Barthélémy B, second quarter of the 1st century AD
Country: France
Place: Near the Barthélémy islet, Saint-Raphaël (Var), at a depth of 39 m
Coordinates (approximate): 43.41, 6.78
Type: Small Roman coastal trading vessel
Identified: No
Dated: Second quarter of the 1st century AD.
Beam: Unknown.
Keel Length: Unknown; 4.95 m preserved.
Length Overall: Estimated at 8–10 m.
Number of Masts: Unknown; possibly a single spritsail.
History of the wreck
The Barthélémy B wreck was discovered in 1993 at a depth of 39 m near the islet that gives it its name, and its excavation began in 1994. It is a small vessel with a well-ordered cargo of about a hundred tegulae (equivalent to some fifty amphorae) and a lead foculus, together with the sailors’ common ware, possibly made in Fréjus. The total estimated weight is 2 t. It was a minor vessel, 8 to 10 m long (Lopez 1995; Lopez 1996: 59; Joncheray and Joncheray 1997: 106; Joncheray and Joncheray 2004), used for coastal trade and redistribution. It is dated to the second quarter of the 1st century AD. A second team, directed by Wicha, worked on the site in 2002.
Description of the site
The wreck lies at a depth of 39 m. During the first excavations, 4.95 m of keel and 21 frames were uncovered (Figure 1). By the 2002 campaign, as a result of the previous interventions, the remains had been reduced to a short section of the keel, a reinforcement at the junction with the sternpost, eleven planking strakes and eight frames in situ.
Figure 1. Plan of the hull remains of the Barthélémy B wreck (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 27).
Cargo
The cargo consisted of about a hundred tegulae (equivalent to some fifty amphorae), well ordered, and a lead foculus. It was stowed directly on the ceiling planking nailed over the frames, without any protective dunnage. The sailors’ common ware may have been made in Fréjus. The total estimated weight is 2 t.
Ballast
Not reported.
Anchors
Not reported.
Guns
Not applicable.
Iron concretions
Not reported.
Hull Remains
The first excavations recorded 4.95 m of keel with the scarf to the sternpost, the planking and 21 frames (Figure 1). In 2002 only a short section of the keel, a reinforcement at the junction with the sternpost, eleven strakes and eight frames remained in situ. The observations made on the hull conclude that there are numerous imperfections and asymmetries in its construction, which were corrected with additional nails or with wooden reinforcements that were not originally planned.
Keel, keelson and mast step
In the first archaeological intervention, 4.95 m of keel were preserved, with a trait de Jupiter (rayo de Júpiter) scarf for the joint with the sternpost. This scarf is reinforced by a nail driven from the outside of the hull, which passes through a shoe, the scarf itself and the locking key. Since this is a minor vessel, it is understandable that it has a light keel of almost square section (6.5 × 7 cm), which becomes rectangular in section at its end (7.5 × 4.5 cm) (Wicha 2003: 72), with a width smaller than that of the garboard strakes. These strakes are joined to the keel by mortises 5.9 cm wide and 0.4 cm thick, spaced 5.2–5.5 cm apart (Figure 2). The presence of a protective shoe for the keel, firmly fastened with iron nails, is logical for a ship that could sail in shallow waters and be beached on sandy shores (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Plan of a portion of the hull showing the position of the keel and strakes, and of the mortises, tenons, pegs, frames and treenails (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 44).
Figure 3. Cross-sections of the keel at the trait de Jupiter scarf, showing the shape of the rabbet and the protective keel shoe. The sternpost increases in thickness, as in the Rabiou wreck (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 33).
The way in which the bevelled rabbet becomes a notched rabbet as it approaches the sternpost, to receive the garboard strake in this more pinched part of the hull, is noteworthy (Figure 4). The dimensions of the sternpost are approximate but, as is usual, it is wider and higher than the keel.
At the junction with the sternpost there is a reinforcing piece (Wicha 2003: 72) set under the keel and extending towards the sternpost, with the same width as the keel (6.5 cm) and a thickness of 2.5 cm, which Wicha relates to the sternpost heel or skeg (durmiente del codaste or alerón de deriva) of the Cap del Vol and also to that of the Baie de l’Amitié. It could also be a correction made during the construction process itself. Wicha’s work, with the removal of three sawn cross-sections of the keel at M1, M10 and M12, shows that in the central part of the hull the keel has no notched rabbet, but is of square or rectangular section with the mortises in the upper side faces (Figure 5) (Wicha 2010: 119). This contradicts what the Joncherays wrote (1997: 106), but not their Figure 270 [Figure 7 here] (sic).
Figure 4. Section of the hull at the sternpost, as reconstructed from the section of the keel and the angle of the notched rabbet (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 33).
Figure 5. Drawing of the faces of a portion of the keel of the Barthélémy B (after Wicha 2010: 124).
No element was found that would point to the presence of a keelson or a mast step. According to information given by Pomey to the excavators, this is possibly related to the mast being located very close to the bow (an area not preserved) and to a spritsail (vela tarquina) rig (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Example of a spritsail on a 3rd-century sarcophagus from Ostia; copy in the Museum of Albenga, Italy (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Frames
In the first interventions, 21 frames were excavated and the room-and-space (malla) between them was measured at 24 cm (Figure 1). The presence of pairs of treenails in one of the frames was taken to indicate that lashings might have been used to fasten the frames to the hull (Joncheray and Joncheray 1997: 106).
The framing has frames of varied dimensions, 6.5 to 8 cm sided and 6 to 10 cm moulded. Floor timbers and half-frames alternate rhythmically, with a room-and-space1 of 20 cm, that is, twice the width of the frames. They are fastened to the hull by pairs of treenails securing a lashing, which in most cases follow a regular rhythm, broken only by single treenails between the pairs for the lashing; only in some cases are the recesses between the treenails for the passage of the cord visible (Figure 9). The treenails were driven indiscriminately from inside and outside the hull. Because the starboard garboard strake had been replaced, new pairs of treenails were added to fasten the frames to this strake.
Planking
The starboard garboard strake was replaced, using the same technique of cutting new mortises and inserting headed tenons that were driven into position with a mallet (Figure 7), as observed in wrecks such as the Kyrenia or the Tour Fondue. The old tenons in the keel were cut off and new mortises were cut.
Towards the stern, the width of the garboard strakes decreases gradually to 4.5 cm, and they are fastened directly to the rabbet with 4–5 nails, without tenons (Figure 8). The planking strakes are 2.5 to 2.9 cm thick and vary in width between 12 and 16 cm. The hull shows clear asymmetries2 in the garboard strakes: one is 2.5 cm thick and 13 cm wide, and the other 4 cm thick and 6 cm wide. This is perhaps due to numerous repairs, or to a building process in which, in the absence of a good supply of timber in the shipyard, leftover pieces were used for this minor vessel.
Figure 7. Repair by replacement of the starboard garboard strake (after Joncheray 1997: 106).
Figure 8. Method of fastening the planking strakes to the sternpost of the Barthélémy B with metal nails (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 36).
Figure 9. View of floor timber M13 of the Barthélémy B, with a limber hole of square section. Its distal end is bevelled to support the futtock. The pairs of pegs securing the internal lashings can be seen (after Joncheray and Joncheray 2004: 42).
Ceiling, thick stuff, and wales
The cargo was stowed directly on the ceiling planking nailed over the frames. The ceiling strakes (vagras) are of silver fir (Abies alba).
Caulking
Not reported.
Size and scantlings
A minor vessel, 8 to 10 m long, for coastal trade and redistribution, with a total cargo weight estimated at 2 t. The keel is light, of almost square section (6.5 × 7 cm), and protected by a nailed shoe, which suits a vessel able to sail in shallow waters and be beached on sandy shores.
Table 1. Scantling of the timber remains of the Barthélémy B Shipwreck
| Timber | Sided [cm] | Molded [cm] |
| Keel At after end | 6.5 7.5 | 7 4.5 |
| Keel shoe / reinforcement | 6.5 | 2.5 |
| Keelson | – | – |
| Maststep Mortise | – – | – – |
| Buttresses | – | – |
| Floor timbers | 6.5–8 | 6–10 |
| Futtocks | – | – |
| Room-and-space At central frames | 20 | |
| Planking Garboards | 12–16 13 / 6 | 2.5–2.9 2.5 / 4 |
| Ceiling | – | – |
| Main mast Ø Chock | – – | – – |
Frame dimensions are ranges for all frames (floor timbers and half-frames). Room-and-space after Wicha; the Joncherays give 24 cm. Planking: sided = width, moulded = thickness; the two garboards differ (port/starboard not specified).
Wood
The predominant species in the construction of the ship is Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), used for the keel, sternpost, frames and planking, although one floor timber is of holm oak (Quercus ilex), as are the tenons and pegs. The ceiling strakes are of silver fir (Abies alba) and the keel shoe of beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Wicha 2003: 72).
Bibliography
Joncheray, A. and Joncheray, J.-P. 1997. Dramont I, description et étude de la coque d’une épave de marbres d’Asie Mineure du premier siècle après J.-C. Cahiers d’Archéologie Subaquatique 13: 165 ff.
Joncheray, A. and Joncheray, J.-P. 2004. Épaves de tuiles romaines en Provence-Côte d’Azur. L’épave Barthélemy B, à Saint-Raphaël (Var, France). Cahiers d’Archéologie Subaquatique 15: 7–72.
Lopez, A. 1995. Barthélémy B. Bilan scientifique du DRASSM 1994, 54–55. Paris.
Lopez, A. 1996. Barthélémy B. Bilan scientifique du DRASSM 1995, 59–60. Paris.
Pomey, P. 1998. Conception et réalisation des navires dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne. In E. Rieth (ed.), Concevoir et construire les navires. De la trière au picoteux. Technologies, Idéologies, Pratiques 13.1: 49–72. Ramonville Saint-Agne: Érès.
Wicha, S. 2003. L’épave à tuiles Barthélémy B. Bilan scientifique du DRASSM 2002, 71–73. Paris.
Wicha, S. 2010. Caractérisation d’un groupe d’épaves antiques de Méditerranée présentant un assemblage des membrures par ligatures végétales: approche architecturale et paléobotanique. Saarbrücken (doctoral thesis, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 2005).
Notes
1 4 cm less than published by the Joncherays, although small variations may arise depending on the longitudinal line along which the measurements are taken, since the frames are not perfectly aligned with or perpendicular to the keel.
2 Pomey notes that “a great asymmetry, due to the shaping of each plank according to the timber available, is always found in the distribution of the strakes from one side to the other. This asymmetry, often added to that of the garboards, made it necessary to check the work and correct the shapes before it was too late” (Pomey 1998: 64; translated from the French).