an assemblage of early modern ordnance and ground tackle from south-west cyprus

NOTES

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

This note summarizes preliminary findings froma shallow-water site off the south-west coastof Cyprus in the vicinity of Paphos Airport

(Figs 1 and 2). The site was first reported to theauthors by a local historian and recreational fishermanin May 2005, after which a brief non-intrusivesurvey was carried out by a small collaborative teamunder the joint aegis of the Centre for MaritimeArchaeology at Southampton University and theInstitute of Nautical Archaeology (Leidwanger andHowitt-Marshall, 2006). The locations of objects wererecorded and a site plan was developed using theDirect SurveyMethod and a rudimentary photomosaic(Fig. 3).

Figure 1. Map of western Cyprus showing the location ofPaphos Airport site (J. Leidwanger).

Figure 2. The Paphos Airport Site (T. N. Jones and T. J.Nowak).

The site is located approximately 100 m offshorein a slight embayment that is exposed to prevailingwesterly winds. It rests in 6–8 m of water at a breakalong the seaward limit of a rocky shelf in a sandypatch among boulders andmarine vegetation.Artefactsare visible over an area of 50 m2 including ordnance,ground tackle and iron concretions. Observations madeduring the inspection of several concretions suggestthe presence of small firearms, edged weapons, andiron straps. No other artefacts were discovered duringthe 2005 campaign, although additional finds may beburied in the sand and hidden among the boulders andmarine vegetation.

The present contribution represents the first attemptto consolidate the current data and provide sometentative hypotheses about the nature and historicalcontext of the site. Given the collection of objects,its proximity to shore, and its general accessibility,the site is certainly at risk, making a general accountof this maritime heritage all the more important.The assemblage contains jettisoned or shipwreckedartefacts probably dating from the late 16th or17th centuries, a period of Venetian and Ottomandomination of the island. Additional detailed survey orexcavation along with careful artefact study would benecessary to provide more details or certainty, so thecurrent discussion should be understood as a record ofthe site for heritage management purposes as well as abaseline for further analysis. With more comprehensivestudy, this potentially important sitemay shed light on apoorly understood period of Cypriot maritime historyand further insight into the arming and outfitting ofships in the eastern Mediterranean during the earlymodern era.

The artefactsAssigning dates and origins to artefacts recordedthrough non-intrusive survey can be a difficulttask. Concretion and marine growth make accuratemeasurement impossible, and often mask diagnosticfeatures that would allow direct comparisons withexisting archaeological and historical records.However, some basic morphological characteristicsoccasionally can be discerned that offer clues toartefact composition, manufacturing technique,origin, and date. This is the case with some ofthe artefacts described here. The discussion andconclusions presented below are preliminary; allmeasurements were taken to the nearest 0.005 m andinclude concretion and marine growth. In any futureinvestigation, it will be useful to measure the thickness

© 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2016 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 175

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 45.1

Figure 3. Preliminary site plan (T. J. Nowak).

of the concretion in order to calculate mass, volumeand density of the artefacts through digital modelling.

OrdnanceA group of four swivel guns define the southernboundary of the site (Fig. 4). All appear to beconstructed entirely fromwrought iron and are encasedin thick concretion. Measurements were taken fromthe most accessible and complete example as all fourswivel guns appeared to share similar construction,morphology, and size. It has a total length of 1.53 m. Itstiller measures 0.40m long and 0.055m in diameter andterminates in a button 0.09 m in diameter. The chamberholder is rectangular in plan and measures 0.30 m longby 0.20 m wide. It is open at its top and bottom and hasan understrap 0.075 m wide positioned near its centre.The understrap supported a removable chamber, whichfitted into a space measuring 0.22 m long by 0.12 mwide, and would have been secured using a wedge forfiring. There is a clear demarcation between the barreland the chamber holder, but no evidence is availableto suggest the method of attachment. The chamber

Figure 4. Wrought-iron swivel guns and chambers (T. N.Jones and T. J. Nowak).

holders of similar guns were manufactured separatelyand fitted over lugs that protrude from their barrels;this connection was secured by either inserting lockingwedges though holes in the lugs or by hammering overthe ends of the lugs (Smith, 1995: 107). Trunnions arelocated on the barrel 0.15 m forward of the chamberholder, and the yoke and swivel peg survive. The yokemeasures 0.05 m wide and the swivel peg measures0.15 m long. The barrel measures 0.85 m long and waslikely constructed from wrought-iron hoops and staves.It has a slender muzzle ring measuring 0.015 m wide,a flat face measuring 0.15 m in diameter, and a boremeasuring 0.05 m in diameter. There appear to be sevenhoops between the trunnions and the muzzles of threeswivel guns; the fourth swivel gun is damaged. Its barrelis broken and retains only four hoops and is missing itstiller.

Three chambers were identified among two scattersof marine concretions: one within 0.50 m and the otherwithin 1.50 m of the cluster of wrought-iron swivelguns (Fig. 4). All three chambers are encased in thickconcretion. Each measures 0.20 m in length, 0.10 m indiameter, and has a 0.03 m-diameter handle that rises0.05 m from the chamber base. Concretion obscuredrecording the form of the neck, the bore, and theposition and diameter of the touch hole.

A composite swivel gun with a total length ofapproximately 1.65 m defines the northern boundary ofthe site (Fig. 5). Its tiller, chamber holder, and swivel,seem to be wrought iron and are encased in thickconcretion. The tiller measures 0.30 m in length and0.06 m in diameter and terminates in a button 0.09 min diameter. The chamber holder is approximatelyrectangular in plan and measures 0.45 m long by0.20 m wide. It is open at its top and bottom andhas an understrap measuring 0.05 m wide, positionedwith its after end at the centre of the chamber holder.The understrap supported a removable chamber, which

176 © 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2016 The Nautical Archaeology Society.

NOTES

Figure 5. Composite swivel gun (T. N. Jones and T. J.Nowak).

fitted into a space 0.30 m long by 0.12 m wide, andwould have been secured using a wedge for firing. Aswas the case with the wrought-iron guns, there is aclear demarcation between the barrel and the chamberholder, but no evidence is available to suggest themethod of attachment between the chamber holderand the barrel. The chamber holders of similar gunstypically were secured using barrel lugs like theirwrought-iron relatives. Trunnions protrude from thebarrel 0.10 m forward of the chamber holder. At leasta portion of the yoke survives; the preserved extentsof this and the swivel peg are unknown. The barrelis smooth, measures 0.95 m long, and appears to bebronze. It has a heavy muzzle ring measuring 0.04 mwide, a flat face 0.15 m in diameter, and a bore 0.08 min diameter (Fig. 6).

Swivel guns were close-range weapons that fireda range of anti-personnel ammunition used to repelpotential boarders and to attack the exposed crews ofenemy vessels. They were commonly mounted alongthe rails of roundships and on the bow fightingplatform, the stern castle, and along the rails of galleys(Guilmartin, 2003: 171; Morin, 2011: 2). The gunsfrom the present site represent two similar breech-loading styles, onemost likely constructed entirely fromwrought iron, and the other a combination of a cast-

Figure 6. The anchor and grapnel (T. N. Jones and T. J.Nowak).

bronze barrel and a wrought-iron chamber holder,swivel, and tiller.

The four wrought-iron examples represent the TypeSW-1, which is considered the most common type ofswivel gun (Smith, 1988: 8). This type is identifiedby its long barrel with alternating hoops and bands,trunnions forged to a hoop forward of a separatechamber holder that is rectangular in plan and fastenedto the barrel, and a simple tiller ending in a button orfinial. Guns of this type were easy to manufacture andwere in use from roughly the 16th to the 18th centuries(Guilmartin, 2003: 169; Morin, 2011: 2).

R. D. Smith (1995: 107) proposed that TypeSW-1 swivel guns may have been referred to asslings in England during the 17th century based ona comparison between a passage in Robert Norton’s1628 manuscript The Gunner and surviving examplesthat have barrels of 12–15 calibres. Norton (1628: 58)describes barrels of three sizes of breech-loading swivelguns, the base, sling, and murderer: ‘ . . . the lengths ofthe Portingale Base is about 30 times her Calibre; theSling about 12 times, the Murtherers, Port Peeces, andFowlers 8 at the most besides their Chambers’.

The wrought-iron swivel guns discovered nearPaphos were recorded with barrels of 17 calibres;however, this was calculated using measurements thatinclude concretion. The actual bore diameters of thePaphos examples could be larger, resulting in barrels of15 calibres similar to the examples identified by Smithas slings.

Composite swivel guns, known as petriere da bragain Venice and smerigli petrieri alla veneziana in Genoa,were seemingly manufactured only in Venice andGenoa and may have been invented by M. MatthioBeccalua during the 16th century (Scordato, 2011:28, 30; Capo Bianco 1618 [1598]: 7). Some survivingexamples are marked on the breech with barrelweights in Venetian libre or Genoese cantari, andhave distinctive mouldings and markings that can be



attributed to specific foundries or show state or privateownership (Scordato, 2011: 30). Sardi (1621: 127)mentions that swivel guns formerly were manufacturedfrom wrought iron, but were produced using iron andbronze at the time of his writing and both wrought-ironand composite swivel guns co-existed during the early17th century (Scordato, 2011: 28). Moretti (1665: 23,Ch. 5, fig. 8), Sardi (1621: 128, Ch. 57, fig. 1), and CapoBianco (1618 [1598]: 7) attest to the existence of guns ofthis type with barrels of 10–12 calibres (Scordato, 2011:30). This corresponds well with the composite swivelgun from Paphos, which was recorded with a barrel of12 calibres.

Composite swivel guns have been found on fiveshipwrecks dating from the late 16th or early 17thcenturies, including theGnalic shipwreck (Morin, 2006;Beltrame, 2011: 12–14), the Teignmouth shipwreck(Preece and Burton, 1993: 263), La Trinidad Valencera,the Venetian ship Balancera (Beltrame, 2011: 17;Martin, 2011: 95), La Lavia, the Venetian ship Labia(Birch and McElvogue, 1999: 273; McElvogue, 2002:41–42), the Messina Strait shipwreck (Beltrame, 2011:18; Scordato, 2011: 28–33), and one shipwreck that hasbeen variously dated from the 16th to the 18th centuriesnear Capo Graziano (Bernabo Brea and Cavalier, 1977:165; Kapitan, 1977: 42–46; 1985).

Ground tackleAn anchor is oriented with its crown pointing south-west; its head rests beneath a grapnel near the centreof the site (Fig. 6). The anchor is wrought iron andencased in thick concretion. It measures 3.25 m fromhead to crown. Its head is distinguished by a distinctivewidening of the shank from 0.08 to 0.09 m and itsobvious rectangular cross-sectional shape extends fora distance of 0.32 m. The remainder of the shank isrounded, but concretion inhibited recording its exactcross-sectional shape. The head is pierced and retainsan iron ring with a thickness of 0.05 m and an outerdiameter of 0.42 m. No nuts or other features intendedto facilitate the attachment of a wooden stock werenoted during field inspection; they may be obscured byconcretion. The shank tapers from a width of 0.08 mbelow the head to 0.10mnear the crown. The arms span1.80m; eachmeasures 1.00m long and extends from thecrown at an angle of roughly 60˚. One arm preserveswhat appears to be an eroded triangular palm, whilethe crown ends in a slight protrusion that is flanked byshallow dimples.

A grapnel with four arms is oriented with its headpointing north-west. It is alsomanufactured of wroughtiron and encased in thick concretion. It measures3.35m from its head to the bottomof the trough createdby the curvature of its arms. Like the anchor, the headis distinguished by its clear rectangular cross section incontrast to the remainder of the more-rounded shank.The head is pierced and includes an iron ring with athickness of 0.06 m and an outer diameter of 0.47 m.The shank is 3m long and tapers from awidth of 0.10m

below the head to 0.20m at the junction of the arms andthe shank. The arms span 2.10 m, each with a length of1.10 m from the bottom of the shank to the tip of thepalm. One arm is broken; the other arms end in largepalms measuring 0.40 m wide and 0.45 m long.

The types, sizes, and numbers of anchors generallyare indicators of the size of the ship that carried themand can provide clues to the type of ship they served.However, it is difficult to estimate ship size and typewhen the ground tackle assemblage is incomplete andespecially problematic for Mediterranean ships datingfrom the Renaissance (de la Roche, 2011: 78).

The morphological characteristics of anchors andthe materials and methods used to produce themcould assist in determining their manufacturingdate, but the examples under consideration here arecovered with concretion and marine growth makingscrutiny of the details needed for thorough analysesdifficult. Nevertheless, some common morphologicalcharacteristics can be found between the anchorand examples discovered during archaeologicalinvestigations of Renaissance-era ships. Theproportions of the anchor and the angle of its arms tothe shank are similar to anchors dating from the 16thcentury discovered during investigations of San Juan(Moore et al., 2007: 76–7); Mary Rose (McElvogue,2009: 277–80); San Esteban (Arnold and Weddle, 1978:224–30, Table J.1); La Trinidad Valencera, the Venetianship Balancera (Martin, 1979: 31); Vasa (Cederlund,2006: 99, fig. 3–5); and the Mortella II and III (dela Roche, 2011: 76–7); Emanuel Point (Burns, 1998:72–6); and Kravel shipwrecks (Adams and Ronnby2013: 108, fig. 3; pers. comm. Fred Hocker); amongothers.

DiscussionLike many shallow-water sites in dynamic marineenvironments, the Paphos Airport assemblage presentssignificant challenges of recording, analysis, andinterpretation (see generally Muckelroy, 1975; Parker,1981). All observations were made on the basis ofnon-intrusive survey intended to document culturalartefacts in situ and provide a baseline for subsequentfieldwork and research. While consideration of thefinds in light of textual and archaeological comparandaprovide evidence for the inference of a late 16th or 17thcentury date, more intensive future study is necessaryto build and expand on the preliminary suggestionsoffered here.

The environmental context of the site may providesome clues to the location of the wreck and itsdispersal. Shipswith deep drafts had to exercise extremecaution when navigating the coastal waters of south-west Cyprus. Strong gusts from the west or north-westwould have threatened vessels sailing close to shore,and the jettisoning of heavy equipment was commonin cases of threatened shipwreck. Indeed two large


NOTES

bronze cannon that may have been cast overboard—one off the Akamas Peninsula and the other close toXeros River mouth west of Kouklia—were recoveredfrom the shallows along south-west Cyprus and arenow exhibited in the nearby museum at Kouklia, wherethey are recorded as ‘accidental finds’ in the museuminventory. Given the extent and compact nature of thesite, the dense clusters of iron concretions throughoutthe area, and its location in shallow water at a breakalong the seaward limit of a rocky shelf, it seemsplausible that the observed artefact concentration couldmark the site of a shipwreck or represent jettison froma vessel that narrowly escaped destruction.

While identifying the type of ship that carriedthese materials is impossible with the informationcurrently available, it seems reasonable to suggestthat the assemblage derived from a lightly armedvessel sometime during the late 16th-century Venetianor 17th-century Ottoman occupations of Paphos.These centuries witnessed near-constant vying forpolitical and economic hegemony in the waters aroundCyprus and the eastern Mediterranean more broadly(Goffman, 2002: 137–64). Intense levels of maritimeactivity included not only trade but forms of piracy andprivateering typical of areas lacking naval dominanceby a single power (Tenenti, 1967; Wilson, 1995).Cyprus’s harbours and coves became the scene of

routine naval skirmishes and preying on shipping,particularly among Ottoman and allied Venetian-Spanish fleets (see Fernandez Duro, 1885; RodrıguezGonzalez, 2004: 312–14). Although the probable originof one of the canon in the Italian peninsula—perhapsmore specifically Venetian—need not reflect the originof the vessel itself, it does provide some indication ofmaritime material culture connections that spannedthe waters of the Mediterranean during this formativeperiod of early modern maritime history.

Duncan Howitt-MarshallBritish School at Athens, 52 Souedias, 106 76 Athens,

Greece, [email protected]

Toby N. JonesNewport Medieval Ship Project, Newport Museum andArt Gallery, John Frost Square, Newport, Wales, NP20

1PA, [email protected]

Justin LeidwangerDepartment of Classics, Stanford University, 450 SerraMall, Main Quad, Building 110, Stanford, California

94305, USA, [email protected]

Troy J. NowakMaryland Maritime Archeology Program, MarylandHistorical Trust, 100 Community Place, Crownsville,

Maryland 21032, USA, [email protected]

AcknowledgementsThis site was found and reported by Filios Saziedes, to whom particular debts of gratitude are owed. The authors gratefullyacknowledge the hard work of the 2005 survey team, Bill Utley for advice during preparation of the ordnance section, andFred Hocker for helpful expert critique. The survey was possible thanks to the kind permission of then Director of the CyprusDepartment of Antiquities, Pavlos Flourentzos, while information on the cannon displayed in the Palaipaphos Museum waskindly provided by Marina Solomidou-Ieronymidou. Logistical and financial support was generously provided by the CyprusSociety for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology and the RPM NauticalFoundation.

ReferencesAdams, J. and Ronnby, J., 2013, One of his majesty’s ‘Beste Kraffwells’: the wreck of an early carvel-built ship at Franska

Sternarna, Sweden. IJNA 42.1, 103–17.Arnold III, J. B. and Weddle, R. S., 1978, The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island: The Spanish Shipwrecks of 1554. New York.Beltrame, C., 2011, Venetian ordnance in the shipwrecks of theMediterranean andAtlantic seas, in C. Beltrame andR.G.Ridella

(eds), Ships and Guns. The Sea Ordnance in Venice and in Europe between the 15th and the 17th Centuries, 12–22. Oxford.Bernabo Brea, L., and Cavalier, M., 1977, Il Castello di Lipari e il Museo Archeologico Eoliano. Palermo.Birch, S., and McElvogue, D. M., 1999, La Lavia, La Juliana and the Santa Marıa de Vison: thee Spanish Armada transports

lost off Streetdagh Strand, Co Sligo: an interim report. IJNA 28.3, 265–76.Burns, J., 1998, Ship’s hardware: the anchor and related rigging components, in R. C. Smith, J. R. Bratten, J. C. Cozzi and

K. Plaskett (eds), The Emanuel Point Ship Archaeological Investigations 1997–1998, 72–9. Archaeology Institute Report ofInvestigations 68, Pensacola.

Capo Bianco, A., 1618 [1598], Corona e palma militare di artiglieria, 3rd edn. Venice.Cederlund, C. O., 2006, Vasa I: The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628, in F. Hocker (ed.), National Maritime Museums

of Sweden, Stockholm.de la Roche, A. C., 2011, The Mortella II & III Wrecks: Preliminary observations on two 16th-century archaeological sites

discovered in Saint-Florent Bay, Corsica, France. IJNA 40.1, 69–86.Fernandez Duro, C., 1885, El Gran Duque de Osuna y su Marina: Jornades contra Turcos y Venecianos (1602–1624). Madrid.Goffman, D., 2002, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge.Guilmartin, J. F., 2003, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century.

London.



Kapitan, G., 1977, I relitti di Capo Graziano (Filicudi): Scoperte dalla spedizione NACSAC nel 1968. Sicilia Archeologica 34,40–53.

Kapitan, G., 1985, Capo Graziano. Relitto E: nave da guerra del XVIII secolo, in L. Bernabo Brea and M. Cavalier (eds),Archeologia subacquea 2: Isole Eolie, 98–9. Bollettino d’Arte Suppl. 29, Rome.

Leidwanger, J. and Howitt-Marshall, D. S., 2006, Episkopi Bay and beyond: Recent collaborative fieldwork and new prospectson Cyprus. INA Quarterly 33.2, 13–22.

Martin, C., 1979, La Trinidad Valencera: an Armada invasion transport lost off Donegal. Interim site report, 1971–76. IJNA 8.1,12–38.

Martin, C., 2011, Stowed or mounted: the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the strategic logistics of guns at sea, in C. Beltrame andR. G. Ridella (eds), Ships and Guns. The Sea Ordnance in Venice and in Europe between the 15th and the 17th Centuries, 85–97.Oxford.

McElvogue, D. M., 2002, A description and appraisal of ordnance from three Spanish Armada transports c.1588. Journal of theOrdnance Society 14, 31–50.

McElvogue, D.M., 2009, Steering, mooring, anchoring and the ship’s boats, in P.Marsden (ed.),MaryRose: YourNoblest Shippe.Anatomy of a Tudor Warship, 273–87. Archaeology of the Mary Rose Volume 2, Portsmouth.

Moore, C. D, Bernier, M.-A. and LaRoche, D., 2007, Ground tackle, in R. Grenier, M.-A. Bernier, and W. Stevens (eds), TheUnderwater Archaeology of Red Bay. Basque Shipbuilding andWhaling in the16th Century, Volume IV—Rigging, Vessel Use andRelated Studies, 66–84. Ottawa.

Moretti, T., 1665, Trattato dell’artiglieria. Venice.Morin, M., 2006, Le artiglierie del relitto di Gnalic, in M. Gustin, S. Gelichi and K. Spindler (eds), The Heritage of the

Serenissima. The Presentation of the Architectural and Archaeological Remains of the Venetian Republic. Proceedings of theInternational Conference, Izola-Venezia 2005, 95–7. Koper.

Morin, M., 2011, Morphology and constructive techniques of Venetian artilleries in the 16th and 17th centuries: Some notes, inC. Beltrame and R. G. Ridella (eds), Ships and Guns. The Sea Ordnance in Venice and in Europe between the 15th and the 17thCenturies, 1–11. Oxford.

Muckelroy, K., 1975, A systematic approach to the investigation of scattered wreck sites. IJNA 4.2, 173–90.Norton, R., 1628, The Gunner. London.Parker, A. J., 1981, Stratification and contamination in ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks. IJNA 10.4, 309–35.Preece, C. and Burton, G., 1993, Church Rocks, 1975–83: a reassessment. IJNA 22.3, 257–65.Rodrıguez Gonzalez, A. R., 2004, Lepanto, La Batalla que Salvo a Europa. Madrid.Sardi, P., 1621, L’artiglieria. Venice.Scordato, R., 2011, Two Venetian swivel guns fromMessina Strait, Sicily, in C. Beltrame and R. G. Ridella (eds), Ships and Guns.

The Sea Ordnance in Venice and in Europe between the 15th and the 17th Centuries, 28–34. Oxford.Smith, R. D., 1988, Towards a new typology for wrought-iron ordnance. IJNA 17.1, 5–16.Smith, R. D., 1995, Wrought-iron swivel guns, in M. Bound (ed.), The Archaeology of Ships of War, 104–13. Oswestry.Tenenti, A., 1967, Piracy and the Decline of Venice, 1580–1615, J. Pullman and B. Pullman (trans). Berkeley and Los Angeles.Wilson, P. L., 1995, Pirate Utopias: Moorish Corsairs and European Renegades. New York.

A late 16th- to early 17th-century European shipwreck carryingVenetian ordnance discovered off the Carmel coast, Israel

In 1972, a commercial fisherman, R. Schomos,discovered a bronze gun attached to a woodengun carriage (Piece A) while diving off Megadim

on the Carmel coast (Fig. 1). He informed A. Rabanand J. Galili, members of the Underwater ExplorationSociety of Israel, who documented the gun and itscarriage under water (Raban, 1980). However, theassemblage was simultaneously discovered by others,and salvaged unscientifically, thus losing much of thecarriage and associated artefacts. In 1973, anotherfisherman, Mr. Y. Ben Moshe, reported a large metalobject at the same site. Eventually a massive bronzeartillery piece (Piece B) was retrieved by E. Galili. Aspublic institutions failed to buy the gun, the courtawarded it to the fisherman. During the 1970s severalmuskets, tied together, were retrieved from the site by

another fisherman, and sold before documentation.Rescue surveys on the site were conducted from 1985to 2004, and revealed removable powder chambers,elements of ship rigging and lead musket shot. During2013, while checking the site, O and E. Galili discovereda third bronze gun (piece C). Pieces A and B have beenbriefly published in this journal, without mention of thelocation and context of the shipwreck (Roth, 1989). Thesite, the three artillery pieces, and additional associatedartefacts are described and discussed below.

The siteThe site (32º56′43′′ E: 32º43′41′′ N) is located about6 km south of Haifa, and extends from the coastlineopposite the village of Megadim about 110 m seaward.


an assemblage of early modern ordnance and ground tackle from south-west cyprus

Documents