marmi capo bianco ijna 318

Underwater Investigation on a Marble Cargo Wreck at CapoBianco near Isola di Capo Rizzuto, Crotone, Italy

Carlo BeltrameDipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Venezia, Italy

Lorenzo LazzariniLaboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi, Università Iuav di Architettura, S. Polo 2468, 30125 Venezia, Italy

Salvatore MedagliaVia Saffo 17, 88900 Crotone, Italy

The cargo of marble blocks off Capo Bianco was dated to the Roman period. New sampling and analysis has identified Carraramarble, and also Rosso di Francia and Portargento, which strongly suggests a post-medieval date. This leads to the suggestionthat nearby finds dating between the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th may come from the same ship,perhaps sailing from France and Liguria to deliver stone in southern Italy. This is rare evidence of the post-medieval marbletrade and demonstrates the importance of archaeometric analysis for the interpretation of wrecked cargos.

© 2011 The Authors

Key words: marble, limestone, Carrara, Caunes-Minervois, Palmaria, isotopic analysis.

The wreck at Capo Bianco was discovered andreported by Luigi Cantafora, a scuba diverfrom Crotone, in 1991. Following the discovery

the Superintendence for Archaeological Heritageof Calabria commissioned the co-operative societyAquarius, directed by Alice Freschi, to carry out pre-liminary investigations (Medaglia, 2010: 342–3). Thesite is located on the southern side of Capo Bianco, nearIsola di Capo Rizzuto, c.500 m from the coast and at adepth of 3–4.5 m (Fig. 1). It lies at the southern edge ofa reef complex which takes its name from the nearbytown of Capo Rizzuto. The reef was charted by the 16thcentury, being indicated on the portolan by the Vene-tian sailor Alvise da Mosto, where he warns that ‘Sovrachavo Bianco per ostro, mia 2 in mar, è una secha, che ànome lo Rizeto’ (Gasparrini Leporace, 1966: 200). Thiscoast must have presented, in the past, many obstaclesfor sailors, because of exposed rocks. Erosion and sub-sidence over the last few centuries mean that fewer suchrocks are now uncovered (Bertoni et al., 2000; Guerric-chio et al., 2000; Guerricchio, 2003).

These significant changes to the coastal morphology arewell exemplified by the changes in the southern portion ofthe Capo Rizzuto reef, now located at an average depth ofc.3–4.5 m. The highest point broke the surface up to a fewcenturies ago, as testified by H. Swinburne who, in the

second half of the 18th century, made an excursion fromthe eastern side of Capo Rizzuto:

Before day-break we pushed off our boat, and rowed overto an island marked in every map as the habitation ofCalypso. Things must have changed wonderfully since thetime of Ulysses, or the goddess have daily worked amiracle in providing food, without which supernaturalassistance the shipwrecked hero had died of hunger: atpresent this rock would scarcely maintain a sheep. Somethickets of lentiscus, and other brushwood, are the onlyrepresentatives of the tall trees which the Ithacan chieffelled for the construction of his vessel. { I found nocharms on the island powerful enough to detain me; andtherefore, after a breakfast on prawns and limpets { I putoff’ (Swinburne, 1790: 199–202).

Aquarius 1991 researchThe Aquarius researchers proved the existence ofshaped marbles which they attributed to the wreck of aRoman ship (Fig. 2). They concentrated on the easternportion of the site, recording 44 lithic elements. Follow-ing these investigations, it was concluded that the cargoconsisted of a variety of rocks classified as ‘marblesand middle-Eastern breccias’. Initial analysis identifiedthree main types of marble: ‘black marble with whiteveins, white and red marbles as well as white marble

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2012) 41.1: 3–16doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2011.00318.x

© 2011 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2011 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

with yellow elements’ (Aquarius, 1991). When search-ing the area over which the stones were spread, at c.50 msouth of the cargo, fragments ‘of the upper part of anamphora dating back to the Byzantine epoch’ wererecovered, later dated as Late Roman 2, and an ironanchor, lacking one of the arms, still attached to therock where it was fixed. This was tentatively dated asLate Roman and associated with the marble wreck(Aquarius, 1991). About 20 m from the latter, ‘a leadoval-shaped ring with an oblique cut in the upper part

was recovered, most likely used for unhooking nets orthe tops of fouled anchors’. A 40-cm-long wooden frag-ment, with two bronze nails fastened to it, was alsofound; and attributed to the remains of the ship whichtransported the marbles (Aquarius, 1991).

During searches south-south-west of the area wherethe blocks were lying scuba divers noticed otherarchaeological material belonging to a secondwreck—two iron cannons, fragments of glass bottles,various iron concretions, a brass door-knob, a long iron

Figure 1. Location of the wreck-site. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

Figure 2. Overview of the marble blocks. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 41.1

4 © 2011 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2011 The Nautical Archaeology Society

pipe, two fragments of majolica tiles with green, blue,yellow and black decoration, eight clay pipes, andseveral fragments of thin copper sheet ‘with many cir-cular fastening holes along the edge’, some of whichwere recovered (Aquarius, 1991). Recent analysis of theobjects recovered in 1991 allowed us to add to this listfive fragments of marble slabs, 2 cm thick, presumablyfrom Carrara (Fig. 3). The first of the two cannons,which is 2.1 m long, was discovered c.35 m south-westof the marbles (Fig. 4); the second, found on the oppo-site side of the marble deposit, and c.31 m north, is nolonger visible and may have been removed by looters.

New research in 2008In June 2008, with the authorisation of the Superin-tendence for Archaeological Heritage of Calabria and

in co-operation with the association ‘Reitia’ fromConegliano, a research team co-ordinated by CarloBeltrame and Salvatore Medaglia spent a week docu-menting the marble wreck, with c.170 hours spentunder water (as reflected by this article). Beltrameoversaw the analysis of the cargo, while Medagliainvestigated the historical context. First the marbleelements were located by removing the thick coveringof seaweed. Then, thanks to several controls aimed atdetermining the real lithic nature of the blocks (to dis-tinguish them from the rocks of the sea-bed) it waspossible to define the boundary of the site, whichcovers an area of c.12 x 12 m.

All the elements were numbered and systematicallycatalogued, and recorded photographically. Only thendid sampling of the lithics begin, removing flakes ofmarble for laboratory analysis. A deeper sampling of a

Figure 3. Detail of small presumed Carrara marble slabs. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

Figure 4. Iron gun found near the area of stone blocks. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

C. BELTRAME ET AL.: UNDERWATER INVESTIGATION OF A MARBLE WRECK, CROTONE, ITALY

© 2011 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2011 The Nautical Archaeology Society 5

small number of artefacts was carried out to obtain thewell-preserved material necessary for isotopic analysis.After preliminary microscopic investigations of thethin sections was completed, an unconventional photo-mosaic and two cross-shaped sections of the area werecreated (Fig. 5). Along with these operations, somescuba divers made surveys within a radius of 500 mfrom the area where the marbles were found. The aimwas both to locate possible mobile materials related tothe wrecked ship, and to delimit the sea-bed area

covered by the more modern wreck material high-lighted by Aquarius. While the first objective achievednothing, the second led to the discovery of conspicuousremains of a shipwreck located c.30 m north-west ofthe central area with the marble blocks. These con-sisted of ferrous elements, with numerous concretions,related to the hull of a post-medieval wreck, presum-ably related to the cannons found by Aquarius, and toother evidence of similar date located south of themarble blocks.

Figure 5. Photomosaic of the marble blocks site. (C. Martino, from photographs by C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)



The marble cargoThe stone cargo carried by the ship consists of 83 piecesand five fragments of shaped marble. This number hasto be considered approximate, because under the heavystones covering the sea-bed other artefacts could stillbe hidden. The quarry products, namely the shaped,smooth-shafted columns, blocks and big slabs were allsketched (Fig. 6). The finest degree of finish was foundin the case of the columns, including five pairs (Fig. 7);in other cases, the shafts were connected to slab-shapedelements. This suggests safe transport, and skilledworkers would have carefully separated the elementsonce they reached their destination. This is an expedientfor guaranteeing the integrity and the stability of somematerials during transportation by sea, especially themost fragile ones, as in the case of the longest shafts.Blocks and slabs accounted for 54 pieces, columns 29,including some broken pieces, so the total of wholeelements must be smaller. In general, it is possible tostate that the cargo was characterized by medium andsmall-size pieces. This, together with its mixed compo-sition, suggests that a large proportion was intended fordecorative finishes for floors and walls.

The dimensional range of the pieces, especially theblocks, is remarkable, and it appears difficult to findrepeated measures and standardised types. The columnshafts, with a maximum length of 267 cm, have a widerange of diameters, between 20 and 50 cm. Some of theshorter cylindrical elements, generically described asbroken column shafts, could instead be pieces from

Figure 6. 3-D reconstruction of some examples of the marble elements of the cargo. (E. Costa)

Figure 7. Double column. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)



which disk-shaped tiles (tondos) were cut, as forexample for use in opus sectile. The same is clearly validfor the smallest blocks. More numerous are the shaftswith diameters of 30 cm (28%) and up to 40 cm (32%).As a rule, the blocks are approximately cubic, thelargest ones measuring between 130 and 142 cm long.Among the few slabs present, the largest measure 199 x98 x 21 cm and 205 x 100 x 20 cm; with a thickness ofbetween 10 and 21 cm.

Minero-petrographic analysesThe stones were analysed by L. Lazzarini at the Labo-ratory for the Analysis of Ancient Materials at IuavUniversity of Venice. The best samples were selectedand photographed after polishing one side. All sampleswere washed in distilled water until the total disappear-ance of NaCl. Then the best-preserved portion of eachsample was separated by cutting with a diamond-saw,and used as follows.

All determinations were made on a single fragment.Part of the sample was finely ground and the powdersubjected to diffractometric (Radiation CuKa at40 KV, 20 mA) and isotopic analyses. The remainingpart was used for the preparation of a thin section for adetailed minero-petrographic study of the marble undera polarising microscope. The purpose of this examina-tion was to determine the fabric, and accessory andsecondary minerals. More specifically, for the true(metamorphic) marbles the following parameters weredetermined: maximum grain size (MGS), a parameterof significant diagnostic importance, as shown by recentstudies, since it is linked to the grade of metamorphismachieved by the marble; boundary-shapes of the calcite/dolomite grains, also connected to the type of metamor-phic event that generated the marble; and type of fabric(homeoblastic = with isodiametric grains, heteroblastic= with grains of various dimensions), in direct relation-ship with the type (equilibrium, non-equilibrium,retrograde metamorphism, polymetamorphism) andmetamorphic grade. For the petrographic description,

previous reference studies of ancient marbles were used(Lazzarini et al., 1980; Gorgoni et al., 2002), as well asclassic treatises on petrotectonics (Spry, 1986).

Isotopic analysesThe isotopic analyses were carried out on the carbondioxide derived from small portions (20–50 mg) of thepowdered samples subjected to a chemical attack with100% phosphoric acid at 25° in a special vacuum line,according to the procedure suggested by McCrea(1950) and Craig (1957). The resulting CO2 was thenanalysed by mass spectrometry. The instrument used isequipped with a triple collector and permits the mea-surement of both isotopic ratios (13C/12C and 18O/16O)at the same time. The analytical results are convention-ally expressed in d units, in parts per thousand:

δ = − ×[R sample R std 1] 1000

in which R sample and R std represent the isotopicratio of oxygen and carbon in the sample and in thereference standard respectively. The standard adoptedis PDB for both oxygen and carbon (the PDB standardis the rostrum of the Belemnitella americana of theCretaceous Pee Dee Formation of South Carolina).Isotopic characterisation has proved to be very usefulin the identification of marble in ancient artefacts(Gorgoni et al., 2002), allowing increasingly reliablecomparisons, especially if the isotopic data are evalu-ated together with the minero-petrographic resultsfrom the same samples, as in the present study.

ResultsThe results obtained are presented here according tostone type and summarised in Table 1, where the iso-topic values are the average ones.

Red and white limestoneThe red and white limestone present in the cargo iseasily identified macroscopically as Rosso di Francia

Table 1. Summary of the results of petrographic and isotopic analyses

Lithotype FabricMain and accessory

minerals Grain size/mgsd18O PDB

(-)d13C PDB

(+)Classification and

identification

Red and whitelimestone

Biomicritic andmacrosparitic

Calcite, quartz,hematite

Matrix <4 m;Strom. >1 mm

Mudstone; ‘Rosso diFrancia’/‘RougeLanguedoc’

Blacklimestone

Micritic Calcite, quartz,carbonaceousmatter

<4 m 2.52 3.25 Carbonaceous/micriticlimestone/mudstone‘Portargento’

Whitelimestone

Microsparitic Calcite 50–200 m 2.26 2.02 Microsparitic limestone/crystalline carbonate;unidentified

White marble Homeoblastic,mosaic

Calcite, quartz,carbonaceousmatter, k-mica

0.42–0.86 2.49 2.06 Pure crystalline marble;‘Carrara marble’



(French Red), internationally known also as RougeLanguedoc. This identification is confirmed by micro-scopic examination of three thin sections preparedfrom different samples, all showing the fabric of atypical mudstone with large macrosparitic areas, the‘stromatactis’ of Dupont (1881), of pure white calcite(Fig. 8), immersed in a biomicritic (Folk, 1959)/wackestone type (Dunham, 1962) matrix coloured inred by finely dispersed hematite containing reworkedbioclasts of bryozoans, pelagic bivalves, echinids,corals, and other marine organisms. The stone is adeep-water Devonian limestone, identical to that stillquarried in the Caunes-Minervois area in the Mon-taigne Noire (Black Mountain) of the Languedocregion of southern France (Bourrouilh and Bourque,1999).

It was used only in southern France in theRomanesque period, then exported to Spain and Italyfrom the Late Renaissance onwards, and widely distrib-uted in the Baroque period and later. There is not animportant Baroque church in Italy without columns

and slabs of this stone decorating altars and otherinterior artefacts. The most ancient documents knownat present testify that a massive extraction from theCaunes-Minervois quarries begun in the 17th centurywhen Jean d’Alibert, abbot of Caunes, during his travelto Rome c.1615, invited the sculptor Stefano Sormano,‘savonese mercadante de marmi mischi’ (Bonnet, 1998),to verify the quality of the calcareous rocks available inthe territory of his abbey. A few years later, in 1630,Sormano received a grant which allowed him to extractmarble, and in 1633 he was granted a monopoly on itstrade (Nouviale, 1992: 57–9; Julien, 1994: 700–01).Strongly enforced by the Italians who had been living inCaunes for several decades, the monopoly began to bechallenged after 1662–65 by the French, led by themaster Jean Baux (Bonnet, 1998; 2000; 2005).

Black limestoneMost of the six samples examined appeared to beof a uniform black colour, with just two featuringwhite veins of different thickness, from millimetric tocentimetric (Fig. 9). XRD analysis proved the pre-sence of calcite and traces of quartz. The microscopicexamination of 4 thin sections enables the rock tobe classified as a micritic limestone (Folk, 1959) or amudstone (Dunham, 1962), coloured black by the dis-persion of minute particles of carbonaceous matter,sometimes concentrated in veins and stylolites. Thereare very frequent veins of secondary microspariticcalcite, often isoparallel. Authigenic quartz is some-times observed dispersed in the carbonatic mass, orconcentrated in thin veins.

Black limestones similar to this were quarried on theisland of Palmaria, off Portovenere (Liguria). A par-ticular white-veined limestone called Portargento inItalian (silver harbour), which was paired with themore famous stone called Portoro (gilded harbour), ismacroscopically a good match for our stone (Cento,1994–95; Cimmino et al., 2006; Bonci, 2007; Fiora andAlciati, 2007). It is a compact micritic limestone of theLower Triassic age that often shows white veins. Amicroscopic and isotopic comparison, due to be carriedout as soon as a reference sample of Portargento can befound, will confirm this hypothesis or not.

Probably already known to the Romans (Cimminoand Robbiano, 2005: 35; Fornaro and Lovera, 2005: 2)it was used by the Genoese in the 12th century asbuilding material, mainly for defensive structures (Pan-dolfi, 1971; Cimmino and Robbiano, 2005: 35). Thistype of black-veined marble has been extracted andused mainly as ornamental material since the Renais-sance; the oldest documentary reference is from the endof the 16th century, a grant to the sculptor DomenicoCasella from the Genoese Senate (Bonci, 2007: 131).The widespread exploitation of the limestone outcrop,however, was started by Giovanni Morello fromSarzano, who asked in 1626 for the use of some quarrieswhich he pointed out in the Dominion of the GenoeseRepublic (State Archive of Genoa, Camera della

Figure 8. Macro- and micro-photograph of thin section(N+, 16¥) of the red-and-white limestone identified as FrenchRed. (L. Lazzarini)



Republica di Genova, 175, Atti, doc. 380; see Mannoniand Mannoni, 1978, 234–5; Santamaria, 2005: 206).

White limestoneOnly one block was of a milky-white limestone which,from the thin section, may be classified as a very puremicrosparite (Folk, 1959) or as a crystalline carbonate(Dunham, 1962), characterised by a homogeneousmicrosparitic fabric with rare truly sparitic areas(Fig. 10). So far no possible origin of this stone hasbeen identified. After the study of some geologicalmaps of southern France, it appeared that compactlimestones like this are quite abundant in Provence.Although we still do not know its provenance, it shouldprobably be looked for in southern France or westernItaly.

White marbleThe 8 samples of fine-grained crystalline marble exam-ined in thin section showed a mosaic fabric formedby calcite crystals with curved-to-straight boundaries

(Fig. 11), sometimes assuming a polygonal fabric.MGS has always been measured around 0.4–0.8 mm.The detected accessory minerals were quartz, K-mica,opaque minerals and carbonaceous matter/graphite.All these characteristics pointed towards an identifica-tion of the marble as coming from Carrara, and thiswas confirmed by the isotopic analysis of two samples.Carrara is a well known and important marble usedsince the 6th century BC by the Etruscans, and in muchlarger quantities from the mid-1st century BC by theRomans. The quarries were almost abandoned at theend of the 2nd century AD, but exploitation continuedwithout interruption once it was resumed in the early-12th century.

The marbles and the shipwreckIf we compare the laboratory results with the datafrom the underwater investigations, we can state that44 elements, including blocks and slabs, are of Carraramarble; one block and four columns are of RougeLanguedoc; eight pieces including blocks and plates aswell as 25 columns or parts of columns are of Portar-gento (Fig. 12) (Table 2). The limestone and marbleartefacts are distributed around a large and tall rockwhich was probably the point on which the ship brokebefore sinking. The setting of the lithics appears quitechaotic because of the movement which took place

Figure 9. Macro- and micro-photograph of thin section(N+, 16¥) of black limestone identified as Portargento.(L. Lazzarini)

Figure 10. Photomicrograph of a thin section (N+, 40¥) ofwhite limestone (ob.10X). (L. Lazzarini)



during the wrecking process. However it is clear thatthe cargo (and therefore the ship) was aligned south-west/north-east, as this is the orientation of the major-ity of the stones. The alignment of a consistent groupof artefacts at the northern side of the field is evidently

due to the fact that, after the impact, they found astable position inside a large gulley.

The 2008 investigations did not lead to the recoveryof pieces of hull-structure, which probably decom-posed because the rocky sea-bed meant that it was notcovered by sediment. However, it is likely that somefragments of the ship were preserved by being trappedunder stones, as indicated by the wood fragment withcopper-alloy nails found under marble during the 1991investigations. The detailed record of every element ofthe marble cargo allows us to calculate its volume as12.39 m3, or 33.62 tons (Fig. 13). This can be brokendown into 7.75 m3 of white Carrara marble (2716 kg/m3), 0.32 m3 of Rosso di Francia (2688 kg/m3) and4.32 m3 of Portargento (2712 kg/m3).

All around the lithics, several other archaeologicalmaterials have been found. Some of them, located in1991, were attributed to a second shipwreck datable tothe 15th or 16th century. These included two cannons,an iron anchor and copper sheathing, as well as quan-tities of iron concretion. Among them are some boltsused to join elements of ship structure. Although it isnot possible to determine whether these finds, whichalso include fragments of glass bottles, clay pipes andmajolica, can really be associated with a second ship-wreck, it is possible at least to try and achieve a moreprecise dating, which seems to be more recent than theone previously proposed. The two guns, by their mor-phology and material, can be generically dated laterthan the 17th century. Also significant is the presenceof the copper sheathing (Fig. 14). These fragmentsprobably belong to the protective covering of the hull,a system first introduced in 1761 by the Royal Navy,which soon became common (Bingeman et al., 2000:220–21).

The attribution of the stone-carrying ship to theLate Roman period, proposed by the Aquarius teamand based mostly on the discovery of a fragmentaryamphora which dates to between the 4th and the begin-ning of the 7th century (Racheli, 2006: 68), must bereassessed following the results of the archaeometricanalysis of the lithics. The presence within the cargo ofthe Rouge Languedoc limestone testifies that the wreckmight not have taken place before the 17th century. Aswe have already demonstrated, the French Red waslargely exported only from the mid-17th century(Julien, 1994; Bonnet, 1998; Bonnet, 2005). We thinkthat the amphora fragment and the presumed Romananchor could be either isolated finds or evidence that aLate Roman ship once anchored here, but not evidenceof a wreck.

On the basis of the stone-types found on the wreck,we can try to reconstruct the route followed by the shipduring its last voyage (Fig. 15). The French Red wasusually brought from the quarry on carts and shippedfrom the harbour of Narbonne, until the opening ofthe Canal du Midi, which offered raft or boat transportto the harbour of Agde (Bonnet, 1998; Bonnet, 2005:98). Our vessel would then have called at the La Spezia

Figure 12. Typology of the lithic elements and divisionbased on the marble type. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

Figure 11. Macro- and micro-photograph of thin section(N+, 16¥) of white Carrara marble. (L. Lazzarini)



region in order to load the Portargento near Palmariaisland. Here the historical quarries are mainly foundalong the western coast of the island, and the blacklimestone, after having gone through the ancient vie dilizza (slipways), was loaded onto boats using a rudi-mentary lifting device called ‘bigo’ (Fornaro andLovera, 2005; Cimmino et al., 2006).

The last stop was certainly the harbour of Avenza,near the point where the Carrione stream meets the sea.This was the main embarkation point for Carraramarble (Bavastro, 2003: 10; Musetti, 2007: 444) and,

until the building of the first jetty by William Walton in1851 (Bavastro, 2003: 22–3), loading was done withtraditional methods directly from the beach by meansof scafelle (lighters) to ships anchored offshore, or bythe vessels sitting on the beach (Telara, 1994: 79–82).Given the single specimen of white limestone, at themoment still unidentified, there is no reason to assumea further port of call, as it is likely that it was loadedat one of the stops already mentioned, being alsoextracted in southern France or along the Ligurian-Tuscan arc.

Table 2. Summary table of all the elements of the cargo (measurements in centimetres)

No. Shape Material Dimensions (cm) No. Shape Material Dimensions (cm)

1 Doublecolumn

Portargento 200/240 x 70 x 35 (ø) 43 Block Carrara marble 95 x 75 x 30

2 Column Portargento 175 x 40 (ø) 44 Block Carrara marble 70 x 55 x 203 Block Carrara marble 115 x 70 x 30 45 Block Carrara marble 95 x 70 x 254 Slab Portargento 60 x 45 x 10 50 Block Carrara marble 80 x 60 x 195 Column Portargento 165 x 42 (ø) 51 Column Portargento 90 x 24 (ø)6 Column/block Portargento 267 x 59 x 30 (ø) 52 Block Rosso di Francia 125 x 110 x 45 x 227 Column Portargento 100 x 40 (ø) 53 Block/slab Carrara marble 80 x 63 x 158 Column Portargento 85 x 25 (ø) 54 Column Portargento 135 x 30 (ø)9 Block Portargento 50 x 35 x 25 55 Double column Portargento 50 x 54 x 29 (ø)

10 Column/block Portargento 115 x 55 x 45 x 22 56 Column Rosso di Francia 100 x 27 (ø)11 Block Carrara marble 130 x 55 x 35 57 Column Rosso di Francia 115 x 28 (ø)12 Block Carrara marble 135 x 75 x 30 58 Block Carrara marble 64 x 47 x 2413 Column Portargento 145 x 40 (ø) 59 Column Portargento 95 x 35 (ø)14 Column Portargento 180 x 40 (ø) 60 Column Portargento 88 x 30 (ø)15 Slab Carrara marble 205 x 100 x 20 61 Block/slab Carrara marble 90 x 31 x 1516 Slab/block Carrara marble 140 x 90 x 20 63 Block Portargento 71 x 45 x 2717 Block Carrara marble 120 x 60 x 45 69 Block Portargento 31 x 27 x 1718 Block Carrara marble 140 x 50 x 45 x 35 70 Block Carrara marble 65 x 57 x 2519 Slab/block Carrara marble 100 x 65 x 20 71 Column Portargento 64 x 40 (ø)20 Block Carrara marble 125 x 40 x 30 72 Block/slab Carrara marble 88 x 62 x 2021 Block Carrara marble 72 x 56 x 45 73 Column Portargento 73 x 47 (ø)22 Column Portargento 90 x 50 (ø) 74 Double column/

blockPortargento 80 x 77 x 30 (ø)

23 Block White limestone 100 x 60 x 35 75 Block Carrara marble 70 x 58 x 2824 Column Portargento 80 x 40 (ø) 76 Slab Carrara marble 189 x 98 x 2125 Block Carrara marble 75 x 70 x 60 x 40 77 Block Carrara marble 63 x 40 x 2026 Block/slab Carrara marble 70 x 50 x 20 78 Block Carrara marble 65 x 40 x 3127 Block Carrara marble 55 x 35 x 35 79 Block Carrara marble 72 x 64 x 4428 Column Portargento 90 x 40 (ø) 80 Block Carrara marble 142 x 55 x 3829 Block/slab Portargento 125 x 61 x 21 81 Block Carrara marble 95 x 95 x 3030 Column Portargento 94 x 40 (ø) 82 Column Portargento 46 x 35 (ø)31 Block Carrara marble 120 x 50 x 45 83 Block Portargento 130 x 60 x 3032 Block Carrara marble 60 x 60 x 50 84 Block Portargento 70 x 42 x 2033 Block Carrara marble 70 x 50 x 40 85 Block Carrara marble 133 x 80 x 4034 Block Carrara marble 70 x 35 x 30 86 Slab Carrara marble 65 x 55 x 1035 Block Carrara marble 70 x 50 x 30 89 Column Rosso di Francia 65 x 25 (ø)36 Block Carrara marble 110 x 58 x 40 90 Slab Carrara marble 92 x 60 x 1237 Column Portargento 135 x 40 (ø) 91 Column Rosso di Francia 83 x 26 (ø)38 Block Carrara marble 113 x 70 x 30 92 Block Carrara marble 64 x 43 x 3539 Block Portargento 110 x 63 x 30 93 Duble column/

block (?)Portargento 66 x 45 x 20-22 (ø)

40 Block Carrara marble 130 x 65 x 30 94 Block Carrara marble 64 x 57 x 1841 Block Carrara marble 75 x 75 x 30 95 Double column/

blockPortargento 123 x 50 x 20 (ø)

42 Block Carrara marble 50 x 40 x 30



Spatial analysis of the individual marble types doesnot allow us to identify their position inside the hold,which might have shed light on the order of loading,and therefore confirmed the hypothesis about the ves-sel’s route. The movement of the materials due to theshipwreck was further exacerbated by the rolling of thecolumns after the initial impact. To this, it has to beadded that we are not able to identify the bow andstern of the wreck, nor can we establish whether theship overturned (perhaps because of the imbalance ofthe load after the bump against the rocks), or sankquickly due to the weight of the cargo, while stillaligned in her sailing direction. Only the French Redstones are grouped in a restricted area in the north-eastern part of the site.

Pending further investigations, it is worth assigningthe marble wreck quite a wide date, between the mid-17th and the first half of the 19th century. Within thiscould be accommodated all the evidence which hadpreviously been assigned to a second shipwreck. It nowseems more likely that both the quarried stone and theother archaeological materials scattered on the reef,such as clay pipes, bottles and tiles, must be consideredto be part of a single wreck. If this hypothesis is true,and given the presence of the copper sheathing, wecould further tighten the date to between the secondhalf of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th.This is reinforced by the dating to the end of the 18thor into the 19th century of the clay pipes (Fig. 16) andthe tiles (so-called riggiole, probably produced insouthern Italy) (Fig. 17).

Taking into consideration the location of the marblequarries, as well as the dates within which they were

Figure 13. Tonnage of cargo for each kind of marble. (C.Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

Figure 14. One of the fragments of copper sheathing, forprotecting the hull of a post-medieval vessel. (C. Beltrameand S. Medaglia)

Figure 15. Reconstruction of the route of the ship. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)



being worked, it is to be supposed that the ship thatwrecked at Capo Bianco belonged to the Ligurian fleet.Both the Genoese ship-owners and those from thesmaller maritime communities of the Ligurian coast(such as Levanto, Chiavari, Lerici, Arenzano), had areal record in the transport and trade of the marblesextracted at Portovenere and Carrara between the 16thand the 18th centuries. In the Carrara principality, atleast until 1760, no fleet had yet been developed,neither were there commanders and sailors able toreplace those of the Ligurian boats (Musetti, 2007:441).

From the 15th century—and in particular betweenthe mid-16th and the mid-18th century—Genoa wasthe main and undisputed terminus for all sales of Euro-pean marble. Due to the proximity of the Apuan Alpsquarries, and thanks to policies aimed at searching outnew coloured marble fields within the territories of theRepublic, the Genoese held the monopoly of a richvariety of precious marbles from the areas of Lavagna,Portovenere, Levanto, Pegli, Val Polcevera and SestriPonente. To these foreign polychrome marbles wereadded, for instance, the green statues from Piemonte,jasper from Sicily, broccatello from Tortosa (Spain)and, above all, the mischio from Caunes (Santamaria,2005: 205–06). This commerce developed along boththe western (Marsiglia, Spain) and the southern routes(Santamaria, 2004: 32) which led, from that time, tothe great markets like Livorno, Rome, Naples,Messina, Catania, Palermo and Venice (Musetti, 2007:441 ff.).

It is on one such voyage, maybe towards the Adri-atic, that our cargo ship was wrecked. The Ligurianfleet frequently visited the town of Cotrone (nowCrotone), sometimes simply stopping there, some-times loading and unloading cargoes. In the 17th

century Ligurian ships reached 26% of the totalnumber of vessels entering its harbour; in the follow-ing century this percentage decreased, although itremained consistent at around 9% (Pesavento, 1997).Confirmation of the Genoese presence in the IonianSea along a route that connected the east with thewest Mediterranean can be found in the number of

Figure 17. South Italian ceramic tiles found near theblocks. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)

Figure 16. Clay pipes found near the blocks. (C. Beltrame and S. Medaglia)



ships wrecked: between 1613 and 1762 as many as14 Ligurian merchant ships sank in these waters(Pesavento, 1997).

ConclusionsThis study reconstructs the route and the embarkationpoints of the marbles loaded onto a vessel probablydating between the second half of the 18th century and

the first half of the 19th, providing useful informationon trade and the quarrying and working of marble. It isa rare evidence for post-medieval trade in marble. Fur-thermore it offers an interesting demonstration of theimportance of archaeometric analysis for the dating ofcargoes. This collection of artefacts, initially dated tothe Roman period, was actually of a much later date,as proved by the results obtained through petrographicand isotopic investigations.

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank Dr Alice Freschi, Director of the Co-operative Society Aquarius, for allowing us to consult the 1991 report,and Marco Milanese for his valuable information about the ceramic finds. Also all those who participated in the 2008investigations: Elisa Costa, Mariangela Nicolardi, Valeria Vittorio (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice), Carmelo Martino, RossellaScordato (Tuscia University of Viterbo), Duilio Della Libera, Enrico Ambrogi, Valter Toniolo, Andrea Giusa, Andrea Nardo,Fabio Piccin, Riccardo Rabacchin (Reitia Onlus). Finally, warm thanks to the Superintendence for Archaeological Heritage ofCalabria and to Dr M. G. Aisa for help and permission to dive on the site and to take samples.

ReferencesAquarius, 1991, Crotone (Cz). Ricerche subacquee 1991, unpublished report.Bavastro, R., 2003, Le vele del marmo: marina di Carrara da piccolo borgo a capitale della marineria. Pontedera.Bertoni, W., Baratti, C., Carbognin, L., Cesi, C., Chierici, G., Dossena, G., Guerricchio, G., La Monica, U., La Tegola A. and

Succetti, A., 2000, Analysis of subsidence in the Crotone area along the Ionian coast of Calabria, Italy, in L. Carbognin, G.Gambolati and A. Johnson (eds), Land Subsidence, I, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Land Subsidence(Ravenna, 2000), 155–67.

Bingeman, J. P., Bethell, J. P., Goodwin, P. and Mack, A. T., 2000, Copper and other sheathing in the Royal Navy, IJNA 29.2,218–29.

Bonci, M. C., 2007, Il Portoro: la fortuna del ‘Marmo nero’ di Portovenere, in G. Rossi (ed.), Collezionismo paletnologico inLiguria fra ’800 e primi ’900, La Berio 2, luglio-dicembre, 131–3.

Bonnet, J-L. H., 1998, Des carrières aux marbriers de Caunes-Minervois (XVIIe siècle), Bulletin de la Société d’étudesscientifiques de l’Aude 98, 89–102.

Bonnet, J-L. H., 2000, De la politique royale du marbre aux carrières de Caunes et Félines en Minervois (XVIIIe siècle), Bulletinde la Société d’études scientifiques de l’Aude 100, 53–62.

Bonnet, J-L. H., 2005, Un groupe social particulier: les hommes du marbre en Minervois (XVIIe–XVIIIe), Bulletin de la Sociétéd’études scientifiques de l’Aude 105, 95–104.

Bourrouilh, R. and Bourque, P. A., 1999, Les calcaires à stromatactis de type Marbre Rouge Languedoc, in Archéomatériaux,marbres et autres roches, Asmosia IV, Actes de la IVe Conférence internationale (Bordeaux–Talence, 1995), 65–76.Bordeaux.

Cento, C., 1994–95, Analisi petrografiche del marmo portoro della Spezia, Memorie della Accademia lunigianese di scienzelettere ed arti ‘Giovanni Capellini’ 64–5.2, 95–106.

Cimmino, F. and Robbiano, A., 2005, Gli antichi siti estrattivi di marmo portoro sull’isola palmaria (promontorio occidentaledel Golfo di La Spezia-Liguria), in V. Badino and G. Baldassarre (eds), Le pietre del Territorio. Cultura, Tradizione, Svilupposostenibile, Atti del convegno (Isola Palmaria, 2005), 34–7.

Cimmino, F., Fornaro, M., Lovera, E. and Robbiano, A., 2006, Evoluzione delle tecniche estrattive nelle cave storiche diportoro sulle isole Palmaria e Tino (Portovenere-Liguria orientale), in Le risorse lapidee dall’antichità ad oggi in areamediterranea, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Canosa di Puglia, 2006), vol. I., 189–94. Torino.

Craig, H., 1957, Isotopic standars for carbon and oxygen and correction factor for mass-spectrometric analyses of carbondioxide, Geochimica-cosmochimica acta 12, 133–49.

Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture, in W. E. Ham (ed.), Classification ofcarbonate rocks, American Association of Petroeum Geologists Memories I, 108–21.

Dupont, E., 1881, Sur l’origine des calcaires dévoniens de la Belgique, Bulletin Académie Royale des Sciences de Belgique, IIISérie, 2, 264–80.

Fiora, L. and Alciati, L., 2007, Rosso Levanto e Portoro, ‘marmi’ colorati dalle proprietà estetiche uniche, in L. Marino (ed.),Cave storiche e risorse lapidee. Documentazione e restauro, 59–62. Firenze.

Folk, R. L., 1959, Practical petrographic classification of limestones, Bulletin of the American Association of PetroleumGeologists 43, 1–38.

Fornaro, M. and Lovera, M., 2005, Cave storiche e tecniche estrattive, in Le pietre del Territorio. Cultura, Tradizione, Svilupposostenibile, Atti del convegno (Isola Palmaria, 2005), 2–6.

Gasparrini Leporace, T. (ed.), 1966, Il Nuovo Ramusio, V, Le navigazioni atlantiche del veneziano Alvise da Mosto. Rome.



Gorgoni, C., Lazzarini, L., Pallante, P. and Turi, B., 2002, An updated and detailed mineropetrographic and C-O stable isotopicreference database for the main Mediterranean marbles used in antiquity, in J. Herrmann, N. Herz and R. Newman (eds),ASMOSIA 5. Interdisciplinary studies on ancient stone, 115–31. London.

Guerricchio, A., 2003, Lineamenti geologici e problemi di subsidenza del bacino crotonese, in G. Lena (ed.), Problemigeoambientali nella costa fra Capo Colonna e Isola di Capo Rizzuto, Atti del Convegno (Le Castella, 2001), 39–59. Crotone.

Guerricchio, A., Cantafora, L., Guerricchio, M. and Ponte, M., 2000, Discovery of submerged fixed archaeological structuresin the Crotone coastal strip between Strongoli Marina and Le Castella (Calabria region, Italy). Considerations on coastalerosion and subsidence phenomena, in Land Subsidence, I, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on LandSubsidence (Ravenna, 2000), 17–32.

Julien, P., 1994, Décor et marbre de Caunes dans la nef de Saint-Pierre de Rome, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome.Antiquité 106.2, 699–716.

Lazzarini, L., Moschini, G. and Stievano, A., 1980, A contribution to the identification of Italian, Greek, and AnatolianMarbles through a petrological study and the evaluation of Ca/Sr ratio, Archaeometry 22, 173–83.

McCrea, J. M., 1950, On the isotopic chemistry of carbonates and a paleotemperature scale, Journal of Chemical Physics 18,849–57.

Mannoni, L. and Mannoni, T., 1978, Il marmo. Materia e cultura. Genova.Medaglia, S., 2010, Carta archeologica della provincia di Crotone. Paesaggi storici e insediamenti nella Calabria centro-orientale

dalla Preistoria all’Altomedioevo. Rossano (Cs).Musetti, R., 2007, I mercanti di marmo del Settecento. Bologna.Nouviale, C., 1992, Les marbres de Caunes, aux origines de leur exploitation, Archistra 103.92, 55–60.Pandolfi, D., 1971, Il marmo Portoro, L’Industria Mineraria 9, 491–500.Pesavento, A., 1997, Assalti barbareschi e naufragi lungo la costa del crotonese tra Cinquecento e Settecento, Pitagora 6, 32–3.Racheli, A., 2006, I relitti del marmo, in R. Spadea (ed.), Il Museo del Parco Archeologico di Capo Colonna a Crotone, 68.

Crotone.Santamaria, R., 2004, Il marmo di Carrara e il porto di Genova nei secoli XVII e XVIII, La Casana 1, 28–39.Santamaria, R., 2005, I costi del marmo: cappelle, altari, statue, fontane e apparati decorativi per i palazzi e le chiese della città,

in Aa. Vv., Genua abundat pecuniis. Finanza commerci e lusso a Genova tra XVII e XVIII secolo (Catalogo mostra, Genova,2005), 205–13. Genoa.

Spry, A., 1986, Metamorphic Textures. Oxford.Swinburne, H., 1790, Travels in the two Sicilies, II. London.Telara, G. N., 1994, Ricordi della vecchia marina. Carrara.



marmi capo bianco ijna 318

Documents