Binissafúller, 325–275 BC
Country: Spain
Place: Cala Binissafúller, south coast of Menorca (Balearic Islands), at a depth of 6–7 m
Coordinates (approximate): 39.83, 4.24
Type: Merchant ship, possibly of western Phoenician-Punic tradition
Identified: No
Dated: 325–275 BC, based on a black-glaze patera (Guerrero and Quintana 2000); the construction techniques suggest the mid- or late 4th century BC.
Beam: Unknown.
Keel Length: Unknown; the keel was not preserved.
Length Overall: Unknown.
Number of Masts: Unknown.
History of the wreck
The Binissafúller wreck lies off the south coast of the island of Menorca, in the cove from which it takes its name, at a depth of 6 to 7 m (Juan Fuertes et al. 2010). The site was discovered in the 1960s (De Nicolás 1973), and in 1975 the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, together with the Centro de Investigaciones Submarinas de Menorca, carried out the first archaeological intervention. About 54 m² were excavated, and more than a hundred amphorae classified as Iberian were recovered, together with four Punic amphorae from Ibiza and three pieces of fine ware1 (Fernández and Belén 1977; Tejedor 1978). The fine ware was interpreted as part of the crew’s tableware or of the ship’s secondary cargo. As for the hull remains, it was only noted that the strakes were joined by mortise-and-tenon joints. A black-glaze patera has been at the centre of the debate on the dating of the site (Guerrero and Quintana 2000), and was dated by these authors to the last decades of the 4th century BC and the beginning of the 3rd century BC (325–275 BC).
Doubts about its date, origin and route, together with the opportunity to start a training programme for Menorcan archaeologists, led to the resumption of fieldwork in 2006 and 2007, with a further intervention in 2011 within the Plan Nacional para la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural Subacuático, always under the direction of Aguelo and Pons. This research allowed a new study of the ship’s construction, the delimitation of the extent of the site and the beginning of excavation in intact sectors of high archaeological potential. In 2006 work concentrated on a new plan of a hull fragment, in 2007 on a test trench barely 5 m from the hull, and in 2011 on the complete excavation of the timber remains,2 which were in a perfect state of preservation and apparently unaltered since their earlier excavation.
One working hypothesis is that the Binissafúller belonged to a western Phoenician-Punic cultural sphere, as regards its construction, with the hull assembled by elongated tenons, its nautical space (on a route connecting the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearics, southern Sardinia and/or western Sicily) and its cargo. However, construction techniques must have been transmitted fairly easily in ports, cosmopolitan places par excellence, and the Binissafúller may be evidence of a western Punic or Iberian line of shipbuilding not yet recognised. If construction techniques were used as a dating tool, as proposed by Steffy (1990: 319), the construction of the ship would be placed in the mid- or late 4th century BC. It is hoped that the study of the finds will shed more light on the question.
Description of the site
The wreck lies at a depth of 6–7 m. The hull fragment was buried in a sedimentary layer and was practically flat, without its original longitudinal or transverse curvature, showing only a slight inclination towards the north. This allowed recording by drawing and photogrammetry (Figure 1). At first sight, the most remarkable features of the hull fragment were that the planking strakes were joined by mortise-and-tenon joints and that the frames were fastened to the hull by external lashings.3
The 4 m² test trench next to the hull revealed the potential of the site. Beneath one metre of sand and about 30 cm of Posidonia oceanica rhizomes, a rich archaeological layer appeared, undisturbed by earlier interventions. The 2007 campaign was also devoted to delimiting the site precisely, in order to calculate the area still to be excavated (about 100 m²). In 2006 the previously excavated hull fragment was uncovered again for a new plan and study of its construction (Aguelo et al. 2008: 202); the timbers were labelled, identifying strakes, joints, pegs, holes, etc., to facilitate the plan and photographic recording.
Figure 1. Archaeological plan of the wreck after the 2011 campaign (drawing: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Cargo
The ship carried a main cargo of Iberian amphorae of type Mañá B-3107. The 1975 excavation recovered more than a hundred amphorae classified as Iberian, four Punic amphorae from Ibiza and three pieces of fine ware. The 2007 test trench yielded three complete amphorae of Iberian type, in one of which grape seeds (Vitis vinifera) were found, a total of 75 fragments (handles, rims and toes of flat-mouthed amphorae), three complete cylindrical flat-mouthed amphorae and three fragments of Punic-Ebusitan amphorae. Notably, no pottery fragment was found that could have belonged to a secondary cargo or to the crew.
A series of long wooden poles of circular section (2–3 m) was excavated, lying longitudinally over the hull. Some of them show what appears to be the impression of a lashing, and some ends are bevelled at 45°. Their number and characteristics suggest that they were not part of a yard, nor oars or rudders; the most plausible interpretation is that they helped to secure the stowage of the amphora cargo during the voyage, since the amphorae could have been tied to these longitudinal poles. The lashing of amphorae in a cargo was documented by Long on the Grand Ribaud F.
Ballast
Not reported.
Anchors
Not reported.
Guns
Not applicable.
Iron concretions
An iron nail concretion was observed on the ceiling strake (see below).
Hull Remains
The hull of the Binissafúller was built shell-first, with flush-laid strakes edge-joined by punicana coagmenta. The frames played no structural role and were merely a transverse reinforcement of the structure. The surviving fragment comes from the area of the bilge (Figure 1).
Keel, keelson and mast step
Not preserved.
Frames
The hull fragment preserves the impressions, or negatives, of the position and dimensions of the lower faces of the frames, in what appears to be an impregnation of resin with plant fibres on the inner face of the hull. This impregnation seems to be later than the assembly of the hull; no analyses are available yet. The limits of the frame impressions suggest that their lower faces were flat and about 9–10 cm wide. Along the edges of the frame negatives there are groups of four holes, 1.6 cm in diameter, arranged in a square with a certain regularity and spaced about 8 to 11 cm apart (Figures 2 and 5).
These holes are drilled at opposed angles of 45°/135° to the plane of the planking, several of them still containing a partly preserved treenail, as documented in Archaic Greek wrecks such as Jules Verne 9, although that hull was assembled by sewing (Figures 3 and 6). On the outer face of the hull of the Binissafúller there are grooves joining the holes transversely, to protect the lashing from friction with the sea and during manoeuvres (Figure 4).
This type of fastening by lashing to the hull is documented in Archaic wrecks of Ionian tradition of the 6th century BC, for example the Bon Porté 1 (Saint-Tropez, France, 540–510 BC), in which the frames were joined to the hull by a lashing that was subsequently secured with treenails (Pomey 1998). The similarity of the Binissafúller to the 6th-century BC Archaic wrecks, as regards the fastening of the frames, is high, since they share the fastening of the frames by external lashings, but the technique is not identical. There is also a certain parallel with the Phoenician Mazarrón wrecks, in which the frames are fastened to the hull by external lashings while the hull is assembled with mortise-and-tenon joints. In Mazarrón 1, however, the frames are lashed through groups of four holes drilled perpendicular to the plane of the hull, that is at 90°, and its frames are less developed than those of the Binissafúller.
Around frames no. 8 and no. 3 there are treenails on their central axis, which may have played a role in the construction of the hull, but could be an example of reinforcement of the lashed fastening of the frames to the planking (Figure 5, red arrows). The small width of the hull fragment does not allow the sequence and spacing of the frames to be established as a pattern, although, since this is the bilge area of the hull, there seems to be an alternation of floor timbers and half-frames, less regular and systematic than in the Kyrenia. The frames are spaced at an average of 37 cm. The frames do not seem to run continuously from the keel to the sheer; rather there is an alternation, without apparent order, between what might be called futtocks and top timbers. Their widths and spacing make it clear, however, that the framing is not as robust, nor the alternation as well defined, as in the Kyrenia wreck of the late 4th century BC.
Adding further doubt to the discussion on the dating of the ship’s construction, there is a tetrahedral element next to one of the groups of four holes for fastening a frame, which could not be interpreted: it has no corresponding hole, nor any trace of a nail reinforcing the mortise-and-tenon joint along its path, and there are no remains of plant fibre that would link it to the lashing technique.
Figure 2. Oblique view of the frame in situ; on the left, the impressions of its lashings to the hull can be seen. 2011 campaign (photo: Aguelo, Consell Insular de Menorca).
Figure 3. Lower face of the frame uncovered in 2011, with oblique or X-shaped holes made with a half-moon-pointed chisel, indicating a specific type of lashing with no known parallels. 2011 campaign (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Figure 4. Outer face of the hull, showing the groove cut between the holes in the strakes, with remains of the locking treenails in the upper strake. 2011 campaign (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Figure 5. Top view of a sector of the hull of the Binissafúller, showing the impressions of the frames, labelled Q-4 and Q-3, together with the groups of holes for their lashings (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Figure 6. View of the angle of the holes for the frame lashings (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Planking
The planking strakes are on average 3.2 cm thick and 17.37 cm wide, though their lengths vary; in T-3 and T-6 it was possible to measure the length of a complete plank: T-3 measures 3.53 m and T-6 3.67 m. Two graving pieces (saneamientos) were recorded, in T-4 (27.7 × 3.3 cm) and T-5 (34.6 × 3.8 cm). The size of the pieces and the arrangement of the pegs suggest graving pieces, although they could be repairs in which the repair tenon was inserted from the outer face of the hull (not documented so far), as seen in the Kyrenia or the Barthélémy B.4
In plan, all the planks curve and narrow towards the east, surely in relation to the end of the hull, whether bow or stern. Within this narrowing and increasing curvature, the shape of T-5 and T-6 stands out: after joint no. 5 (U-5), T-6 widens to occupy the space that should belong to strake T-5, which ends in a scarf (Figure 1) before the other strakes. In the author’s view this solution, based on peritia (craft skill), adapts the construction of the ship to the timber available (very variable in a shipyard’s supply) in the part of the hull where the convergence of the planks to form the bow or stern requires various solutions, as was also seen in the Tour Fondue wreck. T-6, with its anomalous shape, was in principle fitted before T-5, which suggests that the planks were prepared in the shipyard before assembly; this could indicate a sequence in the organisation of the work.
The scarfs between the lengths of plank in a strake are all similar, diagonal (pico de flauta), in some cases somewhat angular, fully in line with those documented in the Ma’agan Michael.
The mortises are 4.60 cm wide, 0.70 cm thick and 9 cm deep (Figure 7). They are not aligned along the centre of the plank edge, as was common in the other ships studied earlier, but are staggered alternately along the edge of the planks, one 0.9 cm from the upper face of the strake and the next 1.4 cm from it, although in other strakes they are aligned. This alternating arrangement is not attested before the Hellenistic period.5 There is visibly a certain regularity in the spacing between mortises. The tenons are locked by pegs 3.2 cm long, with a diameter of 0.9 cm on the inner face of the hull and 1.2 cm on the outer face, which shows that they were driven from the outside.
Figure 7. Shape and size of a mortise and a joining tenon in the Binissafúller wreck. 2011 campaign (photo: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Ceiling, thick stuff, and wales
Next to the hull of the Binissafúller lies a ceiling strake or stringer (vagra or palmejar) more than 2 m long and 25 cm wide, a plank that lay longitudinally over the frames. It had an iron concretion from a nail and the hole of another. On its underside a series of transverse impressions (15 cm wide) could be seen, caused by direct contact with the upper faces of the frames. According to the existing documentation, this could suggest that the lower and upper faces of the frames were flat but of different widths, so that the frames could have a trapezoidal section, a working hypothesis confirmed in the 2011 campaign.6 For now it can only be argued that the width of the frames need not be constant along the whole length of the hull. The stringer has a rectangular recess (16 × 7 cm), difficult to interpret, in its south side face, the one facing the ship’s axis. It may have been the space left for the passage of a transverse beam.
Almost in contact with the hull fragment studied, the beginning and first section (1.5 m) of a wale (cinta de carena) is preserved. It is much thicker (9 cm) than the planking strakes, with a flat inner face and a rounded outer face. One of the strakes still attached to the wale has a rectangular opening (12 × 4 cm), probably to house the end of a beam.
Caulking
Not reported. The inner face of the hull shows an impregnation of resin with plant fibres (see Frames).
Size and scantlings
No estimate of the ship’s dimensions is given. The framing is lighter and its alternation less regular than in the Kyrenia: the frames are about 9–10 cm wide at their lower face and spaced on average 37 cm apart, while the planking is on average 3.2 cm thick.
Table 1. Scantling of the timber remains of the Binissafúller Shipwreck
| Timber | Sided [cm] | Molded [cm] |
| Keel | – | – |
| Keelson | – | – |
| Maststep Mortise | – – | – – |
| Buttresses | – | – |
| Frames (lower face) Upper face (impression) | 9–10 15 | – – |
| Futtocks | – | – |
| Room-and-space At central frames | 37 (avg.) | |
| Planking | 17.37 (avg.) | 3.2 (avg.) |
| Ceiling (stringer) | 25 | – |
| Wale | – | 9 |
| Main mast Ø Chock | – – | – – |
Frame widths are taken from their impressions on the planking and on the stringer; the frames appear to be of trapezoidal or rectangular section. Planking: sided = width, moulded = thickness.
Wood
The planking strakes and the wale are of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), as are the treenails securing the frame lashings. Both the tenons and the pegs are of olive/wild olive (Olea europaea), a species less often used for these pieces, previously documented in the Mazarrón and Jules Verne 7 wrecks.
Bibliography
Aguelo, X., Palomo, A., Pons, O. and Juan Fuertes, C. de 2008. La excavación del pecio de Binissafúller (Menorca). In J. Pérez and G. Berlanga (eds), Actas de las V Jornadas de Arqueología Subacuática, 199–207. Valencia.
De Nicolás, J. C. 1973. État actuel de l’archéologie sous-marine à Minorque. Cahiers d’Archéologie Subaquatique 2: 167–174.
Fernández, M. and Belén, M. 1977. El barco de Binissafúller. In Arqueología submarina en Menorca, 69–82. Mahón.
Guerrero, V. M. and Quintana, C. 2000. Comercio y difusión de ánforas ibéricas en Baleares. Quaderns de Prehistòria i Arqueologia de Castelló 21. Castellón.
Juan Fuertes, C. de, Aguelo, X., Palomo, A. and Pons, O. 2010. La construcción naval del pecio de Binissafúller (Menorca – Islas Baleares). Análisis de los restos de casco conservados. In P. Pomey (ed.), Transferts de technologie en architecture navale méditerranéenne de l’Antiquité aux temps modernes: identité technique et identité culturelle, 59–73. Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes.
Pomey, P. 1998. [Full reference to be completed.]
Steffy, J. R. 1990. Problems and progress in dating ancient vessels by their construction features. In H. Tzalas (ed.), Tropis II. 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delphi 1987, 315–320. Athens.
Steffy, J. R. 1994. Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Tejedor, R. 1978. Yacimientos de Binissafúller. In Excavaciones submarinas en Menorca. Mahón.
Notes
1 They may be of central Mediterranean manufacture. The finds are currently being studied.
2 The study of the ship’s construction from the 2011 campaign is currently being carried out by the author.
3 The author distinguishes atar (to lash; from Latin aptare, to fit, adapt: to join or fasten with ties or knots) from coser (to sew; from Latin consuere: to join two or more pieces, in this case hull strakes, with thread, generally passed through with a needle), following the dictionary of the Real Academia Española.
4 In the latter example, the repair tenon is inserted only from the inner face of the hull.
5 It is seen in the Graeco-Roman period in wrecks such as Nemi, Antikythera or Caesarea (Steffy 1994: 70–71).
6 There appear to be two types of frames, of trapezoidal and of rectangular section.