Ancient Cyprus webproject

POINT IRIA WRECK: THE NAUTICAL DIMENSION

Yannis Vichos

General Secretary of HIMA

1. The evidence

Point Iria is on the northeast coast of the Gulf of Argolid at the end of a long stretch of coast starting from the acropolis of Asine in the west (Fig.1). The shoreline is sandy, with fields, behind which there are mountain ranges. The nearest Late Bronze Age sites are at Kandia and on a hill in the modern village of Iria (Lolos 1995, 11, 14, figs. 6-7).

Further east is the site of Mases, which is mentioned in the Iliad in the Catalogue of the Mycenaean cities that sent ships to take part in the Trojan War.

The Iria wreck lies some 15 metres from the rocky shore and roughly 100 metres before the tip of the headland (Fig.2). It is a place where strong northern and western winds are frequent. Together with the powerful easterly sea currents they create dangerous conditions for ships. The air masses rushing down the valley between the two mountain masses are deflected by the small mountainous island of Ipsili opposite the headland. At times during the summer months a turbulent wind (the pounentis) blows, and the sea becomes very rough. Some such swirl of winds and currents must have caught the Iria ship as it tried to weather the headland, probably sailing on an easterly course.

The ship was carrying a mixed cargo of pottery consisting of large transport vessels and some smaller utility wares. There are two classes of transport vessels: those that were probably traded together with their contents (the 8 stirrup jars), and those containing products that were to be traded (the 5 pithoi).

The 3 pithoid jars could have belonged to either class.

The utility pots also fall into two classes: those that were themselves for exchange (the 2 deep bowls and the deep bowl krater) and those that probably belonged to members of the crew (e.g. the jugs and the cooking pots). The juglet could have belonged to either.

Combining these classes of pottery from the cargo with the provenance of the objects, one can suggest various scenarios for the provenance and route of the ship and the nationality of the crew members.

A small stone anchor (Fig. 3) was found at a depth of 13 metres just above the main pottery concentration (Vichos 1996, 15-17). It weighs some 25 kgs and is made from sandstone (most probably from a river). It is of the “composite type”, in Frost’s typology, with three holes of a maximum diameter of 2.3 cm: one on top for the rope and two at its base for the wooden arms. The biconical holes were probably made with a wooden drill.

Its position a little higher up than the main body of the cargo (Fig. 4), despite its relatively small weight, is a possible indication that it belonged to the Iria ship, but it cannot be dated with certainty by its type and shape since this type was in use from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages.

We found different sized stones and river stones that may have formed part of the ship's ballast. Of the 6 stones we recovered as samples, 5 must have been ballast (Fig. 5). Three of them, in fact, were found close to the stone anchor just above the main pottery concentration (A30, A31, A40/1). From a preliminary examination, they appear to be of igneous rock, which does not exist in the area, and are probably reused stone artifacts (querns and rubbers). They could therefore very possibly have belonged to the ballast of the Iria ship. In the wider area around the cargo there are hundreds of scattered stones of various sizes, many of which may also have belonged to the ship’s ballast. The others have fallen from the limestone cliffs of the headland. But since they were all covered with marine growths we couldn’t tell which were limestone and which were volcanic.

The few small pieces of wood recovered may have come from the ship, but the hull itself has not survived. There is a semicircular hole in the largest fragment, possibly made for a wooden peg (Fig. 6b). Its diameter is 6 mm, which corresponds to the diameter of some holes for wooden pegs found in the Cape Gelidonya wreck (Bass 1967, 48, figs. 46, 51 (wd2).

Three organic fragments are of interest; when they were found buried in the sand they had a cylindrical form, but they lost their shape when brought to the surface (Fig. 7). They were probably pieces of rope like those found in the Cape Gelidonya wreck (du Plat Taylor 1967, 160-62, BM 5, 6, 7; Haldane 1991, 11; Sibella 1993, 86-87). The small size and bad preservation of the few organic samples from the wreck made reliable archaeometric analyses uncertain.

The complete absence of metal objects, in spite of careful excavation and a search of the whole wreck area with a metal detector, still remains an enigma.

2. The Last Voyage

If we cannot be certain of the final destination of the Point Iria ship, the starting point of its voyage must surely have been one of the sites on the south or west coast of Cyprus. This seems to be indicated by the comparatively large amount of Cypriot pottery it was carrying. It is equally probable that one of its subsequent ports of call was in Crete.

Although it might appear at first sight that the shortest passage from Cyprus to Crete would have been the direct one, it is more likely that the ship at first sailed in a northwesterly direction along the south coast of Turkey and then headed southwest, passing between Rhodes and Karpathos (Fig. 8). The prevailing currents and winds in the eastern Mediterranean, combined with the seagoing capabilities of the ships at that time, made such a route almost a necessity. On its arrival in Crete (at Knossos on the central north coast or at Kommos on the central south coast) it would have loaded the other large part of its cargo, the eight stirrup jars, which were probably full of olive oil.

It is harder to determine the last part of the voyage. The most likely scenario is that after waiting for a favourable wind to make the northerly crossing to the Greek mainland, it set a course for Kythera, rounded Cape Malea and sailed up the southeast coast of the Peloponnese before traversing the Gulf of Argos, where it foundered off Point Iria (Fig. 9).

The possibility that it may have sailed directly from Crete or via the Cyclades to the Gulf of Argos can be ruled out, because of the long distance of these routes across the open sea and because of the northerly winds that made such a route very difficult. The absence of any Cycladic pottery in the cargo further supports the theory of a direct sailing from Crete to the southeast Peloponnese, following a route which was usual all through antiquity.

During the last leg of the voyage it may have put in at some of the many Mycenaean harbours along the way in order to unload part of its cargo and take on some of the Mycenaean wares which formed the third large section of its cargo at the time it went down. Such a voyage by a seagoing vessel engaged in international commerce and at the same time serving the needs of a local trading network accords with the facts as we know them at this period.

The above is the most probable scenario for the final voyage of the Iria ship, but not the only one. Others could be suggested, one being that the Cypriot and Cretan pottery was not taken on board at their places of origin, but was transshipped at sites in Argolis as part of the local commercial trade. Also, when the ship was abreast of modern Leonidio or Astros, it might have set a course for Spetses and then proceeded along the northeast coast of the Peloponnese (Fig. 9). In this case, it could have first put in at Mases and then, continuing on its voyage to Asine and Tiryns, have foundered as soon as it had rounded Point Iria sailing from east to west.

In any case the finds recovered from the Point Iria wreck did not necessarily constitute the whole of the cargo carried by the ship on its last voyage. The different goods in the cargo might have changed in every harbour where it called, new ones being added and others being exchanged. This would partly explain the lack of artifacts one would expect to find in the wreck of a ship at this period sailing out of Cyprus, such as copper ingots, tin and other raw materials, as well as probable objects of Syro-Palestinian origin, of the sort that have been found on numbers of Mycenaean sites in Argolis: Mycenae, Argos, Tyrins and Asine, (see Lolos in this volume) and at Kommos in Crete (Pulak 1997, 251; Rutter in this volume) as well as in the two other known contemporary wrecks (Cape Gelidonya, Bass 1967; 1988; 1989 and Uluburun, Bass 1987, 1997; Pulak, 1997).

3. Possible causes of the shipwreck

The Iria ship must have been wrecked by a sudden onset of bad weather which drove it onto the rocky shore before it was able to weather Point Iria (Fig. 2). This may be deduced from the fact that the wreck lies some 15 metres from the shore and that the cargo was scattered about at random. Our own personal experience during the four months we worked on the wreck, in the course of which we experienced heavy seas and high winds that twice snapped the cables holding our floating platform, as well as the information supplied by local fishermen, confirmed that the locality of the wreck is a dangerous hazard for shipping, especially for vessels approaching from the west. The force with which the ship struck the rocks as it was driven by the west wind is perhaps indicated by the position of the deep bowl krater some 50 metres to the south of the main concentration of the cargo (Fig. 4). The deep bowl krater, an open, relatively light vase, must have been carried some distance away before it slowly filled and sank to the bottom.

The crew and captain may have drowned or survived, if they were able to swim the few metres to the rocky shore. In the latter event, they might also have been able to rescue some of the more valuable objects they had with them, such as seal stones, jewelry, amulets, daggers, etc. This would explain the absence of such finds in the wreck.

4. Type of ship

The two basic types of vessel that predominated throughout antiquity, and which were the product of function and sailing methods, had already appeared by this period. These were the long warship and the round-hulled merchantman (Fig. 10). A long fighting ship is depicted above and a round merchant ship below. The round ship has two turrets, one forward and one aft, and a curving hull. The rig is not shown. It has far fewer frames than the long ship, perhaps because the planking is stronger and the construction generally stouter. The Iria ship undoubtedly belonged to the latter class. As regards the particular morphological features of the merchantmen, the existing evidence, chiefly iconographic, shows that although there were different types, the principal type and its variations had a symmetrical hull.

Iconographical evidence

Please let me remind you of some known iconographical examples of Mycenaean ships:

A clay ship model from a tomb at Mycenae, ca. 1300 BC. (Fig. 11). National Archaeological Museum, Athens. It is symmetrical with a raised prow and stern. It had two benches or frames, and because of its crescentic shape may belong to the Minoan tradition.

A clay ship model from Asine, 12th century BC (Fig. 12). As restored, it has a symmetrical shape. Three of the six or seven frames are indicated by paint on the inside, and a small cavity at the center of the hull may indicate the mast step. On the outside is the gunwale, a wale and the keel.

A fragment of a clay ship model from Kynos (Fig. 13), LH IIIC. The keel and gunwales are indicated by painted decoration.

A painted representation of a ship on a small stirrup-jar from Skyros (Fig. 14), early 12th century BC. The hull is round and the prow ends in a bird's head. It has a central mast with a masthead and fore- and backstays. There may have been bulwarks on the side.

A clay ship model from Argos (Fig. 15), LH IIIA 2-IIIB ,2. The ends are more or less symmetrical. The prow is more pointed. Two frames are shown on either side of the mast step. There is also part of a structure for a steering-oar.

A painted representation showing two ships on a LH IIIB krater from Enkomi in Cyprus (Fig. 16), 13th century BC. They are both round ships seen from the side. Two levels can be distinguished: the deck and the hold. The martial activity of the ship shows that at least in the Eastern Mediterranean round ships could be used for military purposes.

A clay ship model from the sea of Amathous (Fig. 17), LC III or CG I. It has a rounded hull with pointed ends, two cross-beams on both bow and prow. The mast step is shown in the middle of the hull.

Archaeological evidence

According to the archaeological evidence of the Uluburun and Gelidonya wrecks and ancient literary sources it appears that by the end of the 14th c. BC the chief building method was by the shell-first technique (Fitzgerald 1996, 8; Pulak 1997, 248-49), whose basic features are known from later Greek and Roman wrecks. In this method the planking of the vessel is first fitted together, joined by mortises and tenons secured with wooden pegs, and the frames and other members of the skeleton were inserted afterwards. Although the wooden hull of the Iria ship did not survive, one of the small wood fragments recovered had a worked semicircular hole in it, which would be consistent with a shell-first construction (Fig. 6).

The pottery recovered from the wreck, including the 5th pithos (which was stolen), has a total weight of about 476 kilos (see Fig. *** of all the cargo at p. *** in this volume). Out of this, the Cypriot pots weigh 370 kilos, the Cretan 38 kilos and the Helladic 68 kilos. The anchor and ballast stones weigh 67 kilos. This gives a total weight for all the finds of about 543 kilos. The volume of the pottery was about 2.910 cubic centimeters, which together with that of the other finds comes to 3.200 cubic centimeters. If to the weight of the pottery we add the weight of their contents, if they were full of liquid, we have a total of 3 tons. This was the minimum weight of the cargo on board at the time the ship went down. If then we add the weight of the all the ballast, the crew members, the mast, sail and oars and other equipment, we have a ship that must have been at least 7 metres long. Since, however, it would have been difficult for a 7 metre ship to have made the voyage from Cyprus to Argolis (1), we must conclude that either all the cargo has not been found (perhaps part of it was stolen from the sea bed), or that at the time the ship sank it had already unloaded part of its original cargo.

The little evidence we possess obliges us to resort to speculation and to imagine a small vessel, no more than nine metres long (Fig. 18), built by the shell-first method, and having a rudimentary keel and sparsely spaced frames, if any at all (Pulak 1997, 248-249). It would not have been decked over, but we cannot rule out the possibility that the stem and stern were covered and that it may have had bulwarks. It was probably propelled mainly by a square sail, with oars being used only as auxiliaries. It would have been steered by one or two steering oars mounted at the stern.

5. The Provenance of the Ship

The available evidence for the Iria wreck, as for the other known LBA wrecks in the eastern Mediterranean, is insufficient to determine their "nationality"—if indeed the term is not anachronistic in this context (Bass 1996, 75; 1997,168-70; Pulak 1997, 250-56). It might have been built in one place with timber imported from another and by shipwrights of different origin. The captain, the crew and the merchant may all have had different origins. Although Cypriot, Mycenaean and Creto-Mycenaean pottery in the cargo point to different provenances, and the few utility wares (Cypriot jugs and Mycenaean deep bowls and cooking pots) suggest a Mycenaean or Cypriot origin for the ship and crew, we still cannot know where it was actually built or whether the crew were Mycenaean, Cypriot or both.

If we want to resort to speculation and try to imagine the ship’s home port we can consider the following: The case for a Cretan home port is perhaps the least probable. Why would a ship have left Crete to transport olive oil to Mycenaean Greece and have first gone to Cyprus? Unless of course the Cypriot pithoi and jugs had been previously brought from Cyprus to Crete by another ship.

A scenario with Crete as a stopping place on the way is more probable: Crete would have been an intermediate port of call on the Cyprus-Argolis route, less because its geographical position made it necessary for seagoing vessels to take that route, than for reasons of trade and barter, in view of the close relations between what was by then Mycenaean Crete and Argolis, and because of the time-honoured links between the Eastern Mediterranean (especially Cyprus and the Near East) and Crete, which were very close in this period (Pulak 1997, 251).

The case for a ship setting out from a Mycenaean harbour on the Greek mainland and sailing to Cyprus, perhaps with a cargo of fine painted Mycenaean pottery and oil, and then returning to Greece via Crete, is much more probable. This would explain the presence of the fine Mycenaean vases and the cooking pots, either as the remains of a cargo that had not been all disposed of, or as pots belonging to the crew. The cooking pots might have been used for cooking during the voyage.

It is equally likely that the ship was Cypriot. The relatively poor cargo may be more understandable if we imagine a ship setting sail from Cyprus, loaded, in addition to the pithoi, with some of the organic products, either contained in the pithoi or separately, and not traceable today, that we know from Linear B sources were exported from Cyprus to mainland Greece at that time: these included wool, cloth, spices, sesame, cumin, clothing, alum and purple dye (Palaima 1991, 276-84; Bass 1997). The pithoi could also have contained fine Cypriot wares, like those found in the pithoi from Uluburun, which could be unloaded at ports en route. The juglet found in the Point Iria wreck may be the only one of these wares that was not unloaded from the ship.

The ship would have had two destinations: first, Crete, where it may have unloaded a part of its cargo, perhaps raw copper in the form of ingots. There it took on a cargo of stirrup jars and possibly pithoid jars which, along with the Cypriot pottery, it would try to sell in some of the many Mycenaean harbours along the way on its voyage to the Gulf of Argos. A Cypriot origin would also explain the presence of the two jugs, which could have held drinking water for the crew.

6. Conclusion

However that may be, the importance of the wreck lies in the nature of its cargo and the fact that at the end of the 13th c. BC a ship which foundered in Mycenaean Argolis was carrying a mixed cargo of Cypriot, Cretan and Helladic origin. This now provides concrete evidence of the existence and kind of the maritime trade between Cyprus and Argolis at this period. Such trading transactions must have been frequent and regular, since by its nature it is unlikely that the cargo was a special shipment commissioned by some central authority. It represented, rather, an ordinary everyday kind of traffic.

The composition of the cargo of pottery is little different from that found in the other two known wrecks which have been excavated on the coast of Asia Minor. We could in fact say that the Iria ship also fits into the pattern of a two way maritime trade between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, regardless of the “nationality” of the ships and crews. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that the chief difference between it and the Uluburun wreck is that its voyage took place about a century later, just before the collapse of the Late Bronze Age culture in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, and that it was wrecked at a point in its voyage when it had already unloaded a large part of its original cargo.

In this we were less fortunate than the excavators of the Uluburun wreck, which would appear to have sunk at the beginning of its voyage instead of the end.

Notes
1. The length of the contemporary ship wrecked at Cape Gelidonya, which also appears to have been carrying a relatively small cargo, is estimated to have been over 10 metres (see Bass 1996, 29). The length of Uluburun ship was between 15 and 18 metres (see Fitzgerald 1996 and Pulak 1997, 248-249).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

reproduced, by permission, from:
The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC Proceedings of the International Conference. Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998. Ed. William Phelps, Yannos Lolos, Yannis Vichos. Athens 1999. Pp. 268. ISBN 960-86282-1-0

Please send any comments or suggestions for the project or website to
Co-ordinator@ancientcyprus.ac.uk

The Ancient Cyprus Web Project is affiliated to the Council for British Research in the Levant

Technical note: this site is best viewed using Internet Explorer. Visitors using other browsers, for example Netscape, may experience some difficulties on certain pages of this site. We are working to address these difficulties.

Search:
Keywords:

Search:
Keywords:

link to Amazon.co.uk detailed book search

link to Amazon.com detailed book search

return to top of page