- Email: [email protected]
The Punic Ship: an obituary
The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (1997) 26.1: 79–81
Note The Punic Ship: an obituary It seems superfluous to introduce readers of this journal to the Punic Ship, as ensemble formed by two adjacent wrecks, both Punic and both of the 3rd century BC. The name came to be used collectively to include a prow which was found at the end of the 4-year-long excavation of the after-end of the main vessel. Until this day, the latter remains the only discovered wreck of a long ship (Morrison & Coates, 1986: 203). The discovery of the main wreck in 1971 was the subject of a short note in IJNA as early as the first volume (1972: 113–17) and this was followed by annual reports (1973:33–47, 219–28) all signed by Honor Frost, who directed the excavations from beginning to end, and ensured their publication with exemplary promptitude and regularity. Initially, luck seemed to shine on the conservation of the Punic hull. It was treated with PEG and by 1978 it was lodged in an ancient Marsalese wine establishment on the sea-front, known as the Baglio Anselmi. This name was officially changed when yellow museum signposts pointing to the building announced it was the Punic Ship Museum. A few years later, probably for administrative reasons, the name was changed again to the Regional Archaeological Museum. In the interim, it became apparent that lack of repair to the building created conditions that seriously menaced the treated wood of the ancient hull. Unless corrective measures were undertaken without delay, it would be condemned to disintegration. By 1986, petitions were addressed to the Sicilian authorities by Great Britain, France and Greece. Their calls were answered, for by 1987, the Assessore for 1057–2414/97/010079+03 $25.00/0 na960056
Cultural Affairs (the equivalent of a Minister in the independent Sicilian Parliament in the Island’s capital: Palermo), Dr A. Bombace, issued directives for the repair of both the Museum and the Ship. His directives were soon implemented. By 1988 Dr Kirsten Jespersen, the international authority on waterlogged wood, and Professor Ole Crumlin-Pedersen who needs no introduction to readers of IJNA, were both invited to Marsala to examine the state of the wreck. The former concluded that the damage to the treated wood could be repaired within 3 years and set down a programme to this effect. In 1990 CrumlinPedersen made a second, more detailed examination of the hull, which involved the wider issues of its museographic reconstruction. His conclusions were made public by the Regione Siciliana in the form of a lavish brochure (Giglio et al., 1993: 9–21). With the support of illustrations, this set out the technicalities of his scheme for displaying the ancient remains. Three years earlier, on 19 July 1990, a parliamentary decree issued by the Regione (no. D.A. 3134) had approved and financed all the scientific research needed for planning the salvation of the hull and its contents. Hopes of seeing the Punic Ship properly preserved and displayed were high. Better still, a couple of years later, a Decree dated 5 November (D.A. 6658) granted 2,000,000,000 lire, under chapter 78123 of the fiscal plans for 1992, for carrying out the work of restructuring the Archaeological Museum of Marsala, Baglio Anselmi, and the museographic presentation (allestimento espositivo) of the Punic Ship. It seemed that the Sicilian authorities had accepted the recommendations of all the experts who ? 1997 The Nautical Archaeology Society
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 26.1
Figure 1. Seen from the stern, the Punic Ship under reconstruction in the 1980s in the newly expropriated museum in Marsala. (Photograph: ? Honor Frost.)
had been consulted (others were consulted besides those listed here). At this juncture, Dr Bombace left his ministerial position in Sicily’s Assessorato Beni Culturali Ambientali e Pubblico Istruzioni. Nothing more happened until 1995, when notes were exchanged between the Assessorato in Palermo and the local Antiquities Department responsible for Marsala, with headquarters in the county town of Trapani (la Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani). In answer to a query from the Assessorato on 30 May (richiesta prot. 867/XIII—BC), the local Antiquities Department answered on the following day, 31 May (nota 894/III), declaring the impossibility of assuming any type of obligation involved in the Decree of 5 November 1992, that is, the Decree providing funds for the Ship’s curation. Dr 80
Bombace’s successor, Professor Leonardo Pandolfo, published another Decree which simply annulled the first and its grant of 2,000,000,000 lire for the Ship and its Museum (Decree no D.A. 6942 of 4 July 1995). In this final Decree, no reason is given for or explaining the Soprintendenza’s ‘impossibility of assuming . . ..’ Without questioning the legality of this Decree of Annulment, or the authority of the Sicilian Government, the reasons which brought the long saga of the Punic Ship to such a sudden end may remain totally obscure. It totally contradicts the decisive step to preserve it laid down by the Decree of 5 November 1992. What do the words ‘impossibility of assuming any type of obligation . . .’ mean? Presumably the ‘impossibility’ was not financial, since the
NOTES
Figure 2. Detail of the Punic Ship showing (top left) three of the ‘false clinkers’ carved onto the outside of the otherwise smooth edge-to-edge joinery of the hull (starting at no. 11 from the keel). (? Honor Frost.)
funds were available. Alternatively, could the ‘impossibility’ have been of a technical nature, due to lack of technicians or appropriate technology? Neither seems probable in a country like Italy, which is so rich in craftsmen and mechanical know-how. It is a tragedy if following the tireless efforts of Honor Frost and her many distinguished collaborators and friends who have toiled so generously and for so long in the cause of the Punic Ship that all should have been in vain. Beyond the sadness of this defeat, the abandonment of this ancient hull, which may well lead to its total disappearance, signifies not only a great loss for Sicily’s cultural heritage, but imminent catastrophe for naval archaeology in general.
There were many scholarly disagreements about this or that characteristic of the Punic Ship, but these disagreements lay in the uniqueness of its characteristics. If the ship’s physical remains disappear, there will be no further chance of re-examining and verifying fresh data. In these circumstances one is reminded of the Nemi Ships; for despite G. Ucelli’s excellent publication (Ucelli, 1950), nothing can replace the unique wrecks themselves. However, the loss of the Nemi Ships is explicable: in their case destruction came by an act of war. Lucien Basch Avenue Armand Huysmans, 206, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
References Giglio, R., et al., 1993, Fenici e Vichingi. Le Navi. Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Baglio Anselmi’, Marsala. Morrison, J. S. & Coates, J. F., 1986, The Athenian Trireme. Cambridge. Ucelli, G., 1950, Le Navi di Nemi (2nd edn.), Rome. 81
Note The Punic Ship: an obituary It seems superfluous to introduce readers of this journal to the Punic Ship, as ensemble formed by two adjacent wrecks, both Punic and both of the 3rd century BC. The name came to be used collectively to include a prow which was found at the end of the 4-year-long excavation of the after-end of the main vessel. Until this day, the latter remains the only discovered wreck of a long ship (Morrison & Coates, 1986: 203). The discovery of the main wreck in 1971 was the subject of a short note in IJNA as early as the first volume (1972: 113–17) and this was followed by annual reports (1973:33–47, 219–28) all signed by Honor Frost, who directed the excavations from beginning to end, and ensured their publication with exemplary promptitude and regularity. Initially, luck seemed to shine on the conservation of the Punic hull. It was treated with PEG and by 1978 it was lodged in an ancient Marsalese wine establishment on the sea-front, known as the Baglio Anselmi. This name was officially changed when yellow museum signposts pointing to the building announced it was the Punic Ship Museum. A few years later, probably for administrative reasons, the name was changed again to the Regional Archaeological Museum. In the interim, it became apparent that lack of repair to the building created conditions that seriously menaced the treated wood of the ancient hull. Unless corrective measures were undertaken without delay, it would be condemned to disintegration. By 1986, petitions were addressed to the Sicilian authorities by Great Britain, France and Greece. Their calls were answered, for by 1987, the Assessore for 1057–2414/97/010079+03 $25.00/0 na960056
Cultural Affairs (the equivalent of a Minister in the independent Sicilian Parliament in the Island’s capital: Palermo), Dr A. Bombace, issued directives for the repair of both the Museum and the Ship. His directives were soon implemented. By 1988 Dr Kirsten Jespersen, the international authority on waterlogged wood, and Professor Ole Crumlin-Pedersen who needs no introduction to readers of IJNA, were both invited to Marsala to examine the state of the wreck. The former concluded that the damage to the treated wood could be repaired within 3 years and set down a programme to this effect. In 1990 CrumlinPedersen made a second, more detailed examination of the hull, which involved the wider issues of its museographic reconstruction. His conclusions were made public by the Regione Siciliana in the form of a lavish brochure (Giglio et al., 1993: 9–21). With the support of illustrations, this set out the technicalities of his scheme for displaying the ancient remains. Three years earlier, on 19 July 1990, a parliamentary decree issued by the Regione (no. D.A. 3134) had approved and financed all the scientific research needed for planning the salvation of the hull and its contents. Hopes of seeing the Punic Ship properly preserved and displayed were high. Better still, a couple of years later, a Decree dated 5 November (D.A. 6658) granted 2,000,000,000 lire, under chapter 78123 of the fiscal plans for 1992, for carrying out the work of restructuring the Archaeological Museum of Marsala, Baglio Anselmi, and the museographic presentation (allestimento espositivo) of the Punic Ship. It seemed that the Sicilian authorities had accepted the recommendations of all the experts who ? 1997 The Nautical Archaeology Society
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 26.1
Figure 1. Seen from the stern, the Punic Ship under reconstruction in the 1980s in the newly expropriated museum in Marsala. (Photograph: ? Honor Frost.)
had been consulted (others were consulted besides those listed here). At this juncture, Dr Bombace left his ministerial position in Sicily’s Assessorato Beni Culturali Ambientali e Pubblico Istruzioni. Nothing more happened until 1995, when notes were exchanged between the Assessorato in Palermo and the local Antiquities Department responsible for Marsala, with headquarters in the county town of Trapani (la Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani). In answer to a query from the Assessorato on 30 May (richiesta prot. 867/XIII—BC), the local Antiquities Department answered on the following day, 31 May (nota 894/III), declaring the impossibility of assuming any type of obligation involved in the Decree of 5 November 1992, that is, the Decree providing funds for the Ship’s curation. Dr 80
Bombace’s successor, Professor Leonardo Pandolfo, published another Decree which simply annulled the first and its grant of 2,000,000,000 lire for the Ship and its Museum (Decree no D.A. 6942 of 4 July 1995). In this final Decree, no reason is given for or explaining the Soprintendenza’s ‘impossibility of assuming . . ..’ Without questioning the legality of this Decree of Annulment, or the authority of the Sicilian Government, the reasons which brought the long saga of the Punic Ship to such a sudden end may remain totally obscure. It totally contradicts the decisive step to preserve it laid down by the Decree of 5 November 1992. What do the words ‘impossibility of assuming any type of obligation . . .’ mean? Presumably the ‘impossibility’ was not financial, since the
NOTES
Figure 2. Detail of the Punic Ship showing (top left) three of the ‘false clinkers’ carved onto the outside of the otherwise smooth edge-to-edge joinery of the hull (starting at no. 11 from the keel). (? Honor Frost.)
funds were available. Alternatively, could the ‘impossibility’ have been of a technical nature, due to lack of technicians or appropriate technology? Neither seems probable in a country like Italy, which is so rich in craftsmen and mechanical know-how. It is a tragedy if following the tireless efforts of Honor Frost and her many distinguished collaborators and friends who have toiled so generously and for so long in the cause of the Punic Ship that all should have been in vain. Beyond the sadness of this defeat, the abandonment of this ancient hull, which may well lead to its total disappearance, signifies not only a great loss for Sicily’s cultural heritage, but imminent catastrophe for naval archaeology in general.
There were many scholarly disagreements about this or that characteristic of the Punic Ship, but these disagreements lay in the uniqueness of its characteristics. If the ship’s physical remains disappear, there will be no further chance of re-examining and verifying fresh data. In these circumstances one is reminded of the Nemi Ships; for despite G. Ucelli’s excellent publication (Ucelli, 1950), nothing can replace the unique wrecks themselves. However, the loss of the Nemi Ships is explicable: in their case destruction came by an act of war. Lucien Basch Avenue Armand Huysmans, 206, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
References Giglio, R., et al., 1993, Fenici e Vichingi. Le Navi. Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Baglio Anselmi’, Marsala. Morrison, J. S. & Coates, J. F., 1986, The Athenian Trireme. Cambridge. Ucelli, G., 1950, Le Navi di Nemi (2nd edn.), Rome. 81