A Study of a 16th-century wooden vessel from the Netherlands By

Transcription

A Study of a 16th-century wooden vessel from the Netherlands
By Margaret Logan
Master's Thesis
for
Maritime Archaeology Programme
Syddansk Universitet
Advisor: Thijs Maarleveld
December 2013
Summary
The sixteenth century, specifically concerning shipbuilding, presents a gap in the available information.
As Jacques van Damme of the Scheepsvaartmuseum Baasrode put it, “It's a hole” (Van Damme, 2013,
personal communication). The period is sandwiched between the Middle Ages and the dawn of the
Dutch Golden Age, two periods with relative wealths of information, data, and material. For this
reason, the discovery of a vessel dated to this particular period provides a small glimpse into the
usually-dim era of shipbuilders and shipbuilding.
OE34, a wooden flush-plank vessel roughly 16m long and 5m wide, and dated (both
dendrochronologically and relatively) to the second half of the sixteenth century, was discovered in
1979 in a reclamated polder in Flevoland, the Netherlands. The vessel featured ceiling planking, an
extensive framing system, and hull planking, as well as an assortment of associated finds. These
included a few weapons, barrels of quicklime, coins, ceramic pitchers, and more. Over the course of
two sessions in 2011 and 2012, under the direction of the International Fieldschool of Maritime
Archaeology Flevoland, the vessel was excavated and deposed. The author herself participated in the
second session of excavation. Sources will therefore be the excavation drawings and photographs, as
well as comparisons to other vessels which are either contemporaneous with OE34 or feature similar
constructional characteristics.
It is the aim of this thesis to present the vessel in it's entirety, both in constructional elements
and associated finds. Perhaps, in the course of such scrutiny, it is possible to discern what the vessel
may have been used for, and maybe even some conclusive statements can be made about the
shipbuilders who constructed it. It will not be a question of which typology of water-craft to place the
vessel. The author goes so far as to argue that such endeavours in and of themselves do little in the way
i
of academic research, and in the attempt to shed light on the past. To, dare I say, simply categorize a
vessel based on construction method is moot.
Rather, what can the comprehensive analysis of a vessel tell us, if anything, about its possible
function, and about those who built and sailed it? “[Ships'] remains, like the words of historical texts,
carry meaning of far more interpretive value than simple identification like labels in an old-fashioned
museum case. A far better strategy is an approach that seeks to capitalize on the source materials in a
more integrated way” (Adams, 2003, p 42). This holistic approach will take into account three aspects
of the vessel. First, the historical setting in which the vessel was built and operated—namely the
Netherlands in the period leading to the Dutch Golden Age. Second, and more strongly, the
construction of the vessel; careful and methodical observation of every element of the vessel can reveal
what methods and materials were used when building it, as well as the constructional philosophy
behind it. Third and lastly, to a lesser degree, the myriad associated finds will be considered, and the
information which can be gleaned from them. For example, coins found in the course of excavation
revealed the foundering date of the vessel, based on the lack of a particular mark or stamp on those
coins.
One may almost call this approach an anthropological one: the human aspect should always be
the final destination of a research question. Quantitative data concerning the archaeological record is
crucial and infinitely useful, when used as a magnifying glass, microscope, or telescope to those who
created, used, and/or discarded or lost the artefact in question. With this small wooden vessel from the
Low Countries, approached with a holistic (almost anthropological) view, the author hopes to come to
conclusive statements concerning who built and used her.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to take the time to thank those who provided me with the resources, information, and
support necessary to complete this thesis.
First and foremost, I express gratitude to the Maritime Archaeology Programme of Syddansk
Universitet and in particular to Professor Doctor Thijs Maarleveld, who supported my research
proposal and provided constant constructive feedback and direction. I would also like to thank
Professors Jens Auer and Bo Ejstrud of the programme, as well as Holger Schweitzer, who made my
two years in the masters' programme enjoyable and educational (although it wasn't so easy).
From the University of Groningen and the IFMAF excavation of OE34, I would like to thank
Professor Doctor André van Holk for permission and support in focusing this thesis on OE34. Dr.
Laura Koehler from the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed also deserves my thanks for her help in
answering many questions concerning the vessel. Thank-you also to Frank Dallmeijer for the FaroArm
illustrations.
For the two weeks helping to excavate OE34 herself, I would like to thank the International
Fieldschool of Maritime Archaeology Flevoland, in connection with the University of Groningen
(Universiteit Groningen). For more information on IFMAF, or if you would like to participate, please
visit http://www.nieuwlanderfgoed.nl/studiecentrum/ifmaf#eng.
I am indebted to two helpful and resourceful students in particular from the Groningen Institute
of Archaeology: Mariska van der Velde and junior researcher Yftinus van Popta. Vilma Lempiäinen,
also an OE34 cohort, kindly allowed me to peruse her analysis of the framing elements of OE34.
There are a whole bunch of friendly and welcoming people who volunteer at the
Scheepvaartmuseum Baasrode, where a traditional botter is currently being constructed, as well as
various ship-models. These volunteers were kind enough to spend an afternoon imparting some of their
iii
expertise. They include Wilfried De Ridder, Paul De Leenheer, Koen De Vriese, Maurice Kaak, Bruno
Van Damme, and Jacques Van Damme. A special thank-you goes to Wilfried and Bruno for giving us a
tour. A lovely afternoon was spent looking at the Rosalie, admiring ship-models, and enjoying Bruno's
flan. For more information on the museum in Baasrode and on the construction of the botter Rosalie,
please visit http://www.scheepswervenbaasrode.be or http://www.botter-rosalie.be.
Jeroen Vermeersch of De Kogge Project took the time to provide me with academic resources,
for which I am very grateful.
Brittany Kuterbach listened to incessant worrying concerning the completion of this thesis on
time. She dutifully ignored my panic and pessimism, and her unwavering belief was heartening, to say
the least. Thanks also for proof-reading!
Last but not least, thank-you to Alexander Cattrysse, for Inkscape digitisations, frequent and
repetitive questions, help with Dutch translating, proof-reading services, and undeserved patience. The
image created with QGIS in order to convey the location of OE34, along with many other parts of this
thesis, was made due to his assistance.
To my parents John and Lynn Logan, thank you for the encouragement and financial support,
even though a few words of acknowledgement don't even begin to cover what I owe you.
iv
Table of Contents
Summary
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
i
iii
v
Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Question
1
1.1 Introduction of OE34
1
1.2 Research Question
3
1.3 Concepts and Terminology in Shipbuilding
4
Chapter 2: Methodology
7
2.1 Outline
7
2.2 Materials
8
2.3 Wrecking or Foundering?
9
Chapter 3: Historical Context
12
3.1 Introduction
12
3.2 The Dutch Revolt Begins
13
3.3 Population and Trade
15
3.4 Industry: Shipbuilding and Guilds
16
3.5 Formation of Polders
18
Chapter 4: Description of OE34
20
4.1 Overview of OE34
20
4.2 Condition of the Wood
24
4.3 Method of Recording During Excavation
25
4.4 Methodology of Describing OE34
29
4.5 The Vessel
31
4.5.1 Keel and Posts
31
4.5.2 Hull Planking
39
4.5.3 Framing System
45
4.5.4 Wood Conversion
56
4.5.5 Ceiling Planking and Keelson
56
4.5.6 Associated Finds
59
v
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
62
5.1 Methodology and Aims
62
5.2 Terminology, Typology, Tradition
64
5.3 OE34 Discussed
66
66
5.3.2 Hull Planking
69
74
77
77
5.3.6 Likely Construction Sequence
78
81
5.4 Summary, Analysis, Hypothesis
83
Bibliography and Resources
86
Appendices
91
I. Framing System Catalogue
91
II. Spreadsheet Visualization of Framing Elements
97
III. Inserted Illustrations
i. Hull Planking
Insert A
ii. Hull Planking with spijkerpennen highlighted
Insert B
iii. Ceiling Planking
Insert C
iv. Illustration of and Cross-sections of Keel
Insert D
Title Page Photograph: OE34 in situ. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Question
1.1 Introduction of OE34
In the field of maritime archaeology, sites can be divided into two general categories: terrestrial sites
and aquatic sites. The submarine location of a shipwreck makes it unlikely to be easily accessible or
even discovered at all. The select few underwater shipwrecks which are discovered can be accessed
with the use of SCUBA equipment or remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). However, a very small
portion of shipwrecks fall into the category of having sunk or foundered in water, but discovered on dry
land. Polders provide the rare opportunity of excavating a shipwreck in its “natural habitat” with more
ease than if it were yet underwater. A polder is an area of land, generally located in the Low Countries,
which was once part of the sea and has been pumped free of water. This leaves behind arable land.
OE34 was discovered in Plot 34 outside the city of Lelystad in Flevoland, in the Netherlands. The
polder of Flevoland was once the Zuiderzee until it was reclamated in 1957 (eastern Flevoland—the
location of Lelystad) and 1968 (southern Flevoland) (Provincie Flevoland, n.d.).
Figure 1: An aerial photo of OE34 cleared of soil and being pumped free of water. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
1
The wreck was found in 1975 and surveyed in 2003 (Koehler, 2013, p 33). It was given the
identifier OE34 based on its location in the Netherlands. Dendrochronological analysis resulted in a
construction date of 1553. Relative dating with the use of coins unearthed during the excavation gave a
foundering date of 1572 (Van Holk, 2013, personal communication), placing OE34 in the sixteenth
century. The wreck was excavated over the course of two sessions, in the summers of 2011 and 2012,
by the International Fieldschool for Maritime Archaeology Flevoland (IFMAF), which is a joint
venture amongst the University of Groningen, the province of Flevoland and municipality of Lelystad,
the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency)(hereafter RCE), and
Nieuw Land Heritage Centre. The programme is designed as an annual archaeological field-school
which focuses specifically on maritime archaeology and on teaching excavation techniques to students
Figure 2: IFMAF students and supervisors hard at work on the wreck. Photo taken by author.
of maritime archaeology. The excavation of OE34 was led by André van Holk of the University of
Groningen and co-project leader Laura Koehler of the RCE. During the excavation itself and even more
so in the course of research afterwards, OE34 proved to feature unique, unexpected characteristics of a
wooden vessel from the Renaissance. Taking into account how little is known of the sixteenth century,
2
OE34 would prove to be a trove of information for the maritime archaeology community. Having
personally participated in the field school, excavating this particular vessel, the author chose to
research, observe, and analyse the vessel after the excavation as the subject for a masters' thesis.
1.2 Research question
Can the holistic observation and analysis of a vessel, specifically OE34, tell us anything conclusive
about those who constructed it and for what purpose it was built? This analysis will include the
historical context, the constructional method and philosophy of the vessel itself, and the associated
finds.
Figure 3: An image created by the author using a historical map (1570-1603) of the Zuiderzee, the coordinates of the wreck,
and geo-referencing with Google Earth in order to show where OE34 sank in 1572. Please note this map is rotated 90
degress from the norm: the top of the map is east, the right south, the bottom west, and the left north. The cities of
Harderwijk, Amersfoort, and Monnickendam can be seen for reference (Sgrooten, 1570).
First to consider: the vessel as a product. How was it constructed? What materials were used,
3
and what methods were followed in the course of construction? Why did the shipbuilders make the
choices they did during construction? This brings us to the second factor to consider: time and place.
OE34 was found in what was formerly the Zuiderzee, part of the IJsselmeer. Were there factors which
affected how a vessel in the sixteenth century in the Netherlands was built? “Material, place and
opportunity often cause deviations. The use, which is of endless variation, forces the building master to
bend rules and measures” (Hoving, 2012, p 15). Adams, in Ships, Innovation and Social Change, lists
seven constraints which must have been considered when constructing a vessel (in no particular order):
environment, economics, technology, purpose, tradition, materials, and ideology (Adams, 2003, p 26).
How did these constraints affect the construction of OE34? The third factor to consider is that OE34
was discovered with many associated finds, including weapons, shoes, utensils, and coins. An analysis
of the finds allows us to see even further into the lives of those who were sailing OE34, at least when it
foundered.
1.3 Concepts and Terminology in Shipbuilding
The reader may notice that the question of typology or classification was not included in the research
question concerning OE34. This was done completely on purpose and with much thought involved.
There remains debate among maritime archaeologists concerning how to classify ships, or how
to place them into typologies, or (as this thesis will argue) whether or not to place them into a category
at all. Different ways of separating each vessel into typologies include by materials used, or perceived
origins of the vessel, or by “distinctions that would have been important to the original manufacturer or
user” (Hocker & Ward, 2004, p 3), although this last type of classification means that we in the present
would claim to understand what would have been “important” to the original manufacturer, which is
presumptuous and too arbitrary. To assume that we in the present are able to perceive what was and was
4
not important to those (at least in this case) living and constructing wooden vessels in the sixteenth
century is quite audacious. “How much correlation there may be between our perception of this
material and that of the people who produced it in the past is one of the central concerns and challenges
of archaeology” (Adams, 2003, p 28). Frederick Hocker succinctly calls this the “inherent conflict
between imposed typology and contemporary perceptions of difference and similarity” (Hocker, 1991,
p 7). While it has been the goal of many research projects to classify and categorize vessels, the author
is careful to keep the focus in the fore: the shipbuilders behind OE34. All the same, a few terms are
unavoidable and thus a brief overview of the most basic vocabulary will be given.
When shipbuilders construct the hull planking first, creating a watertight shell into which the
frames are inserted afterwards, it is known as “shell-first” construction. This is a typical method of
construction of vessels found in Northern Europe. “In the reclaimed IJsselmeer Polders in the central
Netherlands, wrecks of cog ships have been found that were built, without any doubt, using the shellfirst method, while Scandinavian excavations in Nydam, Kvalsund, Oseberg, and Gokstad, among
others, have shown that this method was practiced in northern Europe during and even before the
Middle Ages. Originally the shell-first method was used for lapstrake-built ships only; both the
northern European ships, like the viking [sic] ships and medieval cogs, were built this way, either
entirely or in part. What is interesting is that Witsen describes the use of this method for carvel-built
ships” (Hoving, 2012, p 9).
Frame-first, or skeleton-first, is just that: the frames of a vessel are constructed first, creating the
skeleton of the vessel, and the hull planking is installed afterwards. Another distinction to be made is
whether or not a vessel can be considered plank-orientated or frame-orientated: was a vessel
constructed with the structural integrity placed with the frames (as is generally connected with framefirst construction) or with the outer planking, and the frames as a secondary (as is generally associated
5
with shell-first construction)... On top of all of this, Hocker coined another term with which to refer to
vessels with bottoms (below the turn of the bilge) “of distinctly different construction than the sides”;
this he called “bottom-based” (Hocker, 1991, p 22).
However, now that the basic terminology has been described, the author would prefer to avoid
getting caught up in tedious definitions. This analysis endeavours to place the vessel in a historical
context and strives to deduce conclusive, supported information about those who built and sailed her.
The author does not believe that nit-picking between different categories and/or definitions between
those categories is a productive use of time. While determining the constructional philosophy behind
OE34 is in fact a main aim of this thesis, it is also important to remember that terms like “shell-first”
and “skeleton-first” are “academic terms and are not necessarily used by shipbuilders” (Lemée, 2006, p
39). OE34 will be straight-forwardly described, and controversial terminology will be attempted to be
avoided. When use of them is unavoidable, explanation will be provided.
6
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Outline
The author approached the research question carefully and methodically. First, a brief summary of the
Netherlands in the second half of the sixteenth century will be provided, through the filter of
shipbuilding. The purpose is to provide a historical backdrop onto which the vessel may be projected.
This will include an overview of the political situation in the Netherlands at the time, as well as a
focused section on shipbuilding, and the Zuiderzee in particular, where the vessel was found.
Second, OE34 will be described in full. This section is extensive, even though the vessel is a
relatively small water-craft. All constructional elements, materials, fastenings, etc., will be meticulously
covered. The descriptive chapter will be arranged in the likely order of construction: first the keel and
posts, then the bottom hull planking, etc. Such thorough observation of the constructional details is
conducted in the hope that the overall constructional philosophy may be revealed—in other words,
seeing the forest for the trees.
Third and last, analysis and interpretation of the remarkable (and unremarkable) features of the
vessel will be discussed. The observation of the construction of the vessel, as well as remarkable
features, will invite comparisons to other water-craft. In the course of the thesis, a number of sources
in particular will be referenced frequently. On this subject, the author heeds Greenhill's warning: “... a
boat should be judged only, and I repeat only, in the light of the requirements for which she was built
and the resources of the society which built her. She should never be judged by comparison with other
boats built for different purposes of different materials in different circumstances. The basic question is
one of fitness of purpose in relation to broad local circumstance. To appreciate a boat one must be
aware of the factors that gave rise to her building, the timber available, the general environment, the
building traditions of the society which produced her and, above all, the purpose for which she was
7
built” (Greenhill, 1996, p 77). The vessels thus chosen as comparable were those of a contemporaneous
dating, and/or those which exhibited similar features as OE34, and are included with the aim of
providing examples of why the vessel may exhibit such-and-such a feature or method of construction.
2.2 Materials
The materials primarily used in the present research of OE34 were excavation drawings and
photographs. There are over forty drawings, most of which feature multiple timbers and/or frames on
one sheet. The largest drawings were those of the complete ceiling planking and hull planking in situ.
The drawings were digitised using Inkscape by the author (with the exception of the drawing of the
keel and keel cross-sections, as well as that of the garboard strake, which were digitised by Alexander
Cattrysse). There were over two thousand photographs from the two sessions of the excavation, as well
as more detailed photographs taken of the timbers after they were taken to the depot of the RCE in
Lelystad, the Netherlands.
Figure 4: Example of drawing from the excavation of OE34.
8
A particularly useful tool used was a visual layout created by the author of those framing
elements which were drawn ex situ, which can be found on the following page (Figure 5), as well as in
the appendices. This spreadsheet does not reflect all of the framing elements which survived but only
those which were drawn ex situ. In this layout, the general shape of the hull can be discerned: the
narrow aft and wide midships. It was with this visualization that the author recognized that the frame
extensions alternated from port to starboard.
Lastly, the author was able to go to the Scheepvaartmuseum in Baasrode, Belgium, along with
fellow Syddansk Universitet master student Alexander Cattrysse. Here volunteers are building a fullsize Dutch botter, and were kind enough to give us a tour. It was helpful to see a vessel similar in
characteristic to OE34, as well as different in important ways. For example, as alike as OE34 and
botter may be, the bottom construction methods are very different. OE34's garboard and bottom strakes
reach from post to post, whereas the strakes on the bottom of botter generally reach straight across and
their ends do not meet the posts.
2.3 Wrecking or Foundering?
One may notice, in the descriptive section, that despite the presence of a mast-step in the
keelson, there is no sign of mast or rigging. This was not an oversight on the part of the author, but
instead, it was due to the fact that no mast nor rigging was discovered on-site. Such a lack thereof
brings up the question of foundering/wrecking: why was OE34 discovered so (i.e., part of the
archaeological record)? The only section of the vessel which shows damage is the starboard fore, a
section found no longer attached to the rest of the hull, but lying adjacent. In addition, several frame
elements were found during excavation having clearly been deposed from their original positions (a
frame lying transversely on top of the ceiling planking, etc.). Other than these displacements, no visible
signs of wrecking (a hole or holes piercing the hull, for example) as opposed to foundering were
9
O
STARBOARD
Z
F
E
S4b
S6b
S8b
S10b
S12½b
S18b
S19½b
S21½b
S23½b
SBO25½
S26½b
S27A
SBO30
SBO31
SBO32
SBO33
S30½b
S321/2b
S331/2b
HS
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
10
E
PORT
F
Z
S5b
O
SBO5½
S7b
S9b
S10b
S11b
S14½b
SBO13
SBO14
S16b
S19b
S20½b
S22½b
S25½b
SBO22
SBO23
SBO24
SBO25
S26½b
S30½b
SBO27
SBO28
SBO29
SBO30
SBO31
SBO32
SBO33
SBO34
SBO35
Page 10 (previous), Figure 5: A spreadsheet created by the author in order to easily visualize the layout of the framing
elements (those which were drawn ex situ) and their rough positions within the vessel. The middle column shows the
hartschip liggers, listed from aft to fore. The left and right columns are labelled thus: O for oplanger, Z for zitter, F for
filler-timber, and E for frame extension. The oplangers were added in grey so as to indicate they are on the sides of the
vessel, and not the bottom.
observed. The event of a shipwreck is not always a result of damage to the vessel or to a flaw in the
vessel itself. Even the most watertight, seaworthy vessels are subject to wrecking or foundering. If they
take water due to high waves, then a watertight hull will prevent water from escaping. The shallow sea
of the IJsselmeer features high, fast waves which may have overcome the sides of the vessel
(Maarleveld, 2013, personal communication). Even though the vessel was discovered situated quite
upright with little to no list, as though it sunk straight down into the sea, two factors in particular
suggest that it may indeed have wrecked: First, all of the artefacts found during the excavation were
located on the starboard side of the vessel (Van Popta, 2012). Second, the lack of rig: “The crew of a
vessel in trouble will make strenuous efforts to avert disaster and these activities can radically alter
both the ship as a machine, what it carries aboard and the way it is organised and used. In violent
weather, the rig may be substantially altered or cut away, cargo, equipment, fixtures and fittings may be
jettisoned in addition to any items lost involuntarily... In these cases the assemblage deposited on the
seabed in the event of wrecking is not the same as it would have been had the vessel unexpectedly
foundered or sunk due to naval action or piracy” (Adams, 2003, p 23). A heavy rolling motion during
wrecking could have easily caused the various items to roll to one side of the vessel. This could be an
indication of the violence of the storm which ended the operating life of OE34.
Let us begin with the historical situation of the Netherlands during the sixteenth century, in
order to establish the conditions in which OE34 was constructed.
11
Chapter 3: Historical Context
3.1 Introduction
The Low Countries (here referring to what is now the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) were, at
the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the middle of political, mercantile, and geographical (both
natural and man-made) change, and were about to experience a surge of economic growth which would
last almost two centuries. The area of the Low Countries was divided into seventeen provinces. The
House of Habsburg had recently inherited these seventeen provinces (which had been unified by the
Habsburg's Burgundian predecessors in the mid-fifteenth century) in the beginning of the sixteenth
century, but was yet not in control of all of them. Charles I of Spain had abdicated, and his son Philip II
became Lord of the seventeen provinces. He attempted to centrally govern the provinces as well as
squelch the rising Calvinist movement, and both of these actions helped provoke the Low Countries to
revolt against the Spanish Empire.
The most prominent and powerful of the seventeen provinces were Flanders, Brabant, and
Holland. The entire area of the Low Countries was separated into north and south by the Rhine, Maas,
and Scheldt rivers. Flanders and Brabant were south of the rivers, but Holland was located north of the
rivers. The provinces of Holland and Zeeland were positioned at the mouth of a river delta, which
makes it unsurprising that they are “the provinces in which almost the entire story of Dutch maritime
trade is played out” (De Vries, 1997, p 350). This geographic location, as well as the rivers that
pervaded the Low Countries, provided access to the sea which helped the area rise in the maritime
economy.
Tension was growing between the provinces south of the rivers, where power had centered after
12
the succession of the Habsburgs, and the provinces north of the rivers, where they were left up to their
own devices; a relationship which De Vries describes as “the Northern Netherlands playing 'periphery'
to the Burgundian State's Flemish-Brabantine 'core'” (De Vries, 1997, p 272). Both geographically and
linguistically, Holland, one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the provinces, and the other
provinces north of the river (Utretcht, Gelderland, Over-IJssel, Groningen, Drenthe, and Friesland)
were set apart, and Holland sought superiority over surrounding provinces without interference from
the southern provinces.
The stage was slowly being set, under the influence of myriad factors (both on a large scale and
a small), for both the Dutch Revolt and for the Dutch Golden Age that would flourish, despite the
revolt, during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
3.2 The Dutch Revolt Begins
As OE34's foundering location, and thus probable area of operation, was in the former Zuiderzee in ca.
1572, we will take a moment to focus on this region, in the second half of the sixteenth century, as the
Dutch rose up in arms against the severe rule of Philip II. However, please note that this is meant to be
a brief summary: reality was of course more complex than can be conveyed in a few pages. “For [a
revolt] to happen there must be a preparatory period of polarization of attitudes, ideologies, and
constitutional views lasting decades” (Israel, 1995, p 169). The author aims only to provide a rough
framework of the political situation at the time, as well as a short introduction of the Sea-Beggars, who
operated (at least in part) in the Zuiderzee in the very same moment as the foundering date of OE34.
13
Figure 6: Map showing the Low Countries in 1576 (Tracy, 2008, p 94)
In 1567, Philip II dispatched the Duke of Alva to the Netherlands with the order to smother the
rebellion of Calvinist Protestants. It was the aim of Philip II, using a combination of severe punishment
(meted out by the Duke of Alva) and a reorganization of the Church, to squelch the rising movement.
The Duke of Alva wasted no time in creating the Counsel of Troubles, with which to trial those guilty
of Protestant rebellion, as well as imposing harsh new taxation (including the particularly inciting Tenth
Penny tax—a fixed 10 percent tax on sales)(Israel, 1995, p 166). William of Orange “unfurled the
banner of revolt in 1568” (Israel, 1995, p 160). Louis, Count of Nassau, another leader in the rebellion,
created the Sea-Beggars (Watergeuzen) in the same year. This was an effective maritime effort of rebels
14
who operated out of Emden—a fleet of privateers carrying letters of marque from Orange. “They not
only disrupted maritime traffic around the coasts of the Netherlands but effected a series of landings,
plundering monasteries and pillaging supplies” (Israel, 1995, p 163). A group of Sea-Beggars were able
to take the town of Brill in 1572 when Spanish troops momentarily left it undefended. Shortly after,
Flushing, located on the mouth of the Scheldt, was also brought under the control of the Beggars: “So
strongly pro-Beggar was sentiment in Zeeland that the Spaniards were greatly hampered in their efforts
to react by the refusal of local seamen to serve on the king's ships and supply barges. Flushing, an
admirable naval base, assured the rebels control of the Scheldt estuary” (Israel, 1995, pp 171-172). In
October of 1573, Spanish fleets under the command of Count Bossu were defeated by the Sea-Beggars
at the Battle of the Zuiderzee: “From this time forward, rebel towns in North Holland had (as in
Zeeland) the great advantage of remaining in constant communication with one another by sea” (Tracy,
2008, p 89).
The provinces north of the river would eventually succeed in expelling the Spanish and emerge
as the recognized United Provinces of the Dutch Republic (Israel, 1995). However, these events would
not begin until the mid-sixteenth century.
3.3 Population and Trade
The population in the provinces generally increased in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth
centuries, especially in Holland and Friesland. “Through the first half of the seventeenth century, the
dominant flow of migrants to Holland was from the North—from the countryside of North Holland and
Friesland, the German North Sea coast, and Scandinavia. These migrants were especially prominent in
everything having to do with shipbuilding and seafaring” (De Vries, 1997, p 74). However, during and
15
after the Dutch Revolt, population numbers in what is now Belgium (that is, south of the rivers)
suffered and did not recover until the eighteenth century, whereas the Republic showed growth even
during the Revolt, and massive growth after 1580.
This population growth was both an influence and a factor in the great increase of trade both
within the Low Countries and with the rest of Europe: “The sixteenth century experienced a vigorous
expansion of trade within Europe. The Europe-wide growth of population, increasing the demand for
foodstuffs and other commodities, contributed mightily to this growth of trade... already around 1550
the north, and especially Amsterdam, had learned to benefit enormously from Europe's burgeoning
trade flows” (De Vries, 1997, p 272). These trade “flows” were viciously protected and fought over,
specifically the inland waterways, many of which were natural but manually connected or lengthened.
These were used competitively by different provinces and towns since the Middle Ages to attract water
traffic that was moving between the economic superpowers of Brabant, Flanders, and the Rhineland.
“This encouraged the founding of a large number of cities intent on exploiting the commercial
possibilities of their location” (De Vries, 1997, p 19). Trade routes which had been established in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries continued to flourish: timber from the Baltic was used to construct
hulls, and flexible pine from Scandinavia was used for masts and spars (Unger, 1978, p 60). This was a
reliable source of good timber which fed the growing industries of shipping and shipbuilding.
3.4 Industry: Shipbuilding and Guilds
Shipping and shipbuilding was one of the largest industries of the area, and this was an important factor
(arguably the most important) in the unprecedented growth of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
This was partly due to the fact that Dutch shipping services could offer lower costs to customers both in
16
Europe and worldwide (Unger, 1978, p 2). The entire shipping industry employed and utilized many
internal and connected industries, including (but not limited to) the making of sails, rope, casks and
barrels in which to ship the goods, and employing thousands to man the ships themselves (Israel, 1995,
p 117).
In the sixteenth century, towns which featured shipbuilding almost always had a ship-carpenters'
guild. A guild was a “union of people engaged in a common trade and recognized as a unit, as a guild,
by some public authority” (Unger, 1978, p 12). Individual members of the ship-carpenters' guild
worked as contractors. The ship-carpenters' guilds themselves encouraged cooperation, were
responsible for training young craftsmen, and collected dues from members. Dutch guilds appeared to
have offered a more open and flexible environment than guilds in other countries, operating as “a
forum for the exchange of technical information in the regular, and irregular, religious and social and
business meetings... Attendance at the meetings was compulsory” (Unger, 1978, p 80). While guilds
eventually fell out of use in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the success of the Dutch
shipbuilding industry clearly spoke to the usefulness of these guilds for ship-carpenters.
While at first (before the sixteenth century), the building of boats and water-craft was small,
localized, and operated privately, it eventually became more and more centralized in the larger towns of
the Zuiderzee. This was in part due to a law passed in 1531 (order op de buitennering) which forbade
the building of boats in the countryside, excepting local industry only (Unger, 1978, p 3). Despite
protests to this law, shipbuilding slowly coalesced to be centred in Dortrecht, Edam, Hoorn, and
Amsterdam (De Vries, 1997, p 273). Amsterdam especially was one of the most trafficked ports: over
half of the estimated 1,800 sea-going ships in Holland in the mid-sixteenth century were based in
Amsterdam (Israel, 1995, p 117).
17
As for the actual building of these ships, the sixteenth century in the Low Countries saw high
demand for vessels which could transport bulk cargo. Unger states in his work Dutch shipbuilding
before 1800 that design specialization in shipbuilding was clearly apparent, as well as key to the
success of the Dutch shipbuilding and shipping industry. However, this statement has not been
supported with archaeological evidence. Instead, when observing the available information concerning
building methods of the time (the beginning of the sixteenth century), at least two basic constructional
methods emerge. These two methods are the use of non-interconnected frames and the presence of
spijkerpennen—holes which have been plugged with wooden dowels, revealing the use of temporary
cleats or clamps to secure the flush-planking until the frames were inserted. “The holes show up in
small but orderly rows perpendicular to and either side of seams between strakes of planking”
(Maarleveld, 1992, p 164). It would seem logical that OE34, whose timbers revealed a felling date of
1553, would exhibit these two constructional features. However, while spijkerpennen were observed,
specific floor timbers were found to have been transversely fastened to oplangers in order to create
master frames. This (indeed the description of the whole vessel) will be further described and discussed
in the following chapters.
3.5 Formation of Polders
Even such a brief summary of the historical context of the Low Countries must include a mention of
the intense land reclamation and drainage which began in the thirteenth century and occurred
intermittently until the nineteenth century. “The most enduring of Dutch achievements in this period is
arguably the land reclamation that literally changed the face and shape of whole regions” (De Vries,
1997, p 27). After reclamation, these polders proved to be some of the world’s largest “ship
18
graveyards” due to the high number of shipwrecks discovered in the drained seabeds (Reinders, 1985).
It was in the polder of Flevoland that OE34 was discovered.
19
Chapter 4: Description of OE34
4.1 Overview of OE34
The vessel OE34 was located about 30 cm under the surface of the ground. The excavation revealed
that the keel and ceiling planking were in their original positions, and the framing and hull planking
were mostly in their original positions. The exception was the framing in the starboard fore section,
where some floor timbers were found to have been displaced, and where the hull planking was in very
poor condition. Photographs of the excavation during the session in 2010, in which the author did not
participate, show several displaced timbers on top of the ceiling planking.
Figure 7: Displaced timbers (at least two frames and a ceiling plank) lying on top of the ceiling planking. Two of the three
barrels of quicklime can also be seen, covered with canvas. Photo courtesy of IFMAF.
The hull planking and framing above the turn of the bilge were no longer attached to the bottom
of OE34. This will be described more fully below. Five rows of ceiling planking were preserved on
20
either side of the zaathout (keelson), and these planks varied in quality of preservation, from wellpreserved to almost entirely disintegrated. These ceiling planks were the only evidence of inner
planking in OE34, meaning that the vessel only had one deck. The keelson was found to be wellpreserved, and still featured a clear mast-step.
Forty-two floor timbers (spanten or liggers) spanned the vessel below the turn of the bilge,
while framing elements identified as zitters and oplangers alternated at and above the turn of the bilge.
The lower halves of the stem and stern survived, but their upper halves did not. The keel was
discovered still securely attached to both posts. The floor timbers, like the ceiling planking, ranged in
Figure 8: OE34 after the ceiling planking was removed, thus revealing the frames. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
quality of preservation: most of the timbers were in a good state of preservation, especially those
located amidships. Could this be the result of having been protected by the ceiling planking above
them? In comparison, the frames found farthest fore and farthest aft showed the most signs of
deterioration. The oplangers, which are transverse framing elements comparable to English futtocks,
were the least well-preserved of the framing elements of OE34, as well as the side hull planking (that
21
which was located underneath the oplangers). The zitters were knee-shaped timbers found at the turn of
the bilge, used to reinforce the area, and these had preserved relatively well. Lastly, in four locations
between floor timbers, the author has observed “filler timbers”, which cannot be identified as floor
timbers, zitters, or oplangers. While the excavation drawings label three of the four filler timbers as
zitters, and the fourth as a floor timber extension, several reasons lead the author to a different
conclusion. Their locations (neither bridging the turn of the bilge as zitters do, nor lengthening a floor
timber in the far aft, as a frame extension would), their rectangular cross-sections, and not exhibiting
the knee shapes characteristic of OE34's zitters, compel the author to place them in their own category
with their own special purpose within the framing system of OE34. One of these filler timbers boasts a
distinct role bolstering a master-frame/oplanger connection. These will be described in more detail in
the framing system section.
The hull planking of OE34 consisted of ten strakes on either side of the keel. These strakes were
flush-laid, and the garboards featured vertical flat scarfs. The rest of the planking appeared to have used
butt-ended joints. Below the turn of the bilge the hull planking was in excellent condition by any
standard: archaeologists were able to walk on the bottom strakes while working (albeit with care).
Above the turn of the bilge was a different story: the further the strakes lay from the keel, the worse
their condition. The displaced section of the starboard fore was found in an especially fore-gone state
of deterioration: there was only an impression in the soil where the fore-end of the strake with the
identifier GI in this section was once located (an explanation of the labelling system will be given
below).
Trenails with diameters of 3cm were used in the construction of OE34 to fasten the ceiling
planking, framing elements, and hull planking. In at least 9 locations, larger trenails, with a diameter of
4-5cm were used. However, the sparsity of these larger trenails indicates they were used for repairs, as
22
compared to the almost ubiquitous use of the 3cm-diameter trenails. Iron nails were used extensively in
the hull planking to secure the vertical flat scarfs. Spijkerpennen (small wooden plugs about 1x1cm in
diameter) were observed in the keel and in the hull planking. Both on the step of the keel, at the turn of
the bilge, and in several places along the tenth and uppermost strake, iron bolts were also observed as
fasteners. It was hypothesized that these were the fasteners for a possible gangway, or walkway around
the inside edge of the vessel (Van Holk, 2012, personal communication).
OE34 was discovered upright (the inboard facing up, the outboard facing down), as well as
quite flattened: the weight of the soil above, and probably water at one point as well, had caused the
side planking and the oplangers to break away from the bottom at precisely the turn of the bilge on
both sides. The sides tilted outwards, exposing the interior of the vessel (see Figure 8). The sides broke
away both fore and aft, where they were connected to the stem and stern-post. The garboard strakes,
both starboard- and port-side, were still connected to the stern. The second strake on the starboard side
(GB1/SB—see explanation of labelling system below) was also discovered still connected to the stern
(the end proper continues underneath the post, presumably still attached to the rabbet), but all other
strakes were found as separated from their original positions connected to the stem and stern-post. The
hull planking of OE34 comprised at least ten strakes on either side of the keel. These strakes were the
most well-preserved amidships and close to the keel. Only the extremities of the strakes had
deteriorated. The top-most surviving strakes on either side of the vessel (GJ/SB and GJ/BB) were
observably thicker than the other strakes. They both consisted of one continuous plank, unlike the
other strakes, all of which contained two or more planks. This indicated they may have been wales.
During the course of the excavation, various finds were discovered in association with the
shipwreck. These included hearth stones as well as ballast, and several utensils and remains of food
products were discovered near the hearth stones. Remains of weapons were found, consisting of two
23
rapiers, the hilt of a third rapier, a possible halberd, and a knife encased within a sheath. Yftinus van
Popta provides a preliminary report concerning the presence of these particular weapons aboard OE34
and their implications (Van Popta, 2012). Three small barrels were unearthed as well (two during the
first session and the third during the second session), all filled with limestone.
4.2 Condition of the Wood
The quality of the wood of OE34 ranged from almost perfectly preserved to so deteriorated that one
section of a strake in the hull planking was nothing more than an impression in the soil. The oplangers
were all heavily deteriorated. Sections of the ceiling planking were “draped” over the framing
elements.
Figure 9: Photograph of ceiling planking so deteriorated that it appears to drape over the oplangers. Photograph courtesy of
IFMAF.
The outer edges and sides of the vessel showed the heaviest signs of decay, while the keel and
those amidships timbers closest to the keel were the best preserved. This could be explained by the
“depth” at which different timbers were found in the soil: the side planking and oplangers were the
“shallowest” elements, while the keel was the “deepest” element of the wreck. The keel, bottom strakes
24
(except their extreme ends), and floor timbers were found to be in an excellent state of preservation.
Details and fastenings such as scarfs, trenails, nails, repairs, and fillers were discernible in these
sections of the vessel.
Figure 10: Taken from the port side, the heavily-deteriorated oplangers can be seen in contrast to the relatively wellpreserved ceiling planking. Note the mast-step in the upper left. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
The starboard fore section, which was found lying adjacent to its original location attached to
the vessel, was found to be especially degraded—several timbers were gone entirely, leaving only
imprints in the moist soil. The foremost ends of the uppermost five strakes on the starboard side had
broken away from the hull entirely and proved to be almost indiscernible from the underlying soil. See
Figure 11.
4.3 Method of Recording During Excavation
OE34's constructional elements can be roughly divided into three categories: ceiling planking, hull
planking, and framing elements. Each separate plank, element, frame, etc., was registered and given a
cow-tag with an identifier. Of course there were also the keel and posts, keelson and deadwood, etc.,
but their labelling was straight-forward, whereas the forty-two floor timbers, thirty-five planks which
25
Figure 11: The starboard fore (shown in the lower left) had broken away from the rest of the vessel and was lying adjacent.
Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
composed the ceiling planking, and roughly sixty planks in the hull strakes required an extensive
labelling method. The Dutch system of labelling ship elements during an archaeological excavation
was utilized and requires explanation.
The ceiling planking was given the identifier W (wegering). A letter, given alphabetically, is
given to each strake, moving from nearest the keel outwards on both sides of the vessel. Each plank in
a strake was given a number; the aft-most plank given number 1, the next plank number 2, and so on.
In the case of a plank having broken into more than one fragment, another letter was assigned to each
piece, placed after the cipher. All the identifying labels on OE34 ended with letters designating whether
the element was located on the starboard (SB, from the Dutch term stuurboord), port (BB, bakboord),
or amidships (HS, hartschip). Thus, the first row of ceiling planking on the port side would be labelled
26
WA1/BB, WA2/BB, WA3/BB, etc. If WA1/BB had broken into two fragments, those would be labelled
separately WA1A/BB and WA1B/BB.
The labelling of the framing elements was not quite so straight-forward. The framing elements'
labels all began with S (spant). Floor timbers (spanten or liggers) were numbered from aft to fore,
followed by the letter A. Moving from aft to fore, the floor timbers were labelled thus: S1A/HS,
S2A/HS, S3A/HS, etc. If an oplanger was associated with a particular frame (explained in detail
below), this oplanger was labelled SBO, followed by a number, as well as SB or BB (depending on
whether it was located starboard or port) instead of HS. Zitters were identified with the letter S,
numerically labelled followed by ½, and the ID ends with the SB or BB identifier. Identification tags
were not placed uniformly on a particular face of each floor timber (i.e., always placed on the fore or
aft surface) which would have facilitated easy recognition of which surface of the frame faced fore and
which aft, and which “arm” extended starboard and which port. Sometimes this information could be
discerned, for example on those frames which featured an extension. However, for most frames, only
sided and moulded dimensions above the keel are given.
The hull planking labelling resembles that of the ceiling planking. Strake IDs began with the
letter “G” (from gang), then a letter, alphabetically, beginning with the garboard strake and moving
outwards towards the gunwale. This letter is followed by a number which designates the specific plank
of the individual strake (beginning with the number 1 at the aft-end and moving to the fore). The
identifier ends with letters specifying whether the strake in question was located starboard or port.
Thus, the aftmost plank of the garboard strake on the starboard side is given the identifier GA1/SB, and
the second plank GA2/SB, the third GA3/SB, and so forth.
The students and supervisors exposed the vessel in the soil using shovels, trowels, and hands.
The timbers and planks were cleaned, registered, tagged, and recorded in situ, and then methodically
27
removed so that each timber and plank could be drawn individually. Concerning the wooden elements
of OE34, the ceiling planking was first removed, followed by the frames, and lastly the hull planking.
Figure 12: The author and Alexander Cattrysse recording a timber ex situ during the 2012 excavation session. Photograph
courtesy of IFMAF.
The vessel was wetted and covered with tarp at the end of each day, in order to keep the wood from
drying out. Of the ceiling planking, only a few indicative planks were chosen to be drawn ex situ.
Almost each and every floor timber, however, was drawn ex situ. Once extracted, a top-view of each
frame was drawn (that is, the inboard surface), at a scale of 1:10, as well as a side-view (the moulded
surface). If the outboard surface proved interesting or notable, perhaps showing some extraordinary
feature, it was drawn as well. Cross-sections of floor timbers were also drawn. Lastly the hull planking
was removed, and the keel and posts, until the entire vessel had been deposed. A select number of the
removed timbers of OE34 were taken to the RCE for preservation. The keel was sawn through on the
last day of the excavation in 2012 in order to easily lift out the stem and stern-posts in their entirety,
including those sections of the keel and garboard strakes which were still attached. It is important to
28
note that the stem and stern-posts were not, neither at the time of excavation nor extraction, dismantled.
To the author's knowledge they have not been dismantled at the time of writing this thesis. In the
context of this thesis, therefore, the precise method of keel-to-post attachment remains conjecture, as
the attachment is hidden behind the garboard strakes.
4.4 Methodology of Describing OE34
As stated before, the author will attempt to describe OE34 completely. Supporting research, such as
comparisons to contemporaneous or geographically similar ships and shipbuilding techniques, will be
used. While a thorough analysis will be discussed in the following chapter, constructional details of the
OE34 will be compared to relevant constructional aspects of other vessels within this chapter as well.
These comparisons occur next to the technical description in an effort to further explain, or suggest,
function. Two works will be mentioned frequently: Christian Lemée's The Renaissance Shipwrecks
from Christianshavn, in which Lemée researches eight wooden vessels discovered in a harbour in
Copenhagen; and Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age by Ab Hoving, a
comprehensive work which translates, as well as provides an explanation of, Witsen's 1671 work
Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-bouw en Bestier (Ancient and Modern Shipbuilding and
Management). Hoving often contrasts Witsen's work with that of Cornelis van Yk and his treatise De
Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw-Konst Open Gestelt (“Dutch Shipbuilding Unveiled”). Lemée's research
included two vessels, the B&W 4 (dendrochronologically dated to between the late sixteenth century)
and the B&W 5, that were found to have similar characteristics to the OE34. The B&W 4 in particular
will be shown to be very similar to OE34: 15m in length and 5m in breadth, and dendrochronologically
dated to ca. 1582 (Lemée, 2006, p 76). Hoving's book is a translation of book which describes
shipbuilding in an era a bit later than that to which OE34 was dated, as well as ships that are generally
29
larger in dimensions than OE34, but it is still useful to observe the method described and compare it to
that of OE34. De Bouwgeschiedenis van de botter by Peter Dorleijn will also be used. In it, he
describes the construction of botter, fishing vessels from the Zuiderzee which were first seen in the
beginning of the eighteenth century and were still in use during the nineteenth century. It should be
mentioned that the work takes a more aesthetic standpoint than a technical one. The applicable
information, however, is not dampened by this. OE34 exhibits little evidence of being constructed or
used as a fishing vessel, and indeed botter are more complex vessels than OE34 seems to be. They
feature perforated hulls with bulkheads in which to store the fresh catch, and sometimes even a full
cabin, etc. But observation of the construction techniques used to build botter show strong similarities
to those used to build OE34: a frame-orientated construction technique, the use of temporary clamps,
vertical flat scarfs, and keernagels in the posts and keel. These comparisons and discussions will be
kept to a minimum within this chapter, and will be expanded upon in the following chapter.
When describing the wreck, some of the dimensions and measurements, especially the larger
measurements (like entire lengths of the strakes and ceiling planks) are aggregates, composed by the
author. Small measurements or those that are relatively easy to double- or triple-check, such as the
diameter of trenails, or the number of recovered floor timbers, have little to no margin of error.
However, the larger measurements were more difficult to obtain, discern, and/or extrapolate from the
excavation drawings or photographs. The ceiling planking measurements can be estimated from the
excavation drawings, as the bird's-eye perspective does not distort the horizontally-positioned planks.
However, the top-view drawings of the hull planking feature distortion of the strakes, some of which
curve and twist dramatically. Therefore the author used measurements personally taken of each
individual plank of the hull, and when necessary added the lengths of each plank in a strake together
for an estimate of the entire surviving length of a strake.
30
Other obstacles arose when attempting to digitize the excavation drawings. Discrepancies were
discovered when it was attempted to match drawings together in order to create a comprehensive image
of the hull strakes, for example. Due to the size of the wreck, the hull planking was drawn in four
sections, on four separate drawings: starboard fore, starboard aft, port fore, and port aft. Manual control
points were recorded, but parts of the drawings did not match perfectly. A trenail recorded on one
drawing is absent from its supposed location on another drawing. The same goes for a nail here or
there, or even a spijkerpen or two. In these cases, the author assumed there was indeed a trenail or nail
or spijkerpen, and added it to the drawing in which it was missing.
OE34 will now be described as fully as possible. The author has chosen to heed Steffy's
suggestion: “In describing the hull remains and analysing them, the best format follows that of the
building process” (Steffy, 1994, p 236). The building process of OE34 most likely began with the keel
being laid.
4.5 The Vessel
From the extreme surviving end of the stem, in a straight line to the extreme surviving end of the sternpost, the vessel measures 15,6m at least. The keel is thicker than the hull strakes (but not wider than all
of the hull strakes), and the connection to the garboard strakes show how the keel acted as the
backbone of the vessel, and not just as a plank-keel. The apparent shell-oriented construction method
utilized below the turn of the bilge will be discussed in the following chapter. The kiel (keel), measured
from the steps found on top of the keel at each end of the vessel, is 10m long. However, the keel
certainly extends underneath these steps at both ends, making it longer in actuality than 10m. The keel
was one piece of timber. The cross-section of the keel changes dramatically from stem to stern: it
31
Figure 13: Cross-section of the T-shaped keel in the fore of OE34. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
progresses from a T-shaped keel in the fore to a rabbeted keel in the aft. This can also be observed in
the position of the garboard strakes, as they twist from being horizontally-positioned in the fore where
they are attached to the T-shaped keel (via iron nails), to being extremely angled aftwards, where they
attached to the rabbeted keel. In the fore, the outboard face of the keel is 36cm wide, the inboard is
41cm wide, and it is 11cm thick. Amidships, the keel reaches 41,5cm in width on the inboard side, and
29cm outboard, with a thickness of 11cm. Aft, the outboard of the keel is 27cm wide and the inboard is
35cm wide, and the timber is still 11cm thick. Here, the garboard strakes are attached at an angle to the
keel, where they fit into the rabbet.
Figure 14: A composite photograph of a cross-section of the keel towards the aft. The rabbet is clearly visible on both sides.
Photographs courtesy of IFMAF.
32
Drawings of the keel show iron nails along both sides of the inboard face in the bow-end section
of the keel, where they must have been used to fasten the garboard strake to the T-shaped keel (see
image of keel, including cross-sections). Spijkerpennen (spike-plugs) are shown along the amidships
keel. Spijkerpennen are small wooden pegs with square cross-sections ca 1 x 1 cm square that were
used to plug holes. These spike-plugs and the significance of their use in the construction of the vessel
will be discussed below. There were a total of twenty-six spijkerpennen found on the inboard face of
the keel. Two spike-plugs seem to align with a row located on the garboard strake on the port side
(please refer to image of keel and cross-sections). See Appendix III for a complete illustration of the
keel, including cross-sections and their locations.
Past this line of spijkerpennen, towards the stern, more iron nails are shown where they pierced
the inboard face of the keel when they were inserted diagonally through the garboard strakes. Aftmost,
between cross-sections H and I (see Figure 15 on page 34), there are no apparent fastenings, but this
can be explained by observing cross-section I: nails would have been inserted almost horizontally, and
therefore would not have pierced the inboard face of the keel. Trenails were also observed along the
entire inboard face of the keel, but their positions nearer the middle of the keel (lengthwise) and their
alternating pattern (port, starboard, port, etc.) showed that these were the fastenings between the floor
timbers and the keel.
On top of the garboard strakes, on either side of the keel, there were two identical wooden
crutches or reinforcements. The excavation drawings identify them as breeuwsel. Flat on the bottom
(inboard) and rounded on top (outboard), they both featured almost triangular cross-sections. The two
timbers had almost identical dimensions. The port-side reinforcement was 1m31 long, 18cm wide at the
aft and tapered to 6 cm at the fore, and 11cm thick at the aft and tapered to 3cm thick at the fore. The
reinforcement on the starboard was 1m29 in length, 17cm wide aft and tapered to 6cm at the fore, and
33
Figure 15: Illustration (using Inkscape and drawings from the excavation) of the cross-sections of the keel, from fore to aft. Note the transition from T-shaped to
rabbetted. Illustration by Alexander Cattrysse, 2013. Drawings courtesy of IFMAF.
34
8cm thick aft and tapered to 2cm at the fore. The drawings show nails on the inboard surface of these
reinforcements, and nails and trenails on the outboard surface, meaning they would have been attached
to the keel as well as to the garboard strakes below them. The author surmised that these two timbers
helped strengthen the otherwise weak area where the garboard strakes extend out of their secure
Figure 16: An illustration of the port side of the two reinforcements (HZN/BB) found along either side of the keel in the
fore. DSN stands for doorsnede: “cross-section”. Illustration by the author, drawing courtesy of IFMAF.
location within the keel rabbet and move upwards (as one moves towards the bow) to their attachment
to the stempost, presumably in another rabbet. Identical elements were observed in the B&W 4 wreck
of Christianshavn. Lemée calls this area “one of the most fragile parts of the hull” (Lemée, 2006, p
130). His suggestion as to their purpose reflects that of the authors': that these reinforcements were
inserted in order to strengthen the area of connection between the keel, garboard strakes, and stem.
The voorsteven (stem-post) has an apron and a stem proper, and the iron bolt and brackets
which fasten these together protrude from the stem to such a degree that there may also have existed a
loefbijter (gripe). Only the lower section of the stem survived—the upper section is gone. The stem
proper survived to a length of ca 75cm, and was 23cm in width at the base. If the vessel was indeed
35
Figure 17: The voorsteven of OE34. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
built to the standards recorded by Witsen, then the scarf at the fore end of the keel would indeed be a
boxing scarf (Hoving, 2012, p 52)(see Figure 18), but no cross-section diagram is given of the scarf
between the keel and the stem.
The attachment of the keel to the stem was photographed, but not in such detail so as to show
the keel's length underneath the stem “step”. At the stern, the attachment of the keel to the sternpost is
shown in a cross-section drawing (see Figure 19), but was not photographed. This attachment is hidden
Fig. 18: Diagram of the boxing scarf between the keel and
the stem. (Hoving, 2012, p 44)
Fig 19: Illustration by the author, using Inkscape and the
drawing from the excavation, of the cross-section between
the stern-post (achtersteven) and the keel (kiel). Original
drawing courtesy of IFMAF.
36
behind the garboard strake, where it attaches to the stern-post.
The achtersteven (sternpost) comprises three pieces: the sternpost, a triangular piece of
deadwood, and the rudderpost. The stern was not preserved in its entirety. The lower portion survived,
but not the upper portion, where the sternpost and deadwood would have met. The sternpost was 20cm
thick at the base, 8cm thick at the top (not the proper end), 90cm wide at the base, 35cm wide at the
top, and had a surviving length of 1,31m. The triangular piece of deadwood measured 52cm wide at the
base, and 99cm in length. The width of the deadwood remains a mystery, as the parts of the stern were
not disassembled. The rudderpost survived to a length of 1,21m. The width at the top surviving end was
28cm. The width at the base of the rudderpost is unknown, as it is hidden behind the garboard strake.
The three elements of the sternpost are fastened with an iron gudgeon, which still featured the hole
(filled with rust) into which the rudder pintle would have been inserted. The garboard strake is almost
vertical, where it is attached with nails to the sternpost.
The photographs in Figures 20 and 21 feature both sides of the stem, where it is attached to the
foremost end of the keel. In Figure 21, which shows the port side, one can see where the garboard
strake ends at a small wooden dowel, identified as a stopwater or keernagel: “Because the surfaces of
the scarfs between the different construction elements were large and it was therefore impossible to get
a watertight fit, holes were drilled straight across the seams... the Dutch practice for make the joints
[sic] watertight consisted of drilling holes through them, filling them with moss, and plugging up the
outsides with wooden dowels. The water seeping in would cause the moss to swell, making the scarfs
watertight” (Hoving, 2012, p 57). Another name for this moss-filled stopwater is, unsurprisingly,
mosnagel (Maarleveld, 2013). Again, the port-side garboard seems to end aligned with this stopwater.
But in Figure 20, showing the starboard side of the stempost, the starboard-side garboard clearly
extends past the small stopwater (seen in the far left of the image), and ends directly underneath the
37
Fig. 20: Starboard-side of the stern-post. Photo courtesy of Fig. 21: Port-side of the stern-post. Photo courtesy of IFMAF.
IFMAF.
large trenail hole. Perhaps the keel, underneath the garboard, also extends further on the starboard side
than on the port side. Note, so as to be confused, that the large vertical crack shown in the stempost
(between the large trenail hole and the small stopwater hole) on the port side is not visible on the
starboard side (where the other end of the stopwater appears to have survived).
As stated before, the shape of the keel affects the shape of the hull; more specifically, the angle
at which the garboard strakes are attached to the keel influences the shape of the bottom of the hull
planking. Where the keel attaches to the stempost, the keel is T-shaped, making the fore of the vessel
very flat and relatively wide. The garboards are virtually horizontal where they are fastened to the keel
and sternpost in the aft. The sternpost has been “chiselled” out on either side in order to make niches
for the garboard strakes (this is visible in Figure 21). This too matches Witsen's description: “...aft, {the
garboard strake} turned … to the vertical and ended in the garboard stern rabbet, the part of the
sternpost that was made thinner at both sides for this purpose” (Hoving, 2012, p 59). The scarf, or
method of attachment to the keel, is unknown—it was not included in the excavation drawings and no
photograph seems to have been taken. However, since the fore-end of the keel may indeed be a boxing
scarf (which matches Dutch ship-building methods of the Renaissance) one can hypothesize that the aft
end of the keel would also match Witsen's description, which would be a heel tenon fastened in a
38
mortise in the keel. As the subject of the garboards has already been breached, this brings us to OE34's
hull planking. It is likely that after the keel was laid and the stem and stern attached, the hull planking
(at least the bottom strakes up to the turn of the bilge) was laid.
4.5.2 Hull Planking
OE34 featured, on each side of the vessel, one layer of hull planking: four bottom strakes, one bilge
strake, and five side strakes, including what might be a wale on both sides. Each strake consisted of
two to five planks, with the exception of the tenth strake (GJ) on either side of the vessel, both of which
were made of one continuous plank. The strakes were laid flush, edge-to-edge.1
The scarfs in the hull planking were difficult to puzzle out. After the initial assumption that all
the scarfs in the hull planking were vertical flat scarfs, it eventually became evident that this was not
the case. One excavation drawing features a side-view of a vertical flat scarf between planks GA1/BB
and GA2/BB, in the bottom of the vessel (see Figure 22). When the drawing of the hull planking was
closely observed, the four scarfs in the garboard strakes of the vessel featured one line of nail
fastenings along one side of the scarf, usually on the aft side of the scarf. But in the rest of the planking,
the planks of the strakes meet and are shown to have nail fastenings on both sides of the meeting point.
Such would be superfluous on a vertical flat scarf. But these “scarfs” are aligned with the rows of
trenails which show where the frames were situated. Planks which meet at butt-ended scarfs must be
positioned so the “scarf” is located on the frames of a vessel. This suggests that vertical flat scarfs were
utilized only in the garboard strakes, and butt-ended scarfs were utilized everywhere else. The
ramifications of this theory will be discussed in the analysis chapter.
This is only the third known vessel which was built frame-orientated (at least in part), but
features vertical flat scarfs in the flush-laid hull planking. The other two vessels are the Princes
1 Please refer to the insert for a large-scale illustration of the hull planking.
39
Figure 22: Illustration of a section of the port-side garboard strake (GA3/BB) by Alexander Cattrysse, using Inkscape and the excavation drawings. Original drawing
courtesy of IFMAF.
40
Channel wreck (also known as the Gresham wreck) and the Hafnia-Vejle. The Hafnia-Vejle is a 15m
vessel dated to 1570 (Lemée, 2006, p 76), therefore contemporary with OE34. The Princes Channel
wreck was dendrochronologically dated to 1574 (Bates, 2011, p 24). While the Hafnia-Vejle wreckpiece at the Vejle museum is only a portion of the bottom of the wreck, perhaps it is similar in
construction to OE34 in that vertical flat scarfs were also used exclusively in the bottom.
All scarfs were arranged so that they were staggered, perhaps so as not to align and thus
compromise the strength of the hull planking.
Trenails were observed in transverse rows in the hull planking of OE34, showing where the
framing elements were fastened to the inboard surfaces of the planking. Several planks have patches or
even small filler-pieces, which appeared to be repairs. In the case of them being half the thickness of
the plank onto which they are affixed, they are called half-houtje in Dutch, or “Dutchman” in English.
Figure 23: Graving piece on the port-side garboard strake of a very wet OE34. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
Those that are affixed onto the surface of a plank are called graving pieces (Maarleveld, 2013, personal
communication). As described above, the strakes above the turn of the bilge were found attached to one
another, but at the fore and aft they have broken away from the bottom of OE34 between the fifth
strake (GE) and the sixth (GF). This occurred on both the starboard and port sides.
The four strakes below the turn of the bilge survived in good condition, and were wider than
41
those planks found above the turn of the bilge. The garboard strake was observed to twist dramatically.
This is unsurprising, as the keel transitioned from being T-shaped in the bow (where the garboard is
horizontally fastened to it) to being rabbeted in the aft (where the garboard progresses to being almost
vertical in orientation).
The widest strake on both sides of OE34 was the second strake, GB, which was 66 cm at its
widest on the starboard side and 76cm at its widest point on the port. The author observed that these
two widest points, which also happen to be locations of unique scarfs (described below), are also
located along the line of the widest point of OE34 in whole, one-third of the length from the bow. This
is roughly where the master frames (also described below) were placed.
The longest strake on the port side was GC/BB, with a surviving length of 15,55m. The longest
strake on the starboard side, at 17,34m long, is GF/SB, the sixth strake.
The corresponding strakes between port and starboard below the turn of the bilge reflected one
another in number of planks used and locations of scarfs. Corresponding strakes (GA/SB and GA/BB,
GB/SB and GB/BB, etc.) match in number of planks used, and corresponding strake lengths have
differences less than one centimetre. The fourth strake, the bilge strake, marked where the symmetry
between corresponding strakes ceased. Above the turn of the bilge, corresponding strakes did not match
each other in the number of planks used in each strake, nor subsequently scarf location. Additionally,
the strakes above the turn of the bilge were more difficult to discern than the well-preserved planks of
the bottom strakes. This is especially true for the starboard fore section of hull planking, whose
thorough disintegration was described in the beginning of this chapter. These planks were barely
recognizable: GI/SB in this section was entirely gone, leaving no remains but an impression in the soil
where it once lay. GF/SB, GG/SB, GH/SB, and GJ/SB did not leave much more than GI, as they were
almost indiscernible from the surrounding soil as well as extremely fragile.
The tenth strake, GJ, on either side (the “wales”) were considerably the thickest of the hull
42
planking. This was personally observed by the author, but a precise dimension is unfortunately
unavailable. To give an estimation, these strakes were between 10 and 20 centimetres in width. Their
relative large widths compared to the rest of the hull planking suggests that they may have been the
gunwales or the sheerstrakes. However, remains of wood was observed where another strake would
have been located, “above” these wales, on both the port and the starboard side of OE34. We must not
rule out the possibility that OE34 may have had more strakes than those ten on either side which
survived. The remains of what might have been caulking discovered on the top edge of GJ on the
starboard side also spoke towards the possibility of there having been more strakes. But this hypothesis
comes with another consideration: the fact that only one “level” of oplanger was discovered as framing
above the turn of the bilge. If OE34 originally featured many more strakes above those which survived,
it would be logical that at least some remains of the framing of these high sides would have been found.
Therefore, while there may have indeed been more strakes than those observed at the excavation, it is
safe to say that there would not have been many more.
The scarfs of the second and third strakes on either side of OE34 deserve special description.
On both the port and starboard sides, GB1, GB2, GC2, and GC3 come together in an unusual
orientation, in which a plank of the second strake is not only flush against the adjacent plank of the
same strake, but also with a plank located diagonally above and towards the bow (see Figure 24). Iron
nail fastenings were on either side of the scarfs of the planks within the same strake, but not between
the planks of different strakes (again, except for the scarfs of the garboard strakes).
Spijkerpennen were observed in the hull planking of the vessel. These were discovered in small
groups, aligned in rows, and as solitary spike-plugs. On the starboard side, near the middle of the
vessel, a row spanning the garboard strake and the second strake (GA/SB and GB/SB) consisted of five
spijkerpennen (three on GA and two on GB), with two more spijkerpennen slightly fore of this row,
also on GB/SB. Towards the aft, five more rows consisting of three to five spijkerpennen were found.
43
Figure 24: The unique scarf (the port-side is shown, but the starboard-side is the same, albeit mirrored) in the hull planking
of OE34. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
Four of these rows spanned the garboard strake and the second strake, but one row of three was
confined to the second strake. A total of twenty-seven spike-plugs were observed in the starboard
planking.
Many more spijkerpennen were observed on the port side of the vessel. Seven rows, consisting
of three to five spijkerpennen, were found spanning the garboard strake and the second strake (GA/BB
and GB/BB). There were also two rows of four in the garboard strake which did not align with any in
the second strake or in the keel. A dense group of five spijkerpennen was found on the garboard strake
near the scarf between GA1/BB and GA2/BB. Three more near the aft of the vessel are aligned with
spijkerpennen in the keel, and there is one solitary spike-plug at the extreme aft-end of GA1/BB. A row
of seven (or perhaps eight; there is an eighth spike-plug not quite aligned in GC) spanned the second
and third strakes (GB/BB and GC/BB). GC/BB also had two more in the far aft, one alone amidships,
and two in the far fore (these two spike-plugs are the foremost in the whole vessel). A row of three
44
spanned the third and fourth strakes. Two spijkerpennen were observed in the fore of GE/BB, the fifth
strake. In the bottom hull planking of the port side, there were observed a total of sixty-four
spijkerpennen.
There were also spike-plugs observed in the side planking, and only on the port side. Three
were observed in GF/BB, and one in GB/BB. These four were found removed from one another. For an
illustration of OE34's hull planking with the spijkerpennen highlighted, please refer to the illustrations
in the appendices. Observation shows that the spijkerpennen in OE34 are mostly found in the aft half of
the vessel.
OE34 featured forty-two floor timbers (spanten or liggers) (eleven of which comprise separate
components, or extensions) and seventy-two oplangers, zitters, and filler timbers. Individual off-set
drawings of the floor timbers ex situ were available, as well as a top-view drawing of all the oplangers
in situ, but unfortunately there is no top-view drawing of the floor timbers in situ. This hinders
observation of the overall pattern of the framing system of OE34. There are photographs, but those
which attempt to capture the entirety of the framing system in situ were taken from the ground, and
therefore fail to allow the viewer to see everything all at once. Detailed photographs were taken of
notable features, such as the unique shape and trenail fastenings between the master frames, their
associated oplangers, and the corresponding filler timbers, as well as the notable fitting-together of
floor timbers and extensions, if they had any (both of these instances are described in more detail
below).
The framing system of OE34 includes four distinct elements. First, floor timbers, called spanten
during the excavation, but which could also be identified as liggers, were found along the entire length
of the vessel below the turn of the bilge. They range greatly in shape and dimension across the vessel.
45
Figure 25: Photograph showing the framing elements of OE34 in situ, after the ceiling planking was removed. Note the
liggers spanning the bottom of the vessel, and the oplangers along the sides. Zitters can also be observed protruding above
the liggers, along the bilge. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
Included in this category are the frame extension timbers. Second, comparable to the English futtock,
oplangers were found in a regular pattern above the turn of the bilge on both sides of the vessel and, it
must be noted, were generally found in a much more deteriorated state than floor timbers. It is
significant to note that there appears to be only one “level” of oplangers observed in OE34. That is to
say, there was no evidence of “higher” framing elements (in English terminology, second futtocks, third
futtocks, etc.). Third, a category of timbers identified as zitters was observed. These were found
exclusively at the turn of the bilge. These are L- or knee-shaped timbers fitted to the curve of the bilge
in order to strengthen that area. Witsen described an identical framing element, and Hoving translates
Witsen's term zitter as “bilge futtock”: “The bilge futtock is a crook, which is placed in the turn of the
46
bilge” (Hoving, 2012, p 64). However, Witsen's bilge futtocks “were attached to the floor timbers with
bolts”, and OE34's zitters were fastened to the hull planking with the usual 3cm-diameter trenails.
There were eleven zitters found in all (seven on the starboard side, four on the port), and they are all
found between S12 and S33. Fourth, four filler timbers, briefly described in the beginning of this
chapter, were identified (and will of course be described more fully below).
The liggers span the bottom of the vessel, fastened to the hull strakes below and the ceiling
planking above with trenails 3cm in diameter. These trenails sometimes protrude from the frames on
both the inboard and outboard surfaces of the timbers. The curvature of these floor timbers changes
dramatically from the fore to amidships to aft. The frames' shape progression from stern to stem clearly
delineates the shape of the hull of the vessel. That is, the floor timbers are V-shaped in the aft, where
Figure 26: Photograph of the floor timbers in situ in the aft of OE34. Note the deep “trench” created by the steeply-angled
garboards, into which compass timbers must be shaped. The stern-post is visible in the top center. Photograph courtesy of
IFMAF.
47
the garboard strakes create a dramatic V-shape with the keel (see Figure 26). Moving toward
amidships, the frames straighten and lengthen. In the middle of the vessel, a few select frames show
almost no curvature, and are the longest of all the floor timbers. Measurements of the space between
the liggers were not taken, but observation of photographs taking during the excavation show that the
frames appear to have been arranged more regular than irregular (indicated in Figure 27).
Figure 27: Photograph of the framing in the hartschip of OE34, taken facing aft. One can observe the crutches, or
breeuwsel, lying underneath the liggers, on either side of the keel. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
In the bow-end, the frames show curvature once again, but are nowhere near as dramatically V-shaped
as those found in the aft. All floor timbers have been shaped to fit over the keel, as well as over the keel
reinforcements in the bow, and almost all floor timbers feature limber holes (pompgaten), either right
next to the keel or closer to either end of the timber.
Floor timbers range in length from 1m49 (second floor timber from the aft: S2A/HS) in the aft
to 4m80 amidships (this is the length of the longest floor timber, S24A). The floor timbers then
48
decrease in length to circa 3m in the fore (while the two foremost floor timber dimensions are
unavailable, the fourth floor timber from the fore, S39A, was 3m24).
The author observed eleven floor timbers with one “arm” shorter in length than the other, and
these frames were accompanied by a second piece of timber, which extended the length of these
particular floor timbers. The two pieces were set together by a diagonal butt scarf (See Figures 28, 29,
and 31). These extensions alternate between being located on the port and the starboard: S4A had an
extension piece on the starboard side, S5A on the port side, S6A on the starboard, and so forth. Only
one frame featured these extensions on both port and starboard, and that was S10A/HS. These frame
extensions are only found in the aft of the vessel, where the frames were the most dramatically curved,
and where compass timbers were used extensively. It is the author's opinion that this is an example of
Figure 28: Photograph of in situ liggers in OE34. Shown are the diagonal butt-scarfs between the frames S10A/HS and
S11A/HS and their port-side frame-extensions. This is the only instance in which two frame extensions do not alternate
between sides of the vessel, as S10 is the only frame with extensions on both sides. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
49
50
Figure 29 (previous page): Illustrations of liggers of OE34, arranged in order. Not all forty-two liggers are depicted—a
select few were chosen to convey the overall shape of the bottom of the vessel. Illustration by the author, original drawing
courtesy of IFMAF.
the resourcefulness and efficiency of the shipbuilders. When a particular timber was found to have
enough curvature to be used as a frame in the deep, V-shaped aft of OE34, it was used even if one of
the “arms” was not suitably long enough to span both sides of the bottom of the vessel. In these cases, a
second piece of timber was shaped and fit to extend that floor timber. The shipbuilders were careful to
alternate between port and starboard when extending frames, so as to not lessen the integrity of the
frame system. There are no frame extensions found past S19A/HS. As the frames of OE34 become less
and less curved from the aft to fore, less compass timbers are used, and thus it was not difficult to find
straight, fitting timbers with which to make floor timbers long enough to span the bottom of the vessel.
These long, flat timbers would have been cut from trunks of trees and thus frame extensions were not
needed.
Illustrations by Christian Lemée of the frames of B&W 4 show a strong resemblance to the
frame extensions of OE34. He makes notes of them: “...composite floor timbers made of two pieces”
(Lemée, 2006, p 114).
Figure 30: Illustration by Lemée of the B&W 4 frames, top-view. They also exhibited frame extensions, creating what
Lemée refers to as a “composite” timber (Lemée, 2006, p 114, 121). Note the similarity to S11A/HS and frame extension in
Figure 31.
51
Figure 31: Illustration by the author of frame S11A/HS and frame extension S11b/BB: a side-view and a top-view. The two
timbers are not interconnected. Note the similarity with Lemée's illustrations from the B&W 4 wreck in Figure 30. Original
drawing courtesy of IFMAF.
It was discovered that two liggers had been shaped to fit around a corresponding oplanger at each end.
The corresponding oplangers had also been worked to create niches into which the ends of these
“master liggers” may fit. These two liggers were two of the longest, “flattest” floor timbers: S25A/HS
was 4m62, and S28A/HS was 4m64. The two master-frames were located at the widest point of the
ship, roughly one-third of the length of the ship from the bow. They exhibited no curvature (unlike the
V-shaped liggers found in the far fore and aft). One of the these master floor timbers, S25A/HS, was
further reinforced by a filler timber (S25½b/BB) on the port side, which was shaped to be symmetrical
to the shape of the end of the master-frame, and together they formed the niche into which the oplanger
fitted.
Two trenails on either end transversely connect to the oplanger (these trenails do not penetrate
the filler timber S25½b/BB). This connection is evident both on the port and starboard ends of the floor
timber, creating a composite frame, or hoofdspant. The floor timber S28A/HS also exhibited this
connection at both ends, with transverse trenail fastenings (no corresponding filler was found for the
second master-frame, nor for the starboard end of S25A/HS). Thus, the framing in OE34, at least in the
case of these two “composite” master-frames, is interconnected. The ramifications of the inclusion of
52
these master-frames will be discussed in the following chapter.
Figures 31 and 32: A photo and illustration of the master-frame connection of the port-end of S25A/HS. Photo courtesy of
IFMAF and illustration by the author. Please note the illustration is not to scale, nor does it include adjacent framing
elements.
The oplangers were the framing elements of the sides of OE34. Not all the oplangers were
drawn ex situ, but this could have been a result of the poor preservation they exhibited (difficult to
extract in entirety, etc.). Indeed, it was mostly oplangers originally located in the widest section of the
vessel which were selected to be extracted and drawn (see the spreadsheet of the drawn framing
elements in the methodology section on page 10, as well as in the appendices). The twenty-one
oplangers which were drawn ex situ ranged in size (taking into account a relatively poor state of
preservation) from 46cm (SBO23/BB) to 1m79 (SBO33/SB). But SBO23/BB, the shortest in length,
was clearly broken. The shortest unbroken oplanger was SBO33/BB, with a length of 68cm. The sided
dimensions, when available (not every oplanger was drawn with a top-view), were between 10 and
23cm. The moulded dimensions were between 10 and 18cm. Shown in Figure 33 is oplanger
SBO25/BB, that which was fastened to S25A/HS and thus a composite of one of the hoofdspanten.
The zitters sided dimensions were between 11cm and 20cm, and the moulded dimensions were
between 12cm and 25cm. Their lengths were between 1m16 and 64cm. The zitters all exhibited an
angle on their outboard surfaces, showing where they fitted against the angle created by the bilge
strake. See Figure 34 for an illustration of an OE34 zitter.
53
Figure 33: Inkscape illustration of oplanger SBO25/BB. Shown are each of the four sides of the timber. Note the carved
niche for the connection with the ligger S25A/HS in the third image down. Illustration by the author. Original drawing
courtesy of IFMAF.
Figure 34: Illustration by the author of zitter S22½b/BB. Original drawing courtesy of IFMAF.
54
Additional to the above three categories, the author observed a fourth category in the course of the
research of the material. These are the filler timbers. These were found below the turn of the bilge,
filling in the space between liggers. They were found in four different locations, two on each side of
the vessel: S20½b and S25½b on the port side, and S23½b and S27A on the starboard (again, please
refer to the spreadsheet of the drawn framing elements, page 10). These particular elements were
identified solely by the author in the course of observing the excavation drawings, instead of on-site.
They are found in the widest, flattest section of the vessel, and one of these timbers, S25½b, was a
component of the master-frame/oplanger connection (see Figures 31 and 35). The four timbers are very
similar in width and height (sided and moulded dimensions): all four were between 10 and 15cm wide
and between 15 and 18cm high. They all exhibited rectangular cross-sections, clearly so as to fit snugly
between floor timbers and to lie flush on top of the hull planking below. The only dimension in which
there was slight difference was in length: S20½b, S25½b, and S23½b were between 77 and 73cm long,
while S27A was 97cm in length. Please find a complete description in the construction element
catalogue in the appendices.
Figure 35: Illustration by the author of element S25½b/BB, identified as a filler timber. A top-view is shown, followed by a
side-view, then a bottom-view. This particular filler timber supports the master-frame/oplanger connection, but the trenails
do not pierce through the connection to this particular element. See Figure 32 for visualization of original orientation.
Original drawing courtesy of IFMAF.
55
When observing the frames used in OE34, one cannot help but consider the wood conversion utilized
for construction, due to so much of the natural shape having been kept when creating them, especially
those frames found towards the aft, and also considering the use of frame extensions. Many frames
show that the natural shape of the wood/branch was utilized. A branch that shows preferred curvature is
chosen and in some cases, only cut down the middle, and then one or two surfaces are finished. This
method leaves two or three surface natural and un-worked. When an entire surface of a floor timber is
sapwood, unfinished, or appears to have maintained its natural shape, whereas the opposite surface is
carefully finished and/or converted, it could be an example of minimum effort being used to convert an
already usefully-shaped branch for the purpose of framing.
In addition to wood conversion, the decomposition of wood in water and then soil also comes
into question, as the oplangers of OE34 were unquestionably in worse condition than the floor timbers,
generally speaking. However, as stated above, this could partly be explained by the “depth” of different
sections of OE34.
Five rows of ceiling planking on both sides of the keel were discovered, but evidence of at least a sixth
row on the starboard side was recorded. Like the hull planking, the most well-preserved of these were
those closest to the keel and keelson. The excavation drawings show that impressions from the floor
timbers and frames are plainly visible on the underside of the planks. The topside of the planks also
show, in the drawings, many instances of saw marks. The ceiling planking was attached to the floor
timbers and frames mostly with trenails. There were nails and nail holes were found as well. These
were mostly along the scarfs and edges of the planks, and securing the few repairs present on the
56
ceiling planking, but were not exclusively in these locations.
Figure 36: Photograph of the ceiling planking from the fore. Note the alternating wide and narrow planking. Photograph
courtesy of IFMAF.
The rows of ceiling planking alternate between being narrow and wide and this alternation is
mirrored on each side of the zaathout. The first and third rows on either side were more narrow,
between 25cm and 33cm wide. The second and fourth rows on either side were thicker in width: 50cm
at least, and 57cm at the widest point. The second and fourth rows also survived to longer lengths than
the smaller first, third, and fifth rows of planking. Lemée describes ceiling planking of alternating
width in his description of the B&W 4: “The ceiling planking was laid systematically, alternating
between broad planks, 38 to 44 cm wide and between 3.8 and 4.5 cm thick, and narrow planks, 10 to 12
cm wide and 4 cm thick” (Lemée, 2006, p 116). The planks used for the ceiling planking in OE34 were
almost all between 4 and 5cm thick, with one surviving exception. The bow-most end of the first row
on the port-side (WA3/BB) becomes much thicker, from 5cm where it connected to WA2/BB to being
12cm. Presumably, the starboard-side plank thickness would have matched, but the row did not survive
57
as far to the bow-end as the port-side had.
The scarfs connected the planks of the ceiling planking range from between 10 cm in length to
24 cm in length. There is at least one instance of a vertical flat scarf in the ceiling planking, between
WC1/SB and WC2/SB (See Figure 37), indicated by a side-view drawing. The joining of the other
scarfs in the ceiling planking was not specified. However, due to the lack of rows of iron nails that were
used in the shown vertical flat scarf, they could be simple butt-ended joints.
Figure 37: Illustration by the author, using Inkscape and original excavation drawings, of a plank used in the ceiling of
OE34. Las is Dutch for “scarf”: this is a side-view drawing of the vertical flat scarf in the ceiling planking. Original drawing
courtesy of IFMAF.
The keelson, or zaathout, was found to be made of four timbers, which were connected with
two butt scarfs and one vertical flat scarf. The excavation drawings of the keelson will show a total of
five timbers, as the foremost timber was sawn in two so as to show a cross-section of the mast-step.
The total surviving length was 10,3m. This may closely reflect the original length as neither end
showed signs of serious deterioration. The keelson was thickest at the foremost end (16cm) and the
least thick at the aft end: 5cm thick. As the vertical flat scarf was the scarf located farthest aft, perhaps
the relatively small widths of the planks compelled the shipbuilder to use a vertical flat scarf instead of
a butt-ended scarf: a vertical flat scarf is a more secure scarf than a butt-ended. Notably, Witsen's
description of the keelson mentions the presence of a scarf in the same location: “It often has a scarf
forward” (Hoving, 2012, p 82). The keelson does not only increase in thickness from aft to fore; it also
increases in width. From 23cm in width aft, the keelson widens to 37cm amidships, and the foremost
58
end is 61 cm wide. The foremost section of the keelson featured a rectangular hole, which measured
43cm long by 25cm wide, and was 11cm deep. A small filler piece had been inserted, on the aft-side of
the hole. This rectangular hole was, ostensibly, the mast-step.
Figure 38: Cross-section of mast-step. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
Along with the ballast stones, and the tiles which were once part of the hearth of OE34, there were also
several ceramic pots, pitchers, and sherds found during the excavation. Near the hearth were pots, pans,
and fire tongs, as well as food remains consisting of seeds, nuts, fish, and beef bones. In addition, there
was discovered the remains of at least one shoe, a brass faucet, a wooden cabinet (Koehler, 2013, p 34),
three small barrels filled with limestone, and the anchor. A large whetstone with notches carved in it
was among the finds as well. Remains of weapons included two rapiers, the remains of a possible
halberd, and a knife still encased in a beechwood sheath. Van Popta notes that all artefacts were found
59
exclusively on the starboard side of the vessel (van Popta, 2012, p 6).
Figure 39: Knife still encased in sheath. Photograph courtesy of IFMAF.
Forty-eight coins were discovered during the course of the excavation. A number of these coins
were unearthed wrapped in a textile, perhaps a coin pouch (Koehler, 2013), while others showed heavy
corrosion. All of the coins were unearthed near the stern. Jan Pelsdonk, a researcher at the Geldmuseum
in Utrecht, studied the coin finds. They ranged in size from 16 millimetres in diameter to 44
millimetres; the smaller coins featured a lower silver content while the larger ones were heavy with a
larger silver content. There were, in the first “batch” of coins, seven “Filipsdaalders”. These were put
into use after Philip II succeeded his father and became Lord of the seventeen provinces. “De kwaliteit
van de munten is wisselend; een aantal is zeer goed bewaard gebleven” (Koehler, 2013, p 36). The
second “batch” featured coins that were found to have been minted in Groningen, East Friesland,
Namur, Liege, Antwerpen, Nijmegen and Dordrecht. All of the coins found aboard OE34 were minted
in or near the Netherlands—with the exception of two half-reals which proved to be Spanish in origin.
These two Spanish half-reals were the oldest coins in the assemblage—these and the “iron fires”
(vurrijzers) date from 1482. The youngest coins are two 1/10 Filipsdaalders, minted in 1571. Some of
60
Figure 40: Coins in situ. Photograph courtesy of Laura Koehler of the RCE.
the coins featured holes bored through them: this was commonly done in order to thread the money on
string so as not to easily lose it, “wel zo praktisch misschien aan boord van een schommelend schip”
(Koehler, 2013, p 37).
Lastly, during the 2011 session of the excavation of OE34, two small barrels were unearthed
amidships, and a third was revealed in the starboard aft at the end of the 2012 session. All three of the
barrels measured 85cm in height, and one was 36cm in diameter while the other two were 30cm in
diameter. They were all filled with limestone. This limestone had decayed the wooden staves of the
barrels, making preservation impossible (Koehler, 2013).
Figure 42: Third barrel found filled with limestone. Photo
courtesy of IFMAF.
Figure 41: Two barrels found filled with limestone. Photo
courtesy of IFMAF.
61
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Methodology and Aims
It is important to define what this chapter aims to accomplish, for the sake of both author and reader. A
close examination of the individual parts of OE34 can lead to an educated guess as to the construction
sequence, and perhaps even an idea of the constructional philosophy, of OE34. This, combined with a
shrewd examination of the associated finds, can result in a supported hypothesis of OE34's function.
Perhaps we can also come to conclusions concerning the shipbuilders of the vessel. It is not the aim of
this chapter to attempt to place OE34 into a pre-defined category of water-craft, for two reasons. First,
as will be further reasoned below, it should not be the foremost aim of archaeologists and researchers to
project our own constructs of interpretation onto material culture of the archaeological record. Second,
assuming for the sake of argument that this indeed was the aim, observers will find that OE34 is an
example of that which cannot be easily placed into a pre-defined category or type of vessel at all. It
does not exhibit traits that fit perfectly within pre-existing categories, nor does it exhibit all the traits of
one category (indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find any vessel that exhibits every characteristic
and only those characteristics of the category, classification, or typology into which they have been
placed). For example, the partly-T-shaped keel is commonly found in lapstrake-built boats from
Northern Europe, but the flush-sides are perhaps more typical for carvel-built ships in Iberia. However,
we digress into that which the author hoped to avoid. The author does not find it useful to search for the
“correct name” to apply to OE34—what, in effect, does that tell us about the vessel? Only that we have
successfully placed the vessel in a category that is of a modern construct anyway. Instead, a more
productive use of time would be to ask what function OE34 may have served? Based on its
construction, what can be inferred as to where it was meant to have operated? What can the artefacts
62
found aboard tell us about those who were sailing her? The answers to these questions, if attainable,
would provide information about that particular slice of history, about those particular people.
In his article The Symbolic Ship: A Study in the Relationship Between Society and Shipbuilding
Traditions, Björn Varenius uses ship iconography found on runic stones as an example of how meaning
can and should be interpreted from the archaeological record. Although his examples are runic stones
and not shipwrecks, his point is nevertheless relevant: “So, if the comparative use of such pictures is a
standard procedure in maritime archaeology, is the situation just as satisfying as regards the analysis of
the context of the pictures themselves? Generally not; concern for the specific conditions under which a
picture was once created and put into operation is considerably less commonly expressed... There is a
serious source-critical problem in this, because the pictures were not intended for the kind of analytical
use we expose them to. They are part of the material culture, just like the rest of the archaeological
record, and the material culture is not a true mirror of ancient 'reality'. It is a transformation of it”
(Varenius, 1994, p 279). Ships, runic stones, and all other material discovered as part of the
archaeological record were not created in order to “end up” as part of the archaeological record,
therefore we as researchers have the responsibility to look past their role as part of such. The context in
which the object was created, used, and discarded or lost is what must be taken under consideration.
This echoes the polarity of the processual viewpoint in archaeological theory as opposed to the postprocessual viewpoint.
Varenius succeeds, inadvertently, in mirroring the aim of this thesis: instead of striving to place
OE34 within the strict confines of a pre-conceived category of “ship-type” (if that were indeed possible
to do), let us instead study the method(s) used to construct the vessel, together with the finds
discovered in association, in order to reach a hypothesis on what the function of OE34 might have
been. To this end, the analysis will be arranged like the previous chapter: in the likely order of the
63
construction sequence, with the addition of analysis, discussion, and interpretation. But before the
treacherous landscape of discussion and interpretation is braved, we must arm ourselves with a detailed
map: one with directions toward productive interpretations, and with proper warnings of dangerous
pitfalls that should be avoided.
5.2 Terminology, Typology, Tradition
The quagmire of controversy and debate concerning the classification of water-craft and of
“tradition(s)” in ship-building is frighteningly easy to slip into. Can technical change, or even the
reasoning behind the use of a particular constructional element, be explained without falling into the
trap of an “evolution” or “progression” of shipbuilding methods?
There are those who are of the opinion that an evolution of ship-building can be observed over
the course of history. That is, a particular boat or construction method can be considered as the organic
offspring of another; that two different ship-types can intermingle and produce a hybrid of the two. I do
not argue that regions and areas don't boast particular methods and techniques, nor that an apprentice
won't construct his ships in the way his master taught him. The idiom “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”
comes to mind. If a particular method of construction results in a sea-worthy, sound vessel, then of
course such a construction method will be used again and again. How, then, can one explain change in
method? “Ideological barriers are never impervious and are under constant bombardment from external
influences and the human tendency to refine or innovate. It is this constant dialectic tension that leads
to change” (Adams, 2003, p 28).
It is important that one recognizes the difference between the inferences made when using the
term “evolution” in ships, and a development in shipbuilding methods. “A shipbuilding method and
tradition was transmitted from one society to another and eventually took a predominant role” (Lemée,
64
2006, p 20). Interestingly, Lemée chooses to use the term “hybrid” when discussing the B&W 5 wreck
(Lemée, 2006, p 308), an example of the use of biological terminology when discussing the use of
more than one building technique.
The author finds Hocker and Ward's stance on the definition of “tradition” quite applicable,
considering the numerous techniques and features exhibited by OE34: “The problems of defining a
'tradition' on the basis of the archaeological record force us to confront once again the inherent
difficulties of grouping and classification, as well as the cognitive issues of determining intention from
the products of any technological process. With these caveats in mind, there is a general consensus that
a particular method of shipbuilding, the physical expression of the conceptual approach, is defined by a
group of techniques or characteristics, rather than a single distinctive feature” (Hocker & Ward, 2004, p
8).
For the sake of argument, let us accept that shipbuilding evolutions exist, and our goal was to
place OE34 into a defined category or tradition: it would still be impossible to do so. Water-craft do not
simply fall into these pre-defined categories, especially smaller, locally-built vessels which were not
built to any state-set standard or underneath the eye of a strict master. These shipbuilders in smaller
shipyards, or perhaps not even in a shipyard at all, could use whichever technique, method, or solution
to construct their craft. OE34 has the flush-plank hull and vertical flat scarfs of a plank-orientated
vessel, and the framing system with interconnected timbers of a frame-orientated vessel. In an article
outlining the state of Dutch shipbuilding in the sixteenth century when compared to shipbuilding at the
time across Europe, Maarleveld defines the constructional philosophy behind Dutch building as lying
solely with the hull planking: “The emphasis [in the sixteenth century] is wholly on the shell of the
planking. The zoological parallel [of frames as ribs, and thus carrying the structural integrity of a
vessel] and the concept of a skeleton framework do not apply. The transverse timbers have most
variable scantlings and they are not interconnected. Often they do not even meet. Evidently they were
65
not considered the most important element of construction.” (Maarleveld, 1992, p 167, emphasis by the
author). As the OE34 indeed has interconnected timbers, it does not fit into the category of “traditional”
Dutch-built ships.
The last point to be made is that classification can in fact be a useful tool. It's a simple matter of
using the tool for a purpose: butcher knives are unquestionably effective tools, but not, perhaps, for
delicate wood-carving. The goal of classifying a boat or ship, or any part of the archaeological record,
can be a very useful goal but it should not be the final goal: “Typology and classification are beneficial
so long as they remain tools rather than gospel... Typology alone will never suffice and will not
necessarily reveal important differences or changes in past concepts which can be detected in
more than one historical type, such as the concepts involved in the adoption of flush-planked
shipbuilding in Northern Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries” (Maarleveld, 1995, p 6, emphasis
by the author).
Keeping all of this in mind, the constructional features of OE34 described in the previous
chapter will now be discussed, compared to other vessels, and interpreted.
5.3 OE34 discussed
We cannot list one step in the construction sequence of OE34 without already coming across a unique
feature of the vessel, manifest in the shape of the keel. As described, the cross-section of the keel
progresses over its length. T-shaped in the fore, the garboard strakes were thus almost horizontal where
they were fastened with iron nails. About a third of the length from the aft of the vessel, the keel is
rabbeted, and therefore the angle created between the keel and garboard strake is much harsher. Why
did the shipbuilders chose to use such a keel? This could be a result of a solution created within the
66
shipyard itself, in order to shape the bottom of the vessel in such a particular way (specifically, a wide
fore and a narrow aft).
Traditional Dutch-built botter were flat-bottomed (see Figure 43), and did not have twisting
garboard strakes. Cogs typically were constructed with a keel-plank instead of a keel proper. Lemée
describes a twisting garboard strake in the B&W 4 reconstruction (albeit he notes that it was not
observed during the excavation of the vessel itself), yet it is not described in connection with the shape
of the keel. The keel of B&W 4 was described as rabbeted, nothing more.
Figure 43: Front-view of the botter Rosalie from the Scheepvaartmuseum in Baasrode. Note the bottom strakes which do
not curve to meet the stem, but end with the above side-strakes instead. Photograph by the author.
It is of no small consequence that there were spijkerpennen discovered in the keel. The
existence of the spike-plugs is indicative of the use of temporary fastenings, which quickly reveals at
least one phase of the building process of the vessel. The presence of these wooden pegs invites
inferences one can make about the method used to construct OE34: the building method reflects that of
Dutch-flush, or at least one crucial characteristic of the Dutch-flush method (Maarleveld et al., 1994).
67
Before the two master-frames were inserted, the bottom of the vessel was built, and the strakes were
held together with clamps and temporary cleats. The holes left over after the cleats were removed (that
is, after the insertion of the two master-frames) had to be plugged with these small wooden dowels in
order to keep the hull planking water-tight.
Concerning the specific existence of spijkerpennen in the keel of OE34: most of them are
independent. Twenty-four spike-plugs are found along OE34's keel with no “matching” spike-plugs
aligned on either of the garboard strakes.1 Only two spijkerpennen almost align with a corresponding
row of two on the port garboard strake. One would assume that if temporary cleats were indeed used,
then the cleats should span two elements. What is the purpose of a temporary fastening if it is not
fastening two elements together? It would be expected for spike-plugs to be discovered in rows, to have
spanned both the keel and the garboard strakes, penetrating both, and leaving holes to be plugged in
both, as indeed we observe in several locations in the bottom of OE34. In any case, finding
spijkerpennen at all, even in the expected rows of such, is still a surprise. A temporary fastening
between the keel and the garboard strake seems risky—this is a crucial connection in the construction
of a water-craft. A clamp may have been used where the line of spijkerpennen was found on the keel.
Perhaps it is not so odd to have found spike-plugs on the keel, as Witsen mentions such (translated by
Hoving): “... here and there on the keel and garboard strake also a cleat is hammered, coming above the
keel, and closing on the keel as well as on the garboard strake, and so fastened it on the keel” (Hoving
et al., 2012, p 58). Spijkerpennen were also observed in the keel of the B&W 1 wreck, one of the
vessels found in the harbour at Christianshavn and researched by Lemée. He, too, finds their role as
fasteners between keel and garboard remarkable. “In this case, the garboard plank was fastened to a
rabbet in the keel with wooden plugs, ca 1x1 cm square, spaced at 25 to 30cm intervals. It was
surprising to observe that the shipbuilders had chosen to fasten this very important hull element with
1 Please refer to the appendices for a large-scale illustration of the hull planking of OE34, with spijkerpennen.
68
wooden plugs, but after nearly 400 years in the ground, the connection still held the garboard strongly
to the keel” (Lemée, 2006, p 127).
5.3.2 Hull Planking
There are several significant features of the hull planking which invite inferences concerning the
constructional philosophy in the shipbuilders' minds while OE34 was being built. These include the
presence of spijkerpennen (which has already been touched upon in the keel discussion) in both the
keel and the hull planking, the use of vertical flat scarfs, symmetry in the location of these scarfs, and
the possible shape of the bottom of the vessel.
Along with spijkerpennen found in the keel, more were observed in the bottom and even (very
sparsely) in the side planking of OE34. Those spijkerpennen which were found in rows were all located
in-between the rows of trenails which indicate where the floor timbers were positioned on top of the
hull planking. It would have been necessary for these spijkerpennen to have been accessible after the
insertion of the frames, so that the cleats could be removed and the small holes could be plugged.
There were four spike-plugs observed on the starboard side of OE34. This is again reflected in
the B&W 4 vessel. In De Bouwgeschiedenis van de botter, Dorleijn describes construction of the
Zuiderzee fishing vessels called botter, and the use of clamps, cleats, and spijkerpennen. This is
especially note-worthy as botter, like the OE34, were also frame-orientated. “Op andere plekken houdt
men de vlakdelen zolang op hun plaats door ongeveer om de meter, in de tussenruimten van de nog aan
te brengen leggers, dwars over de naad klampen te spijkeren. 'En zat er spanning op, dan sloeg je 'n
klamp meer... Na het aanbrengen van de leggers kunnen de klampen er weer uit en vult men de
spijkergaten in het vlak met Amerikaans grenen spijkerpennen, vervaardigd uit afvalhout van het
masten maken [sic]” (Dorleijn, 1998, p 72) (Please note that Dorleijn directly quotes shipbuilders, and
69
the above was given as it appears in his work). The use of small pieces of wood left-over from the
carving of the mast is another example of economic resourcefulness on the part of the shipbuilders.
They have this in common with the shipbuilders of OE34. Resourcefulness can also be observed with
the use of compass timbers in the fore of OE34, and for the futtocks and knees of botter (De Ridder et
al., 2013, personal communication).
The presence of vertical flat scarfs in the garboard strakes of OE34, instead of butt-ended scarfs,
or simple butt-ends, is notable in that these scarfs are not commonly seen in vessels which invest
structural integrity in the frames. There are only two other examples in the archaeological record of
vessels which are frame-orientated, yet feature vertical flat scarfs: the Hafnia-Vejle wreck and the
Princes Channel wreck. “All outer planks in the Prince Channel Wreck [sic] are connected with 15 cm
to 22 cm long and 4 cm to 5 cm deep vertical scarf joints... The joints are secured with trenails, as well
as up to four iron nails”(Auer & Maarleveld, forthcoming). The difference is that OE34 only features
vertical flat scarfs in the garboard strakes, whereas the Hafnia-Vejle and the Princes Channel wreck
feature vertical scarfs throughout the hull planking. The structural philosophy of the vessels in question
are skeletons of frames, encased in watertight shells of planks which are easy to replace as they do not
overlap between one another. The technique of fastening the planks in a strake with vertical flat scarfs
is expected of vessels built shell-first. However, our three vessels were built frame-orientated (at least
in part, in the case of OE34). Why, then, do we find vertical flat scarfs in the hull planking of OE34
(and, for that matter, in the Hafnia-Vejle and the Princes Channel wrecks)? “It is a lot harder and time
consuming to construct [using vertical flat scarfs] (at least in the traditional frame first setup)[sic]”
(Auer, 2013, personal communication).
The use of vertical flat scarfs in the garboard strakes could be explained with two possibilities,
or perhaps both. First, the unique shape of the keel. As the garboard strake must twist harshly along the
70
keel, as the keel shifts from T-shaped to rabbeted, it is logical to assume that strong connections were
needed between the planks that made up the garboards. Second, if the frames of OE34 were not yet
inserted, the garboard strakes had nothing else to which to attach (besides the keel), negating the use of
butt-ended joints.
There is one more example of the use of vertical flat scarfs in frame-orientated shipbuilding, in
De Bouwgeschiedenis van de botter. Dorleijn describes the scarf fastening between two planks in a
strake as being a “schuine liplas” or “oblique lap joint” (Dorleijn, 1998, p 82). Wilfried De Ridder, a
Figure 44: Drawing from De Bouwgeschiedenis van de botter depicting the scarf used when constructing a botter (Dorleijn,
1998, p 82)
guide at the Scheepvaartmuseum Baasrode, attributes the abandonment of vertical flat scarfs to the
better availability of longer planks today than there were two hundred years ago. Shorter planks, and
therefore more planks in a strake, would have required strong connections between them in order to
maintain a sturdy hull (while keeping in mind that such attention paid to the hull is unexpected, as
botter are built frame-first, so a sturdy hull seems either redundant or unnecessarily thorough). But
today, straight, long planks are more easily acquired, and longer planks require fewer scarfs. According
to Mr. De Ridder, this is why the botter Rosalie is being constructed without vertical flat scarfs in the
71
hull planking (De Ridder et al., 2013). Dorleijn himself quoted a botter constructor on the
discontinuance of “oblique lap joints”: “Dat werd vroeger gedaan, maar later ook niet meer” (Dorleijn,
1998, p 82).
There is a constant refrain of Dutch flush vessels being designed and built at the same moment.
Maarleveld, in his 1992 article Archaeology and early modern merchant ships: Building sequence and
consequences. An introductory review., states “Dutch wrecks display a building sequence in which the
distinction of separate stages of design and construction is virtually impossible. Fashioning takes
place while construction is on. It is a procedure which presupposes a tremendous skill on
behalf of those engaged, both of the directing shipwright and of all the woodworking and
constructing hands... Where there is no design in advance, there can be no prefabrication and very
little preparatory conversion of timber” (Maarleveld, 1992, pp 167-168). Hoving as well: “...there was
no distinction between design and execution. The ship was not designed on the drawing board but was
shaped during the building process, not on the basis of an engineer's calculations but through the master
shipbuilder's active engagement in the building process on the yard” (Hoving, 2012, p 9).
But a hull that displays such symmetry as OE34 speaks otherwise. While this discussion teeters
dangerously close to the typology pitfall discussed above, the author finds it worth the risk to discuss.
Below the turn of the bilge, OE34 displays great symmetry between starboard and port. Symmetry in
the hull planking, in the shape and length of planks and the location and nature of scarfs, requires
conception, planning... in a word, forethought. The use of vertical scarfs also supports the argument
that the vessel could not have been designed and built simultaneously. Such attention to detail cannot
entirely occur during the building process. The amount of time to shape each plank, indeed to shape
two planks to identically mirror one another, as well as create mirrored vertical flat scarfs in either side
of the bottom, is immense. This requires a plan thought out; abstract planning; a sort of preconceived
72
design, making OE34 unique in this respect. “Though not absolutely perfect, a relatively symmetrical
pattern was observable in the shape of the planks on each side of the hull, as well as in the distribution
of the scarfs” (Lemée, 2006, p 113). In any case, the author hopes to not diminish the “tremendous
skill” of the shipbuilders in question, despite the fact that pre-conception may have occurred.
Hoving makes an important observation concerning the angle of the bilge in Dutch pinas—
granted, pinas are larger than OE34, but the building sequence described for the craft (described and
compared in more detail in the construction sequence section below) shows strong similarities to OE34.
The position in which OE34 was discovered makes it difficult to discern how sharp the original angle
of the bilge was. But the author believes it would have looked very similar to that of B&W 4 or of the
botter, both of which display similarities to OE34. They both had a very hard chine, of which Lemée
provides a comparative description and image: “The B&W 4 vessel, built ca 1590, and the botter type,
built ca 1930, were both hulls built with cleats, which furthermore display similar bottom and bilge
shapes. The first example was built of curved planks and the second of straight planks, but the result
was almost identical: a flat bottom, rising toward the stems. An important difference, however, is that
B&W 4 ship had hood ends in rabbets on the posts, whereas the parallel bottom planks of the botter
type all terminate along the bilge” (Lemée, 2006, p 131). Huitema also notes the distinction between
Dutch round- and flat-bottomed boats: “Het is gebruikelijk om de oud-nederlandse scheepstypen in
twee hoofdgroepen te onderscheiden, de ronde schepen en de platbodemschepen” (Huitema, 1965, p
15).
Additionally, if indeed OE34 is considered a ship that is bottom-based, it is even more likely
that the bottom was flat: “[Bottom-built construction] is most often, but not exclusively, expressed in
flat-bottomed vessels... The concept may be expressed in vessels that are not strictly flat-bottomed, but
have keels, softer bilges, and deadrise; such hulls are usually the descendants of flat-bottomed
73
Figure 45: “Een rond jacht” and “een platbodemschip” from Ronde en platbodem jachten. OE34 may have resembled the
platbodemschip on the left. (Huitema, 1965, p 15)
Figure 46: Illustration of the bottom of B&W 4 (top) and of a botter (bottom)(Lemée, 2006, p 131).
ancestors” (Hocker, 1993, pp 22-23). It is not far-fetched to suggest that OE34 may have exhibited a
bilge angle like this.
The term “framing system” is not used lightly—not all framing elements present in a vessel constitute a
system. This is a term reserved for interconnected parts; individual elements that work together, of
74
which the result is more than the sum of its parts. Vessels, especially those which are built with the
structural integrity invested in the hull planking (plank-orientated) do not, strictly speaking, have
structural need for a framing system, as such. This, too, comes precariously close to the typology
discussion, but the author believes this to be an argument of logic rather than one of adherence to a
typological dogma.
OE34, despite displaying a sturdy bottom built as a watertight shell with vertical flat scarfs (see
above for inferences of vertical flat scarfs) also exhibited frames identified as master-frames, or
hoofdspanten. The master-frames in and of themselves require special focus, as they are one of the
remarkable aspects of the vessel. They remove OE34 from the category of being solely plankorientated, as the presence of spijkerpennen suggest it to be. The inclusion of interconnected framing in
OE34 is very unique, especially considering that most of the constructional methods utilised for OE34
are those used for Dutch-flush-built ships, and non-interconnected framing is a common characteristic
in Dutch-flush-built vessels. Master-frames, inserted after the bottom was constructed, would have
guided the construction of the sides, and the shape of the hull. There were two observed, and they were
located in the widest part of the ship (Hoving calls this section the hals—although this may only apply
to pinas). These master-frames do not only provide support to OE34, but to the author's reasoning that
classification as the primary goal would result in this discussion being quite brief. OE34 seems to repel
straight-forward classification.
While only two hoofdspanten were identified in OE34, Dorleijn mentions four built in a botter,
three in the fore and on in the aft: “Wanneer het vlak zover gevorderd is, begint men de hoogte in te
werken en richt daartoe eerst de hoofdspanten op, te weten: eerste en tweede spant, kooispant en
achterspant. Op de drie leggers in het voorschip komen de naar bestaande mallen uitgezaagde
oplangers te staan, die op het tweede spant geflankeerd door zitters. Deze inhouten hebben dezelfde
75
breedte als de leggers (6 duim of 15,4 cm), uitgezonderd het eerste spant dat zich voegt naar de breedte
van de pompgatslegger, en zijn gemiddeld 4½ duim (11,6 cm) dik. In het achterschip zet men aan elke
kant eerst een 11 duim (28,3 cm) breed achterspant met de teen op het vlak, paar steekspijkers in het
vlak, en laat de pompgatslegger daar vervolgens tussen zakken” (Dorleijn, 1998, p 74). It seems that
the shipbuilders of OE34 constructed these “eerste en tweede spant” but omitted the “kooispant en
achterspant”. The attached oplangers and adjacent zitters are mentioned in this section. It is in this
phase where construction of the botter and the construction of the OE34 seem to diverge. After the
insertion of the hoofdspanten, a ribband and the sheerstrake/wale (berghout) is installed in botter, while
the insertion of the side planking probably commenced in OE34. Also, as stated above, the bottom of
OE34 does not resemble that of botter, in that OE34's bottom strakes ended at the posts. See Figures 43
and 46.
The author believes there is something to be said about the fact that only one of the ends of the
master-frames was supported by a filler-piece. Not one master-frame at both ends, let alone both
master-frames at both ends, but just one end of one master-frame/oplanger connection included a
shaped filler-piece. Could this be yet another feature which speaks towards the improvisations that the
shipbuilders of OE34 appear to have frequently utilized? From the usage of frame extensions, the
extensive use of compass timbers, and the use of these filler pieces, it seems that the whole frame
system of OE34, while no doubt sturdy and structurally sound, was not necessarily constructed with a
pre-conceived design. These shipbuilders did not “limit” themselves to a strict framing procedure. If we
follow this hypothesis, it speaks towards a product made by shipbuilders willing to make do with what
they had, in a smaller, more local shipyard.
76
It was observed, specifically in the framing system of OE34, that compass timbers were frequently
used, as well as frame extensions. This reveals maximum resourcefulness of available materials on the
part of the shipbuilders; yet more evidence that they may not have had the financial capability to
acquire or make complete frames from one timber. Or, perhaps if the shipbuilders even had the ability
to obtain complete frames, they chose to use the natural curving timbers anyway. Is this a sign of
resourcefulness or frugality? In either case, OE34's creators were certainly efficient, and did not forego
quality for that efficiency.
The ceiling planking, consisting of one level of internal planking, only spanned the bottom of
the vessel. The planks lay directly on the inboard surfaces of the floor timbers. It was assumed that this
was to provide a surface on which to store cargo in the vessel. This ceiling featured planks which
alternated between wide and narrow. There is the possibility that these also operated as internal support
for OE34, in addition to the framing system. There were no stringers observed during the excavation,
but the wide planks may have been inserted as stringers, and the narrow planks inserted afterwards to
fill the resulting spaces.
“The use of
different widths of ceiling planks could have been structurally necessary,
considering the ceiling as not only internal planking but also serving as a type of stringer, also used in
medieval shipbuilding. Medieval vessels typically had no full ceiling but possessed longitudinal
stringers, often crudely made and fastened either with treenails or with iron spikes or both. These
stringers provided the construction with supplementary longitudinal stiffness, but would also have born
the weight of cargo” (Lemée, 2006, p 128).
77
Overlaying the illustration of the ceiling planking on the illustration of the hull planking, and
lining up the rows of trenails, it is possible to create an estimation of where the mast-step was located
in relation to the master-frames. Indeed, the author observed that the mast-step was situated very close
in proximity to the widest point of the ship.
5.3.6 Likely Construction Sequence
The author presents this hypothesized construction sequence of OE34, based on the above
observations.
1. The keel is laid. Posts are attached with scarfs.
We can confirm that the method used by OE34's builders is more similar to the construction
described by Witsen rather than that of Van Yk, due to the presence of spike-plugs (while keeping in
mind that the ships described by Witsen and Van Yk were considerably larger than OE34—it is the
construction method behind these ships we are interested in). “The plank shell described by Witsen was
held together by cleats, and frame timbers were subsequently fitted into the shell. According to the
method of construction described by Van Yk, which strikes us as much more modern, the planking was
fastened to the pre-erected frames” (Hoving, 2012, p x foreword). These “pre-erected frames” were
inserted directly after the keel was laid.
2. The garboard strake is attached to the keel, with iron nails in the fore, and clamps and
temporary fastenings in the aft.
The spijkerpennen in the keel denote the use of temporary fastenings to the keel in the aft. The
use of vertical flat scarfs in the garboard, and only in the garboard, could be explained by the fact that it
twists so dramatically. Such a twist may have required strong connections between planks. Also, if
indeed the garboard strakes were inserted before any of the frames, vertical flat scarfs would have been
78
necessitated by the lack of any element for the garboard strakes to which to attach. Of course they are
attached to the keel, however, the shipbuilders may have wanted a secure fastening within the
garboards in addition to the attachment to the keel.
3. The bottom hull planking of the vessel is inserted, laid flush edge-to-edge, with the use of
temporary cleats.
This could be called a “bottom-first” (Hocker, 1991, p 24) construction, as it is difficult to
discern how great a role the bottom played as far as structural integrity (this limiting the use of the term
“bottom-based”).
Greenhill is of the opinion that it is “the shape of the edges of the planks [in the hull planking]
that principally determines the shape of the boat”. The author does not disagree, but would add that the
shape of the keel, indeed the edges of the keel, cannot be dismissed in relation to the overall shape of
the vessel. The edges of the keel, whether it is T-shapes or features an angled rabbet, controls the angle
at which the garboard strakes are attached, which in turn has a tremendous effect on the shape of the
bottom of the vessel.
4. Two master-frames are inserted and attached to the bottom planking.
These two master-frames are a composite, interconnected construction of a floor timber with
oplangers connected to the ends with trenails. These frames are attached to the bottom also using
trenails, securing them in place.
5. The hull planking of the sides of the vessel is constructed.
With the master-frames creating an inner structure on which to build, the hull planking
construction then continues, but the planks are now being fastened to the frames (instead of to each
other with the use of cleats). However, this particular section is unclear as of yet. If indeed, as
79
hypothesized based on observation of the hull planking in situ excavation drawing, butt-ends were used
in the side planking instead of the aforethought vertical flat scarfs, then the frames would have to have
been inserted simultaneously with the side planking. Butt-ended joints in planking must have
something to which to fasten; unlike a vertical flat scarf, the planks are not interconnected. There must
be a third element to which the two adjoining (here meaning next to one another, not connected) planks
can be attached.
6. Framing system inserted: the rest of the liggers in the bottom of the vessel, the zitters in the
bilge, and the oplangers on the sides.
7. Temporary cleats are removed; spike-plugs inserted into resulting holes.
8. Ceiling planking is installed.
It has already been discussed above that the ceiling planking may also have acted as internal
structure within the vessel, as wide stringers with narrow filling planks in-between. Thus creating a
plane onto which cargo could also be stored.
The description of the building sequence of B&W4 is similar to that of OE34. “A parallel to this
building process is known from medieval Dutch shipbuilding (seen in cogs, for example) until modern
times in the northern Netherlands (in the traditional botter). The method is a shell-based building
concept that likely developed from cog construction, where the hull bottom was carvel and shell-built,
as later can be seen in large carvel ships” (Lemée, 2006, p 123). Lemée's suggestion as to the use of
the B&W 4 reflects the likely function of OE34: as a vessel used on the shallow waters of the Wadden
Sea. However, the author goes on to hypothesize about who specifically may have sailed OE34.
80
Of the assemblage of artefacts recovered from the excavation site, only a select handful were further
researched and thus are able to impart information concerning the function of the vessel as well as the
foundering date. These artefacts were the weapons, the three barrels and the coins. No further
information is given concerning the rest of the artefacts. Students from the University of Groningen,
however, are researching the remains of food found in the vessel, and perhaps their findings will
provide more information (Van Holk, 2013, personal communication).
The weapons found aboard, as stated above, were two rapiers (as well as the hilt of a possible
third rapier), a possible halberd, and a knife in a beechwood sheath. These weapons, while revealing
information in their own right, highlight the relative dearth of weaponry found aboard. No firearms nor
cannons were found during the excavation of OE34, and the author feels confident to say that due to
the probable foundering of OE34 during a storm or high seas, if weapons such as heavy armament had
been aboard, they would not have washed away. Therefore, we can all but eliminate OE34 as a warship,
or a ship that was being used by soldiers. Perhaps the vessel was used as a cargo vessel, and there were
high-ranking officers aboard when it foundered (Van Popta, 2012). Or it could have been used by the
Beggars at sea on the Zuiderzee. As the Beggars were not an organized army and therefore would not
have been issued weapons, each would have been responsible for his own defence. Additional
(possible) supportive evidence of the use of OE34 against the Spanish occupation are the three
limestone-filled barrels.
Upon the discovery of the three barrels filled with “quicklime”, or rather concentrated lime, coproject leader Laura Koehler suggested, reasonably, that the it was "mogelijk bedoeld als grondstof
voor metselspecie" (Koehler, 2013, p 35). Yet it is interesting that van Popta noticed the reference to
quicklime as a weapon against the Spanish during the Eighty Years' War: “Een interessant aspect hierbij
81
is dat volgens bepaalde Geuzenliederen potten met ongebluste kalk op de Inquisitie werden gegooid”
(Van Popta, 2012, p 15). He cites Charl Levall's De slag op de Zuiderzee, in which quicklime is
mentioned as being thrown in pots, and being painful to the enemy Spaniards: “Die Geusen smeten van
boven neer: De Potten met Calck die vloghen; Uuten Meerssen, hoe langer hoe seer; Int Spaeniaerts
ooghen was dat een sweer; De Calck die stoof hoe langer hoe meer; Haer Schepen men wit sach
weerden; Met die Calck men haer verveerden” (Lavell, 1986, p 72). Quicklime, or calcium oxide, is a
hazardous material that heats extremely upon contact with water. If pots of this substance were thrown,
the dust of the resulting explosion would have caused irritation and even corrosion of the skin,
respiratory tract, eye tissues, etc. In addition, the heat caused by the contact of the material with water
had the ability to ignite any nearby flammable substances like gunpowder, making it a dangerous and
effective weapon indeed (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). It must be conceded,
though, that there is no conclusive evidence that the lime in the small barrels found aboard OE34 was
meant as a weapon: there is only the historical reference to the use of quicklime as a weapon during the
Eighty Years' War, which is synchronous with the likely operation period of OE34.
Chalk (from when limestone is formed) found aboard a shipwreck discovered at Stora Ekö in
Sweden was also suggested to have been used as a weapon at sea (Maarleveld, personal
communication). An analysis of that chalk even gave a provenance (Einarsson & Gainsford, 2007)
(SEIR–materialeanalyse A/S, 2007), thus revealing chalk to be a very informative material. It therefore
might be a fruitful endeavour to conduct a similar analysis on the limestone found on OE34.
The important contribution that the two troves of coins discovered on the site provide is a
concrete date of foundering, due to the particular features (or lack thereof) found on the coins
themselves. The youngest coins date from 1571, therefore OE34 was in operation at least until 1571.
Yet none of the coins recovered feature a stamp (“klop”) which was required by the Staten Generaal on
82
all coins minted in 1573 and 1574. This was a move made by the Republic as a defensive manoeuvre
against the rule of the Spanish. As none of the coins featured the required mark, this means that OE34
must have foundered after 1571 and before 1573: it must have foundered in the Zuiderzee in 1572 (Van
Holk, 2013). Laura Koehler succintly describes this discovery: “Deze onverwacht nauwkeurige
ondergangsdatum is uniek in de scheepsarcheologie, waar meestal met grotere tijdsmarges op basis van
dendrochronologisch onderzoek of een inventaris wordt gewerkt” (Koehler, 2013, p 37).
5.4 Summary, Analysis, and Hypothesis
After such an all-encompassing study of this small wooden vessel, can anything definitive be said
about its function, and about those who constructed her?
Based on the myriad techniques and the possible construction sequence of OE34, we can
conclude that it does not fit into a pre-existing method of construction, or “type” of water-craft. It
features select techniques typical for pinas, as described by Witsen via Hoving, as well as techniques
exhibited by shipbuilders of botter. There are many instances in the vessel which point to a smaller
shipyard, to shipbuilders who improvised and made do with materials available, and who apparently
adhered to no strict constructional method.
There is something to be said about the possible flat bottom of OE34, in connection to the sharp
angle of the hull in the aft, created by the sharply-angled garboard strakes. A flat-bottomed vessel
would have operated well in the shallow waters of the IJsselmeer, and of the Wadden Sea in general.
Botter, which have been shown to be a good example of what OE34 may have looked like, with their
flat bottoms, were built and used in the Zuiderzee: “... de botter is in ieder geval langzaam aan naar
vorm ontwikkeld en tot rijpheid gekomen in de Zuidelijke kom van de Zuiderzee” (Huitema, 1965, p
115). But it must be noted that such a flat bottom would also have an effect on stability. Hence the
83
usefulness of such a narrow aft, and therefore a dramatically-twisted garboard strake. Lemée discusses
the use of a twisted garboard strake when describing the B&W 4: “A twisted garboard strake raises the
bottom aft, resulting in less buoyancy here than in the forward end of the hull. This form results in
better stability under sail” (Lemée, 2006, p 130).
Ab Hoving provides the closest hypothesis of method used, as he explains two different
building methods utilized in the seventeenth century, one of which (the one we are concerned with, in
fact), may have been in use for a long time. As mentioned in the first chapter, Witsen and Van Yk
describe two different shipbuilding techniques, the 'Northern' method and the 'Southern' method. I do
not use these generalizing terms lightly: Hoving himself warns that “simplifications in this matter lead
to misinterpretation, because even from shipyard to shipyard there were, and still are, differences in
ways of building” (Hoving, 1988, p 218). The method that which OE34 seems to resemble is the
Witsens's: “after placing the stem and stern on the keel, the whole floor was laid with the help of
planking-tongs and chains to pull the planks against each other. During the course of this, everything
was clamped together with a large number of wooden clamps. Next, a floor timber was fitted on the
hals (the widest part of the ship) and provided with a bilge futtock [zitter] on both sides. Only then was
the bilge planked: three or four complete planks, after which the water-tight shell thus obtained was
filled up with the still-lacking floor timbers and bilge futtocks [zitters]. Finally, the futtocks were
placed and after the ceiling was made within the ship and the top timbers were placed, the rest of the
hull could be planked. Even Hoving himself makes a comparison that creates a sort of triangle between
similar construction methods: “It is notable that this way of building remained in use for smaller
vessels till the end of wooden ship-building in the north of the Netherlands, and probably dates back to
the time when cogs were built (or maybe even before then). Research into the way of building of these
vessels, of which some were recovered in the drained Zuiderzee, has made it crystal-clear that this was
of building was already practiced in these regions in the Middle Ages” (Hoving, 1988, p 216).
84
A quote from Varenius concerning change in Nordic shipbuilding from the Viking Age to the
Middle Ages is apt: “It has not been by discussing technology [that understanding was reached] but by
trying to discuss the context of technology, human thought. Shipbuilding changed, not because of some
autonomous “evolution”, but because man started to think in a different way” (Varenius, 1994, p 282).
Indeed, while discussing technology is fruitful in it's own right, the quantitative data collected from the
excavation of OE34 means little without interpretation. Some hypotheses put forward in this thesis, for
example the reason given for the use of vertical flat scarfs in the hull planking, have little foundation
and no conclusive evidence. Others, such as the possible role of the concentrated lime found in barrels,
were shown to have supportive information and examples from historical and archaeological sources.
But to bring the focus back to the research question posed at the beginning of this thesis: have
we been able to infer or conclude anything about the shipbuilders of OE34? Indeed, it has been
systematically shown that the shipbuilders were working on a local level as opposed to in a statesanctioned shipyard. These builders, in the author's opinion, struck a very interesting balance between
economic and structural (technological) choices. Logically, going the “cheaper” way might have
resulted in a vessel of less quality or poorer performance. However, the builders were resourceful: the
use of compass timbers where possible (in the aft, and to a lesser extent in the fore), and the use of
frame extension timbers (especially in that they alternate from side to side) distinctly shows
consideration for a sturdy vessel. With the supported hypothesis of OE34 being created by local
shipbuilders, and the fact that “It was the seamen, fishermen, and the middling sort who formed the
backbone of the Revolt” (Israel, 1995, p 182), it is not so implausible to reason that OE34 may have
been used by the Sea-Beggars during the rebellion.
85
Bibliography and Resources
Adams, J. (2003) Ships, Innovation & Social Change: Aspects of carvel shipbuilding in northern
Europe 1450-1850. Stockholm, Stockholm Department of Archaeology.
Auer, J. (2013) Use of vertical flat scarfs in carvel shipbuilding.
Auer, J. & Maarleveld, T. eds. (Forthcoming) An Armed Elizabethan Merchantman Wrecked in the
Thames. Volume 1: Excavation and Hull Study. Portsmouth, Nautical Archaeology Society.
Bates, S. (2011) The Construction Sequence of the Princes Channel Wreck. Esbjerg, Denmark,
Syddansk Universitet.
Bill, J. Persée : Portail de revues en sciences humaines et sociales [Internet]. Available from:
<http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/nauti_01541854_1998_act_14_1_1190>
[Accessed 26 February 2012].
Dorleijn, P. (1998) De Bouwgeschiedenis van de botter. Franeker, Uitgeverij Van Wijnen.
De Vries, J. & Van der Woude, A. (1997) The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and
Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500-1815. Cambridge, NY, Cambridge University Press.
Westerdahl, C. ed. (1994) Crossroads in Ancient Shipbuilding: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on Boat and Ship. Oxford.
Einarsson, L. & Gainsford, M. (2007) Skeppsvraket vid St. Ekö. Kalmar, Sweden, Kalmar läns
museum.
Gawroński, J., Kist, B. & Boetzelaer, O.S.-V. (1992) Hollandia Compendium: A Contribution to the
History, Archeology, Classification and Lexicography of a 150 Ft. Dutch East Indiaman (17401750). Rijks Museum.
Greenhill, B. (1976) Archaeology of the boat: a new introductory study. Middletown, CT, Wesleyan
University Press.
86
Greenhill, B. & Morrison, J.S. (1995) The archaeology of boats & ships: an introduction. Naval
Institute Press.
Hasslöf, O., Henningsen, H., Christensen, A.E. & Group, S.M.H.W. (1972) Ships and shipyards,
sailors and fishermen: Introduction to maritime ethnology. Copenhagen University Press;
Eksp.: Rosenkilde og Bagger.
Hocker, F.M. (1993) The Development of a Bottom-based Shipbuilding Tradition in Northwestern
Europe and the New World. University Microfilms.
Hocker, F.M. & Ward, C.A. (2004) The Philosophy of Shipbuilding: Conceptual Approaches to the
Study of Wooden Ships. Texas A&M University Press.
Hoving, A.J. (1988a) A 17th-Century Dutch 134-foot Pinas: A Reconstruction after Aeloude en
Hedendaegse Scheepsbouw en Bestier by Nicolaes Witsen 1671, Part I. International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology, 17 (3), pp.211–222.
Hoving, A.J. (1988b) A 17th-Century Dutch 134-foot Pinas: A Reconstruction after Aeloude en
Hedendaegse Scheepsbouw en Bestier by Nicolaes Witsen 1671, Part II. International Journal
of Nautical Archaeology, 17 (4), pp.331–338.
Hoving, A.J. (2012) Nicolaes Witsen and shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age. College Station, Texas
A&M University Press.
Huitema, T. (1965) Ronde en platbodem jachten. Amsterdam, P.N. Van Kampen & Zoon N.V.
Israel, J. (1995) The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806. USA, Oxford University
Press.
Koehler, L. (2013) Coins found on OE34.
Koehler, L. (2013) Scheepswrak oe 34, vrachtschip uit de Tachtigjarige Oorlog. Archeobrief, A, pp.33–
37.
Koehler, L. (2013) Two barrels of OE34.
87
Lavell, C. (1986) De slag op de Zuiderzee in geschiedschrijving en staatsgezinde poezie tot 1648.
Hengelo, Schagen.
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, Denmark;
[Copenhagen], Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde ; National Museum of Denmark.
Maarleveld, T. (1994) Double Dutch Solutions in Flush-Planked Shipbuilding: Continuity and
Adaptations at the Start of Modern History. In: C. Westerdahl ed. Crossroads in Ancient
Shipbuilding. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology.
Oxford, Dept. of Underwater Archaeology, pp.153–163.
Maarleveld, T. (2013) Keernagel/mosnagel.
Maarleveld, T. (1995) Type or technique. Some thoughts on boat and ship finds as indicative of cultural
traditions. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 24 (1), pp.3–7.
Maarleveld, T. (2013) Use of limestone/chalk as a weapon on the Stora Ekö wreck.
Maarleveld, T.J. (1992) Archaeology and early modern merchant ships. Building sequence and
consequences. An introductory review. In: A. Carmiggelt ed. Rotterdam Papers VII. Rotterdam,
pp.155–173.
Maarleveld, T.J., Goudswaard, B. & Oosting, R. (1994) New data on early modern Dutch-flush
shipbuilding: Scheurrak T24 and Inschot/Zuidoostrak. International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology, 23 (1), pp.13–25.
Provincie Flevoland From past to present [Internet]. Available from:
<http://www.flevoland.nl/english/from-past-to-present/> [Accessed 27 November 2013].
De Ridder, W., Kaak, M., De Vries, K. & Van Damme, J. (2013) Construction of botter.
SEIR–materialeanalyse A/S (2007) Skibvrag ved St. Ekö, Blekinge: Kalkanalyse. Helsingør, Denmark,
SEIR–materialeanalyse A/S.
88
Sgrooten, C. (1570) Gelriae, Cliviae, Finitimorvmque Locorvm Verissima Descriptio.
Steffy, J.R. (1994) Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. College Station, Texas
A&M University Press.
Tracy, J. (2008) The Founding of the Dutch Republic: War, Finance, and Politics in Holland, 15721588. Oxford Scholarship Online. Available from: <http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.proxy1bib.sdu.dk:2048/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199209118.001.0001/acprof-9780199209118chapter-5#acprof-9780199209118-note-361>.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1995) Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for
Calcium Oxide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health Service;
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health; Education and Information Division. Available from:
<http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0093-rev.pdf>.
Unger, R.W. (1978) Dutch shipbuilding before 1800: ships and guilds. Assen, Van Gorcum.
Van De Moortel, A. (1991) A Cog-like Vessel from the Netherlands. Rijkswaterstaat Directie Flevoland.
Van Holk, A. (2013) Dating of OE34.
Van Holk, A. (2013) Food remains found during excavation of OE34.
Van Holk, A. (2012) Personal communcation during OE34 excavation.
Van Popta, Y. (2012) Saevis Tranquillus in Undis: Een archeo-historische analyse naar de
wapenvondsten aan boord van scheepswrak OE 34.
Varenius, B. (1994) The Symbolic Ship: A Study in the Relationship Between Society and Shipbuilding
Traditions. In: C. Westerdahl ed. Crossroads in Ancient Shipbuilding. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology. Oxford, pp.279–282.
89
Verweij, J., Waldus, W. & van Holk, A. (2012) Continuity and change in Dutch shipbuilding in the
Early Modern period. The case of VAL7 and the watership in general. Journal of Archaeology
in the Low Countries, 4 (1). Available from: <http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/jalc/04/nr01/a03> [Accessed
2 April 2013].
90
Appendices
I. Framing Element Catalogue
Including floor timbers, oplangers, zitters, and filler timbers
FLOOR TIMBERS
Not all starboard or port ends were indicated. Dimensions were given when available
Dimensions of frame extensions are taken from the middle of the timber
Frame ID Length Sided
Moulded Sided
over keel over keel BB
Moulded Sided Moulded Notes
BB
SB
SB
S1A/HS
No ex situ drawing;
in situ drawing
shows frame as
extremely
deteriorated
S2A/HS
1m49
25cm
18cm
S3A/HS
2m45
22cm
16cm
S4A/HS
2m3
21cm
25cm
S4B/SB
1m50
(frame
extension)
12cm
9cm
S5A/HS
2m88
20cm
46cm
S5B/BB
1m19
(frame
extension)
10cm
13cm
S6A/HS
2m41
11cm
32cm
S6B/SB
1m44
(frame
extension)
11cm
12cm
S7A/HS
12cm
36cm
1m98
28cm
3cm
25cm
3cm
18cm
14cm
15cm
13cm
First dramatically
shaped piece, fitted
into deep trench
created by twisted
garboard strakes.
Could also be
S8A/HS. Mislabel
in excavation
drawing.
9cm
10cm
91
5cm
5cm
Dramaticallyshaped like S5.
Moulded Sided
S7B/BB
58cm
(frame
extension)
10cm
11cm
S8A/HS
-
-
S8B/SB
1m52
(frame
extension)
17cm
13cm
S9A/HS
2m97
22cm
30cm
S9B/BB
1m15
(frame
extension)
18cm
18cm
S10A/HS
2m28
24cm
15cm
S10B/SB 1m82
(frame
extension)
12cm
13cm
S10B/BB 1m58
(frame
extension)
15cm
14cm
S11A/HS
2m65
19cm
24cm
S11B/BB 1m84
(frame
extension)
21cm
11cm
S12A/HS
3m77
13cm
22cm
S13A/HS
3m92
14cm
22cm
S14A/HS
3m93
15cm
24cm
S15A/HS
4m21
18cm
20cm
S16A/HS
3m53
13cm
19cm
S16B/BB 1m45
(frame
extension)
20cm
16cm
-
BB
SB
SB
-
-
-
-
See S6A/HS.
15cm
12cm
12cm
10cm
Less dramatic
curvature,
becoming flat.
Very little worked,
lots of sapwood.
Flat over keel (now
past the deep V in
stern).
Sided become
thinner, moving
towards bow.
92
Moulded Sided
S17A/HS
3m92
13cm
18cm
S18A/HS
3m01
17cm
20cm
S18B/SB 1m64
(frame
extension)
14cm
15cm
S19A/HS
3m42
12cm
19cm
S19B/BB 1m51
(frame
extension)
17cm
15cm
S20A/HS
4m56
12cm
18cm
S21A/HS
4m52
15cm
18cm
S22A/HS
4m59
16cm
17cm
S23A/HS
4m58
16cm
16cm
S24A/HS
4m80
17cm
17cm
S25A/HS 4m62
16cm
17cm
S26A/HS
4m50
15cm
17cm
S27A/HS
4m56
18cm
15cm
S28A/HS 4m64
18cm
16cm
S29A/HS
4m66
15cm
15cm
S30A/HS
4m72
15cm
13cm
S31A/HS
4m69
15cm
15cm
S32A/HS
4m68
26cm
18cm
S33A/HS
4m30
15cm
16cm
S34A/HS
4m32
11cm
10cm
BB
SB
SB
Transverse
fastenings to
connecting frame
elements on either
end: hoofdspant
Transverse
fastenings to
connecting frame
elements on either
end: hoofdspant
Frame exhibits
slightly more
pronounced
curvature on
moulded side
93
Moulded Sided
BB
SB
SB
S35A/HS
4m14
15cm
13cm
S36A/HS
4m12
12cm
10cm
S37A/HS
3m91
12cm
10cm
S38A/HS
2m70
11cm
12cm
S39A/HS
3m24
20cm
15cm
S40A/HS
(I)
1m48
16cm
(equals
roughly
2m96 in
full)
13cm
S41A/HS
missing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S42A/HS
missing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Incomplete-- only
half of the timber.
OPLANGERS
(Sided and moulded dimensions are taken from the middle of the timber)
Identifier
Length
Width (sided)
Height (moulded)
SBO5½/BB
1m25
19cm
12cm
SBO13/BB
1m18
22cm
17cm
SBO14/BB
1m72
23cm
15cm
SBO22/BB
1m06
13cm
17cm
SBO23/BB
46cm
17cm
10cm
SBO24/BB
84cm
10cm
16cm
SBO25½/SB
1m47
n/a
14cm
SBO25/BB
95cm
14cm
16cm
SBO27/BB
1m34
20cm
17cm
SBO28/BB
1m
n/a
16m
SBO29/BB
1m58
16cm
11cm
94
Notes
Clearly broken,
original length
unknown
Niche carved so as
to fit with S25A/HS
via 2 tranverse
trenails.
Identifier
Length
Width (sided)
Height (moulded)
Notes
SBO30/SB
1m55
n/a
14cm
SBO30/BB
70cm
n/a
12cm
SBO31/SB
1m13
n/a
14cm
SBO31/BB
82cm
n/a
18cm
SBO32/SB
1m20
n/a
15cm
SBO32/BB
56cm
n/a
10cm
SBO33/SB
1m79
n/a
13cm
SBO33/BB
68cm
n/a
12cm
SBO34/BB
63cm
n/a
10cm
Clearly broken,
original length
unknown
SBO35/BB
1m25
n/a
15cm
Clearly broken,
original length
unknown
Identifier
Length
Width (sided)
Height (moulded)
S12 ½ b/SB
1m13
20cm
20cm
S14 ½ b/BB
89cm
15cm
16cm
S19 ½ b/SB
1m
18cm
16cm
S21 ½ b/SB
70cm
n/a
12cm
S22 ½ b/BB
64cm
15cm
21cm
S26 ½ b/SB
98cm
19cm
25cm
S26 ½ b/BB
1m16
20cm
21cm
S30 ½ b/SB
1m11
11cm
22cm
S30 ½ b/BB
97cm
13cm
18cm
S32 ½ b/SB
93cm
15cm
18cm
S33 ½ b/SB
91cm
n/a
24cm
Clearly broken,
original length
unknown
ZITTERS
95
Notes
FILLER TIMBERS
Identifier
Length
Width (sided)
Height (moulded) Notes
S20½ b /BB
73 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Rectangular in cross-section.
No special shape to suggest it
was part of master-frame
connection, one limberhole,
fastenings on the outboard
surface only (unlike floor
timbers)
S23½ b /SB
77 cm
10 cm
15 cm
No special shape to suggest it
was part of master-frame
connection, one limberhole,
fastenings on the outboard
surface only.
S25½ b /BB
76 cm
10 cm
18 cm widest,
16 cm thinnest
One end specially shaped to
create one-half of niche for
oplanger to fit into: creating
sturdy master-frame/oplanger
connection. One iron nail
inserted transversely through
location of this connection.
Iron fastenings on outboard
surface, and one trenail
extending from outboard and
inboard surfaces.
S27A/SB
97 cm
12 cm
17 cm
Iron nail fastenings only
found on outboard surface.
Longer in length than other
three filler-pieces.
96
II. Spreadsheet Visualization of Framing Elements
O
STARBOARD
Z
F
E
S4b
S6b
S8b
S10b
S12½b
S18b
S19½b
S21½b
S23½b
SBO25½
S26½b
S27A
SBO30
SBO31
SBO32
SBO33
S30½b
S321/2b
S331/2b
HS
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
97
E
PORT
F
Z
S5b
O
SBO5½
S7b
S9b
S10b
S11b
S14½b
SBO13
SBO14
S16b
S19b
S20½b
S22½b
S25½b
SBO22
SBO23
SBO24
SBO25
S26½b
S30½b
SBO27
SBO28
SBO29
SBO30
SBO31
SBO32
SBO33
SBO34
SBO35

A Study of a 16th-century wooden vessel from the Netherlands By

Transcription

Similar documents

19` 4” AMF/Crestliner 1980 $2200

28` 6” Aquasport 1987 - Chapman School of Seamanship

30` Thundercraft 1989 - Chapman School of Seamanship

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

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

“Awesome” – 18.4m Monohull

Building the DragonFlyer

50` 3” Cheoy Lee 1984 - Chapman School of Seamanship

23` Wellcraft 1984 $1200 - Chapman School of Seamanship