Mazarrón 2, 550–500 BC
Country: Spain
Place: Playa de la Isla, Mazarrón (Murcia), in shallow water near the beach
Coordinates (approximate): 37.56, -1.26
Type: Small western Phoenician coastal boat
Identified: No
Dated: Dated by the excavators to c. 650 BC; the author considers a broader date of 550–500 BC more prudent, on the basis of the radiocarbon dates and the Trayamar 1 amphora.
Beam: 2.25 m (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 234–235).
Keel Length: Unknown.
Length Overall: 8.15 m (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 234–235).
Number of Masts: One; the mast step is preserved.
History of the wreck
Wreck 2 of the Playa de la Isla at Mazarrón is closely related to wreck 1, not only because it was discovered in 1994 during the Nave Fenicia project already mentioned, but because it shares the same chronological range and, more importantly in the author’s view, the same architectural signature as the first. It was excavated by the M.N.A.M. under the direction of Negueruela between 1999 and 2001, and was the subject of recording and condition assessment by ARQUA in 2008, under the direction of Castillo and Miñano.
On the dating of both wrecks. Neither of the two Mazarrón wrecks had cargo material that would date the last voyage before sinking. In the case of Mazarrón 2, the presence of a Trayamar 1 amphora (García 2002: 343) presumably indicates contacts with the coast of Málaga, and its most probable function was as a container for fresh water (Mederos and Ruiz 2004: 268). Its period of use lies between the second half of the 7th century BC (Blázquez 1975: 287) and the end of the 6th century BC (Molina, Ruiz and Huertas 1982: 199). If the period of greatest use of the sea area of the Playa de la Isla is placed in the mid-7th century BC (Negueruela 1995: 168), these wrecks would most probably belong to that date, although this must be established with caution, since the chance of a wreck while the ship lies at anchor, or even the hypothesis of abandonment, need not be directly related to the period of greatest use of an area. A nautical space has its beginnings and its periods of decline and abandonment, in which ships also sail.
Both wrecks have been dated to 650 BC by combining the date of the area’s greatest use with the results of five radiocarbon analyses of wood and rhizome samples from Mazarrón 2 carried out at the University of Groningen (Netherlands) (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 238). The samples of Posidonia oceanica rhizome from the layer sealing the wreck should not be used, given the growth characteristics of this plant, for the precise dating of a wreck,1 not even as if they were terrestrial archaeological strata: through gravity and the mechanical action of the sea, a wreck can become interstratified, passing through the rhizome to very ancient levels, and the interwoven growth of live and dead rhizomes can then cause major distortions, producing the paradox that a radiocarbon analysis of the rhizome sealing an archaeological site is much older than the site lying deeper2; there are other problems as well, well known in underwater archaeology (Mateo et al. 2004: 227).
As for the analyses of the wood and dunnage of the wreck, if they were not contaminated by Posidonia oceanica, their radiocarbon results should be reliable, although Negueruela (2004: 238) notes calibration problems3 precisely for two samples of the ship’s timber and one of the dunnage, giving 2560±30 BP, 2570±70 BP and 2490±30 BP4 respectively (Figure 2). For the samples of Posidonia oceanica rhizome from the layer sealing the wreck, the paradox described above seems to have occurred (2760±30 BP and 2715±35 BP5): the dates of the rhizome lying above the hull are much older than the radiocarbon dates for the strakes and dunnage (Figure 3), and even much older than the Trayamar 1 amphora and the period of use of the nautical area. With the data from the radiocarbon study and this amphora, the author considers that a precise date of 650 BC cannot be established for the Mazarrón wrecks, and that a much broader date, between 550 and 500 BC, is more prudent.
On the nautical space and Phoenician cultural attribution of the Mazarrón boats. Given their dimensions (c. 8.15 × 2.25 × 0.9 m) and the absence of any protection at the bow to prevent water from entering with the waves, the most probable nautical space (Pomey and Rieth 1995: 38–41) of the two Mazarrón boats would be coastal navigation in south-eastern Iberia, including river and lagoon navigation (Guerrero 2008: 103). Considering the duality between possibilitas and probabilitas (Hacking 1971: 345), it is true that such boats could have made long voyages, such as to or from the Levant or Carthage, but the probability that they were used for that purpose is very small.
The wrecks of two ships heading west, the Tanit and the Elissa, dated to the mid-8th century BC, lying 33 miles from Gaza at a depth of 400 m and close to each other (Ballard et al. 2002: 151), show two vessels with homogeneous cargoes6 of wine amphorae from the Syro-Palestinian coast, together with some cooking ware of the crew of the same origin and some Egyptian pieces. Their length is given as c. 14–14.5 m, their beam c. 5.50–6 m and their burden c. 25 t, which by their shape likens them to the Greek term gauloi (Stager 2004: 179, 182). They are the only two wrecks clearly attributable to Phoenician culture known today, and they certainly cannot be related to the Mazarrón boats, whether by length, burden, hull shape or model of trade, so archaeologically the probabilitas that the Mazarrón boats were comparable to the long-distance ships of the 8th–6th centuries BC from the Phoenician cities of the Levant is reduced. At most the Mazarrón boats could be considered western Phoenician. This leads the author to think that the shipyard that built them must have been at a reasonable distance for such boats, in the Iberian Peninsula or at most in North Africa, and they could be ships closely related to the so-called Circle of the Strait (Sáez et al. 2004: 31). The light frames, almost rods 4 cm in diameter, in shell-first boats such as those of Mazarrón, have no archaeological parallels either in the West or, more importantly, in the East, that would place the technique of the Mazarrón boats in direct and unequivocal relation with Phoenician shipbuilding. Their western builders may therefore have been using mixed techniques, Phoenician (punicana coagmenta) and indigenous,7 independently of the cultural origin of the commercial enterprise (Guerrero 2008: 104). Pomey also suggested that they might be the local or Iberian expression of a tradition not yet well known (Pomey and Rieth 2005: 159).
It is almost axiomatic that ancient shipyards mainly reproduced well-tested boats (Bonino 1985: 37; Pomey 1998: 55; Beltrame and Bondioli 2006: 89). The ease of reproducing a model like a clone, of which the two Mazarrón wrecks with an identical architectural signature could be an example, together with the technological conservatism of seafaring people, is an argument compatible with Guerrero’s hypothesis (2008: 107). Referring to the origin of the frame/rod technique in the Mazarrón boats, he suggests that the key should probably be sought in the evolution of the indigenous seafaring of the Strait of Gibraltar area, and that both boats may have been built in riverside yards by craftsmen who already knew many of the technical innovations introduced to the West by the Phoenicians from c. 1000 BC, but who still retained certain habits from indigenous traditions developed in mixed lacustrine, fluvial and marine environments.
As for the identification of the species of the keel of Mazarrón 2, with the error noted above, and given any attempt at cultural attribution based on a Syro-Palestinian origin of a species such as cedar, it should be pointed out that there are many types of cedar and that timber could be traded by sea in antiquity, so its origin may be very varied within the Mediterranean; even if it were indeed cedar, it can only be one more piece of evidence in the historical argument, not the key to interpreting the cultural origin of a wreck’s construction.
The Mazarrón wrecks belong to the same architectural signature. They are minor coastal vessels, and their shipyard would have been in south-eastern Iberia. The hull assembled with mortises and tenons and the particular lashing of the fragile frames relate these wrecks to Binissafúller and to an Iberian shipbuilding tradition of Phoenician-Punic origin.
Description of the site
The wreck is in an excellent state of preservation since, unlike what is usual on underwater archaeological sites, it preserves both the bottom and the upperworks practically complete (Figures 1 and 4).
Figure 1. Hand-made photomosaic giving an idea of the state of preservation of the Mazarrón 2 wreck. A detailed view shows that the strakes are not straight, with offsets between them resulting from the overlapping of the photographs (Miñano, ARQUA, after Miñano et al. 2012: 107).
Figure 2. Date ranges of the three wood samples from Mazarrón 2, together with the period of use of the Trayamar 1 amphora (graph: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Figure 3. Date ranges of the two Posidonia oceanica samples from Mazarrón 2 (graph: C. de Juan Fuertes).
Cargo
The boat carried a cargo of 2,800 kg of lead ore (litharge), in ingots that were found crumbled. Among the crew’s material were an esparto basket with a wooden handle,8 a granite hand mill, a Trayamar 1 amphora, presumably tied with a rope to the mast (not preserved), and animal bones (sheep/goat and rabbit/hare). A wooden pole,9 ropes of various sizes and dunnage made of shrub branches were also found.
Ballast
Not reported.
Anchors
The anchor and the mooring line that joined it to the boat are preserved.
Guns
Not applicable.
Iron concretions
Not applicable.
Hull Remains
It is a small boat, 8.15 m long, 2.25 m in beam and 0.9 m in depth (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 234–235), with a completely open bow, that is, without any kind of deck or protection.10 No oars, nor elements pointing to their use, nor steering gear have been recorded. The whole inside of the hull is coated with resin to improve watertightness and prolong the life of the wood in contact with the water. Analyses show that it is pine resin, liquefied by heat until it became pitch. There is no reference to sewing between the strakes.
Figure 4. Excavation work on the Mazarrón 2 wreck in 2008 (photo: Moya, in Libro Verde, Plan Nacional de Protección del Patrimonio Cultural Subacuático: 64).
Keel, keelson and mast step
There are no precise data in the literature on the dimensions of the keel or on its joints with the stem and sternpost. Only the identification of the species as Cupressus sempervirens L. (common cypress) is available, which Negueruela describes as cedar (Cedrus atlantica? Cedrus libani?) (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 237). The mast step is joined to the keel by tenons and mortises and has two mortises in its upper face to house the mast and help secure it with a wedge. It has two grooves of circular profile in its underside, perpendicular to its length, to let two of the cylindrical frames pass.
Frames
As in Mazarrón 1, according to the analyses the frames are simple roughly dressed branches of fig (Ficus carica L.), fastened afterwards by external lashings to a hull already assembled, through groups of four holes drilled perpendicular (at 90°) to the strakes for the passage of a plant-fibre cord.
Seven beams are recorded, ending in dovetails to fit between the strakes and act as structural tie-beams of the hull against twisting under way. One of them is displaced from its position and badly affected by Teredo navalis, three are in situ, one is partly preserved and two have disappeared.
Planking
The planking strakes are made of pine (Pinus sp.), between 1.9 and 2.3 cm thick, and are joined together by punicana coagmenta, with mortises 4 cm long and 0.6 cm high; no value is known for their depth (Negueruela and Ortiz 2004: 247). The spacing of the pegs locking the tenons (both of Olea europaea L.11) varies between 15 and 23 cm, so the spacing of the mortises along the plank edges may follow a gauge or anthropometric module, such as a span or a hand. The strakes are joined along their length by bevelled scarfs with angles of 160°, as seen in Mazarrón 1, and their analysis and sequence may allow the building process of the boat in the shipyard to be ordered.
Ceiling, thick stuff, and wales
Not reported; dunnage of shrub branches was found.
Caulking
The whole inside of the hull is coated with pine resin liquefied by heat into pitch.
Size and scantlings
A small boat 8.15 m long, 2.25 m in beam and 0.9 m in depth, with planking 1.9–2.3 cm thick and frames of branches about 4 cm in diameter.
Table 1. Scantling of the timber remains of the Mazarrón 2 Shipwreck
| Timber | Sided [cm] | Molded [cm] |
| Keel | – | – |
| Keelson | – | – |
| Maststep Mortise | – – | – – |
| Buttresses | – | – |
| Frames (branches, Ø) | c. 4 | – |
| Futtocks | – | – |
| Room-and-space At central frames | – | |
| Planking | – | 1.9–2.3 |
| Ceiling | – | – |
| Main mast Ø Chock | – – | – – |
Mortises 4 cm long and 0.6 cm high; pegs spaced 15–23 cm apart.
Wood
Keel: common cypress (Cupressus sempervirens L.), described by Negueruela as cedar. Planking: pine (Pinus sp.). Tenons and pegs: olive (Olea europaea L.). Frames: fig (Ficus carica L.).
Bibliography
Ballard, R. D. et al. 2002. Iron Age shipwrecks in deep water off Ashkelon, Israel. American Journal of Archaeology 106.2: 151–168.
Beltrame, C. and Bondioli, M. 2006. A hypothesis on the development of Mediterranean ship construction from Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages. In L. Blue, F. Hocker and A. Englert (eds), Connected by the Sea. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 89–94. Oxford: Oxbow.
Blázquez, J. M. 1975. Tartessos y los orígenes de la colonización fenicia en Occidente. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
Bonino, M. 1985. Notes on the architecture of some Roman ships: Nemi and Fiumicino. In H. Tzalas (ed.), Tropis I. 1st International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Piraeus 1985, 37–53. Athens.
García Galán, I. 2002. Restauración de un ánfora fenicia del siglo VII a. C. aparecida en el interior del pecio Mazarrón-2. Cuadernos de Arqueología Marítima 6: 343–365.
Guerrero, V. M. 2008. Las naves de Kerné (II). Navegando por el Atlántico durante la protohistoria y la antigüedad. In J. L. González, F. López and V. Peña (eds), Los fenicios y el Atlántico. IV Coloquio del CEFYP, 69–142. Madrid.
Hacking, I. 1971. Equipossibility theories of probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22: 339–355.
Mateo, M. A., Renom, P., Guallar, C. and Garrido, D. 2004. Posidonia oceanica: un archivo orgánico milenario. In L. de Maria and R. Turchetti (eds), Evolución paleoambiental de los puertos y fondeaderos antiguos en el Mediterráneo occidental (ANSER 2003), 219–229. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Mederos, A. and Ruiz, L. A. 2004. El pecio fenicio del Bajo de la Campana (Murcia, España) y el comercio del marfil norteafricano. Zephyrus 57: 263–281.
Miñano et al. 2012. [Full reference to be completed.]
Molina, F., Ruiz, A. and Huertas, C. 1982. Almuñécar en la Antigüedad. La necrópolis fenicio-púnica de Puente de Noy. Granada.
Negueruela, I. 1995. Excavaciones arqueológicas subacuáticas realizadas por el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Submarinas en el yacimiento de la Playa de la Isla (Mazarrón). Memoria de la campaña de 1995. Memorias de Arqueología de la Región de Murcia 10: 162–180. Murcia.
Negueruela, I. 2004. Hacia la comprensión de la construcción naval fenicia según el barco “Mazarrón-2” del siglo VII a.C. In V. Peña, A. Mederos and C. G. Wagner (eds), La navegación fenicia. Tecnología naval y derroteros, 227–278. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos.
Negueruela, I. and Ortiz 2004. [Full reference to be completed.]
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.
Pomey, P. and Rieth, E. 1995. [Full reference to be completed.]
Pomey, P. and Rieth, E. 2005. L’archéologie navale. Paris: Errance.
Sáez et al. 2004. [Full reference to be completed.]
Stager, L. E. 2004. Dos pecios fenicios en alta mar, frente a la costa norte del Sinaí. In V. Peña, A. Mederos and C. G. Wagner (eds), La navegación fenicia. Tecnología naval y derroteros, 179–195. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos.
Notes
1 For example, a mass of live or dead rhizomes can interweave with dead rhizomes of earlier dates, which are indistinguishable by eye underwater.
2 To overcome the problem of dating by rhizome, a large series of radiocarbon analyses would be needed to obtain statistical approximations, which is not possible for various reasons.
3 A calibration problem means that the radiocarbon date cannot be refined.
4 556 BC ±30 years, 566 BC ±70 years and 486 BC ±30 years. Even with the calibration problems that widen the margin of error, the trend points to a later date than the one proposed.
5 756 BC ±30 years and 711 BC ±35 years.
6 With all that this implies for the organisation of maritime trade.
7 With the survival of a technological anachronism from navigation in a lagoon nautical space (e.g. rafts), based on frames with no function in the assembly or the structure.
8 Formally identical to another found at Binissafúller in 2011.
9 Also found in the Binissafúller wreck in 2006.
10 Important data for establishing its nautical space.
11 As in the Binissafúller or Jules Verne 7 wrecks. This is mentioned because it is an unusual species for making tenons.