The Shipwreck of Gnalić: A Mirror to the Renaissance World 9781803271507, 9781803271514, 1803271507

Citation preview

The Shipwreck at Gnalić A mirror to the Renaissance world

Irena Radić Rossi, Mariangela Nicolardi, Mauro Bondioli, Katarina Batur

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-80327-150-7 ISBN 978-1-80327-151-4 (e-Pdf)

© Irena Radić Rossi, Mariangela Nicolardi, Mauro Bondioli, Katarina Batur and Archaeopress 2021 Peer reviewers: Josip Belamarić, Lovorka Čoralić, Irena Lazar and Pavuša Vežić Translation: Apostrof, Zagreb.

Pursuant to the applicable Italian law (Legislative Decree of 22 January 2004, No. 42, Art. 108, c.3), on 6 May 2019 and 15 September 2021, the list of copies of the documents published in this book was submitted to the State Archives of Venice and Mantoa.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

All previous explorations of the shipwreck at the islet of Gnalić have been made possible by: Croatian Ministry of Culture and Media Croatian Science Foundation University of Zadar Tkon Municipality ARS NAUTICA Institute for Maritime Heritage Division for Marine and Environmental Research, Ruđer Bošković Institute City of Biograd na Moru Verein zur Förderung der Unterwasser-Archäologie – FUWA, Koblenz, DE Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation – CMAC, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro – ISCR, Ministero per i beni e le attivita culturali, Roma, IT Institute of Nautical Archaeology, College Station, TX, USA and numerous collaborators, students and volunteers from Croatia and abroad with expertise in various fields

And forthwith continues the voyage like after a shipwreck a survivor a sea wolf Giuseppe Ungaretti, ‘Allegria di naufragi’ (The Joy of Shipwrecks)

To Ksenija Radulić, Sofija Petricioli, Božidar Vilhar and all of their associates, whose boundless enthusiasm and committed efforts have saved the site at the islet of Gnalić and preserved it for future generations.

Contents

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................iii Foreword..........................................................................................................................................ix 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Geographic and historical framework................................................................................. 3 2.1. The islet of Gnalić and the island of Pašman����������������������������������������������������������������� 4 2.2. Historical circumstances������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

3. A sensational discovery and exciting explorations........................................................ 22 3.1. Official discovery of the site������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 3.2. Research history in the 20th century��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 3.3. Recovered materials��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 3.4. Rescue from renewed neglect���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 3.5. New insights and findings���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 3.5.1. Identification of the colouring materials������������������������������������������������������������ 85 4. An amazing historical tale.................................................................................................... 94 4.1. The ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 4.1.1. A new shipping company��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 4.1.2. Frane Antunov of Korčula (Francesco di Antonio da Curzola): shipwright, seafarer and inventor���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 4.1.3. Construction, equipping and launching of the ship���������������������������������������� 100 4.1.4. A floating palace���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 4.2. The heroes of Sazan������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 4.2.1. A merchant vessel’s wartime role����������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 4.2.2. Uluç Alì and the ‘lions’ of St. Mark��������������������������������������������������������������������� 109 4.2.3. A dream demolished��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 4.2.4. Indemnity for loss of the ship����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 4.3. Gagliana grossa – an old ship with a new name���������������������������������������������������������� 120 4.3.1. The Gagliano family: bankers, merchants, ship owners���������������������������������� 121 i

4.3.2. An unpleasant diplomatic incident�������������������������������������������������������������� 124 4.3.3. Identity restored���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 4.3.4. Alvise Finardi: ordinary and extraordinary tales from the life of a seasoned seafarer���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 130 4.4. The final voyage of the Gagliana grossa (once called the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 4.4.1. Departure���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 4.4.2. The shipwreck and salvage of its cargo�������������������������������������������������������� 142 4.4.3. The ship’s little treasure��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145

5. Epilogue ............................................................................................................................. 151 6. The Shipwreck at Gnalić – A Mirror to the Renaissance World........................... 154 Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 156

ii

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The usual navigation route from Venice to Constantinople, marked on the map of Europe and the Mediterranean from the Book of Navigation (Kitâb-ı Bahriye, 1525) by the Ottoman cartographer Piri Reis, Istanbul University�������������������������������������������������������3 Figure 2. The islet of Gnalić, with the island of Pašman and the Pašman Channel behind it�������4 Figure 3. View of the islet of Gnalić and the research vessel anchored over the site�������������������5 Figure 4. Nautical chart of Zadar and its surroundings from the Book of Navigation (Kitâb-ı Bahriye, 1525) by the Ottoman cartographer Piri Reis, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore������6 Figure 5. Map of the Zadar and Šibenik archipelago with marked location of the site����������������6 Figure 6. Presumed coastline about 7000 years ago, when the sea level was 10 m lower than today, and the Pašman Channel did not yet exist����������������������������������������������������������������8 Figure 7. Dvor Ugrinić in the Crnika Forest above Ugrinići, 16th century�������������������������������������9 Figure 8. View of the southern part of the Pašman Channel, with Benedictine abbey on Ćokovac Hill above Ugrinići, 12th century��������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Figure 9. View of the south-eastern part of the island of Pašman, Vrana Lake and nearby islands�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Figure 10. Pustograd hillfort with the remains of a Late Antique fortress������������������������������������11 Figure 11. View of the settlement of Pašman and the southeastern part of the Pašman Channel��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12 Figure 12. Mainland Gate, Zadar�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Figure 13. Cathedral of St. James, Šibenik ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 14. Fortress of St. Nicholas at the entrance to the St. Anthony Channel in front of Šibenik�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 15. View of destroyed Biograd; Konrad von Grünenberg, Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem, 1487������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Figure 16. A letter from Juraj Matković mentioning the reconstruction of Biograd�������������������16 Figure 17. Political situation at the end of 16th century������������������������������������������������������������������17 Figure 18. Suđurađ Bay on the island of Šipan, birthplace of Nichollò Sagri��������������������������������20 Figure 19. Copper cauldron for melting resin or tar, illegally extracted from the site in the mid-1960s�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Figure 20. Research team in 1967���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������25 Figure 21. Recovery of a bronze gun with octagonal barrel in 1967�����������������������������������������������26 Figure 22. Bronze gun with octagonal barrel during recovery in 1967������������������������������������������26 Figure 23. Extraction of the smaller iron anchor in 1967�����������������������������������������������������������������27 Figure 24. Iron anchors on the Biograd waterfront in 1967�������������������������������������������������������������27 Figure 25. Graphic representation of iron anchors with basic dimensions�����������������������������������28 Figure 26. Decorated bronze gun from the Alberghetti workshop�������������������������������������������������28 Figure 27. Detail of the bronze gun with decoration and initials of the caster����������������������������28 iii

Figure 28. Detail of the bronze gun with the year of manufacture MDLXXXII (1582)�����������������28 Figure 29. Ironclad chest recovered in 1967���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������29 Figure 30. Restored linen shirt; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru�����������������������������������30 Figure 31. Restored woollen cap; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru��������������������������������30 Figure 32. Lorenzo Lotto, Achitect, 1535�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������30 Figure 33. Precision scales from the ironclad chest, and two sets of weights�������������������������������31 Figure 34. Damask from the ironclad chest, originally folded and wrapped in coarse cloth, with accompanying lead seals bearing the marks of the textile merchants������������������������������������31 Figure 35. Bale of silk damask, restored in the Abbeg Foundation in Riggisberg�������������������������32 Figure 36. Decorative pattern on silk damask������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 37. Situation on the seabed in 1967: bell-shaped ingots of mercury sulphide, used for the production of scarlet colour����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 38. Situation on the seabed in 1967: wooden packaging and parts of the ship’s structure���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 39. Situation on the seabed in 1967: sheets of brass and bell-shaped ingots of mercury sulphide����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 40. Recovery of the millstone wheel in 1967���������������������������������������������������������������������������34 Figure 41. Millstone wheel���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������34 Figure 42. Glass bowl made by blowing technique, with engraved decoration����������������������������35 Figure 43. Blown-glass bowl decorated with spray and inlay����������������������������������������������������������35 Figure 44. Simple blue blown-glass bowl��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 Figure 45. Ksenija Radulić, ‘The Galley of Gnalić,’ shot in 1972.������������������������������������������������������36 Figure 46. Sofija Petricioli, ‘The Galley of Gnalić,’ shot in 1972..�����������������������������������������������������37 Figure 47. Božidar Vilhar, footage from the film The galley of Gnalić, shot in 1972��������������������38 Figure 48. Graphic representation of eight bronze guns recovered from the site�����������������������40 Figure 49. Complex heraldic sign on a small gun of the moschetto da braga type��������������������������41 Figure 50. Metal cauldron from the ship’s galley������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 Figure 51. Frying pan made of embossed copper sheet from the ship’s galley����������������������������42 Figure 52. Lid made of embossed copper sheet from the ship’s galley������������������������������������������42 Figure 53. Selection of pottery from ship equipment or cargo�������������������������������������������������������43 Figure 54. Richly decorated ceramic bowls�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 Figure 55. Portable copper ember vessel, used to heat space or food (Tur. mangal) from ship equipment������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������44 Figure 56. Engraved inscription on the ember vessel, with the decoration in the form of the sultan’s signature (Tur. tuğra)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������44 Figure 57. Bell-shaped ingots of mercury sulphide���������������������������������������������������������������������������45 Figure 58. Wooden box with tin bars from the ship’s cargo������������������������������������������������������������45 Figure 59. Stamp on tin bars, with the inscription GETO DE STAGNI (En. Tin cast) and a Venetian lion motif with the initials MC (Maggior Consiglio?)��������������������������������������45 Figure 60. Reconstructed wooden barrel with conical ingots of lead white���������������������������������45 Figure 61. Multiply folded packages of rolled brass sheet, 0.8-1 mm thick (Ger. Bugmessing)����46 Figure 62. Rolled brass sheets, 0.3-0.4 mm thick (Ger. Rollmessing).������������������������������������������������46 Figure 63. Large coils of brass wire������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 Figure 64. Simple round window panes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 Figure 65. Rectangular mirror panes���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 Figure 66. Mould-blown lion-mask stem goblets�������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 Figure 67. Blown-glass plain goblets with low hollow foot��������������������������������������������������������������48 Figure 68. Blown-glass plain goblets with low hollow foot��������������������������������������������������������������48 iv

Figure 69. Multicolored glass beads from Venetian workshops������������������������������������������������������49 Figure 70. Brass wall sconces, probably originating from Nuremberg, decorated with an acanthus and fishtail motif (a) and a dolphin’s head (b)������������������������������������������������������������49 Figure 71. Brass chandelier from ship’s cargo, probably originating from Nuremberg��������������50 Figure 72. Candlestick manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������50 Figure 73. Spectacles with leather frames in wooden boxes in two sizes��������������������������������������50 Figure 74. Box of spectacles; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru����������������������������������������51 Figure 75. Spectacles after restoration; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru���������������������51 Figure 76. Restored wooden box with brass forged hawk bells�������������������������������������������������������52 Figure 77. Bell manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 Figure 78. Non restored and restored brass pins�������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 Figure 79. Restored set of forged and embossed brass thimbles�����������������������������������������������������53 Figure 80. Thimble manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 81. Cast brass and iron candle snuffer�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 82. Cast brass and iron candle snuffers�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 83. Seal of an unknown merchant with a cross and the initials P M, for marking wooden packaging, found in 1973, and lost today��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������55 Figure 84. Top side of the small barrel; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru����������������������55 Figure 85. Cooper; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������56 Figure 86. Reconstructed wooden packaging for products from the ship’s cargo�����������������������56 Figure 87. Entirely preserved window panes in the surface layer of the site in 2005������������������57 Figure 88. Round table in Biograd na Moru in 2011��������������������������������������������������������������������������57 Figure 89. ROV survey on the site in 2011�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������58 Figure 90. Parts of wooden structure in the surface layer of the site in 2011�������������������������������59 Figure 91. From 1967 to 2012 – 45 years later the excavation continued �������������������������������������60 Figure 92. Initial trench across the site in 2012���������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Figure 93. 3D visualisation of the excavated area in 2012����������������������������������������������������������������61 Figure 94. Discovering the hull in 2012�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������62 Figure 95. Discovered part of the hull in 2012������������������������������������������������������������������������������������63 Figure 96. Ingots of lead white found during the excavation in 2012��������������������������������������������63 Figure 97. Release of sidescan sonar at the site in 2013��������������������������������������������������������������������64 Figure 98. Tracklines of the sidescan sonar, magnetometer and sub-bottom profiler survey in 2013�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Figure 99. Result of the sub-bottom profiler survey in 2013.�����������������������������������������������������������65 Figure 100. Release of the AUV Girona 500 of the Research Centre for Underwater Robotics of the University of Girona������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������66 Figure 101. Beginning of the mission of the AUV Girona 500’s mission����������������������������������������66 Figure 102. Two-dimensional photomosaic of the site, made with the help of the AUV Girona 500, detail�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 Figure 103. Virtual 3D model of the site, made with the help of the AUV Girona 500, detail����67 Figure 104. Working sketch of the situation at the site, and the results of the 1967-1973 and 1996 research campaigns���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Figure 105. Working sketch of the remains of wooden ship structure, discovered during the 1967-1973 and 1996 research campaigns��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 v

Figure 106. Orthogonal plan of the investigated part of the site in 2014, made on the basis of multilayer virtual 3D model������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Figure 107. Orthogonal plan of the excavated part of the site in 2017, made on the basis of multilayer virtual 3D model������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Figure 108. Orthogonal plan of the entire surface of the site ���������������������������������������������������������70 Figure 109. Documenting the ship’s structure in 2018���������������������������������������������������������������������71 Figure 110. Documenting the ship’s pump area in 2018�������������������������������������������������������������������72 Figure 111. View of the site during the research in 2017�����������������������������������������������������������������72 Figure 112. View of the well-preserved part of the ship’s structure during the 2018 survey – the central part of the ship with the mast step���������������������������������������������������������������������������73 Figure 113. Ship’s pump area on the orthogonal plan of the site���������������������������������������������������73 Figure 114. Lower part of the pump tube��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 Figure 115. Drawing of the lower part of the pump tube, generated from a virtual 3D model of the find�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������74 Figure 116. Display of the appearance and use of the suction pump; G. Agricola, De re metallica, Basel, 1556.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������75 Figure 117. Cleaning of barrels filled with iron oxide-based colouring material�������������������������75 Figure 118. Cleaning of small barrels filled with conical ingots of lead white������������������������������75 Figure 119. Round window panes in the sediment rich in arsenic- based colouring material��76 Figure 120. Cleaning of ship structure with preserved traces of arsenic-based colouring material����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Figure 122. Irregular clumps of mercury sulphide����������������������������������������������������������������������������77 Figure 123. Removal of elemental mercury from the sediment above the ship structure����������77 Figure 124. 3D visualisation of the original appearance of the barrels, found in situ in the ship’s hold�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 Figure 125. Preparation of carbon fibre substrate for extraction of preserved part of wooden barrel, conducted by B. Davidde and his team from the Institute for Conservation and Restoration of the Italian Ministry of Culture�����������������������������������������������������������������������������78 Figure 126. Raising of the preserved part of the wooden barrel with the help of a carbon fibre substrate���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 Figure 127. Recovery of the preserved part of the wooden barrel��������������������������������������������������79 Figure 128. Initial conservation treatment of the recovered part of the barrel���������������������������79 Figure 129. Entirely preserved window pane�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 Figure 130. Decorated window pane found in the surface layer of the site����������������������������������80 Figure 131. Layers of straw, used to protect the window panes during transport�����������������������80 Figure 132. Decorated window panes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 Figure 133. Lead seal of the Venetian doge (Nicolò da Ponte, 1578-1585), found during underwater research in 2014����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 Figure 134. Lead seals found in 2014����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������82 Figure 135. Bronze medal of the Polish Brethren reformist movement or Minor Reformed Church of Poland�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������83 Figure 136. Glass beads collected on the surface of the site during one dive�������������������������������84 Figure 137. Workshop on the typology of glass beads; Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84 Figure 138. Glass bead in the shape of a gooseberry�������������������������������������������������������������������������84 Figure 139. Cleaning of the barrel area������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 Figure 140. Conical ingot of lead white�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������88 Figure 141. Leather-like material and straw around the lead white ingots����������������������������������88 vi

Figure 142. Barrels with red ochre on the orthogonal plan of the site, detail������������������������������89 Figure 143. Chunk of mercury sulphide���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 144. Chunks of lead (II, IV) oxide����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 145. Residue of realgar and pararealgar on a stone��������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 146. Chunk of antimony (III) sulphide�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 147. Mercury in drops and small pools�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������91 Figure 148. Red lake pigment balls�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������91 Figure 149. Accumulation of barrels on the starboard of the ship’s hold��������������������������������������93 Figure 150. Draft of the document on the establishment of the company Lezze-MocenigoBasadonna������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Figure 151. Draft contract for the supply of oak for the construction of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Figure 152. Drawing of the fortified town of Korčula, 1571�������������������������������������������������������������97 Figure 153. List of supervisors (Ven. capi d’opera) of the Venetian Arsenal, among whom is Frane Antunov of Korčula���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 154. Graphic reconstruction of the Venetian mould for making floor timbers, called sesto�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 155. Statement of Frane Antunov of Korčula confirming that he was the inventor of three-decked ships����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������99 Figure 156. Location of the Sant’Antonio shipyard on a map of Venice (Jacopo de’ Barbari, 1500); within the detail of a shipyard with ships under construction�����������������������������������100 Figure 157. Comparison between the dimensions of the Doge’s Palace in Piazza San Marco in Venice and the preliminary reconstructive hypothesis of the ship Gagliana grossa, formerly Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Figure 158. Summary table of the number, size and volume of oak trunks necessary for the construction of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, obtained from the supply contract stipulated on 18 April 1567.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������103 Figure 159. Scheme of the structural elements of the wreck relating to the section shown on the left����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������104 Figure 160. Research area in relation to the ideal representation of a ship of appropriate dimensions���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������105 Figure 160a. Preliminary hypothesis for reconstruction of the original shape of the Gagliana grossa’s hull , based on historical documentation���������������������������������������������������������������������105 Figure 161. Estimation of the carrying capacity of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna at 12,000 stars (1,200 barrels), made by Arsenal experts��������������������������������������������������������������107 Figure 162. Giovanni Tommaso Costanzo������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Figure 163. Representation of a large merchant ship from the second half of the 16th century in the Church of St. Stephen (S. Iseppo) in Venice, at the monumental tomb of Ivan of Vrana, Admiral of the galley of Sebastian Venier in the Battle of Lepanto��������������������������111 Figure 164. Uluç Ali�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Figure 165. Attack of the Tuscan galleys on a merchant ship, engraving by Jacques Callot taken from the Report of the capture of two bertoni of Tunis, made in Corsica by four galleys of Tuscany this year 1617, 23 of November, Florence, Zanobi Pignoni���������������������������������������112 Figure 166. Drawing by Tiberio Ceruto of the Ottoman fortress in the Black Sea (Rumelihisarı) in which he was imprisoned together with Giovanni Tommaso Costanzo���������������������������116 Figure 167. Tombstone of Matteo Costanzo, 1504����������������������������������������������������������������������������117 Figure 168. Giorgione altarpiece���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������118

vii

Figure 169. Mourning robe worn by Scipio Costanzo during the funeral ceremony of his son Giovanni Tommaso�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������119 Figure 170. Declaration of 15 October 1571 on the armament of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, made by the foundryman Nicolò di Conti ; within the detail of the petriere gun from the site with the monogram of the Conti family’s Venetian foundry��������������������������121 Figure 171. Document by which Arsenal experts estimate the value of ship’s equipment������122 Figure 172. Genealogy of the da Gagliano family�����������������������������������������������������������������������������123 Figure 173. Trademarks of Domenico and Odoardo da Gagliano��������������������������������������������������124 Figure 174. List of goods looted by the Knights of Santo Stefano on board the ship Gagliana e Turiglia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125 Figure 175. Confirmation of Alvise Finardi on taking over the gift box for the Venetian doge, handed over by the bailo on behalf of the valide sultan Nurbanu�������������������������������������������130 Figure 176. Stone podium (Ven. pietra del bando) on the Rialto, a column of red granite with stone steps on the back of a kneeling Atlas��������������������������������������������������������������������������������133 Figure 177. Pass for Alvise Finardi, issued by the Captain General of the Sea Sebastiano Venier��� 135 Figure 178. View of Hvar (Lesina); Konrad von Grünenberg, Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem, 1487����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������137 Figure 179. Encrypted letter sent to Constantinople by Giovanni Francesco Morosini informing the Senate of the fire, and the Sultan’s order of window panes��������������������������139 Figure 180. Sultan Murat III (1546-1595), son of Sultan Selim II and Nurbanu���������������������������140 Figure 181. Venetian Doge Nicolò da Ponte (1578-1585)����������������������������������������������������������������141 Figure 182. A notarial deed by which Antonio Platipodi hands over to the insurers the ownership of the lost goods in exchange for the agreed compensation, and his trademark���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������142 Figure 183. View of the bay Zaklopica (It. Porto Chiave) southeast of Tkon on the island Pašman, where the survivors of the shipwreck took refuge����������������������������������������������������144 Figure 184. Page from a letter sent by the merchant Guglielmo Helman on 27 September 1583 to Antonia Paruta, and Helman’s trademark�����������������������������������������������������������������������������147 Figure 185. Inventory and valuation of jewellery and precious stones rescued from the sunken ship����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������148 Figure 186. Tombstone of Alvise Finardi, placed next to the monumental tomb of his friend Ivan of Vrana in the Church of St. Stephen (Sant’Iseppo) in Venice��������������������������������������150 Figure 187. Map of the Mestre area with the indication of the position of the mill owned by Domenico da Gagliano�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������152 Figure 188. Origin of people, goods and events directly or indirectly related to the ship Gagliana grossa����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������155 Figure 189. Origin of people participating in the Gnalić shipwreck research�����������������������������155 Figures 121, 121a. Discovery of irregular chunks of mercury sulphide������������������������������������������76

viii

Foreword

Unlike official history, which passes over times past in large steps, the story about the ship that sank near Gnalić is full of personal human fates woven together from strands spanning the entirety of Late Renaissance Europe and the Mediterranean. Sailing on the route between Venice and Istanbul, the Gagliana grossa, formerly known as the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, symbolically linked two apparently opposing but firmly intertwined worlds. Magnificent items that had spent four centuries on the seafloor briefly brought it fame in the 1960s and 1970s. But it only garnered genuine renown during the past few years, when the scholarly community finally began to examine the untapped information hidden in museum collections, in archival materials and at the actual shipwreck site. Its discovery is largely due to Konstantin Šikić and Ivo Šimat Butica from Murter, who at one point, through Miljenko Barić, forwarded the relevant information to the proper institutions in Zadar. Among the many who deserve credit for the first investigations and salvaging of valuable finds at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s, the most noteworthy names are Ksenija Radulić, Sofija and Ivo Petricioli, Božidar Vilhar and Grga Oštrić. Young archaeologists Zdenko Brusić and Zlatko Gunjača and conservator Dalibor Martinović actively participated in the first campaigns, and several years later Marijan Orlić assumed leadership of the undersea aspect of the research. All of them, and many others, deserve thanks for saving the site from being forever forgotten and thoroughly looted. Three decades later, an international group of experts led by Mitja Guštin, and consisting of Irena Lazar, Hugh Willmott and Caroline Jackson, used the example of glass finds to reignite interest in the ship’s cargo and underscore the site’s research potential. Zrinka Mileusnić and her associates highlighted the attractiveness of presenting these materials to the broader public. After many years of effort undertaken by this publication’s authors, in 2012 the University of Zadar once more launched research thanks to support from the Ministry of Culture, the Town of Biograd na Moru, the Tkon Municipality, the Croatian Science Foundation, Texas A&M University, the Ruđer Bošković Institute the Croatian Institute of History, the German Society for the Promotion of Underwater Archaeology (FUWA), the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum, the Croatian History Museum, the ix

University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Science, the audiovisual production company Red Studio d.o.o., the ARS NAUTICA Institute of Maritime Heritage and many other Croatian and foreign institutions and organizations whose participation even today is contributing to the project’s ongoing success. Joško Belamarić and Zlatko Uzelac deserve special mention for relaunching the project, as do many well-intentioned participants during the initial efforts in this regard, while Pavuša Vežić and Barbara Peranić provided vital support to the continuity of research work. Research into and protection of the site and its finds in recent years have been considerably advanced by Matko Barišić, Vladimir Bermanec, Adelphine Bonneau, Patrick Casitti, Marco Ciabattoni, Neven Cukrov, Matko Čvrljak, Barbara Davidde, Vincent Delmas, Ana Filep, Maria Geraga, Andrea Gobbi, Ela Jurdana, Željko Kwokal, Neven and Marko Lete, Nili Liphshitz, Davor Matešić, Nikola Mišković, Marco Morin, Stefan Nehring, George Papatheodorou, Martina Patriarca, Pere Ridao, Christa and Herbert Siepenkötter, Ines Šelendić, Franka Trcera and Antonio Vasilijević, while precise modern documentation and attractive photographic and video materials have been produced by Ivana Asić, Mirko Belošević, Marino Brzac, Suzana Čule, Vedran Dorušić, Tena Festini, Danijel and Ranko Frka, Dražen Gorički, Sebastian Govorčin, Matej Martinčak, Alan Meniga, Xavier Rodrigez Pandozi, Rodrigo Torres, Božo Vukičević and Kotaro Yamafune. Here as well, the list of names deserving credit is much longer, and the diversity of individual contributions is far greater. In the 1970s, Astone Gasparetto successfully initiated the reconstruction of the relevant, long-past events. After a long pause, this painstaking task was taken up by Mauro Bondioli, whose dedicated work in the State Archives in Venice has yielded hundreds of documents, and he connected them to the multi-layered historical story told in another part of this book. He was assisted in these efforts by Benjamin Arbel, Anna Bellavitis, Paola Benussi, Giovanni Caniato, Isabella Cecchini, Lovorka Čoralić, John Davis, Claudio dell’Orso, Marco Di Pasquale, Eric Dursteller, Antonio Fabris, Maria Fusaro, Richard Goldthwaite, Vincenzo Mancini, Vittorio Mandelli, Alessandro Marzo Magno, Antonio Mazzucco, Luca Molà, Reinhold Müller, Serap Mumcu, Gianfranco Munerotto, Antonio Musarra, Maria Pia Pedani, Andrea Pelizza, Andrea Peressini, Stefano Piasentini, Claudio Povolo, Franco Rossi, Jan-Christoph Rößler, Mirko Sardelić, Alessandra Schiavon, Ana Šverko, Lorenzo Tommasin, Stefano Tosato, Alfredo Viggiano, Roberto Zago and Guglielmo Zanelli. With their linguistic suggestions, Vladimir Skračić and Nikola Vuletić contributed significantly to the final form of this text. The list of those who participated in previous research today encompasses hundreds of names from all continents. We would like to convey our immeasurable gratitude to all of them for their support and cooperation, with hope and anticipation in future common work in stringing together the small pearls of this great historical tale.

x

1. Introduction

In mid-autumn 1583, a large merchant ship laden with all manner of goods met an unfortunate fate near the islet of Gnalić, not far from Gnal Promontory at the far southern tip of the island of Pašman. It may have been the last in an entire series of exciting events in the life of a vessel, if – after being forgotten for almost four centuries – it had not been rediscovered by fishers and divers from the island of Murter in the early 1960s, and in a way they breathed new life into it. News of the discovery was heard, unfortunately, in the global circles of ill-intentioned visitors to the seafloor who looted numerous items from this rich undersea site over the following decades, and much was irretrievably taken from the country. At the time of the earliest diving activities near the islet of Gnalić, the methodology for underwater archaeological research was still in its infancy, and the proper authorities had yet to exhibit sufficient interest in the protection and preservation of the undersea heritage. It was only recorded in the official register of sites in 1967, when news of the discovery had made its way to the proper institutions in Šibenik and Zadar. The first legally recovered finds excited the broader public and compelled experts to fully commit to an undertaking for which they were entirely unprepared. Thanks to their boundless enthusiasm and hard work, items that are even today breathtaking were raised from the seafloor. Several exhibitions showed that the site had manifold potential, and for a time interest in its history bloomed. However, the initial excitement dissipated, financial support dried up, and an erroneous impression of exhaustive exploration of the site prevailed even in scholarly circles. Later attempts to relaunch research, although unsuccessful, demonstrated that neither underwater nor archival research, nor conservation and interpretation of the already removed items were nearly complete. Despite this, a full forty-five years had to pass before the conditions for systematic research work were met, and the local community became more seriously interested in the potential for the attractive presentation of the sunken ship and its exciting historical tale. Systematic research conducted during the past several decades have thoroughly altered some of the initial hypotheses, and careful study of the documents held in the State Archives in Venice have resulted in many astonishing and unexpected discoveries. The story about the shipwreck grew and was enhanced with incredible details, intriguing 1

The Shipwreck at Gnalić characters and their fates to such an extent that it began to resemble the script of a tense historical spectacle. It soon became apparent to all members of the project team that it was not simply an ordinary sunken ship at Gnalić, but also a clear reflection of the late Renaissance world.

2

2. Geographic and historical framework

The shipwreck near the islet of Gnalić occurred on a navigation route from Venice to Istanbul commonly used by merchant ships during the late Renaissance era (Figure 1). The eastern Adriatic navigation route, replete with safe harbours and protected channels, attracted many great powers for millennia, but the threats that loomed demanded well-organized surveillance and great seafaring experience. The expression ‘sailing the Adriatic’ was used in Athens during the Classical era as a synonym for notably perilous and unsafe navigation,1 and the numerous wrecks of large vessels

Figure 1. The usual navigation route from Venice to Constantinople, marked on the map of Europe and the Mediterranean from the Book of Navigation (Kitâb-ı Bahriye, 1525) by the Ottoman cartographer Piri Reis, Istanbul University. 1

Nikolanci, 1965: 717.

3

The Shipwreck at Gnalić recorded in peacetime after World War II2 lucidly illustrate the point that even in our time it has not been possible to avoid all of the perils lurking in the eastern Adriatic. One of the prerequisites for safe navigation was a stable political situation, which was not the case at the time of the unfortunate event in question. The desire for earnings compelled ship-owners to assume risks in undertakings during times of inclement weather, with excessive cargo and under the constant threat of attacks by pirates and privateers,3 as well as the high probability of a war breaking out. However, since none of these possibilities could halt the entrepreneurial spirit unique to the human race, shipwrecks were an unavoidable consequence.4 2.1. The islet of Gnalić and the island of Pašman The islet of Gnalić is one of twelve small islands in the territory of the Tkon Municipality, which encompasses the southern section of the island of Pašman. It is rocky, and its upper portion is covered with low Mediterranean vegetation (Figures 2, 3). The total length of its shoreline is only 270 m. The name Gnalić, which is today registered in navigational charts, was given to it by sailors who approached the Pašman Channel from the south, such as natives of the islands of Vrgada and Murter, based on the promontory called Punta Gnala. The residents of Pašman and the mainland shore called it Kamenčić (‘pebble’).

Figure 2. The islet of Gnalić, with the island of Pašman and the Pašman Channel behind it (photo: E. Šilić). Lakoš, 1987: 186-187. As opposed to piracy, carried out by ordinary seafaring bandits, privateering was an organized activity supported by specific political powers. 4 Cf. Tenenti, 1959. 2 3

4

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 3. View of the islet of Gnalić and the research vessel anchored over the site (photo: S. Govorčin).

The island of Pašman extends adjacent to the northern Dalmatian coast in the socalled Dinaric orientation, from north-west to south-east. It is in the Zadar area of the northern Dalmatian archipelago, and it was once a single land formation with the island of Ugljan.5 Today the islands are divided by the artificially excavated and expanded strait Mali Ždrelac, over which a roadway bridge was constructed in 1971. They are separated from the nearby mainland shore by the Zadar and Pašman Channel, while the Central Channel extends on their outward sides, separating them from the island of Dugi Otok and the Kornati Archipelago. The Mali Ždrelac Strait is a significant maritime passage between the internal and open sea. Although we do not know when the strait began to be used for navigation, it was certainly used during the late Middle Ages, because it had already clearly divided the two islands, to which the simplified and outsized depiction on geographic maps from the 14th century on testify (Figure 4).6 To the south, this chain of islands continues with Vrgada and Murter (Figure 5). It is presumed that the name Lissa, which was mentioned by Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, refers to the island of Pašman or Ugljan, or to both islands that were connected at the time.7 The name of the settlement of Pašman was noted in documents from the early Middle Ages in the forms Postiman and Pustiman, and it was only used for the entire island as of the late Middle Ages.8 It was derived from the Latin gentilicium Data on the island are taken from Magaš 2006, where the remaining relevant sources are cited. Faričić, 2006: 88-89. 7 Suić, 1974: 58; Čače, 1995: 23-24; 2006: 40. 8 The earliest document mentioning this name dates to 1067 (Juran, 2006: 50-54, where other forms of the names and other sources are also cited). 5 6

5

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 4. Nautical chart of Zadar and its surroundings from the Book of Navigation (Kitâb-ı Bahriye, 1525) by the Ottoman cartographer Piri Reis, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.

Figure 5. Map of the Zadar and Šibenik archipelago with marked location of the site (after Faričić, 2006). 6

Geographic and historical framework Postumius, which may have referred to the island’s Roman-era owner (Postumianum praedium, meaning the rural estate of Postumius).9 In the 16th century, at the time when the shipwreck occurred at Gnalić, the island’s name had assumed its present form, so in documents it is referred to as insula Pasmani (1535) and isola di Pasman (1590).10 The island of Pašman is the eleventh largest Croatian island and is counted among the mid-sized islands. It is characterized by considerable arable surfaces, numerous sources of either fresh or brackish water,11 and a location on the navigation route through the Zadar and Pašman Channels, which have played a vital role in sailing to the major centres at the locations of today’s Zadar and Biograd na Moru since prehistory (Liburnia) and Antiquity.12 This is best reflected in the hillfort settlements all along the island and mainland sides of the channel and the numerous Roman-era farming complexes, with shoreline facilities and docking installations.13 Today’s toponymy further confirms the existence of Roman-era estates that grew into later settlements.14 Based on current knowledge of sea level change,15 the channel today called Pašman did not yet exist at the onset of the earlier Stone Age, and it only probably began to form during the 5th millennium BC. Before the sea penetrated and directly linked the present-day Biograd-Pakoštane and Zadar zones, the southern side of the channel was a deep bay with its bed situated on the Pašman-Babac-Turanj line (Figure 6). Today’s communities of Ždrelac, Banj, Dobropoljana, Neviđane, Mrljane, Pašman, Kraj and Tkon are dotted along the island’s north-eastern coastline, adhering to its fertile zone situated along the shore of the Pašman Channel. This area has numerous shallow coves, unsuited for berthing by large vessels, in which fishing and salt production proceeded in the past. The south-western side is far steeper and craggier, characterized by deep inlets that cut more deeply into the island’s relief, and it is separated from the north-eastern side by the island’s main ridge, which reaches an elevation of 272 m at Veli Bokolj. The earliest mention of the community at the site of today’s Tkon, in whose administrative territory the islet of Gnalić is situated, can be found in De Administrando Skok, 1950: 133-134; Čače 1999. Juran, 2006: 54. 11 Even though the island has meagre sources of surface water due to its karst relief, there are roughly 200 wells on it. In most cases, these are so-called anchialine cavities, i.e., cavities near the sea in which a layer of precipitation water is retained over a denser layer of seawater. On the use of anchialine cavities in the past, see Radić Rossi, Cukrov, 2017. 12 Brusić, 2007. 13 An overview of prehistoric communities and settlements from Antiquity along the shores of the Pašman Channel was published in Batović, 1990; Nedved, 1990 and Čače, 2006. More recently, archaeological, geological and geomorphological research into the wider area has intensified (see Radić Rossi, Boetto, 2018, wherein the remaining relevant sources are cited). 14 E.g., Banj from the Lat. balneum meaning bath, and Neviđane and Mljane from the names of the Naevidianum and Marinianum estates, derived from the Roman gentilicia. Skok, 1950: 133-135; Čače, 2006: 41-42. 15 Ilijanić et al., 2018; Radić Rossi et al. 2018. 9

10

7

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 6. Presumed coastline about 7000 years ago, when the sea level was 10 m lower than today, and the Pašman Channel did not yet exist (map: O. Hasan, N. Ilijanić).

Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, written in the 10th century, in which the name ‘Katautrebeno’ refers to an abandoned island castellum in the Zadar archipelago. It is assumed that this was a name of pre-Roman origin, in which the segment ‘Katau’ has been linked to Tkon. The first certain mention of Tkon is a record in a document from 1076, in the form ‘Kutun’.16 In other medieval documents, the settlement is recorded as ‘Chuni’, ‘Chon’, ‘Cuni’, ‘Tcun’, ‘Tcuni’, ‘Tcono’, ‘Tichoni’ or ‘Ticuno’, and it is presumed that until the 14th century the same name was used for the entire island.17 In the first known population census conducted in the Zadar district in 1527, Tkon was called ‘Telium’, with a population of 170, while the nearby community of Ugrinići was only mentioned in the 17th century.18 As of the 16th century, however, there was a fortified complex known as Veliki Tor (Big Corral) or Dvor Ugrinić (Ugrinić Court) in the Crnika Forest above Ugrinići (Figure 7, built by members of the eponymous family from the Šubić line, and it was directly tied to the coastal settlement.19 Ćokovac Hill above Ugrinići (Figure 8) is the only place on the island at which human habitation from the Bronze Age to the present has been confirmed. The sole remaining Benedictine abbey in Croatia is located there. It was established in 1129, after the Juran, 2006: 58. Granić, 1987: 164; Antoljak, 1987: 13-14; Juran, 2006: 50. 18 Juran, 2006: 57. 19 Pribilović, 2013: 21. 16 17

8

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 7. Dvor Ugrinić (Ugrinić Court) in the Crnika Forest above Ugrinići, 16th century (photo: E. Šilić).

Figure 8. View of the southern part of the Pašman Channel, with Benedictine abbey on Ćokovac Hill above Ugrinići, 12th century (photo: E. Šilić).

Venetians had razed Biograd na Moru four years earlier and the friars of the Rogovo Abbey of St. John the Baptist sought refuge on the island. The abbey grew around the already existing church of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, so it assumed the same patron 9

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 9. View of the south-eastern part of the island of Pašman, Vrana Lake and nearby islands (photo: E. Šilić).

saints.20 At the time when the shipwreck occurred near the islet of Gnalić, the abbey’s commendatory abbot was a certain Secundus Montemerlo de Montemerli.21 At the time, the Franciscan Abbey of St. Domninus in Kraj, situated on the seashore itself roughly 1.5 km north-west of Ćokovac,22 had already existed for almost two centuries. South-east of Tkon at the very south-eastern end of the island, the small, safe cove of Zaklopica (Ital. Porto Chiave) is situated,23 sheltered from all winds (Figure 183). At the end of the 16th century, it served as the first refuge for the castaways from Gnalić.24 The impressive ruins of a Late Antique fortification called Pustograd loom above the cove. That location was even used in prehistory. The fortification was probably built as a refuge for the local population during the uncertain times at the transition from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages.25 (Figures 9, 10) At the time when the island was being settled, after the period of abandonment mentioned by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it had certainly already been deserted, which is why it was given its current name (Pustograd means ‘deserted citadel’). The fortification’s site offers an outstanding view of the navigation route through the Pašman and Vrgada Channel, the Murter Sea and Vransko Lake in Pakoštane’s Jelić, 1898: 57; Ostojić, 1964: 221-234; Hilje, 2006: 77. Jelić, 1898: 69. A commendatory was a natural person who was entitled to enjoy the revenues of an ecclesiastical property. 22 Hilje, 2006: 73. 23 Skok, 1950: 29. 24 See note 283. 25 Hilje, 2006: 83. 20 21

10

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 10. Pustograd hillfort with the remains of a Late Antique fortress (photo: E. Šilić).

hinterland. This large freshwater lake is only 1.5 km from the seashore, and the entire area abounds in freshwater springs which during the reign of Emperor Trajan began to supply the Roman-era city at the site of today’s Zadar.26 All of this contributed to the Pašman Channel’s vital role in maritime communication with the Zadar area (Figure 11), and it was widely used for sailing despite the many perils, such as shoals, reefs, capricious sea currents and high waves caused by south-easterly winds, which eastern Adriatic navigational guides stress even today.27 The location at which the islet of Gnalić lies, on the boundary between the Pašman and Vrgada Channels, has a reputation among local people for unpredictable weather which can put vessels in rather precarious situations. It is therefore sometimes even called the ‘little ocean’, and many modern sailors have almost wrecked their own vessels at precisely this spot. Even though we still do not know what caused the tragic shipwreck in 1583, we may assume that it sunk to the seafloor due to a turn of harsh weather with which not even the most experienced sailors could cope. 2.2. Historical circumstances The situation in the eastern Adriatic seaboard at the time of the shipwreck reflected the complexity of socio-political relations at the time and the uncertainty of the navigation route on which merchant vessels normally sailed when headed toward the Ionian, Aegean and Black Seas and the eastern Mediterranean in general. One of the aqueducts for Roman-era Iader, constructed during Trajan’s reign (98-117 AD) drew water from the Biba and Subiba springs in the territory of Vransko Lake. Ilakovac, 1982: 152-157. 27 Peljar za male brodove, part two. Split: Hrvatski hidrografski institut, 117-118. 26

11

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 11. View of the settlement of Pašman and the southeastern part of the Pašman Channel (photo: E. Šilić).

At the end of the 16th century, life in the Zadar area was not at all easy. Most of Dalmatia had fallen into Venetian hands already in the first decades of the 15th century, and the natural, economic and strategic advantages of Zadar made the city the primary Venetian administrative, economic and military hub in the eastern Adriatic. Over the coming decades, however, Ottoman pressure in Zadar’s hinterland intensified, and by the end of the century this already had serious repercussions. The danger continued during the subsequent century, and the Ottoman Empire’s border came dangerously close to the city. Over time, Nadin, Zemunik and Vrana came under Ottoman control, which meant that Zadar was left without its fertile hinterland, and the Ottomans came only ten to fifteen kilometers from the city. The narrow coastal belt under Venetian control in the north bordered the Habsburg Monarchy in the Novigrad and Karin Seas, and in the south with the Ottoman Empire on Cape Ploča south of Rogoznica.28 The wider Zadar hinterland remained outside of the Venetian Republic’s borders until the Sixth Ottoman-Venetian, or Morean War (1684-1699). During these dynamic medieval events, Zadar changed hands between the Byzantine, French, Venetian and Croatian-Hungarian authorities. During the Fourth Crusade in 1202, the Venetians thoroughly pillaged and razed Zadar, but they only took control of it in 1409, ruling over it continually under the fall of the Most Serene Republic in 1797. The city was governed by a rector (Cro. knez, Ven. conte) who was appointed by Venice 28

Pavić, 2014: 185-188.

12

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 12. Mainland Gate, Zadar (photo: courtesy of the Zadar Tourist Board).

but subordinate to the Grand Council. He had jurisdiction over the islet of Gnalić and thus all that transpired around it at the end of 1583 and early 1584. Due to constant conflicts with the Ottomans and the need for a high-quality and comprehensive defence system, during the first half of the 16th century the city walls were thoroughly reconstructed based on designs drawn up by the famed Michele Sanmichell, the Venetian Republic’s premier architect, who was charged with the construction of many fortifications in this period. On this occasion, new bastions and the Maritime and Mainland Gates were constructed (Figure 12), as well as public buildings such as the City Loggia and City Watchtower.29 At the time of the shipwreck at Gnalić, the magnificent Cathedral of St. James in Šibenik was already completed (Figure 13), as was the Fortress of St. Nicholas at the entrance to the St. Anthony Channel (Figure 14), which was designed by Giangirolamo Sanmichelli, Michele’s nephew.30 Biograd na Moru (Ven./Ital. Zaravecchia), on the navigation route between the areas of Zadar and Šibenik, experienced its peak in the 11th century, and it owes its Italian name to Zadar natives who sought refuge there after the aforementioned destruction of Zadar during the Fourth Crusade.31 At the time, they insisted that it was new Zadar, but upon returning to their liberated city, they began to call ‘new’ Zadar old. The name Zara Vecchia thereafter appeared regularly in documents and maps until the end of the Second World War, and it remains in the Italian language to this day. The Raukar et al. 1987: 277-285; Žmegač, 2009: 189-190. Žmegač, 2009: 183-185. 31 Klaić, Petricioli, 1976: 181. 29 30

13

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 13. Cathedral of St. James, Šibenik (https://nikoo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/kadedrala-sv-jakova-sibenik1.jpg).

Figure 14. Fortress of St. Nicholas at the entrance to the St. Anthony Channel in front of Šibenik (photo: courtesy of the Šibenik Tourist Board).

destruction endured by the city at the hands of the Venetians in 1125 is most often mentioned in the scholarly literature. There were likely more such incidents in its past. In 1486, a German pilgrim travelling to the Holy Land, Konrad von Grünenberg, 14

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 15. View of destroyed Biograd (Zara vecchia); Konrad von Grünenberg, Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem, 1487. Cod. St. Peter Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe.

described Biograd as a set of ruins (Figure 15), and when it was once more restored was not known until recently. A document found during research into the shipwreck at Gnalić indicates that the provveditore general for Dalmatia and Albania, Alvise Grimani, charged Captain Juraj Matković (Ital. Giorgio Matcovich) with reconstruction of Biograd’s walls and houses (Figure 16), as well as repopulation of the city in order to create a stronghold in the first defensive line leading to the fortress in Vrana, whence the Ottomans occasionally staged raids into Venetian border areas. With the assistance of family and friends, Matković successfully completed his task and the renewed city was settled by 700 people. On 27 May 1589 he was appointed its first governor.32 The restoration of Biograd ASVe, Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, lettere dei rettori, b. 306, c.n.s. – fascicolo intitolato Provveditor Generale della cavalleria in Dalmazia dal 1579 al 1598; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 103, c.n.s.; ibid., f. 115, c.n.s.; ibid., f. 126, c.n.s.; ibid., reg. 50, c. 36r; ibid., reg. 53, cc. 12r-12v; ibid., reg. 55, c. 109r. 32

15

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 16. A letter from Juraj Matković mentioning the reconstruction of Biograd (document appended to the Senate decree of 27 May 1589).

was therefore completed only about a decade before the Gagliana grossa sank near the islet of Gnalić. As of the latter half of the 16th and during the following century, the Venetian Republic was no longer the leading Mediterranean power due to the intense rivalry between the French and Dutch, which threatened even its inviolable primacy over the Adriatic. At that point, it was also threatened by the increasingly powerful Spain, and its position between the Habsburg and Ottoman spheres put it in a sensitive and, in terms of economic growth, not at all advantageous situation (Figure 17). One should also not overlook the threat of privateers, among whom the most common were those of English origin. Even though, lacking many options, it attempted to maintain good relations with the Ottoman Empire, a series of Ottoman moves, among them aggressive incursions into the territory of Zadar and Nin in early 1570, led to the outbreak of the War of Cyprus, which generally benefitted the Ottomans. The major victory of the Holy League (the Papal States, Spain, Venetian Republic, Naples, Sicily, Genoa, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Duchy of Savoy, Parma and Urbino and 16

Geographic and historical framework

Figure 17. Political situation at the end of 16th century: blue – Habsburg Monarchy; green – Ottoman Empire, light brown – Republic of Venice; pink – Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik); 1 – Croatian military frontier; 2 – Slavonian military frontier (from Regan, Kaniški, 2003).

the Knights of Malta) over the Ottoman fleet in the Battle of Lepanto, which took on 7 October 1571 place near the city of Lepanto (Gr. Nafpaktos), situated in the strait between the Gulfs of Patras and Corinth, did not greatly influence further events. The repercussions of this victory were not exploited, thus not alleviating the situation of the Venetian Republic, which was compelled to sign a peace treaty in 1573 whereby it relinquished Cyprus and the conquered portion of Dalmatia, and also paid reparations of 300,000 ducats. After the War of Cyprus, the residents of Zadar, reduced to a spatially confined commune on the Ottoman border, lived in constant fear of new raids; the fertile fields in the Zadar hinterland were fallow, and the ceaseless unrest was beyond the control of 17

The Shipwreck at Gnalić both the Venetian and Ottoman authorities. The populace fled to Zadar and the nearby islands, so the Croatian residents of the city grew in number, but the surrounding villages were simultaneously deserted. The consequences of the War of Cyprus and the conditions of the treaty demarcation meant that Biograd had become the most forward position and one of the most vital Venetian defensive fortifications, so during the coming century life in this area was subordinated to military defence interests and the demands of the Venetian military command in northern Dalmatia. Parallel to the repair and reinforcement of the defence system, the Venetian military command also worked on the organization of local military contingents. The commander of the local, Croatian squads (Ven. governatore dei Croati di Zara Vecchia) had his headquarters in the restored castellum. On the other side of the border, the Krka-Lika Sanjak with its seat in Knin was established in 1580, and in the same year several sanjaks, including Krka-Lika, were consolidated into the Bosnia Eyalet as the Ottoman Empire’s westernmost administrative unit.33 The sanjak was administered by the sanjakbey, who most often resided in Vrana, once a major ecclesiastical and secular centre of the Croatian medieval state, which had fallen into Ottoman hands in 1537.34 Border conflicts and skirmishes at Biograd did not cease, and in the period from 1580 through 1582, Ottoman subjects residing in Vrana penetrated into Biograd’s territory, capturing people and livestock. The Uskoks of Senj threatened from the sea. These were units composed of fugitives from the wider area of central Dalmatia, particularly the fortress of Klis above Split, which the Ottomans seized in 1537. The Uskoks operated in Senj, in the territory of the Senj Captaincy, and on the holdings of the Croatian magnates of the Zrinski and Frankapan families (from the Rječina to Zrmanja Rivers and in the interior to Brinje and Otočac). They came under the command of the Senj captain; as of 1537, they were under the administration of the Aulic War Council in Vienna, and after 1578 they were under the Internal Austrian War Council in Graz. The Uskoks engaged in combined military manoeuvres on land and sea. Initially their operations were aimed exclusively against the Ottomans, but later also increasingly against the Venetians, who were frustrated by the Uskoks because they put a strain on Venetian-Ottoman relations.35 In their small and rapid boats, suited for navigation in shallow waters and also easily carried overland, the Uskoks waged successful military strikes in poor weather and at night. The Venetian Republic, which initially looked on their military exploits with approval, already began to initiate a series of measures in the mid-16th century to secure unimpeded navigation for its fleet. In Uskok history, the year 1583 is remembered for the attempt to restore Klis to Christian hands. In January, the coerced Uskok duke, Đuro Daničić, deployed troops by land, and himself led three well-armed vessels Pavić, 2014: 32. Kolanović, 1971: 207. 35 Pavić, 2014: 193-194. 33 34

18

Geographic and historical framework toward Trogir. Poor weather and duplicitous action by Uskok informants led to the revelation of their intentions, but the slain Uskoks were avenged by an incursion into Ottoman estates in Trogir’s hinterland in April of the same year. Even though they were deliberately depicted quite negatively in Venetian historiography, the Uskoks of Senj earned a notable place in Croatian folk epics.36 Despite misfortune and perils, the human spirit did not falter, so the 16th century is also known as an era when Croatian literature experienced a brilliant ascent in Zadar. We need only mention that in 1569 the first edition of the famed work by Petar Zoranić, Planine (Mountains) was published in Venice, while in 1584 the book Vazetje Sigeta grada (Capture of the Siget Stronghold) by Brno Karnarutić was also published. The Karnarutić family held estates in the Biograd area, in Pakoštane and Vrana.37 As opposed to the onerous situation described in northern Dalmatia, the 16th century was a golden age for the Ragusan Republic in Dubrovnik, during which the city was one of the leading shipbuilding and merchant naval powers in the Mediterranean, and only Spain and the Netherlands surpassed it in transoceanic navigation. In the period from 1570 to 1585, the Ragusan Republic’s merchant fleet consisted of 182 vessels and 5,500 sailors, and it had over 50 consulates throughout the Mediterranean and even beyond. While on the return journey from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1583, the French noble Jean Palerne testified to the commercial acumen of Dubrovnik’s residents and magnificence of their fleet.38 By contrast to the number of ships that the Ragusan Republic could boast of at the time, in Venice a palpable decline was noted. The overall carrying capacity of its merchant fleet, which was 44,200 barrels prior to the War of Cyprus, fell to 14,800 at its close, and out of 42 large vessels with deadweight ranging from 700 to 1,200 barrels, only seven remained in 1576. By 1583, the number of larger and large ships with deadweight of 500 or more barrels had climbed to 27, and their total capacity was 21,900 barrels. Even though matters had taken a turn for the better, the former capacity of the Venetian merchant fleet had not been restored.39 At that time, Miho Pracat (1522-1607), a respected sailor, shipwright and banker, lived on the island of Lopud and in Dubrovnik. He secured his great wealth through seafaring. The Dubrovnik of his time could also boast of its maritime insurance code, the Ordo super assecuratoribus, issued on 5 March 1568, the oldest known law in the world that governed maritime insurance.40 This was also the era when the renowned Dubrovnik intellectual and beauty Cvijeta Zuzorić lived (ca. 1555 – ca. 1600). Nichollò Sagri (1538-1571) was born on the island of Šipan (Figure 18). He was highly knowledgeable in mathematics and astronomy, and one of the most active sailors in Bracewell, 1997; Novak, 1973; Mijatović, 1983. Raukar et al., 1987: 338. 38 Bašić, 2006: 162-163; Rožman-Kandido, 1990. 39 On trends in the number of large vessels in the Venetian merchant fleet, see: BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose, 217, c. 36r (anno 1560 ca); A.S.Ve. Senato, Deliberazioni Mar, filza 108 (anni 1567-68); A.S.Ve. Senato, Deliberazioni Mar, filza 108 (anno 1576); BMCVe, PD C 396, c. 1196r-1196v (Dicembre 1583). 40 Grabovac, 1999. 36 37

19

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 18. Suđurađ Bay on the island of Šipan, birthplace of Nichollò Sagri (photo: E. Šilić).

the Ragusan Republic in the latter half of the 16th century.41 He was the author of several exceptionally valuable works, such as Ragionamenti sopra le varietà dei flussi et riflussi del mare Oceano occidentale [Thoughts on the Variety of Ebbs and Flows in the Western Ocean], published in Venice in 1574, and Discorso dei flussi e riflussi del faro di Messina [Discourse on Ebb and Flow at the Lighthouse in Messina], also published in Venice six years later. He recorded his vast maritime experience in the manuscript Il carteggiatore, which was until recently deemed lost. The discovery of the manuscript at the University of Minnesota was particularly significant not just to the study of maritime history and the development of the exact sciences in Croatia, but also to the detailed study of the remains of the sunken ship at Gnalić in the light of written sources that belong to the same chronological and geographic context.42 Despite all of the troubles, mainly caused by Venetian-Ottoman relations, that burdened Venetian Dalmatia, maritime trade continued to proceed regardless of all risks. In the mid-16th century, the value of turnover was most noteworthy in the ports in Zadar (14,000 ducats), Split (25,000 ducats) and Šibenik (50,000 ducats); Šibenik’s primacy has been attributed to its privileges in the salt trade. During the 1580s and 1590s, at a time when the mercantile-maritime importance of the port in Split grew considerably, a regular mercantile line on the Venice-Split-Neretva Dadić, 1982: 97-106; 1994: 48-56. Dadić, 2008. The first uncritical transcription of the manuscript was published in Dell’Osa, 2011. See the recent publication of the transcription and Croatian translation of the manuscript in Radić Rossi, Salopek 2021. 41 42

20

Geographic and historical framework route was established, in which the primary role was played by merchant galleys (Ven. galea da mercato).43 The freight storehouse in Split, conceived in 1566 at the initiative of Daniel Rodriga, a Jewish merchant of Portuguese origin, was only completed in the 1590s. At the time of the shipwreck at Gnalić, negotiations and advocacy for movement of the warehouse from the Neretva River to Split were still ongoing. Here a special role was played by Nicolò Correr, who held the post of Split’s rector and captain from 1580 to 1583.44 It is apparent that in the autumn of 1583 Venice was enduring a severe crisis, so it was necessary to resort to political pragmatism instead of insisting on formal administrative and legal demands. This is precisely why, with time, even the unnatural situation in which Venetian insurers insured the goods of foreign merchants, with residence in Venice or abroad, against any risk and on any route by Venetian insurers was deemed normal. This unwritten rule was gradually also applied to ships of foreign origin. It was only in 1586 that some attempt was made to rein in these practices, but in the meantime insurers insured vessels that would sink at the first strong gust of wind, or goods that were largely overvalued.45 The heavily laden merchant ship that ‘disappeared’ in the waters near Gnalić in midautumn 1583 on a voyage from Venice to Istanbul belonged to this cultural-historical context, at the very end of the Renaissance era, symbolically signifying its end.

Lane, 1992 (1934): 7, 13-16; Bondioli, Nicolardi, Radić Rossi, 2019. Morpurgo, 1962: 231. 45 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 47, c. 210r-211r, decree of 29 September 1586 which banned insurance of goods on ships that did not foresee stopovers in Venice on voyages to the eastern or western Mediterranean. 43 44

21

3. A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

The shipwreck’s site became known among the local population of Murter in the early 1960s, and it would appear that individuals from the island of Pašman were also aware of it. The story goes that in the early 1960s it was discovered by a fisher, Celestin Pleslić, known as Šele, and then by a group of scuba divers from Murter. It is otherwise noteworthy that a vast majority of sunken ships were in fact discovered by divers and fishers. In most cases, it is impossible to provide a definitive answer to the question of who should get the credit for the discovery of a new undersea site, because as a rule right after the ‘discovery’ those who had ‘already known about it earlier’ begin to appear. However, from the perspective of a scientist, as well as everyone who is concerned about the cultural-historical heritage and the general welfare, who first observed an undersea site is far less important than who notified the proper institutions of its existence. Other pertinent questions are: whether notification arrived after the site had already been looted; whether this only occurred to someone only because there was no other option; whether it was simply the result of a mutual argument among members of a diving team, or some other grounds of questionable intent. Thus, decision-making on the first honest or dishonest finders is a truly sensitive problem which often cannot be – and need not be – objectively resolved. It is worthwhile, however, to stress that the majority of sunken ships were in fact discovered by divers and fishers. In the mid-1960s, a certain German organized the unauthorized extraction of the finds from Pakoštane, and a vestige of his campaign remains in the form of a large copper pitch cauldron (Figure 19) that the ‘antique lover’ did not manage to take with him, rather he was forced to leave it behind in the house in which he was staying.1 It was probably the same man who had unsuccessfully attempted to organize his first looting campaign from Murter, and probably the same one who, in the 1980s, boasted of his rich collection of finds from the Gnalić seafloor to some Croatian sailors in Hamburg.2 News of the site also reached Belgian divers, who were caught stealing amphorae already in 1965, but despite this they did not hesitate to remove items from the sunken The existence of the cauldron was pointed out by Marko Meštrov and Željko Juričev from Pakoštane during the resumption of research in 2012. The find was first published in Filep et al. 2013, 102. 2 The existence of a collection of finds from the islet of Gnalić in Hamburg was reported by an overseas captain, Đenko Šandrić from Betina on the island of Murter, who at one point had the opportunity to personally see it. 1

22

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations ship at Gnalić two years later. Their activities continued even after professional intervention at the site, while in 1970 they were caught in the act of looting, and their gear and the finds were seized as a penalty.1 3.1. Official discovery of the site

Figure 19. Copper cauldron for melting resin or tar, illegally extracted from the site in the mid-1960s; height 71.5 cm, opening Ø 99.2 cm, weight 61 kg; private collection, Pakoštane (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

On 17 September 1967, news of the shipwreck’s discovery near the islet of Gnalić appeared in the daily press for the first time. A brief article under the headline ‘A galley from the 16th century; Merchant ship or privateer’s schooner?’ had the by-line of Šibenik reporter Mirko Urošević, and it was printed on the same page as the announcement of Orson Welles’ participation in the production of the film The Battle of Neretva.2

Word of the find actually began to spread in early September of that same year thanks to Miljenko Barić, who was the skipper of the tourist vessel Borik, which sailed the route between Crvena Luka, Biograd and the Kornati Islands. On 11 September, Barić arrived in Zadar and showed a group of experts some intriguing finds brought up by sponge-hunters from Murter. On the next day, Ivo Petricioli, a professor at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Science in Zadar, and Valentin Uranija, the director of the National Museum in Zadar, contacted the finders, and two days later they travelled with them to the site from Crvena Luka. Before their eyes, the Murter sponge-hunters brought various items that were once part of the ship’s cargo to the surface, and then a small bronze gun from the ship’s armaments. Judging by individual accounts, all of this was far more dramatic than what has been described, but after over a half-century, it is difficult to reconstruct the entire event with any precision. At the initiative of Zlatko Gunjača, an archaeologist from Šibenik who launched undersea archaeological investigations in the Šibenik area, an expertise-based inspection was In the same year, contact was made with an unidentified Belgian who had obtained photographs of items originally from the Gnalić site held in Belgian and Dutch private collections. Petricioli, S., 1973a. 2 Urošević, 1967; Podrug, 2012. 1

23

The Shipwreck at Gnalić already organized on 15 September, whereby the rumours of a major site were also confirmed from the Šibenik side. During the first dive, Dalibor Martinović, at the time a diver with the Šibenik-based Kornati Undersea Club and until recently a conservator/ restorer in the Šibenik City Museum, observed guns, an anchor, an unbelievable quantity of round oblong glass objects and shiny brass plates resembling gold on the seafloor. A locked chest, strewn crates with parts of candelabras and many other items made of various materials lay in the middle of the site.3 Unfortunately, the story about the discovery did not end on a cheerful note, rather the entire matter was drawn out in the courts for years, mainly due to failure to pay the promised rewards for providing information.4 Over time many details were forgotten, but even today witnesses to those events mention the rancour and bitter taste which remained after all of the deals and promises proved to be empty. Even though it is difficult to say who bore the most culpability for that situation, many recall that the leader of later investigations, Ksenija Radulić, invested all of her efforts and reputation to back the finders. 3.2. Research history in the 20th century After the precise location of the site was officially confirmed, the relevant institutions in Zadar and Šibenik joined forces (Figure 20) in a joint campaign and rapidly removed the finds from the surface layer. The campaign was conducted from 7 to 10 October 1967 under the leadership of Ksenija Radulić (Figure 45), a conservator in the Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar, and Ivo Pertricioli, an art history professor at the University of Zadar. Among the participants were archaeologist Zdenko Brusić and conservator Božidar Vilhar from the Archaeological Museum in Zadar, art historian Sofija Petricioli from the National Museum in Zadar, archaeologist Zlatko Gunjača from the Šibenik City Museum, divers from the Kornati Sport Diving Club, among them the already noted Dalibor Martinović as well as Jerko Domančić and Dubravko Balenović, and members of the Split Naval District Command stationed in Šibenik.5 The three military vessels provided by the Command helped in carrying out the conceived task, but the site sustained considerable damage. Not having any foreknowledge nor sense for the sensitivity of the cultural heritage with which they were confronted for the first time, the members of the Yugoslav Navy handled the finds without the necessary caution, which resulted in much damage to the more sensitive items and the wooden remnants of the ship itself.6 At the time, the media closely followed the extraction of the ship’s tackle and cargo, and experts did their best to deal with insufficiently experienced divers, demanding undersea research equipment and Podrug, 2012. On the lawsuit filed in 1968, see Božulić, 2013: 38. 5 Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar, Correspondence no. 188/3 to the Split Military District Command, 20 October 1967, archives of the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum. 6 Oral communication from S. Petricioli. 3 4

24

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 20. Research team in 1967, from left to right: Tomislav Ivanović, Ksenija Radulić, Vinko Šarić Zele, Edi Macuka, Zlatko Gunjača, Ive Vujić, Tomislav Đorđević, Ivo Štampalija, Dalibor Martinović, Boris Santini, Joško Bogdan and Zdenko Brusić; front row: Jerko Domančić, Ivo Petricioli and Božidar Vilhar (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

organization of undersea work. They also had to deal with the problem of items being taken, which is indicated in both published texts and the preserved documentation. In just four days, virtually without any documentation of the status undersea, they raised to the surface eight bronze guns (Figures 21, 22, 26-28, 49), two iron anchors (lengths: 3.75 and 4.85 m), (Figures 23-25), the aforementioned locked chest, a high quantity of glass, pieces of brass chandeliers and a small quantity of metal raw materials.7 Among the guns, two are notable, as based on their adornment and size and the Roman numerals and initials of the founder (Figures 48, 26-28), they were cast in 1582 by Zuane (Giovanni II) Alberghetti, a member of a renowned Venetian family that was involved in this trade for generations.8 First and foremost, attention was naturally garnered by the chest, with dimensions of 65 x 97 x 59 cm, which gave the impression of being the ship’s cash box (Figure 29). According to a letter sent to the University Library in Zagreb, its opening was 7 8

Petricioli, 1981: 37. See also Filep et al., 2013: passim. Petricioli, I. 1970: 9-11; Gasparetto, 1976: 413; Morin, 2006: 95-96.

25

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 21. Recovery of a bronze gun with octagonal barrel in 1967 (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 22. Bronze gun with octagonal barrel during recovery in 1967; length 261 cm, calibre 9.1 cm (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

26

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 23. Extraction of the smaller iron anchor in 1967 (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 24. Iron anchors on the Biograd waterfront in 1967 (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

27

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 25. Graphic representation of iron anchors with basic dimensions (drawing: K. Yamafune).

Figure 26. Decorated bronze gun from the Alberghetti workshop; length 350 cm, calibre 9.1 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). Figure 27. Detail of the bronze gun with decoration and initials of the caster: Z (uane) A (lberghetti), (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 28. Detail of the bronze gun with the year of manufacture MDLXXXII (1582), (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

28

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 29. Ironclad chest recovered in 1967; dimensions 65 x 97 x 59 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

scheduled for 14 October 1967 at 4 p.m.9 The curious crowd that closely observed this event in the National Museum in Zadar was generally disappointed with the black mud from which Ksenija Radulić removed a set of apparently unimpressive items. Those who were expecting gold coins or jewels certainly did not find these items noteworthy, but a careful inspection showed that they were in fact genuine cultural historical treasures. Namely, the chest contained three linen shirts (Figure 30), eight woollen caps (Figures 31, 32), a small teakwood box containing two sets of weights and a precision scale (Figure 33) and 54 m of luxurious silk damask with a width of 62 cm, decorated with a floral pattern and dyed purple (Figures 34-36),10 which was often used for luxury women’s clothes and clerical vestments. The high-quality fabric being exported to the Levant was manufactured in Venice under the picturesque name stoffa da navegar, meaning fabric intended for overseas trade.11 Lead seals adorned with various symbols of textiles merchants may be linked to fabrics loaded onto the ship in far higher quantities, which is today apparent from archival documents (Figure 34).12 On that same day, Grga Oštrić sent a letter to the Kornati Recreational Diving Club in which he addressed its members with these words: ‘After the completion of the final phase of work on recovering the cargo from the sunken 16th-century ship in the Pašman Channel, we would like to express our gratitude for the very successful collaboration. We particularly appreciate the fact that you agreed to this without Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar, Correspondence no. 188/3 to the University Library in Zagreb, 13 October 1967, archives of the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum. 10 Radulić 1970, 16-18; Petricioli, S., 1970, 20-22, 37-39; Petricioli, S., 1990, 183; Davanzo Poli, 2006; Filep et al., 2013, 158-161; Banić, 2014: 65-68. Damask is a monochrome fabric most often with front and back in the same colour, although the patterns are rendered by alternation between warp-faced glossy weave and matte weft-faced weave (Banić, 2011: 117). 11 Davanzo Poli, 2006: 98-99. 12 Radulić, 1970, 18, 20; Davanzo Poli, 2006, 98-99; Terzer, 2006. On similar finds from the territory of Venice, see Asolati, 2012. 9

29

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 30. Restored linen shirt; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 32. Lorenzo Lotto, Achitect, 1535, 105 x 82 cm, oil on canvas, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, Germany.

Figure 31. Restored woollen cap; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). 30

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 33. Precision scales from the ironclad chest, and two sets of weights; length of horizontal lever 16 cm, Ø of trays 10 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 34. Damask from the ironclad chest, originally folded and wrapped in coarse cloth, with accompanying lead seals bearing the marks of the textile merchants; original length 54 m, width 0.62 m (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

31

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 35. Bale of silk damask, restored in the Abbeg Foundation in Riggisberg near Bern, Switzerland; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 36. Decorative pattern on silk damask; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

remuneration, thereby making the entire project possible. The completed work was the first of its kind for both you and us, and it is understandable that neither you nor we were entirely prepared. The reverberations which this campaign had in the public may bear bountiful fruit, for underwater archaeology is no longer simply wishful thinking, it is becoming a reality.’13 October 1967 was an exceptionally trying but also exciting month, as the research continued over nine working days (23-31 October). The navy’s assistance was contingent upon the smallest possible number of civilians, but this time divers took care to document the site, while military divers continued to extract the finds. The first photographs were taken and the site was sketched (Figures 37-39) by the already experienced recreational Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar, Correspondence no. 188/29 to the Kornati Recreational Diving Club in Šibenik, 14 October 1967 archives of the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum. 13

32

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 37. Situation on the seabed in 1967: bellshaped ingots of mercury sulphide, used for the production of scarlet colour, (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 38. Situation on the seabed in 1967: wooden packaging and parts of the ship’s structure (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 39. Situation on the seabed in 1967: sheets of brass and bellshaped ingots of mercury sulphide (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

33

The Shipwreck at Gnalić divers Jerko Domančić and Dubravko Balenović. Among the multitude of recovered objects, an entirely preserved decorated glass bowl stood out (Figure 42). In the correspondence which preceded the field activities, Ksenija Radulić clearly expressed the ultimate aim of the research: ‘the objective of the campaign is dual: to recover all objects of scholarly interest from the sea; to recover the remains of the ship’s hull’.14 The next campaign lasting fifteen days was organized from 14 to 29 September 1968. Although much more modestly equipped due to the absence of the Yugoslav Navy, it was at a significantly higher level from the methodological standpoint. A system of coordinates was set up at the site with the help of strings, while the current status was systematically documented with sketches and photographs. On this occasion, besides the standard finds, various wooden packing materials and a round millstone (Figures 40, 41) were removed, and this was followed by a four-year pause. Work continued only on the conservation and processing of the finds, which resulted in publication of ‘Brodolom kod Gnalića; naše najbogatije hidroarheološko nalazište’ [The Shipwreck at Gnalić; Our Richest Hydroarchaeological Site], prepared by Ivo Kelez, Ivo

Figure 40. Recovery of the millstone wheel in 1967 (archive of the Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 41. Millstone wheel; Ø 92 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar, Correspondence no. 188/3 to the Split Military District Command, 20 October 1967, archives of the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum. 14

34

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations Petricioli, Sofija Petricioli, Ksenija Radulić, Božidar Vilhar and Valentin Uranija. This article was published in the first issue of the journal Vrulje (Zadar, 1970), the bulletin of the National Museum in Zadar. In 1969, the Republic Cultural Monument Protection Department of the time in Zagreb took charge of the coordination of underwater archaeological activities. Henceforth, organized campaigns commenced in the area of all larger urban settlements on the Croatian coast. The individuals most responsible for this were the Republic Department’s director at the time, Vlado Mađarić, and archaeologist Dasen Vrsalović, who responded to his summons and very quickly devised a system to research, safeguard and preserve the Croatian undersea heritage. Besides the coordination of

Figure 42. Glass bowl made by blowing technique, with engraved decoration; height 8.5 cm, Ø of the opening 15.3 cm, Ø of the base 7.4 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 43. Blown-glass bowl decorated with spray and inlay; height 8 cm, Ø of the opening 2.6 cm, base dimensions 3.5 x 3 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: R. Mosković).

Figure 44. Simple blue blown-glass bowl; height 2.6 cm, Ø of the opening 7.3 cm, Ø of the base 4 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: R. Mosković).

35

The Shipwreck at Gnalić undersea archaeological activity, he also insisted on cooperation between all interested institutions, the development of programs, uniform documentation, personnel training, procurement of equipment and other elements vital to the system’s proper functioning. This gradually created the conditions for the resumption of research at Gnalić. In the meantime, in 1971, through Ksenija Radulić’s advocacy, the Municipal Council of Biograd na Moru established the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum, following the tradition of the previous regional museum collection, in which the finds from Gnalić could be stored. The conception for the first display was devised by Sofija Petricioli.15 The fourth research campaign followed in September 1972, and the fifth in September 1973. This renewed research continued to be organized by the Cultural Monument Protection Department in Zadar under Ksenija Radulić’s supervision (Figure 45). Archaeologist Marijan Orlić, appointed by the Republic Cultural Monument Protection Department, was in charge of the technical aspect of the undersea tasks. In both campaigns, the organized documentation and extraction of finds continued, while test trenches confirmed on multiple occasions that the research was nowhere near its end. On 16 and 17 October, the members of the research teams actively participated in the shooting of a 27-minute documentary for the series ‘Secrets of the Adriatic,’ entitled ‘The Gnalić Galley’ which was produced by Belgrade Television and aired on 26 March 1973. Judging by the existing documentation, research at the Gnalić site was declared a priority in 1973, with a sum of 70,000.00 Yugoslav dinars of the time allocated. In the Republic Cultural Activity Advancement Fund, Milan Prelog in particular advocated the financing of research. The results confirmed that the objectives set at the very beginning by Ksenija Radulić were more than justified. In the final report for 1973, she therefore Figure 45. Ksenija Radulić, still from the film stated the opinion ‘that the value ‘The Galley of Gnalić,’ shot in 1972 as part of the 15

Božulić, 2013: 41-42.

Secrets of the Adriatic series, produced by TV Belgrade’s Documentary Department.

36

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations and quantity of data for the history of material culture in the 16th and early 17th centuries make this site valuable at the global level’, and she once more confirmed ‘that integral research into the ship and the salvage of everything remaining there, including the ship’s remains, must be launched’. Unfortunately, after many years of painstaking struggles to save the site, she was forced to conclude: ‘Drafting a cost estimate for such an undertaking could only be done by a team of experts, working at least one month. For now, we are not even able to put together such a team, nor pay them’.16 All that was left in the time that followed was to care for the finds, and they were saved mostly due to the efforts of Sofija Petricioli Figure 46. Sofija Petricioli, stills from the film (Figure 46), the curator and ‘The Galley of Gnalić,’ shot in 1972 as part of director of the National Museum in the Secrets of the Adriatic series, produced by Zadar, and Božidar Vilhar (Figure TV Belgrade’s Documentary Department.. 47), a conservator/restorer with the Archaeological Museum in Zadar, and his young associate at the time, Ivo Donelli. Thanks to their care, many sensitive finds were put in suitable condition for display in the Local Heritage Museum in Biograd, while the rest were safely stored in the museum’s auxiliary facilities. Sofija Petricioli organized the exacting conservation of the textiles in the Abegg Foundation, near Bern in Switzerland, and contacted many experts at home and abroad concerning the analysis and protection of the finds.17 Moreover, on numerous occasions she organized exhibitions which gave the wider public an idea of the site’s value. Prompted by one of these, an unidentified visitor from Belgium sent photographs of finds purloined from the shipwreck and exhibited in a Belgian diving centre.18 These photographs indicated that in Belgium there are a minimum of eight whole chandeliers, a gun, an iron anchor and many other items which made this diving centre a veritable small museum. Radulić, 1973. Petricioli, S., 1990. 18 Petricioli, S., 1973a. 16 17

37

The Shipwreck at Gnalić In the same year that the final research campaign led by Ksenija Radulić was conducted, Italian historian Astone Gasparetto attempted to identify the shipwreck in the Venetian archives. In documents issued by the Venetian notary Giovan Andrea Catti, he noted the wreck of the ship Gagiana (also Gagliana or Gaiana in the sources) commanded by Alvise Finardi, which occurred between Biograd and Murter in 1583. Taking into account the last insurance policy and the first cession document which testified to the loss of cargo, Gasparetto concluded that the shipwreck occurred between 24 October and 10 November 1583. Furthermore, he also tracked down a document on the deployment of a galley to the wreckage site to protect the salvaged cargo, which led him to speculate on an organized salvage operation that followed the sinking. However, Gasparetto went no farther than certain data which were viewed with considerable caution in the scholarly literature in subsequent decades.19 His interest was primarily focused on the glass finds, so the archival data only served as an essential historical framework.20 Even though from Figure 47. Božidar Vilhar, stills from the film today’s perspective it would appear ‘The Galley of Gnalić,’ shot in 1972 as part of the Secrets of the Adriatic series, produced by that Gasparetto was part of the TV Belgrade’s Documentary Department. expert team that dealt with the remains of the ship and ship’s cargo discovered at the islet of Gnalić, according to contemporaries it would appear that his work proceeded entirely on its own track, which had the unfortunate consequence of insufficient interest in the continuation of research down that avenue. 19 20

Petricioli, S., 1981: 45. Gasparetto, 1976.

38

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations After over thirty years, in the summer of 1996, Zdenko Brusić, the first archaeologist who dove down to the site in 1967, attempted to resume the research. In an arrangement with a private foreign investor, the Archaeological Museum in Zadar launched an initiative to establish an underwater archaeology research centre, and the shipwreck at Gnalić was supposed to become one of the leading projects.21 The conditions for something like this had not yet arisen, because the State Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection Administration of the time halted the initiative. Nonetheless, during the research campaign which was undertaken that year, the extraction of interesting items continued, and the public was reminded of an exceptionally valuable and almost entirely forgotten site. 3.3. Recovered materials Even though all of the aforementioned excavation activities had an exclusive rescue character due to financial constraints, an incredible quantity of the most diverse objects were recovered from the sea, impressing researchers but also causing serious problems vis-à-vis cataloguing and conserving such sensitive materials. The already noted first detailed publication of the finds in the journal Vrulje22 was followed by several articles, and among them Gasparetto’s work on the glass pieces from the ship’s cargo stands out due to his systematic approach.23 The remaining works are generally overview articles with an informative character that were not aimed at more detailed coverage and systemization of the materials, and all of the published data have recently been consolidated as the point of departure for a future comprehensive inventory.24 The complete inventory list of the materials recovered from 1967 through 1973 and in 1996, stored in the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum, is still being compiled, so for now it is impossible to specify the quantity of recovered finds with any precision. In 2006 the glass collection25 and a select group of other finds26 were thoroughly processed, and in 2013 a major exhibition was organized in the Croatian History Museum in Zagreb, accompanied by a book in which the finds from the sunken vessel were thoroughly catalogued for the first time.27 The finds recovered from the shipwreck site are from the ship’s armaments, rigging and cargo, including various packaging made of organic materials. Several wooden elements of the ship’s hull, mainly pieces of planks28 and frame timbers, were Brusić, 1996. Petricioli, Uranija, 1970. 23 Gasparetto, 1973. 24 Filep et al., 2013; Radić Rossi, Nicolardi, Batur, 2016. 25 Glass beads, of which several thousand have been recovered thus far, were excluded from the analysis of glass finds. 26 Lazar, Willmott, 2006. 27 Filep et al., 2013. 28 In Croatian shipbuilding terminology, the terms platica or trenica are used to refer to the planks on a wooden ship. 21 22

39

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 48. Graphic representation of eight bronze guns recovered from the site; a, b – sacro, c, d – passavolante, e–g – petriere da braga and f – moschetto da braga, (after Petricioli, I., 1970; drawing: A. Filep).

also raised from the seafloor. At the time of the first investigations, the latter did not attract greater attention with regard to scholarly analysis and conservation. Knowledge of the ship’s hull therefore rests on old photographs, preliminary hypotheses and analysis of parts of the ship’s frame on display in the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum conducted by Mauro Bondioli.29 Even though Astone Gasparetto had already assumed in 1973 that it was a mostly wind-propelled, rounded merchant vessel,30 the notion that it was a long and slender oar-powered vessel, i.e., a merchant galley (which could theoretically be justified by the existence of galleys that linked Venice with the then active storehouse on the Neretva River), has led to an error often repeated to this day, both in the terminological sense and in the models used to depict an ideal reconstruction of the sunken ship’s original appearance. The ship’s armaments found at the site consist of eight of the aforementioned guns (Figure 48) and several pieces of artillery accessories.31 The two decorated guns from Alberghetti’s workshop have been attributed to the sacro type, the next two have been typologically specified as passavolante, while the four smaller ones have been classified in the group of movable breech-loading guns, called petriere da braga (3 Beltrame, 2006: 93. Gasparetto, 1973: 80. 31 Petricioli, I., 1970; Morin, 2006; Beltrame, Morin, 2014: 394-405. 29 30

40

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations examples) and moschetto da braga (1 example). The latter gun, classified as moschetto da braga, is decorated with a complex heraldic symbol showing a double-headed crowned eagle in the upper heraldic field, a monogram consisting of the letters P, N and M in the right field, and a palm frond, lily and image of nude boy in the left field (Figure 49). Another similar gun on which an identical decoration was noted ended up, as stated, in a Belgian private collection.32 None of the enumerated guns bears the X symbol of the Venetian Council of Ten, which was mandatory for artillery weapons on state-owned galleys built in the Venetian Arsenal. This information is yet another argument confirming that a Venetian merchant galley did not sink at Gnalić.

Figure 49. Complex heraldic sign on a small gun of the moschetto da braga type; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Among the artillery accessories, a brass tool to measure calibre was found; it has a floral decoration on one end and a series of numbers indicating the measurements in Venetian libbre (Ital. libbre sottili alla veneziana), a wad of gunpowder, a length of fuse, roughly twenty stone and iron balls and several small sundry pieces.33 Among the navigation gear, besides the aforementioned iron anchors, also raised from the seafloor were wooden pulleys, their rectangular metal axle casings and a navigational sextant, while a third, far smaller anchor, a ship’s bell and a small winch were, like many other items, smuggled to Belgium.34 The small millstone with a diameter of 44.5 cm was probably used in the ship’s mess, like the 20 different copper vessels (cauldrons, pans, wash basins, a lid, a pot, a bucket and a mixing spoon) and over 60 items made of ceramic (bowls, plates, jugs, cups, pots, candlesticks and spoons) (Figures 50-54).35 Most of the ceramics are from Italy, and they may be attributed to Venetian workshops with a high degree of certainty. The possibility that some of these items were also being transported as goods for sale remains an open question at this point. Petricioli, 1974, 73. Petricioli, I., 1970; Morin, 2006. 34 Petricioli, S., 1973; 1973a: 111-112. 35 Petricioli, S., 1970: 30-37, 45-46. 32 33

41

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 50. Metal cauldron from the ship’s galley; height 18 cm, height with handle 36 cm, Ø 33 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 51. Frying pan made of embossed copper sheet from the ship’s galley; height 4.7 cm, Ø 36 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 52. Lid made of embossed copper sheet from the ship’s galley; height 5.4 cm, Ø 29.8 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

42

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 53. Selection of pottery from ship equipment or cargo; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 54. Richly decorated ceramic bowls; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Among the noteworthy metal finds is the portable cooker (Tur. mangal) which, despite being quite damaged, was restored to excellent condition (Figure 55). The cooker was decorated with a calligraphic monogram (Tur. tuğrâ) that was used as the sultan’s signature (Figure 56). Since it has thus far not been possible to identify it with the 43

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 55. Portable copper ember vessel, used to heat space or food (Tur. mangal) from ship equipment; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 56. Engraved inscription on the ember vessel, with the decoration in the form of the sultan’s signature (Tur. tuğra), (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

signature of any sultan of that era, it would appear in this case that it was just a successful imitation.36 By far, most of the recovered items were part of the ship’s cargo, which consisted of raw materials, semi-finished products and finished products intended for the Istanbul market and imperial court. When the raw materials were recovered in the 1970s, they included 2 kg of elementary mercury: 14 bell-shaped ingots of mercury sulphide (HgS) or cinnabar (Figure 57); approximately 1,000 kg of tin ingots (1,773 rods with a length of 70 cm) (Figures 58, 59); approximately 450 kg of lead white transported in the form of cone-shaped ingots packed in small wooden casks (Figure 60); a piece of antimony trisulphide (stibnite) and powdered sulphur preserved in traces inside casks. Noteworthy in the group of semi-products are two types of sheet brass: 14 sheets, multiply folded and packed four apiece (Germ. Bugmessing) (Figure 61) and over 70 Personal information R. D’Amora. The basic data on the mangal were published in Filep et al., 2013: 103. 36

44

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 57. Bell-shaped ingots of mercury sulphide; height 27 cm, Ø 27 cm, weight 100 kg; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 58. Wooden box with tin bars from the ship’s cargo; length about 63 cm, weight 560 g; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 59. Stamp on tin bars, with the inscription GETO DE STAGNI (En. Tin cast) and a Venetian lion motif with the initials MC (Maggior Consiglio?), (after Kelez, 1970).

Figure 60. Reconstructed wooden barrel with conical ingots of lead white; height up to 5 cm, Ø up to 6.4 cm, weight about 250 g; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). 45

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 61. Multiply folded packages of rolled brass sheet, 0.8-1 mm thick (Ger. Bugmessing): length of roll 75 cm, height of roll 5.5 cm, width of roll 18 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). Figure 62. Rolled brass sheets, 0.30.4 mm thick (Ger. Rollmessing): height of roll 10-11.5 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

rolled sheets, (Germ. Rollmessing) (Figure 62). Also found were 12 large and 50 small coils of brass wire (Figure 63), 160 brass rods with triangular cross-section, and 206 rectangular steel plates lined with lead.37 A high share of the ship’s cargo consisted of over 5,500 glass items classified into 60 typological groups that include thousands of pieces of different types of vessels; 757 wholly preserved round blown-glass window panes (Ven. rui) (Figure 64), with diameters ranging from 12-22 cm;

Figure 63. Large coils of brass wire; outer Ø of coil 44-45 cm; Ø of wire up to 1.2 mm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

I. Kelez suggested an eastern German, i.e., Saxon origin for these semi-products. 37

46

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 64. Simple round window panes; Ø 13 cm, 17.1 cm and 21.2 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 65. Rectangular mirror panes; big – height 23.6 cm, width 19 cm; small – height 11.7-12.8 cm, width 9-9.5 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

57 rectangular cast glass slabs for mirrors; 517 round and rectangular finished mirrors (Figure 65) and roughly 9 kg of glass beads (Ven. paternostri) (Figure 69).38 According to a breakdown based on Gasparetto’s work that was proposed by Irena Lazar and Hugh Willmot, the glass vessels may, in the interest of easy review, be classified into tableware (Figures 66-68), containers, coloured glass (Figures 43, 44) and other glass items.39 The next group of notable items from the ship’s cargo consists of brass chandeliers and sconces, transported in pieces that had to be assembled only at their destination. 38 39

Petricioli, S. 1970, 23-29; 1973a; Brill 1973; Gasparetto 1976; Lazar and Willmott 2006. Gasparetto, 1976; Lazar, Willmot, 2006: 25-67.

47

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 66. Mould-blown lion-mask stem goblets; height 9.7-12.8 cm, Ø of the base 6.57.6 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 67. Blown-glass plain goblets with low hollow foot; height 7.1-9.95 cm, Ø of the opening 7.4 cm, Ø of the base 5-7 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 68. Blown-glass plain goblets with low hollow foot; height. 8.5-10.5 cm, Ø of the opening 10 cm, Ø of the base 6.2 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). 48

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 69. Multicolored glass beads from Venetian workshops; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 70. Brass wall sconces, probably originating from Nuremberg, decorated with an acanthus and fishtail motif (a) and a dolphin’s head (b); length 44 (a) and 33 (b) cm, width 22 (a) and 13.7 (b) cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

During explorations conducted in the 20th century, 602 components of ceiling and table chandeliers, and sconces, were recovered (Figures 70, 71). The initial assumption is that they were originally from the German city of Lübeck, the leading city in the Hanseatic League, a powerful mercantile association that protected the commercial interests of the Baltic region in the Middle Ages and Early Modern era. A more recent hypothesis is that the entirety of the brass goods found at the shipwreck site may have come from the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.40 Particularly valuable finds are certainly the spectacles with leather frames (Figures 73-75) probably of German origin (Germ. Lederbrille), packed in 8 small and 14 large wooden cases, stored together in a large box. Their total number has been estimated 40

Casitti, 2021.

49

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 71. Brass chandelier from ship’s cargo, probably originating from Nuremberg; height 100 cm, width 98 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 72. Candlestick manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.

Figure 73. Spectacles with leather frames in wooden boxes in two sizes; a total of 22 boxes with about 430 glasses were found; glasses – length 7.28.2 cm, Ø of glass 3.43.7 cm; boxes – length 10.5 and 10.2 cm, height 6.3 cm, width 8.4 and 5.5 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

50

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 74. Box of spectacles; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 75. Spectacles after restoration; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

at 432.41 The finds have only been conserved in small part, and expert analysis has yet to be done. The finds salvaged from the ship’s cargo also included 210 brass ‘hawk’ bells (Figure 76), 98 brass pins (Figure 78), 2 needles, roughly 80 brass thimbles (Figure 79), 21 razors made of steel, brass and wood, 20 wholly or partly preserved candle snuffers, i.e., ‘scissors’ for putting out candles (Figures 81, 82), 10 buckles, 4 rings, 2 weights for a scale with uneven arms (beam balance), 2 round weights of unknown purpose, a stamp to mark wooden packaging (Figure 83) and an oval brass box containing another precision scale and several small weights.42 Among the wooden packaging, baskets, boxes, crates and casks were registered at the site (Figures 84, 86). The published data indicate that the baskets were used as packaging for the glass cups and window panes, the small crates (30 x 30 x 75 cm) for the tin rods; the large crates of unknown dimensions for parts of hanging chandeliers; Petricioli, 1981: 40, 42; Filep et al., 2013: 126. Petricioli, S., 1970: 48-49; 1981, 38-43; 1974, 75; Mileusnić, 2004, passim; Schick, 2006, 110-112; Filep et al., 2013, 126-131. 41 42

51

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 76. Restored wooden box with brass forged hawk bells; box – height 20 cm, width 40 cm; thimbles – Ø 1.5 cm, 1.7 cm and 2 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

the larger crates (80 x 110  cm) for cinnabar ingots; the somewhat smaller crates (80 x 53 x 37 cm) and boxes (54 x 30 x 18 cm) for the razors, and the long oval boxes (ca. 40 x 25 x 20 cm) for the brass bells.43 The round wooden casks were recorded in three dimensions, of which those with a height of 55 cm and diameter of 40 cm contained the rolls of sheet brass, those that are 70 cm high and 50 cm in diameter contained lead white ingots, and those that are 100 cm high and 70 cm in diameter held parts of wall sconces. The particular value of the broad array of finds is reflected Figure 77. Bell manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568. 52

Radulić, 1970: 7; Petricioli, S., 1970: 49; Shick, 2006: 110-112; Filep et al., 2013: 131. 43

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 78. Non restored and restored brass pins; length 6 cm, Ø 0.3 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 79. Restored set of forged and embossed brass thimbles; height 2 cm, Ø 1.8 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

in the direct contact with items from the everyday life of the Renaissance world, which we most often recognize from written and pictorial sources. The luxuriously appointed Das Ständebuch (Book of Trades), written by Hans Sachs and Jost Amman and published in Frankfurt in 1568, shows a series of craftsmen of that era, and the site at Gnalić is a rich source of their output (Figures 72, 77, 80, 85). 3.4. Rescue from renewed neglect After the next period of neglect, in 2003, Mitja Guštin (Slovenia), Sauro Gelichi (Italy) and Konrad Spindler (Austria) launched an international project called ‘The 53

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 80. Thimble manufacturer; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.

Figure 81. Cast brass and iron candle snuffer; length 17.8 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Figure 82. Cast brass and iron candle snuffers; length 17.8 cm; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum). 54

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 83. Seal of an unknown merchant with a cross and the initials P M, for marking wooden packaging, found in 1973, and lost today (after Filep, 2013).

Figure 84. Top side of the small barrel; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

Heritage of the Serenissima’44 and incorporated the shipwreck at Gnalić into it. The project resulted in an attractive English-language publication entitled The Venetian Shipwreck at Gnalić, published in 2004 in English, followed by an edition in Croatian, which was aimed at attracting public attention in a contemporary manner. Within the framework of this project, Irena Lazar, Hugh Willmot and Caroline Jackson also systematically analysed the glass finds stored in the Local Heritage Museum in Biograd. A group of international experts – not, unfortunately, including experts from Croatian institutions – published the results of their study of individual types of finds from the shipwreck in the anthology The Heritage of Serenissima (Koper, 2006). All of this clearly demonstrated the insufficient care for the items from the shipwreck up to that time, as well as the considerable work awaiting experts from various fields in the Museum and at the site.45 Thanks to this situation, in recent years a positive mood has gradually arisen around the site. During the shoot for the television series ‘Secrets of the Seafloor – Great Shipwrecks of the Adriatic’ in 2005, a one-day expert inspection confirmed that research at the site has not nearly been concluded (Figure 88). After several unsuccessful attempts to secure the funding needed to resume undersea research, on 5 July 2011 a round table discussion was held in Biograd na Moru on the topic of ‘The Shipwreck at Gnalić: Research History, the Problems of Conserving Archaeological Finds, Plans for the Future and Application of Underwater Information and The name Serenissima in the project’s title pertains to the Most Serene Republic of Venice (Ven./Ital. Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia). Guštin et al., 2006. 45 Guštin, Gelichi, 2006. 44

55

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 85. Cooper; Hans Sachs, Das Ständebuch, illustrations by Jost Amman, Frankfurt am Main, 1568.

Figure 86. Reconstructed wooden packaging for products from the ship’s cargo; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (after Božulić, 2013).

Communication Technologies’.46 The pioneers of Gnalić research, Sofija Petricioli, Zdenko Brusić and Dalibor Martinović actively participated in the round table, as did the representatives of many institutions interested in participation in the project to research, conserve and present the shipwreck (Figure 88). The round table was held within the framework of a project financed as part of the UNESCO Participation Programme 2010-2011, jointly organized by the University of Zadar, the Town of Biograd na Moru, the Texas A&M University Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation and the University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. 46

56

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 87. Entirely preserved window panes in the surface layer of the site in 2005 (photo: D. Frka).

Figure 88. Round table in Biograd na Moru in 2011 (photo: M. Brzac). 57

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 89. ROV survey at the site in 2011 (photo: M. Brzac).

This was followed by a field workshop, during which the site’s existing status was documented with the help of cutting-edge technical aids. Using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), the site’s wider area was recorded with multibeam sonar, while a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) was used to monitor the movements and work of divers (Figure 89). On several occasions it was incorporated into the field portion of the programme of the international interdisciplinary workshop called ‘Breaking the Surface’, aimed at the application of underwater robotics in marine biology and geology, underwater archaeology and marine safety, so more intensive discussions thereon resumed.47 A series of professional inspections of the broad surface from which archaeological finds were intensively removed in the past ascertained the existence of lumber from the ship’s hull, entirely unprotected and exposed to the sea’s destructive impact and marine organisms (Figure 90), the existence of numerous fragments as well as whole objects from the ship’s cargo. On 6 and 7 October 2011 a seminar was held in Dubrovnik on the topic of ‘The Future of the Heritage of Wood Shipbuilding in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era,’ once more gathering an international group of experts extremely interested Since 2009, a field workshop has been continually organized and led by the University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (Automation and Computer Engineering Department and Underwater Systems and Technologies Laboratory), (https://bts.fer.hr/). 47

58

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 90. Parts of wooden structure in the surface layer of the site in 2011 (photo: M. Brzac).

in continuing exploration of the shipwreck at Gnalić. After multiple attempts by the University of Zadar and the Biograd na Moru Local Heritage Museum to secure the initial funding for the continuation of research and adequate protection of the site, in 2012 the Ministry of Culture decided to provide only modest underwriting for the project. A part of the funds were allocated by the Town of Biograd na Moru, the Centre for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation (CMAC) at Texas A&M University and the American Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA), which facilitated the commencement of more systematic underwater research forty-five years after the site’s official discovery and the first rescue campaigns (Figures 9195).48 In June 2012, the systematic documentation of the status of the finds in the Local Heritage Museum in Biograd commenced, while trial underwater archaeological research encompassing a surface of 16 m2 was conducted from 25 June to 5 July. Items from the ship’s cargo were still confirmed among the elements of the ship’s structure. Particularly notable among them are wooden casks filled with cone-shaped ingots of lead white used to produce the highest-quality white pigment (Figure 96). In 2011, after four full decades, research in the State Archives in Venice also resumed, bringing to light hundreds of documents on the ship and the events it 48

Radić Rossi et al., 2013: 88.

59

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 91. From 1967 to 2012 – 45 years later the excavation continued (photo: archive of the Zadar Conservation Department and The Shipwreck at Gnalić Project).

experienced over fourteen years of sailing, on its owners, its shipwright, captains and crew members, on the numerous merchants who loaded their goods onto it and on everyone who was directly or indirectly associated with its life story.49 From the very beginning, the project rested on an interdisciplinary approach and international collaboration which grew and flourished over time. Given the obvious positive results of the undersea trial investigations and the archival research, as well as interest in the site’s significance that had been aroused at the European and global levels, the project ‘The Shipwreck at Gnalić – A Mirror to the Renaissance World’, which is rooted in collaboration between archaeologists, historians, art historians, biologists, geologists, geographers, various types of engineers and other experts who can substantially contribute in their fields to the interpretation of the Gnalić finds in the Adriatic, Mediterranean, European and global contexts. Research in all fields continues to this day,50 while the scholarly, scientific and presentation potential of the site and its finds point to the need for long-term planning and many more years of committed effort. The preliminary results of historical research were published in Radić Rossi et al., 2013. See the second section of this book for further details. 50 Exploration of the site at Gnalić is being done thanks to support from the institutions and organizations specified in this book’s colophon. 49

60

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 92. Initial trench across the site in 2012 (photo: M. Brzac).

Figure 93. 3D visualisation of the excavated area in 2012 (model: K. Yamafune). 61

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 94. Discovering the hull in 2012 (photo: M. Brzac).

In contrast to the former dearth of trained divers, suitable gear, methodological knowledge and research experience, today’s situation differs considerably, so underwater research is conducted under the constant supervision of experts, and precise documentation is compiled thanks to modern technical aids. The advantages of the current era do not diminish the value of the work done previously. Taking into account the threat of the site being thoroughly ransacked and then forgotten, the first researchers performed a heroic feat. It is only unfortunate that their efforts were not resumed far earlier, at least with regard to protection of the site, because the degradation that occurred over the past four decades would have been considerably smaller, and the quantity of salvaged items and data much greater. A detailed analysis of the remains of the ship itself, which Ksenija Radulić deemed exceptionally important to the study of 16th-century shipbuilding, was an important facet of the project ‘AdriaS – Archaeology of Adriatic Shipbuilding and Seafaring’, and continued in the framework of the project ‘NEREAS - Numerical Reconstruction in the Archaeology of Seafaring’, which received financial support from the Croatian Science Foundation.51 The project involved study of the technological development of Adriatic navigation and shipbuilding from prehistory to the Early Modern era, The projects were registered with the Croatian Science Foundation under numbers IP-2014-09-8211 and IP-2020-02-3420. 51

62

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 95. Discovered part of the hull in 2012 (photo: M. Brzac).

Figure 96. Ingots of lead white found during the excavation in 2012 (photo: M. Brzac). 63

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 97. Release of sidescan sonar at the site in 2013 (photo: I. Radić Rossi).

so that the site at the islet of Gnalić fited into it perfectly. Thus, the sole systematic archaeological investigation of a large merchant vessel from the 16th century, certainly built in Venice, which is under way at the islet of Gnalić, has begun to bring to light many intriguing and thus far unknown data that could not be found through the available archival materials. After the first demonstration of underwater information-communication technologies in 2011, in collaboration with the University of Patras Geology Department52 the seafloor was imaged two years later by side-scan sonar, a magnetometer and subbottom profiler (Figures 97, 98), thereby documenting the precise position of the ship’s visible surface remains, the site’s position at the very edge of a rocky base that gently descends from the islet and site on which the hull rests and then drastically plunges to a greater depth (Figure 99), and the thickness of the layer containing the archaeological finds (5.5 to 1.5 m). In 2016, within the framework of the already mentioned ‘Breaking the Surface’ workshop, experimental documentation of the situation at the site was conducted, using the Girona 500 AUV from the University of Girona Underwater Robotics Research Centre.53 The AUV, equipped with a DSLR (digital single lens reflex) stereo system, LEDs (light emitting diodes), a panoramic camera, a Bumblebee2 stereo camera and an Imagenex Delta T multiple receiver sonar system, was successfully Radić Rossi, 2014. CIRS – Centre d’investigaciȯ en Robȯtica Submarina, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain. The group of researchers who participated were led by Pere Ridao, the Centre’s director. 52 53

64

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 98. Tracklines of the sidescan sonar, magnetometer and sub-bottom profiler survey in 2013 (plan: archive of the Laboratory of Marine Geology & Physical Oceanography of the University of Patras).

Figure 99. Result of the sub-bottom profiler survey in 2013 (plot: archive of the Laboratory of Marine Geology & Physical Oceanography of the University of Patras). 65

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 100. Release of the AUV Girona 500 of the Research Centre for Underwater Robotics of the University of Girona (photo: I. Radić Rossi).

Figure 101. Beginning of the mission of the AUV Girona 500’s mission (photo: K. Zubčić).

deployed to create a photomosaic, 3D models and a 360º video record of the current situation at the undersea excavation (Figures 100-103). This confirmed the possibility of automated documentation of underwater archaeological sites, particularly in situations when they are difficult to access by recreational or professional divers.54 3.5. New insights and findings The first research campaigns were primarily aimed at recovering sensitive items, while the wooden remains of the ship observed in the surface layer and in trial trenches were only superficially sketched into the site’s schematic without the According to effective Croatian laws, recreational diving is permitted to depths of 40 m, while the permissible depth for professional diving has thus far not been legally restricted. 54

66

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 102. Two-dimensional photomosaic of the site, made with the help of the AUV Girona 500, detail (photomosaic: archive of the Research Centre for Underwater Robotics of the University of Girona).

Figure 103. Virtual 3D model of the site, made with the help of the AUV Girona 500, detail (model: archive of the Research Centre for Underwater Robotics of the University of Girona).

possibility for a more thorough analysis (Figures 104, 105). Therefore, the longheld prevailing view in the Croatian scholarly literature was that it was a merchant galley, a long and narrow oar-propelled vessel that sank in upright position, with its prow facing westward. This supposition resulted in the notion that only the ship’s bottom with its ballast and part of the cargo were preserved at the site, while over time the ship’s flanks succumbed to the action of the sea. The notion of a rounded merchant sailing vessel had already appeared in Gasparetto’s works in the 1970s, and then in the publication The Heritage of the Serenissima.55 Even so, the best confirmations for this hypothesis were found during systematic archival and archaeological research. Besides the fact that documents were found in the State Archives in Venice which contain information on the vessel’s structure and features,56 during archaeological investigations wonderfully preserved pieces of the ship’s frame were discovered, confirming the archival findings, but also 55 56

Gasparetto, 1973: 79; 1976: 413; 1977: 381; Beltrame, 2006: 93-94. See the chapter ‘The ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna’.

67

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 104. Working sketch of the situation at the site, and the results of the 1967-1973 and 1996 research campaigns (sketch: Z. Brusić, on the basis of documentation from Zadar Conservation Department).

Figure 105. Working sketch of the remains of wooden ship structure, discovered during the 1967-1973 and 1996 research campaigns (sketch: Z. Brusić, on the basis of documentation from Zadar Conservation Department).

entirely altering the impression on the actual situation at the archaeological site. Instead of a ship resting on its keel, with the prow facing west, what can actually be seen on the seafloor are the remains of the ship’s starboard side, with the keel on the northern extreme, the stern on the western side and the prow facing east (Figures 106, 107). This insight also clarified certain earlier inconsistencies, such as, for example, the original position of the two ship’s guns cast in Venice in 1582. The guns found next to each other could not have been in this position if they had been originally installed on opposite sides of a vessel resting upright on the seafloor. The collapse of the ship’s structure would have led the guns to be at the opposite peripheries of the site, which judging by the sketches and descriptions from the first exploration campaigns was not the case. Furthermore, the large guns on merchant 68

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 106. Orthogonal plan of the investigated part of the site in 2014, made on the basis of multilayer virtual 3D model (plan: K. Yamafune, R. Torres; model: K. Yamafune, R. Torres, S. Govorčin).

Figure 107. Orthogonal plan of the excavated part of the site in 2017, made on the basis of multilayer virtual 3D model (plan and model: K. Yamafune).

ships normally functioned as defensive weapons and were situated on a ship’s aft rather than its fore.57 The realization that the side on which the large guns were found is actually the stern rather than the prow and that the ship sank on its starboard bow, so that during the course of degradation of its timber the stern gun on the left fell to the immediate vicinity of the right-hand one entirely clarified the remaining inconsistencies, such as, Cf., for example, the depiction of the ship on the gravestone of Alessandro Contarini, a general of the Most Serene Republic, who died in 1553, which was made by Michele Sanmichelli (Ronzani, 1831: 9; Cannarsi, 2004). 57

69

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 108. Orthogonal plan of the entire surface of the site (about 60 x 15 m), made on the basis of the 3D model (plan and model: K. Yamafune).

for example, the position of barrels at a greater depth than the ship’s ballast and the high quantity of glass finds that scattered south of the preserved portion of the ship’s hull. The series of corroded metallic objects recorded in a straight line on the western side of the site (Figure 104) have also been interpreted differently thanks to this new insight. Although excavations have not yet reached this area, it would appear that these are metal elements that fastened the rudder to the sternpost. A trial excavation campaign in 2012 encompassed 12 m2; over the next two years, it was expanded to cover a surface of approximately 120 m2 (Figure 106), and by 2018 the undersea dig encompassed over 200 m2 (Figure 107). A detailed record of the situation in the surface layer of the site was also taken, encompassing an area of approximately 900 m2 (Figure 108). This is the main concentration of finds directly tied to the ship’s hull, not counting the space over which the items from the ship’s cargo were scattered after it sank, from which a high quantity of glass items was recovered during the campaign conducted in 1996.58 Given what was known up to that point, in 1996 it seemed that the glass items in baskets had floated from the ship and sank several dozen meters away from the actual wreckage.59 Based on more recent findings, it has become clear that these were items that scattered on the slope of the seabed as the ship turned on its right flank. The arrangement of finds at a greater depth than the actual ship’s remains may partly also be a result of salvage operations that began immediately after the unfortunate event, and based on data from the archival sources, they were carried out at precisely this point.60 Brusić, 1996. Lazar, Willmott, 2006: 21; Filep et al., 2013: 32-33. 60 According to the documents, items were recovered from depths of roughly 31 m, which corresponds to the depth at which these finds lay (see note 292). The interior of the ship’s hull was certainly forced open 58 59

70

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 109. Documenting the ship’s structure in 2018 (photo: K. Yamafune).

Even though it is still too early to draw any conclusions about the degree to which the ship’s hull has been preserved, based on the wooden elements thus far observed in the partially explored central southern section of the site, it may be assumed that the first, and perhaps second deck are there, but the hypothesis about the second deck will have to be verified by future investigations. Systematic removal of sediments revealed the remains of the central section of the keelson61 and two lateral elements that formed the mast step, and also a series of lateral stanchions that were held in the desired position by the aforementioned elements (Figures 109-112). Moreover, removal of the ballast stones led to the discovery of the preserved parts of a ship’s pump (Figures 113-115) used to remove water from the bilge. The pump was normally placed in the lowest part of a ship’s hull, and it was surrounded by a structure of wooden boards in order to avoid the collapse of the ballast and other loose materials. It consisted of a wooden tube, with moulding on the bottom that allowed for its fixture on the ship’s frame, a movable rod and a dale. Two valves appeared in the ship’s pumps: lower valve is installed in the lower part of the tube, while the upper valve is attached to a movable rod.62 Suction pumps probably appeared in the 15th century, and they were thoroughly described by Georgius Agriola in the work De re metallica, published in Basel in 1556 (Figure 116).63 That they were already in during salvage operations, which may have resulted in further scattering of destroyed items that were not worth the trouble of salvaging. 61 The keelson is a lengthwise internal element of a ship’s structure which adheres to the position of the keel, and it is installed above the frame timbers. In local Croatian speech, the terms paramezal, primezal, etc. are used, derived from the Italian paramezzale. 62 Oertling, 1989: 593, fig. 6. Batur, Radić Rossi, 2021. 63 Georgii Agricolae De re metallica libri XII, Froben, Basel, 1556: VI, 176.

71

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 110. Documenting the ship’s pump area in 2018 (photo: K. Yamafune).

Figure 111. View of the site during the research in 2017 (photo: B. Vukičević). 72

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 112. View of the well-preserved part of the ship’s structure during the 2018 survey – the central part of the ship with the mast step (photo: K. Yamafune).

Figure 113. Ship’s pump area on the orthogonal plan of the site (plan: K. Yamafune). 73

Figure 114. Lower part of the pump tube (photo: K. Yamafune).

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 115. Drawing of the lower part of the pump tube, generated from a virtual 3D model of the find (drawing: K. Yamafune, K. Batur).

use in ships at the start of the 16th century has been proven by the discovery of parts of bilge pumps at the Molasses Reef site at the Turks and Caiscos Islands north-east of Cuba, where the remains of a sunken Spanish or Portuguese vessel were explored.64 Systematic excavations have led to a more clearly defined distribution of raw materials in the ship’s cargo, among which the most noteworthy are large casks filled with red ochre (Figure 117); small casks filled with conical ingots of lead white (Figure 118); a strikingly yellow loose powder which, based on analysis, is probably a substance based on arsenic sulphide (Figures 119, 120) and clusters of red mercury sulphide (Figures 121, 122). Moreover, the zone with a high quantity of elemental mercury was more precisely located (Figure 123); its presence at the site had already been presumed earlier, partially due to its transportation in its elemental state, and also partially to its seepage from mirrors, on which the reflective surface was made by an amalgam of tin and elemental mercury.65 More recent investigations have led to the knowledge that, besides the already known wooden packaging, there are also various oval and circular casks at the site (Figure 124), with heights of 85-120 cm and diameters of 80-100 cm, which contained bright red ochre. The partially preserved remains of seven such casks were found in situ, but the two westernmost ones, due to their poor condition, were removed in pieces Oetling, 1989. Kelez, 1970: 42. Cooperation with the Ruđer Bošković Institute’s Marine and Environmental Research Department (Martinska Station at Šibenik) proved invaluable in the handling of all of these materials. The department monitors concentrations of heavy metals in sediment and the water column and places particularly sensitive materials in storage. Željko Kwokal, Neven Cukrov and Vladimir Cuculić were engaged to test the concentration of heavy metals in the sediments and water column. For more information about the raw materials present in the ship cargo see part 3.5.1. of this book. 64 65

74

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 116. Display of the appearance and use of the suction pump; G. Agricola, De re metallica, Basel, 1556.

Figure 117. Cleaning of barrels filled with iron oxide-based colouring material (photo: S. Govorčin).

Figure 118. Cleaning of small barrels filled with conical ingots of lead white (photo: S. Govorčin).

75

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 119. Round window panes in the sediment rich in arsenic- based colouring material (photo: S. Govorčin).

Figure 120. Cleaning of ship structure with preserved traces of arsenic-based colouring material (photo: S. Govorčin).

Figures 121, 121a. Discovery of irregular chunks of mercury sulphide (photo: S. Govorčin). 76

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 122. Irregular chunks of mercury sulphide (photo: S. Govorčin).

Figure 123. Removal of elemental mercury from the sediment above the ship structure (photo: B. Vukičević).

during research work. In 2018 the next cask in this row was successfully raised whole in collaboration with the Italian Culture Ministry’s Istituto per la conservazione ed il restauro, thanks to the innovative technique of extracting sensitive items with the help of carbon fibre (Figures 125-128).66 A group of roughly forty smaller casks (Figure 124) was discovered south of the large casks filled with red ochre. With a height of about 45 cm and diameter of roughly 30 cm, they are filled with lead white ingots and straw, of which some are entirely preserved. The technique of extracting items with the help of carbon fibres was developed by Barbara Davidde and Marco Ciabbatoni and their associates, within the framework of the EU SASMAP project, ‘Development of Tools and Techniques to Survey, Assess, Stabilise, Monitor and Preserve Underwater Archaeological Sites.’ 66

77

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 124. 3D visualisation of the original appearance of the barrels, found in situ in the ship’s hold (model: Novena Ltd.). Figure 125. Preparation of carbon fibre substrate for extraction of preserved part of wooden barrel, conducted by B. Davidde and his team from the Institute for Conservation and Restoration of the Italian Ministry of Culture (photo: B. Vukičević).

Figure 126. Raising of the preserved part of the wooden barrel with the help of a carbon fibre substrate (photo: B. Vukićević).

78

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 127. Recovery of the preserved part of the wooden barrel (photo: B. Vukičević).

Figure 128. Initial conservation treatment of the recovered part of the barrel (photo: B. Vukičević).

Over the past ten years, a series of items has been found, of which many had already been known in the earlier repertoire of recovered finds. It has been confirmed that for packing the window panes (Figure 129), the layers of straw were used (Figure 131). It would, however, be worthwhile to note several well-preserved decorated mirror panes and smaller fragments with variants of decorations not seen earlier (Figures 130, 132). Noteworthy among the new finds is a lead stamp bearing an image of Nicolò da Ponte, the eighty-seventh Venetian doge (1578-1585). The obverse contains the figures of St. Mark and the doge, who is receiving from the latter a banner accompanied by the inscription DVX. The edge of the stamp bears the inscription NIC(OLAUS).DE PONTE = DUX = S(ANCTUS).M(ARCUS).VENETI(ARUM) with the abbreviated names of the doge, St. Mark and Venice. The inscription on the reverse reads: NICO/LAVS. DE/PONTE.DEI/GRA.DVX.VENETIAR/ET, meaning ‘Nicolò da Ponte, by God’s mercy 79

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 130. Decorated window pane found in the surface layer of the site (photo: M. Lete).

Figure 129. Entirely preserved window pane (photo: I. Radić Rossi).

Figure 131. Layers of straw, used to protect the window panes during transport (photo: M. Martinčak).

Figure 132. Decorated window panes (photo: B. Vukičević).

80

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations the doge of Venice, etc.’ (Figure 133).67 The stamp was probably used as a seal for goods sent by the Senate as a gift to the sultan, sultana and grand vizier. In the vessel’s stern section, in the space where the doge’s stamp was found, a high concentration of pins, glass beads, small buckles and the already mentioned lead seals (Figure 134), used by cloth merchants to stamp their goods, were discovered. All of this indicates the possible storage of various fabrics which we know accounted for a considerable share of the ship’s cargo. The overall number of lead seals bearing various symbols that have yet to be more thoroughly studied and linked to specific merchants has thus grown to about twenty. An interesting find is certainly the Figure 133. Lead seal of the Venetian commemorative bronze medal of the doge (Nicolò da Ponte, 1578-1585), found Polish Brethren reform movement during underwater research in 2014 (Minor Reformed Church of Poland) (photo: S. Govorčin). that was established in 1565 after its split with the Polish Calvinists. It was considered one of the most progressive religious movements of its time.68 This exceptionally pacifist movement negated the existence of the Holy Trinity, propagating the singularity of God and the exclusively human nature of Jesus. The front of the medal features a portrait of Jesus in left profile, accompanied by the inscription in Hebrew, ‘Jesus the man’, while the reverse bears the inscription, also in Hebrew, ‘The Messiah of the Kingdom of Peace came in genuine human form’ (Figure 135). The medal, commemorating a journey to the Holy Land, had to have belonged to a crew member or passenger on board at the time of the shipwreck. The uncounted glass beads were long just a group of attractive multi-coloured items not subject to special concern. Thus, in the published literature their quantity was expressed in rather ambiguous numerical and weight terms. Keeping in mind that during campaigns from 2012 to 2018, slightly more than 15,000 pieces were recovered from digs and the surface layer, the total number of finds thus far is at least five 67 68

Rosada, 1985: 133-135. Sobolewski, 2017.

81

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 134. Lead seals found in 2014 (drawing: S. Čule). 82

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations times higher. Given the situation at the site, the continuation of research will certainly result in an additional increase in the quantity of these quite popular glass adornments, which were made in many European workshops based on the Venetian models. In Venice they were called paternostri, so they can indeed be found under this designation in cargo manifests.69 In 2017, systematic work commenced to count and classify the materials which has thus far resulted in the identification of over 70 typological groups, specified by shape, colour, decoration and/or structure.70 Out of the four possible crafting techniques, the beads from Gnalić were made exclusively by the drawing technique, typical of the 16th century, and in terms of shapes they can be divided into tubular and circular (including barrel-shaped and oval) (Figures 136-138). The astonishing popularity of these items during and after the great discoveries led to their mass production and sanctions for its regulation, which resulted in a Venetian state monopoly.71

Figure 135. Bronze medal of the Polish Brethren reformist movement or Minor Reformed Church of Poland (photo: S. Govorčin).

Given the intense field research which still has not encompassed half of the site, one can justifiably expect that the quantity of items from the ships gear and cargo will continue to grow. Furthermore, the quantity of information on the many interesting and still insufficiently studied aspects of the late Renaissance world increases with each research campaign. Today this is one of the best arguments in favour of continuing the complex and demanding work at the site, which is otherwise threatened with gradual degradation and, ultimately, ruin. See note 294. The typology of glass beads was established by K. E. Kidd and M. A. Kidd (1970), and it was supplemented by K. Karklins (1982). 71 Francis Jr., 1988: 13. 69 70

83

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 136. Glass beads collected on the surface of the site during one dive (photo: M. Baričević).

Figure 137. Workshop on the typology of glass beads; Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru (photo: K. Batur).

Figure 138. Glass bead in the shape of a gooseberry; Local Heritage Museum Biograd na Moru (photo: I. Asić, Croatian Historical Museum).

84

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations 3.5.1. Identification of the colouring materials72 A little-known fact, often neglected even in scholarly publications, is that the ship’s cargo contained considerable quantities of raw materials.73 Even though this is a unique archaeological find of materials for the production of paints and dyes preserved in quantities intended for the eastern market, nobody in scholarly circles has delved into this topic in any significant detail. The overseas trade in colouring materials in Venice has not been systematically studied due to a lack of sources, i.e., data on the export and import of such materials from the end of the 16th century. Knowledge on trade in colouring materials is currently based on data from a limited number of documents, such as tariff value assessments, port logs that register arrivals and departures of ships, court trials directly involving merchants and cargo manifests. Nonetheless, these documents do not contain comprehensive data on goods exports and imports, and colouring materials are only mentioned sporadically. Even though one would expect the State Archives in Venice to have documents that provide sufficient data on the raw materials trade, such sources have only been preserved in scant numbers or they are completely absent for the entire period covering the end of the 16th century, thus impeding the study of this matter.74 Even though colouring materials can be found in documents issued by insurance companies on the assessment of the value of loaded cargo,75 it is impossible to depend solely on these sources, because they only pertain to ships that were looted, experienced some other mishap or sank. In the effort to gather the most possible data on the availability of these materials, over the past two decades archival research was conducted with the aim of studying the profession of so-called ‘colour merchants’ (Ven. vendecolori), active in the heart of Venice during the 16th and 17th centuries.76 Shop inventories, partnership contracts and evidence of international trade only provide an overview of materials available in Venice.77 The shipwreck at Gnalić, dated to 1583, allows for the examination of a shipment of raw materials sent from Venice, and it is a reliable source of information to study this problem set. A find of this type facilitates a direct inspection of the materials, preserved in almost identical condition as when they were taken from the workshop or retail outlet and loaded into the ship’s cargo hold. Documentation of the situation as found at the shipwreck site makes it possible to supplement the historical sources; while historical sources provide the terminology of raw materials and their packaging, so for the first time it is possible to visualize their appearance and also define the precise chemical composition of the materials. The shipwreck at The text summarises the results reported in Batur, 2021. Batur, Radić Rossi, 2019. 74 Matthew, 2011: 302. 75 Tenenti, 1959. 76 Matthew, 2002; Matthew, Berrie, 2010; DeLancey, 2011. 77 Matthew, Berrie, 2010. 72 73

85

The Shipwreck at Gnalić the islet of Gnalić provides a different perspective on research into trade in colouring materials. During the first excavations undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s, a considerable quantity of raw materials and semi-finished products packed in wooden casks and crates was registered. At the time, the divers recounted their observations on the presence of materials that diverged from their surroundings, i.e., they were certainly not a part of the undersea ambient. Sofija Petricioli, the curator of the National Museum in Zadar, understood the potential of recovering these materials and their significance to the final interpretation of the site, so in correspondence with Ljudevit Barić, the director of the Mineralogy and Petrography Museum in Zagreb, she noted the following: ‘We discovered that our ship was so large and so full of the most diverse materials that it exceeded our hydroarchaeological capacity. We worked at the location where the concentration of cargo was the highest, so we found countless still unopened casks full of all kinds of things. We are no longer finding as many artisanal craft items (although we did find several whole glass items and approximately 4-5 kg of glass beads), but rather far more raw materials of various types. Thus we came upon casks containing some intensively yellow pigment, casks with red pigment that as opposed to the yellow does not dissolve in seawater, and then a dark brown pigment, brass rods, cones of lead carbonate, pans made of white sheet metal, shelled almonds, a large cluster of anise, a heavy sand that to our non-expert eyes appeared to be an ore for extracting mercury, and of course there is still an immense pile of gravel down there which the divers claim is not naturally occurring. We also recovered sand that is not the same as that on the seafloor.’. The finds of raw materials were first published in the paper ‘On raw materials’ by Ivo Kelez78 in Vrulje: Glasilo Narodnog Muzeja u Zadru 1 (the official bulletin of the National Museum in Zadar) dedicated to the interpretation of the shipwreck and underscoring its importance in the context of Late Renaissance seafaring. Although the value of the raw materials found in the shipwreck at Gnalić had already been recognized at that point, the desire to conduct characterization analyses was beyond the scope of possibility. Interest in studying the raw materials once more arose during underwater excavations in the 2012-2014 period, when the contours of casks with unknown contents began to be discerned beneath the sediment (Figure 139). Preliminary analyses of the samples gathered at the site were conducted at the Department of Geology of the Faculty of Science of the University of Zagreb. Testing of the composition of these samples continued in 2018 at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (CICRP) in Marseille, France, and in 2019 in the laboratory of the Ateliergebouw in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Both are institutions with professional and scholarly staff specializing in the study of pigments in artistic painting. Given the 78

Kelez, 1970.

86

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 139. Cleaning of the barrel area (photo: S. Govorčin).

complex and heterogeneous composition of the samples recovered from the shipwreck at Gnalić, it was crucial for experts who understand the possibilities and limitations of characterization analysis just as well as historical matters to contribute to research and interpretations. Implementation of characterization analysis on raw materials had two specific objectives. Analyses were conducted above all for the sake of identification, so that the ship’s cargo can be studied in the context of trade in the Early Modern era. Then the results of characterization analyses served as the foundation to form a reference collection of raw material from the shipwreck. The future aspiration is to form a mineral collection in physical and virtual form that would be available to scientists who want to conduct a comparative analysis in the fields of art history, archaeology and geology. The methodology for research into raw materials has been broken down into four phases: • • • •

underwater excavations and sampling; documentation of samples; characterization analyses and identification; consultation of secondary historical sources.

Underwater excavations and sampling required detailed preparations in the sense of studying the documentation from excavations conducted in the 1960s, 1970s and 1996 and filed in the Conservation Department in Zadar, as well as documentation from the project ‘The Shipwreck at Gnalić – A Mirror to the Renaissance World’. Furthermore, in 2017 a detailed inspection of the site was conducted, during which the 87

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 140. Conical ingot of lead white (photo: O. Guillon).

Figure 141. Leather-like material and straw around the lead white ingots (photo: M. Martinčak).

most essential positions for sampling were registered. They were then descriptively and photographically documented. Sampling of select positions at the site was then done. Photodocumentation was done for each sample, including visible (VIS), ultraviolet (UV), infrared (IR) and infrared false colour (IRfc) photography. Photography under different types of radiation exposure or wavelengths simplified the selection of particles for analysis because different colours indicated contaminated portions of a sample. Photogrammetric documentation was done only on samples that required registration of the shape of the mould, which was the case for lead white. Microscopic observations were made to describe the composition of the samples, i.e., to ascertain whether the sample was exceptionally homogenous or heterogeneous, and then to describe the shapes, colours and sizes of the particles. Characterization analyses are conducted with the help of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF); scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX); X-ray powder diffraction (XRD); Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); and Raman spectroscopy (RS). If these analyses suggest the existence of organic materials, ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) is then employed. The results of characterization analyses revealed the composition of the samples gathered at the site, and then they were studied in the context of trade in colouring materials in the late 16th century by using secondary historical sources. The most numerous in the ship’s lower deck are 50 cm high casks filled with cones of lead white (Figure 140; lead carbonate, cerussite, sometimes in combination of basic 88

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 142. Barrels with red ochre on the orthogonal plan of the site, detail (plan: K. Yamafune).

lead carbonate, hydrocerussite), wrapped in textile and straw (Figure 141). The area of the casks is dominated by seven with a length of one meter, of which six are filled with red ochre (Figure 142), i.e., a mixture of haematite, quartz and alunite. Other materials for painting were found outside of their original transport packaging in various parts of the lower deck. Besides lead white and red ochre, also confirmed was the existence of vermilion or cinnabar (Figure 143; mercury (II) sulphide), minium (Figure 144; lead II, IV oxide or red lead), realgar and pararealgar (Figure 145; arsenic sulphide-based material), stibnite or antimonite (Figure 146; antimony III sulphide), elementary mercury (Figure 147) and red lake pigment (Figure 148), prepared from an alunite base, with a sediment of organic dye made of cochineal (carmine), the red madder root (alizarin) and brazilwood (brazilin). It is vital to note that mercury was not used directly as a pigment, rather it was used to make mercury sulphide or vermilion, and it was often used for gilding or silver-plating of items and to make mirrors.79 The presence of mercury in the ship’s cargo may further be linked to the supplies of the ship’s physician, because it was used to treat a series of ailments, so it has been confirmed in the same context in the cargo of the royal naval vessel Mary Rose,80 which sank in England in 1545, and the Kronan, which sank in Sweden in 1676.81 Matthew, Berrie, 2010: 246. Mäss, Russow 2016. 81 Lindeke, Ohlson 2018: 70-71. 79 80

89

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 143. Chunk of mercury (II) sulphide (photo: O. Guillon).

Figure 144. Chunks of lead (II, IV) oxide (photo: O. Guillon).

Figure 145. Residue of realgar and pararealgar on a stone (photo: O. Guillon). 90

Figure 146. Chunk of antimony (III) sulphide (photo: O. Guillon).

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 147. Mercury in drops and small pools (photo: B. Vukičević).

Figure 148. Red lake pigment balls (photo: K. Batur).

The purpose of the materials found in the shipwreck at Gnalić was not determined with any certainty. Even though the accepted view is that they were used as pigments for paints, these are materials that had many uses in everyday life. While pigments can be identified in the paintings of the Renaissance masters,82 the same materials are also mentioned in the context of painting furniture, musical instruments, books and playing cards, and they were also frequently used for terrazzo tiles.83 According to historical sources, it is known that most raw materials did not solely function as pigments for artistic painters; rather they had broad 82 83

Lazzarini, 1985. Matthew, Berrie, 2010.

91

The Shipwreck at Gnalić applications as cosmetic and medicinal preparations. Some of these materials were mandatory components for the production of glass and textile dying. When according designations to the materials from the shipwreck at Gnalić, the term pigment was intentionally avoided, since its use would constrain the use of finds exclusively as materials for artistic painters, eliminating the other uses that are suggested by historical sources. The finds exhibit a diverse spectrum of materials available on the market in Venice at the end of the 16th century. In historical sources, Venice had a reputation as a ‘city of colour,’ which may be interpreted in two ways. The visual identity of Venice, with its multi-coloured façades and frequent use of marble in architecture, left visitors enchanted, as reflected in the experiences of writers of travel guides at the time.84 On the other hand, the mercantile and productive capacity of Venice demonstrates the extent to which the epithet ‘city of colour’ was truly warranted. Besides being able to boast of the availability of minerals and organic materials of European, Oriental and even American origin, Venetian manufactories and shops were known for their unique techniques for processing and producing materials to craft paints and dyes. Given the quality of the products, production using special processes and a diversity of choices available for purchase, it comes as no surprise that a considerable number of merchants, master craftsmen and painters travelled to Venice to obtain painting supplies.85 It is particularly noteworthy that the ‘colour merchants’ (Ven. vendecolori) become prominent as a profession at the end of the 15th century. Several preserved inventories owned by colour merchants contain invaluable data on the raw materials on offer in Venice in the 16th century.86 Although previous publications have asserted with assurance that the highest quantity, as much as 75% of the cargo from the shipwreck at Gnalić, actually consists of glass,87 this conclusion should be taken with a measure of caution, given that the site has not been entirely explored, and the entire composition of the ship’s cargo cannot be gleaned from archival documents. The shares of cargo types can only be ascertained after the conclusion of systematic excavations and detailed processing of the mercantile cargo. Given the immense quantity of colouring materials, particularly lead white, one cannot discard the hypothesis that it was in fact this component of the cargo that was the most numerous, or had the highest volume in the ship’s lower deck (Figure 149). Thus far all that can be stated is that the cargo of colouring materials was certainly packed in the ship’s aft section, of which only a part of the casks from the starboard flank had been preserved in situ at the site. Excavations that have yet to be done in the coming years will confirm the number of casks in the ship’s fore section as well, and finally provide some insight into the ship’s entire mercantile inventory. Hills 1999, 4-15. Matthew, Berrie, 2010: 245. 86 Matthew 2002. 87 Lazar, Willmott, 2006: 25. 84 85

92

A sensational discovery and exciting explorations

Figure 149. Accumulation of barrels on the starboard of the ship’s hold (photo: S. Govorčin).

Finally, the shipwreck site at Gnalić testifies to the overseas trade in raw materials that generally served a decorative purpose, and then as components of medicinal and cosmetic preparations. The shipwreck at the islet of Gnalić is thus far the only direct evidence of Venetian overseas trade in the raw materials used to make paints and dyes during the Renaissance. Taking into account the significance of paint in the development of Renaissance art, but also everyday life at all levels of society, the raw materials from the ship that sank at Gnalić demonstrate the exceptional potential for further research. At the same time, given the types of materials specified in merchant cargo manifests88 and in merchant inventories,89 it is reasonable to expect an even more diverse cargo, which will be established by subsequent investigations.

88 89

Tenenti, 1959. Krischel 2002; 2010.

93

4. An amazing historical tale

Those who are familiar with the maritime heritage are quite familiar with the conviction of seafarers that a wooden vessel is not a lifeless thing, but rather a living being that is born, christened, and lives and dies; a being that seeks constant attention and care, but which faithfully serves its master. Many ships in the past have been forgotten by the ages and no one will ever know who their owners were, which seas they sailed and how they spent their lifetimes. Thanks to systematic historical research, however, the ship that sank at the islet of Gnalić had the good fortune to experience a different fate, and the hundreds of archival records are slowly revealing its tumultuous life story. 4.1. The ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna Every ship, in the past as now, bore a certain name, but in most of the archival records we have at our disposal today they are mostly not specified. Many names were reused too often, which made it impossible to distinguish between ships without also noting their owners. Thus in formal documentation only the latter information was preferred, even though that could also create confusion. Today we know that the ship that sank at the islet of Gnalić was built by and owned for less than two years by three respected Venetians, Benedetto da Lezze, Lazzaro Mocenigo and Piero Basadonna, so that in documents the ship was called Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna. In the year of the Battle of Lepanto, it fell into Ottoman hands, and after a full decade, it was purchased by the da Gagliano family for the sake of economic and political interests. Since then it appeared in documents as the Gagliana (Gagiana or Gaiana), and because of its unusually high deadweight the adjective grossa was added to its name. What follows is the true story about the ship, the shipwright, its last commanding officer and many other characters with different occupations, positions and reputations who were directly or indirectly involved. The data are substantial, but space is limited, so the intriguing fates of certain individuals have been left to the side for the time being. The archival materials have dictated the content and course of this story, and all extant lacunae are due to respect for the limitations imposed by available documents. If we succeed in rescuing the site from being forever forgotten, then one day – we believe – even those lacunae will be filled and the story will assume its definitive form. 94

An amazing historical tale 4.1.1. A new shipping company On Friday, 18 April 1567, three Venetian nobles – Lazzaro Mocenigo, Benedetto da Lezze and Piero Basadonna – met for an appointment in the shadow of the campanile on St. Mark’s Square, at the place where Messer Francesco Renio maintained his notary table.1 The purpose of their meeting was the establishment of a company and the construction of a large merchant vessel, with as yet unspecified deadweight,2 for voyages on western trade routes toward the coasts of the Iberian Peninsula, Flanders and England.3 Benedetto da Lezze and Piero Basadonna had already unsuccessfully launched a similar venture several years earlier, and their plans sank together with the ship Santa Maria degli Angeli in the waters off Lisbon in 1564.4 After the notary drafted the instrument of establishment (Figure 150), the three nobles also sought the document regulating the procurement of oak lumber for the needs of ship construction. To this end, their meeting on St. Mark’s Square was joined by Gabriele Bonazza, who under the conditions of a contract had undertaken the commitment to deliver an enormous quantity of oak by the end of May and then August of that same year. The place from which the lumber had to be delivered remains, unfortunately, unknown. We may only assume that the oak trunks had already been felled several months earlier and that the stacked logs were already awaiting sale somewhere. In compliance with the customs of times past, oak was supposed to be cut during the coldest winter months, taking into account the phases of the moon.5 In the contract drawn up by Francesco Renio, no mention was made of the expert who had to go to the forest in the winter and mark the most suitable trunks with the stamp of the buyers and oversee the removal of limbs and bark and the sawing of the trunks.6 Contracts stipulating such experts were concluded from mid-December through the end of February in order to allow for the timely procurement of lumber in line with established procedures.7 Given this situation, the three nobles bypassed this problem by appointing a representative who was supposed to inspect the trunks at the moment of their delivery at the shipyard, ‘accepting the good ones and rejecting the bad ones’.8 In order to more easily read the text, all personal names have been rendered according to the rules of contemporary Italian language. On the location of the notary table in the shadow of the campanile on St. Mark’s Square, see ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 11631, c. 62r. 2 Ibid., cc. 714r-714v, 717r. Even though shipwrights generally had a rather clear design idea prior to launching construction, they were often compelled to alter the shape and final dimensions of the ship while working. (Nichollò Sagri , 1570. Il Chartigatore di Nichollò Sagri marinaro raguseo, Minneapolis, Università del Minnesota, Biblioteca James Ford Bell, 1570 SA, c. 83v). 3 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571. 4 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8157, cc. 284v-285v. 5 Rival, 1991: 99-104. 6 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8159, c. 58r. 7 Ibid., b. 5629, c. 128v; ibid., b. 434, c. 17v. 8 Ibid., b. 11631, c. 715v. Ven. ‘et accettar li boni et reprobar [rifiutare] li cattivi’. 1

95

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 150. Draft of the document on the establishment of the company Lezze-MocenigoBasadonna (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 11631, c. 714r).

Figure 151. Draft contract for the supply of oak for the construction of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 11631, c. 715r).

The purchase of 650 oak logs necessary to build a ship (ca. 1,300 m3) was negotiated at a total price of just over 854 ducats. Bonazza was paid an advance of 100 ducats, while the remainder was to await him after delivery and inspection of the lumber (Figure 151). There was still sufficient time to procure the maritime pine (Ven. zappino) and larch needed to make certain parts of the ship.9 The three nobles could have seen to this when the time came, because construction was only supposed to begin in the late summer or early autumn of the subsequent year. Upon delivery to Venice, the oak lumber had to be coarsely cut by carpenters (Ven. marangoni), sawed by sawyers (Ven. segadori), and then soaked in the lagoon’s saline water near the shipyard for several months, to rinse it of remaining fluids and protect it from parasites and cracking when dried in the shade. An example of a contract to purchase so-called delicate wood (Ven. legnami dolci) to build the ship Querina, of 22 April 1558, can be found In ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8117, cc. 423v-424v. Oak was called a strong wood (Ven. legnami forti), (ibid., b. 6546, c. 173r). 9

96

An amazing historical tale

Figure 152. Drawing of the fortified town of Korčula, 1571 (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 47, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 13 January 1570 more veneto).

4.1.2. Frane Antunov of Korčula (Francesco di Antonio da Curzola): shipwright, seafarer and inventor Lazzaro Mocenigo, Benedetto da Lezze and Piero Basadonna decided to entrust the construction of their ship to Frane, the son of Antun of Korčula (Francesco figlio di Antonio da Curzola) (Figure 152).10 Antun Valenčić (Antonio Valenza), called Antun of Korčula, fled from Korčula with his sons during the Venetian-Ottoman War (15371540) and his family was accepted in Venice thanks to their great shipbuilding skill, of which the three citizens boasted before the Minor Council.11 On 6 September 1539, the Senate accepted their proposal and ordered Antun, his sons and two other Korčula natives to find employment in the Arsenal under the same conditions as all other shipwrights. The Senate furthermore authorized the Korčula craftsmen to work in the city’s private shipyards, which the other members of the Venetian shipwrights guild were also authorized to do. Frane (b. 1508) and his older brother Nikola (b. 1490), arrived in Venice as adults, experienced shipwrights, and probably skilled sailors as well.12 Thanks to his own Frane Valenčić appeared in the capacity of builder of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna in the registration of the order for payment of two instalments of refundable money which the state conferred to the ship owners (ASVe, Capi del Consiglio di dieci, mandati al camerlengo, b. 1, reg. 2, quinterno X, cc.n.s – of 22 March and 7 July 1569). 11 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 25, c. 64v. 12 In the register of 59 shipmasters of 1 September 1558, Frane is listed at the age of 50, and Nikola at the age of 68 (BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 217, c. 39r). 10

97

The Shipwreck at Gnalić expertise, Frane attracted considerable attention in the Arsenal, even though he had not yet even built a single galley in the small shipyards of Korčula. On 28 December 1547, the Senate granted his request for a raise in daily pay from 24 to 32 soldi, i.e., to roughly 6 ducats per month.13 In 1553 his name was recorded in the list of sixteen shipwrights who built galleys with their own moulds (Figures 153, 154).14 Such master craftsmen became work supervisors (Ven. capi d’opera), and the Arsenal’s administration (Ven. Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenal) authorized them to build vessels based on their own design methods. At the time competition among the most skilled shipwrights was certainly quite intense, and some of them secured careers by illegal means. In 1555, a scandal broke out in the Arsenal that centred around several shipwrights with licenses to

Figure 153. List of supervisors (Ven. capi d’opera) of the Venetian Arsenal; among them is Frane Antunov of Korčula (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 10, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 1 September 1553).

Figure 154. Graphic reconstruction of the Venetian mould for making floor timbers, called sesto (drawing: M. Bondioli).

build ships with their own moulds.15 They stood accused of taking on jobs and then arranging for other, more skilled craftsmen to actually build the galleys, bribing them with gifts and concealing their own incompetence. Frane was obviously not among them, because in 1559 he was still on the list of accountable shipbuilding overseers.16 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 29, c. 138v. Ibid., f. 10, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 1 September 1553. Mould is a term used for a wooden model that helps in crafting the floor timbers of a vessel’s frame. 15 ASVe, Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenale, reg. 10, c. 28v. 16 ASVe, Miscellanea di carte non appartenenti ad alcun archivio, b. 2, c. 1v. 13 14

98

An amazing historical tale

Figure 155. Statement of Frane Antunov of Korčula confirming that he was the inventor of three-decked ships (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 43, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 21 December 1569).

Despite his great skill, Frane’s salary over the subsequent years remained the same and was insufficient to support a family. Moreover, for him, and many other shipwrights of his ability, a job in the Arsenal was only a last resort in case of need. As his renown grew in Venetian maritime circles, serving as captain of merchant ships emerged as a more lucrative source of income. Thus, in 1551 and 1554 he commanded the ship Contarina e Sanuda; in 1556 and 1557 he commanded the Tarabotta; in 1557 and 1558 he commanded the Donata, and in 1564 he commanded the Federica e Stampa.17 Despite an active career as sea captain, during the intervals between voyages, Frane had opportunities to prove his acumen in building merchant vessels. Even though all that has been preserved of his shipbuilding activities is the fact that he worked on the ship Bonalda e Stampa, with a 1,000 barrel capacity,18 it is certain that at the time of the commission to build the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna in 1567 he had already acquired noteworthy experience. This is bolstered by later autobiographical documents in which Frane takes credit for inventing vessels with three decks (Figure 155).19 Hocquet, 1977: 60, 62, 64-67, 74-75. ASVe, Capi del Consiglio di dieci, mandati al camerlengo, b. 1, reg. 2, quinterno VI, c.n.s. – on the date of 27 March 1561; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 108, cc.n.s. – documents appended to the Senate decision of 7 June 1590. On the generally-accepted value of the measurement unit of a Venetian barrel as 0.6 tons, see Lane, 1992 (1934). See also Lane, 1933: 219-237; Lane, 1964: 213-233; Hocquet, 1989: 349-360; Tucci, 1967: 201-246. 19 Ibid., f. 43, c.n.s. – documents appended to the Senate decree of 21 December 1569. 17 18

99

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 156. Location of the Sant’Antonio shipyard on a map of Venice (Jacopo de’ Barbari, 1500); within the detail of a shipyard with ships under construction (from Breydenbach, 1486).

4.1.3. Construction, equipping and launching of the ship When several owners wanted to construct a large ship in Venice at that time, they had to first and foremost establish a proper enterprise and see to each phase of this major undertaking. It was an exceptionally complex task with numerous variables that had to be taken into account. Frane Antunov of Korčula probably began work on the project in one of the shipyards of St. Anthony (Ital. cantieri di San Antonio) in the San Piero di Castello quarter (today the Riva Sette Martiri; Figure 156) in the autumn of 1568. In March of the following year construction had already progressed considerably, and the co-owners (Ven. parcenevoli, partecipi) filed a request for financial support which the state conferred for the construction of vessels of aboveaverage size.20 By accepting state subsidies to incentivize shipbuilding in a sum of 2,700 ducats (about 10% of the vessel’s total value), the three Venetian nobles undertook the commitment to launch the ship into the sea within two years, return the borrowed funds over seven years from the date on which the ship sailed from port the first time and mortgage the ship to the Minor Council until the entire debt was repaid, either in cash or in the corresponding quantity of salt. Furthermore, in case of shipwreck or other loss of the vessel, the owners were obliged to immediately repay the remaining amount of outstanding debt, and the fulfilment of these commitments was backed by chattels and real property. On 6 June 1566, the Senate extended the decision on granting subsidies by an additional five years (ibid., reg. 37, c. 167r) regulated by preceding decisions, and particularly those of 4 June 1535, 4 April 1549 and 14 January 1558 m.v. (ibid., reg. 23, cc. 88r-89r; ibid., reg. 30, cc. 45r-45v; ibid., reg. 34, cc. 57r-57v). More on this in Hocquet, 1979: 565-572. 20

100

An amazing historical tale After over two years since the establishment of the Lezze-Mocenigo-Basadonna enterprise (18 April 1567), at the end of 1569 the three ship owners hoped to launch their ship into the sea and send it on its first voyage to the west. Their expectations, however, were dashed by the Senate’s decree to ban sailing in the period from 20 November to 20 January,21 which followed after the disastrous sinking of the Viviana and Querina in the waters off of Cyprus as a result of a series of incidents caused by excessive cargo and the perils of winter navigation. Although for only a limited time, this once more reinstituted the tradition of the ‘closed sea’ (Lat. mare clausum) which banned sailing from 11 November to 10 March during Antiquity.22 In early July 1569, the construction of the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna neared its end, so the three owners assumed the second instalment of the state subsidy. In September of the same year, the ship was finally ready to launch. St. Anthony’s Shipyards, like the other shipyards in the city, were actually just places near the seashore at which there were a few barracks used for storage, and sometimes a large crane to haul vessels firmly fastened to the ground. Ship owners thus had a tendency to seek permission for the use of equipment from the Arsenal in order to quickly and safely launch ships into the sea. On behalf of all co-owners this permission from the College (Ven. Collegio) was secured on 7 September 1569 by Benedetto da Lezze. Upon payment of the sum for use of the equipment and the compensation for any potential damages, the three ship owners went to the magistracy of the Arsenal to assume the requested equipment.23 Upon completion of caulking and tarring, the ship was launched, equipped with masts and yards, rope, other rigging and the appropriate armaments. 4.1.4. A floating palace The ship with deadweight of 1,200 barrels that the nobles Benedetto da Lezze, Lazzaro Mocenigo and Piero Basadonna commissioned from shipwright Frane of Korčula was one of the largest vessels that the Venetians were capable of producing in the 1560s. With guidance from written sources, although for now only provisionally, it may be presumed – given the aforementioned deadweight – that the ship’s length was approximately 53 m, its height at the stern was approximately 20 m, and its width at mid-section was over 13 m. These measurements alone are insufficient to visualize its original scope, but they are comparable to the Doge’s Palace on St. Mark’s Square in Venice, a building quite well known to all (Figure 157). With this comparison in mind, it becomes clear that ships of this type were genuine palaces on the sea. ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, cc. 24v-25r. De Salvo, 1992. 23 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 52v; ibid., f. 42, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 7 September 1569. 21 22

101

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 157. Comparison between the dimensions of the Doge’s Palace in Piazza San Marco in Venice and the preliminary reconstructive hypothesis of the ship Gagliana grossa, formerly Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna.

From the rare sales contracts for lumber to build Venetian merchantmen that survived the various fires in the Doge’s Palace,24 we know that a major portion of the oak wood came from the Apulian forests near Monte Sant’Angelo,25 from the karst zone26 or from the forests surrounding Gorizia.27 Unfortunately, the already mentioned lumber sales contract signed by the three Venetian nobles on 18 April 1587 does not provide any information on the origin of the lumber. We can, however, speculate that the lumber was already stacked in a warehouse because delivery was expected in a rather short time, between the end of May and the end of August. Contrary to the custom of certain Venetian ship owners who procured individual construction elements for their ships already prepared in the desired form, Frane of Korčula preferred ordering lumber from the supplier in the form of 650 unworked trunks. All in all, this was an impressive quantity of lumber almost 6 kilometres long, with a volume of approximately 1,400 m3 (Figure 158).28 One may assume that both methods of procuring lumber had their advantages and drawbacks. When employing the first method, the shipwright’s work was probably simpler, because each piece had already been prepared during the cutting process. When the lumber arrived in the shipyard, he would leave it submerged in saltwater over the next few months so that it would become firmer when dried and to leach out remaining This was most of all due to a fire that occurred on 20 December 1577, which broke out in the rooms of the lower chancellery where the documents of deceased notaries public were held (Zanotto, 1842: 129). 25 The contracts on the construction of the ship Motta dated 2 August 1560 in ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3266, cc. 412r-413r; the ship Ragazzona dated 6 February 1567 in ibid., b. 8151, cc. 53r-55r; the ship Cornera dated 16 February 1569 in ibid., b. 8159, cc. 57v-61r and various ships dated 11 August 1569 in ibid., b. 6510, cc. 65v-66v. 26 Such as, e.g., the area called Senosecchia (Senožeče), which is today in Slovenia. 27 The contract on the construction of the ship Finarda e Fenarola dated 15 December 1579 in ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 5629, cc. 128r-130v. 28 Computations pertaining the cubature of lumber were done approximately, not taking into consideration of the thickness of the bark, irregularities and flaws in the wood nor processing waste. 24

102

An amazing historical tale

Figure 158. Summary table of the number, size and volume of oak trunks necessary for the construction of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, obtained from the supply contract stipulated on 18 April 1567.

fluids, and also to better protect it from wood-boring pests and cracking. After this the carpenters finished the ordered parts and placed them in the right location. This was a task that demanded the ability to perform complex calculations involving the vessel’s form and the precise number of necessary components. In any case, just to be certain the shipwright could always order a slightly higher quantity of lumber, because anything left over could be sold once the job was completed.29 However, since this preliminary woodworking phase was performed in the forest at the supplier’s expense, the sales price of the lumber had to be higher. In case of a higher number of ordered components, at delivery time the volume of lumber in cubic meters was considerably less than what had been originally cut, because it was lacking the waste and discards from the working phase. This could explain why in a case of construction of two ships roughly the same size as the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, the ship owners ordered 1,300 pieces (ca. 950 m3) of oak at a price of 2,385 ducats,30 while the owners of the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna ordered 650 pieces (ca. 1400 m3) of oak at a price of 854 ducats. When implementing the second method, though, shipwright Frane of Korčula had far more work in the shipyard, having at his disposal an immense quantity of trunks, i.e., raw lumber, that had to be finished. He simultaneously had the opportunity to make maximum use of each trunk with regard to its features and even make good use of the smallest discards. The master’s exemplary skill was reflected in the painstaking patience with which many parts were made ad hoc and thus quite different from one On the oak that remained after construction of the Gradeniga e Contarina, launched in 1558, of which a portion remained in the Istrian forests and a part in the Venetian warehouses, see ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 11885, cc. 7v-11r. On the oak that remained completely unused in lumber yards in Venice due to an owner’s decision to refrain from building a ship after the outbreak of the War of Cyprus, see ibid., b. 4, c. 449r. 30 These are two inventories of oak essential to the construction of the Ragazzona (1567) and Cornera (1569), which were completely identical. Obviously, it was a matter of the same shipwright, who at the time was charged with the construction of both vessels, and who had a ready inventory for clients interested in ships of the same size (ibid., b. 8151, cc. 53r-55r; ibid., b. 8159, cc. 57v-61r.). 29

103

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 159. Scheme of the structural elements of the wreck relating to the section shown on the left (drawing: M. Bondioli).

another. The latter feature was quite evident in the ship that sank at the islet of Gnalić (Figure 159). This method resulted in a far higher volume of ordered lumber and higher transport costs, but the clients’ initial investment was far lower, and the subsequent costs of cutting the lumber and crafting individual parts were spread out over the course of the ensuing period. Today it is difficult to assess which of the two methods was better from the standpoints of both practicality and cost effectiveness. The three ship owners had to have full confidence in the shipwright’s ability and experience, and only time would prove the quality of his craftsmanship. The Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna had a long life, far longer than the ships that sank only a few years after being launched, or even on their maiden voyages.31 To be sure, at that time certain shipwrights who could be defined as more sophisticated from the contemporary perspective cast a critical eye on the output of all who worked in a manner more pragmatic than their own. By the same token, ordinary craftsmen were certainly contemptuous of those who claimed to have isolated the essence of the shipbuilding art in which it was possible to distinguish between ‘an intelligent shipwright and a mulish and maladroit craftsman,’ which is how Frane of Korčula may have appeared to some.32 An example is the approval of the Council of Ten, dated 7 May 1563 for the delayed repayment of a state subsidy conferred a year earlier to Giovanni Contarini for the construction of a ship with a deadweight of 1,400 Venetian barrels, which had a price of over 32,000 ducats and which sank in the waters off Zakynthos during its maiden voyage (ASVe, Consiglio di Dieci, deliberazioni comuni, f. 87, c.n.s.). 32 Tafuri, 1987: 68; Bondioli, 2014: 181. 31

104

An amazing historical tale

Figure 160. Research area in relation to the ideal representation of a ship of appropriate dimensions (model: K. Yamafune).

Figure 160a. Preliminary hypothesis for reconstruction of the original shape of the Gagliana grossa’s hull, based on historical documentation (drawing: M. Bondioli).

Through ongoing archaeological research, an attempt is being made to document the remainder of the wooden hull structures in the best possible way (Figure 160), and historical research puts them in the context of available written sources. Future excavation campaigns will thus engender a better understanding of the ship’s structure and allow for gradual refinement of the hypothetical reconstructions of the ship. 105

The Shipwreck at Gnalić 4.2. The heroes of Sazan In June 1569, the three Venetian nobles and ship owners were probably quite disappointed by the Senate’s decree banning navigation, and certainly by news of the horrible bloodshed between Protestants and Catholics that came from northern Europe and hindered their plans for trade in the west. On 1 April of that year, a festive procession was held in Venice to celebrate the victory at Jarnac in France, in which troops loyal to the French king defeated and then killed the Huguenot leader, Prince Louis I de Bourbon, Prince of Condé.33 This success was, however, short-lived, and already in May word came that the Spanish ambassador in London advised the urgent withdrawal of Venetian ships from England.34 His advice arrived too late for the ships of Francesco Corner, which Queen Elizabeth I seized and put into her own service. Only after several months of diplomatic pressure were the ships allowed to return to Venice.35 At the end of the year, however, the situation became even worse due to the revolt of Scottish Catholics loyal to Mary Stuart and the attacks by Huguenot privateers that captured the Venetian ships Vergi and Giustiniana.36 4.2.1. A merchant vessel’s wartime role Quite likely concerned by the situation in northern Europe, the three ship owners finished equipping the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, which in the meantime had its deadweight estimated at 1,200 barrels or approximately 720 t (Figure 161). But when loading of goods for the western market, generally owned by the ship owners themselves, began in January, a command came from the Minor Council ordering the ship to be unloaded and made available to transport troops and supplies to Cyprus.37 This was the standard transportation of troops, about which the Senate made a decision already on 17 December of the preceding year.38 Even though the ship owners had impatiently awaited the voyage, given their compulsory fealty to the Venetian Republic, they certainly could not oppose such an order. Despite disappointment and financial damages, perhaps they thought that the ship’s safety was far more likely in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean than in its western end. Ever since Sultan Selim II had assumed the Ottoman throne, rumours of an inevitable conflict circulated every year, but they would similarly dissipate with the arrival of the summer season, when news of Ottoman troop movements waylaid any fear.39 Unfortunately, matters proceeded differently that year. Cicogna, 1853: 641. Braudel, 1995: 617. 35 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 51v-52r; ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 41, c.n.s. – letter of 7 September 1569. 36 BNMVe, ms. it. cl. VII, cod. 2380 (=9751), c. 3r-5r, 44r; ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 41, cc.n.s.; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 98v-99r; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8287, cc. 58r-58v. 37 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, cc.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571 38 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 77r. 39 Due to rumours of a new conflict, ‘and the same thing happens almost every year,’ in 1569 the auction for the concession to collect the tax on exports of goods from Venice was organized only at the end of May, i.e., at the time when Ottoman fleet’s intentions became known (ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 38, c. 140r). 33 34

106

An amazing historical tale The reports sent by the Venetian ambassador (Ven. bailo) in Istanbul, Marcantonio Barbaro at the end of 1569 and early 1570 were increasingly alarming, and by mid-February it was certain that the island of Cyprus had become the primary target of the large Ottoman armada. The Venetian government had already prepared to counter this turn of events. On 25 January, the Senate ordered the Arsenal to prepare as many galleys as would be necessary to respond to this future turn of events, while supplies for Cyprus had to be loaded onto three large ships.40 The Dolfina was commanded by Alvise Finardi, the Giustiniana by Ivan of Vrana (Giovanni Vrana) and the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna by Frane Antunov of Korčula (Francesco di Antonio da Curzola) who had just finished building it.41

Figure 161. Estimation of the carrying capacity of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna at 12,000 stars (1,200 barrels), made by Arsenal experts (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571).

After the troops, supplies and a high quantity of gunpowder were loaded onto it, in February 1570 the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna was ready for departure to Cyprus.42 Not taking any chances, the Council of Ten (Ven. Consiglio dei dieci) ordered the Arsenal to reinforce ship armaments with two additional guns that could fire 40 libbre (roughly 12 kg) balls, which would be returned when the ships returned to Venice.43 In the meantime, Frane Antunov of Korčula received precise navigational instructions from the College, with a prohibition from tarrying in any ports. Upon departing from the Adriatic, he had to maintain a distance from the seashores and weigh anchor only in Famagusta on the eastern coast of Cyprus.44 After this, all that was left for the captain to do was await for the final sailors, who had received a part of their pay in advance, to come aboard. Given their hesitation, ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 88v. Ibid., c. 89r; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, secreti, reg. 76, c. 38v, 44v. 42 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, reg. 29, c. 110r. 43 Ibid., c. 110v-111r. 44 ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 38, c. 151r; ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 41, c.n.s. 40 41

107

The Shipwreck at Gnalić on 22 February a proclamation was issued according to which all who did not board the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna would be sentenced to rowing in shackles aboard the Venetian Republic’s galleys for the next ten years.45 The proclamation did not succeed, failing to discourage even deserters from the crews of other ships, so five days later the College was forced to issue another even harsher proclamation which threatened insubordinates with execution by hanging.46 At the beginning of March, the ship finally set sail after considerable delays, carrying among its passengers the Cypriot noble Eugenio Singlitico, the count of Rochas and the trustee in charge of administering military salaries (Ven. Collaterale Generale).47 On 24 March 1570, an envoy from Istanbul read the sultan’s letter on possession of Cyprus before the College, although its content was already well known to the doge and his advisors.48 It was an outrageous declaration which was rejected with disgust, and a war with the Ottomans, which had been so abhorred, finally began. Unaware of these events, the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna arrived in Famagusta without incident and the troops and supplies were disembarked. On 4 July, it once more sailed into Venice with the Dolfina carrying goods with a value insufficient to even cover travel expenses.49 After several days, the gendarmes of the Council of Ten boarded both ships with orders to arrest their two captains. Alvise Finardi and Frane Antunov of Korčula were charged with insubordination and desertion during their stay in Cyprus – more will be said about this complicated incident in the section of the text dealing with Finardi. Command of the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna was assumed by the veteran Captain Domenico di Giovani, then aged 58.50 After the customary maintenance, the ship was once more tarred and on 12 August 1570 it was returned to the service of the Minor Council so that it could take hardtack, rice and other supplies to Corfu. Despite the poor weather in October, it sailed from Venice in that same year, and after leaving the Kornati behind, it was beset by a fierce squall at Dubrovnik, during which two cracks opened on the ship’s lower hull. ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 38, c. 151v; ibid., f. 34, c.n.s. Ibid., reg. 38, c. 153r. 47 Grassi, 1833: 459. On 20 and 21 February 1570, Eugenio Singlitico set off on the Leze, Moceniga e Basadonna (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8287, cc. 76v-77v, 82v-84r). Boarding orders were also issued to Colonel Dionisio Naldo (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 96v). ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 42, c.n.s. – letter of 2 March 1570. 48 ASVe, Collegio, esposizioni Principi, reg. 2, c. 4-5. 49 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, reg. 29, c. 168r. 50 The archival documents do not make it entirely clear as to whether Domenico di Giovanni was then the captain of the Lezza, Moceniga Basadonna or the Giustiniana (ASVe, Collegio, reg. 38, c. 202r, 204v, 209v-210r; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3102, cc. 222v-224r). A notary act dated 7 July 1572 indicates with certainty that Francesca, the spouse of Domenico di Giovanni, declared that her husband was the captain of the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna at the moment when it had fallen into Ottoman hands one year earlier (ibid., b. 8262, cc. 38r-38v). Domenico di Giovanni was 58 years old in 1570, because in the register of shipmasters from 1558, he is cited as being 46 years old (BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 217, c. 39r). 45 46

108

An amazing historical tale After the loss of several strong ropes from the rigging, and with water seeping below decks, the voyage had to be halted and the ship was forced to alter its route and dock in Korčula so that the damage could be repaired.51 Apprised of these events, the College ordered the Korčula rector to hasten the necessary tasks and enable the continuation of the voyage as soon as possible,52 and when it finally reached Corfu, the ship served the Venetian army over the next few months, ‘going here and there, wherever it was most needed’.53 When returning from Crete at the end of May 1571, the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna was just outside of Venice, but it was not allowed to sail into the harbour due to the planned return voyage to Corfu. Despite the urgency, a full 34 days passed while waiting for the troops who were supposed to be transported. Out of the 500 soldiers who should have arrived from Verona, only half embarked, carrying a lovely azure silk flag adorned with a gold cross and the figure of St. Mark, bearing the inscription Verona fidelis.54 These troops were commanded by Col. Buonagiunta di Buonagiunti, a veteran with experience serving the pope, the French king and the Venetians.55 Out of the 400 soldiers who had been promised in May by Col. Giovan Tommaso Costanzo (Figure 162), the son of Commander Scipio Costanzo, only 280 of them arrived.56 The remainder of his troops set off from Venice only on 19 July, because he was detained in Milanese territory by Commander Federico Porro di Gera d’Adda.57 When the ship finally set sail in early July, there were a minimum of 605 people on it, including the 75 crew members.58 4.2.2. Uluç Alì and the ‘lions’ of St. Mark On Saturday, 21 July 1571, the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna (Figure 163) was in Albanian waters near the island of Sazan, only a few dozen miles from Corfu. The wind suddenly died down, the sails were deflated, and the ship halted right in front of the Gulf of Valona (Vlorë Bay) which had at that point belonged to the Ottoman Empire for almost an entire century. This was a direct threat to anyone who was caught there on a calm sea, such as the ship from Ancona which had been captured at the very spot by Ottoman galleys four years earlier.59 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571. 52 ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 43, c.n.s. – letter of 17 October 1570. 53 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571. 54 ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 44, c.n.s – letter of 3 July 1571. Of the two slogans, ‘Verona fidelis’ and ‘Vincere aut mori’, the Verona City Council chose the former (Avena, 1912: 113-114, 118). 55 Dalla Corte, 1606: 300. 56 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 40, c. 43r; ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 44, cc.n.s – letters of 1 and 3 July 1571. 57 Ibid., letters of 14 and 19 July 1571. 58 BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 215, c. 150r. In case of war, the status of merchant ships was changed from ‘unarmed’ to ‘armed’, while the crews were considerably enlarged (ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 38, c. 202r). 59 ASVe, Capi del Consiglio di dieci, lettere secrete, b. 7, c.n.s. – letter to the Istanbul bailo of 25 November 1566. 51

109

The Shipwreck at Gnalić For now there is no indication of how many hours the Venetian ship helplessly floated before a sailor atop the main mast observed a dozen galleys ominously approaching. According to the accounts of several eyewitnesses, it is known that initially they were suspected of truly being Ottoman galleys, but when the distance was reduced so that their identity and intentions could be clearly discerned, all of them turned to the old Buonagiunta as the ‘respected father figure’ who led his own children down the right path.60 The seasoned colonel heeded the opinions of higherranking military commanders and the most experienced sailors and then spoke, expressing contempt Figure 162. Giovanni Tommaso Costanzo for those who cravenly suggested (Agostino Carracci, copperplate). surrender or flight. In his view, the sole solution was to prove themselves worthy of the pay that the Venetian government and the city of Verona gave for the honourable defence of the entire Christian world and its reputation. With a few effective words, the colonel fired the soldiers’ hearts and convinced them to accept the struggle. Even the sailors joined in and assumed the positions accorded to them in such cases, while the captain’s cabin boy (Ven. scalco) and the ship boy on deck (Ven. mozzi) supplied the soldiers with stones to throw at the enemy and brought them water and other drinks for refreshment.61 Buonagiunta defended the ship’s right flank with his soldiers, while the left was defended by a squad commanded by Giovan Tomasso Costanzo. All of them knew that the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, like any other Venetian merchant ship, was not sufficiently armed to be able to face an attack by a dozen galleys and expect a sure victory. Such ships were most often armed with large guns only in their aft sections, for defence during flight, rather than for attacks on enemies. The lack of heavy artillery on the fore section and limited manoeuvring capability in the absence Dalla Corte, 1596: 703-707. The author alleged that he had the opportunity to gather direct testimony from the survivors, neglecting the soldiers from Verona, because their testimony was assessed as being too biased. 61 1570 SA. Nichollò Sagri : cc. 65r-65v. 60

110

An amazing historical tale Figure 163. Representation of a large merchant ship from the second half of the 16th century in the Church of St. Stephen (S. Iseppo) in Venice, at the monumental tomb of Ivan of Vrana, Admiral of the galley of Sebastian Venier in the Battle of Lepanto.

of winds were their weak points, while the small fore guns were more suited to close defence rather than battles at great distances. The only tactical advantage on which they could depend was the better gear borne by the Venetian troops (armour and firearms against Ottoman bows and arrows) and a higher position to defend a ship with capacity over 700 mt in comparison to galleys, which were several meters lower. The approaching Ottoman galleys finally made it possible for them to discern the symbol used by the notorious Uluç Alì (Ven. Occhialì), then the supreme commander of Algeria (Tur. beylerbey), originally from Calabria (his real name was Giovanni Dionigi Galeni).62 As soon as the ship came into the range of the Ottoman galleys, a savage assault on a relatively easy and helpless target commenced. The Venetian ship could scarcely defend itself, because the galleys quickly and easily altered positions between the loading of guns with the help of their oarsmen.63 Despite the Ottoman numerical superiority, the Venetians managed to repel three assaults and even slay a part of the enemy troops, albeit not without losses of their own (Figures 164, 165).64 During the battle, twenty-five galleys arrived as reinforcements for the enemy side. Despite their superiority, the Ottomans did not manage to seize the ship. They did, however, manage to destroy its rudder, mast, sails and much of the rigging. Thus, even if a wind suddenly arose, the defenders had no chance of flight, and an immense amount of water began to pour through damaged parts of the hull. However, when it seemed that all was lost, an immense fleet appeared on the horizon, and multiple cries of the desperate heroes thundered through the air: ‘Long live St. Graf, 2017: 127-128. Dalla Corte, 1596: 704. 64 Lorenzo da Pistoia, who was in chains on one of the Ottoman galleys during the battle, gave his account of these events, published in Ruscelli, 1581: 249a. 62 63

111

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Mark!’ Believing that it was a fleet that had set off from Corfu to render aid, the soldiers once more waged a fierce battle before the startled Ottomans, who did not understand the reason for this ferocity at a moment of quite obvious defeat. When the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna sailed from Venice in 1571, the Senate was already aware of the fact that several weeks earlier a large Ottoman fleet had attempted to land on Crete. Even though the enemy had been repelled at the time, it was presumed that the Ottomans would attempt to inflict damage to other Venetian possessions, probably toward the island of Kythira south of the Peloponnese,

Figure 164. Uluç Ali (after AA.VV., 1837).

Figure 165. Attack of the Tuscan galleys on a merchant ship, engraving by Jacques Callot taken from the Report of the capture of two bertoni of Tunis, made in Corsica by four galleys of Tuscany this year 1617, 23 of November, Florence, Zanobi Pignoni. 112

An amazing historical tale on the boundary between the Aegean and Ionian Seas, with possible inroads toward the Adriatic.65 Since no fresh news had arrived thereafter, the precise position of the Ottoman fleet was unknown, which is why the ship was granted permission to depart. Only on 9 July did Sebastiano Venier, the supreme commander of the Venetian navy (Ven. Capitano General da mar/Captain General of the Sea), notify the Senate of enemy vessels approaching Corfu and the departure of its fleet to Messina, where the forces of the anti-Ottoman league were gathering.66 Venier knew very well that the letter would arrive in Venice only after about ten days, i.e., too late for the Senate to warn Venetian ships sailing in the eastern Adriatic of this great threat. Because of his mistake, the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna found itself locked in battle against an entire fleet. It is reliably known that the administration on Corfu advised Venier to send warnings of the danger to all ships sailing the Adriatic, but despite the affirmative response from the captain general, an order of this nature was never issued. The Corfu authorities soon became aware of this, when it was notified several days later of the seizure and burning of the Formentina and the seizure of a few more Venetian ships. It only hoped, judging by the message sent to the Senate, that these were not ships conveying troops, supplies and money which the Venetian government had pledged to send to Corfu.67 Given this situation, the troops and crew on the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna were unaware of the danger of the approaching Ottoman fleet, so they justifiably believed that the large squadron of galleys that had appeared on the horizon could not be anything other than the Venetian fleet stationed on Corfu. The illusion dissipated at the moment when they began to discern Ottoman symbols on the three hundred sails. As the day came to a close, after eleven long hours of fighting, the courageous surviving warriors, already certain of their defeat, decided to gather on the stern and die with weapons in their hands. Their commanders ordered the ensigns to throw the already torn flags into the sea, so that they would not fall into enemy hands, and then the final bloody assault began, in which the enemy finally captured the unfortunate vessel.68 The authorities on Corfu were the first to be informed of the details of the conflict and the heroic defence of the lions of St. Mark, because a week later, on 28 July, spies sent to the mainland returned with a young ship’s carpenter apprentice, who had evaded the Ottomans and recounted the entire event.69 Notice of the ship’s loss was immediately sent to the Senate, but all that is preserved about the entire event is a laconic comment recorded in the official registers on 30 August 1571: ‘(…) because the Moceniga et Lezze, Senato, deliberazioni, secreti, reg. 77, c. 108v. Ibid., c. 118r-118v – letter to the captain general of the sea of 22 July 1571; BMCVe, Morosini Grimani 516, cc. 50v-51v – copies of the letters from Corfu of 15 June to 24 October 1571; Setton, 1984: 1021. 67 BMCVe, Morosini Grimani 516, cc. 51v-52v – letter from Corfu of 17 July 1571; ibid., cc. 57v-58v – letter from Corfu of 20 July 1571. 68 A description of the battle was also left behind by Giovan Tommaso Costanzo who, after being apprehended, wrote a letter to his father, recounting what had happened and stressing the heroic conduct of his soldiers (Ruscelli, 1581: 252b-254a). 69 Ibid., cc. 61v-62r – letter from Corfu of 28 July 1571. 65 66

113

The Shipwreck at Gnalić which was transporting money to the general captain of the sea for three salaries for the galleys of our noble Anzolo Suriano, experienced a misfortune...’.70 This great drama on a ship was thus relegated to a ‘misfortune’, one of many in the long VenetianOttoman war. In that same month, Uluç Alì and his fleet set their sights on Korčula, but the attack was frustrated by strong bora winds. Over the next several days, from 16 to 20 August 1571, he looted, set fire to and partially captured Hvar, Stari Grad, Vrboska and Jelsa, which led the residents of the latter two communities to fortify their churches.71 This is how the fortress Church of St. Mary of Mercy emerged – an imposing example of 16th century fortified sacral architecture. 4.2.3. A dream demolished The survivors of the battle at Sazan who fell into Ottoman hands included the young Col. Giovan Tommaso Costanzo, a tall thin handsome man of only seventeen years. He was the last descendent of an old family of hardy warriors. His father Scipio, a veteran of many battles and a prominent figure in the Venetian army, had trained him in the use of arms since he was a small child.72 The ancestors of the Costanzo line arrived in Italy following Frederick Barbarossa, and the family was known by the sobriquet ‘spadainfaccia’ (Eng. ‘sword in face’), because of a crime that compelled them to flee from Germany.73 Initially the family settled in the territory of Naples, and then one branch moved on to Sicily. Thereafter, some of its members left Messina for the Kingdom of Cyprus to aid Giacomo di Lusignano in the siege of Famagusta, while a part of the family moved north, to Castelfranco Veneto.74 During the battle at Sazan, in the heroic defence of the unfortunate ship’s left flank Giovan Tommaso Costanzo sustained several wounds, including a horrible gash on his arm. In a high fever due to the poison on the blade that wounded him, in a state of near death, he was taken to Istanbul. In response to the sultan’s question of what preposterous reason led him to fight against the entire Ottoman fleet with a single vessel, Giovan Tommaso expressed blind devotion to the Serenissima, which sparked the sultan’s wrath. The intention to circumcise him and make him a Muslim was fiercely resisted by Giovan Tommaso, who defied the violence that would force him to renounce his Christian faith.75 In the meantime, the Ottoman army disembarked on Cyprus, and after taking Nicosia, it also seized Famagusta. The last bastion to fall into enemy hands was the one that bore ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 40, c. 79v. The Corfu authorities also sent notification of the ship’s seizure to Sebastian Venier in Messina (BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 215, c. 56v). 71 Fisković, 1976; Žmegač, 2009: 188. 72 Dolce, 1563: 4. 73 Zazzera, 1615: 117-130; Minieri Riccio, 1870: 171. 74 Collection of documents of the Costanzo family in ASVe, Miscellanea Codici, serie II, diversi, reg. 1. 75 Ruscelli, 1581: 252b-254a. 70

114

An amazing historical tale the name of the Costanzo family. An allied fleet under the command of Girolamo Zane, deployed to rescue the island, did not even leave port on Crete due to discord among its commanding officers. The heartfelt entreaties of Marcantonio Bragadin, Famagusta’s commander, were thus entirely futile. When he descended from the walls to negotiate the city’s surrender, he was deceived and apprehended and his face was mutilated. After refusing to convert to Islam, he was skinned alive. His limbs were divided among the soldiers, while his skin was filled with straw and sewn back together, covered with military insignia and carried through Famagusta by an ox. This ghastly trophy was then taken to Istanbul, but in 1580 it was stolen and taken to Venice, where it is today safeguarded in the Church of Sts. John and Paul.76 Given his intractable character, the sultan ordered Giovan Tomasso to be thrown virtually naked into the dungeons of the notorious fortress on the banks of the Bosporus (Figure 166). For four years, the young man remained imprisoned in one of its towers together with other brave Christian fighters with whom he became close over time. Thanks to money donated by the Venetian bailo, also officially under house arrest in Istanbul, the prison’s guards were bribed, so the captives enjoyed greater comforts and better food, and they could even send an occasional letter to their families.77 When he received word of his son’s imprisonment, his father Scipio contacted Europe’s power-brokers to exert their influence on the Porte and demand his release. Scipio even had the opportunity to meet Henry of Valois, crowned the king of France several months later, because he was appointed captain of Henry’s guard during his stay in Venice in July 1574. All of this pressure, however, garnered too much attention of the officials in the sultan’s court and convinced them that they had a high-value hostage on their hands. Scipio was thus asked to cease on his insistence to avoid causing further damage to ongoing diplomatic negotiations.78 Finally, in July 1575, Giovan Tommaso Costanzo and the other captives were taken to Dubrovnik and exchanged for an equal number of captured Ottoman subjects.79 A high ransom was also paid to free the Christians, and a portion of the necessary funds was provided by a certain Benedetto da Gagliano, who will appear in our story about the ship only six years later. After regaining his liberty, Giovan Tommaso did not, however, board a galley for Venice, rather he was received by the pope in Rome, who commended his courage in battle and proclaimed him a hero of the Christian faith. After returning to Venice and his parents’ warm embrace, the Signoria awarded Giovan Tommaso with a lifetime stipend and promoted him to the certified rank Tassini, 1882: 315. ASMn, Archivio Gonzaga, E-XXII-3, b. 795, n. 54, c. 215v-216r (we are thankful to prof. Luca Molà for kindly reporting this document). With regard to other testimonies on the imprisonment of Giovanni Tommaso Costanzo, see the plea of Colonel Antonio Emiliani d’Ascoli in ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 78 (attached to the decree of 26 August 1581). 78 Ruscelli, 1581: 248-259. 79 Rosi, 1901. 76 77

115

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 166. Drawing by Tiberio Ceruto of the Ottoman fortress in the Black Sea (Rumelihisarı) in which he was imprisoned together with Giovanni Tommaso Costanzo (ASMn, Archivio Gonzaga, E-XXII-3, b. 795, n. 54, c. 214v-215r).

of colonel. At the time, the doge pledged to return him to active combat at the first opportunity, but despite this he was deployed to Corfu to guard the newlybuilt fortress. In the years that followed, Giovan Tommaso attempted to distinguish himself in his military reports, in the hopes that he would be promoted or transferred, and more than once he reminded the doge of his promise.80 Perhaps he was haunted by the thought that his dreams of glory would never come to fruition. Even though his contemporaries had proclaimed him a hero, up to that point he had only fought in a single battle that lasted eleven hours. In the years that he had spent in captivity and then on Corfu, it may have occurred to him that he could die without demonstrating his full potential. This had already happened in the past to Matteo, the unfortunate son of his great-grandfather Tuzio Costanzo. During a military campaign in Casentino, Matteo died from a bout of malaria at the age of only 23, without ever having the chance to participate in any great feats (Figure 167).81 Were his dreams forever fated to be dashed? How many times in his childhood had Giovan Tommaso been in the cathedral in the town of Castelfranco Veneto, standing before the tomb of his young predecessor? Had he ever daydreamed 80 81

ASVe, Senato, dispacci dei capi da guerra, b. 1 (dossier Gian Tommaso Costanzo, 1578-1580). Cortesi Bosco, 2009: 113-122.

116

An amazing historical tale about his fate before Giorgione’s altar painting, situated near the family chapel, where Matteo was depicted in armour between two saints at the foot of the Virgin Mary, holding the banner of the Knights Hospitaller (Figure 168)? But was this authentic glory? Did the Renaissance portrayals of the Hercules myth not culminate in the hero’s death in combat, the lifeless bodies of his enemies strewn about him? Giovan Tommaso could not waste away within the dank walls of a fortress in which the plaster had not yet even dried, in which the sole enemy he faced was pneumonia. After many ardent appeals, he managed to secure permission to join the contingents warring in Flanders under the leadership of Alessandro Farnese. During one of the battles, he was hit in the knee by a ball from a harquebus, but remounted his horse nevertheless and continued the charge, and after being wounded yet again he died soon afterward.82

Figure 167. Tombstone of Matteo Costanzo, 1504 (Costanzo Chapel, Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta and San Liberale, Castelfranco Veneto).

When his body was returned to Italy, Scipio organized grand funeral ceremony in the Sant’Antonio Basilica in Padua.83 He attended the services dressed in a long mantle made of curled wool fabric, with a hood that reached to his belt, adorned with black veils, and on his head he wore a velvet hat, also enshrouded in a black veil (Figure 169). The famed poet Luigi Groto, called the blind man of Adria, was also summoned for the occasion. His eloquent but also somewhat tedious funeral oration, delivered from memory, was a literary essay worthy of a fallen hero.84 Nonetheless, Scipio Costanzo was perhaps most touched by the sensitive poem which was composed in only a few hours one morning by the noblewoman Modesta Pozzo de ‘Zorzi, working under the pseudonym Moderata Fonte. When it was read to him, his eyes, hardened Gonzati, 1853: 213-215. Sartori, 1983: 668-669. 84 Groto, 1609: 123b-131b. 82 83

117

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 168. Giorgione altarpiece (Costanzo Chapel, Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta and San Liberale, Castelfranco Veneto).

by a thousand bloody battles, welled with tears at each verse, expressing inconsolable grief.85 Fathers should never outlive their children. If the early death of his son Matteo had caused immeasurable pain to Tuzio Costanzo, he limited such feelings to the private sphere, only commissioning a tomb and altar painting that would be installed in the intimate space of the family chapel in the cathedral of Castelfranco Veneto. By contrast, Scipio had to convey his bereavement to the entire world, so that the memory of his son would remain eternal and become the immortality to which heroes are entitled. The stone mausoleum that he had commissioned was installed several years later in the Sant’Antonio Basilica in Padua, a sacred place that, in his words, was the ‘eye of the world.’ But to Scipio, not a single paint-smudged canvas could do justice to his son’s death. He thus asked Luigi Groto to order the finest writers of the time to compose elegies in honour of Giovan Tommaso, which would then be published as a paper mausoleum compiled to commemorate the 85

Moderata Fonte: 6, 138-139.

118

An amazing historical tale glorious hero. Unfortunately, Scipio died soon thereafter, and he was interred in the same basilica. With the departure of his primary client, Groto tried to relegate the task to Alessandro Farnese, but the latter refused, so the paper mausoleum dedicated to Giovan Tommaso remained incomplete, or perhaps lost.86 4.2.4. Indemnity for loss of the ship After the outbreak of the war in March 1570, all merchant ships leased by the Venetian government, and then all others that were later enlisted into service, risked conflict with the Ottoman fleet. However, since nobody among the accountable was prepared to compensate the enormous insurance against such a threat, on 20 March of that same year ship owners, including the three nobles who owned the Lezze, Moceniga e Basadonna, sought an Figure 169. Mourning robe worn by Scipio Costanzo during the funeral ceremony audience with the Venetian College of his son Giovanni Tommaso to secure from the state coverage of (after Vecellio, 1859: 136). losses in cases when the Ottomans seized, sank or set fire to a ship. Faced with such collective pressure which, despite similar wartime circumstances in the past, had never occurred before, the College was compelled to give in and agree to indemnify ship owners. However, an affirmation of clear criteria was lacking, rather it was simply indicated that indemnification would be administered as the College saw fit.87 Nothing more than this could be secured. Pursuant to the aforementioned, after the loss of their ship, Benedetto da Lezze, Lazzaro Mocenigo and Piero Basadonna filed an indemnity claim,88 and on 15 September 1571, the College order the Magistracy of Executors of the Senate’s Decree (Ven. Esecutori Groto, 1601: 163-164. Only a few fragments remain of the paper mausoleum in BMCVe, Correr 347, c. 26v (Anonimo); Nuti, 1982 (Giulio Nuti) – Canzone nella morte del molto illustre signor Giouan Tomaso Costanzo – for the availability of this rare work with no references to the publisher, place and date of edition, consult the search engine of the website of the National Census of 16th century Italian editions: http://edit16.iccu. sbn.it/web_iccu/imain.htm; Borgogni, 1594: 42b (Girolamo Pallantieri); Solerti, 1900: 355-358 (Torquato Tasso). 87 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 39, c. 135v. 88 Ibid., f. 49, cc.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571. 86

119

The Shipwreck at Gnalić sopra le deliberazioni del Senato), which saw to contracts with ship owners, to implement procedures to estimate the value of the ship at the moment of its seizure. Over the next two months, the Executors gathered all information essential to acquiring a conception of the value of a ship with capacity of 1,200 barrels, which had sailed for two years. It would appear that the ship owners were not able to provide a single bookkeeping document that would prove actual costs. The value was thus estimated generally, based on the conclusion of an assessor from the Arsenal, with the exception of two documents: a bill for 1,091 ducats which the ship owners paid to the nobles Pisani and Tiepolo for four guns and a statement from the smelter of the ship’s armaments named Nicolò di Conti about 2 guns weighing 16 libbre, 4 culverins weight 14 libbre and 12 petriere made precisely for this ship (Figure 170).89 According to the Executor’s calculations, the value of the armaments in a total sum of 4,225 ducats was not depreciated, but the hull, winch, rudder, two auxiliary boats, masts and yards were estimated at 5/6 of the total invested sum, i.e., at 12,200 ducats in comparison to the invested 14,640. The calculation was probably done on the basis of the mean value of a ship’s lifetime, estimated at 12 years, which led to a reduction of the entire sum by 1/12 for each year of navigation. The rigging, sails, five large anchors and one small anchor were estimated at 3/4 of their value, i.e., at a sum of 3,792 ducats in comparison to the invested 5,056, probably on the basis of the estimated usable lifetime of 8 years (Figure 171). On 23 December 1571, the Executors submitted an indemnity estimate to the College in an amount of 20,217 ducats, which the Senate ratified five days later, after it removed all relatives of the ship owners from the chamber to avoid any conflicts of interest. With regard to the aforementioned decision of 20 March 1570, the senators decided that one third of the requested sum would be disbursed in cash, another third would be covered by granting the state’s tax debt collection rights, and the final third would be decided upon by the Council of Ten, the body that had previously approved the state grant to the ship owners, which still mostly had to be repaid.90 After taking what belonged to it, the Council undertook the commitment to reimburse the remaining amount in small instalments over the coming twenty years.91 4.3. Gagliana grossa – an old ship with a new name Thus far, there are unfortunately no available records on the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna during the ten years after it had fallen into Ottoman hands. The new owner, Uluç Ali, who was elevated to the prestigious post of kapudan paşa (or grand admiral of the Ottoman navy) after the Battle of Lepanto, probably docked it in the port of Valona in Ibid. Nicolò di Conti could confirm only an amount of slightly more than 247 ducats that were paid to him for the service of casting the guns, because the copper, tin and other metals had been procured by the ship owners themselves. The Executors, however, managed to calculate a cost of approximately 2,310 ducats for the copper, 25 ducats for the tin and 125 ducats for the remaining metals. The costs for mounts for the guns, cannonballs, etc. in a total amount of 165 ducats were added to the preceding sums. 90 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 40, cc.126r-126v. 91 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, reg. 30, c. 95r. 89

120

An amazing historical tale

Figure 170. Declaration of 15 October 1571 on the armament of the ship Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, made by the foundryman Nicolò di Conti (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document attached to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571); detail of the petriere gun from the site with the monogram of the Conti family’s Venetian foundry (photo: M. Nicolardi).

order to repair the extensive damages incurred during the battle. After changing its name, he may have even used it in the service of the Ottoman fleet during the War of Cyprus.92 In Venetian documents, the ship is once more noted only ten years later, in early November 1581, i.e., at the time when Uluç Ali decided to sell it to the sultan’s subject, a well-known Istanbul merchant named Odoardo da Gagliano.93 4.3.1. The Gagliano family: bankers, merchants, ship owners Odoardo’s grandfather, Antonio, who was the first of his family to move to Istanbul, had two sons (Figure 172).94 Benedetto, close to the Ottoman court, was involved Graf, 2017: 127. ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 372, c. 89r. 94 Nicolae Iorga (1896: 10; Dursteler, 2006: 133) asserted that the da Gagliano family was originally from Ragusa. Since no data on members of that family have thus far been found in the State Archives in Dubrovnik, it is possible that it was a reference to the city of the same name in Italy. 92 93

121

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 171. Document by which Arsenal experts estimate the value of ship’s equipment (ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 49, c.n.s. – document attached to the Senate decree of 28 December 1571).

in commerce and banking in the European part of Istanbul – in Pera, in the Galata district, where the Genoese community was centred in the Middle Ages.95 At some point between 1520 and 1530, his brother Domenico left the family home and settled in Venice to create a solid foundation for the family business.96 In 1554 he was listed in the register of taxpayers, and during the thirty years of his active career he acquired enviable wealth and a renown among the Christian and Jewish communities, and he became a member of the prestigious lay fraternity, Scuola grande di San Rocco.97 On 22 August 1582, Domenico declared before the magistracy in charge of property taxes (Dieci savi alle decime di Rialto) that he resided in the parish of San Cassisano in a house owned by Bortolo Marinoni and that he was the owner of a shop and warehouse on the Rialto and farm land near Portogruaro. Domenico further declared that he was the owner of two houses, of which one was in the contrada of San Salvador, while the other, which he had just purchased, was on the Ponte dell’Agnolo in the parish of S. Iorga, 1896: 1-112; Pedani, 2010: 53; ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 371, cc. 8r-9v – atti e sentenze del bailo Alessandro Contarini of 28 July 1547; ibid., 1v, 17r, 28v-29r – attestati delle imposte del bailo Alessandro Contarini of 7 February 1545 m.v., 15 November 1546 and 17 September 1547. 96 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, secreti, reg. 83, c. 46v. 97 ASVe, Cinque savi alla mercanzia, risposte, b. 141, cc. 40v-41r. About his enrolment as member of the Scuola di San Rocco, see ASVe, Notarile, testamenti, b. 1257, testamento n. 273, cc.n.s.; ibid., b. 1265, testamento n. 14, cc.n.s. 95

122

An amazing historical tale

Figure 172. Genealogy of the da Gagliano family (ASVe, Santa Croce, b. 5, cc. 1v-2r).

Maria Mater Domini.98 Yet another house that he owned was on the island of Murano.99 Domenico da Gagliano was first on the list of Jewish and Christian businessmen who supported the project by Daniel Rodriga, a Jew of Portuguese origin, to establish a cargo storehouse in Split (Ven. scala di Spalato).100 It is noteworthy that the two brothers (Figure 173) operated according to the rules of an in fraterna enterprise, i.e., a family business partnership into which the proceeds of their joint and individual business transactions were funnelled and in which all real estate was jointly held. Thus it is justifiable to presume that in case of investments in ships, both brothers shared ownership and the right to their use. The first data on a ship named the Gagliana, probably a small galleon with deadweight of 250 Venetian barrels, appeared in sources in the mid-1560s.101 In May 1571, when ASVe, Dieci savi alle decime di Rialto, b. 168, n. 470; ASVe, Governatori delle pubbliche entrate, b. 193, c.n.s. – document of 6 April 1573; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 392, cc. 97r-97v. 99 ASVe, Santa Croce, b. 5, cc. 3v-6r – volume under the title ‘Per il monastero della Croce di questa città contro domini Zuane et Odoardo fratelli Benvenuti’. 100 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 69, cc.n.s. – documents appended to the Senate decree of 28 October 1577. 101 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8255, c. 16r. 98

123

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 173. Trademarks of Domenico and Odoardo da Gagliano.

the War of Cyprus raged, the galleon was leased by the Venetian government to transport troops. Unfortunately, during the voyage, the soldiers mutinied and forced the captain to allow them to disembark in the port of Vieste, on the Gargano Peninsula.102 During the first half of the 1570s, the number of ships owned by the da Gagliano family grew to three, but one sank near the island of Unije in September 1578.103 Title to the Gagliana e Turiglia, which linked Ancona with the eastern Mediterranean, was shared with co-owners on the Greek island of Chios, which was then under Ottoman rule. 4.3.2. An unpleasant diplomatic incident On 14 October 1581, the Venetian bailo (ambassador) in Istanbul, Paolo Contarini, notified the Senate that the Gagliana e Turiglia, which had sailed from Venice on 31 August of the same year, was looted by several Tuscan galleys and the Knights of St. Stephen. The incident occurred several weeks earlier near two small Ionian islands called the Strofades, somewhat to the south of the island of Zakynthos.104 Fortunately, the ship managed to flee thanks to an expected gust of wind that filled its sails, so the privateers were only able to seize thirty-six bales of fabric and one crate of velvet. This was the story recounted by the ship’s captain, Giorgio Serra, a Greek originally from the island of Chios, to Contarini, but its credibility is justifiably doubted today. On 7 November a notary and the ship’s captain appeared in the bailo’s office in order to certify a statement with an inventory of the goods that was signed by the vice admiral of the Tuscan galley fleet, Marcantonio Calafati (Figure 174). From this data we may conclude that the ship had not by any means fled from the privateers, rather it was released after the Knights of St. Stephen had inspected the inventory logs, ransacked the lower decks and issued a list of seized goods. In any case, these were obviously courteous privateers rather than common pirates.105 ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 44, c.n.s. – document of 26 May 1571. ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 56, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 14 November 1573; ibid., f. 61, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 5 February 1574 m.v.; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 8296, cc. 365v-366r; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 44, c. 45r-45v; ibid., f. 72, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 28 October 1578; ibid., f. 90, c.n.s. – document appended to the Senate decree of 23 March 1585. 104 ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 15, cc. 201v-202r. 105 ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 372, cc. 87v-88r, 89v. 102 103

124

An amazing historical tale

Figure 174. List of goods looted by the Knights of Santo Stefano on board the ship Gagliana e Turiglia (ASVe, Bailo in Constantinople, b. 263, reg. 372, cc. 87v-88r).

A month after receiving the bailo’s letter, Grand Duke Francesco I de’ Medici received an objection from the Senate, expressing indignation over the events tied to a ship owned by Venetian citizen Domenico da Gagliano. Demanding the return of everything illegally seized, the Senate added that in the recent past Tuscan galleys had caused additional harm to the interests of the Most Serene Republic of Venice (Ven./Ital. Repubblica Serenissima di Venezia) by attacking three Ottoman vessels in waters under Venetian protection. One of them had been taken to the then Venetian island of Crete and secretly detained for a prolonged period; merchants from another ship had become victims of exploitation and abuse and were compelled to sell their cargo of grain intended for the then Venetian island of Zakynthos to the privateers, while the captain, helmsman and sailors of the third vessel were also subjected to mistreatment and even physical harm. The Senate expressed its deep regret over such news and the hope that, given the until then exemplary relations between the Most Serene Republic and the Grand Duchy, it would also dismay the grand duke himself.106 Besides the unpleasant assault on the Gagliana e Turiglia and the seizure of goods from the ship’s cargo hold, the Venetians were most troubled by the complaints lodged by 106

ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, secreti, reg. 83, cc. 46v-47v, 60v.

125

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Ottoman merchants, which gave the sultan cause for a war against the Republic. In the opinion of the Ottomans, the Venetians were providing shelter to Christian galleys on their islands, thereby violating earlier Venetian-Ottoman treaties. Such accusations in fact led to the War of Cyprus in 1570, so the Venetian authorities were gravely concerned.107 Several months later, Abbot Ottavio Abbioso, the secretary of the Medici family who functioned as an ambassador in Venice, was sent before the College, presided by the doge himself, in order to convey the grand duke’s response.108 Briefly, in the message read by Abbioso, Francesco I denied the Venetian identity of the Gagliana e Turiglia, because the ship neither belonged to Venetian nobles nor its authentic citizens, but rather to a foreigner and Ottoman subjects.109 Thus by their actions the Tuscan galleys and the Knights of St. Stephen fulfilled the mission of the struggle against infidels, and the Republic thus remained inviolate. Even though the grand duke was fully correct, he underestimated the Venetian distinction between something legally prescribed and something perceived as legitimate and tacitly acknowledged. The Venetian authorities were thus accused of affirming an untruthful claim and casting doubt on the principle of jurisdiction of territorial rule and the Republic’s economic interests. ‘Nonsense!’ thundered the doge in response to the grand duke’s letter. Even though Domenico da Gagliano had never formally sought citizenship, despite being entitled to do so, just the very fact that he had resided in Venice for so long and paid taxes made him, in the doge’s words, equal in status to Venetian citizens, so that he could enjoy the privileges accorded by Venetian law.110 Confronted by such a response, Abbioso had no choice but to leave the chamber, expressing disappointment and the hope that the incident would be resolved in the best possible manner.111 After Abbot Abbioso’s subsequent futile interventions, interrupted by the news of the early death of the grand duke’s son, the Senate decided to send an envoy to Florence with the task of returning the goods from the Gagliana e Turiglia and persuading the grand duke to halt the constant attacks by his privateers on the Levant, which further heightened tensions with the Ottomans. The envoy, Alvise Bonrizzo, utterly failed in his mission, despite the covert aid rendered to him by the grand duchess, the Venetian noblewoman Bianca Capello. In one of the private conversations which the grand duchess had with Bonrizzo, it came to light that her spouse had received information on the ship’s true identity directly from Venice. Francesco’s spies, obviously well placed in Venice’s public offices, ASVe, Collegio, esposizioni Principi, f. 4, c. 498r. Ibid., cc. 495r-498v. See the letters of Abbioso to the grand duke conserved in ASFi, Archivio Mediceo del Principato, b. 2988, cc. 105v, 118r-126r, 130r-136v, 142r-145r, 153r-156r. 109 The ‘foreigner’ in this case was Domenico da Gagliano, while the expression ‘Ottoman subjects’ pertained to the co-owners on the island of Chios. 110 Ibid., c. 159r-162v. 111 ASVe, Collegio, esposizioni Principi, f. 4, c. 498v. 107 108

126

An amazing historical tale reported that the ship in question had not been recorded in any official register of the maritime trade magistracy; that the ship paid a levy like all other foreign vessels; that its departure from Venice had not been heralded on the Rialto ‘by flags and fanfare’ as was the case for genuine Venetian ships; and that it did not fly the symbols of St. Mark. Grand Duke Francesco I also personally informed the envoy of the impossibility of returning the seized goods because to him that would have meant acknowledging the error of his admiral, who would then have to be beheaded. The Vatican had also been informed of the entire matter, because the Knights of St. Stephen were a military-ecclesiastical order subject to the pope, who was not prone to curtail raids by privateer galleys because in the eastern Mediterranean they maintained a state of constant tension in relations with the Ottomans. The grand duke therefore suggested that the Venetian authorities request that he send them the seized goods as a gift, rather than as a duty. Such a humiliating solution could naturally not be accepted, because this would have meant acknowledging their own mistake and bearing false witness. Bonrizzo thus returned to Venice, his task unfulfilled, and both sides, snared by their own compromised positions, found an interim solution in prolonged diplomatic talks. The problem was resolved only after the unexpected deaths of Grand Duke Francesco I and Bianca Capello (19 and 20 October 1587) when Venetian Ambassador Tommaso Contarini secured a pledge from the new grand duke, Ferdinando I, the deceased Francesco’s brother, to return the seized goods to their legitimate owners.112 4.3.3. Identity restored Due to the capture of the Gagliana e Turiglia, both Ottoman and Jewish merchants very likely accused Odoardo of fraud. Under the pretence that his Uncle Domenico resided in Venice and that he shared the family business with him, Odoardo probably falsely represented his vessels as Venetian, so that those who leased them in Istanbul were assured that their goods were under no threat of attacks by Christian privateers. When the deception was revealed, Odoardo was compelled to protect his reputation, and thereby also his future business. He thus had find a genuine Venetian ship, even if it was ten years older, such as the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, which had been captured in the summer of 1571 by Uluç Alì, who still held it. Odoardo was well aware that Venetian ships enjoyed considerable privileges, among them certainly the payment of far lower taxes, such as, for example, anchorage charges, and above all the right to load goods for Venice before any other ship in ports in which there was a representative of the Venetian authorities.113 On the other hand, BNMVe, mss. it., cl. VII, cod. 1195 (=8717). ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 371, c. 48r – acts and judgment of the bailo Alessandro Contarini on the date of 1 July 1546; ibid., b. 264, reg. 424, c. 60r, 108r. 112 113

127

The Shipwreck at Gnalić there were also obligations such as the use of exclusively Venetian-made rigging rope due to taxes and the policy of protecting local craftsmen. This important rule could only be violated in exceptional cases, when a vessel was in foreign zones with no possibility of purchasing Venetian rope. In such cases, a certified declaration from the nearest representative of the Venetian authorities had to be obtained and immediately submitted to the relevant offices upon the return to Venice in order to avoid charges of smuggling and penalties. These rules had their origin in the 15th century, and they were renewed and amended over time. According to decrees made in 1530 and 1555, the ropes on Venetian ships had to bear seals with the image of St. Mark’s lion on one side and the legend ‘officio della Tana’ on the other, and woollen markers that were either black or very light blue (Ven. biavo), which was obtained by mixing lead white and indigo114 It was for this reason that on 8 November 1581 the Venetian ambassador, Paolo Contarini, received Odoardo da Gagliano with witnesses in his office so that he could state under oath that even though they were not personally present at the moment of purchase of the ship ‘which was once the Leze et Moceniga’, they could confirm with certainty that the new owner had purchased it with all rigging necessary for sailing. Despite this, the witnesses continued, since Christian vessels normally used more rope than Ottoman vessels, Gagliano would be compelled to purchase new rope in Istanbul in the near future.115 The bailo was probably well aware that by endorsing such a declaration he acknowledged the de facto Venetian identity of the ship, which had once indeed been Venetian. On the other hand, he also knew quite well that Venetian laws forbade a ship from retaining this identity de iure after ten years in cases when a foreigner purchased it, and in this specific case a subject of the sultan no less. Despite this, it certainly did not suit him to deny Odoardo’s demands, due both to the reputation he enjoyed in the Istanbul mercantile community and the importance of his ties to high dignitaries in the Ottoman court and abroad.116 From the political standpoint, declaring the vessel Venetian could have certainly reinforced Odoardo’s position in relation to Ottoman and Jewish merchants who were causing problems for him after the capture of the Gagliana e Turiglia, and also confirm the citizenship of his uncle Domenico, which was confirmed by the doge himself a month later. Pursuant to such a decision, the Gagliana e Turiglia would be proclaimed Venetian, and thereby the casualty of illegal actions by Tuscan galleys, which would eliminate any cause for a declaration of war. That the problems concerning the identity of ships owned by the da Gagliano family persisted even during the subsequent decades is demonstrated by an event that Crusca, 1866: 171; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 22, cc. 33r-34v; ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 29, cc. 176r-178r. 115 ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 272, c. 89r. On 11 January 1583, Odoardo da Gagliano declared that due to grave necessity he had to purchase stay ropes in Pera for his ship, the Gagliana grossa (ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 264, reg. 424, c. 27r). 116 Dursteler, 2006: 133. 114

128

An amazing historical tale occurred in January 1601. Privateer galleys of the Kingdom of Naples seized a vessel named Gagliana in the waters off the Greek island of Kos. On this occasion, the Ottomans accused Odoardo of colluding with Neapolitan privateers, suspecting that he notified them that there were high Ottoman officials on board.117 The bailo then notified the Senate by coded message about the impropriety of the accusations levelled against Odoardo, because he was the sultan’s subject who paid the standard Christian levy (Ven. carazo). He added that Odoardo had a habit of feigning the Venetian identity of his vessels, calling on the fact that his brother Domenico (the same name as his uncle) was a Venetian citizen. The truth was actually that Odoardo’s brother Domenico had settled in Venice in 1575, taking over the family business from his uncle after the latter’s death on 19 October 1586, but had only been proclaimed a Venetian citizen in 1603, while on 12 August of the same year the Senate accepted his request that the ship he had built on the island of Patmos be proclaimed Venetian.118 In the spring of 1582, the ship formerly known as the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, rechristened the Gagliana grossa, sailed toward Venice for the first time. The name Gagliana referred to its new owner, while the adjective grossa indicated that the ship had a high deadweight of 1,200 Venetian barrels, or roughly 720 t. The information on this first voyage was indirectly derived from a statement wherein the merchants Antonio di Giovanni and Rabi Samuele Sonsin in Istanbul confirmed the receipt of mercury and cinnabar. The cargo was, according to them, loaded in Venice by Girolamo Andrusian and Martino Antonio Maffetti onto the Gagliana grossa commanded by Alvise Finardi.119 It is possible that the two decorated bronze 12 libbre calibre guns were also loaded at the time, which were found in 1967 at the shipwreck site near Gnalić. As already said, they were cast by Zuane (Giovanni II) Alberghetti in 1581.120 Immediately after returning to Istanbul on 24 September 1582, the ship was ready for a return voyage. Odoardo da Gagliano exploited his privilege, receiving permission from the bailo to load goods before the Dubrovnik galleon San Giovanni Battista commanded by Francesco di Polo.121 Whether or not the ship actually departed then is difficult to ascertain, but the fact is that both Alvise Finardi and Odoardo da Gagliano were on the list of participants in the meeting of the Council of Twelve (Ven. Consiglio di XII), held in Istanbul on 11 December 1582, over which the bailo presided. It is thus unlikely that in such a short period, from 24 September to 11 December, the ship managed to make the voyage from Istanbul to Venice and back, offloading freight in Venice and then loading new goods in the process. Judging by the list of voyages by large Venetian ships during 1557-1560, the duration of the Barzazi, 1991: 354. ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 55, c. 268v – decoded text: a c. 269r; ASVe, Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla sanità, necrologi, reg. 818, c.n.s. – of 20 October 1586; ASVe, Notarile, b. 3357, cc. 363v-365r; ASVe, Cinque savi alla mercanzia, I serie, risposte, b. 141, cc. 40v-41r, 54r-54v. 119 ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 272, cc. 165v-166r). 120 Petricioli, I., 1970, 10-12; Morin, 2006: 95-96. 121 ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 272, c. 159r. An identical case occurred again with the same captain on 30 April 1583 (ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 264, reg. 424, c. 58v, 60r). 117 118

129

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 175. Confirmation of Alvise Finardi on taking over the gift box for the Venetian doge, handed over by the bailo on behalf of the valide sultan Nurbanu (ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 17, cc. 6r).

voyage could have varied from four and a half months during the summer, and up to nine months during the winter.122 At the end of 1583, the ship was anchored in the port of Silivri in the Sea of Marmara, several miles from Istanbul, ready for its third voyage. Together with other valuable goods, the bailo personally handed a box to Captain Alvise Finardi containing two brocade uniforms, which the sultana sent as a gift to the Venetian doge (Figure 175).123 By a bizarre coincidence, Finardi was now captain of the same ship that was built and then commanded by Frane Antunov of Korčula in 1570, sailing alongside the Dolfina under Finardi’s command. As already stated above, the two captains endured a common, unpleasant misadventure that will be described below. 4.3.4. Alvise Finardi: ordinary and extraordinary tales from the life of a seasoned seafarer Alvise Finardi was born in 1507, probably in a family originally from the Bergamo region. In the register of sea captains from 1558, he is recorded at the age of 40, so it may be concluded that he was born in 1518.124 The same information can also be found in the obituary register of the Venetian health department (Ven. Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla sanità), to which pastors sent data on the deceased.125 Despite this, it would appear that the most accurate data are contained in the registers of the parish of San Pietro di Castello, in which the date of Finardi’s death, 20 January 1587, is accompanied by the age of 80, whereby his date of birth should be moved to 1507.126 There are considerable data on the first years of his career as a sea captain, besides the fact that at the age of thirty he became renowned for his heroism in a war against BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 217, c. 16r-33v. ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 17, cc. 6r, 9r; ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 264, reg. 424, c. 50v, 52r. 124 BMCVe, ms. Donà dalle Rose 217, c. 39r. 125 ASVe, Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla sanità, necrologi, reg. 818, c.n.s. – of 20 May 1586 m.v. 126 ASPVe, Parrocchia di San Pietro di Castello, morti, reg. 1.1, c. 53v. 122 123

130

An amazing historical tale the Ottomans (1537-1540), as stated in an autobiography in which certain events were intentionally neglected or put forth in a somewhat sanitized version.127 In 1537 he boarded the Dolfina as a gunner. A part of the command staff – among them the captain himself and the top gunnery officer – attempted to flee the ship on a lifeboat in the area of Prèveza, in Epirus. Threatening them with one of the ship’s guns, Finardi forced the mutineers to return and thus saved the vessel. In 1538, in his own words, he boarded the Coressa and smuggled a considerable amount of contraband from Syria and almost managed to liberate the Christians being held captive in a castle in Tripoli. Unfortunately, while sailing for Smyrna on the same vessel the following year he experienced a shipwreck at the island of Brusnik, near Vis, losing all of the cargo and incurring a debt of 4,000 ducats. In 1546 he became the captain of the Savaressa,128 and then in the mid-1550s until 1563, he also captained the Tiepola and Alberta.129 In that latter year, he came upon squall near the Korčula Channel in which he managed to save the ship and the soldiers on it who had embarked at Corfu. However, he again lost all of the cargo, including 22 crates of sugar loaded at Palermo.130 In 1564 he became the captain of the Gradeniga, and in 1565 he became captain of the Dolfina.131 As stated, in 1570 the ship was leased by the Venetian Republic to transport troops and supplies to Cyprus.132 On 14 March Finardi anchored at Famagusta, the soldiers and supplies were disembarked, and new cargo was loaded. In the meantime, the Giustiniana, and then also the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna arrived in the same port. The latter vessel, as we know, was under the command of Frane Antunov of Korčula. However, an unanticipated event soon altered the lives of both captains, Alvise Finardi and Frane Antunov of Korčula. On 6 April, the island’s Venetian commanders gathered in the village of Asha between Nicosia and Famagusta in order to devise a strategy to defend against an anticipated Ottoman invasion.133 They decided to shelter as many residents as possible inside the fortress walls, while Marcantonio Bragadin ordered the captains of the sole three Venetian ships in the harbour at the time to unload all cargo so that it could be used for survival during the expected prolonged siege. Furthermore, on 17 April Bragadin decided to take several guns from the Giustiniana, Dolfina and Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna in order to reinforce Famagusta’s defence,134 and ordered the captains to sail ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, cc.n.s. – document appended to the decree of 20 March 1582. 128 Ibid.; ASVe, Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263, reg. 371, cc. 31r-31v, 21v – acts and judgment of Bailo Alessandro Contarini of 2 and 7 December 1546 and 5 June 1547. 129 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 33, c. 99v; ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 33, c. 41r. 130 ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, cc.n.s – document appended to the decree of 20 March 1582; Tucci, 1957: 209, 212, 215-216, 218, 221, 241, 257-258, 262, 264, 266, 276-277, 287, 297, 301, 311, 320, 321; ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 33, c. 99r; BMCVe, Donà dalle Rose 217, c. 17r; ASVe, Capi del Consiglio di dieci, Liber creditorum conducentium sale Cypro, cc.n.s. 131 Ibid., ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, cc.n.s – document appended to the decree of 20 March 1582. 132 ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 38, c. 137v. 133 ASVe, Setton, 1984: 991. 134 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 110, c.n.s. – letter from Famagosta of 17 April 1570, sent by Marcantonio Bragadin. 127

131

The Shipwreck at Gnalić their vessels to the beach at the Larnaca salt-pans and load certain goods stored at this isolated location. Thus, by a surprising coincidence, the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna was in the centre of a bizarre contact between the past and future, which saw the intermingling of the lives of Frane Antunov of Korčula, who had recently built it with his own hands and was at the moment its captain, and Alvise Finardi, under whose command it would end up on the seafloor at Gnalić thirteen years later. During the loading, the crews of the Dolfina and Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, upset by news of an inevitable Ottoman attack, staged a mutiny and forced their captains to set course for Venice with all due haste.135 According to Finardi’s much later hypocritical claim, this act was prompted by the need to save ships which the Venetian Republic sorely needed. As soon as Marcantonio Bragadin learned of this insubordination by the two ships, he sent a letter to the Venetian authorities in which he reported the unfortunate incident and sought a suitable penalty. The Council of Ten and the College gathered on 9 June, read Bragadin’s letter and ordered the immediate arrest of the two captains, wherever they were at the moment.136 However, when the ships approached Venice on 4 July, their captains were not on board. Word of the threat awaiting them had probably reached them during their voyage up the Dalmatian coast or perhaps upon their arrival in Istria, where it was a custom for harbour pilots to board for navigation to Venice. On 6 July 1570, the herald Annibale di Ventura stood at attention on the stone podium (Ven. pietra del bando) on the Rialto, a column of red granite with stone steps on the back of a kneeling Atlas (Figure 176), ironically called the ‘Hunchback’. From this position, Ventura had a commanding view of all of San Giacometto Square and everyone who gathered in the meantime and awaited with anticipation to hear what he had to say. After the standard formula, ‘The Most Serene Prince lets it be known’ (Ven. ‘Il Serenissimo Principe fa saper’), he began to read the judgment that had been made a few days earlier almost unanimously by the Council of Ten,137 ordering Frane Antunov of Korčula, the captain of the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna, and Alvise Finardi, the captain of the Dolfina, to appear before the gates of the prison within a period of eight days to defend themselves against charges of insubordination raised by the captain of the Kingdom of Cyprus, Marcantonio Bragadin.138 This was in fact a futile act, but stipulated by law and thereby essential for the continuation of the formal legal procedure. The trial was conducted in absentia and concluded on 19 September with a sentence of unconditional exile from all territories of the Venetian Republic.139 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 118, c.n.s. – memorandum by Finardi for his defence against charges. 136 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, criminal, reg. 11, c. 77r. 137 Ibid., c. 79v-80r. 138 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, proclami, b. 5, c.n.s. 139 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, criminal, reg. 11, c. 84v-85r. 135

132

An amazing historical tale

Figure 176. Stone podium (Ven. pietra del bando) on the Rialto, a column of red granite with stone steps on the back of a kneeling Atlas (photo: M. Bondioli).

Given that neither a man-hunt nor violent interrogations yielded any trace of the two indictees and their possible accomplices, a warrant was posted with a reward of over 160 ducats to anyone who could bring them to justice dead or alive.140 In the unfortunate case of their capture alive, they could have expected execution by hanging in Venice on a gallows erected in St. Mark’s Square, where all citizens and foreigners could see the traitors to the Republic meet their end. Fortunately, thanks to the mercy of almost a third of the Council of Ten and College, their family assets avoided confiscation, which allowed the families of the two captains to survive the tragedy. Alvise and Frane fled together to Ancona, in which a papal fleet under the command of Marcantonio Colanna was being assembled. They were certain that experienced sea captains like them were being sought and that they would thus be safe from the agents of the Council of Ten and all of those who intended to apprehend or kill them. Moreover, the two fugitives well knew that the papal galleys would soon join the Venetian fleet commanded by Captain General of the Sea Girolamo Zane. Wishing to avoid any risk, they sought from and on 12 August 1570 secured Colonna’s formal statement that they were unable to go to Venice to defend themselves from the charges because Colonna had committed them to service in his navy. This was a rather unconvincing justification, but it was indeed cited by Finardi in a document written in his own defence three years later.141 Then on several occasions Colonna allegedly Ibid., c. 79v-80r. ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 118, c.n.s. – memorandum of Alvise Finardi for his defence against charges. 140 141

133

The Shipwreck at Gnalić sought from Girolamo Zane a pass for temporary immunity for the two captains, which he finally secured on 15 September of the same year. With this official document in hand, the two indictees could freely go wherever they wished for a minimum of six years (Figure 177).142 In mid-January 1571 fate separated Alvise and Frane. On 18 and 19 January, upon the arrival of the papal galleys in Zadar, Marcantonio Colonna signed the close of service for both captains. Alvise returned to Venice and became captain of the Giustiniana, but the government ordered him to disembark and appointed him admiral of the galley of the newly elected Provveditore General in the Gulf (Ven. Provveditore Generale in Golfo), Filippo Bragadin.143 Finardi only stayed with him until the end of 1571,144 because in November of the same year the Captain General of the Sea (Ven. Capitano Generale da mar) Sebastiano Venier put him in charge of tarring all ships in the Venetian fleet, having decided to then retain him as admiral of his ship to replace Ivan of Vrana (Zuane da Vrana), Finardi’s good friend who was wounded in the Battle of Lepanto.145 On 3 February 1572, by decree of the Senate, Giacomo Foscarini was appointed the new Captain General of the Sea, replacing Venier in this post. However, before the old captain was dismissed, Finardi secured a new pass under the condition that Venier provide two already paid men to row on his galleys.146 This condition was already contained in the judgment of the Council of Ten, made at the beginning of the war, but Girolamo Zane did not take it into account in time, which actually meant that the pass was not valid.147 Zane fell out of favour in the meantime and died as a prisoner. In order to salvage the situation by observing legal norms, Finardi arranged for a certain Simon da Torres and Panagioti de Giavi to row for twelve months on Contarini’s galley, and when Venier return to his homeland and read his final report before the Senate, he stated that Alvise Finardi was an excellent sailor, courageous, reasonable and very sharp-witted.148 On 7 March 1572 a separate peace was signed between the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire, and then on 4 July the Council of Ten sent a proclamation on the cancellation of any passes, among them those signed by the Captain General of the Sea with reference to the acquittal of those sentenced to exile. After only eight days from Even though today only the documents received by Alvise Finardi are known to us, it is virtually a certainty that Marcantonio Colonna and Girolamo Zane issued the corresponding documents to Frane Antunov of Korčula, but these were lost over time. 143 ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, cc.n.s. – document appended to the decree of 20 March 1582. 144 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 118, c.n.s. – statement submitted by Filippo Bragadin of 20 December 1571; ASVe, Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 45, c.n.s. – document of 22 September 1571. 145 Ibid., order from Sebastian Venier of 10 November 1571. 146 ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 118, c.n.s. – immunity issued by Sebastian Venier. 147 Tucci, 1974. 148 ASVe, Collegio, relazioni finali di ambasciatori, rettori e altre cariche, b. 75, c. 12v-13r. 142

134

An amazing historical tale

Figure 177. Pass for Alvise Finardi, issued by the Captain General of the Sea Sebastiano Venier (ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 118, c.n.s.).

that moment, anybody inside the borders of the Venetian Republic or on a Venetian vessel, with or without a pass, would be apprehended alive or dead. Fortunately, Alvise Finardi was probably in the city at the time, so in compliance with the demand from the proclamation, he voluntarily turned himself over to prison, whence he would legally defend himself. Finally, on 15 July 1573 the Council of Ten made a judgment to acquit Finardi,149 but this was not the end of his troubles. Immediately after this decision was issued, Finardi boarded the Moceniga as its captain for a voyage to Syria. However, when he arrived in Tripoli the Ottoman authorities, still uninformed of the separate peace concluded with Venice, seized the ship and its entire crew. The Ottomans removed the ship’s rudder, several sails and the lifeboat in order to pre-empt any escape attempt. Crafting an auxiliary rudder by himself, Finardi managed to depart from the port with seventy-five merchants, Cypriot refugees and several women. Unfortunately, the captain was forced to leave behind a captured clerk and several sailors, so he became a hero to the people on the ship, but a scurrilous traitor to those he had abandoned and left in Ottoman hands. On its return journey, the ship stopped on the shores of Cyprus to refill its water casks and then fled just ahead of the Ottoman cavalry, which had observed it.150 149 150

ASVe, Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, reg. 31, c. 42v. ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, Grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, c.n.s.

135

The Shipwreck at Gnalić It is also noteworthy that on 11 May 1574, Alvise Finardi and thirty members of his crew spent the entire night putting out a fire in the doge’s palace. On this occasion, even though his clothes caught fire, he managed to rescue several antiquities that the doge particularly liked.151 Finardi’s next few years passed far more peacefully in his role as captain of the Moceniga and Nana,152 but in 1580, while commanding the Balanzer, he once more endured a shipwreck in the waters of Gibraltar.153 4.4. The final voyage of the Gagliana grossa (once called the Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna) In mid-June 1583, the Gagliana grossa arrived in Venice for the third time, and by midAugust so much cargo had been loaded that a voyage to Istanbul was being considered.154 According to the insurance policies issued from 24 through 28 August 1583, we know that goods had already been loaded by Zorzi Lopes Vas, a Jewish merchant of Portuguese origin, and then by Giovanni di Nicolò di Paressi, Nicolò Studognoti and Dimitri Calauro.155 It should be noted that in that time there was no obligation to specify the type of goods to insurers,156 so often it is not possible to reconstruct the content of a ship’s cargo based on these policies. The ship’s clerk Šimun Fazanić (Simon Fasaneo), originally from the island of Hvar (Figure 178), also loaded his goods, while Captain Alvise Finardi only loaded a portion of his goods on 2 September of the same year.157 The role of a ship’s clerk was certainly important, for in that era of general illiteracy, he was one of the rare, and sometimes sole literate person aboard. His basic task was to record the goods in the ship’s register, and like a notary on land, he was a person vested with public trust (Lat. persona credibilis). The maritime theorist Josip Balović of Perast mentioned an old sailor’s saying, ‘On a ship the captain is God, and the clerk is his prophet’, which indicates the high reputation of the person performing that duty.158 Prior to boarding the Gagliana grossa Šimun Fazanić, a member of a well-known Hvar noble family, served as admiral of Hvar’s harbour, but he stepped down from this post without permission for unknown reasons, so Hvar’s rector filed charges against him with the Venetian authorities. He was the son of Petar Fazanić (Pietro da Liesina), a Ibid. ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, c.n.s – letter from Africante Abbios da Aleppo; ASVe, Giudici dell’esaminador, interdetti, b. 5, cc. 78v-79r; ibid., b. 6, c. 53r. 153 ASVe, Cassiere della bolla ducale, Grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16, c.n.s.; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 5629, cc. 232v-233v; ibid., b. 6529, cc. 171v-172r, 317r-318r, 383r; ibid., b. 6530, cc. 257r-257v, 422r; ibid., b. 7847, cc. 5r-5v. 154 ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, cc.n.s. – letters from Guglielmo Helman of 16 June and 27 August 1583 to his agent in Istanbul, Antonio Paruta. 155 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3354, c. 219r; ibid., b. 6530, c. 401v; ibid., b. 10669, cc. 522r-523r. 156 Ibid., b. 8321, cc. 430v-431r. 157 Ibid., b. 5809, cc. 40v-41r. 158 Balović, 2004 (1693). 151 152

136

An amazing historical tale

Figure 178. View of Hvar (Lesina); Konrad von Grünenberg, Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem, 1487. Cod. St. Peter Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe.

successful merchant and businessman in Venice in the mid-16th century. Today a small street, formerly a small square, in Venice was actually named after him (Corte Pietro da Liesina); it is situated at the periphery of the Castello section, in which the most Croatian émigrés lived in the past.159 The Venetian courts to which Šimun Fažanić turned after the charges were filed against him for collection of his admiral’s pay, a part of his inheritance, income from estates on the island and the sale of his father’s house at the Maritime School in Venice,160 definitively confirmed the indictment of 15 April 1584 and dismissed Fažanić from the Čoralić 2000: 89. Based on data from Petar’s will, drawn up not long before his death in 1566, it is known that he had a son named Šimun. For more details on Petar of Hvar and the square named after him, see Čoralić, 2003: 211-232. 160 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10, c. 356r; ibid., b. 5628, cc. 219v-220r; ibid., b. 5798, cc. 424r-425r; ibid., b. 6510, cc. 99v-101v; ibid., b. 11645, c.n.s. – document of 27 August 1583. 159

137

The Shipwreck at Gnalić post he held in the Hvar harbour. This is the best evidence that the clerk had survived the shipwreck and was in Venice several months later.161 Despite promises to set sail soon, the ship remained in port throughout September, with hopes for departure by month’s end. During this time, goods were loaded by Agostino Cigrigni, Giovanni da Pozzo, Giovanni and Stefano di Silvestri and the tanner (Ven. scorcer) Giovanni di Battista.162 But departure was again postponed,163 so that the merchants, but also owners, incurred considerable damages. The delays in departure were certainly not due to the weather, but rather insufficient cargo. 4.4.1. Departure In the meantime, the Senate decided to use the ship to send a high quantity of window panes to Istanbul, ordered by coded letter as the customary form in Venetian diplomatic correspondence (Figure 179). The letter was sent on 24 May 1583 by bailo Giovanni Francesco Morosini, who notified the Senate of a fire that had destroyed a part of the sultan’s old palace with the harem.164 At the sultana’s orders, fires were lit to dry the walls of the recently constructed baths, but the slave women tending them lost control of the flames, so a destructive fire broke out in the old palace. Sultan Murad III (Figure 180) immediately engaged all craftsmen in Istanbul and charged high officials from his court with oversight of the works, in the hope that the competitive spirit thus engendered among them would accelerate the building’s reconstruction. Several weeks later, the bailo conveyed to the Senate an order of 5,000 round window panes (Ven. rui) needed for the restoration of the windows of the old palace, which he received on behalf of the sultan from Grand Vizier Siyavush Pasha, called the Croat (Tur. Siyavuş Paşa). As his name indicates, the grand vizier, like many other high officials in the Ottoman court, was originally from the Croatian regions under Ottoman rule, and he held the post of grand vizier three times in his political career. In the 1580s, he commissioned the construction of a large han in Sarajevo to accommodate impoverished Jews, which was called the Siyavush Pasha’s daire, or the Grand Courtyard.165 The decision to grant the grand vizier’s request to purchase and deliver glass was only made by the Senate on 16 September 1583,166 and during the following week the bailo was notified that cases containing glass, probably sealed with the doge’s stamp (Figures 133, 181), had been loaded onto the Gagliana grossa. Venetian ASVe, Avogaria di Comun, b. 684, c.n.s. – letter of 21 February 1583; ibid.; b. 3685, cc. 75v-76r; ASVe, Giudici all’esaminador, notifiche, b. 8, cc. 50v-51r. 162 Ibid., b. 8321, cc. 9r-9v, 43v-44r; ibid., b. 10669, cc. 521r-521v; ibid., cc. 510r-510v. 163 ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, cc.n.s. – letter from Guglielmo Helman of 26 September 1583 to his agent in Istanbul, Antonio Paruta. 164 ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 17, c. 233r. 165 All that remains of Siyavush-Pasha’s han is the old synagogue (Old Temple) which today houses the Jewish Museum. 166 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, Costantinopoli, reg. 6, c. 123v. 161

138

An amazing historical tale

Figure 179. Encrypted letter sent to Constantinople by Giovanni Francesco Morosini informing the Senate of the fire, and the Sultan’s order of window panes (ASVe, Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 17, c. 277v-278r).

patricians decided to use the same ship to send three bales of the finest silk as a gift to the sultan’s mother (Tur. Wālide Sultān) Nūr Bānū, the equal co-ruler of the Ottoman Empire during the last nine years of her life (1574-1583).167 According to one story, at the age of twelve she was abducted and taken to the Ottoman court by the famed Ottoman admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa, during which time her true identity was lost.168 It would appear that the Venetian senators arbitrarily decided to create a new identity for her as Cecilie Venier-Baffo, whose father was allegedly the Venetian noble Nicolò Venier. Other sources identify Nūr Bānū with Kale Kartanou, the daughter of the Greek Nicholas Kártanos, abducted on Corfu in 1537. Shrouded in a veil of mystery to this day, the dual identity of the famed sultana, the first in a long line of women who actually administered the Empire’s affairs over the next century, certainly had its political and probably also private reasons. Regardless of her actual origin, the fact was that the sultan’s mother demonstrated a great affinity for the Venetian Republic in her policies, establishing firm ties with it.169 The Senate loaded a bale of brocade, enough to make four uniforms for the pasha, onto the same ship. Ibid., c. 124r, 143v. Arbel, 1992. 169 Banić, 2014: 66-67. 167 168

139

The Shipwreck at Gnalić For now the workshop that produced the glass products loaded by the Senate and the numerous other glass items found on the seafloor remains unknown, but it is worth mentioning that at the time of the events described herein the workshop of Pietro Ballarin, which made glass for the Istanbul market, was operating at Murano.170 Its owner was the son of Domenico Ballarin, who had supplied the French court with Murano glass products, and the grandson of the famed Split glassmaker Juraj, who was noted at the beginning of his career in 1456 as Georgius Figure 180. Sultan Murat III (1546-1595), son of Sultan Selim II and Nurbanu Sclavonus, and roughly (after Young, 1815: fig. 181). two decades later as Georgius Sclavonus dictus Ballarin (George the Slav, called Ballarin).171 The nickname Ballarin (from Ital. ballare = to dance), was given to George because of the awkward hop he had when he walked, caused by a work-related mishap. With time it became the family surname. Judging by historical sources, it was in fact the famed Split native who was responsible for the discovery of the secret to producing the finest Murano products from the workshop owned by the then leading glassmakers Marin and Giovanni Barriovier, which became the subject of a lawsuit, as well as the theme of a romanticized historicallove story.172 With time, Juraj Ballarin became a highly esteemed Murano craftsman with the right to entry in the register of Murano citizens (later the Golden Book, Čoralić, 2003, 116. L. Čoralić indicated an inventory of items exported from Ballarin’s workshop in 1590 (Zecchin, 1989: 166) as a vital source to study Venetian glassmaking. 171 On Master Ballarin and his descendants, see Čoralić, 2003: 108-129, where the sources and other literature are cited. 172 More in Čoralić, 2003: 109, note 124. 170

140

An amazing historical tale Ital. Libro d’oro),173 and his descendants adroitly continued the family tradition. During October, contrary to expectations, loading still continued. From the insurance policies, we know that goods were loaded at the time by Antonio Platipodi from Athens, Tranquillo Coletti and Battista della Bella (Figure 182),174 and then Nicolò Studognoti, Dimitri Calauro and Alvise Finardi loaded additional goods. Antonio Platipodi loaded three bales consisting of six pieces of cloth of middling quality, of which three were deep purple (Ven. paonazzo), one crimson, one green and one flesh coloured, a roll of green damask fabric and 140 lengths Figure 181. Venetian Doge Nicolò da Ponte of cramoisie (ca. 88 m), all (1578-1585), (Jacopo Palma the Younger, sealed and designated with his oil on canvas). trademark.175 Alvise Finardi loaded wool fabric, other goods and a chest of personal belongings, while Domenico da Gagliano gave him 500 ducats for the ship’s expenses and another 500 to feed the sailors.176 Thus far, there is no indication as to when Antonio Cavedal, Iseppo Balbi, Alvise Sanudo, Taddeo Morosini and two Levantine Jews, Samuel Cavin and Abraam di Daniel Caron loaded their goods, 177 but it is known that Balbio’s cargo consisted of anise and cumin.178 At the end of October the ship finally set sail from the Venetian port of Malamocco headed for Istanbul, on its final maritime voyage.179 Being a citizen of Murano was a prerequisite for engaging on the glass trade. On the Golden Book, see Zanetti, 1883. 174 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3354, cc. 215v-216v. 175 Ibid., b. 10669, cc. 528v-529r. 176 Ibid., b. 6530, cc. 425v-426r. 177 Ibid., b. 10669, cc. 521v-522r; ibid., b. 10670, c. 17r-18r; ibid., b. 10671, cc. 355r-355v. 178 Ibid., b. 6530, cc. 407v-408r. 179 ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, cc.n.s. – letter from Guglielmo Helman of 29 October 1583 to his agent in Istanbul, Antonio Paruta. 173

141

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 182. A notarial deed by which Antonio Platipodi hands over to the insurers the ownership of the lost goods in exchange for the agreed compensation, and his trademark (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10669, c. 529r).

4.4.2. The shipwreck and salvage of its cargo There is no way of knowing whether the seasoned captain foresaw what awaited him in Dalmatian waters on the very eve of the winter season sailing moratorium. Similarly, there is no way of knowing what threatened the heavily laden ship on its overseas voyage, but it is certain that already on 9 November the heralds of the Venetian Republic declared from Rialto Square, in the immediate vicinity of the famed eponymous bridge, the horrible news of its sinking somewhere in Dalmatia.180 Something like that could have been expected, given the two terrible years, 1583 and 1584, during which many ships ended up on the seafloor.181 The news quickly found its way to the merchants involved in this fiasco, i.e., at least those who were in the city at the time. It would appear that only Guglielmo Helman, a merchant of Flemish origin who had good reason to fear for the ship’s fate, still had not learned of the shipwreck.182 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, Costantinopoli, reg. 6, c. 134v. On 10 September 1584, tax collectors who gathered the 6% levy on goods imported to Venice from the Levant (Sandi, 1774: 394; Costantini, 2006: 84) announced that over the preceding two years approximately thirty large sailing vessels had sank, of which five were from Istanbul, and the rest from Alexandria and Cyprus (ASVe, Collegio, suppliche di dentro, b. 7, n. 285). 182 In a letter dated 9 November, addressed to Antonio Paruta, Guglielmo Helman did not make any mention of the shipwreck (ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, cc.n.s.). 180 181

142

An amazing historical tale As was often the case, the first reports on the site of the shipwreck were rather ambiguous and confused, generally based on gossip and speculation by seafarers. In the case of the ship Sumachia, which sank a month later, some said that it had disappeared in the waters off Corfu or some other Greek island; others were certain that the wreck had occurred somewhere farther away, probably near the Calabrian coast at Crotone, in Apulia or at Taranto or Lecce, perhaps at Gallipoli or even near Sicily.183 A rumour circulated that the Gagliana grossa had sunk near the island of Murter, but also that it had sank to the seafloor several miles north in the direction of Zadar. Only later, when several survivors returned to Venice, did it become known for certain that the tragic event played out near Zaklopica Cove (Ital. Porto Chiave) on the southern end of the island of Pašman, situated less than one nautical mile from the actual site of the shipwreck near the islet of Gnalić (Figure 183).184 Fortunately, the crew had managed to save themselves with the help of two lifeboats and reach the eastern shore of nearby Gnal Promontory by oar and sail, and then to the sheltered cove of Zaklopica near Tkon. How many people died in the wreck remains unknown, but the fact that two human bones were found during explorations in 1973 point to the conclusion that some of those on board did not survive.185 The Senate was also notified of the wreck of the Gagliana grossa, probably only a few moments before they voted on the text of one of the many letters sent to the Venetian bailo in Istanbul. They thus immediately moved to add several notes at the end of the text on the loss of the ship’s cargo, accompanied with a request to convey to the grand vizier an encouraging message on the renewed delivery of 5,000 round window panes and fabrics for the sultana.186 Already on the next day, merchants rushed to notaries public in order to expedite the issuing of cession contracts, essential for insurers to assume ownership of the insured goods and pay out the contracted insurance settlements to merchants.187 During these days, a meeting of all of those who were involved in the event in any way was convened, so that they could choose three representatives of all parties interested in salvaging the cargo and ship’s rigging and furnishings (Ven. capi degli interessati). The meeting, probably held on 11 or 12 November 1583, chose Lorenzo Barbarigo, Lorenzo Girardi and Girolamo Pianella as representatives, and they were given broad authority to represent the meeting at any place or before any office, including representatives of the civilian and military authorities. A certain Piero della Moneta was charged by Tenenti, 1959: 12; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3355, cc. 8v-9r, 11r-11v, 186v-197r, 238v-239v; ibid., b. 3357, cc. 395r-396v; ibid., b. 5810, c. 13r, 17v; ibid., b. 8321, c. 6v-7r, 48r; ibid., b. 8376, c.n.s. – of 19 December 1583; ibid., b. 10669, c. 574r; ibid., b. 10670, cc. 19v-20r, 237r; ibid., b. 10677, cc. 443r; ibid., b. 11646, c.n.s. – of 3 March 1584. 184 Ibid., b. 6531, c. 125v (we are thankful to prof. Luca Molà for kindly reporting this document). 185 Vrsalović, 1974: 44. 186 ASVe, Senato, Deliberazioni Costantinopoli, reg. 6, c. 134v; ASVe, Senato, Dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 18, cc. 302r-307r – decoded at cc. 300v-301r. 187 Tenenti, 1959: 11. 183

143

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 183. View of the bay Zaklopica (It. Porto Chiave) southeast of Tkon on the island Pašman, where the survivors of the shipwreck took refuge (photo: E. Šilić).

these three to organize a campaign to salvage anything that could be salvaged from the sunken ship.188 In order to carry out his task, Piero della Moneta contacted an old friend of his father Battista, named Manoli, with the nickname Fregata, whose deceased father Iani was from the island of Candia, i.e., Crete. Manoli’s origin is known from a document from 1572 in which Battista della Moneta, Piero’s father, is cited as a witness to the establishment of Manoli’s company for the removal of barrels from the Venetian ship Michela, which sank near the island of Sveti Petar near Ilovik.189 Manoli had a reputation as a top expert in his profession, capable of gathering a team of twenty people and renting six vessels in a short time,190 which, for example, he did in 1577 for the needs of recovering the armaments from the sunken ship Bonalda, which caught fire in Istria. After this campaign, Manoli found himself in the middle a long debate with the authorities in Kopar, of unknown cause and content, which was only resolved on 10 May 1582 thanks to intervention by the Venetian College.191 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10669, cc. 519v-520r. ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 5740, c. 119r. 190 ASVe, Serenissima Signoria, cited letters, mar, reg. 2, cc. 15v-16r; ibid., f. 176, c.n.s. – document appended to the letter of the government dated 31 July 1577 to the city authorities of Cittanova. 191 ASVe, Collegio, notatorio, reg. 45, c. 192v. 188 189

144

An amazing historical tale Similar campaigns had already been conducted centuries earlier, and Stjepan Vekarić tracked them down in the State Archives in Dubrovnik.192 The Greek diver, probably a sponge-harvester and coral-hunter, obviously undaunted by the cold and restless sea, because – as we know – he immediately accepted the task and began diving at the shipwreck site and bringing up sunken items from a depth of 18 passi (ca. 31 m) already in December.193 It should be noted that 1583 was at the onset of a period called the Little Ice Age in geological periodization194 and that divers at the time exclusively held their breath, without additional stores of air. The best motivation for them was the pledged one third of the value of the salvaged goods and the rumours of something valuable stored in Fazanić’s chest. So Manoli and his team diligently salvaged the sunken cargo throughout December. The owners of the first more interesting goods, which once more saw the light of day, were the Venetian jewellers Girolamo Stella and Francesco Beretin. They owned the large clock/astrolabe, a large gilded mirror, an ebony box filled with combs, a box containing several dozen files and a small chest containing a variety of glass beads.195 A half of the total of 53 hvats (roughly 33 m) of brocade which the Senate had intended for the grand vizier196 was also recovered. Goods began to accumulate as the salvage operation progressed, thereby also increasing the threat of piracy by the Uskoks of Senj, whose looting raids could not even be halted by the winter conditions. Thus, the three representatives of the interested parties sent the College a request for assistance, so on 7 January 1584 an instruction was sent to all commanders of the military fleet in the Adriatic to deploy a galley or fusta to safeguard the salvaged goods.197 At the end of December, Manoli and his team managed to break into the clerk’s cabin and uncover what interested pirates far more than a mass of fabric soaked in seawater. 4.4.3. The ship’s little treasure A month before the Gagliana grossa set off from Venice, Guglielmo Helman, a merchant of Flemish origin who had been granted Venetian citizenship several years earlier, sent several letters to his agent in Istanbul, named Antonio Paruta.198 In letters dated 27 August and 26 September 1583, Helman notified Paruta of the pending departure of the Gagliana, which was supposed to bring to Istanbul a small iron chest and a small box Vekarić, 1987. Letter from jeweller Salomon Rigola to Antonio Paruta, of 7 January 1584 (ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, c.n.s. – fascicolo 1583). 194 Mann, 2002. 195 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 460, cc. 318v-319r. 196 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, Costantinopoli, f. 5, c.n.s. – document attached to the Senate’s letter to the bailo, of 6 February 1584. 197 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 46, c. 100v. The letter from the representative of the parties with an interest in the shipwreck of the Gagliana can be found in ibid., f. 85, c.n.s. 198 Guglielmo Helman acquired citizenship de intus et extra on 8 October 1579, after residing in Venice for ten years (ASVe, Senato, privilegi, reg. 3, c. 36r). 192 193

145

The Shipwreck at Gnalić wrapped in cloth, sealed and marked with his new trademark, in which Helman had recently replaced the Star of David among his initials with a cross (Figure 184).199 The instructions Helman sent to his agent were rather reserved: upon the ship’s arrival, Paruta had to contact the ship’s clerk so that he could obtain from him the insurance policy for the cargo and the two aforementioned packages directly entrusted to him, which he had stored in his case without recording them in the ship’s registers. The experienced businessman Helman probably proceeded in this manner so that, in case of a raid, he would prevent privateers or pirates from learning about the existence of valuables from the ship’s records. In the course of the dives, at the end of 1583 Manoli Fregata and his men retrieved the clerk’s chest,200 and when they opened it they found several sacks full of coins (Ven. groppi), a small iron chest and a small box wrapped in fabric. When the lead seals were broken, it became clear that Helman had entrusted to the clerk jewellery, pearls, diamonds and emeralds. The value of this astounding discovery far surpassed the sum which formed the basis for the deal struck by Manoli and Piero della Moneta as compensation for salvaging the sunken cargo. From preserved documents, it may be gleaned that the Greek refused to settle for the lump sum and that he unconditionally sought one third of the value of the salvaged coins and jewels. On 7 January 1584, Guglielmo Helman was notified of the discovery of the valuable goods and the excessive fee being sought for their handover. At that point a debate probably began between the legitimate owners of the jewels and those who had salvaged them, so arrangements were made for the return of the valuables to Venice, so that their value could be estimated by experts appointed by both parties. On 26 January 1584, fearing deception by his cunning adversaries, Manoli appeared in the office of Zadar’s rector, Giacomo Pesaro, in order to sign a power of attorney whereby he authorized a noble knight named Marco Michiel to represent his interests.201 In this way he enlisted the aid of a powerful ally who was prepared to advocate on his behalf in exchange for a substantial sum of money. In mid-February, Piero della Moneta arrived in Venice with the recovered money and jewels from the ship clerk’s chest and handed the little treasure over the representatives of the interested parties, who stored it in the vault of St. Mark’s Mint, and the four keys to jointly open the vault were taken for safekeeping by each of the three representatives and by Marco Michiel. The opening of the small chest and box on 23 February 1584 was attended by the notary public Pietro Partenio, the legitimate owners of the jewels, Antonio di Giovanni and Carlo Zanfort (who was Flemish and related to Helman and also originally from Antwerp), the representatives of the interested parties, Marco Michiel and two witnesses.202 ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, c.n.s. – fascicolo 1583. Letter from Salomon Rigola to Antonio Paruta, of 7 January 1584 (ibid.). 201 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10670, cc. 115v-117r. 202 Ibid., cc. 90r-91v. Di Lenardo, 2014:326. 199 200

146

An amazing historical tale

Figure 184. Page from a letter sent by the merchant Guglielmo Helman on 27 September 1583 to Antonia Paruta, and Helman’s trademark (ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, c.n.s. – fascicolo 1583).

After inventorying all of the valuables, the notary public appointed two expert jewellers, and four days later this group once more gathered in his office to confirm their findings. The two experts, Bernardino di Contenti and Orazio Alberti ascertained that these were jewels with a value of 7,243 ducats, of which 6,493 were the property of Zanfort (Figure 185).203 This was almost twice the amount claimed for insurance before the ship had set sail for Istanbul.204 In the same document, the Peruvian origin of the recovered emeralds was noted. Thereafter all that was left to do was continue the settlements and return the jewels and various amounts of cash to their legitimate owners. During March, Carlo Zanfort and Antonio di Giovanni were given back their precious stones, paying to the representatives of the interested parties a third of their value as payment to Manoli Fregata, who in the meantime had already collected a considerable sum. Michele Sumachi retrieved his 1,000, and English merchant Thomas Baxter his 400 gold ducats, of which a sum intended for Manoli was also withheld.205 The representatives of the interested parties received from all owners of jewels and coins a pledge to pay a certain sum intended to settle taxes to the Venetian authorities in Zadar. ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10670, cc. 97r-98r. Ibid., cc. 125r-126r. 205 Ibid., cc. 124r-125r. 203 204

147

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 185. Inventory and valuation of jewellery and precious stones rescued from the sunken ship (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10670, cc. 97r-98r).

Of this event, we also know that Guglielmo Helman and his partner Salomon Rigola once more sent six salvaged emeralds with a value of 2,000 ducats to Istanbul206 and that Manoli received a sum of 3,100 ducats for the valuables salvaged from the clerk’s chest. At the end of March, sufficient goods and ship’s gear were recovered for the salvage to be halted. This was followed by the return and sale of the salvaged goods, but the many water-logged fabrics that had sat in storage in Zadar were probably in rather poor condition. The representatives of the Venetian authorities in Zadar constantly impeded any action, probably due to the ambiguously defined amount of taxes on the salvaged goods. An order from the Senate itself was necessary to finally resolve the matter.207 Components of the ship’s gear and armaments salvaged from the sunken ship, including the lifeboats that the survivors used, remained in Zadar. This is why Domenico da Gagliano contacted notary public Luca Gabrieli on 12 April 1584 to grant a power of attorney to Giuliano Bonfadini from Zadar to take possession of everything that had been found up to that point which belonged to his ship. Above Examples of insurance policies from 20 April 1584 with lists of jewels placed aboard various vessels by Guglielmo Helman and Salomon Rigola can be found in ASVe, Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I, c.n.s. 207 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 46, c. 139r; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10671, cc. 365r-365v. 206

148

An amazing historical tale all, Bonfadini had to arrange for a fee with Manoli for his services either in cash or as a portion of salvaged inventory, and then sell what he could and send the remainder to Venice.208 Alvise Finardi was dismissed from the service of the da Gagliano family, and on 29 February 1584 he entered a joint venture with five businessmen and established a maritime trade company and once more became captain of a merchant vessel. As already noted earlier, three years later he was recorded in the register of the deceased and buried in the Church of S. Iseppo (S. Giuseppe) next to the small square, Corte Pietro da Liesina, in the Castello quarter. The same church was chosen as a final resting place by his friend Ivan of Vrana, a respected admiral on Venier’s command vessel in the Battle of Lepanto. In that church, he commissioned the construction of a monumental, richly adorned funerary altar made of Istrian stone, featuring a scene of the conflicting galleys just prior to the beginning of that great maritime battle.209 Even after several years, not all of the salvaged property was sent to Venice, nor sold or returned to its legitimate owners. Anything not sought by anyone remained abandoned and forgotten. In June 1588, Argentina, Finetta and Camilla, the three daughters of Captain Finardi, who had died just over a year earlier (Figure 186), learned about their father’s silver spoons and forks, which were still held in some office in Zadar, so they launched a procedure for the recovery of this property.210 The story about the Gagliana grossa gradually dissipated into a series of individual fates of all of those who had been deliberately or unwittingly involved in its plot. Historical research continues on their trail, following them in space and time so that the distance separating us from them can be bridged to the greatest possible degree.

Ibid., b. 6531, c. 125v. Čoralić, Prijatelj Pavičić, 2005. 210 ASVe, Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 46, c. 139r; ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 5639, cc. 196r-197r. 208 209

149

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 186. Tombstone of Alvise Finardi, placed next to the monumental tomb of his friend Ivan of Vrana in the Church of St. Stephen (Sant’Iseppo) in Venice (photo: M. Nicolardi). 150

5. Epilogue

In April 1585, Domenico da Gagliano visited the pastor in the Church of Santa Maria Mater Domini.1 During the meeting, Domenico asked the pastor to safeguard a document, his last will and testament, and to formally register it with the Public Attorney’s Office after his death.2 In October 1586 he succumbed to a terrible fever.3 Upon returning home from a voyage, one of his two nephews, Odoardo’s brother Domenico, learned of the death of his uncle, whose remains had already been interred beneath the aforementioned church’s main altar. Despite the deceased man’s final wish, the pastor had not yet registered the will entrusted to him, believing that it would be better to hand it over to his nephew. Upon reading his uncle’s will, Domenico discovered that 5,000 gold ducats were concealed in a secret compartment in his uncle’s desk. This was a handsome sum that he decided to keep for himself. For ten years he had worked in the shop,4 obeying his uncle’s orders, and now he finally had the opportunity to compensate for those long years of modest service and become a wealthy and esteemed merchant. He notified his brother Odoardo of their uncle’s death, complaining about the many debts he had left in his wake, but concealing the information about the hidden money. He then legally obtained the inheritance with the help of another will, compiled many years earlier, which differed considerably from the one the pastor has given to him.5 Persistent in his falsehoods, Domenico claimed to be troubled by grave problems pertaining to his financial status, deceiving the state with regard to his actual wealth. With regard to the sources that document most of the events contained in this chapter, in order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the following dossier should be consulted: ‘Processo fra il monastero di Santa Croce e Zuanne ed Odoardo Benvenuti circa l’eredità di Domenico Gagian quondam Antonio, 1585-1696’ (ASVe, Santa Croce, b.5). 2 Ibid., the will of Domenico da Gagliano dated 15 April 1585. On 20 October 1586 the notary Giovan Andrea Catti, in the presence of witnesses, carried out an inventory of the money and jewels that he could find in his home in Santa Maria Mater Domini. However, the notary and his assistants were unable to discover the secret desk drawer with the 5,000 golden ducats inside (ASVe, Notarile, atti, reg. 3357, c. 363v-365r). 3 Domenico da Gagliano passed away il 19 October 1586. The next day, his death was claimed to the authorities (ASVe, Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla Sanità, necrologi, reg. 818, c.n.s.). 4 ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 10669, c. 432v-433r. 5 Ibid., b. 3358, c. 122v-125v; ASVe, Notarile, testamenti, b. 1257, testamento n. 273; Ibid., b. 1265, c. 99v-100v. 1

151

The Shipwreck at Gnalić

Figure 187. Map of the Mestre area with the indication of the position of the mill owned by Domenico da Gagliano (ASVe, Provveditori sopra Beni inculti, drawings, 399, 1A-3).

With the money stolen from the secret compartment in his uncle’s desk and the considerable dowry from his second wife,6 Domenico began to engage in business independently, and he devised yet another deception. Over time he had become friends with the owner of a large mill in the town of Mestre. Pretending to help him, he loaned the mill-owner money for his daughter’s dowry and, little by little, took over all of his land-related debts. Having become the mill-owner’s primary creditor, Domenico compelled him to sell the mill to him7 (Figure 187), demanding from his brother Odoardo that he acknowledge it as his sole property and exclude it from the family estate, with which Odoardo reluctantly agreed. A few years later, Odoardo travelled from Istanbul to Venice, bringing with him one of his youngest daughters, Saggina. He wanted to entrust her to a care of a convent. His first wife Isabetta had died in childbirth at the age of 22 on 23 April 1589 (ASVe, Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla Sanità, necrologi, reg. 821, c.n.s.). 7 In addition to the documents collected in the aforementioned file (ASVe, Santa Croce, b.5), see the deeds issued by the notary Giovan Andrea Catti, including the deed of purchase of the mill by Domenico da Gagliano (ASVe, Notarile, atti, b. 3369, c. 323r-326v). 6

152

Epilogue When she came of age and married a wealthy merchant, Saggina would receive half of the estate which the da Gagliano family held in Venice. Domenico, concerned that he would one day have to relinquish immense assets consisting of real estate and cash, pretended to comply with his brother’s wishes, but then later he reported to him that Saggina had unfortunately died. In 1639, many decades after these events, a letter reached the doge that contained the request of a woman who had recently learned of her true identity and demanded the return of her property. After an investigation, the magistrates concluded that the woman was telling the truth. She was that same Saggina, Odoardo’s daughter, who had been falsely proclaimed dead by her uncle. From the earliest age, he cunningly manipulated the girl and convinced her of a false identity, and when she left the convent, she was employed in the home of Domenico da Gagliano as his children’s servant. When the truth was revealed, the magistrates were left with no choice but to order the return of half of Domenico’s assets to Saggina,8 but at that point Domenico was faring poorly and he had become impoverished, so that the mill was his only remaining property. However, a day after the judgement was pronounced, Domenico’s children had managed to register the mill as their mother’s dowry and illegally protect themselves from its seizure to cover Saggina’s claims. Saggina continued to fight for her rights in vain. After her death, the task was assumed by her daughter, but unfortunately without success. Domenico da Gagliano was never punished in any way for the transgressions he had perpetrated against his niece. He died at the age of almost ninety, alone and destitute, afflicted with hydropsy, or water retention. This ailment was in fact specified by Dante as the punishment for counterfeiters in the tenth trench of the eighth circle of hell. Even though Domenico had never counterfeited money, his life was awash in lies and betrayal. If human justice had failed, divine retribution had mercilessly found him in the end. Life is truly unusual! Thousands of people from the past deserve to be remembered by their descendants, but time has ruthlessly swept away every trace of their existence. The names of others, such as Domenico da Gagliano, the son of Benedetto of Pera, should have been condemned to eternal oblivion, but unfortunately this did not happen. If we set off down the Via Castallena in Mestre toward Zelarino, pass the beltway and turn left, we will come upon a small road that follows the course of the Marzenego River. Until the early 1970s, the old mill that had once belonged to Domenico da Gagliano still stood there. And even today the street bears his name, for it is called Via del Gaggian.

8

ASVe, Giudici del Proprio, sentenze a legge, b. 41, reg. 113, c. 35v (26 November 1639).

153

6. The Shipwreck at Gnalić – A Mirror to the Renaissance World

Previous research has resulted in knowledge on the multifarious origins of the people, goods and events that were in some way linked to the sunken ship (Figure 188). Setting forth from the islet of Gnalić, our story can encompass all of Renaissance Europe, the eastern Mediterranean and even Peru; touch upon the great events that marked the Renaissance era; bring closer the main protagonists on the historical scene as well as figures from everyday life who never appear in history textbooks; or encounter actual items that we only know from descriptions or pictures. Following the trail of the former international links interwoven into Renaissance society, today various types of experts, students, young researchers and lovers of the past, the sea and the undersea zone from all continents meet at the islet of Gnalić (Figure 189). The wishes of researchers past have been fulfilled, younger generations have realized the value of the site, and systematic exploration has thus far borne undreamed-of fruit. Reflecting the formal reality of the visible world, a mirror proves its genuine existence by means of that reflection. It is a symbol of awareness, wisdom and creative imagination, and in folk belief it absorbs the received image, which with its help returns from the deep past or from a great distance.9 If an ordinary mirror reflects the reality around us, that magical existence consistently speaks of the truths which cannot be seen in it. This is precisely what happens at the shipwreck site at the islet of Gnalić, at which, slowly but surely, from the deep past and from a great distance, an increasingly clear reflection of the wondrous Renaissance era is formed, in which the universal qualities of the human race may be discerned.

9

Cyrlot, 1971: mirror, 211-212; Martin, 2010: mirror, 590-593.

154

The Shipwreck at Gnalić – A Mirror to the Renaissance World

Figure 188. Origin of the people, goods and events directly or indirectly related to the ship Gagliana grossa (formerly Lezza, Moceniga e Basadonna).

Figure 189. Origin of the people participating in the Gnalić shipwreck research.

155

Bibliography

AA.VV. 1837. Iconografia italiana degli uomini e delle donne celebri: dall’epoca del risorgimento delle scienze e delle arti fino ai nostri giorni. Milano, Antonio Locatelli. Antoljak, S. 1987. Kritički osvrt na dosadašnja istraživanja i saznanja o otoku Pašmanu. Pašmanski zbornik, Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zadru 2-4. prosinca 1981: 7-23. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet. Arbel, B. 1992. Nûr Bânû (c. 1530-1583): a Venetian Sultana? Turcica 24: 241-259. Asolati, M. 2012. Mercanti di lane a Venezia nel XIV e XVI secolo; Bolle e contrassegni plumbei dal Lazzaretto Nuovo e dal territorio padovano. In M.S. Busana, P. Basso (eds), La lana nella Cisalpina romana: economia e società, Studi in onore di Stefania Pesavento Mattioli (Antenor quaderni 27): 289296. Padova: Padova University Press. Avena, A. 1912. Memorie veronesi della guerra di Cipro e della battaglia di Lepanto. Nuovo Archivio Veneto n.s. XXIV: 96-128. Balović, J. 2004 (1693). Pratichae schrivaneschae, Venezia, 1693, Lj. Šimunković (ed.). Split: Državni arhiv u Splitu. Banić, S. 2011. Damast i vez iz druge polovine 15. stoljeća na misnom ornatu u Franjevačkom samostanu u Hvaru. Ars adriatica 1: 117-132. Banić, S. 2014. Damast s podvodnog lokaliteta Gnalić i srodni primjerci sačuvani u Hrvatskoj. Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 37-38: 65-80. Bašić, Đ. 2006. Pomorstvo Dubrovnika od XII. do početka XX. stoljeća. Pomorski zbornik 44: 139-177. Batović, Š. 1990. Novija istraživanja prapovijesti u biogradskom kraju. In Batović et al., 1990: 85-171. Batović, Š., Obad, S., Jakšić, N. Došen, B., Božulić, G. (eds), Biograd i njegova okolica u Prošlosti, Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Biogradu od 11. do 13. studenoga 1988. godine (Biogradski zbornik 1). Zadar: Zavod za povijesne znanosti Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru. Batur, K. 2021. Production, trade and maritime transport of colouring materials based on Early Modern Gnalić shipwreck finds, doctoral dissertation. University of Zadar, Zadar. Batur, K., Radić Rossi, I. 2019. Archaeological evidence of Venetian trade in colouring materials: the case of the Gnalić shipwreck. In A. Haack Christensen, A. Jager (eds), Trading Paintings and Painters’ Materials 1550-1800, Proceeding from IV CATS Conference, Copenhagen 2018 (Publications of SMK – National Gallery of Denmark): 111-120. London: Archetype Publications. Batur, K., Radić Rossi, I. 2021. The 16th-century pump from Gagliana Grossa: preliminary results of recording and analysis. In G. Boetto, P. Pomey, P. Poveda (eds), Open Sea, 156

Bibliography closed sea. Local traditions and inter-regional traditions in shipbuilding, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 15) (Archaeonautica 21): 341343. Paris: CNRS éditions. Barzazi, A. (ed.), 1991. Corrispondenze diplomatiche veneziane da Napoli. Dispacci, III, 27 maggio 1597-2 novembre 1604. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Beltrame, C. 2006. Osservazioni preliminari sullo scafo e l’equipaggiamento della nave di Gnalić. In Guštin et al., 2006: 93-94. Beltrame, C., Morin, M. 2014. I Cannoni di Venezia: artiglierie della Serenissima da fortezze e relitti. Firenze: All’Insegna del giglio. Bondioli, M. 2014. Vettor Fausto e la marina architettura del Rinascimento veneziano: i falsi miti, Atti del III convegno nazionale, Cesenatico, Museo della Marineria (13-14 aprile 2012), Navis: 181-186. Padova: V. Libreria Universitaria. Bondioli, M, Nicolardi, M., Radić Rossi, I. 2019. Alvise Papali ‘conduttor’ della galea da mercanzia per la scala di Spalato (1592-1596). In N. Cambi, A. Duplančić (eds), Pomorski Split do početka XX. stoljeća, Zbornik radova s međunarodnog znanstvenog skupa održanog u Splitu 26. i 27. rujna 2016: 193-212. Split: Književni krug. Borgogni, G. 1594. Le muse toscane di diversi nobilissimi ingegni. Bergamo: C. Ventura. Božulić, G. 2013. Zbirka ‘Teret potopljenog broda iz 16. stoljeća’ Zavičajnog muzeja Biograd na Moru / The ‘Cargo of a 16th century sunken ship’ Collection of The Biograd na Moru Heritage museum. In Filep et al., 2013: 37-49. Bracewell, C.W. 1997. Senjski uskoci. Zagreb: Barbat. Braudel, F. 1995. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, I. Berkeley: University of California Press. Breydenbach, B. von, 1486. Peregrinatio in terram sanctam. Mainz: Erhard Reuwich. Brill, R.H. 1973. Analyses of some finds from the Gnalić wreck. Journal of Glass Studies 15: 93-97. Brulez, W. 1786. Marchands Flamands à Venise (1568-1605), I. Roma: Institut Historique Belge de Rom. Brusić, Z. 2001. Blago šibenskog podmorja. In Z. Brusić, M. Jurišić, Ž. Krnčević, Blago šibenskog podmorja, katalog izložbe: 17-46. Šibenik. Brusić, Z. 1996. Discovery Project Gnalić ‘96 – Podmorska arheološka istraživanja kod otočića Gnalića na ulazu u Pašmanski kanal (nastavak istraživanja 1996. g.), expert report. Archive of the Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru. Brusić, Z. 2007. Pakoštanska luka i druga priobalna liburnska naselja u Pašmanskom kanalu u odnosu na gradinska naselja u zaleđu i Aseriju / The port of Pakoštane and other coastal liburnian settlements in the Pašman Channel in relation to hillfort settlements in the hinterland and Asseria. Asseria 5: 11-37. Cannarsi, E. 2004. La flotta del Santo. Rubano: Grafiche Turato s.a.s. Casitti, P. 2021. Nürnberger Waren. Herstellung, Handel und Konsum europäischer Buntmetallprodukte in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Bonn: Habelt. Casitti, P., Radić Rossi, I. 2017. The products of German origin from the cargo of Gagliana grossa. Abstracts: We are all in the sam boat – On the significance of ships, boats and floats in society and culture, In Poseidon’s Realm XXII, 17-19 März 2017, Book of abstracts. DEGUWA, Koblenz: 2. Cicogna, E. 1853. Delle inscrizioni veneziane, VI. Venezia: Tipografia Andreola. Cirlot, J.E. 1971. A Dictionary of Symbols. London: Routledge. 157

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Conti, N. 1589. Delle historie de’ suoi tempi, II. Venezia: Damian Zenaro. Cortesi Bosco, F. 2009. Matteo Costanzo nella guerra del Casentino: considerazioni sull’esecuzione della tavola di Giorgione a Castelfranco. In E.M. dal Pozzolo, L. Puppi (eds), Giorgione: 113-122. Milano: Skira. Costantini, M. 2006. Una Repubblica nata sul mare: navigazione e commercio a Venezia. Venezia: Marsilio. Crusca, 1866. Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, V ed., II. 1866. Successori Le Firenze: Monnier. Čače, S. 1995. Plinije o otocima južne Liburnije. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 34 (21): 11-46. Čače, S. 1999. Zadarsko otočje u Konstantina Porfirogeneta: filološke, toponomastičke i povijesne opaske. Folia onomastica Croatica 8: 45-66. Čače, S. 2006. Naseljenost otoka Pašmana u prapovijesti i antici. In V. Skračić (ed.), Toponimija otoka Pašmana: 31-47. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Čoralić, L. 2000. Oporuke dalmatinskih patricija u Mlecima (XV. – XVIII. st.). Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 17: 85-109. Čoralić, L. 2003. Hrvatski prinosi mletačkoj kulturi: odabrane teme. Zagreb: Dom i svijet. Čoralić, L. 2004. Venecija, kraljica mora s lagunarnih sprudova: povijest Mletačke Republike. Samobor: Meridijani. Čoralić, L. 2005. Osmanlijski prodori i obrana Dalmacije u 16. stoljeću. In M. Valentić, L. Čoralić (eds), Povijest Hrvata. Druga knjiga: Od kraja 15. stoljeća do kraja Prvoga svjetskog rata: 42-44. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Čoralić, L., Prijatelj Pavičić, I. 2005. Ivan iz Vrane – mletački admiral u Lepantskom boju (1571.). Povijesni prilozi 29: 127-149. Dalla Corte, G. M. 1606. Dell’istoria di Verona del sig. Girolamo Dalla Corte gentil’huomo Veronese. Verona: Girolamo Discepolo. Dadić, Ž. 1982. Povijest egzaktnih znanosti u Hrvata. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber. Dadić, Ž. 1994. Hrvati i egzaktne znanosti u osvitu novovjekovlja. Zagreb: Naprijed. Dadić, Ž. 2008. O Sagroevićevu djelu Cartegiatore. Dubrovnik, časopis za književnost i znanost 2: 117-127. Dalla Corte, G.M. 1596. Dell’istoria di Verona del sig. Girolamo Dalla Corte gentil’huomo Veronese. Verona: Girolamo Discepolo. Davanzo Poli, D. 2006. I reperti tessili di Gnalić. In Guštin et al., 2006: 98-99. De Grazia, D. 1984. Le stampe dei Carracci con i disegni, le incisioni, le copie e i dipinti connessi. Catalogo critico. Bologna: Alfa. DeLancey, J.A. 2011. In the Streets Where They Sell Colors: Placing ‘vendecolori’ in the urban fabric of early modern Venice. Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 72: 193-232. Dell’Osa, D. 2011. Il carteggiatore di Nicolò Sagri (Collana del Dipartimento di Economia e Storia del Territorio, Università ‘G. D’Annunzio’ di Chieti-Pescara 304). Milano: Franco Angeli. De Salvo, L. 1992. Economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’Impero romano. I corpora navicularum. Messina: Samperi. Di Lenardo, I. 2014. Carlo Helman, merchant, patron and collector, and the role of family ties in the Antwerp-Venice migrant network. In F. Scholten, J. Woodall, D. 158

Bibliography Meijers (eds), Art and Migration. Netherlandish Artists on the Move, 1400-1750: 324-347. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Dolce, L. 1563. Lettere del Gran Mahumeto Imperador de’ Turchi, scritte a diversi Re, prencipi, signori e Republiche, con le risposte loro, ridotte nella volgar lingua. Gabriel Giolito de’ Venezia: Ferrari. Dursteler, E. R. 2006. Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Faričić, J. 2006. Otok Pašman na starim kartama. In: V. Skračić (ed.), Toponimija otoka Pašmana: 87-116. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Filep, A., Jurdana, E., Pandžić, A. (eds) 2013. Gnalić; Blago potonulog broda iz 16. stoljeća, katalog izložbe / Gnalić; Treasure of a 16th century sunken ship, exhibition catalogue. Zagreb: Croatian Historical Museum. Fisković, C. 1976. Turski napadaj na Hvar 1571. Čakavska rič 6: 111-118. Francis Jr., P. 1988. The Glass Trade Beads of Europe: Their Manufacture, their History, and their Identification (The World of Beads Monograph Series 8). Lake Placid NY: Lapis Route Books. Gasparetto, A. 1973. The Gnalić wreck: Identification of the ship. Journal of Glass Studies 15: 79-84. Gasparetto, A. 1976. Vetri veneziani da un naufragio in Dalmazia e da documenti dell’ultimo cinquecento. Studi Venziani 17-18: 411-466. Gasparetto, A. 1977. Identifikacija potopljenog broda kod Gnalića. Zadarska revija 3-4: 381-386. Gonzati, B. 1853. La Basilica di S. Antonio da Padova descritta ed illustrata, vol. II. Padova: A. Bianchi. Grabovac, I. 1999. Ordo super assecuratoribus iz 1568. godine – najstariji zakon o (pomorskom) osiguranju na svijetu. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu 53/54: 23-26. Graf, T. P. 2017. The Sultan’s Renegades: Christian-European Converts to Islam and the Making of the Ottoman Elite, 1575-1610. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Granić, A. 1987. Nazivi naselja otoka Pašmana. In Pašmanski zbornik, Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zadru 2-4. prosinca 1981: 161-170. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet u Zadru. Grassi, L. 1833. Dizionario militare italiano. I. Torino: Società Tipografico-Libraria. Groto, L. 1601. Lettere famigliari di Luigi Groto, cieco d’Adria, scritte in diversi generi & in varie occasioni con molta felicità e di nobilissimi concetti ornate. Venezia: G. Brugnolo. Groto, L. 1609. Le orationi volgari et latine. Treviso: A. Reghettini. Grujić, N. 1991. Ladanjska arhitektura dubrovačkog područja. Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti. Guštin, M., Gelichi, S. 2006. The shipwreck at Gnalić. Project The Heritage of the Serenissima. In Guštin et al., 2006: 91-92. Guštin, M., Gelichi, S., Spindler, K. (eds), 2006. The Heritage of Serenissima. The presentation of the architectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, Proceedings of the international conference Izola – Venezia, 4.-9. 11. 2005. Koper: Annales Mediterranea. Hilje, E. 2006. Spomenici srednjovjekovnog graditeljstva na Pašmanu. In V. Skračić (ed.), Toponimija otoka Pašmana: 63-86. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. 159

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Hills, P. 1999. Venetian colour: marble, mosaic, painting and glass, 1250-1550. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hocquet, J.-C. 1977. Il libro ‘creditorum conducentium sale Cypro’ dell’Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Archivio Veneto 108: 43-85. Hocquet, J.-C. 1979. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. Voiliers et commerce en Méditerranée 12001650, II. Lille: Presses Universitaire de Lille. Hocquet, J.-C. 1989. Tonnage ancient et moderne: botte de Venise et tonneau anglaise. Revue Historique 281: 349-360. Ilakovac, B. 1982. Rimski akvedukti na području sjeverne Dalmacije. Zagreb: Liber; Zadar: Arheološki muzej. Ilijanić, N., Miko, S., Marković, T., Hasan, O. 2018. Geološka, strukturno-tektonska i hidrogeološka obilježja područja Pakoštana i Vranskog jezera / Geological, Structural-tectonic and Hydro-geological Features of the Pakoštane Area and Lake Vrana. In Radić Rossi, Boetto, 2018: 161-178. Iorga, N. 1896. Contribuţiuni la istoria Munteniei în a doua jumătate a secoluluĭ XVIlea. Analele Academiei Române: Memoriile Secţiuniĭ Istorice, serie II, XVIII (1895-96): 1–112. Jelić, L. 1898. Povijesno topografske crtice o biogradskom primorju. Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva N.S. 3: 3-126. Juran, K. 2006. Prvi spomen otoka Pašmana i njegovih naselja. In V. Skračić (ed.), Toponimija otoka Pašmana: 49-62. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Karklins, K. 1982. Guide to the Description and Classification of Glass Beads. In Glass Beads (History and Archaeology 59): 39-82. Parks Canada. Kelez, I. 1970. O sirovinama / On raw materials. In Petricioli, Uranija, 1970: 40-45. Kidd, K.E., Kidd, M.A. 1970. A Classification System of Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeologists. Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 1: 45-89. Klaić, N., Petricioli, I. 1976. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet u Zadru. Kolanović, J. 1971. Vrana i templari. In G. Novak, V. Maštrović (eds), Povijest Vrane: Političko, kulturno i privredno značenje Vrane kroz stoljeća (Posebna izdanja Instituta JAZU u Zadru 18): 207-226. Zadar: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Krischel, R. 2002. Zur geschichte des venezianischen pigmenthandels das sortiment des ‘Jacobus de Benedictis à Coloribus’. Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 63: 93-158. Krischel, R. 2010. The Inventory of the Venetian ‘Vendecolori’ Jacopo de’Benedetti: The Non-Pigment Materials. In J. Kirby, S. Nash, J. Canon (eds), Trade in Artists’ Materials – Market and Commerce in Europe to 1700: 74-85, 253-266. London: Archetype Publications. Lakoš, S. 1987. Plovidba Jadrana. In M. Milošević (ed.), Spašavanje na Jadranu, Zbornik povodom 40. godišnjice ‘Brodospasa’ – Split: 185-193. Split: Brodospas; Rijeka: Fakultet za pomorstvo i saobraćaj. Lane, F.C. 1933. Tonnages, Venetian Shipping during the commercial Revolution. The American Historical Review 38: 219-237. Lane, F.C. 1964. Tonnages, Medieval and Modern. The Economic History Review 17.2: 213233. 160

Bibliography Lane, F.C. 1973. Venice, A Maritime Republic. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lane, F.C., 1992 (1934). Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lazar, I., Willmott, H. 2006. The glass from the Gnalić wreck. Koper: Annales Mediterranea. Lazzarini, L. 1985. Il colore nei pittori veneziani tra il 1480 e il 1580. Bollettino d’arte, Studi Veneziani – Richeche di Archivio e di Laboratorio 5: 135-144. Lindeke, B., Ohlson, B. 2018. With the Warship Kronan in the Wake of Paracelsus – Archaeological Finds Reflecting the Conception of Drugs in Seventeenth-Century Sweden. In S. Kahlow (ed), Transfer Between Sea and Land, Maritime Vessels for Cultural Exchanges in the Early Modern Period: 63-86. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Magaš, D. 2006. Prirodno-geografska osnova otoka Pašmana. In V. Skračić (ed.), Toponimija otoka Pašmana: 9-30. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Mann, M.E. 2002. Little Ice Age. In M.C. MacCracken, J.S. Perry, T. Munn (eds), The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change (T. Munn (ed.), (Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change Vol. 1): 504-509. Marković, P. 2010. Katedrala Sv. Jakova u Šibeniku. Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak. Martin, K. (ed.), 2010. The Book of Symbols. Köln: Taschen. Matthew, L.C. 2002. Vendecolori a Venezia: The Reconstruction of a Profession. The Burlington Magazine 144 (1196): 680-686. Matthew, L.C., Berrie, B.H. 2010. Memoria de Colori Che Bisognino Torre a Vinetia: Venice as a Centre for the Purchase of Painters’ Colours. In J. Kirby, S. Nash, J. Canon (eds), Trade in Artists’ Materials – Market and Commerce in Europe to 170: 2452520. London: Archetype Publications. Matthew, L. 2011. Pigment Trade in Europe During the Sixteenth Century. In G. Wolf, J. Connors, L.A. Waldman (eds), Colors Between Two Worlds: The Codice Fiorentino of Bernardino de Sahagün, Proceedings of the International Conference, Villa I Tatti, Harvard University Center for Italian Studies, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz-Max-PlanckInstitut, 12-13 June 2008: 301-314. Florence: Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz, MaxPlanck-Institut: Villa I Tatti, the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Mäss, V., Russow, E. 2016. A delivery for a pharmacy? Exceptional collection of Early Modern Age finds from the sea bed of the Tallinn Bay. In Archaeological fieldwork in Estonia 2015: 211-224. Tallin: Tallinna Ülikooli Ajaloo Instituut. Mijatović, A. 1983. Senjski uskoci u narodnoj pjesmi i povijesti. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske. Mileusnić, Z. (ed.), 2004. The Venetian Shipwreck at Gnalić. Biograd na moru – Koper: Annales Mediterranea. Minieri Riccio, C. 1870. I notamenti di Matteo Spinelli da Giovenazzo, difesi ed illustrati. Napoli: Antonio Metitiero. Moderata Fonte, 1600. Il merito delle donne. Venezia: D. Imberti. Morin, M. 2006. Le artiglierie del relitto di Gnalić. In Guštin et al., 2006: 95-97. Morpurgo, V. 1962. Daniel Rodriguez i osnivanje splitske skele u XVI stoljeću. Starine 52: 185-248. Nedved, B. 1990. Biogradski kraj u rimsko doba. In Batović et al., 1990: 213-246. 161

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Nikolanci, M. 1965. Zadaci podmorske arheologije u istočnom Jadranu. Summary: Tasks of submarine archaeology in the eastern Adriatic. Pomorski zbornik 3: 711723. Novak, G. 1973. Senjski uskoci, čuvari našeg Jadrana (1537-1617). Senjski zbornik: prilozi za geografiju, etnologiju, gospodarstvo, povijest i kulturu 5.1: 5-8. Oertling, T.J. 1989. A Suction Pump from an Early-16th-Century Shipwreck. In Technology and Culture 30.3: 584-595. Ostojić, I. 1964. Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II. Split: Benediktinski priorat – Tkon. Paci, R. 1971. La ‘scala’ di Spalato e il commercio veneziano nei Balcani fra cinque e seicento. Venezia: Deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie. Pavić, M. 2014. Jugoistočna Europa pod osmanskom vlašću: Od pada Carigrada do Svištovskog mira. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Pedani, M.P. (ed.), 2010. Inventory of the Lettere e Scritture Turchesche in the Venetian State Archives. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Petricioli, I. 1970. Sidra i topovi / Anchors and guns. In Petricioli, Uranija, 1970: 9-15. Petricioli, I., Klaić, N. 1976. Zadar u srednjem vijeku. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet. Petricioli, S. 1970. Kape i košulje; Staklo; Keramika; Mjedeni svijećnjaci; Vage i utezi; Bakreno posuđe; Sitni predmeti / Caps and shirts; Glass; Pottery; Brass chandeliers; Precisions scales and weights; Copper vessels; Small objects. In Petricioli, Uranija, 1970: 20-39, 45-46, 64-69. Petricioli, S., 1970a. Njemački renesansni svijećnjak na Jadranu (German Renaissance chandelier in the Adriatic). Peristil 12-13: 107-112. Petricioli, S. 1973. The Gnalić Wreck: The Glass. Journal of Glass Studies 15: 85-92. Petricioli, S., 1973a. Predmeti s Gnalića u rukama Belgijanaca. In Pitanja zaštite hidroarheoloških spomenika kulture na području SR Hrvatske, radni sastanak, Dubrovnik, 12.-13. travnja 1973: 11-113. Zagreb: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture. Petricioli, S. 1974. Kulturno-historijsko značenje hidroarheološkog nalaza kod Gnalića. Zbornik Zadarsko otočje: 71-78. Zadar: Narodni muzej. Petricioli, S. 1981. Deset godina rada na hidroarheološkom nalazu kod Gnalića. Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 6/7: 37-45. Petricioli, S. 1990. O Zakladi Abegg u Riggisbergu kod Berna i o knjizi Mechthild Flury – Lemberg ‘Textil-Konservierung’. Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 16: 171185. Petricioli, S., Uranija, V. (eds), 1970. Brod kod Gnalića – naše najbogatije hidroarheološko nalazište (Vrulje – Glasilo Narodnog muzeja u Zadru 1). Zadar: Narodni muzej. Podrug, E. 2012. Šibenčani, pioniri hrvatske hidroarheologije. Šibenik TIM, ožujak/ travanj 2012: 28-35. Pribilović, K. 2013. Tkon kroz povijest. Tkon: Općina Tkon. Radić Rossi, I. 2013. Gnalić – podmorje. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, 9/2012: 600-603. Radić Rossi, I. 2014. Gnalić – podmorje. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 10/2013: 464467. Radić Rossi, I., Boetto, G. (eds), 2018. Pakoštane – Veli Školj; Kasnoantički brodolom u geološko-geografskom i kulturno-povijesnom kontekstu. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, Institut za pomorsku baštinu ARS NAUTICA. Radić Rossi, I., Antonioli, F., Spada, G., Zubčić, K., Meštrov, M. 2018. Promjene morske razine i obalne crte na pakoštanskom prostoru tijekom posljednjih šest tisućljeća / 162

Bibliography Sea level and shoreline changes in the Pakoštane area over the past six millennia. In Radić Rossi, Boetto, 2018: 229-248. Radić Rossi, I., Bondioli, M., Nicolardi, N., Brusić, Z., Čoralić, L. and Vieira de Castro, F. 2013. Brodolom kod Gnalića – Ogledalo renesansne Europe / The Shipwreck at Gnalić – Mirror of Renaissance Europe. In Filep et al., 2013: 65-95. Radić Rossi, I., Cukrov, N. 2017. Archaeological potential of the anchialine caves in Croatia. In G. Bailey, J. Harff, D. Sakellariou (eds), Under the Sea: Archaeology and Palaeolandscapes of the Continental Shelf (Coastal Research Library 20): 255-266. New York: Springer. Radić Rossi, I, Nicolardi, M., Batur, K. 2016. The Gnalić Shipwreck: Microcosm of the Late Renaissance World. In D. Davison, V. Gaffney, P. Miracle, J. Sofaer (eds), Croatia at the Crossroads: A consideration of archaeological and historical connectivity: 223-248. Oxford: Archaeopress. Radić Rossi, I., Salopek, D. (eds) 2021. Kartoznanac Nikole Sagrija, dubrovačkog pomorca / Il Chartigatore di Nichollò Sagri marinaro raguseo (Biblioteka AdriaS, Knjiga 2). Zadar: University of Zadar. Radulić, K. 1970. 1970. Brod kod Gnalića: naše najbogatije hidroarheološko nalazište / The Gnalić Ship: our richest underwater archaeological site. In Petricioli, Uranija, 1970: 4-9. Radulić, K. 1973. Izvještaj o obavljenom istraživanju hidroarheološkog lokaliteta Gnalić (Pašmanski kanal), u vremenu od 31. 8. do 10. 9. 1973.: 12. Archive of the Conservation office of the Ministry of Culture and Media of the Republic of Croatia. Raukar, T. 1977. Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije u XV i XVI stljeću. Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 10: 203-225. Raukar, T., Petricioli, I., Švelec, F., Peričić, Š. (eds), 1987. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom 1409 – 1797. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet. Regan, K., Kaniški, T. 2003. Hrvatski povijesni atlas. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža. Rival, M. 1991. La charpenterie navale romaine. Matériaux, mèthodes, moyens (Travaux du Centre Camille Jullian n. 4.). Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Ronzani, F.-L.G. 1831. Le fabbriche civili ecclesiastiche e militari di Michele Sanmicheli. Venezia: Giuseppe Antonelli. Rival, M. 1991. La charpenterie navale romaine: materiaux, methodes, moyens. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Romanelli, G., Biadene, S., Tonini, C. (eds), 1999. A volo d’uccello. Jacopo de’ Barbari e le rappresentazioni di città nell’Europa del Rinascimento. Venezia: Arsenale. Rosada, M. 1985. ‘Sigillum Sancti Marci’, Bolle e sigilli di Venezia. In S. Ricci (ed.), Il sigillo nella storia e nella cultura; Mostra documentaria, exhibition catalogue: 109-148. Roma: Società Editoriale Jouvence. Rosi, M. 1901. Nuovi documenti relativi alla liberazione dei principali prigionieri turchi presi a Lepanto. Archivio della Reale Società Romana di Storia Patria XXIV: 547. Rožman-Kandido, M. 1990. Francuski putopisi kroz Dalmaciju od prvog križarskog pohoda do kraja XVIII stoljeća. Mogućnosti 12: 1145-1178. Ruscelli, G. 1581. Delle lettere di principi le quali si scrivono da principi o a principi o ragionano di principi. Venezia: Francesco Ziletti. 163

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Sandi, V. 1774. Principi di storia civile della Repubblica di Venezia, II. Venezia: Sebastian Coletti. Sartori, A, 1983. Archivio Sartori: documenti di storia e arte francescana, G. Luisetto (ed.), vol. I. Padova: Biblioteca Antoniana, Basilica del Santo. Schick, M. 2006. The sleigh bell finds from Gnalić wreck. In Guštin et al., 2006: 110111. Setton, K.M. 1984. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), IV, The Sixteenth Century from Julius III to Pius V. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Skok, P. 1950. Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima, I. i II. dio. Zagreb: Jadranski institut JAZU. Sobolewski, A. 2017. The Polish Brethren: The First Reformed Peace Church & Poland’s First Banned Religion. https://culture.pl/en/article/the-polish-brethren-thefirst-reformed-peace-church-polands-first-bannhttps://culture.pl/en/article/ the-polish-brethren-the-first-reformed-peace-church-polands-first-bannedreligioned-religion (31-05-2018) Solerti, A. 1900. Le rime di Torquato Tasso. Edizione critica sui manoscritti e le antiche stampe. Bologna: Romagnoli dall’Acqua. Suić, M. 1974. Zadarski otoci u antici. Zbornik Zadarsko otočje, Referati sa znanstvenog skupa na otoku Ižu održanog 10. i 11. rujna 1971. (Periodična publikacija 1): 47-64. Zadar: Narodni muzej. Tassini, G. 1882. Curiosità veneziane ovvero origini delle denominazioni stradali di Venezia. Venezi:a M. Fontana. Tenenti, A. 1959. Naufrages, corsaires et assurances maritimes à Venise, 1592-1609. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N.. Terzer, C. 2006. The lead seals from Gnalić wreck. In Guštin et al., 2006: 112-114. Tucci, U. 1957. Lettres d’un marchand venitien, Andrea Berengo: 1553-1556. S.E.V.P.E.N., Paris. Tucci, U. 1967. Un problema di metrologia navale: la botte veneziana. Studi veneziani n.s. IX: 201-246. Tucci, U. 1974. Il processo a Girolamo Zane mancato difensore di Cipro. In G. Benzoni (ed.), Il Mediterraneo nella seconda metà del ‘500 alla luce di Lepanto. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Urošević, M. 1967. Galija iz XVI stoljeća; Trgovački brod ili gusarska lađa? Vjesnik 17. September 1967. Vecellio, C. 1859. Costumes anciens et modernes: habiti antichi et moderni di tutto il mondo, vol. I. Paris: Firmin-Didot. Vekarić, S. 1987. Dva najstarija primjera spašavanja broda u XVII i XVIII stoljeću u Dubrovniku. Adrias – Zbornik Zavoda za znanstveni i umjetnički rad HAZU u Splitu 1: 6571. Vrsalović, D. 1974. Istraživanje i zaštita podmorskih arheoloških spomenika u SR Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture. Young, J. 1815. Portraits of the Emperors of Turkey. London: Bulmer and co. Zanetti, V. (ed.), 1883. Libro d’oro di Murano. Venezia: M. Fontana. Zanotto, F. 1842. Il Palazzo Ducale di Venezia. Venezia: Zanotto e Zanetti Editori. Zazzera, F. 1615. Della Nobiltà dell’Italia. Napoli: G. B. Gargano & L. Nucci. Zecchin, L. 1989. Vetro e vetrai di Murano, sv. II. Venezia: Arsenale Editrice. Žmegač, A. 2009. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. 164

Bibliography Archival sources – manuscripts Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASVe), Italy Avogaria di Comun, b. 684; 3685 Bailo a Costantinopoli, b. 263; 264 Capi del Consiglio di dieci, lettere dei rettori, b. 306 Capi del Consiglio di dieci, lettere secrete, b. 7 Capi del Consiglio di dieci, Liber creditorum conducentium sale Cypro Capi del Consiglio di dieci, mandati al camerlengo, b. 1 Cassiere della bolla ducale, grazie in Maggior Consiglio, f. 16 Cinque savi alla mercanzia, I serie, b. 141 Collegio, esposizioni Principi, reg. 2 Collegio, esposizioni Principi, f. 4 Collegio, lettere comuni, b. 41; 42; 43; 44; 45 Collegio, notatorio, reg. 29; 33; 38; 45 Collegio, notatorio, f. 34 Collegio, relazioni finali di ambasciatori, rettori e altre cariche, b. 75 Collegio, suppliche di dentro, b. 7 Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, reg. 29; 30; 31 Consiglio di Dieci, deliberazioni comuni, f. 87 Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, comuni, f. 110; 118 Consiglio di dieci, deliberazioni, criminal, reg. 11 Consiglio di dieci, proclami, b. 5 Dieci savi alle decime di Rialto, b. 168 Giudici dell’esaminador, interdetti, b. 5; 6 Giudici dell’esaminador, notifiche, b. 8 Giudici del Proprio, sentenze a legge, b. 41, reg. 113 Governatori delle pubbliche entrate, b. 193 Miscellanea Codici, serie II, diversi, reg. 1 Miscellanea di carte non appartenenti ad alcun archivio, b. 2 Miscellanea Gregolin, b. 12 ter-I Notarile, atti, b. 4; 10; 392; 434; 460; 3102; 3266; 3354; 3355; 3357; 3358; 3369, 5628; 5629; 5639; 5740; 5798; 5809; 5810; 6510; 6529; 6530; 6531; 6546; 7847; 8117; 8151; 8157; 8159; 8255; 8262; 8287; 8296; 8321; 8376; 10669; 10670; 10671; 10677; 11631; 11645; 11646; 11885 Notarile, testamenti, b. 1257; 1265 Patroni e Provveditori all’Arsenale, reg. 10 Provveditori e Sopraprovveditori alla sanità, reg. 818; necrologi, reg. 821 Provveditori sopra beni inculti, disegni, 399, 1A-3 Santa Croce, b. 5 Senato, deliberazioni, Costantinopoli, reg. 6 Senato, deliberazioni, Costantinopoli, f. 5 Senato, deliberazioni, mar, reg. 22; 23; 25; 29; 30; 33; 34; 37; 39; 40; 44; 46; 50; 53; 55 Senato, deliberazioni, mar, f. 10; 33; 40; 42; 43; 49; 56; 61; 69; 72; 78; 85; 90; 103; 108; 115; 126 Senato, Deliberazioni Mar, f. 108, g. 1567-68., 1576 165

The Shipwreck at Gnalić Senato, deliberazioni, secreti, reg. 76; 77; 83 Senato, dispacci degli ambasciatori e residenti, Costantinopoli, f. 15; 17; 18; 55 Senato, dispacci dei capi da guerra, b. 1 Senato, privilegi, reg. 3 Serenissima Signoria, lettere sottoscritte, mar, reg. 2 Serenissima Signoria, lettere sottoscritte, mar, f. 176 Archivio Storico del Patriarcato di Venezia (ASPVe), Italy Parrocchia di San Pietro di Castello, morti, reg. 1.1 Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia (BMCVe), Italy Donà dalle Rose, 217, c. 36r Ms. it., cl. VII, cod. 1195 (=8717) Ms. it., cl. VII, cod. 2380 (=9751) PD C 396, c. 1196r-1196v Biblioteca Museo Correr di Venezia (BMCVe), Italy Correr 347 Donà dalle Rose 215, 217 Morosini Grimani 516 Archivio di Stato di Firenze (ASFi), Italy Archivio Mediceo del Principato, b. 2988 Archivio di Stato di Mantova (ASMn), Italy Archivio Gonzaga, E-XXII-3, b. 795, n. 54 James Ford Bell Library, Minneapolis, USA Bell 1570 SA. Il chartigatore di Nichollò Sagri marinaro raguseo Other Ministry of Culture and Media of the Republic of Croatia, Decision on enrolment in the Register of Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Croatia, Class: UP 612-08/02-01/188, 17 April 2002. Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Zadar (Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture u Zadru), Letter no. 188/31 to the University library in Zagreb, 13 October 1967, archive of the Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru. Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Zadar (Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture u Zadru), Letter no. 188/29 to the Club of sport divers Kornati in Šibenik, 14 October 1967, archive of the Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru. Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Zadar (Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture u Zadru), Letter no. 188/3 to the Command of the military region in Split, 20 October 1967, archive of the Local Heritage Museum of Biograd na Moru.

166