plates suffered different rates of deterioration on those parts of the hull where the water speed was greater, such as in the bow area and along the waterline. To compensate for the uneven rate of wear, thicker plates were used in these parts of the hulls (Stanbury, 1994,  34). The sheathing of the Mercurio seems to be thicker than that of British ships, such as the HMS Sirius, where it varied from 0.6 to 0.9 mm (Stanbury, 1994, 35). Another sheathing plate (no. 40) is 77 cm long (but incomplete) and 7.7 cm wide. A third such find (no. 36) is very curious, being about 180 cm long and composed of more components. It is made from a double layer of bent plates, 7.2 cm wide and 102 cm long, fastened along the short side, and with an overlap of 7 cm with another plate (Fig. iii.1.57). This double plate is nailed using a double layer of tacks, which also bore another plate. This last component is an inner sheathing that is incomplete along one long edge; however on the other long edge, it follows the border of the external double sheathing. It is composed, as is the external sheathing, of two plates fastened by an overlap (Fig. iii.1.58). The location of this piece in the hull is unknown. The external plates present an unusual narrow shape and a strange double layer that have no parallels, but that seem to be some kind of reinforcement for the inner sheathing (Fig. iii.1.59).

Figure iii.1.57. Copper sheathing fragment no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Photo: S. Manfio.

Carlo Beltrame

72 The dimensions and installation of both of these plates, and of the plates fastened to the hull, are in contrast both to the data given by Boudriot and Berti (1981, 67), who indicate a standard dimension for the plates of the brigs (although Boudriot (1975, 243) also noted that one of the 74-gun ships had to be very close) of 160 cm × 50 cm, and to the data published by Lucas (1978, 32–47). The latter writes that the French Navy used sheets that varied between 112  cm and 162  cm in length and 23 cm and 49 cm in width. The picture that is emerging from the archaeological data, however, seems to indicate that there was not one standard size, but rather many different sizes that were in use: probably these included long plates along the hull and short plates on the stern. The copper sheathing used on the Mercurio presents bent edges and it was fastened to the hull with copper alloy tacks (Fig. iii.1.60; see also Table iii.1.5 below). It was nailed along the edges of the plates, with a spacing of about 3 cm (typically between 2.5 to 3.7, but on occasion as much as 5 cm). The tacks used were squaresectioned, with a length of between 2 and 3.5 cm long

(although most frequently the latter), and had a round flat head of about 1.5 cm in diameter. Dimensions of the tacks noted by Broudriot and Berti (1987, 67) (length 3.5 cm, head diameter 1.4–1.8 cm, spacing 4 cm) and by Le Bot (1977, 41–48) (length 3–3.5 cm, head diameter 0.5 cm), are not much different from our archaeological evidence. On the British vessel Sirius (1790), the spacing of the tacks was between 2.5 and 3.5 cm and their length was between 3.65 and 4.3 cm (Stanbury, 1994, 39). Tacks used in the British Alarm (1761) were an average of 7.32 cm long (Lavery, 1987, 64), which would seem to indicate either that the nails used in French vessels could have been shorter than those used in the English fleet, or that the size of the nails decreased over time. A stock of hundreds of hand-made tacks was found along the port side of the Mercurio in the location where the storeroom of the caulker has been identified (Table iii.1.5, see below). A sample of copper sheathing has been analysed by Manuel Bethencourt (Laboratorio de Ensayos, Corrosión y Protección of the Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Ambientales Avdan of Puerto Real, Spain), and compared to other samples from shipwrecks investigated by the author (Table iii.1.6, see below). We have also compared these data with the information available for the HMS Sirius. The copper content of the sample from the Mercurio matches samples from other shipwrecks of the period, namely the Sirius and potentially the Le Ceppe pier of Malamocco, Venice (although the dating of this latter shipwreck is not conclusive). Such comparisons suggest that there is a large difference only with

Figure iii.1.58. Detail of copper sheathing fragment no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Photo: S. Manfio.

Figure iii.1.59. Sketch of the construction technique of fragment of sheathing no. 36 (n.i. 334.045). Drawing: S. Zanetto.

Figure iii.1.60. Copper alloy nails for fastening the sheathing to the hull. Photo: C. Beltrame.

1. The Hull the results from the Molo sud shipwreck of Malamocco, which had sheathing made of brass rather than copper. This information is very interesting for the history of the techniques of hull protection, because it confirms that after 1840, Muntz metal or ‘patent yellow metal’ started to be used in ship construction. This alloy (60% copper and 40% zinc) proved to be ideal for sheathing the bottoms of the ships because it lasted longer, it was lighter and stronger than copper, and it was also cheaper. Yellow metal soon became the most widely used sheathing metal, and its use expanded during the 1840s and 1850s (Staniforth, 1985, 27). The copper that was used for the sheathing of the Mercurio would have come from the mines of Agordo (near Belluno), which were traditionally used by the Serenissima. Small nails for sheathing were produced in workshops in Mestre, which were considered preferable to those of Avignon as they created products of a better quality (Ilari and Crociani, 2017, 183). In Area B of the excavation, fragments of Roman numerals made of copper sheets have been recovered. They were 11 cm high and were nailed with copper tacks to the metal protection of the hull. It is possible to read X, perhaps a II, and a VI. This latter figure was probably part of a XVI, and indeed it is possible to see part of the missing X to the left (Fig. iii.1.61). For the other numbers, however, there are more possibilities (Figs iii.1.62 and iii.1.63). They are draught marks of the stern that have been made in a more classical way than those used

73

Figure iii.1.62. Fragment of Latin letter X for the draft marks, no. 287. Photo: E. Costa.

Figure iii.1.63. Fragments of Latin letters II for the draft marks, no. 288, after restoration. Photo: E. Costa.

Figure iii.1.61. Fragments of Latin letters VI for the draft marks, no. 286 (n.i. 334.172). Photo: E. Costa.

on the stem. Fragments of Latin letters made in a similar way have been retrieved from the site of the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay (Cohen and Crisman, 2014, 343), the stern of the 1791 Pandora shipwreck (Gesner, 1988,  27–36), and the site of the wreck of the HMS Sirius, where the numbers survive up to XVII (Von Armin, 1998, 41). The base of each letter indicated the draught, in French feet (one foot was 32 cm), from the bottom of the keel (Montferrier, 1841, entry ‘Marque’). Although Montferrier (1841) and Willaumez (1831, entry ‘Piéter’) state that these letters had to be 6 inches high and 6 inches wide (that is, half a foot, or 16 cm), those used on the Mercurio are much smaller. It is also interesting to note that Willaumez, writing close to the date of the shipwreck, states that they had to be of lead (Willaumez, 1831, entry ‘Marques’), but the archaeological evidence does not confirm this theory.

74 The use of lead sheathing on sailing vessels had many disadvantages, and was avoided whenever possible (Stanbury, 1994, 33). It was used in Antiquity from the fourth century bc to the second century ad, when it fell out of use for reasons that are unclear (Kahanov, 1999). It was reintroduced by the beginning of the sixteenth century at the latest, and it continued to be used until the introduction of copper sheathing (L’Hour et  al., 1989, 215–16; Guérout, 2005, 21–26). Being more malleable than copper, however, lead still continued to be used to provide additional protection for curved or awkwardly shaped parts of the ship, such as the gripe. On the upper part of the stem of the model of the Cygne, a piece of lead sheet is shown fastened to the copper sheathing (Boudriot, 2006b, 112). Several large pieces of lead sheathing with square nail-holes along the edges were also recovered from the HMS Sirius wreck site (Stanbury, 1994, 33). At least four small pieces of lead sheathing were recovered in Sectors Q8 and Q9 along the west side of Area A (Table 7). They are rectangular and are not longer than 29.4 cm (Fig. iii.1.7). Their thickness is between 25 and 50 mm. They have square nail holes some 5 mm wide along one or two edges. We cannot say if they are fragments of a larger area of the hull, perhaps repairs, or if they were used on the upper parts of the ship, but the nailholes would suggest the first hypothesis. Nothing is known of the nails that were used to fasten the sheathing of the HMS Sirius, which was of copper alloy (Stanbury, 1994, 33). Scuppers and Hawses Scuppers were located at intervals along the waterways of the vessel to drain the decks. They were lead pipes with a flat plate at one end that was fastened to the hull (Lavery, 1987, 66). Handbooks of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries do not describe these components, however, and they are not visible in the plans. Presumed scuppers have been documented in situ along the side of the US

Figure iii.1.64. Fragment of lead sheet no. 620. Photo: S. Manfio.

Carlo Beltrame

Figure iii.1.65. Lead scupper no. 19.2 (n.i. 333.874). Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.66. Detail of lead scupper no. 19.2 (n.i. 333.874). Photo: C. Beltrame.

Somers shipwreck (Delgado, 1998, 280–81), as well as in the wreck site of the brig Defence, sunk in 1779, where two pipes, 33 cm long, have been found (Switzer, 1976) Four pipes (nos 19.2, 20, 21, and 22) made of rolled lead plates, which were found on the surface of Sector Q2, and two lead pipes (nos 844 and 845) that were located outside the port side in Sector Q9, have been recovered and identified as possible scuppers. While the last two were found along the waterways in an area where it would seem logical to find such items, nos 19.2, 20, 21, and 22 were found at the centre of the site. The location of these items might be the result of the deterioration of the starboard side of the ship, which collapsed into the hull because of the tilt to the left (Pl. 7). The pipes are of two different sizes, being respectively around 23 cm and around 30 cm in length. The thickness of the sheet is about 1.5 mm. Nos . 19.2, 20, 21, 844, and 845 can be considered scuppers because they have bent edges with square holes to take tacks. This shape allowed them to be fastened to the hull. Their maximum diameter is about 11 cm (Figs iii.1.65 and iii.1.66). No. 20 is a

1. The Hull

75

Figure iii.1.69. Lead scupper no. 344. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.67. Long lead scupper no. 341 in situ. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.70. Lead scupper no. 344. Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.68. Lead scuppers nos 844 and 845 outside the port side. Photo: C. Beltrame.

badly preserved pipe that could have had the same function. Notably, the length is the same; however because of the deterioration of the metal, it is not easily recognizable. Another presumed lead scupper (no. 341) was documented in Sector Q8 (on the port side of the stem) and has been left in situ. It was much longer than the others,

at a length of about 50 cm, but was similar in shape to no. 19.2. Its length is of course unusual for a scupper, so we cannot exclude the possibility that it had a different function (Fig. iii.1.67). Another two ‘scuppers’ of the short type (nos 844 and 845) have been left in situ along the port side (exactly as in the US Somers) in Sector Q9. The location would confirm their use along the waterways (Fig. iii.1.68). In the chapter about the artillery (see below), another interpretation is put forward, which suggests that these objects were used to protect the holes housing the rope of the tackle. However, a key problem of this interpretation is that these holes were very close to one of the scuppers. In Sector Q8, along the port side, another lead ‘pipe’ has been documented with photos (no.  344)

Carlo Beltrame

76

a diameter of 33 cm; the extremities are diagonal, enabling it to be inserted in the hull at an angle. Another hawsepipe has been only partially excavated in the bow extremity of the site. The model of the Cygne shows two hawses on each side (Boudriot, 2006a, 112). Ballast

Figure iii.1.71. Lead scuppers on the side of a 74-gun vessel. Figure: Boudriot, 2000, Fig. 121.

Figure iii.1.72. Lead hawsepipe no. 203. Photo: C. Beltrame.

(Figs iii.1.69 and iii.1.70). It has a rectangular flat section and a length of 48 cm. One extremity, 29.5 cm wide, has bent edges with square holes for nails. The edges have been bent diagonally to allow the insertion of the pipe diagonally into the hull. The other extremity has smaller edges that were not diagonal. Because of the metal that was used to make this item, and because of its general shape, we can interpret it as another type of scupper. The angle of the edges of the main extremity would suggest that it was inserted through the side of the ship almost vertically. The location of the discovery suggests that it was part of the port side. The only comparison we have found is in Boudriot’s study of the 74-gun ship, where this object is located at the level of the gunwale (Boudriot, 2000, Fig. 121) (Fig. iii.1.71). Two lead hawsepipes have been documented in Sector Q6, in the bow, where they have been left in situ. These are large, round lead pipes with bent edges to grip the hull (Fig. iii.1.72). No. 203 is 40 cm long and has

With the exception of the carronades, the part of the shipwreck that protruded from the sand when it was discovered was an 8x4 m mound of concretion composed of iron ballast. Identifiable within the ballast is a trench that was left by the deterioration of the keelson, and which indicates the axis of the brig (Fig. iii.1.73). The ballast is composed mainly of ‘pigs’, that is, castiron ingots, placed in rows and in two layers; however other objects, such as cannonballs, could have had the same purpose. The location of the cannon shot is in fact quite anomalous, and it seems more logical to interpret them as ballast. It is of course possible that they were defective, and that they could not be used in the guns. The pigs have the classical disposition parallel to the axis of the ship and at the sides of the keelson. They are placed in several layers. Ballast was normally laid down following specified plans such as that seen in the Hussard, a sister brig of the Mercurio, with the aim being to place it as near to the vessel’s centre of gravity as possible. There is rich graphical documentation attesting to the typical disposition of ballast in the bilge (Fig. iii.1.74). Pigs were preferred to shingle ballast because shingle tended to be contaminated by bilge water and become noxious, and because it was less easy to move (Lavery, 1987, 187). We have been able to analyse one piece of ballast only, because the others are firmly attached together. This find is representative of the others, which are similar in dimension. The pig, which is no longer available, is 37 cm long, and has a square section of 11x11 cm. It weighs 30 kg (Fig. iii.1.75). Table iii.1.8 (see below) shows the dimensions of other pigs left in situ. In comparison to Lavery’s information (1987, 186), and to the archaeological evidence from other shipwrecks of this period, these pigs are quite small, as finds from other wrecks have weighed as much as 145 kg each (Stanbury, 1994, 50–52). Some shipwreck pigs had a typical hole at each end to make them easier to lift (Lavery, 1987, 186), and perhaps to connect them and prevent them moving (Stanbury 1994, 50).

1. The Hull

77

Figure iii.1.75. Iron ingot of ballast (pig). Photo: C. Beltrame.

Figure iii.1.73. Trench in the iron ballast that hosted the keelson. Photo: S. Caressa.

Figure iii.1.74. Stowing of ballast in the Hussard (1811). Figure: Boudriot and Berti, 1981, 33.

Carlo Beltrame

78 Tables Table iii.1.1. Tree species used in the ship

Stern Component

No.

Tree species

Laboratory and year of sampling

Keel

n.n.

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

False keel

n.n.

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Outer stern

A1

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Stern

A2

not sampled

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Inner stern

A3

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Deadwood knee

A4

not sampled

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Filler

A5

not sampled

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Filler

A6

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Filler

A7

not sampled

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Plank starboard side

?

Quercus cerris

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Plank port side

?

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Component

No.

Tree species

Laboratory and year of sampling

External plank

n.n.

Quercus cerris

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2004

Frame

n.n.

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

?

n.n.

Picea abies Karst

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2005

Component

No.

Tree species

Laboratory and year of sampling

Hanging knee

K4

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2009

Deck plank

?

Quercus robur

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2009

Deck beam

B3

Pinus sp.

Dendrodata-Verona (O. Pignatelli) 2009

External plank

T1

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2010

Deck plank

D3

Cupressus sempervirens

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2010

Inner plank

P1

Quercus petraea

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2010

Bulkhead

n.n.

Pinus halepensis

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2010

Frame

F1

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Frame

F2

Quercus petraea

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Frame

F3

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

External plank

T1

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

External plank

T2

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Inner plank

P1

Quercus petraea

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Bow, Starboard Side

Bow, Port Side

1. The Hull

79

Component

No.

Tree species

Laboratory and year of sampling

Inner plank

P2

Quercus robur

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Inner plank

P3

Quercus petraea

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Inner plank

P4

Quercus robur

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Inner plank

P5

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Hanging knee

K1

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Hanging knee

K2

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Hanging knee

K3

Quercus cerris

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Deck beam

B1

Pinus halepensis

Tel Aviv University (N. Liphschitz) 2011

Table iii.1.2. Bolts with circular section shank No.

Descriptions

Clinch, diameter (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank, diameter (cm)

1

Traces of wood. Hammered heads.

3.7

47

2.2

2

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Shank bent.

47

2.3

3

Traces of wood. Hammered heads.

48

2.1

5

Hammered heads.

3.5

49

2

19.1

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

3.6

23

2.1

23

Hammered heads.

3.6

49

2.3

24

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

58

2.3

26

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

50

2.2

31

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

3.8

64

2

53

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.5

42

2

81

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Shank bent.

51

2.3

91

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.8

76

2.2

92

Hammered heads.

4.1 (thickness of 1 cm)

28

2.4

93

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

3.8

65

2.1

98

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

4

28

2.1

102

Hammered heads.

4

60

2.2

103

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.4

62

2

160.79

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

3.4

22

2.1

160.80

Broken extremities. Bent shank.

29

2.3

161.42

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.9

33

2.2

36

2.4

3.9

31

2.7

93

2.1

161.43

Hammered heads.

161.44

Hammered heads.

161.47

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

204

Hammered heads.

3.8

62

2.5

205

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

3.7

75

1.9

206

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.6

74

2.5

208 A

Hammered heads.

3.7

50

2.5

211

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

n.r.

62

2.6

Carlo Beltrame

80

Length (cm)

Shank, diameter (cm)

Broken extremities. Traces of wood.

55

2.2

230

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

60

2.5

232

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

4

54

2.1

233

Hammered heads. Traces of wood.

3.8

56

2.3

245

Hammered heads.

45

2.3

No.

Descriptions

220

Clinch, diameter (cm)

248

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

3.5

30

2.5

249

One extremity broken, the other hammered.

3.65

72

1.9

254

One extremity broken, the other hammered. Traces of wood.

67

2

Special Bolts Shank diameter (cm)

No.

Description

Head (cm)

Length (cm)

35

Pointed end and square head. Bent.

4.8 (thickess of 2.2 cm) 55

1.9

161.45

Pointed end and hammered head.

30

2.7

161.46

Pointed end and hammered head. Bent.

33

2.5

Table iii.1.3. Square shank and square head nails No.

Square head (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

41.1

2.2

25

1.5

41.2

2.2

24

1.6

41.3

2.2

25

1.5

2.2

26

1.5

41.5

2

22

1.5

41.6

2.2

19

1.4

41.7

2.4

25

1.6

2.5

24

1.5

2.5

25

1.6

41.4

41.8

Description

Ragged shank.

Ragged shank. Bent.

41.9 41.10

Traces of wood.

2.4

24

1.5

41.11

Ragged shank and with traces of wood.

2.2

20

1.3

2.2

18

1.3

41.12 41.13

Traces of wood.

2

14

n.r.

57

Traces of wood.

2.6

22

n.r.

59

Traces of wood.

2.3

19

1.5

90

2.3

18

1.3

94

1.9

21

1

104

2.6

25

1.6

105

1.7

15.5

1.2

1. The Hull No.

Square head (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

106

2.5

20

1.3

107

2.4

18

1.5

2.8

24

n.r.

2.2

19

1.4

108

Description

81

Traces of wood.

109 154.1

Bent.

2.5

19

1.5

154.2

Traces of wood.

2

22 (?)

n.r.

154.3

Traces of wood.

2.4

20

1.7

154.4

Traces of wood.

2.2

16

1.3

2.6

22

1.8

2.6

22

1.8

2

19

1.5

154.5 154.6

Bent.

154.7 154.8

Broken head.

n.r.

16

1.8

154.9

Traces of wood.

2

17

n.r.

160.1

Traces of wood.

2

19

n.r.

160.2

Traces of wood.

2.5

18

1.6

160.3

Traces of wood.

2.4

18

1.8

160.4

Traces of wood.

2.4

18

n.r.

160.5

Traces of wood.

1.8

18

n.r.

160.6

Traces of wood.

2.2

19

1.4

160.7

Traces of wood.

2.2

17

1.5

160.8

Broken head.

n.r.

11

1.5

1.4

17

1.2

160.9 160.10

Traces of wood.

2.5

20

n.r.

160.11

Traces of wood.

2.4

16

n.r.

160.12

Traces of wood.

2.6

19

n.r.

160.13

Traces of wood.

n.r.

16

n.r.

160.14

Traces of wood.

n.r.

16

n.r.

160.15

Traces of wood.

n.r.

17

n.r.

160.16

Traces of wood.

n.r.

13

n.r.

160.17

Traces of wood.

2.4

24

1.8

160.18

Traces of wood.

2.3

18

1.5

160.19

Traces of wood.

2

20

1.5

160.20

Traces of wood.

2.2

21

1.5

160.21

Traces of wood.

n.r.

11 (?)

1.1

160.22

Traces of wood.

1.9

19

1.5

160.23

Traces of wood.

1.4

15

n.r.

160.24

Traces of wood.

2.4

18

n.r.

160.25

Traces of wood.

2

18

n.r.

160.26

Broken shank

2.2

6 (?)

1.7

160.27

2

19

1.2

160.28

1.8

18

Degraded

1.6

13

n.r.

160.29

Traces of wood.

Carlo Beltrame

82 No.

Description

Square head (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

160.30

Traces of wood.

2.6

20

n.r.

160.31

Traces of wood.

n.r.

18 (?)

n.r.

160.32

Traces of wood.

2.3

20

n.r.

160.33

Traces of wood.

1.9

15

n.r.

1.9

12

1.2

160.34 160.35

Traces of wood.

2.1

18

1.7

160.36

2 nails melted together.

n.r.

1 = 20; 2 = 18 (?)

n.r.

160.37

Traces of wood.

n.r.

18

n.r.

160.38

Traces of wood. Broken shank.

2.1

5 (?)

n.r

160.39

Traces of wood. Bent.

n.r.

24

n.r.

160.40

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.2

18

n.r.

160.41

Traces of wood. Bent.

n.r.

15

n.r.

160.42

Traces of wood. Broken head. Bent.

16 (?)

n.r.

160.43

Bent.

2.5

22

1.6

160.44

Bent.

1.9

18

1.5

160.45

Bent and broken.

2.7

10 (?)

2

160.46

Bent and broken.

2.4

10(?)

1.6

160.47

n.r.

21

1.8

160.48

Bent.

2.5

15

1.7

160.49

Traces of wood.

1.9

16

1.5

2

18

1.3

160.50 160.51

Traces of wood. Broken.

2.4

16 (?)

n.r.

160.52

Broken.

2.2

8 (?)

n.r.

160.55

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.7

18

2

160.56

Traces of wood.

2.4

18

1.6

160.57

Bent.

2.4

16

1.8

160.58

Bent.

n.r

18

n.r.

160.59

Bent.

2.7

19

1.8

160.60

Traces of wood. Bent.

n.r.

22

n.r.

160.61

Traces of wood. Bent.

2

16

1.4

160.62

Bent.

2.2

18

1.5

160.63

Traces of wood. Bent.

n.r.

18

n.r.

160.64

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.3

18

1.5

160.65

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.4

18

1.5

160.66

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.1

17

n.r.

160.67

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.5

18

1.6

160.68

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.1

16

1.5

160.69

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.2

17

n.r.

2.4

15

1.4

160.70 160.71

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.3

18

1.5

160.72

Traces of wood. Bent.

2

18

1.5

160.73

Traces of wood.

2.7

19

n.r.

160.74

Traces of wood.

2.7

17

n.r.

1. The Hull No.

Description

83 Square head (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

160.75

2

15.5

1.5

160.76

1.9

17

n.r.

160.77

Traces of wood.

2.6

20

n.r.

160.78

Traces of wood.

2

18

1.5

161.1

Traces of wood.

2.1

16

1.3

161.2

Traces of wood.

2.1

20

1.4

2

17

1.4

2.5

18

n.r.

161.5

2.3

20

1.6

161.6

2.4

20

1.4

161.7

2.4

20

1.5

161.3 161.4

Traces of wood.

161.8

Traces of wood.

n.r.

15

1.6

161.9

Traces of wood.

n.r.

13

n.r.

161.10

Traces of wood.

n.r.

20

n.r.

161.11

Traces of wood.

2

20

1.3

n.r.

19

n.r.

161.12 161.13

Traces of wood.

n.r.

15

n.r.

161.14

Traces of wood.

2

15

1.1

161.15

Traces of wood.

n.r.

15

n.r.

161.16

Traces of wood.

n.r.

14

n.r.

161.17

Traces of wood.

n.r.

20

n.r.

161.18

Traces of wood.

2.4

20

n.r.

161.19

Traces of wood.

2.3

15

n.r.

161.21

2 nails melted together.

n.r.

1 = 18; 2 = 20 (?)

n.r.

161.22

Bent.

2.5

13

1.3

161.23

Bent.

n.r.

19

n.r.

161.24

Bent.

2

17

1.3

161.25

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.6

22

n.r.

161.26

Traces of wood. Bent.

2

18

1.6

161.27

Bent.

2.3

22

1.3

161.28

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.5

21

1.7

161.29

Bent.

2.2

17

1.5

161.30

No head.

12

1.4

161.31

In two fragments, no head.

11 + 7

161.32

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.7

20

n.r.

161.33

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.1

16

1.2

161.34

Traces of wood. Bent.

n.r.

24

n.r.

161.35

Traces of wood. Bent.

2.4

15 (?)

n.r.

161.36

Bent.

2.3

21 (?)

1.2

161.37

Bent.

2

17

1.5

161.38

Bent.

2.4

20

n.r.

161.39

Bent.

2.4

19

n.r.

Carlo Beltrame

84 No.

Description

Square head (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

161.40

Bent.

2.7

20

1.8

161.41

Bent.

2.3

20

n.r.

207

Bent.

n.r.

20

n.r.

208 B

2.1

19

1.3

213

2.3

19

1.7

214

Bent.

2.3

25

1.5

218

Traces of wood.

2.4

20

1.7

225

n.r.

23

1.5

226

n.r

18

n.r.

229

Traces of wood.

2.4

26

2

255

Traces of wood.

n.r.

16

n.r.

637

2.5

25

2.1

713

2.7

15

1.6

714

2.9

22

n.r.

730

2.2

20

n.r.

17

1.1

24

1.7

802.1

No head.

807

2.2

Table iii.1.4. Button head rivet (possible rudder nails) No.

Description

Mushroom head, diameter (cm)

Length (cm)

Thickness (cm)

160.53

Bent shank with circular section. Traces of wood.

3.2

12

1.3

160.54

Circular section.

4

14

1.3

161.20

Bent shank with circular section. Traces of wood.

4

16

1.7

Table iii.1.5. Copper tacks with circular head and tapered shank with square section No.

Description

Head, diameter (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

126.2

Only shank.

n.r.

2.4

0.3

130

1.4

2.9

0.5

132.1

1.4

3.15

0.45

132.2

Concreted head.

n.r.

3.8 (?)

0.6

132.3

Broken shank.

1.4

2.5 (?)

0.4

137 B

Traces of sheeting and of wood.

1.6

3.4

n.r.

1.1

2.7

0.4

1.4

3.35

n.r.

142.3

1.3

3.1

0.6

155.1

1.4

3.1

0.7

155.2

1.6

3.5

0.5

1.4

n.r.

n.r.

142.1 142.2

155.3

Traces of wood.

Only head.

1. The Hull

85

No.

Description

Head, diameter (cm)

Length (cm)

Shank thickness (cm)

160.01–152

52 items, some with traces of wood.

1.2–1.4

2.9–3.4

0.5–0.6

160.53–161

9 heads.

1.2–1.4

n.r.

n.r.

160.62

Broken shank.

1.2

n.r

n.r.

160.63

Bent shank.

n.r

n.r

n.r

161.65–66

1.4

3.2

0.5

162.1–6

1.5–1.6

2.6–3.3

0.5

162.7

Broken shank.

1.2

n.r

n.r.

162.8

Traces of wood.

1.3

3

n.r.

1.2

3.1

0.4

247 401

Only head.

1.5

n.r.

n.r.

418.5

Only head.

1.45

n.r.

n.r.

432.1

1.3

3.1

0.5

440.1

1.05

3.15

0.25

0.95

n.r.

n.r.

1.2

3.1

0.4

1.4

2.6

n.r.

653.2

1.35

2.4

0.5

656.2

1.3

2.7

0.5

657.14

1.35

2.95

0.5

657.15

1.5

2.35

0.65

657.16

1.25

2.75

0.4

657.17

1.35

1.9

0.5

657.18

1.25

2.5

0.4

657.19

1.4

2.5

0.5

624.6

Only head.

624.8 652

Only head.

657.20

Only head.

1.3

n.r.

n.r.

657.21

Only head.

1.2

n.r.

n.r.

658.2

Very small (perhaps from uniform).

0.85

1.5

0.35

670

1.3

3.3

0.45

677

1.4

3

0.5

694.2

1.3

2.9

0.5

718.1

1.3

2.9

0.4

718.2

1.4

2.1

0.45

1.5

n.r.

0.6

728.3

1.4

2.6

0.4

778.1

1.35

2.5

0.7

778.3

1.3

2.2

0.4

843.2

1.65

3.6

0.7

727.5

Broken shank.

Carlo Beltrame

86 Table iii.1.6. Analysis of sheathing metal. Concentrations in weight percentage Mercurio

Le Ceppe

Molo sud sud

Sirius

Zn

0.001

0.001

34.406

0.0048

0.0016

0.0028

Pb

0.340

0.139

0.990

0.175

0.171

0.0099

Sn