Perduto 1, 1st century AD
Country: France
Place: Strait of Bonifacio (Corse-du-Sud), near the Perduto rock, at a depth of 25 m
Coordinates (approximate): 41.36, 9.32
Type: Roman merchant ship
Identified: No
Dated: Turn of the era according to Foerster; the author prefers a broader range covering the whole 1st century AD, given the Dressel 2-4 cargo.
Beam: Unknown.
Keel Length: Unknown.
Length Overall: Unknown.
Number of Masts: Unknown.
History of the wreck
The Perduto 1 wreck lies in the Strait of Bonifacio (Corsica) and was apparently looted from the very beginning of scuba diving, so finds have been few: fragments of Dressel 2-4 amphorae, parts of anchors and scanty remains of the ship’s structure. The hull was recorded by a single enthusiastic diver, W. Schultheis, who with limited means excavated a small portion of the hull under the guidance of Federico Foerster (1988: 178). The only two complete amphorae known belong to a private collection, and there are reports of remains of external lead sheathing on the hull (Bebko 1971: 6).
An intervention by the Archéonaute in 1971 recovered several toes of Dressel 2-4 amphorae (Sciallano and Liou 1985: 145) with the stamps CISSI and HILARI, which allowed their place of production to be identified north of Barcelona (kiln of El Mujal) (Pascual 1988: 180).
The flat shape of the hull section allowed Foerster (1988: 178) to speak of a “0°” construction for the angle between the keel and the garboard strake, and to link this type of construction with cargoes from present-day Catalonia at the turn of the era.1 This classification by the angles of the cross-section is too imprecise and has not been taken up in the literature, both because of the variation in this angle depending on the part of the hull recorded and because of the many ships with a completely flat bottom at mid-length (e.g. Chrétienne C, 2nd century BC, and Dramont E, 5th century AD). In the author’s view, what is really important in the backbone of the Perduto 1 is the flattened rectangular shape of the keel, together with the visible absence2 of a rabbet and the particular shape of the second strake. There is some justification for Foerster’s observation linking this construction with the Roman province of Tarraconensis, when in his brief study of the Perduto 1 he considered that it could be related to the Ullastres and Cap del Vol wrecks, to which the author would add the Saintes Maries 24, on the basis of the keel section, the absence of a rabbet and the section of the garboard strakes.
Description of the site
The wreck lies at a depth of 25 m. Only a small portion of the hull was excavated and recorded (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Plan and section drawings of the surviving remains of the Perduto 1, from the data of W. Schultheis (after Foerster 1988: 179).
Cargo
Dressel 2-4 amphorae, some with the stamps CISSI and HILARI, produced north of Barcelona (El Mujal kiln) (Pascual 1988: 180).
Ballast
Not reported.
Anchors
Parts of anchors were found.
Guns
Not applicable.
Iron concretions
Not reported.
Hull Remains
The data on the ship’s construction are relatively scanty and allow only general features to be described, though they are nonetheless informative. There are reports of remains of external lead sheathing on the hull (Bebko 1971: 6).
Keel, keelson and mast step
In the surviving portion of the hull the keel has a flat rectangular section, 19 cm wide and between 8 and 12 cm high (Figure 1, 3). It looks practically like an evolution, as a backbone, of just another hull strake. It has no protective shoe for beaching and for navigation in lagoon waters,3 although the flat-bottomed shape of the hull of the Perduto 1 makes it a priori more suited to coastal and lagoon navigation. Notably, the keel has no rabbet, either bevelled or notched.
The joint with the garboard strake is made by punicana coagmenta, the mortises being cut in the side face of the keel, in its upper third, in an alternating pattern. Seen from the upper face of the keel, the mortises have been cut rhythmically on the starboard and port sides so that they do not coincide and weaken the piece, as also seen in many other wrecks such as Palamós (Figure 2). The mortises are 7 cm wide and 0.8 cm thick, spaced 6 cm apart.
Figure 2. View of the keel. On the upper face the alternating position of the tenons on both side faces can be seen, as well as their staggered arrangement on the side face (Schultheis).
Frames
According to the work of Schultheis,4 the framing consists only of well-sawn, rectangular floor timbers, 10 cm sided and 13 cm moulded, fastened to the hull by pairs of treenails 2.4 cm in diameter placed rhythmically (Figure 3). This allowed Wicha to interpret them as lashings secured by treenails, like those of the Cap Béar 3 wreck and the rest of its architectural signature, although it has not been possible to determine whether there is any groove for the passage of the lashings on the upper face of the floor timbers or on the outside of the hull (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Theoretical diagram of the construction of the Perduto 1, by Schultheis.
Figure 4. Archaeological drawing of two frames and a hull strake with the holes. No preparation is seen on the sides of the treenails to make room for the internal lashing of the frame, nor grooves on the upper and lower faces of the frames. In the first case a rhythm of pair of treenails/single treenail can be distinguished (drawing: Schultheis, after Foerster 1989: 179).
Planking
The garboard strake is of almost rectangular section, 5 cm thick. The second strake has a polygonal section and gradually loses thickness from 5 cm to 3 cm, like the other hull strakes. The rectangular keel, wider than it is high, the garboard strake of the same shape and the second strake of polygonal section strongly recall the backbone of the Giraglia 2 wreck. The hull strakes have an average width of 18 cm (Wicha 2010: 158). The pegs locking the tenons are 1.2 cm in diameter, spaced 12.5 cm apart, and are arranged alternately on each side face of the same strake.
Ceiling, thick stuff, and wales
Not reported.
Caulking
Remains of external lead sheathing have been reported (Bebko 1971: 6).
Size and scantlings
No estimate of the ship’s dimensions is given. The keel is flat and wider than it is high (19 × 8–12 cm), the floor timbers measure 10 × 13 cm, and the planking is 3 cm thick (garboard 5 cm).
Table 1. Scantling of the timber remains of the Perduto 1 Shipwreck
| Timber | Sided [cm] | Molded [cm] |
| Keel | 19 | 8–12 |
| Keelson | – | – |
| Maststep Mortise | – – | – – |
| Buttresses | – | – |
| Floor timbers | 10 | 13 |
| Futtocks | – | – |
| Room-and-space At central frames | – | |
| Planking Garboard Second strake | 18 (avg.) – – | 3 5 5 to 3 |
| Ceiling | – | – |
| Main mast Ø Chock | – – | – – |
Planking: sided = width, moulded = thickness.
Wood
Not reported.
Bibliography
Bebko, W. 1971. Les épaves antiques du sud de la Corse. Bastia.
Corsi-Sciallano, M. and Liou, B. 1985. Les épaves de Tarraconaise à chargement d’amphores Dressel 2-4. Archaeonautica 5. Paris: CNRS.
Foerster, F. 1988. A third ancient ship of the 0°-class, with cargo from Catalonia. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 17.2: 178–180.
Foerster, F. 1989. [Full reference to be completed.]
Pascual, R. 1988. The stamps on amphorae from the kiln at El Mujal. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 17.2: 181.
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 This is the only reference to the dating of the Perduto 1 known to the author. Given its cargo of Dressel 2-4 amphorae, the author prefers a somewhat broader range, covering the whole 1st century AD.
2 It is probably a simple bevel, but with so slight an angle in this section that it appears to be absent.
3 It could be a construction by shipyards specialised in lake and river navigation, which evolved to become seagoing, even suitable for open-sea voyages, as the Perduto 1 shows.
4 Which may contain errors of interpretation, given his lack of archaeological training.