Converted clinker vessels from the 16th – 17th century

Transcription

Converted clinker vessels from
the 16th – 17th century
A case study of the Ostsee Bereich IV, Fischland, FPL 77
Bente Grundvad Nielsen
Maritime Archaeology Programme
University of Southern Denmark
Bente Grundvad Nielsen
Converted clinker vessels from the 16th17th century in the Baltic area
A case study of wreck FPL 77 (The 4am wreck)
Esbjerg 2010
Front page: Recovery of FPL 77. SDU 2009
Contents
Acknowledgement
Abstract
I
III
1. Introduction
1.1 Aims and objectives
1.2 Structure of the report
1.3 Terminology
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 Primary material
1.4.2 Reconstruction
1.5 Sources and literature review
1.6 Beginning of the project
1
1
2
3
5
5
5
6
7
2. Presentation of material
2.1 Background
2.2 Description of FPL 77
2.2.1 Clinker planking
2.2.2 Frames
2.2.3 Filler pieces
2.2.4 The carvel layer
2.2.5 Date and provenience
2.3 Interpretation
2.3.1 Construction
2.3.3 Interpretation of the model
2.3.4 Contemporary Danish wrecks
8
8
9
9
11
13
15
16
16
16
17
18
18
3. Comparable sites
3.1 Identifying similar wrecks
3.2 Converted clinker vessels
3.2.1 The Maasilinn wreck
3.2.2 The Debki wreck
3.2.3 The W-36 wreck
3.2.4 The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck
3.2.5 The B&W 6 wreck
3.2.6 Wreck Mönchgut / Ostsee VI, FPL 67
3.2.7. The Hiddensee 12 wreck
3.2.8 The Nors Å wreck
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
29
30
31
33
3.3 Sub conclusion
34
4. Discussion
4.1 Where and when
4.1.1 The 14th century
4.2 How
4.2.1 Design and construction
4.2.2 Concept
4.2.3 Materials
4.3 Vessel type: Form and function
4.3.1 Form
4.3.2 Function
4.4 Why
4.4.1 Repair
4.4.2 Economy
4.4.3 Reinforcement and protection of the hull
4.4.4 Water tightness
4.4.5 Original carvel layer
4.4.6 Other explanations
35
35
37
37
37
38
38
39
39
42
44
44
44
45
45
46
47
48
50
51
54
5. Results and conclusion
56
Appendix 1: Timbers with importance for the FPL 77 model
Appendix 2: Selective glossary
References
59
69
74
Acknowledgment
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Jens Auer, not only
for his great help writing this thesis, but also for his enormous engagement and
passion for maritime archaeology. His commitment for the subject has been a
huge inspiration for me throughout these two years.
I am also grateful to all the people who have helped me with my research. In no
particular order: Mike Belasus for all his help understanding the Hiddensee 12
wreck and for giving me the opportunity to see the wreck. Jens-Peter Schmidt
for sending material about the Peninsula of Darss and for the publication on the
FPL 67 wreck. Jana Heinze for her kindness and for her help understanding the
FPL 67 wreck. Waldemar Ossowski for his additional information about the
Debki and the W-36 wreck. Pål Nymoen for his interest in the topic and for
sending me the report on the Strømsø Drammenselva wreck.
From the Viking ship Museum in Roskilde I would like to thank Vibeke Bischoff
for her ideas on how to reconstruct the FPL 77 model and for her help
interpreting it. Morten Gøtche for his help with the Nors Å wreck. My deepest
thanks go to Morten Ravn for all his encouragement and his interest in my
thesis, for sending me the Rhino files of the Amager Beach wreck, and for his
kindness looking through my thesis.
I would also like to thank Kerry Birmingham, Sylvia Bates, Sarah Fawsitt and
Andrew Stanek for correcting English spellings and grammar. A very special
thanks to Konstantinos Alexiou for his encouragement and support throughout
the writing and his overall help with the thesis and with various computer
programs.
Finally, I would like to thank the Map fieldwork team: Konstantinos Alxiou, Jens
Auer, Marja-Liisa Grue, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus, Martin Lonergan, Thijs
Maarleveld, Delia Ni Chiobhain, Andrew Stanek, Christian Thomsen and Cate
Wagstaffe who all contributed to a successful result of the recording of FPL 77
I
and for two amazing years with the Maritime Archaeology Programme, at the
University of Southern Denmark.
II
Abstract
The term ”converted clinker vessel” covers a special and rare type of vessel
built with an inner clinker hull and with a covering outer carvel layer. The
vessels are mainly dated to the 16th-17th century and only nine converted
clinker vessels have been found to date.
These vessels derive from a period where essential changes took place within
the shipbuilding construction. These changes are reflected in the converted
clinker vessel where two different shipbuilding traditions are clearly present:
the clinker-construction technique and the carvel-construction technique.
The main focus of this research is centered on the converted clinker vessel “FPL
77” found in 2009. This vessel will be thoroughly described, analyzed and
compared to 8 similar wrecks.
This study investigates various aspects of the converted clinker vessels from the
16th-17th century. Using examples of all known converted clinker vessels, this
study examines where and when the vessels derive from, how the clinker
conversion took place and what kind of vessel the converted clinker vessels
were. The main emphasis, however, is on why these seemingly normal clinker
vessels had an outer carvel layer applied to the original clinker hull.
As a result of this study, the FPL 77 was interpreted as being an 8-10 m. long,
local trading vessel. This size and type of vessel corresponds well with the size
of other known converted clinker vessels. From a comparable study it becomes
clear that most converted clinker vessels were low tonnage vessels and most
likely used for trade.
From the investigation it turns out that the converted clinker vessels are mostly
found in the Baltic area and are centered around a 100-year period, from 15501650 which was the period where the carvel shipbuilding was introduced here.
The conversion of clinker vessels is most likely connected to the fact that the
carvel construction technique was slowly introduced to the Baltic in this period.
III
Two different kinds of clinker conversion took place. The most used one is
where the outer carvel layer was applied a number of years after the original
clinker vessel was built. The second kind is where the carvel layer seems to
have been a part of the original design. There may be many reasons for these
conversions but they were all connected to the advantages of carvel strakes.
Reinforcing the hull of the clinker vessel is one of the reasons for adding an
outer carvel layer. Repair, a more watertight hull, protection of the inner hull
etc. are a number of other reasons that can explain the double layer of
converted clinker vessels.
IV
1. Introduction
1.1 Aims and Objectives
In October 2009 I participated in the Maritime
Archaeology field school offered by the University
of Southern Denmark (SDU). The field school took
place in Prerow, Germany and the main aim was
to record the remains of a 19th century shipwreck
off the coast of Prerow. One day we received a
formal notice that wreck remains of a 16th century
vessel had been discovered on a beach close by.
The remains derived from a double layered vessel
of a type only scarcely known about. This wreck,
registered under the code Ostsee Bereich IV,
Fischland, FPL 77 will be the basis of this thesis.
Figure 1-1: Excavation of the FPL 77 wreck in August 2009. Grundvad 2009. SDU.
1
The FPL 77 wreck is one among nine similar
wrecks, built in a double planked manner, where
the inner hull is built in the clinker construction
technique but with an outer carvel layer nailed on
top. No written sources, known to the author,
mention these vessels and as they have never
been thoroughly investigated, they have never
been given a name. Because of the way the clinker
vessels were converted into carvel, they will here
go under the term: converted clinker vessels.1
These wrecks have never been analyzed together
and, therefore, the main aim of this report is to
get an overall insight of the rare converted clinker
vessels. The objectives of the report are to find
out:
1) Where and when were the converted clinker
vessels built? The distribution of the known
converted clinker vessels will be reviewed to try to
find out if these vessels only were concentrated in
a specific area, or if they were widely distributed
over the world.
2) How the converted clinker vessels were built.
What construction techniques were used for the
vessels? FPL 77 will be in focus in this chapter
where the construction analysis will be the main
emphasis.
3) What type, in terms of size and use, were the
converted clinker vessels? It will be investigated if
only specific types of vessels underwent clinker
conversion and in that case, what kind of vessel
was it?
4) Why were the converted clinker vessels built?
The purpose of the double hull, consisting of a
1
Term suggested by the author. Based on the
construction technique of the vessels where the
original clinker hull has been covered with carvel
strakes and thereby visually converted into a carvel
vessel.
clinker and a carvel layer, will be investigated to
find the meaning with the conversion.
The research will not only shed light upon a rare
vessel type from the 16th-17th century, it will also
shed light on a construction technique, not
investigated thoroughly before and only
infrequently seen in the archaeological record.
Converted clinker vessels are not very well
understood today, because of the lack of finds.
Looking at the newly documented material from
FPL 77 and at the few similar published wrecks
from the period, it is hoped that this paper will
clarify the construction techniques and the
meaning of converted clinker vessels. It is
furthermore the hope that this thesis can
contribute to further research and interpretations
of these vessels.
The report necessarily contains a great deal of
nautical terminology that can be unfamiliar to the
reader. In the hope of making the text more
readably, a selective glossary has been made at
the end of the paper. The terms given in this
paper will be based on the definition given by
Steffy (2006) and Lemée (2006b) as there seems
to be a widespread consensus on these.
1.2 Structure of the report
This introductory section starts with a terminology
review of what the definition of a clinker- , a
carvel-, and a converted clinker hull is. As many of
the vessels that are dealt with in this paper are
only fragmentarily preserved, it is difficult to know
the exact size and design of the original vessel. It
will therefore furthermore be reviewed how the
terms boat, ship and vessel are defined. Next
section describes the methodology used to solve
the problems described above. This will be
followed by a literature review.
2
In chapter two, the wreck remains of FPL 77 will
be presented. The main aim of this section is to
present and analyze the material of the wreck and
look at the building sequence of the vessel. The
different components of the vessel will be
described thoroughly as this wreck forms the basis
of the paper.
The subsequent section, chapter 3, presents
wrecks of similar construction to FPL 77. The
intention of this section is to provide comparable
material to the study of converted clinker vessels
from the 16th-17th century. The comparable
wrecks will be described in as much detail as
possible to get a base for the analysis. Wrecks that
will be described are the Debki wreck, the
Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck, the Mönchgut
67 / FPL 67 wreck, the Strømsø Drammenselva
wreck, the B&W6 wreck, the Hiddensee 12 wreck
and the Nors Å wreck. It should be noted that
where an inexact date has been given, the wreck
will here be categorized in a period between the
two given dates. This means that for example the
B&W 6 wreck, which has a date somewhere
between the 17th-18th century, will be categorized
under ca. 1650.
Chapter 4 will discuss a number of explanations to
the questions given above; where and when were
the converted clinker vessels built? How were the
converted clinker vessels built? What types of
vessels were converted from clinker to carvel?
And finally, why was the outer carvel planking
applied to these clinker vessels? A number of
different reasons have been proposed in a
number of publications. These explanations, along
with new possible interpretations, made by the
author, will be presented.
The discussion is followed by a concluding chapter
that sums up the outcome of the paper and the
importance of the double planked boats in a
broader historical and archaeological context.
1.3 Terminology
Below, the different building techniques used in
FPL 77 will be shortly reviewed.
Clinker construction technique
The clinker construction technique is defined as a
tradition where the hull of the vessel is
constructed with overlapping planks. The space
where the two planks overlap is called the land.
The planks are held together with closely spaced
rivets or nails clenched over metal washers, called
roves (Steffy 2006, 269). Clinker-built vessels were
often, but not always, built in a shell-first
construction where the planks define the hull
shape. This building process allows the shipwright
to visualize the shape of the hull during
construction as the technique does not require
graphical means. The shipwright is able to form
the hull as the building process goes along. He can
thus change the outline at any point of time
before the final fixing frames are applied. The
clinker tradition is especially linked to the Nordic
building tradition (Lemée 2006a, 8)
Figure 1- 2: Frame with clinker planks. Grundvad 2009.
Carvel-built ships
The carvel construction technique is often linked
to the Mediterranean area from where the oldest
carvel-built ship is known (Lemée 2006a, 9). As
opposed to the clinker constructed vessel the
carvel ship is defined as a vessel with flushed
3
planks. Carvel ships are often, but not always,
build in the so-called skeleton-first concept where
the skeleton, or the frames, defines the hull.
Building a ship in the skeleton-first method
demands an abstract way of thinking as the
finished result is not clear before the planks are
nailed to the frames. When building in the
skeleton-first method it is not possible to make
bigger changes of the hull form (Lemée 2006a, 711).
Figure 1-3: Frames with carvel planks. Grundvad 2010.
The development of the carvel ships or non-edge
joined boats, as Greenhill (1995) calls them,
developed at different times in different parts of
the world. Carvel vessels were a rare sight in the
15th century in Northern Europe but were quickly
adapted and frequently seen by the end of the
17th century (Lemée 2006a, 8). It is most likely,
that the reason for the big success of the carvel
ships was economic. Western people required
bigger and more seaworthy vessels to carry bigger
amount of goods for more people and longer
journeys (Greenhill 1995, 58). In Denmark, where
FPL 77 possibly was built, the carvel-built vessels
were still not particular developed at this point of
time.
The clinker construction technique was never
totally abandoned, however. The technique
continued to be practiced on smaller vessels up to
the late 19th century and can still be seen on some
smaller boats today (Greenhill 1995, 58).
Converted clinker vessel
No specific term has ever been giving to the
clinker hulls with a carvel skin nailed to the
outside. Ossowski (2006) and Mäss (1994) (1991)
refer to these vessels as “double- planked” boats
which is a correct term. However, “doubleplanked” covers a wide range of construction
types dissimilar to the vessels concerned about
here. “Double-planked” for example includes the
double- Dutch solution and the reinforcement or
protection of carvel ship with another carvel layer.
The vessels concerned with here were all built in
the clinker construction technique and were,
either originally or at a later point, converted to
carvel vessels by adding a flush laid skin on top of
the original clinker hull. “Converted clinker
vessels” therefore seem to be the best term to
use in this case. The size, the construction
technique and the provenience of the vessels are
indifferent to the term as long as the vessel
consists of a clinker hull with an outer carvel layer.
Figure 1-4: Converted clinker vessel with clinker
planks, filler pieces and an outer carvel layer.
Grundvad 2010.
4
Boat, ship and vessel
The terms “boat” and “ship” have been used with
many different meanings in various publications.
Confusion with the use of the terms is still a
problem today as the definition differs from
author to author. Steffy’s (2006) definitions are
the one used in this paper.
Boats are defined as smaller open vessels or
smaller vessel designed for operating in sheltered
waters (Steffy 2006, 7).
Ships are defines as larger vessels with a bowsprit
and three to five square-rigged masts or simply
just large vessels designed for deepwater
operations (Steffy 2006, 7).
Due to the confusion these two terms have cause,
Steffy advices to use more specific terms such as
vessel, merchantman etc. As most of the wrecks
dealt with in this paper is of unknown size and
form, it has been decided to call all wrecks, where
no further information is given; vessels. “Vessel“ is
a well used term in projects where the status of
the vessel is not yet known (Steffy 2006, 7). The
use of this term will eliminate the confusion that
arises with the use of “ship” and “boat”.
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 Primary material
The primary material from the excavation of FPL
77 is the main source to understand the converted
clinker vessels. The archaeological material is an
important source, as it provides direct information
about the past. The nature of the converted
clinker vessels can only be revealed through
archaeological finds, as iconographic and written
sources are lacking when it comes to converted
clinker vessels. Besides the archaeological
material from FPL 77, publications and primary
material from other similar wrecks will be used. A
database will be produced to get an overview of
the few converted clinker vessels found to date. A
big part of the methodology of the paper will be
comparison to other wrecks.
As an attempt to find the size of FPL 77 and the
placement of the wreck part in the entire ship, a
model was built. The result of the model building
and analysis gives a plausible interpretation of the
building process of FPL 77 and the size of the
vessel.
The reconstruction of the longitudinal curvature of
the wreck was realized by building a 1:10 scale
model, based on the original excavation
documentation; 1:10 drawings, dumpy level
measurements and timber details from recording
sheets. A full reconstruction of the vessel was not
intended as the wreck part is too small to allow
for this. Uncertainty will always be a factor when
reconstructing the size of a vessel based on an 8m
x 5m wreck part. However, remaking the
curvature of the wreck and comparing the wreck
to somewhat similar vessels from the period, the
size of FPL 77 could carefully be assessed.
The method for the reconstruction of the wreck
was inspired from a system developed by the
Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde (Ravn et al. 2011)
Figure 1- 5: 1:10 model of FPL 77. Grundvad 2009.
5
and with guidance of Vibeke Bischoff. For the
reconstruction of the wreck-part, the original 1:10
drawings of the individual timbers were printed
out in scale and glued onto 2mm thick cardboard.
An exact template of the preserved planks in 1:10
were cut out and used for the building process.
Small holes were drilled through the cardboard,
along the edges of the planks, where iron nails
originally held the planking together. The different
parts were held together with needles that were
fixed on the back with little square rubber pieces.
Following the original beveled overlap of the
clinker planks and the original fastenings, the
longitudinal curvature of the wreck part could be
reconstructed. The frames were only cut out in
the moulded form in order to support the
curvature of the cardboard hull.
When the model was built, it was placed in a
frame where four kite stringers were following the
planks and the curvature of the vessel. At some
point the lines would naturally meet and the
length of the ship could be estimated. However,
this length is only an interpretation, as the
thickness of the planks, the fastenings, etc., were
not considered in these calculations.
1.5 Sources and literature review
There are only few publications on converted
clinker vessels, as very few finds of this vessel type
have been found. The wrecks have mostly been
published as reports or shorter articles and none
of them go further into the analysis and
interpretation of the converted clinker vessels.
Only Waldemar Ossowski and Jana Heinze have
included small sections where they try to explain
the double layer. No combined analysis has been
made of all the converted clinker vessels and the
information given in the reports are sparse.
Dr. Waldemar Ossowski, curator of the
Department of Maritime Archaeology of the Polish
Maritime Museum, has published the findings of
two “double-planked” wrecks from Poland. Here
he describes the construction of the two wrecks
that date to the same period as FPL 77. He
compares the “double-planked” wrecks from the
16th century to similar wrecks, and he takes up the
discussion on why these vessels were built
(Ossowski 2006, 259).
Maritime archaeologist Vello Mäss of the Estonian
Maritime Museum has also touched on the topic
in his article A Unique 16th century Estonian Ship
Find (Mäss 1991).
In 2009 Thomas Förster published the book Grosse
Handelsschiffe des Spätmittelalters (Förster 2009),
in which he mentions a wreck called “Das
Gellenwrack” (Hiddensee 12). This was a vessel
that had a secondary outer shell layer applied to
the inner clinker hull. The date of the wreck has
been controversial and will be discussed later on.
The publication of the Mönchgut 67 wreck is one
of the only ones where a somewhat full
excavation report was conducted. The report is
written by Jana Heinze who was in charge of the
recovery and documentation of the wreck.
Unfortunately, due to the bad state of the vessel,
crucial information about the wreck has been lost
(Heinze 2010).
Strømsø Drammenselva is another converted
clinker vessel where a report is available (Nymoen
2007). The wreck is not described in details and
the dendrochronological samples were never
analyzed as the wreck was considered insignificant
for further research.2
2
Pers. Comm. Pål Nymoen.
6
The last publication concerning converted clinker
vessels is the article about the sand vessels from
Denmark (Gøthche 1985). Only one of the socalled sand vessels was a converted clinker vessel
and this wreck is only mentioned shortly in an
article regarding the sand vessels.
The carvel and clinker technique in ship
constructions have been investigated to a large
degree, by amongst others Cederlund (1985) in
The Main Principles in the Technology of
Shipbuilding. Also to be mentioned are Maarleveld
(1994), Hasslöf (1972a), Probst (1994), Kirby
(2000) and Lemée (2006b).
An indispensible book when dealing with vessels
from the Renaissance is The Renaissance
Shipwrecks from Christianshavn by Christian P.P.
Lemée (Lemée 2006b). The foundation of the
book is the excavation of the renaissance wrecks
from Christianshavn (Copenhagen, Denmark), but
it also deals with written sources in a wider
historical context. The book has provided essential
information for the study of this paper and for the
reconstruction of the FPL 77 model. In addition to
the importance this book has for the study of
renaissance wrecks in the North, it also shortly
describes a poorly preserved converted clinker
vessel, the B&W6.
1.6 The beginning of the Project
The incentive for this thesis began in 2009 with
the find, recovery and documentation of FPL 77.
The project was organized by the Maritime
Archaeology Programme from the University of
Southern Denmark that was conducting the field
school nearby, with Professor Thijs Maarleveld
and associate professor Jens Auer in charge. The
recovery, documentation and analysis of this
wreck became the beginning and the base of the
following paper.
Figure 1-6: FPL 77 recovered and ready for analysis.
Grundvad 2009. SDU.
7
2. Presentation of material
2.1 Background
The main aim of this chapter is to present and
analyze the archaeological material of FPL 77.
Because of the thorough recording of FPL 77 and
due to the fact that the primary material has been
available for the author, this wreck will work as
the main base for the paper. The chapter will be
subdivided into two main sections: a descriptive
section and an analytical section.
was produced as a part of the field school and
published in February 2010 (Auer 2010). This
report will be the primary base for the following
review of the wreck.
The first section will in detail describe the wreck
parts of FPL 77 based on the documentation made
by the Maritime Archaeology Programme,
Denmark. A short catalogue (see appendix 1) of
the timbers, that are important for the
understanding of the wreck, will be available.
The second section presents the interpretation of
FPL 77. Here, the construction techniques and the
building sequence will be reviewed and the 1:10
model will be evaluated. Based on the available
material from the wreck and the analysis of the
model, the last section will be an attempt to find
out what kind of vessel FPL 77 could have been.
A report, written by Dr. Jens Auer and the field
school participants (including the present author)
Figure 2-1: Map of the Baltic showing the location of
the FPL 77.
8
Figure 2-2: Excavation of the FPL 77 wreck on an early morning at 4AM.
2.2 Description of FPL 77
The FPL 77 wreck is a part of a hull from a clinkerbuilt vessel that was later re-planked with an
outer carvel layer. The total dimensions of the
wreck measured 5.23m x 1.8m. The hull section
consisted of 11 frames, five clinker planks and two
carvel planks. On the outside of the clinker
strakes, a layer of irregular softwood pieces was
attached to provide a smooth surface for the
carvel layer. All the main timbers were made from
oak, whereas the filling pieces were of lower
quality and made from pine.
FPL 77 was in general found to be in a good state
of preservation. The inboard of the clinker layer,
however, was heavily eroded by sea grass, which
made the recording of details complicated. The
sea grass indicates that the wreck had been lying
on the seabed with the carvel layer protected by
the sediments and the frames facing upwards.
When the wreck was found, the sea grass was still
fresh which designates that the wreck originally
was located on the seabed and washed to shore
recently prior to the finding of the wreck (Auer
2010, 15).
In the following, the different components of the
wrecks will be described chronologically and after
the supposed original construction sequence. The
description is commenced with the clinker layer,
next the framing, the filler pieces and finally the
carvel planks. For the description of the clinker
layer, the framing and the carvel layer, a small
catalogue has been developed (see appendix 1).
The catalogue will be used for the interpretation
and analysis of a 1:10 model of the wreck. Only
timbers with importance to the understanding of
the wreck or the model will be reviewed.3
2.2.1 Clinker planking
Nine clinker planks or five strakes are preserved in
the hull remains of FPL 77, all varying in size. The
clinker planks are well preserved on the outer
surface, but heavily eroded by sea grass growth on
the inner face. The planks are made from radially
split oak and they have visible axe and adze marks
from the finishing work. All planks are roughly
beveled along their lower edges, possibly a
construction feature in the smoothing process
3
For a complete timber catalogue see Auer (2009).
9
when the filling pieces were applied (Daly 2009,
2).
Only two of the nine clinker planks are preserved
in full (120 and 131). These measure 308cm and
346cm in length. The longest plank that is not fully
preserved measures 346cm in length. The
thickness of the planks range between 2cm to 3cm
and the length of the fragmented planks measures
from 116cm and 368cm. This indicates that the
longest plank must have been over 368cm long.
The full width of the planks is between 20-25cm
and in thickness they measure 2-3cm. The
thickness tapers down in the overlapping areas
and towards the end-scarves. In some instances
hollow grooves for luting material was observed,
but these are not present on all planks.
Sapwood was present on two of the planks that
were therefore used for dendrochronological
samples.
Clinker fastenings
The upper strake of the planking was held
together by square shafted iron nails driven
through augered holes from the outside and
clenched over roves on the inside of the hull. The
nails were placed along the lower edge of the
plank with an average spacing of 15-25cm (Auer
2010, 10). In some places the rivets were closer
spaced in order to reinforce and provide the
construction with additional strength.
The iron rivets are square shafted, ca. 0.7-1cm
long and with a nail head diameter of 1.8cm.
Many of the iron nails are eroded away, but their
existence is still evident because of nail head
marks. From these impressions it is evident that
the heads had been sitting in square recesses cut
with a chisel or similar. In addition to the rivet
fastenings, trenails had been holding the planks to
frames.
Iron nails were used to secure overlaps between
plank and scarf joints, but they were also used less
systematically to fasten different elements to each
other. Some places iron nails were used as a
preliminary fastening before the trenails were
inserted. All the nails had been clenched over iron
roves on the inboard face of the planking. Old iron
nails had sometimes been removed and replaced
with wooden plugs to seal the nail holes as a
repair.
Figure 2-3: Clinker phase of FPL 77 after removal of
filler pieces and carvel layer. Auer 2009. SDU.
Trenails fastened the clinker planking to the
frames. One trenail connected each plank to every
other timber. The trenails are plain and therefore
not wedged or plugged on the outside as seen
other places in the vessel. The diameter of the
10
trenails ranges between 3.1cm and 3.4cm (Auer
2010, 11).
Each strake except from the highest one feature a
scarf that was overlapping with 20-30cm and
secured in each corner with a number of iron nails
and one or two additional rivets. Scored lines on
the planks mark the beginning of a scarf.
Tarred luting material was inserted to waterproof
the seams. The scarfs all pointed in the same
direction, aft, to prevent water entering the seams
(Auer 2010, 11). The directions of the scarfs imply
that the section was a part of the port side of the
vessel. Plank joints in neighboring strakes were
spaced at least one or two frames apart to avoid
weakening of the hull structure. The overlaps of
the planks, called “the land”, varied from 5-8cm
and the overlaps were beveled on all planks
Waterproofing
The waterproofing material between the plank
overlaps and the scarf joints were sampled and
sent for analysis. The result of the analysis has not
yet been analyzed by the submission time for this
paper. However, the waterproofing material
consisted of mats of, what seemed to be, tarred
animal hair.
2.2.2 Frames
Repairs
A number of repairs are visible on the clinker
planks. In some cases wooden plugs had replaced
iron nails where these were eroded away. In other
places, rivets had been hammered into the timber
to strengthen weak spots and on the uppermost
strake, towards the bow, a short plank had been
nailed to the outside of the clinker plank to
provide additional strength. This small plank and
the wooden plugs witness of a somewhat long
usage period of the clinker vessel before it was
converted.
Toolmarks
Figure 2-4: Overview of the frames after removal of the
clinker layer, the filler pieces and the carvel layer. Auer
2009. SDU.
Toolmarks are clearly visible on all clinker planks.
These marks indicate that the tools used for the
final conversion of the timbers were done by axe.
Overall 11 frames of different sizes are preserved
from FPL 77. All frames are made out of oak. The
frames are joggled on the outside face to accom-
11
modate for the clinker planking. The length of the
frames ranges from 87cm to 151cm. The average
moulded dimension of the frames is 9.5cm while
the sided dimension varies from 8cm to 21cm.
The frame heels either show remains of scarf
joints (103, 105, 107, 108) or are cut square or at
an angle (104, 106, 110). Four of the frame heels
are broken (109, 111, 112, 137) and the breaks are
heavily eroded which mean that they are not
recent. The frame heads are not as well preserved
as the heels and only two heads are not broken
off or eroded. Some of the breaks seem fairly
recent. The head of frame 107 and 109 taper out,
which most probably indicates the remains of a
scarf joint (Auer 2010, 8).
Several marks are present on the framing timbers.
Marks can be observed on the moulded face of
frame 103 and 106. On frame 103 the mark is
situated at the heel and consists of a trapezoid
shape with a line connecting the two pointed
ends. On frame 106 the mark is located on the
heel as well, and it consists of a fairly big “X” with
two angled lines at either side and an additional
line protruding from between the upper two
wings of the “X”. On the same frame, near the
head, an additional roughly hewn X-shaped mark
can be observed. This mark is situated in
connection with a joggle and could have been a
mark indicating the position of the step. A number
of other marks are visible on the moulded side of
some frames, but these are not as recognizable as
the previously described.
The inside faces of the frames are heavily eroded
by sea grass while the outside faces are mostly
well preserved. This makes recognition of tool
marks difficult on the inside but on the outside
they can be recognized as deriving from either an
axe or an adze (Auer 2010, 12).
Frame fastenings
The frames were fastened to the clinker planks
with trenails. Trenails from all phases of the
construction were observed in the framing
timbers. On the inside of the frames the trenails
associated only with the clinker phase were cut
flush with the frames, probably during the rebuild.
Concretions on the inside face of the frames, as
well as trenails protruding 4.5cm, indicate the
presence and possibly the thickness of a new set
of ceiling planks (Auer 2010, 9). The ceiling planks
seem to have been fastened only by trenails from
the carvel layer and it can therefore be assumed
that the ceiling planks had been inserted when the
new carvel layer had been applied.
Markings on frames
Figure 2-5: Trapezoid mark on the heel of frame 103.
Auer 2009. SDU.
X”–shaped marks seem like the obvious mark to
indicate that a specific frame has some kind of
significance. The markings were all discovered on
the outboard face, where they were visible when
the vessel was complete. It is possible that
markings are present on the inboard side as well,
but due to the heavily eroded surface, this is not
possible to verify.
The markings could have had several different
purposes. They could have worked as an
indication of where the frames were to be
12
situated in the vessel and they could have marked
the alignment of framing timbers. Other marks
could have been related to the production, sale
and transportation of the timbers. These marks
were created before the timbers were aligned and
therefore randomly placed in the ship. Other
markings, the so called “scribing marks”, were
used to lay out the cutting of joints (Marsden
2009, 74-75).
The triangular mark on the edge of frame 103
could have had a purpose after the frame was
inserted since it was visible from the outside. Its
purpose, however, is not yet known.
Three
frames
were
sampled
for
dendrochronological dating. Two of these (104,
105) had considerable amounts of sapwood
preserved on the inside face. Sapwood on the
outside faces had been removed where the
frames had been in contact with the outer carvel
strakes.
2.2.3 Filler pieces
Figure 2-6: Could this mark on frame 106 indicate the
position of stringers? Auer 2009. SDU.
The mark on frame 106 has already been
connected to the position of a clinker step.
Markings could also work as an indication of
master frames in a ship with pre-erected frames.
In clinker- and shell-first ship building it was
difficult to get a certain shape of the hull, because
drawings or plans were not used in clinker vessels.
The shape took place under the builder’s hands
and the master frames could help prevent the ship
from getting a wrong shape (Lemée 2006, 41). The
big mark on the heel of frame 106 could be such a
master frame or a sub-master frame. The lines
that go to the upper edge of the frame could be
marking where the stringers had been situated
inside the vessel. Stringers can be several meters
long, which would explain why only one of these
marks was present in the FPL 77.4
4
Pers. Comm. Toby Jones, Newport Medieval ship
Project.
The filling pieces constituted the second
construction phase of FPL 77. The purpose of the
filling pieces was to smooth out the steps of the
clinker planking in order to generate an even and
closed surface for the carvel planking.
Overall 15 filling pieces are preserved from the
wreck. They are all made from wedged soft wood
and possibly from scrap wood and on most of the
filling pieces deep tool marks are visible. All but
three of the filling pieces (123, 121, 115) are made
from softwood, either fir or pine. Piece 123 is the
remains of a reused oak clinker plank. This piece
was collected for sampling but could not be dated
because the lack of three rings.
The filling pieces were secured to the clinker
planks with small iron nails until the carvel planks
were in place. Several of the filling pieces were
penetrated by trenails from the carvel layer.
The wedged and triangular shaped filling pieces
vary in length from 20-200cm. As a preliminary
fastening, they were nailed to the clinker strakes
with a single iron nail and hereafter they were
held in place by the carvel planks (Auer 2010, 12).
13
Overview of the frames, the clinker layer and the filler pieces of FPL 77. Processed by Grundvad 2010. From SDU 2009.
Frames
Clinker planks
Filler pieces
14
Because of the limited recording period, only a
few of the filling piece were drawn but all were
photographed and described.
Overall, the filler pieces are well preserved as they
had been sandwiched between the clinker and the
carvel layer. Considering the nature of the wood,
there seems to have been no criteria for the
quality, as this wood was very flimsy (Auer 2010,
12)
2.2.4 The carvel layer
The outmost layer of the wreck consisted of two
flushed laid oak planks (100, 101) with butt end
joints. They are both well preserved, but show
traces of abrasion on the outer face. The inside
faces are slightly eroded by sea grass but have
been protected against erosion by timbers from
the clinker phase. The carvel planks have a
maximum length of 516cm and are up to 48cm
wide and 4cm thick.
Carvel fastenings
Both carvel planks were fastened with iron nails
and trenails that went through the filler pieces,
the clinker layer and the frames. The trenails are
32-34mm in diameter. They are either plain,
wedged or plugged with a single square plug in
the center. The trenails were hammered into
augered holes and some of them protruded from
the inside face of the frames which indicate that
they most likely fastened the ceiling planks as
well.
The iron nails with round heads (20mm in
diameter) and with square shaft (ca. 6mm x 6mm)
were used to fasten the plank butts and were
used as preliminary fastenings along the edges of
the planks before the trenail holes were drilled.
Some of the iron nail holes were plugged with a
small wooden plug while others remained in the
plank.
Markings on carvel planks
Both carvel planks have half moon shaped
incisions on the outer surface that seem to
indicate where the trenail holes should have been
drilled into the wood. Similar marks have been
found on the Hiddensee 12 vessel. Here, the
position of the trenails is indicated with an incised
triangle still visible after the trenail was inserted.3
Aft, on the outboard face of plank 100, an “X”shaped mark is visible, ca. 10cm long.
Saw marks are only faintly visible on the surface
whereas axe or adze marks are clearly visible on
the planks (Auer 2010, 12). Around the trenails,
chisel marks can be observed. Cracked charcoal is
evident on the inside of the carvel planks. This is
possibly a result of the deformation of the planks
Figure 2-1: Overview of the carvel layer. Auer 2009.
SDU.
5
Pers. Comm. Mike Belasus, LKD M-V.
15
over an open fire, which was common practice in
the 16th and 17th century (Kühn 1999, 63).
2.2.5 Date and Provenience
Ten samples were taken from the timbers of FPL
77, of which nine could be analyzed. Samples from
all phases of the construction were taken. The
filler pieces were found to be inadequate for
analysis as too few tree rings were present. Only
filler piece 123, made out of oak, was collected for
analysis but could not be dated due to the low
number of tree rings (Daly 2009).
All the timbers are Quercus. Sp. Oak. The timbers
can be divided into two groups according to their
tree ring curves. The first group consists of four
clinker planks (102, 113, 120, 131) and two frames
(105, 109). Clinker plank 120 and clinker plank 131
possibly derive from the same tree. The timbers
are from a time period covering 258 years, 13201577. The second group consists of one frame
(104) and the two carvel planks (100, 101) and
covers a period of 196 years, from 1394-1589
(Daly 2009, 1). On five of the samples, sapwood
was present. Taking all the material and allowing
for missing sapwood, the felling date has been
estimated to ca. AD 1590 (Daly 2009, 1). It was not
possible to differentiate the difference in felling
date from two groups and thereby the
construction phases of FPL 77. However, from the
dendrochronology and the observations made
during the recording of the vessel, a possible
construction sequence will here be reconstructed.
2.3 Interpretation
On the basis of the archaeological material and
the 1:10 model of FPL 77, the following section is
an attempt to interpret the wreck as a whole. The
interpretation of the wreck will be split in two
sections. First section, the construction of the
vessel,
concludes
and
summarizes
the
construction of FPL 77 from the data given above.
The second section, Dimensions, reviews the
interpretations of the cardboard model of the
vessel, made in scale 1:10.
2.3.1 Construction
The two groups of timbers from FPL 77 originate
from two different locations. According to the
provenience decided by the dendrochronological
analysis, group 1 originates from the region
around Øresund, which is Skåne or Zealand. This
group has the highest correlation with timbers
from a shipwreck found at Amager beach on the
east coast of Zealand. Group 2 has the highest
correlation with timbers from the areas around
Lübeck, Schwerin and Wismar. The difference
between the two groups is also visible from the
conversion of the carvel and the clinker planking.
The two carvel planks have been cut tangentially
from the tree whereas the four clinker planks
were split radially (Daly 2009, 2). The conversion
of plank 113 and frames 104, 105 and 109 could
not be determined (Daly 2009, 2).
From the information above, the following can be
assumed about FPL 77: It seems like FPL 77 was a
vessel that originally was built with a clinker hull
and with wood originating from the Øresund
region. The planks were initially fastened to each
other with iron nails until trenails finally fastened
the frames to the clinker planks. The clinker vessel
must have been in use for quite a time before it
was rebuilt. This could be proved because some of
the iron nails were replaced or blocked with
wooden plugs.
After an unknown time span the vessel was
completely rebuilt. In that connection softwood
filling pieces were nailed to the clinker planking.
16
The lower edges of the clinker planks were
beveled in order to make a smooth outer surface
for the carvel strakes. Inside the vessel, all ceiling
planks were removed and the protruding trenails
were cut flush with the frames. The
dendrochronological analysis showed that at least
one frame, 104, could have been placed in the
wreck in period 2. This is supported by the fact
that no trenails from the clinker phase were found
to penetrate the timber (Daly 2009, 2).
The last step of the rebuilding was the fastening of
the carvel planking. Around the edges, the carvel
planking was contemporarily nailed to the filling
pieces and the original clinker layer with iron nails.
The timbers were tangentially sawn from wood,
originating from the area around Lübeck. Before
the planks were inserted they were deformed
over an open fire to give them the right curvature.
New ceiling planks that were nailed to the inside
of the frames were inserted during this phase.
Finally, new holes were augered for trenails that
penetrated all three layers, the frames and the
ceiling planks. Trenails were then hammered in
and some were secured with wedges or central
plugs on the outside.
The final result of the rebuild was that the clinker
built vessel, FPL 77, was converted into a carvel
vessel where the original clinker planking and
framing were hidden between the outer carvel
layer and the inner ceiling planks (Auer 2010, 15).
While the previous sections in detail described the
construction features of FPL 77, the wreck alone is
not sufficient to complete our understanding of
the vessel’s overall design and construction. What
is preserved of FPL 77 is only a small section of the
portside. The keel, the wale or any floor timbers
are not preserved and nor are the stern or the
stem post. Due to all the missing parts we end up
with having an incomplete picture of the vessel as
a whole. As such, a complete picture of FPL 77 will
never be achieved as the archaeological remains
of the vessel are too small to allow for this. We
will never know the exact extent of the vessel, the
curve of keel, the curvature of the hull and the
shape of the bottom. However, the 1:10 model of
FPL 77 will be an aid to get an idea of the vessel as
it originally was. When dealing with so sparse a
material the reconstruction becomes a process of
inference, selective choice and educated
guesswork.
Inferences to the correct construction features
can come from holes in the existing material from
non-preserved features such as ceiling planks.
Selective choices are made from known
information from comparable archaeological
sources, archival material and pictorial images.
While many different solutions to the construction
lie within these sources, choices must be made as
to the most appropriate fit for FPL 77. When
working with ship reconstructions, one works on a
hypothetical basis that gives the possibility to
work intellectually with various interpretations.
Together, these interpretations show possible
variations but does not necessarily give one the
true answer (Ravn et al. 2011).
This next section will deal with the reconstruction
and interpretation of FPL 77. As an aid to
determine the size and outline of FPL 77, the
reconstruction of the wreck will be used. The
purpose with the reconstruction is to rebuild the
curvature of the wreck-part, try to prolong the
side and thereby get the approximate size of the
vessel. The result of the reconstruction gives a
plausible interpretation of the building process of
the original vessel. “When the work of the
shipbuilder is reconstructed, either at full size or in
scale models, one is confronted with problems
similar to those that faced the original shipbuilder
17
during the original ship’s construction” (Lemée
2006, 102). As the material is too sparse to
reconstruct the entire vessel, only the preserved
material will be reconstructed. It is important to
stress that the dimensions and hull form, given
here, are purely interpretations and should not be
seen as a final result, but merely an attempt to
give an indication of the shape of FPL 77.
2.3.3 Interpretation of the model
vessel. With such a “turn” in the curvature of the
frames, the keel must have been near the
preserved section. As a guidance to outline how
high the wreck part should be placed from the
keel, a print-out of a floor timber from the Amager
beach wreck was attached to the keel. This frame
fits well with the downwards turning frame 110 of
FPL 77. Looking at frame 110 and 111 in
connection with the other upwards turning
frames, it can be presumed, that FPL 77 had an Sformed hull where the hull ran smooth to the keel.
Placement of the wreck part
The first step in the reconstruction of FPL 77 is to
find out where the preserved hull section had fit
into the vessel. Looking at the aft turning scarfs, it
had already been established that the section
derived from the portside of the vessel. It has,
however, not been decided where on the portside
it was from. Instantly, the curvature of the hull
and the preserved frames did not give any
indication of the placement of the section.
Looking further and more detailed at the
preserved frames it becomes clear, though, that
some frames (110, 111) have a slightly different
curvature than the rest of the frames. Frame 110
and 111 that are situated closest towards the bow
in the wreck, have strong downwards turning
curvatures. The rest of the frames have a more
upwards turning curvature. Unfortunately, frame
113 is fractured and can therefore not give much
information on the curvature of the last preserved
frame situated closest to the bow.
Comparing the downwards turning curvature of
the floor timbers and the imaginative first futtocks
of the contemporary Bredfjed wreck from
Denmark, it becomes clear that, with the
curvature of frame 110 and 111 from FPL 77, the
wreck-part must have derived from an area close
the keel. The preserved frames in the wreck could
therefore be the so-called first futtocks of the
Figure 2-2: The wreck-part of FPL 77 comes from an
area close to the bow and keel. Grundvad 2010.
Again, looking at frame 110 and 111, their
curvatures indicate that the wreck section was not
far from the bow area. The strong change in the
curvature of these frames is seen in other vessels,
where the hull is beginning to shape in towards
the bow or stern sections.
Figure 2-3: Frame 6F from the Bredfjed wreck. A frame
with this shape would make a good fit with frame 110
and frame 111 from FPL 77. After Bill 1997.
18
Of the 11 preserved frames, 9 frame heads are
fractures or broken. Only three (107, 109, 111) are
intact. Looking at the curvature of the hull and the
suspected placement of the section, it seems
more than reasonable to presume, that at least
one other set of futtocks must have been attached
to the preserved ones. With the placement of the
wreck part close to the keel, it seems unlikely that
more than one set of extra futtocks had been
present in the vessel. Based on these observations
it is presumed, that FPL 77 was approximately 2m
high.
Size
Now that it has been determined approximately
where on the vessel the wrecks-section was from,
an estimated length of FPL 77 can be pursued.
Flexible fiber glass stringers were attached to the
model, following the curvature of the planks. By
prolonging the sides via the stringers, the sides
could be prolonged till they met at a natural point.
Obviously, this gives a wide range of possibilities
for a “natural” curvature. With the placement of
the wreck-part, close to the bow and relatively
close to the keel, and by following the natural
curve of the wreck and the prolonging stringer,
the length of the vessel seems to have been lying
within 10m to maximum 12m.
From the preliminary 1:10 reconstruction of the
wreck-part it can carefully be estimated that the
original FPL 77 was a 10-12m long vessel,
approximately 2 m high.
2.3.4 Contemporary Danish wrecks
One of the first steps when working with wrecks is
to look at similar shipwrecks. Construction
features from similar wrecks can help to
understand the wreck that one is working with.
Pictorial references and literature that describe
ships from the period are good sources as well.
Based on the reconstructed curvature and size of
FPL 77 and the provenience decided area from the
dendrochronological analysis, the aim of this
section is to look at other clinker vessels, similar in
size and provenience to the FPL 77. This will be
done in order to get an idea of how the original
clinker vessel, FPL 77, could have looked like.
The author is well aware that the timbers of FPL
77 could have been exported or reused
somewhere outside Denmark. However, it has, by
the author, seemed reasonable to take Denmark
as the place of origin for two reasons: The
dendrochronological analysis provenience decided
the timbers to Denmark and the highest
correlation with the FPL 77 timbers comes from
another wreck found in Denmark, namely the
Amager Beach wreck off Zealand’s east coast (Daly
2009, 2).
Figure 4: Approximately 8-10m is the estimated length of FPL 77 based on the reconstructed 1:10 model. Grundvad
2009.
19
Looking at contemporary and similar wrecks may,
by comparison, help to clarify if FPL 77 was built in
Denmark. The description of the similar clinker
vessels may also give a more total image of how
clinker vessel from the late 16th / early 17th
century could have looked like and thereby
possibly how FPL 77 would have appeared. The
Amager Beach wreck is one of the comparable
wrecks, the Bredfjed wreck, the Grøndsund wreck,
the Knuds Grund wreck and the Nationalbanken
wreck are the others. All were 16th century
shipwrecks. Only the Amager Beach wreck and the
Bredfjed wreck will be described in detail to get a
thorough description of two 16th century vessels.
Constructional features of the three other wrecks
will be reviewed in table 1.
The Amager beach wreck
The wreck was found in 2004 during construction
work at Amager beach in Denmark. It was quickly
recognized that the wreck was significant and it
was therefore excavated and recorded with
FaroArm (Ravn 2009, 9). The wreck is
dendrochronologically dated to 1560-1570 and
provenience decided to Øresund (Daly 2008). The
Amager beach wreck is thus approximately the
same age, has the same provenience as FPL 77
and was built as FPL 77 was originally built, with
clinker strakes.
The keel was not preserved in the wreck, but the
floor timbers indicate that the keel was most
probably T-shape (Ravn 2009, 10). In the most
forward part of the stem area, five floor timbers
are preserved. The most forward lying floor
timber has a relatively low deadrise that covers
four plank strakes in each side. Drift bolts in the
gripe indicate that a false keel, a “wear keel” or a
repair keel had been present on the ship. Which of
the three elements it was will never be known for
certain, but it is most likely that it was a “wear
keel” or a repair keel. It is possible that numerous
beachings of the vessel had worn down the keel in
such a degree that a repair was necessary. The
repair could have been total or partial (Ravn 2009,
10).
Of the stern, only 95.3cm and five contact faces
are preserved. The sternpost was tapped to the
keel, which is also a known feature from the
Bredfjed wreck. The stern and the keel were also
attached to each other with a knee. The knee was
attached to the keel with iron nails and trenails.
From the knee, an angle of 117 degrees could be
estimated between the keel and the stern post
(Ravn 2009, 111). The sternpost contains holes,
which indicates a tail rudder.
From the stem area the gripe and the cut-water
are preserved. The cut-water was attached to the
gripe with bolts. A cut-water increases the width
of the stem and thereby gives the vessel better
stability in the water.
Eleven floor timbers are preserved from the
wreck, of which only five are preserved in situ.
Four floor timbers indicate the presence of a
keelson, which measure 14cm sided and 8-10cm
moulded. The floor timbers have joggles to
accommodate for four plank strakes on both sides
towards the stern. The planks were attached to
the frames with trenails with a diameter of 2.53cm. In average the distance between each frame
measured 69cm from middle to middle. Because
the keelson was not preserved, the position of the
mast(s) could only be estimated. However, based
on the placement of the main mast it has been
estimated that the vessel had two masts (Ravn
2009, 19). Amidships the floor timbers covered six
strakes and three strakes in the ends.
The planks of the wreck are all radially split and in
average they measure 24cm in width and 2.5cm in
thickness. They were held together by iron nails
20
with a head diameter of 2.5cm, all with clear
indications of roves.
Repairs are present on many of the planks and
consist of wooden patches that were sitting on the
outboard face of the vessel. In other places there
was evidence that entire strakes had been
replaced.
A preliminary reconstruction was made of the
Amager beach vessel. From this reconstruction, it
has been interpreted that the vessel was
approximately 11.5m long, 3.5m wide, 1.8m high.
The stem has been interpreted as being 2.5m
high. The remains of the keelson witness of a
vessel with at least one sail. The keelson covered
frame 4 to 7, where frame 6 is interpreted as the
master frame. Depending on the mast placement
at either frame six or seven, the vessel could have
had one or two sails (Ravn 2009, 19).
The Bredfjed wreck
The Bredfjed wreck was found during dredging for
a new established summer house area in Rødby
Fjord in the city Bredfjed. The preservation of the
wreck was good when it was first discovered, but
it had been damaged earlier in time, where a
trench was dug right through the wreck.
The hull of the vessel was measured and
disassembled in order to document and analyze
the ship thoroughly. It was found in an area where
ferry traffic to Northern Germany was lively and it
was built specifically to resist the difficult sailing
conditions on the southern coast of LollandFalster.
A reconstruction with two masts that both carried
a single square sail was made of the vessel (Bill
1999, 178). The sea trials demonstrated great
sailing performance, as a so-called skude. From
the reconstruction, the wreck turned out to have
been a 12-13m long clinker-built vessel. It was
built from sawn planks and dendrochronological
dated to 1600 AD (Bill 1999, 177). The keel was
23cm high and 21cm wide and was preserved in
its full length of 901cm. The keel had a massive Ushape section throughout its entire length and the
underside showed signs of wear. Along the
longitudinal length of the keel, rabbets were
found on both sides for the garboard strake. They
were uniform in angle and became steep close to
the stern.
The planking of the vessel is made entirely from
sawn oak boards. Their width varies from 1833cm. They have beveled edges in order to
provide the right angle to the following strake as
well as to form a place for the luting material that
is made from cattle hair and wool.
The original Bredfjed ship had sixteen frames,
which are all preserved. Each frame consists of a
floor timber in the bottom, made from a regular
piece of oak. The dimensions of the floor timbers
vary from 15-20cm sided and the moulded sides
increase gradually towards the keel. Most of the
floor timbers spanned over eight strakes in both
sides. In the aft, they were noticeably shorter,
which may have been due to the narrow crosssection of the hull in this area. The floor timbers
are all joggled and fastened to the strakes with
one trenail, 3cm in diameter. The trenails are
made from juniper and were inserted from the
outside. The upper part of the frames is
constructed with futtocks and had been joined to
the floor timbers with long, flat scarfs. Apart from
one small fragment, remains of futtocks were only
preserved from the port side, and all of them had
lost their upper ends.
The keelson was not preserved, but the presence
of it was clear with a series of notches, cut in the
lower part of the floor timbers. Another feature
that was missing was the lack of longitudinal
21
Danish Clinker vessels from ca.
1600 compared to FPL 77
Dendrodating
Length x
Form and
breadth x height
size
Frames s/m
Amager
Bredfjed
1560-1570
1600
11.5m x 3.5m x
18m
12-13m long
8-10cm / 14cm
15-20cm sided
Planks
24cm wide
2.5cm thick
18-33cm wide
Land
Trenail head
Distance
between frames
Iron nail head
4-5cm
2.5-3cm
69cm
3cm
-
2.4cm
-
1.8cm
Master frame
-
waterproofing
yes
Clinker planks
Clinker planks
frames
Trenails
Shape
Size
Radially split
Oak
Oak
Oak
T-shape
-
Cattle hair and
wool
sawn
Oak
Oak
Juniper
U-shape
9.01m long
23cm high
21cm wide
Flat, long scarfs
Possible sub
master frame ?
Animal hair
Concept
Conversion
Materials
Keel
Connection
Simple scarf
The Grønsundwreck
After 1530
The Knuds Grundwreck
1537
17m long
5m wide
The Nationalbankwreck
After 1580
FPL 77
13m long
4.5m wide
1.6m high
8-10m long
1590
9.5cm / 8-21cm
87-152cm long
21-28cm wide
2.5cm thick
Down to 22cm
Radially split
63.5cm in average
sawn
7.75m long
18cm high
Ca. 60cm in
average
20-25cm wide
2-3cm thick
Up to 368cm long
5-8cm
3.1-3.4cm
Ca 30cm
Radially split
Oak
Oak
Oak
-
Simple scarfs
Table 1:
Information is taken from Ravn (2009)
22
reinforcement, in the shape of stringer. None
were preserved and there were no indications of
the stringers either. Only one indication of a
longitudinal reinforcement was indicated with five
spike holes on the inward surface of the futtocks
at the ninth strake.
The hull shape had four major characteristics: a
sharp keel, a fairly flat bottom with a rounded, but
clearly distinguishable chine, a full bow and a
slender stern. The sharp keel comprised of the
keel itself and the garboard strake.
The Bredfjed ship shows features from the
transition in the ship building methods that took
place around the beginning of the 17th century in
smaller vessels. It has a number of features that
are only known from large shipyard- built ships of
its time. The stem is shaped in the same way as
on lager vessels and it has a hole for a robe that
was used to drag the ship over sand-banks or up
on a flat coast. The planks of the ship were sawn
and shaped symmetrically, which is atypical to the
medieval building methods. From the recovery of
the wreck, it also became evident that the shape
of the garboard strakes on one side of the wreck is
an exact mirroring of those on the other side. The
planks must thus have been copied from each
other in order to rationalize the construction
process. The stem was tapped into the keel and
the hull form measured 13.21m in length and
4.67m in width (Bill 1999, 178).
2.3.5 Comparison of Danish wrecks
The description of the Amager beach wreck and
the Bredfjed wreck gives two ideas on how a 16th
century vessel from Denmark could have looked. If
the information on these two wrecks is compared
to the information we have from FPL 77 it would
be possible to get a general idea on how FPL 77
could have looked like or not looked like at all. It
could possibly also help to clarify if FPL 77 was
Danish or not. Beneath, a comparison between
FPL 77, the Amager beach wreck and the Bredfjed
wreck will be described.
The three wrecks had a large number of
similarities, but they also reflect different ways of
constructing a late 16th / early 17th century vessel.
The biggest similarity between two wrecks was
found between FPL 77 and the Amager beach
wreck. Timber group 1 from FPL 77 (four clinker
planks and two frames) matched best with a range
of chronologies that originated from the region
around Øresund, i.e. Skåne or Zealand. This group
of timbers achieved the highest correlation with
the timbers found in the Amager beach wreck.
Could this indicate that the two wrecks were built
in the same area in Øresund? Besides the
dendrochronological
similarities
and
the
correlation between the timbers of FPL 77 and the
Amager beach wreck, the size of the different
components of all three vessels are very similar.
From
table
1,
and
corresponding
dendrochronological evidence, it becomes clear
that the biggest comparison can be made
between the Amager beach wreck and the FPL 77.
The size of FPL 77 and the Amager beach wreck
range between 8-11m in length whereas the
Bredfjed wreck is slightly bigger with its 12-13m.
All three vessels are medium sized clinker vessels
made from oak and waterproofed with animal
hair. The sided side of the frames of the Amager
beach wreck and FPL 77 range from 8-10cm,
whereas the Bredfjed wreck outstands with 1520cm. The moulded side of the frames from the
Bredfjed wreck has not been declared. The size
between the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77,
however, corresponds approximately. The size of
the planks all range within the same size, but
again, slightly bigger in the Bredfjed wreck. The
23
size of the lands and the trenails are similar for all
three vessels.
The biggest difference between the Amager beach
wreck and FPL 77 is found in the spacing of the
frames. The spacing of the frames in the Amager
beach wreck was the double of that in the FPL 77.
The Amager beach wreck must thus have been in
need of a closer frame spacing as opposed the FPL
77. What the reason is for this, can only be
speculated at this point of time.
Another distinctive and remarkable feature that
separates the Bredfjed wreck from the two other
wrecks is the conversion of the clinker planks. The
planks of the Bredfjed wreck are sawn, whereas
those of the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77 are
radially split. The conversion of planks with saw
had many advantages: the quality of the wood did
not have to be as high as when splitting the
timbers and the waste of material was minimum
(Bill 2000, 10). The disadvantages of sawn planks
were that the planks lost strength and that poor
quality wood was often used, which meant that
the timbers split. This was exactly was happened
in the case in the Bredfjed wreck.
Danish vessels. From 1635-1648 all vessels going
in to Rostock were documented in “Warnemünder
Lizentsbücher”. Within 13 years, 16,118 vessels
were registered as sailing in and out of Rostock,
out of these; 12,721 came from Denmark, mostly
cities such as Nykøbing, Gedser, Stubbekøbing,
Loland, Nakskov, Nysted, Skelskør, Ærø, Helsingør
and Femern and Slesvig (Mortensøn 1995, 146147). Ship types that were often mentioned were
færge (ferry) skib (ship), “skude” and båd (boat).
Could the FPL 77 be one of these Danish vessels
that were involved in the lively trade with the
Hanseatic, and could it be that during one of its
journeys underwent a hull conversion? We will
never find out if this is the true story of FPL 77,
but it is seems like a possible one.
The Bredfjed wreck thus has much dissimilarity to
the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77 and is finally
separated with the sawn clinker planks. FPL 77
and the Amager beach wreck, on the other hand,
bear a huge number of similarities in size,
construction and material. It cannot be concluded
for certain, but based on the dendrochronological
and technical similarities between the Amager
beach wreck and FPL 77 it is tempting to assume
that FPL 77 was originally Danish built.
From written sources we know that the Danish
vessels from the renaissance were active in the
western part of the Baltic Sea. Old hanseatic cities,
such as Stettin, Greifswald, Rostock, Stralsund,
Wismar and Lübeck were especially well visited by
24
3. Comparable sites
3.1 Identifying similar wrecks
The fundamental question on how converted
clinker vessels were built in the 16th-17th century
can only be answered through an analysis and
comparison of similar wreck remains. Although a
variety of other sources exist on shipbuilding and
construction techniques from the 16th-17th
century, none could be found that mention clinker
conversion, and none of them could have
provided as much specific information on
construction techniques as the archaeological
remains. Since no written sources known to the
author are available on clinker conversion, the
archaeological evidence becomes critical in
understanding how and why converted clinker
vessels were constructed. The variety of
documented converted clinker vessels from the
16th-17th century that has been published to date,
cover a time period from approximately 1508 to
1658. The find area is stretching from the
northwest coast of the Baltic Sea all the way up to
Estonia.
A comparable study of converted clinker vessels
will help to illustrate similarities and difference in
the construction techniques that were used in the
converted clinker vessels. In addition, a
comparison will provide information about the
major trends in 16th and 17th century and it will
help illustrating the types of clinker vessels that
were converted to carvel vessels; were they big or
small vessels, merchant vessels or warships, local
vessels or global crafts? It should be noted,
though, that the archaeological material has
certain limitations. Each ship wreck is only an
isolated example and may therefore not be
typical. With few examples available, it is difficult
to make decisive and general statements about
the nature of converted clinker vessels. The
incomplete nature of the wrecks and the lack of
awareness of their importance also contribute to
forming only a partial dataset. Material from the
rigging and the upper parts of the vessels have not
survived on any of the vessels, which leaves the
archaeologists with only small fragments of the
vessels. Even with these limitations, the collection
of the data as a whole offers a ground for analysis.
Five wrecks of similar construction to FPL 77 have
been found along the Baltic coast from the 16th17th century. These wrecks are: The Debki wreck,
the Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck, the
Mönchgut wreck/ FPL 67 and the B&W 6 wreck. In
Figure 3-1: Converted clinker vessels from 1550-1850.
25
addition, three other converted clinker vessels
found outside the Baltic or from different
centuries will be reviewed. These are: The
Hiddensee 12 wreck from the Baltic (with a
controversial dating), the Nors Å wreck from Nors
River in Denmark dated to the 19th century and
the Strømsø Drammenselva wreck from Norway,
dated to the 17th-18th century. These wrecks all fall
out of the category either because of the dating or
because of the find site. However, all wrecks were
converted clinker vessels which had been changed
into carvel ships for various reasons. These nine
vessels are the only published vessels of this type,
which are known to the author.
3.2 Converted clinker vessels
In the following, a review of all the known
converted clinker vessels from the 16th-17th
century will be given. The data will later be used in
an attempt to find possible similar construction
features, distribution patterns, investigate if the
converted clinker vessels were of a special type
and to find out why they were built this way.
Converted clinker vessels that fall out of the group
will also be reviewed to help with the
interpretation on why they were built. Even
though they were not from the same period
and/or place, they will offer a better basis for the
interpretation of the 16th century converted
clinker vessels. The wrecks will be presented
sequentially with the oldest wrecks first regardless
of the origin.
3.2.1 The Maasilinn wreck
The Maasilinn wreck was discovered in the
summer of 1985 off the West Estonian
archipelago. The wreck was situated on the
bottom of the strait of Väile-Väin, in the outer
roads of the medieval castle Maasilinn, at 3m of
depth. The Castle was situated on the shores of a
strait that separates the islands Saaremaa and
Muhu. The strait served as a busy shipping route
during the medieval period, and the ancient fort
of Muhu was an important naval harbor in the 16th
century.
C14 and dendrochronological analysis date the
Maasilinn wreck to around 1550 and confirm that
the ship was built in Estonia (Mäss 1994, 189).
Besides the date of the wreck, the Maasilinn
wreck had some rather interesting features similar
to those of FPL 77. The ship was originally built in
the clinker construction technique and was later
covered with a thick and strong outer carvel layer.
However, no filler pieces were applied to the
clinker steps in order to level them out for the
carvel layer. No beveling of the steps was done
either.
A noteworthy feature of the vessel is the way the
planking was not fastened to the frames. Normally
the trenails pass through the planks on its centre
line. In the Maasilinn wreck, however, the
planking was secured to the frames by trenails
passing through the overlapping edges of the
planks at the step of the frame. This fastening
system seems to have been unknown in Western
Europe but rather typical in the Eastern Baltic
(Mäss 1994, 192) and is also seen in the FPL 77
wreck.
Mäss has not published any dimensions of timbers
from the Maasilinn wreck in this publications but
from his 1:20 drawing of the cross section of the
keel and the double planking the following
dimensions could be estimated: clinker planks:
2.5cm in thickness, 15cm in width; frames: 19cm
moulded; carvel planks: 4.1cm in thickness,
19.1cm in width.6
6
Measured from 1:20 drawing in Mäss 1994.
26
From the cross section of the stem and keel it was
evident that the stem and keel rabbets were
exceptionally wide and deep for the clinker layer
alone. The depth of the rabbet, however,
corresponded with the thickness of the double
planking. (Mäss 1994, 192-193)
Figure 3-2: The bottom of the Maasilinn wreck. Note
the slacked lime and that the floor timbers, which are
not in contact with the keel. After Mäss 1994.
Another significant feature of the Maasilinn wreck
is that the keel had no contact with the frames
over the vessel’s entire length. This means that a
deep water course was formed in the bottom of
the vessel, which was perfect for cargo such as
grain, salt and slaked lime. Slaked lime was in fact
found in the hull of the vessel (Mäss 1994, 190).
Preliminary
reconstructions
revealed
the
Maasilinn wreck as being a single-masted seagoing vessel built for trading in the Baltic. The
estimated dimensions of the wreck were: 16m in
length, 5.5m in width and with a depth amidships
of 3m (Mäss 1991, 317).
the bottom. The date of the vessel was difficult to
determine exactly, as the dendrochronological
samples did not succeed in determining the age of
the wreck. The highest similarity to the chronology
came from Hamburg, 1508-1653 (Ossowski 2006,
262).
The wreck fragment measured 9.2m in length and
3.5m in width. The inner layer of planking
consisted of clinker strakes with a thickness of 33.5cm and a max width of 36cm. The inner layer
was fitted and fastened using the shell-first
method. In the seams of the clinker layer, caulking
material made out of animal hair was inserted.
The land of the clinker planks measured 4cm in
width and the plank scarfs measured 13cm in
length. The planks were fastened with nails and
the strakes were fastened with iron rivets and
rectangular roves, spaced 14-15cm apart. After
the planks were fastened, some or all of the
frames must have been fastened to the planks
with nails as well (Ossowski 2006, 261).
On top of the clinker planks, a leveling layer was
fitted to smoothen out the clinker steps. Then a
pine carvel layer was fastened with oak trenails.
The carvel layer was caulked with moss in
between the seams. The carvel planks measured
6cm in thickness and 17-22cm in width.
3.2.2 The Debki wreck
Following a big storm in 2002 a large fragment of
a vessel was washed ashore near the village of
Debki in Estonia. It was quickly realized that the
fragment was from the bow-end of a double
planked vessels and that the piece derived from
Figure 3-3: Double layer of the Debki wreck. After
Ossowski 2006.
27
One of the characteristic features of the Debki
wreck was the frame elements. They were of
great variability in scantling and length and they
were closely spaced to one another. From
evidence of wear, it was clear that some of the
frames were of secondary use. The carvel strakes
were fastened to the frames by trenails 34mm in
diameter, and by metal bolts. The ceiling planks
were nailed directly to the floor timbers. They
measured 4.5cm in thickness and 16cm in width.
After this process, all elements were joined
together with wooden trenails going through all
phases (Ossowski 2006, 261).
As the tree-ring curve for the Debki wreck did not
match any curves from other Polish wrecks, it has
been assumed that the vessel was built from raw
materials from other areas, possibly the Northern
Baltic. In one case, however, the test did show
that the clinker planks and the carvel planks were
of same age (Ossowski 2006, 262).
3.2.3 The W-36 wreck
The W-36 wreck was discovered in 2001 by divers
approximately 250m from the shore in GdyniaOrlowo, Poland. The wreck was situated at a
depth of 2.7m and appeared under the water as a
mound of bricks, which was the vessel’s main
cargo. After the bricks had been removed, the hull
structure showed that the wreck was a doubleplanked vessel, originally built with clinker planks.
According to the dendrochronological results the
construction of the vessel took place after 1596.
The 3cm thick clinker planks were made of oak
and measured 3.5-3.7m in length and 32-35cm in
width. The lands were 4-5cm wide and had coves
for caulking material on the inner surface. The
scarfs were connected with 5 nails, 30cm long and
driven in a vertical line. The ship was built in the
shell-first method and therefore, the frames were
fastened to the planks by means of oak trenail,
2.7cm in diameter.
A 5.3m long fragment of the keel was recovered
from the wreck. It was T-shaped, 18cm high and
with a max width of 21cm. The after-end was
formed by a 28cm long, beveled, flat scarf for the
sternpost (Ossowski 2006, 260).
Figure 3-4: Preserved parts of the W-36. After
Ossowski 2006.
After an unknown period, pine filling pieces,
triangular in cross section, were inserted and
fastened with small metal nails. This was done in
order to smooth out the steps from the clinker
layer. A sawn pine carvel layer was then nailed to
the hull. The carvel planks were 3cm thick, 2331cm wide and fastened at the edges by nails
driven in, every 35cm. The planks were also
fastened to the floor timbers with oak trenails
that were dotted on the outside and wedges on
the inside (Ossowski 2006, 260).
Based on the structural elements of the vessel,
the size of the vessel has been estimated to have
been 15-18m long. It is thus likely that W-36 was
the remains of a small vessel used in coastal or
local waters in the Bay of Gdansk (Ossowski 2006,
260). The dendrochronological report supports
this assumption, as the used timbers have been
cut in the area of Vistula Bay. This area contained
numerous brickyards from the beginning of the
16th century (Ossowski 2006, 260).
28
3.2.4 The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck
A converted clinker vessel was found in Strømsø in
Norway in 2007 during the construction of a pipe
ditch. An archaeological survey quickly made it
clear that the wreck was over 100 years old and
thereby protected by law. All the timbers that
were recovered were found altered from what
seemed to be a very solid vessel. Overall, eight
floor timbers, five futtocks and parts of nine plank
strakes were found. The vessel had originally been
built with a clinker hull, but later it was reinforced
with an outer carvel layer (in Norwegian called
“kravellering”) (Nymoen 2007, 5).
introduced in the Norwegian ship building
tradition before the second half of the 18th
century. The other futtocks did not have any other
fastenings besides treenails. The rest of the
building technique in the vessel, with the heavily
constructed clinker planking, would date the
wreck to the 17th century.
The construction features, the double planking
and the reinforcement with the cobber bolt bear
witness of a vessel that was used for a long
period. It is most likely that the vessel is no older
than the 18th century (Nymoen 2007, 8). Due to
the lack of funding, the dendrochronological
samples were unfortunately not analyzed.
3.2.5 The B&W 6 wreck
Figure 3-5: Recovery of the Strømsø Drammenselva
wreck. After Nymoen 2007.
The carvel layer was fastened to the hull by means
of trenails, 4.5-5cm in diameter. A nail hole found
on the inside face of a futtock indicated that the
vessel had ceiling planks. The floor timbers and
the futtocks were heavily built and most likely
made from pine. In average, the width of the
futtocks measured 23cm and the width of the
strakes ranged from 24-29cm.
A cobber bolt, 4.5cm in diameter was found in one
of the floor timbers. The bolt fastened the floor
timber to the keel and could have been inserted
as a repair many years after the vessel was
originally built. Cobber bolts of this type were not
The B&W 6 wreck was found among seven other
vessels discovered in Grønnegaard Harbor in
Christianhavn (Copenhagen, Denmark). The wreck
was heavily damaged and only a few timbers were
preserved, none of which were complete. The
surviving timbers consisted of a part of a stem, a
portion of the keel, two damaged frames and a
few fragmented oak planks (Lemée 2006, 268).
The keel was an oak timber, T-shaped in profile,
2.7m long, 36cm sided and 15cm moulded. One
end had a scarf preserved, whereas the other end
was broken. The heel had a rebate for the
garboard strakes preserved on each side, 7cm
wide, 3.2cm high at the outer edge and 4.5cm
thick in the bottom of the rabbet.
The stem had a trapezoidal cross-section and was
heavily damaged. The top of the stem was broken
off but the lower end had a preserved diagonal
vertical scarf. As with the keel, the starboard side
of the stem had traces after two different rabbets,
2.5cm and 3.0cm deep. The inner rabbet line had
steps to accommodate for six clinker planks that
29
were fastened with iron nails. The outer line also
had steps, however, not as marked as those on
the inner rabbet. The two different rabbets
indicate that the B&W 6 wreck was a double
planked vessel that was originally built with a
clinker hull and then later covered with a new
outer carvel layer. Unfortunately, it was not
possible to take dendrochronological samples
from the poorly preserved wreck, but from the
stratigraphical layers of the find context, it has
been assumed that the date of the vessel range
between the 17th and the 18th century (Lemée
2006, 270).
3.2.6 Wreck Mönchgut, Ostsee VI, FPL
67
FPL 67, or the Wreck Mönchgut 67, was found in
connection with the relocation of a pipeline that
was to run through the bay of Greifswald to
Lubmin. The construction of the pipeline was
planned to be running through a Swedish ship
barrier from 1715, which consisted of 16 ships.
The barrier is one of the most important
archaeological monuments in the Baltic region
and fortunately, only few ships were affected by
the pipeline project. One of the few affected
wrecks was wreck 67 (Heinze 2010, 3). In the
autumn/winter 2008, a preliminary investigation
was made on the site, which resulted in a salvage
and full documentation of the FPL 67.
A total of 11 frames, 30 planks and a number of
small timbers were recovered from the wreck.
Most of the planks and frames were in a good
state of preservation. The vessel was built entirely
of oak and was originally built as a clinker vessel
(Heinze 2010, 14).
Figure 3-6: The stem timber of B&W 6 showing two
rabbets: An inner line that is stepped to accommodate
for clinker strakes and an outer and straighter line for
the outer carvel layer. After Lemée 2006.
The clinker planks were aligned with wooden
trenails with a head diameter of 3-3.5cm. The
dimensions of the clinker planks varied and only
a few planks were preserved to their full length.
The longest fully preserved plank measured
5.35m in length. The width of the planks varied
from 15-36cm and the thickness ranged from
1cm to 3.5cm. The many square holes and the
concretions in the wood indicate that iron nails
were used to fasten the other carvel planks as
well. Some of the trenails were wedged and
some of the nail holes were plugged with
wooden plugs (Heinze 2010, 13).
30
Caulking and tar were used between the clinker
planks to waterproof the vessel. The caulking was
made from animal hair and was well preserved on
the wreck.
After an unknown period, filler pieces were
applied to the clinker
hull and an outer
carvel
layer
was
attached
to
the
construction (Heinze
2010, 14). From the
carvel layer, nine
planks
were
recovered.
Their
width varied from 2242cm
and
the
thickness ranged from
3.5-5cm. The outer
planking of the hull
was
thus
much
Figure 3-7: Wreck part from
stronger
than
the
the Mönchgut 67 wreck.
inner clinker layer
After Heinze 2010.
(Heinze 2010, 14).
provenience was not decided exactly but it could
be determined, that the wood did not originate
from the Irish, Scandinavian or Polish region. It is
more likely that the timbers originated from the
Baltic
coast
of
Schleswig-Holstein
and
Mecklenburg-Western Pomeranian area (Heinze
2010, 21).
3.2.7 The Hiddensee 12 wreck
The Hiddensee 12 wreck was recovered in 1997
off the Hiddensee Island (Ostsee VI, Hiddensee,
find Site 12) in Mecklenburg / Western
Pomerania. What was preserved was a 15.9m long
and 3.6m wide clinker built wreck-piece from the
portside of a vessel (Förster 2009, 292). The wreck
piece derived from the ship’s center to the
beginning of the stern, and from the second plank
strake near the keel to the fifteenth strake near
the bilge. Unlike the FPL 77 wreck, this vessel was
built entirely out of light brown pine wood. No
parts of the stem or stern were found.
It is difficult to get the original curvature of the
vessel as the heavy ballast stones, which were
found in the wreck, had distorted the planks.
Judging by the inboard planking of the hull, it has
been presumed that the wreck was a part of the
port side of a vessel. The floor timbers indicate
that the wreck was the bottom-part of a flatbottomed vessel (Heinze 2010, 17).
In accordance with the clinker conversion
technique, the hull fragment comprised of 3 layers
of planking. The vessel was originally built in the
clinker construction technique where the seams
between the planks were caulked with animal hair
soaked in pitch. Later, the clinker layer was
leveled by means of battens with triangular cross
sections and on top of this layer a new flushed
carvel layer, was attached (Förster 2009, 292).
These seams between the carvel strakes were
caulked with tree bast. The dendrochronological
analysis revealed that the ship was built in 1378
and underwent a thorough repair in 1393 where
the filler pieces and the carvel layer were attached
(Förster 2009, 292).
As no sapwood was preserved on any of the
timber the dendrochronological samples could
only date the wreck to some point after 1654. The
Even though the keel and the stern were not
preserved, an attempt to reconstruct the vessel
was made. This reconstruction of the Hiddensee
The frames, of which a total number of 11 units
were present, had sided sides ranging from 10.629.2cm and moulded side ranging from 10.422.2cm.
31
12 wreck worked as a basis for the theoretical
calculations. According to these calculations, the
vessel’s length at the waterline was approximately
22m and the full length measured 28m. In the
area of the amidships section, the overall width
amounted to 7m, resulting in a length-width ratio
of 3.14:1. A vessel of this size would, according to
Förster, have possessed some 26 plank strakes on
each side and 65 ribs (Förster 2009, 293). The ribs
and the surviving plank strakes indicate that the
keel was square with a cross-section measuring
45cm by 50cm. The height of the ship, in the area
of the midsection, has been calculated to ca. 3.3m
and the draught to approximately 1.8-2.5m. Based
on the outlines of the ribs, it has been assumed
that the bottom of the ship was wide and flat with
a steep bilge forming the transition to the upper
part of the ship (Förster 2009, 154-155).
Figure 3-8: The Hiddensee 12 wreck as it was found in
situ. After Förster 2009.
The 1:10 reconstruction of the Hiddensee 12
wreck gave an indication of the building
technology and sequence of the vessel. The
reconstruction showed that the garboard strakes
were fastened with iron nails to the keel. The
angle from the keel to the garboard strake had
been fairly steep. The frames furthest towards the
stem and stern had been made out of massive
natural V-formed logs in order to stabilize the
construction. The presence and nature of a
keelson indicate that the mast was situated in the
first third towards the stem. The height of the
mast had been between 25m-28m long (Förster
2009, 154).
The clinker planks of the wreck measured
between 3.3-8m in length, where 5.63m was the
average. The width of the planks ranged from
25cm to 35cm with an average of 30.91cm. The
thickness of the planks was between 8cm closest
to the keel and 4.5cm closest to the wale. The
overlap of the clinker planks, the land, ranged
from 5-7cm. The planks were aligned with iron
nails at a distance of 15- 20cm apart. The nails had
rectangular heads measuring 1.5cm x 2cm. The
shafts of the iron nails were rectangular in cross
section and measured 30 x 21 x 2.5cm (Förster
2009, 144-145).
After a period of approximately 16 years, the
vessel underwent a large-scale refurbishment,
where the outer carvel layer was attached to the
original clinker layer. The clinker steps were
smoothed out by filler pieces. This renovation of
the vessel was originally dated to around 1394
(Förster 2009, 293). Overall, 26 filler pieces were
preserved in the wreck section and had an
average length of 3.8m. The filler pieces were
attached with a distance of 50-70cm apart and
nailed to the hull with a single iron nail. When the
filler pieces were attached and the clinker steps
smoothened, the carvel planks were inserted. 25
carvel planks were preserved in the Hiddensee 12
wreck whereof 13 planks were complete. The
length of the planks differed from 3.54-7m, with
an average length of 5.54m. The planks were
between 20cm-25cm wide, with an average width
of 22.6cm. The thickness of the planks measured
approximately 5cm (Förster 2009, 148-150).
During the excavation of the Hiddensee 12 wreck,
two ceiling planks were discovered in the wreck.
They measured 4.4m in length, 25cm in width and
5cm in thickness. Impressions in the frames
indicated that the ceiling planks had been
attached with iron nails (Förster 2009, 145-146).
Throughout the recovery of the wreck, 28 frame
parts were discovered. All the preserved frames
were floor timbers. From the tool marks on the
32
frames it was evident that the timbers used for
the frames were converted with axe or adze.
Amidships, the frames were spaced 70cm apart
and down to 35cm by the ends; (Förster 2009,
146). The preserved frames measured between
21-30cm on the sided side and approximately 1726cm on the moulded side. The frames were
fastened to the clinker planks with trenails
measuring 3-3.2cm in diameter.
dated with the existing chronologies. According to
the current researcher, Mike Belasus, the
technical features of the construction and the
typological dating of the finds suggest an early
modern context of the vessel, possibly the 18th or
19th century.7
3.2.8 The Nors Å wreck
The date of the Nors Å wreck is falls somewhere
between the 17th century and the 19th century
(Gøthche 1985, 304). If it was built in the 17th
century it would be very similar in date to the FPL
77, whereas if it is dated to the 19th century there
is a 200 years period between the two wrecks.
Even if the vessel is from a later period it can still
throw light upon the conversions of clinker
vessels.
Figure 3-9: Double layer of the Hiddensee 12 wreck.
Grundvad 2010.
One visible repair was present in the wreck which
was a partial replacement of a floor timber
(Förster 2009, 148). This shows that the clinker
vessel was in use throughout a longer period and
was somewhat worn.
The original dendrochronological analysis showed
that the wood from the ship was cut during the
winter of 1378, around the western coast of the
Baltic Sea. A more accurate provenience cannot
be given. However, according to Förster, it is likely
that the wood originates from the area around
Mecklenburg, as this area is rich on pine (Förster
2009, 143-149).
The original date of the Hiddensee 12 wreck was
dated to the 14th century in 2000 (Förster 2009).
New dendrochronological analysis in 2010,
however, showed that the timbers could not be
Over the years, several wrecks have turned up
along the north and west coast of Jutland in
Denmark. Some of these vessels are the so-called
sand vessels. The sand vessels were simple crafts,
built particularly for the trade between Denmark
and Norway that took place in the 18th-19th
century (Gøthche 1985, 299). They got their name
because of the way they landed directly on the
sandy shores when they were beached. They were
clinker-built vessels built on a keel and with soft
lines. The vessels did not contain iron nails, but
only trenails, which gave the vessels their
flexibility. The length of the vessels ranged from
ca. 12-15m and from ca. 3.5-4m in width. Most of
the vessels only carried one mast (Gøthche 1985,
302).
Only a small number of sand vessels have been
found to date and only one wreck is interesting,
regarding the converted clinker vessels. The
respective wreck is called the “Nors Å” wreck and
was found in 1984 near Klitmøller, Denmark. This
vessel was clinker-built with juniper treenails,
7
Pers. com. Belasus 23.8 2010.
33
both in the planks and in the frames. The oak
planking had butt-end joints and the frames were
made out of pine. The presence of the so-called
factory-made Norwegian spikes connected the
wreck to the beginning of the 20th century
(Gøthche 1985, 304). However, these spikes were
not a part of the original construction but derived
from newer carvel layer that was nailed directly
onto the outside of the clinker planking (Gøthche
1985, 304). No leveling wedges were present
between the layers.
Even though FPL 77 is not significant in the way
that it is not wholly unique, it is, together with FPL
67 and the Mönchgut 67, the best documented
converted clinker vessel from the 16th century.
Based on the brief synopsis given about the
converted clinker vessels here, next chapter will
be an analysis of different aspects of these
vessels.
In Scandinavia this specific way of construction is
described as “putting the ship into an envelope”
i.e., strengthening the hull by putting a layer of
carvel planking on top of the original clinker sides
(Gøthche 1985, 304).
3.3. Sub conclusion
At first sight, the FPL 77 seemed to be a unique
find with no comparable material. After some
investigation, it turned out that a small number of
somewhat similar wrecks have been discovered,
which were mainly centered to Baltic area.
Unfortunately, for many of the wrecks, only few
details could be recorded due to the bad
preservation e.g. the B&W 6, W-36 and Debki.
Other wrecks were not considered significant
enough to make thorough recording and were
therefore neglected after the report was written
e.g. Strømsø Drammenselva.
Figure 3-10: A two masted skude. Could any of the
clinker converted vessels have looked like this? After
Mortensøn 1995.
34
4 Discussion
This chapter aims to discuss some of the themes
that have emerged from the review of the
converted clinker vessels. As mentioned above,
only few converted clinker vessels have been
discovered around the world. Not many
publications have been made and only limited
interpretations of the specific ships building
method have been published.
Some discussions are based on different authors
opinions on the various subjects and others are
discussions and interpretations that the present
author would like to take up.
Based on the publications, the recorded material
from FPL 77, as well as the synopsis of the
comparable sites from chapter 3, this chapter
aims to highlight and discuss contradiction in the
interpretations of the converted clinker vessels.
The themes to be examined here are:
Hull repairs using double planking of the bottom
have been used in many hulls around the world,
but with bigger or smaller modifications to the
converted clinker vessels (Ossowski 2006, 263).
Double planking is known in general from,
amongst others, the Double Dutch solution
(Maarleveld 1994) and sheathing of hulls using a
thick carvel layer on top of an inner and thinner
carvel layer (Lemée 2006, 227). Double planked
vessels with an inner clinker hull and an outer
carvel layer is not that common, however, and the
earliest recoded vessel of this kind is the Maasilinn
wreck from ca. 1550. This following section will
review the place and origin of all known converted
clinker vessels to see if there are any periods and
places where these vessels were more exposed
than others.
1) Where and when do the converted clinker
vessels appear? Was there a certain period of time
and a certain area, where the converted clinker
vessels appeared, or was it an international
recognized construction method?
2) How were the vessels built? Was there a certain
technique and building method that was used for
the converted clinker vessels or did it differ from
vessel to vessel?
4.1 Where and when
3) What type of vessel were the converted clinker
vessels? Could all types of vessels, big as small and
regardless of the origin be converted, or was it
only a certain type of vessel?
4) And the last but not the least: Why were these
vessels converted from clinker to carvel? What
was the purpose of applying a new layer on top of
another, either as a part of the original design or
as a later addition to the hull?
Figure 4-1: Converted clinker vessels distributed by year.
Grundvad 2010.
35
Figure 4-2: Location of nine converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010 on the basis of a map prepared by Mysid , Wikimedia Common.
36
4.1.1 The 14th Century
For many years, it was believed that the
Hiddensee 12 wreck was a 14th century cog. This
belief
was
based
on
the
original
dendrochronological dating of the ship timbers.
However,
as
mentioned
earlier,
new
dendrochronological analysis made by Mike
Belasus in 2010 showed that the timbers could not
be dated with the existing chronologies. According
to Belasus the technical features of the
construction and the typological dating of the
finds suggests an early modern context for the
vessel, possibly the 18th or 19th century. When
this paper was started, the wreck was categorized
as the absolute youngest converted clinker vessel
according to the old dates. Now, with the new
investigations and interpretations of the wreck it
is more likely that the Hiddensee 12 wreck should
be categorize as one of the youngest converted
clinker vessels.
Figure 4-3: 44.45 % of the
converted clinker vessels are
from the 16th century.
Grundvad 2010.
No converted clinker vessels have been found
from the 15th century. In the Baltic area, the lack
of carvel constructed vessels is obvious as the
carvel technique was only introduced in the
second half of this century. No vessels, known to
the author, have been found outside the Baltic
area from this period either.
The 16th century, on the other hand, seems to
have been one of the main periods for clinker
conversion. Of the nine known vessels, four are
specifically dated to this period. The respective
wrecks are: Debki from Poland (1508- 1653),
Maasilinn from Estonia (1550), FPL 77 from
Germany (1590) and the W-36 from Poland
(1596). All wrecks were found in the Baltic area,
mainly on the North-eastern coast of Germany.
Only the Maasilinn wreck falls out of this group
with its find site on the Estonian west coast.
Figure 4-4: 33.33 % of the
converted clinker vessels are
Grundvad 2010.
The 17th century, in a continuously line from the
16th century, seems to have been the main period
for converting clinker vessels. Unfortunately, the
dates of the wrecks categorized under this century
are poor and sometimes with a deviation of up to
a century. Two of the wrecks could therefore also
be from the 18th century (B&W 6 and Strømsø
Drammenselva).
Wreck Mönchgut 67 is one of three converted
clinker vessels dated to the 17th century. The
wreck was found in the Baltic and was
dendrochronologically dated to some point after
1660.
The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck was found in
Norway and was dated to a period that falls
between the 17th and 18th century. The
dendrochronological analyses have not yet been
37
conducted and the construction features of the
wreck give a wide range of date possibilities. Some
construction features seem to lead the date to the
17th century whereas the big cobber bolt indicates
that the wreck could not be any older than the
18th century. Unfortunately, a precise date will not
be possible before the dendrochronological
samples will been analyzed. However, chances are
that the cobber bolt derives from a later period,
e.g., when the vessel was rebuilt, and therefore
the date of the wreck has here been categorized
under the 17th century.
The date of the B&W 6 wreck expands over
several years as well. No dendrochronological
samples were taken of the timbers due to the bad
condition of the wreck. The wreck has been dated
according to the stratigraphy in which it was
found. The wreck was found on a glot that had
been reclaimed during the building of an 18th
century extension of a wharf. Here, the wreck was
most probably used to stabilize the ground. The
remains of this wharf were dendro- dated to 1689
and 1743 which gave a terminus post quem of the
wreck to before the 18th century. Another
interpretation is that the wreck was abandoned
next to the wharf between 1639 and 1745, when
the plot was reclaimed (Lemée 2006, 270).
likely belonged to the 17th or 18th century, rather
than the 14th century. This new possible date
brings the wreck from being the oldest converted
clinker vessel to being one of the youngest and
possibly the only one from the 18th century. It
must, however be noted that this date is only
based on construction features and finds
connected to the wreck. The date has been only
been estimated to fall somewhere between the
17th and the 18th century.
As with the other late converted carvel vessels
(Strømsø Drammenselva and the B&W 6 wreck)
the Hiddensee 12 wreck is poorly dated and might
as well be from the 17th century instead of the 18th
century. We will not know the true answer to the
dates of these vessels before new dendro-samples
will be taken and analyzed.
Figure 4-6: Figure 4-5: 11.1
% (1) of the converted
clinker vessels is from the
19th century. Grundvad
2010.
Figure 4-5: 11.1 % (1) of the
converted clinker vessels is
Grundvad 2010.
With the new dendro-dates made in 2010
combined with the construction features, it
became clear that the Hiddensee 12 wreck more
Only one wreck derives from the 19th century and
that is the Nors Å wreck. This vessel has been
dated to the 17th to the 19th century, which is an
extensive and highly inaccurate margin for a date.
Based on historical sources, however, the wreck is
believed to have originated from a period after
1850.8 The wreck was found in a small river
stream, called Nors Å, which leads out to the
North Sea. This wreck is thus one of the few
8
Pers. Comm. Morten Gøthche 2.11.2009
38
converted clinker vessels found outside the Baltic
region.
Summary
From the review above, it seems that the
converted clinker vessels are clustered around
two periods: period 1 from ca. 1550-1650 and
period 2, from the end of the 18th century to the
end of the 19th century.
As mentioned above, the Hiddensee 12 wreck was
originally believed to be the youngest converted
clinker vessel but with the new investigations, the
starting period of this construction technique has
moved no less than two centuries, namely to the
16th century.
The age of the converted clinker vessels seems to
have begun at the end of the 16th century and had
its heyday within a 100 year period, from ca.
1550-1650, where 78% of the wrecks have been
dated to. It is interesting that the clinker
conversion took place in exactly this period in the
Baltic, where 55% of the wrecks from period 1
were found. The reason for this will be assessed
later.
however help clarifying whether or not the
construction of converted clinker vessels could
only be done in one way. All wrecks will therefore
be included here.
4.2.1 Design and construction
The design of any kind of vessel gives an indication
of the methods and the technology used at a
given point of time. It also gives a clue to how the
technology and methods evolved and changed in
ship building construction. The designs can be
grouped and compared in different ways and
regardless of date and origin. Here the
constructional analysis will be based on the size of
the vessels and size and design of the different
components of the wrecks.
Vessel size
Only the size of five wrecks has been estimated
due to the bad preservation of the wreck parts.
From the estimated sizes, which vary between
approximately 8-18m, it becomes evident that at
least the Maasilinn wreck, FPL 77, W-36 and the
Nors Å wreck can be grouped as small to
medium sized vessels. The Hiddense 12 wreck
stands out with an estimated length of 28m and
a width of 7m.
4.2 How
Overall, nine converted clinker vessels have been
found around the world. Seven out of these
vessels date to a period that falls between the
middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th
century. The two wrecks that fall out of this
category, the Nors Å wrecks and the Hiddensee 12
wreck (whether it is from the 14th or the 19th
century) are 200-300 years off the period dealt
with here. A comparison of the construction
technique of the group 2-wrecks to the group 1wrecks will not necessarily help to clarify how the
16th century converted vessels were built. It will
That the vessels mostly were smaller to medium
sized is no surprise as clinker hulls normally were
too fragile for larger ships. The much later and
much bigger clinker built vessel, the Hiddensee
12 wreck, was built in a very different manner to
the 16th and 17th century vessels and the clinker
strakes may have worked better on this very flat
and wide vessel.
The clinker planks
The length of the clinker planks have not been
taken into consideration in this review as most
39
Figure 4-7: Table showing the construction features of nine different converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010.
40
of them were fragmented, and thereby not
worth the comparison.
The thickness of the planks is given for six of the
wrecks and is in average 3.3cm. Without the
exceptionally thick planks of the Hiddensee 12
wreck (4.5-8cm) the average is 2.6cm. Leaving
out the Hiddensee 12 wreck, there seems to be a
standardized system in the 16th century for the
size of clinker planks that ranged from ca. 13.5cm.
In his publication on the Maasilinn wreck, Vello
Mäss (1994) refers to the clinker planks of the
wreck as particularly thin. He explains that the
outer carvel planks were necessary for the
stability of the hull because the clinker planks
were too tiny to keep the hull steady. Comparing
the clinker planks of the Maasilinn wreck to the
clinker planks of the other vessels it becomes
evident that the clinker planks of the Maasilinn
wreck not are particularly thin. The Maasilinn
planks are in some instances thicker than the
planks from FPL 77 and the Mönchgut 67 wreck.
Another aspect of the clinker planks is the
connection between two clinker planks. Three of
the wrecks that are dated to period 1 bear
simple vertical scarfs that vary from 13-30cm in
length. This way of connecting two planks is the
most used in clinker built hulls as scarfing makes
up a strong joint. The Hiddensee 12 wreck and
the Nors Å from period 2 both have butt joint.
Butt joints are also sometimes called carvel
joints (Steffy 2006, 268) as they were mainly
used on carvel vessels where the strength of the
frames, and not the planks, was important. Thus,
there seem to be a clear distinction between the
two periods given above. The clinker planks in
period 1 are connected with a simple vertical
scarf joint whereas in period 2 they are
connected with a butt joint. In fact, the butt joint
of the Hiddensee 12 is one of the construction
features that speak against the original dating to
the 14th century, one of the things that made
Mike Belasus apprehensive of this date.
Frames
The moulded and the sided dimensions of the
frames vary individually and between the
different wrecks. Between the wrecks, the
biggest moulded dimensions range between
15cm (in FPL 77) to 30cm (in the Hiddensee 12
wreck). The biggest variation in moulded and
sided dimensions is from the Mönchgut 67
wreck.
In her report, Heinze (2010) correctly points out
that the frames of the Mönchgut 67 vary
significantly in size and sometimes with
variations of up to 20cm sided. Equally, the
moulded dimensions of the frames from the
Hiddensee 12 wreck range from 21-30cm and
therefore also make up a significant size
difference. Why the variation in size is
considerably bigger in these wrecks can only be
speculated. It can, however, be deduced that the
16-17th century vessels cannot be grouped
together based on the size variation of the
frames. The explanation may be found
somewhere else such as in the tree trunks
available during the construction of the wrecks,
or it could be a matter of reuse.
Carvel planks
The size of the carvel planks varies in width from
19cm (in the Maasilinn wreck) to 48cm (in FPL
77). The thickness of the planks varies in general
from 3-6cm where the thinnest is from W-36
and the thickest from the Debki wreck. With this
vast variation, it seems like there were rules of
size for the carvel planks used for the
conversion. Regardless of the dating and
provenience there is no pattern to the size of
41
carvel planks. It must therefore be presumed
that the design of the carvel planks was decided
individually by the boat builder.
Keels and stems
The keel of any vessel reveals fine information
about the construction but unfortunately only
four keels from converted clinker vessels have
been recovered. Out of these four, only the
dimensions of two have been published. Both
the keels of W-36 and B&W 6 are described as Tshaped. The keels of the wrecks were too
damaged for further analysis but for B&W 6 the
preservation of the stem was one of the crucial
factors for the interpretation of the wreck.
The B&W 6 stem was the timber that revealed
the vessel as being a converted clinker vessel. On
the starboard side of the timber, two different
rabbets were found. The inner rabbet was
clearly marked to accommodate for four clinker
planks. The outer rabbet had steps too, though
not as marked as those belonging to the inner
rabbet.
4.2.2 Concept
The concept of the converted clinker vessel will
deal with constructional features that are
connected to the conversion. It will thus be a
review on how the conversion was done. This
includes repair of the clinker hull, the
smoothening of the clinker steps, the use of
ceiling planks and the conversion of carvel as well
as clinker planks.
Repair of the clinker hull
Repairs of the clinker hull have only been
described for two wrecks in the respective
reports. No repairs have been described for the
rest of the wrecks. This, however, does not
necessarily mean that they were not present.
Repairs were done for certain on the clinker phase
of FPL 77. Empty nail holes were closed with
wooden plugs and rivets were hammered into the
timbers to strengthen weak spots. A reused oak
plank was used as a filler piece in the hull. Surface
covering and waterproofing was found on the
timber.
Summary
Based on the timber design of the converted
clinker vessels, the constructional part of the
wrecks can be grouped into two. 1) The early
converted clinker vessels from the 16-17th century
and 2) The Nors Å wreck and the Hiddensee 12
wreck from the 18th-19th century. These groups
precisely match period group 1 and period group 2
that was found in the section above. For some
features, such as the size of the frames and the
carvel planks, however, the groups are mixed and
show no relation.
In the Hiddensee 12 wreck a floor timber had
been replaced. It has not been expressed to when
this floor timber is dated but this could be very
interesting for the understanding of the
conversion.
Even though Heinze (2010, 14) describes the
wooden plugs in the clinker hull of Mönchgut 67
as being filled into the holes right after the trenails
were inserted, they could also be explained as
repairs. Wooden plugs are seen numerous places
in FPL 77 where they were used as a replacement
for eroded iron nails. Replacing new iron nails with
wooden plugs shortly after they had been inserted
seems like unnecessary double work. Moreover,
clinker planks are primarily attached to each other
with iron nails, so taken them out would be a bad
42
initiative. Thus, plugged iron nail holes in clinker
planks are more likely to represent repairs.8
The smoothening process
The first step in the process of clinker converting
is to make a smooth base for the carvel layer. This
is easiest done with wooden pieces, triangular in
cross section, that are nailed on to the steps of the
clinker strakes. This process makes sure that a
smooth base is created for the carvel layer to be
nailed on to. Triangular filler pieces were found
between the clinker and the carvel layer of FPL 77,
W-36 and Hiddensee 12. Filler pieces were found
in the Debki wreck as well, but the shape of them
has not been described. Based on the quality of
the filler pieces from FPL 77 it seems like the
quality was not of great importance. Flimsy scrap
wood made out of pine is was what had been
used for the smoothening process in this wreck.
Not all clinker steps, however, have been leveled
with triangular filler pieces. The steps of
Mönchgut 67 were smoothened out in an
outstanding manner that is only seen in this
wreck. The even base for the carvel strakes was
made by physically trimming down the clinker
steps till a smooth surface was created.9
The clinker steps of two wrecks (the Maasilinn
wreck and the Nors Å wreck) were not beveled at
all. Here, the carvel layer was nailed directly on
top of the clinker layer. This way of converting
creates gabs between the two layers.
A number of different methods have thus been
used to prepare the clinker hull for the outer
carvel layer. Most used was the leveling of the
clinker steps by the use of filler pieces that were
placed between the steps. This seems more
8
Pers. Com. Jens Auer 23.8 2010
Draft of the Mönchgut 67 report. Sent to the author
by Jens Auer 25.2 2010
9
practical than beveling the steps with an axe as
done with the Mönchgut 67 wreck. Other wrecks
had the carvel layer attached on the top of the
clinker hull with no further preparation. It thus
seem like this intermediate stage could be done in
various ways or not done at all. Overall, leveling
out the clinker steps must have been an individual
decision and when done it was done in a very
rough manner, either with scrap wood filler pieces
or by roughly beveling the steps of the clinker
strakes. Thus, this part of the process was not of
great importance for the conversion of clinker
vessels.
Timber conversion
The conversion of timbers could have been
interesting and important for the understanding
of the converted clinker vessels. Unfortunately,
the conversion of the planks has only been
published for two wrecks. One of them is FPL 77,
the other one is W-36.
FPL 77 follows the general conversion technique
of clinker and carvel planks. Because the main
strength in vessels built in the clinker construction
technique lie within the planks, this type of vessel
needs stronger planks than vessels built in the
carvel construction technique. For that reason,
planks used for clinker planks were usually radially
split whereas planks for carvel planks were sawn.
When splitting the planks one makes sure that the
natural strength of the wood is kept. When sawing
the planks this strength is lost.
Not all vessels follow this general pattern of
timber conversion however. The Bredfjed wreck is
an example of this. This vessel, which was built in
the 17th century, had sawn clinker planks. Bill
(1999) describes the Bredfjed wreck as a vessel
that shows features from the transitional stage of
shipbuilding, which took place in the 17thcentury.
This was the period where the cleft planks of the
43
clinker building tradition slowly gave way to the
sawn timbers of the carvel building tradition
(Lemée 2006, 305). The Knuds Grund-wreck it
another 16th century clinker vessel with sawn
planks. As all the converted clinker vessels are
from this transitional stage or later, it can
therefore not be concluded whether or not all the
clinker and carvel planks follow the same pattern
as FPL 77. The conversion of the clinker planks in
the Bredfjed wreck and the Knuds Grund-wreck
testify to the complexity and diversity of the
clinker construction technique.
combination of both. It is not surprising that the
vessels were built of these wood species. Oak is a
strong heavy wood that is widespread all over the
world. Its hardness requires more effort to work
with, but it takes fastenings well and can be
shaped readily (Steffy 2006, 258). Pine is easy to
work and bend, and the durability, strength,
availability and resistance to rot, make pine ideal
for shipbuilding (Steffy 2006, 258). Most vessels
had clinker strakes made out of oak except from
the Debki wreck, which was made out of pine.
Where filler pieces were present, they were made
out of pine and oak as well.
Ceiling planks
For three of the converted clinker vessels, the
presence of ceiling planks could be proved. No
remains have been found in the rest of the wrecks
which, again, does not necessarily mean that they
were not there originally.
In FPL 77 two phases of ceiling planks was found.
The first phase is connected to the original clinker
phase. The presence of ceiling planks was
specified with trenails that were cut flush with the
frames during the rebuild. These flushed trenails
indicate that a layer of ceiling planks were present
in the original clinker vessel but that they were
removed and cut flush at some point, possibly
during the rebuild. The new layer of carvel
planking was nailed to the hull with trenails. The
same trenails that were used to secure the carvel
planks were found to protrude two or three
centimeters when the wreck was documented.
This indicates the presence and the thickness of a
new layer of ceiling planks that was inserted
during the rebuild.
4.2.3 Materials
The plank strakes of the converted clinker vessels
were all made out of either oak, or pine or a
The clinker planks were fastened to each other
with iron nails and in principal the frames were
fastened to the planks with trenails, either made
from pine or oak. The Nors Å wreck, however, had
juniper trenails.
Iron nails were also used to secure the carvel
planking to the clinker hull, but only as preliminary
fastenings. When everything was put in place,
new trenails were hammered through all layers of
the newly converted clinker vessel.
There seem to be no clear division as to when or
where oak or pine were used in the converted
clinker vessels. Oak and pine were used in
different combinations both for the clinker hull,
the outer carvel layer, the frames and the filler
pieces. The material used must have been
dependant on the accessible wood species in the
given area at the given time.
4.3 Vessel type: Form and function
4.3.1 Form
The estimated length of the vessels indicate that
most of the converted clinker vessels must have
been low tonnage vessels, categorized as small to
44
medium sized (Lemée 2006, 298). Only the
Hiddensee 12 wreck stands out with its 28m.
As only small fragments of each converted clinker
vessel have been recovered, it is difficult to say
much about the form of the vessels. However,
from the preserved keels of W-36 and B&W 6 it
becomes evident that at least these two wrecks
had T-shaped keels. This, on the other hand is not
the case for the Hiddensee 12 wreck with its wide
and almost barge-like flat bottom. The Hiddensee
12 wreck seems to stand out with this hull form
and the size of the vessel.
4.3.2 Function
In some of the wrecks (the Maasilinn and the W36) cargo was found. The cargo consisted
respectively of slaked lime stone found in the
Maasilinn wreck and bricks that were found in the
W-36 wreck. Vello Mäss (1994) explains the
Maasilinn wreck as having been built specifically
for the purpose of transporting goods in the
compartment made from the gap between the
floor timbers and the keel. In here, the cargo
would remain dry and contemporaneously work
as ballast. What was common for the cargo in
both wrecks was that it was very heavy cargo that
must have worked as ballast while being
transported. Numerous brickyards are known
from the beginning of the 16th century in Vistula
Bay, where the Maasilinn wreck is from. It is
therefore likely that the vessel was used for the
transportation of bricks to coastal locations in the
bay of Gdansk (Ossowski 2006, 260).
The Cargo found in the Maasilinn wreck and W-36
implies that the at least some of the converted
clinker vessels could have been in use as trading
vessels. With its flat bottom, the Hiddensee 12 is
likely to have been a trading vessel used in local
waters. The flat bottom meant that it could
transport heavy cargo and still navigate in shallow
waters where deeper hulled vessels could not
usually go.
From the written source “Warnemünder
Lizentsbücher” (see chapter 2) it is furthermore
mentioned that the Danish vessel were active in
the trade with the Hanseatic cities. No trading
related evidence has been found related to FPL
77, but it is possible that it was one of these
vessels that were active in the lively trade
between Denmark and the Germany. This
assumption is based on the fact that the timber
provenience puts the clinker phase in Denmark
and the carvel phase in Germany, where it was
also found.
4.4 Why
After having presented and outlined the
constructional and functional aspects of the
converted clinker vessels, the main question
“Why” can be sought.
It is not the doublet planking that makes the
wrecks significant. Double planking is seen in
many vessels such as the Double Dutch ships. It is
not the fact that a carvel layer was nailed to the
clinker vessels either, as this is a well known
method of repairing the bottom of a hull. What
makes these vessels interesting and significant is
that the clinker layer was left underneath the
outer carvel layer.
The following section will review all converted
clinker vessels from all periods of time and from
different places in the world. By looking at similar
wrecks, from all periods one can get an idea why
vessels were converted at other points in time.
This does not necessarily mean that the same was
the reasons in later periods.
45
The purpose of the clinker conversion can be
divided into two main stands where: 1) the carvel
layer was a later rebuild or repair and 2) the carvel
layer was a part of the original design. The reason
for the clinker conversion may be explained in the
following ways:
mentioned reasons for clinker conversion will be
critically discussed based on the available
archaeological finds, documentation and literary
sources.
4.4.1 Repair
1) The conversion was a part of a bigger repair.
Repairs on the clinker hull indicate that the clinker
vessel was in use a number of years before the
carvel layer was applied. The term “repair” also
comprises the conversion as a total repair of the
entire vessel. The carvel layer was thus applied in
order to make an overall repair of the clinker
vessel.
2) The double layer was a reinforcement of the
hull. Reinforcing the hull could be necessary in
order to drag ships onto the sandy beaches of the
Baltic coast.
3) The conversion of the clinker vessels was done
for economic reasons. In an attempt to prolong
the life expectancy of a worn out but otherwise
good clinker vessel, the carvel layer was applied to
the original hull.
4) The outer carvel layer was applied to make the
hull more watertight.
5) The double layer was a part of the original
design.
6) Other explanation and ideas, concerning the
clarification and understanding of clinker
conversion that cannot be verified from looking at
the constructional features of the wrecks.
Regardless of the reason for converting clinker
vessels into carvel, the process ensures that an
otherwise stable and good vessel got an expanded
number of living years. In the following, the above
From the Baltic area we know from written
sources, that repairs using double planking were
used in the 16th century in ship yards on the
Vistula River estuary (Ossowski 2006, 42). In a
book from an Elblag carpentry workshop from
1587 it is mentioned that a builder, called Claus,
made various repairs on ships. These repairs
included the reinforcement of 24 oak vessels, by
providing the hull with an outer layer of planking
and by caulking them with moss and oakum:
“Tak na przyklad w roku 1587 budowniczy
(schiffbauer) Claus Wykonal róznego rodzaju prace
naprawcze przy lodzi: uszczelnianie dna mchem i
pakulami, wzmocnienie 24 klepek debowych
kadluba nalozeniem dodatkowej (zewnetrznej) ich
warstwy, uszcelnienie tych klepek mchem i
pakulami, umocowanie steru itp” (Gierszewski
1961, 80).
Unfortunately, the source does not say anything
about the use of clinker or carvel. What is
important here is that this carpenter from Elblag
in the 16th century repaired and reinforced hulls
with double planking. Comparing this piece of
information with the finds we have of converted
clinker vessels, it seems reasonable to assume
that the use of double planking was a fairly
popular method to repair hulls on the southern
shores of the Baltic Sea. Whether clinker
conversion and thereby double planking with a
clinker and a carvel layer was just as popular can
only be speculated at this point of the research.
46
Repair of the clinker hull
Clinker repair vs. carvel repair
An additional repair aspect that appears like a
reasonable explanation for the conversions is that
in some instances, it was easier to restore and
repair carvel vessels than clinker vessels.
Figure 4-8: repairs in the clinker hulls proofs that the
carvel layer was applied to the vessel a later point in
time. Grundvad 2010.
Construction features of FPL 77 point to the
interpretation that the carvel layer was applied
during a larger rebuild of the vessel. The time span
between the original construction and the
thorough rebuild is unknown, but it is clear from
the small repairs of the clinker planks that the
clinker vessel itself had been in use for a period of
time. Minor refurbishments had been made with
smaller patches (timber #123) and wooden plugs.
From this piece of information, it thus becomes
clear that the double layer of FPL 77 was applied a
number of years after the original clinker hull was
made. However, from the minor repairs of the hull
and the well preserved clinker strakes, it does not
seem reasonable to think that it was a thorough
repair of the entire hull that was the reason for
the conversion. The reason for this conversion
must thus be found elsewhere.
Another wreck that can be deduced as being built
in two phases by the presence of repairs is the
Hiddensee 12 wreck. The later replacement of a
floor timber in this vessel witness of an unknown
usage period prior to the carvel phase.
Dendrochronological samples verify that the
repair was done during the period of the clinker
phase and not the carvel phase. However, as with
FPL 77, the clinker planks of the wreck did not
seem to have been worn out to such a degree,
that the reason for the outer carvel layer was an
urgent repair.
In order to replace a carvel plank from a hull, the
treenails and the iron nails have to be taken out of
the hull. A new plank can then be inserted directly
into the hull and fastened with new trenails. In
contrast, in a clinker-built hull, the clinker nails will
first have to be cut and extracted. Hereafter, the
clinker plank will have to be fitted into the hull, so
it fits with the overlap of the strakes above and
underneath. Before the plank is finally fastened,
caulking material will have to be inlayed (Lemée
2006, 306). An example of a vessel where the
clinker planks were substituted for carvel planks is
the Sebbersund wreck, found in the Limfjord in
Denmark. This wreck was originally a 13m long
clinker-built vessel, but when old and worn out,
the 6-7th bottom strakes were replaces with carvel
planks to give the vessel some extra life time
(Gøthche 1991, 88). Although the Sebbersund
wreck is different in the way that the clinker
strakes were removed and replaced with a carvel
layer, it shows that carvel strakes were preferred
in a hull. This substitution of the planks may have
been done so that future repairs of the lower hull
were more easily and economically accomplished.
4.4.2 Economy
Economical benefits bring us to another
explanation for converting clinker vessels into
carvel vessel. When an old but otherwise well
functioning vessel was worn out, its life could be
expanded a number of years with the outer carvel
layer. The reason for using carvel strakes and not
new clinker strakes can be explained with the
47
economical benefits of sawing planks rather than
radially splitting them.
Material saving benefits as well as all the
advantages that is connected with the carvel
construction technique, makes it an economically
good deal to convert clinker vessels into carvel
hulls. Carvel strakes not only made it simpler to
build symmetrically, but it also saved time and
money because it was not necessary to shape
each side of the planks (Bill 2000, 10). Wood made
for carvel planks can be much poorer and thus
cheaper than wood used for clinker planks. Oak
trunks used for splitting need to be very thick,
straight in growth and without many knots. On the
other hand, practical any piece of timber can be
turned into a plank with a saw. Therefore, one is
not only saving time on the conversion, the waste
of material and problems in finding suitable
timber are also minimized (Bill 2000, 10)
4.4.3 Reinforcement and protection of the hull
Reinforcement of the hull by using a double layer
of planking is known from a number of wrecks
around the world. Reinforcement of the hull was a
necessity for many clinker vessels in the Baltic, as
the sandy shores of this area was rough on the
hull when the vessels were launched (Mäss 1994,
191).
Reinforcement and protection of the hull is by
Chistian Lemeé (2006, 227) divided into two
distinct groups: Doubling (or wooden sheathing
with a thin outer protective carvel layer) and
double planking (where the purpose of the outer
carvel layer was to reinforce the hull).
The method used to interpret whether a
conversion was made as reinforcement or a
protection of the hull is by looking at the wear of
the inner clinker planks. Clinker planks, showing
signs of wear and repairs indicate that the
conversion was done, because the entire hull
needed a thorough repair. Hulls where the clinker
planks seem to have been in a good state during
the conversion and more importantly; the outer
carvel layer was thinner and with no structural
importance for the hull, indicate that the
conversion was made for other reasons. This could
be as a protection of the hull against shipworms
or possibly to increase the water tightness.
Doubling planking
The outer planking of vessels with doubling
planking or sheathing had no structural function.
The role of the outer layer was simply to protect
the hull against shipworms (Lemée 2006, 227).
The observations made by Sir Richard Hawkins
during a journey to the South Seas in 1593
describe different sheathing techniques on the
16th century vessel: “…In Spain and Portingall,
some sheathe their shippes with lead (…). Another
manner is used with double plankes, as thicke
without as within, after the manner of furring (…)
(Hawkins 1593).
Evidence of such doubling layers is present in a
number of written sources, especially covering
sailing to tropical waters. Hull doubling, or
sheathing, does not seem common for sailing in
Northern waters.
None of the carvel strakes of the hitherto found
converted clinker vessels proved to be a wood
sheathing layer. On one side of the Maasilinn
wreck, however, a thin layer of metal covering
was found. The double planking of this wreck can
thus not be interpreted as the protective layer for
the inner clinker hull, as this would give the vessel
two such layers. It is more likely that the carvel
layer was set as a reinforcement of the thin inner
clinker layer. The metal sheathing worked as the
protective layer against ship worms. Could it be
48
that the Maasilinn wreck was on its way to new
waters, where shipworms were a threat to the
hull, like Sir Hawkins explains? And could it be that
the original clinker vessel got the extra reinforced
carvel layer to support the hull? Unfortunately,
we will never know where the Maasilinn wreck
was going or where it was coming from since such
a thorough reinforcement and protective
mechanism had to be made.
An example of a doubling layer made out of wood
is found in the B&W2 wreck from Christianshavn.
According to the dendrochronological analysis, the
wreck was built around 1606 and rebuilt between
1618 and 1625. During the rebuilding phase, the
hull was doubled with a layer of oak planks and
sheathed with a layer of pine boards (Lemée 2006,
227). The B&W2 wreck is very similar to two
Dutch vessels from the same period, namely
Batavia and Mauritius, which both had sheathings
similar to B&W 2 (Lemée 2006, 227). Batavia was
discovered on the coast of Western Australia were
it wrecked in 1629. Mauritius was discovered on
the West coast of Africa and is dated to 1609
(Lemée 2006, 227). All three wrecks have very
similar features in the original design as well as
the manner in which the hull was reinforced
before a trip to the tropics (Lemée 2006, 227).
Double planking
Double planking is, as opposed to the doubling a
construction method, where the outer planking
consist of two layers of planking, both with
structural importance. Two of the converted
clinker vessels mentioned in the previous chapters
show features that could lead the interpretation
of the double planking to the reinforcement
theory.
The first vessel to be considered is FPL 77. This
wreck, with its well preserved clinker planks, does
not seem to have been worn out to such a degree
that a new carvel outer layer was necessary. Only
a small repair was visible on the wreck in the form
of the little wooden “patch” (timber #123). The
dendrochronological analysis of the wreck gave a
provenience of the clinker layer to two different
areas. As mentioned before, there are written
sources on vessels that, when changing their
environment they got an additional protective
layer. Knowing that FPL 77 had clinker planks
originating from the area around Zealand and a
carvel layer made from wood originating from the
area around Lübeck, it is possible that the outer
carvel layer was applied because of the change of
environment. It is most likely that the outer layer
was not working as a protective layer against
shipworms since the vessel stayed in the Baltic
Sea. The outer layer could have been to protect
the hull against the shallow waters of, for
example, Darss or other of the shallow harbors in
the Baltic.
Figure 4-9: B&W 2 had a doubling of oak and sheathing
of pine. After Lemée 2006.
Another example of a conversion made to
reinforce the original hull structure is the sand
vessel from Nors Å. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, the Nors Å wreck is an example of
“putting an old vessel into an envelope”, i.e.,
giving an old vessel new life by adding a
strengthening carvel layer on top of the original
hull. The “putting it into an envelope” method was
used on ships in the Baltic because the original
hull needed extra protection against the beaching
of the vessels on to the flat and sandy shores.
Another reason for the double layer of the small
49
sand vessels was to protect the hull against the icy
waters, which is often seen in the Baltic during
winter months. Not all sand vessels were clinker
converted, though. In fact, the Nors Å wreck is the
only sand vessel of its kind.
The reinforcement of hulls with the use of double
planking seem mostly to have been applied on
smaller vessels in the Baltic to give them a few
more living years. Larger ships, however, also had
their hull strengthened with multiple layers. So is
the case with Henry V’s the Grace Dieu from 1420,
one of the world’s greatest medieval ships (Rose
1977, 3). She was more than 40m long and had an
estimated displacement of 27500 tons. The ship is
still standing on the bottom of the Hamble River,
but several investigations of the ship show that it
was built with three layers of clinker planking
(Prynne 1968, 24). Whether the three clinker
layers were a part of the original design or they
were applied sequentially to strengthen the hull is
not yet known. Many scholars have described the
Grace Dieu as a colossal technical mistake and the
proof that clinker planking is too weak for larger
vessels with more than 1000 tons capacity (Rose
1977, 3).
Could it be that the two outermost clinker layers
of the Grace Dieu were put on top of the original
clinker layer in order to try to gain additional
strength to a ship said to be too big to have been
built with clinker planks?
Obviously, the Grace Dieu is a different matter
than the converted clinker vessels, as this vessel
was set with two extra clinker layers and not
converted into a carvel ship. However, the ship is
an example of a clinker-built vessel that was given
additional strength with two extra clinker layers
and the proof that not only smaller vessels were
strengthened with double/treble planking.
4.4.4 Water tightness
Applying an extra layer of carvel planking on top
of a clinker hull would easily be explained as a
desire to make the hull more watertight. Looking
at the wreck remains, however, does not reveal
whether or not this was the reason for the
conversion and the double planking. Trying to
make clinker vessels more watertight could in
principle be the explanation for all the converted
clinker vessels. Amongst others, Vello Mäss is of
the opinion that the Maasilinn wreck was built
with an outer carvel layer in order to make the
hull more watertight. It is more than likely that
more of the clinker vessels were converted into
carvel vessels in order to make the hulls more
watertight. By adding an outer carvel layer on top
of the clinker layer the gab that automatically
appears between the strakes will be covered and
thus not get in contact with water.
Figure 4-10: The bottom of the Maasilinn wreck with its
deep water course. After Mäss 1994.
As mentioned before, repairing clinker hulls was
more complex than repairing carvel hulls.
Problems related to leaks could be fixed by adding
an outer carvel layer on top of the clinker layer
instead of going through the more difficult
process of repairing and replacing clinker strakes.
50
4.4.5 Original carvel layer
Several vessels have been doubled intentionally.
An example of this is the vessels defined as
double-Dutch. These vessels represent a vessel
type where the double layer was a part of the
original design but where the double layer
comprised of two carvel layers. Four larger
double-Dutch ships shall here be mentioned;
Gideon from Denmark (1584), Batavia from
Western Australia (1629), Mauritius (1602) and
Scheurrak SO1 (the end of the 16th century)
(Maarleveld 1994, 155). The double layer of the
double-Dutch ships reveals a shipbuilding method
where the hull was first built of one layer of carvel
strakes and then subsequently covered by a
second layer with approximately the same
thickness. The double layer of the 4 mentioned
ships makes up a strong and watertight shell, over
20cm thick but with no conceptual approach. T.J.
Maarleveld argues that the extra layer was
applied to these ships because of a lack in
confidence to the new Dutch flushed technique
(Maarleveld 1994, 162).
For many of the converted clinker vessels it can be
proved that the outer carvel planking was applied
to the clinker hull a number of years after the
original clinker hull was built. This sequence of
building appears most logical and it can be difficult
to understand what the purpose of intentionally
building a clinker vessel with outer carvel strakes
on top. Nevertheless, in the publication of three
converted clinker vessels (the Maasilinn wreck,
the Debki wreck and the Mönchgut 67 wreck) the
carvel layer has been interpreted as belonging to
the original design.
The Maasilinn wreck
The Maasilinn wreck has been subjected for a
great deal of discussion since it was found.
Immediately, the double planking appears to have
been the result of a repair or rebuilding, but some
structural features shows that the hull was initially
built with two layers. There are a number of
features that speak for and a number of features
that speak against an original double planked hull
in the Maasilinn wreck
Vello Mäss (1991) is of the conviction that the
Maasilinn wreck was built originally with an outer
carvel layer. He bases his assumption on the
following construction features: First of all, he
points out that the two stem- and keel rabbets
were conspicuously wide and deep for the clinker.
The width, however, corresponded neatly with the
thickness of the double planking. Second of all the
massive carvel planking was imperative to prop up
the keel in order to make the ship enough
monolithic. It was crucial for the keel to be so
powerful that it could lift the whole weight of the
vessel during building and launching. It was
important that the hull could withstand when
touching the sea floor. The carvel layer thus had
the purpose of supporting the vessel whenever
the vessel had to be taken into shallow waters or
when loading and unloading. Generally, there is a
lack of sufficient deep harbors in the WestEstonian archipelago where the wreck was found.
The badly damaged keel is a proof of this. The
vessel’s main cargo, lime stone, which was found
in the wreck, must have made the vessel heavy to
haul onto land and therefore a strong hull was
needed. Mäss also refers to the tiny clinker planks
that must have needed support in order to stay
stabile and afloat.
These construction features indicate that the
seemingly later carvel layer was laid
simultaneously with the clinker planking in order
to the support the keel and to strengthen and
reinforce the hull structure.
It has nonetheless been maintained from many
scholars that the outer carvel planks of the
51
Maasilinn wreck was added at a later time, after
the original clinker-build hull had been build. From
the reports made by Vello Mäss (Mäss 1991) and
(Mäss 1994) it is not stated where the
dendrochronological samples were taken. It would
be interesting to see if the dendrochronological
samples from the keel, the clinker layer, and the
carvel layer are the same. Mäss’ argument that
the double layer of the Maasilinn hull must have
been made simultaneous because of the deep and
thick rabbet for the garboard strakes needs
support by a dendrochronological dating. It is not
uncommon that parts of vessels were changed
completely because of wear or rebuilding.
Something similar is seen in the Princes Channel
wreck, where the stem post rabbet was changed
in order to accommodate for new lines of the
vessel after a furring layer was applied (Auer et al.
2007, 228).
Another feature that speaks against Mäss’
arguments is the size of the clinker planks. Mäss
explains that the carvel layer must have been
original as the inner and thinner clinker planks
were too fragile to carry the weight of the ship
alone. Nevertheless, in the section above, it was
determined that the size of the clinker planks, in
the Maasilinn wreck, correspond to the size of
other clinker vessels. The size of the clinker planks
can thus not be used as an argument for the
double layer.
Based on Mäss’ interpretation of the Maasilinn
wreck as being built originally with the double
hull, it cannot be verified whether or not the
carvel layer was a part of the original design. The
design of the keel may even point more to the
opposite; that it was taken down and away from
the floor timbers in order to fit in the seemingly
later applied carvel strakes.
The Debki wreck
Figure 4-11: Cross section of the keel and the double
planking of the Maasilinn wreck. After Mäss 1994.
Furthermore, the manner in which the keel was
constructed is a highly unstable and peculiar way
of constructing a keel. If the double planking was
in the original planning it appears peculiar to build
the keel like this for any vessel. It would, however,
make sense if the keel was moved down during a
bigger refurbishment of the entire vessel. This
could have been done when the carvel planking
was applied to the clinker hull at a later point in
order to fit in the carvel strakes.
Only a small section of the Debki wreck was
preserved and information about the conversion
of the vessel could only be observed through five
cross-sections made by cutting the hull into
pieces. It was therefore not possible to determine
which treenails that belonged to the clinker phase
and which to the carvel. The oak trenails were
dottled on the outside and wedged on the inside
and they were of the same length in order to join
the ceiling planks, the frames, the outer and inner
planks simultaneously. Assuming that the trenail
holes were not drilled twice, we can only conclude
that the outer carvel layer was nailed to the
clinker planking as a part of the original design.
Unfortunately, the dendrochronological samples
did not succeed in determining the age of any of
the timbers. However, in one case, the tests
confirmed that one of the clinker planks was of
the same age as one of the carvel planks.
Waldemar
Ossowski
(2006)
uses
the
52
dendrochronological dates as a proof that the
carvel layer was attached during the original
construction (Ossowski 2006, 262).
Following the construction sequence, given by Dr.
Ossowski, the first stage was fitting and fastening
of the clinker planks using the shell-first method.
Next, some or all the frames were fitted in the hull
with nails. The filler pieces and the carvel planking
was then nailed on top of the clinker layer and
caulked with moss. Next step was the attachment
of more floor timber and futtocks. The ceiling
planks were then nailed from above and into the
framing timbers. All the elements were then
joined together with trenails penetrating through
all five construction elements (Ossowski 2006,
262).
Figure 4-12: Stages of construction for the Debki
wreck as interpreted by Ossowski (2003).
Had the analyses for the dendro-dates succeeded
and dated the clinker planks to the same period as
the carvel planks, this would not be a certain
proof that the vessel was built originally with the
carvel layer. The trees for the timbers could have
been stored for a period and used at a later point.
This specific example illustrates one of the
problems with dendrochronology; the results
shows the year when the trees for the vessel were
felled but not when the vessel was built. Dendrodates can therefore not determine whether a
carvel layer was original or not. The only feature
that indicates that double layer of the Debki wreck
should have been original is thus the trenails.
Mönchgut 67
The Mönchgut 67 wreck was, by Jana Heinze
(2010), also interpreted as having been built
originally with the double layer. Heinze bases her
interpretation on the dendrochronological dating
of the clinker layer and carvel layer which she
claims is from 1660.
There are a number of very strong indications that
work against this theory, however. Initially, as
mentioned above, dendrochronology gives the
year of the felling date of the timbers and not the
year of the building process. The timbers for the
carvel layer could therefore have been stored a
number of years before they were put into use. A
similar dating of the clinker phase and the carvel
phase does not determine a contemporary
building sequence.
Even if the dating in general could determine
whether or not the double layer was built
originally, there is a serious problem with the
dating of the Mönchgut 67 wreck. No sapwood
was preserved in the wreck which, as Heinze
herself points out (Heinze 2010, 20), only dates
the wreck to somewhere after 1660.
Consequently, it is impossible to conclude
whether or not the date of the clinker planks and
the carvel planks is the same.
There are also more technological construction
features that speak against the carvel layer as
originally built with the vessel. The clinker steps of
the Mönchgut 67 was not leveled out with filler
pieces as seen in many of the other wrecks.
53
Instead, the clinker steps had been roughly
beveled in order to create a smooth surface for
the carvel layer. Hence, right after the newly built
vessel was finished, the steps from the clinker
steps were cut down. This seems like a peculiar
thing to do with a beautiful new-built vessel with
no wear or damage. It seems more logical that the
carvel strakes were applied to the clinker hull after
the hull had been worn down or needed
reinforcement for one reason or the other. This
brings us to another argument against Heinze’s
theory.
It has been mentioned before that the plugged
iron nail holes in the clinker phase of Mönchgut 67
were more likely repairs rather than fillings of
preliminary iron fastenings for the clinker planks.
Repairs on the clinker hull is the best proof that
the carvel layer was not original as they show that
the vessel definitely had been in use for an
unknown period before the carvel layer was
applied. Had the outer carvel layer been present
from the beginning, there would be no use for
repairs on the protected and hidden clinker hull.
Clinker hulls where the presence of repairs
revealed that they for certain were in use before
the carvel layer was applied is FPL 77, the
Hiddensee 12 wreck and now with 95 % certainty;
Mönchgut 67..
outer carvel layer of the converted clinker vessels
were meant for the original design, the inner
clinker planks would have been of secondary
importance to the construction and they would
most probably be sawn.
Cleft clinker planks would most likely mean that
the clinker vessel had sailed before the carvel
layer was applied. Sawn clinker planks could
indicate that the inner clinker hull in itself did not
need much strength and stability, and therefore,
that the outer carvel layer was a part of the
original design.
However, the conversion of clinker planks with a
saw is not a certain proof that the double layer
was original. Sawn clinker planks are seen in the
Bredfjed wreck. This vessel has been interpreted
as being a vessel built as a combination between
the clinker construction technique and the carvel
construction technique in the transitional period
of clinker and carvel strakes.
Overall, there is not much evidence as whether
any of the wrecks should have been double
planked originally. It is difficult to find definite
evidence that can determine if the double
planking was original. On the other hand, by the
presence of small repairs it is easy to determine if
the carvel layer was applied to the clinker hull at a
later point.
Indications that the double layer was original
Had the conversion of the clinker planking and the
carvel planking been better analyzed, this could
also give an indication of whether or not the
carvel layer was original. As mentioned earlier,
clinker planks for shell-first built vessels were
mostly radially split in order to obtain the strength
of the wood. Carvel planks, on the other hand,
were often sawn to their overall shape because
the planks in a frame-first construction only were
of secondary importance to the stability. If the
4.4.6 Other explanations
In theory, there could be great number of other
and different reason for nailing a carvel layer onto
a clinker hull. All converted clinker vessel could
have had different reasons for the rare
construction sequence and technique. The most
common interpretations are the ones described
above. However, the reasons could be many. In
the book, Holzbootsbau, C. W. Eichler describes
54
that fishermen prefer carvel vessel because the
smooth carvel layer avoid fishing nets in getting
caught in hull, as is the case with clinker steps:
Natürlich hat sie einige Nachteile, dir kurz erörert
werden sollen. – So ist die Aussenhaut aussen
nicht glatt. Die Fischer schätzen dies nicht, weil
sich die netze nicht so leicht binnenbords holen
lassen wie bei einer Karweel-Aussenhaut.(Eichler
1991, 218).
The sharp edges of clinker steps were therefore a
potential danger for fishing nets when being
trawled after vessels. The fishing nets either got
caught in the steps or they were ripped by the
edges. By adding a smooth carvel layer on top of
the original clinker hull, problems with fishing nets
could be solved.
Summary
From the synopsis above it becomes clear that the
reason for converting clinker vessel can be
subdivided into two, where the outer carvel
planking was: 1) applied a number of years after
the original clinker vessel was built and 2) was a
part of the original design.
Regardless of the groups, there are numerous
reasons why outer carvel layers could be applied
to clinker hulls. Unfortunately the recovered
pieces of the wrecks do not always contain
enough information to clarify what the reason
was. None of the wrecks shows signs that the
clinker hull was in such a state that a thorough
repair was needed. Economy, reinforcement and a
need for a more watertight hull, on the other
hand, could be the explanations for all of the
converted clinker vessels. Building with carvel
planks gave a number of advantages that were not
present in clinker hulls.
Three of the converted clinker vessels were
interpreted as having been built originally with the
outer carvel layer. The evidence for this
interpretation presented in the respective reports,
however, does not prove whether or not this
actually was the case. For Mönchgut 67 and the
Maasilinn wreck the construction features of the
wreck part more speak against this than for it.
Consequently, we have no converted clinker
vessels that for definitely were built originally with
the carvel layer in mind.
Figure 4-13: Possible reasons for the conversion of the nine converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010.
55
5. Results and conclusion
The main aim of this paper has been to examine
various aspects of the converted clinker vessels
from the 16th-17th century, with the case study
and an emphasis on the FPL 77 wreck.
Other converted clinker vessels have been
analyzed and compared in order to answer some
of the questions connected to these few and only
partly preserved wrecks. On the basis of the
Hiddensee 12-, the Debki-, the Maasilinn-, the
FPL 77-, the W-36-, the Mönchgut 67-, the
Strømsø Drammenselva-, the B&W6- and the
Nors Å wreck, it has been possible to carry out an
analysis of various aspects of the converted
clinker vessels.
Based on the analysis of these different wrecks,
the ship building methods, the provenience, the
period, the vessel type and the reason for the
clinker conversion has been reviewed and
discussed. With a limited number of known
converted clinker vessels only tentative and
preliminary conclusions can be drawn. The
methodology applied for the different wrecks has
been inconsistent in the publications and the
details presented in them are disparate due to
either bad preservation or a belief that the
vessels as insignificant.
Origin and dating
The first of the four major questions addressed in
this study was whether any correlation of time and
place could be found for the converted clinker
vessels. The oldest known converted clinker vessel
is the Maasilinn wreck from ca 1550 and the
youngest is the Nors Å wreck, which is dated to the
1850’s. It is thus a phenomenon that stretches
throughout three centuries. Two different clusters
of converted clinker vessels can be established:
period 1 from ca. 1550-1650 and period 2, from
the end of the 18th century to the end of the 19th
century. The study establish that seven out of nine
converted clinker vessels known and published to
date were built within a period of 100 years, from
approximately 1550- 1650 and seven out of these
nine were found in the Baltic. It seems like the
converted clinker vessels mainly were a Baltic
phenomenon from a period not long after the
carvel construction technique was introduced in
the area but the conversion kept on going until at
least the 19th century. The reason for converting
clinker vessels in 16th- 17th century is likely to have
been different than from the 18th-19th century.
Construction techniques
The second major question was whether the
archaeological evidence reflects comparable
material for the construction techniques used for
clinker conversion. The methods used in the
century combine clinker building methods as well
as carvel building methods, and thereby reflects
two different ways of forming a hull. The vessels
are either made from oak or pine and are built in
the clinker construction technique but with an
additional outer carvel layer on top.
In general, the construction of the converted
clinker vessels can be subdivided into two groups:
1) the early converted clinker vessels from the 1617th century and 2) the later and smaller group of
century. Except in the case of the 16th-17th century
56
wrecks that are similar in size and construction,
the Hiddensee 12 wreck and the Nors Å wreck
outstands from the group in many ways. The
differences include: butt-end joints of the clinker
strakes and the conversion of the planks as well.
The two groups represent two periods with two
very different construction techniques. The clinker
hulls of the converted clinker vessels from the
16th-17th century seem to have been built in the
typical clinker construction technique regarding
smaller vessels, whereas the vessels from group 2
shows construction techniques that more
represents the carvel construction technique.
Vessel type
The third major question asked in this paper was,
if there was a certain type of clinker vessels that
were converted into carvel vessels. For three
wrecks, the Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck and
the much later Hiddensee 12 wreck, indications
that lead the interpretation towards trading
vessels were found. In the instances where
remains of cargo have been found, such as lime
stone in the Maasilinn wreck, this could indicate
that the converted clinker vessels could have been
small local trading vessel. W-36 may have been a
small vessel connected to one of the many
brickyards that are known from the 16th century in
Vistula Bay. The majority of all converted clinker
vessels seem to have been low tonnage vessels
between 10-20m long. The Hiddense 12 wreck
with its 28m length does not quite follow this
description but it was most probably a trading
vessel as well. The wide and almost flat bottom of
the hull made this vessel excellent for transporting
heavy cargo in shallow waters.
Purpose
The fourth and final major question considered in
this study was what the purpose was with the
carvel planking on top of the clinker hulls. The
function of the clinker conversion and the double
layering in the 16th-17th century will probably
never be known for certain, but many explanation
and interpretations have presented. It is the
authors opinion that this cluster of clinker
converted vessels is connected to the newly
introduced carvel construction technique in the
Baltic. Shipbuilders had often seen carvel vessels
and may have repaired a few as well. They knew
the advantages of a flushed laid carvel layer, but
did not know the basic construction techniques of
such a vessel. By applying an outer carvel layer on
top of a clinker built vessel, the shipwright could
achieve some of the advantages with flushed laid
planking; a stronger hull, a more watertight vessel
etc.
Partially or fully double planking seem to have
been a well used method for repairing vessels
from far back in time and all the way up to
modern times. It is difficult to say if the conversion
was done because the entire vessel needed a
thorough repair. None of the vessels seem to have
been in such a state that an outer carvel layer was
needed. Carvel strakes were easier to repair and
they were more watertight. Furthermore, by
adding a carvel layer on top of a clinker layer
reinforced the hull and made it more resistant to
beaching on sandy shores.
Looking at the reinforced converted clinker vessels
and the doubling planking above we learned that
a reason for reinforcing clinker hulls could have
been a change from the original environment.
Written sources mention sheathing as a
protection from shipworm on trips to the tropics.
The documentary sources refer to doubling as a
thin layer of metal sheathing or wood sheathing.
Protecting the ships from worms with an outer
layer of either metal or wood seems to have been
a most necessary feature when sailing Northern
European ships to the tropics. The doubling layer
and thus maybe the double planking may have
57
been used as a protective layer for ship worms
when the ship changed milieu from one area to
another (Lemée 2006, 227).
Three out of the nine converted clinker vessels
were interpreted, by the respective authors, as
being built originally with the outer carvel layer.
Had the converted clinker vessels been built
originally with the double layer this could
illustrate an attempt to follow the new tendencies
of building carvel hulls instead of the “old fashion”
clinker hulls. Converted clinker vessels built
originally with the double layer may show a need
to built larger, stronger and more watertight hulls
by the use of additional planking. The hull
construction was therefore based on the rules of
the clinker technique but imitated the solutions
used on larger ships. None of the converted
clinker vessels, however, seem to have clear
evidence that they were originally double planked.
In fact, there is more evidence that point to the
opposite.
When looking at the 16th-17th century converted
clinker vessels, it is important to look at the period
in which they were found. With the new carvel
ships that were normally built in the frame-first
method it became possible to build large ocean
sea-going vessels that were able to stay at sea for
longer periods than the clinker vessels. Additional
strength and water tightness and the fact that they
were easier to repair are some of the reasons why
carvel vessels became so popular. The new large
oceangoing vessels quickly became a part of the
everyday life in the 17th century. Despite the many
advantages that building with the carvel
construction gave, smaller vessel still continued to
be built by boat builders in the countryside, where
skeleton techniques did not become fashion before
the 1850s and onwards (Kirby 2000, 94)
The outcome of the report
This study demonstrates that the converted
clinker vessels were a phenomenon that started in
the middle of the 16th where they had their
heyday. Clinker conversion seems to have been a
method of giving a clinker hull an expanded
lifetime.
The research provides answers and interpretations
to the preliminary research and identification and
understanding of the clinker converted vessel.
Although many of the problems and questions that
were given have been answered, the study
demonstrates how complex the converted clinker
vessels are. Therefore, several issues are still left
unanswered and are waiting to be investigated
more thoroughly.1
Apart
from
representing a
exceptional
archaeological find complex of very rare and, in
literature almost overlooked group of vessels, the
clinker converted shipwrecks from the 16th-17th
century contribute to the understanding of the
shipbuilding methods in the 16th-17th century
Baltic area. A period that saw a gradual change
away from the old clinker construction technique
towards the new and more modern carvel ships.
1
The author will be happy to hear from persons that
have knowledge about potential other similar wrecks.
58
Appendix 1: Timbers with importance for the FPL 77 model
Catalogue of important clinker planks
The description and illustrations of the timbers that had significance for the interpretation of FPL 77 has
been standardized as far as possible. The catalogue is commenced by ID numbers (P1, P2 etc.) and then the
main measurements.1 This is followed by a short description of the timber. The layout of the illustrations is
summarized beneath. Each plank is drawn with its outboard face at the top and the inboard face placed
below. The longitudinal profile positioned underneath. All planks are placed with the bow to the left and
the stern to the right. The timbers are not shown in any scale.
1
L= length, W= width (max), T= thickness (max).
Template: Grundvad 2010.
59
ID number: 102
L 285cm, W (max) 26.5cm, T(max) 4cm
The bow-end is intact with a scarf joint while the stern end is broken off. Chamfered edges are present on
both sides. Tool marks were not registered on the plank. Concretions are present around the iron nail
holes. Notice the two different sized trenail holes from respectively the clinker and the carvel phase.
A 1: Clinker plank 102 2
2
Drawn by Ni Chiobhain. Inked by Ni Chiobhain. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
60
ID number: 120
L 308cm, W(max) 27.5cm, T(max) 2cm
The plank is complete with scarf joints at both ends. A chamfered edge is running along the plank. Note
that on the chamfered area there is a row of wooden plugs that have replaced small iron nails. This is
evidence that the clinker hull was in use before the carvel layer was applied. Tool marks from axe or adze is
visible on the surface. The end of the plank has an impression where a frame was situated. Brown surface
covering and tar is visible on the plank.
.
A 2: Clinker plank 1203
3
Drawn by Grundvad. Inked by Grundvad. Digitilized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
61
Catalogue of important frames
Surviving elements of the frames only comprised of what seems like the vessel’s first futtocks. The layout of
the framing catalogue are described and ordered in a similar manner to the hull planks except from the
width and the thickness is now substituted with a maximum moulded measurement (M(max)) and a
maximum sided measurement (S(max)). The layout of the illustrations is summarized beneath. The frames
have been drawn as if viewed from the sided, outside face and then turned around to the moulded forward
face, the sided inside face and then the moulded aft face. The head is situated on the left and the heel to
the right.
62
ID number: 105
M(max) 13mm, S(max) 18mm
The frame is complete with scarf joints at head and heel. The floor timbers and the second set of futtocks
must have been fastened to the frame here. The frame has a beveled edge and tool marks visible from axe
or adze. Concretions from iron nails are visible. The inboard face of the frame is eroded by sea grass.
A 3: Frame 1054
4
Drawn by Stanek. Inked by Stanek. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
63
ID number: 106
M(max) 12cm, S(max) 9cm
The heel is cut square with a butt-end whereas the head is broken off. The timber is joggled to
accommodate for at least six clinker planks. The outboard face has tool marks from axe or adze. One side
has a mark formed like a “X” and additional lines can be connected with the mark as well. Could this be a
mark of a sub master frame? Trenails protrude by 2.1-3cm, indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks.
A 4: Frame 1065
5
Photo by Auer 2009.
64
ID number 107
M(max) 11cm, S(max) 19.3cm
Complete frame where the heel has a scarf joint and the head is tapered. The frame is joggled to
accommodate for eight clinker planks. Tool marks from axe or adze are visible. Some trenails are cut flush
on the inboard face and others are protruding 3-3.5cm indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks.
A 5: Frame 1076
6
Drawn by Wagstaffe. Inked by Wagstaffe. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
65
ID number: 110
M(max) 13cm, S(max) 8cm
The heel is tapered, whereas the head has a fresh break. The frame is joggled to accommodate for at least
five clinker planks. The steps have been made with axe or adze. Notice how the heel of the frame has a
downwards turning curve in opposed to the other frames. This indicates that the wreck part is close to the
keel and bow.
A 6: Frame 1107
7
Drawn by Ni Chiobhain. Inked by Stanek. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
66
ID number: 111
M(max) 11cm, S(Max) 21cm
The frame is damaged on both sides. It has four joggles to accommodate for at least five clinker planks.
Some trenails were cut during the conversion and new trenails were inserted which is indicated with tool
marks close to the protruding tool marks. Notice the downward turning heel that indicates that the wreck
part is close to the keel and the bow.
A 7: Frame 1118
8
Drawn by Thomsen. Inked by Fawsitt. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).
67
Catalogue of important carvel planks
The catalogue for the carvel planks has the same layout as the catalogue made for the clinker planks. The
timbers are illustrated the same way and the data is given in the same order.
ID number: 100
L 516cm, W(max) 44cm, Thickness (max) 4cm
The plank is nailed to the underlying planks and frames. Saw and axe marks are visible on the outboard
face. The inboard face is charred and eroded by sea grass growth. A number of wooden plugs and iron nail
holes is observed. On the outboard face semicircular, crescent marks seem to have marked the position of
the trenails. The plank has both butt ends preserved.
ID number: 101
L 388cm, W(max) 48cm, T(max) 4cm
The plank is nailed to the underlying planks and frames with trenails. A number of tool marks on the plank
is visible, which seemed to have been made with a chisel. A crescent shaped mark on the plank is present.
Near the plugged trenails, concretions could be seen. One of the knots is plugged. On the inboard face the
plank is charred.
A 8: Overview of the carvel layer9
9
Drawn by Thomsen, Grundvad, Wagstaffe, Petrelius-Grue, Alexiou. Inked by Thomsen. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer
(2009)
68
Appendix 2: Selective Glossary
The terminology used in this thesis is based on the terminology used in especially Lemée (2006) and
Steffy (2006).
English
Dansk
Deutch
explanation
Bevel
Smig, affasning
Schmiege (f)
An angled face on the
edge of a timber, cut to
fit against each other.
Bow
Bov
Bug (m)
Forward end of the
ship.
Butt
Stød
Stoss
The end of a timber or
plank when cut square.
A butt joint is the
junction of two timbers
finished in this manner.
Carvel- built
Kravel- bygget
Karweelgebaut
Vessel planked so that
the seams are smooth
or aligned.
Caulking
Kalfatring
Breeuwen
Oakum, moss, animal
hair or other fibrous
material driven into the
seams of the planking
and
covered
with pitch to make the
seams watertight. See
also luting.
Ceiling
Garnering
Wegering
The internal structural
planking of the hull.
Clinker-built
Klink-bygget
Klinkergebaut
A vessel constructed so
that its outer planking
overlaps, and is
fastened to, the plank
immediately below it.
The surface of a plank
overlapped by a
neighbor is called a
land (continued)
69
English
Dansk
Deutch
explanation
(continued) and this
double. thickness is
normally held together
with closely spaced
rivets or nails clenched
over metal washers
called roves. Northern
European specialists
limit the term “clinker
built” to vessels whose
planks are rivitted
together; hulls whose
overlapping planks are
fastened with clenched
nails are called
clenched lap or
lapstrake hulls.
Converted
vessel1
clinker
Konverteret
klinkbygget
Umgevandelt
fartøj1
klinkgebaut
Fahrzeug1
Clinker-built vessel
with an outer carvel
layer.
Dendro-dating
Dendro-datering
Dendro-datierung (f)
Determinnation of the
age of a wooden timber
object by analysis of the
width of its tree rings.
Also extends to
identifying regions of
origin. Analysis is by
comparison of sample
data obtained from
known and dated
sources.
Driftbolt
Stubbolt
Stub nagel
Massive iron nail that
don’t go through the
timber.2
1
2
Terms suggested by the author 2010
Pers. Com. Morten Ravn August 19 2010.
70
English
Dansk
Deutch
explanation
Frame
Spant
Spant (m, n)
A transverse timber or
group of
connected/related
timbers set against the
inner surface of the
planking that provide
substantial transverse
strength and stiffness
to the hull.
Garboard
Kølbord
Kielgang (m)
First strake on either
side of keel.
Gripe, cutwater
Krig
Schegg (m)
A piece of wood
Luvkloz (m)
fastened on the stem,
extending the
longitudional lateral
plane of the hull and
stem in order to enable
a ship to sail closer to
the wind.
Keel
Køl
Kiel (m)
The central
longitudionalbottom
element, often
described as the
“backbone” of the hull’s
construction. May be
scarfed together from
several pieces.
Nail
Nagle/spieger/søm
Nagel (m)
Iron fastening with a
head and a pointed
shaft. Nails were cut
from flat sheet (cut
nails); more recently
nails parallel-sided
shanks.
Rabbet
Spinding
Sponung
The continuous groove
in (continued)
71
English
Dansk
Deutch
explanation
(continued) the keelstem-sternpost
elements to take the
lower edge of the
garboards and the
hooding ends of the
planking.
Sapwood
Splitved
Splintholz
Part of a tree beteen the
heartwood (the core)
and bark; often
eliminated during
shipbuilding.
Scarf
Skar/lask
Schäftung (f)
Overlapping joint
between two planks or
timbers.
Spike
Spiger, søm
Spiker (m)
An Iron fastening,
Nagel (m)
usually square in
section with flattened
or pyramidal head;
originally with a
tapered shank.
Spike-plug
Spigerpind
Spikerpinn (m)
Small wooden plug
driven in nail holes
after the removal of
temporary cleats used
to fasten the planks
together during shellfirst construction.
Stringer
Væger
Weger (m)
Longitudinal structural
Stringer (m)
reinforcement inside
the framing, typically
square in section and
thicker than a plank
Square wedge
Duttle
Deutel(m), Vierkantiger
A spike-shaped wooden
keil (m)
wedge driven in the
end of (continued)
72
English
Dansk
Deutch
explanation
(continued) a treenail
in order to lock it in
position in the hull.
Treenail
Trænagle
Holznagel (m)
Elonged, sometimes
slightly tapered piece of
carefully selected and
dried timber, usually
oak, and cut by splitting
and axeing to a rough
cylinder with a faceted
section. The shape will
compress when driven
into a hole connecting
two or more elements,
helping prevent
withdrawal. Various
methods of wedging
and caulking are found
to improve
watertightness and
resistance to
withdrawal.
73
6. References
Auer, J., & Belasus, M. 2008. The British Brig Water Nymph or ... even an Englishman cannot take
the liberty to deride a civil servant on German soil. International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 37(1): 130-141.
Auer, J., & Firth, A. 2007. The ‘Gresham Ship’: an interim report on a 16th-century wreck from
Princes Channel, Thames Estuary. 2007(41 (2)).
Bill, J. 1997. Small Scale Seafaring in Danish Waters Ad 1000-1600. Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen.
Bill, J. 1999. Fra Vikingeskib til bondeskude. Middelalderens almuesøfart under lup.
Nationalmuseets arbejdsmark.: 171-185.
Bill, J. 2000. The Bredfjed ship recreated (1). Maritime archaeology newsletter from Roskilde
2000(14): 14-19.
Daly, A. 2008. Amager Strandvraget. In Dendro.dk rapport 17: 2008
Daly, A. 2009. Dendrochronology Report: 4AM Wreck, Darss, Germany FPL 77. Copenhagen:
dendro.dk.
Eichler, C.W. 1991. Holzbootsbau : und der Bau von stählernen Booten und Yachten. Kiel: RKR-Verl.
Förster, T. 2009. Große Handelsschiffe des Spätmittelalters : Untersuchungen an zwei
Wrackfunden des 14. Jahrhunderts vor der Insel Hiddensee und der Insel Poel.
Bremerhaven: Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum.
Gierszewski, S. 1961.
towy w latach 1570 - 1815. Gdansk.
Greenhill, B. 1995. The archaeology of boats & ships : an introduction. London: Conway Maritime
Press.
Gøthche, M. 1985. "Sandskuder" - Vessels for Trade Between Norway and Denmark in the 18th
and 19th Centuries. In Postmedieval boat and ship archaeology : papers based on those
presented to an International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology in Stockholm in
1982, Osney Mead Oxford England: B.A.R.
74
Gøthche, M. 1991. Three Danish 17th - 19th- Century Wrecks as Examples of Clinker Building
Techniques Versus Carvel Building Techniques in Local Shipwrightry. In Fifth International
Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 1988.Carvel construction technique
: skeleton first, shell first, Oxbow
Hasslöf, O. 1972. Main Principles in the Technology of Ship-Building. In Ships and shipyards, sailors
and fishermen : introduction to maritime ethnology, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Univ. Press,
Rosenkilde and Bagger
Hawkins, R. 1593. The Observation of Sir Richard Hawkins in his voyage into the South Sea, 1953.
In C.R. Drinkwater Bethune (ed).Hakluyt Society I, 118-121. London
Heinze, J. 2010. Abschlussbericht zur Dokumentation
und Bergung des Wrackes Mönchgut, Ostsee VI, Fundplatz 67 aus der schwedischen
Schiffssperre von 1715
im Greifswalder Bodden. Schwerin: Landesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Archäologie
und Denkmalpflege, Swerin.
Kirby, D.G. 2000. The Baltic and the North Seas. London: Routledge.
Kühn, H. 1999. Gestrandet bei Uelesbüll: Wrackarchäeologie in Nordfriesland. Husum: Druck- und
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Lars Tiepolt, & Schumacher, W. Historische bis rezente küstenveränderungen im Raum FischlandDarss-Zingst-Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. Die Küste 1999(61):
22-45.
Lemée, C. 2006a. Kravelbyggeriet i historisk perspektiv : på sporet af kravelbygningsteknologien og
dens spredning til Danmark set ud fra de historiske kilder. Maritim kontakt 28: 7-41.
Lemée, C.P.P. 2006. The renaissance shipwrecks from Christianshavn : An archaeological and
architectural study of large carvel vessels in Danish waters, 1580 - 1640. Roskilde: The
Viking Ship Musem.
Marsden, P. 2009. Mary Rose - your noblest shippe : anatomy of a Tudor warship. Portsmouth:
Mary Rose Trust.
Mohr, D. 2001. Schiffswracks an der Ostseeküste von Fischland und Darss - eine Übersicht. Nau 8:
59-66.
75
Mortensøn, O. 1995. Renæssancens fartøjer : sejlads og søfart i Danmark 1550 - 1650. Rudkøbing:
Langelands Museum.
Mäss, V. 1991. Prospects for underwater archaeology in the Eastern Baltic. International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 20(4): 313-320.
Mäss, V. 1994. A Unique 16th century Estonian Ship Find. In C. Westerdahl (ed.) Crossroads in
ancient shipbuilding : proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship
Archaeology Roskilde 1991, 189-194. Oxbow monograph 40.
Maarleveld, T.J. 1994. Double Dutch Solution in Flush-Planked Shipbuilding: Continuity and
Adaption at the Start of Modern History. In Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding : proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, ISBSA
6, Oxford: Oxbow Books
Nymoen, P. 2007. Arkeologisk registrering av skipsfunn i rørgtøft. Elvebredden Strømsø. Drammen
Kommune, Buskerud Fylke. Oslo: Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum.
Ossowski, W. 2006. Two double-planked wrecks from Poland. In L. Blue, F. Hocker, & A. Englert
(eds) Connected by the sea : proceedings of the tenth International Symposium on Boat and
Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 259-265. Oxford: Oxbow
Probst, N.M. 1994. The Introduction of Flushed-Planked Skin in Northern Europe - and the Elsinore
Wreck. In C. Westerdahl (ed.) Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding : proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, ISBSA 6, 143-152.
Oxford: Oxbow
Prynne, M. 1968. Henry V's Grace Dieu. The Mariner's mirror (54:2): 115-128.
Ravn, M. 2009. Renæssancevraget fra Amager strandpark - præsentation og foreløbig
rekonstruktion. In E. Gøbel (ed.) Maritim Kontakt 32, 7-23. København
Ravn, M., Bischoff, V., Englert, A., & Nielsen, S. 2011. Recent Advances in Post-Excavation
Documentation, Reconstruction and Experimental Maritime Archaeology. In A. Catsambis,
D. Hamilton, & B. Ford (eds) Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, Texas: Oxford
University Press. (Not yet published)
76
Rose, S. 1977. Henry V's Grace Dieu and Mutiny at Sea: Some New Evidence. The Mariner's mirror
(63:1).
Steffy, J.R. 2006. Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. Texas: Texas A&M
University Press.
Tiepolt, W., & Schumacher, W. 1998. "Historische bis rezente Küstenveränderungen im Raum
Fischland - Darß - Zingst - Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. In Die
Küste 61, 22-45.
77
Master thesis
September 2010

Converted clinker vessels from the 16th – 17th century

Transcription

Similar documents

Fibre Cement Recycling.indd

19` 4” AMF/Crestliner 1980 $2200

28` 6” Aquasport 1987 - Chapman School of Seamanship

Queen Victoria

Vathorst Amersfoort

27` 7” Wellcraft 1990 $5900 - Chapman School of Seamanship

24` 5” Stratos 1993 $4500 - Chapman School of Seamanship

The Heart