This article is an attempt to analyse the master frame form characterised by a flat floor-timber, a sharp or shaped turn of the bilge, and more or less straight sides. This form of master frame is ...associated with the Mediterranean architecture of the ‘frame-based’ principle, as attested from the end of the 5th century to the beginning of the 6th century AD Dor 2001/1 shipwreck (Israel), which is considered as one of the five origins (Root 4: Nilotic-riverine) of the ‘frame-based’ architecture. A series of medieval and modern wrecks of coastal ships and galleys bear witness to this form of master frame linked more generally to the Mediterranean whole moulding. In view of the consistency of these archaeological as well as ethnographic evidence on traditional Mediterranean shipbuilding, this form of master frame with a flat floor-timber appears to be one of the most revealing ‘architectural signatures’ of the practices of Mediterranean shipyards.
Chapter 9. The arles-rhône 3 barge within gallo-roman water transport : a typological study and historical interpretation
A return to the Rhône-Saône tradition : The evolution of archaeological ...issues on the one hand, the increase in archaeological sources over the last decade on the other (nine barge wrecks dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD excavated in the Rhône-Saône basin) and also the development of methods of excavation, recording and post-excavation management of archaeological data have all led to a modification and up-dating of the historical questions surrounding Gallo-Roman river craft architecture. The Rhône-Saône architectural tradition is attested from the 1st century AD with the wrecks of Place Tolozan in Lyon (30 AD), the old bridge at Chalon-sur-Saône (50-70 AD) and the Arles-Rhône 3 (50s AD). And we can add those of the Parc Saint-Georges in Lyon dated from the 1st to 3rd century AD, as well as the Arles-Rhône 5 wreck (provisionally dated to between 51BC and 135 AD). These wrecks were bottom-based constructions and fall within an “ extended log boat” architecture, with the exception of the PSG Ep. 8 (circa 55 AD) whose bottom-based construction is entirely planked. The most significant characteristics of the Rhône-Saône tradition of river craft architecture are based on technical influences of a Mediterranean and maritime origin. There is the systematic luting with pitch cloth to ensure watertightness of seams between the assembled pieces (a common characteristic of all the wrecks) : the pre-assembly of the bottom strakes using non-plugged tenons in mortises (the Tolozan, Chalon-sur-Saône and PSG Ep. 8 wrecks) : the use of nailed strips of lead covering the internal seams of the bottom and sides similar to the “ palâtres” of river craft architecture (PSG Ep. 2 et Ep. 4 wrecks). Along with these three characteristics shared with maritime naval construction there is a fourth that harks back to an architectural tradition that is specifically fl uvial and represents a sort of “ memory” of log boat architecture. It is the use of conifer half-trunks in the sides of barges of extended log boat structure. The Arles-Rhône 3 and the Rhône-Saône tradition : One of the three architectural signatures of Mediterranean maritime origin is present on the Arles-Rhône 3 wreck : watertightness by means of pitch cloth. Meanwhile, the architectural signature of continental and fluvial origin is most remarkably attested in the sides made of half-trunk fir wood, some 26 m long each. Alongside these characteristics common to boats of the Rhône-Saône tradition, there are other original characteristics that can be qualified as “ boatyard” architectural signatures, the most remarkable of which, from the structural point of view, is the mixed nature of the bilge strakes : monoxylous bilges for the “ body”/ major part of the hull ; composed and assembled for the stern ; mixed bilges (composed and assembled, associated with monoxylous bilges) for the prow. When considering the morphology, the most visible original architectural signature of the Arles-Rhône 3 barge concerns the geometry of the hull, which fi ts into the class of “ polygonal boats of octagonal type” as established by Béat Arnold. However, the proportional geometry is quite particular and is characterised by an elongation coefficient (ratio length/ width) of 1/ 10, which is higher than the river barge wrecks of the Gallo-Roman tradition, where the mean is between 1/ 6 and 1/ 7. Such a slender hull is a particularity associated with the very long rising bow. Another illustration of the morphological originality of the Arles-Rhône 3 barge is to be seen in the section of the hull reserved for the cargo. This occupies almost the half of the flotation rectangle, whereas in the De Meern 1 wreck, for example, nearly three quarters of this same rectangle was dedicated to the hold. These two figures reveal two architectural and functional choices. For one high elongation coefficient, of similar value, we witness the existence of two very different geometries, which in the case of the De Meern 1 translates into a simplicity of form favouring the space for the cargo, and in the case of the Arles-Rhône 3 means a greater complexity of form to the detriment of the space reserved for cargo. The central question to be asked is how to interpret these boatyard architectural signatures of the Arles-Rhône 3 barge. In terms of weight, the “ heaviness coefficient” (ratio of light displacement bare hull to 1 m of hull length) of the Arles-Rhône 3 wreck is calculated at 0,26 t/ m, whereas the PSG Ep. 4 wreck, of the same tradition and comparable length, stands at 0,67 t/ m, nearly three times greater. These figures confirm that fact the builders of the Arles barge chose a relatively light construction matched with a very high elongation coefficient L/ W of 1/ 10. As for the loading capacity, the “ profitability coefficient” (ratio between carriage and 1 m of hull length) is 0,69 t/ m for the Arles-Rhône 3 wreck and 1,96 t/ m for the PSG Ep. 4. This coefficient, as regards the economy of water transport, appears much more favourable in the case of the PSG Ep. 4 wreck than that of the Arles-Rhône 3 barge. All the same, this difference in “ profitability coefficient”, as an absolute value, in relation to the loading capacities will probably have to be seen relatively as a function, on the one hand, of the nature of the transport (short haul up and downstream from Arles in the case of the Arles-Rhône 3 and long distance for the PSG Ep. 4) and on the other, depending on the different navigation conditions of the sections of the Rhône-Saône basin under consideration.
The Arles-Rhône 3 barge and the port city of Arles : One of the important questions that arises is the role of the city of Arles and its sea-river port, as a place of exchange and of technical influences, within the Rhône-Saône architectural tradition. The impressive dimensions and the structural complexity of the Arles-Rhône 3 barge demonstrate that the boatyards of Arles, beyond their access to supplies of sizeable wood, had a technical expertise in terms of knowledge and know-how that can only be understood in relation to past technical practices that integrated influences from Mediterranean maritime shipyards. The Arles-Rhône 3 thus reproduced an architecture similar to vessels from long before its construction. The building of a boat of 31 m in length, like the Arles-Rhône 3, raises two principal questions : that of the nature of the boatyard and its technical, economic and human (specialist workforce) resources, and that of the use of the barge. Who chartered it, for what, in what context and with what means ? The penetration of Roman influence into Gaulle along the Rhône-Saône axis and the strategic position of Arles at the interface between Mediterranean influences in maritime construction techniques and those riverine influences from the hinterland, leads one to consider the importance of the Arles boatyards and their role in the development and diffusion upstream of the Rhône-Saône architectural tradition.
Retour sur la tradition « Rhône-Saône » : L’évolution des problématiques archéologiques d’une part, l’enrichissement des sources archéologiques au cours de la dernière décennie d’autre part (neuf épaves de chalands datées du Ier au IIIe s. ap. J.-C. fouillées au sein du bassin « Rhône-Saône » ), et enfin l’évolution des méthodes de fouille, d’enregistrement et de traitement post-fouille des données archéologiques ont conduit à modifier et à renouveler le questionnement historique sur l’architecture navale fluviale «gallo-romaine » . La tradition architecturale « Rhône-Saône » est attestée dès le Ier s. ap. J.-C. avec les épaves de la place Tolozan à Lyon (30 ap. J.-C.), du pont antique de Chalon-sur-Saône (50-70 ap. J.-C.) d’Arles-Rhône 3 (années 50 ap. J.-C.). A ces épaves s’ajoutent celles du Parc Saint-Georges à Lyon datées du Ier au IIIe s. ap. J.-C. ainsi que l’épave Arles-Rhône 5 (provisoirement datée entre 51 av. J.-C. et 135 ap. J.-C.). Ces épaves construites «sur sole » relèvent d’une architecture monoxyle-assemblée à l’exception de l’épave PSG Ep. 8 (années 55 ap. J.-C.) dont la construction «sur sole » est intégralement assemblée. Les caractéristiques les plus significatives de l’architecture navale fluviale de tradition « Rhône-Saône » renvoient à des influences techniques d’origine méditerranéenne et maritime : recours systématique pour l’étanchéité des coutures entre les pièces assemblées à des tissus poissés disposés selon la technique du lutage (caractéristique commune à l’ensemble des épaves) ; pré-assemblage des virures de la sole au moyen d’un réseau de tenons (non chevillés) enfoncés dans des mortaises (épaves de Tolozan, Chalon-sur-Saône et PSG Ep. 8) ; usage de bandes de plomb clouées et recouvrant intérieurement les coutures de la sole et des flancs à la façon des « palâtres » de la construction navale fluviale (épaves PSG Ep. 2 et
Ep. 4). A ces trois caractéristiques partagées avec la construction navale maritime antique s’ajoute une quatrième renvoyant à une tradition architecturale spécifiquement fluviale et représentant une sorte de «mémoire » de l’architecture monoxyle : l’emploi de demi-troncs de résineux pour la réalisation des flancs des chalands à structure monoxyle-assemblée.
L’épave Arles-Rhône 3 et la tradition « Rhône-Saône » : Une des trois signatures architecturales d’origine maritime et méditerranéenne est présente dans l’épave Arles-Rhône 3 : l’étanchéité au moyen de tissus poissés. Et la signature architecturale d’origine fluviale et continentale est remarquablement attestée avec des flancs constitués de demitroncs de sapin de 26 m de longueur chacun. A ces caractéristiques communes des bateaux de tradition « Rhône-Saône » se greffent des caractéristiques originales qualifiables de «signatures architecturales de chantier » dont la plus remarquable, sur le plan stru
The question of the lifespan of Arles-Rhône 3 and that of the longevity of Gallo-Roman barges of the Rhône basin.
The question as to the lifespan of a boat is generally a difficult one, especially in ...the case of ancient wrecks. As regards the Arles-Rhône 3, however, studies have revealed a maximum lifespan of some 20 years, from 50 to the beginning of the 70s AD. If one considers that the hull of the barge, despite displaying numerous repairs, does not seem to show signs of very long use, this lifespan could perhaps be reduced to less than 10 years, or even less than 5. But the question as to the longevity of this barge, that is to say, the expected lifespan in optimal working conditions, is worth consideration because such a discussion has never been had regarding Gallo-Roman barges of the Rhône basin. For the moment and in the absence of sufficient data, there are only medieval documents to tell that, depending on the type of boat, the quality of construction, maintenance and use, the longevity of Rhône barges fits into a very narrow time frame of between 6 and a dozen years.
La question de la durée de vie d’un bateau est une question généralement difficile à aborder, notamment dans le cas des épaves antiques. Pour l’épave Arles-Rhône 3, l’étude révèle cependant une durée de vie maximale de l’ordre d’une vingtaine d’années, comprise entre 50 et le début des années 70 ap. J.-C. Si l’on considère que la coque du chaland, bien que présentant de nombreuses réparations, ne semblait pas attester d’une utilisation très longue, cette durée de vie peut sans doute être réduite à moins de dix ans, voire moins de cinq ans. Mais la question de la longévité de ce chaland, c’est-à-dire sa durée de vie programmée dans des conditions optimales d’utilisation, mérite réflexion dans la mesure où cette discussion n’a jamais été engagée pour les chalands gallo-romains du bassin rhodanien. Pour le moment, en l’absence de données conséquentes, seuls les documents du Moyen Âge permettent de révéler que, selon les types de bateaux, la qualité de leur construction et de leur entretien mais aussi de leur utilisation, la longévité des barques du Rhône s’inscrit dans une fourchette chronologique très étroite, comprise entre six ans et une douzaine d’années.
Rieth Eric. Les épaves du Parc Saint-Georges : une variante régionale de l'architecture «sur sole». In: Archaeonautica, 16, 2010. Les épaves de Saint-Georges – Lyon – Ier-XVIIIe siècles, sous la ...direction de Éric Rieth. pp. 98-103.
Rieth Eric. Archéologie de la batellerie gallo-romaine et architecture «sur sole ». In: Archaeonautica, 16, 2010. Les épaves de Saint-Georges – Lyon – Ier-XVIIIe siècles, sous la direction de Éric ...Rieth. pp. 35-47.
The wreck is located in the Bay of Paragan near Bonifacio, southern Corsica and was discovered in 2015. It has been dated by Ligurian faïence to the end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century. ...Since 2016, the wreck has been the object of an underwater excavation within the framework of the MoMArch international training school (A*Midex, Aix-Marseille University, CCJ, DRASSM). The wreck displays several “architectural fingerprints” that are characteristic of the practices of Mediterranean frame-first construction and which have been attested archaeologically since the Middle Ages. One objective of the excavation is to provide answers relating to the architectural principles and building processes of the ship. Another objective is to restore the shape of the hull and rigging with the aim of identifying the architectural type of the Paragan 1 ship in the technical context of coasters of the western Mediterranean basin.
PDF
