View
216
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
2009 Report prepared by: MAP Fieldwork Course and written by: Jens Auer University of Southern Denmark, Maritime Archaeology Programme Report on the survey of site FPL 17, Prerow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, conducted by the Maritime Archaeology Programme of the University of Southern Denmark as part of the Field school Course in July-August 2009.
Citation preview
2009
University of Southern Denmark, Maritime Archaeology Programme Report prepared by: MAP Fieldwork Course and written by: Jens Auer
SURVEY REPORT OSTSEE BEREICH V, DARSS, FPL 17 Report on the survey of site FPL 17, Prerow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, conducted by the Maritime Archaeology Programme of the University of Southern Denmark as part of the Field school Course in July-August 2009.
ii
Jens Auer: Survey Report Ostsee Bereich V, Darss, Fundplatz 17 Maritime Archaeology Programme University of Southern Denmark www.sdu.dk/maritimearchaeology
© The author, Landesamt für Kultur- und Denkmalpflege Mecklennburg-Vorpommern &
University of Southern Denmark
ISBN: 978-87-992214-3-1
Subject headings: maritime archaeology, survey techniques, shipwreck, Darss, Prerow, field
school
Published by:
Maritime Archaeology Programme
University of Southern Denmark
Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10
6700 Esbjerg
Denmark
Printed in Denmark 2010
iii
Acknowledgements
The MAP fieldwork team (Konstantinos Alexiou, Jens Auer, Marja-Liisa Grue, Bente
Grundvad, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus, Martin Lonergan, Thijs Maarleveld, Delia Ni
Chiobhain, Andrew Stanek, Christian Thomsen and Cate Wagstaffe) would like to thank the
Landesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege, Abteilung Archäologie und Denkmalpflege and in
particular Dr Jens-Peter Schmidt for providing the opportunity to carry out the field school
in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, supporting the project and organising accommodation
in Prerow. Many thanks also go to the Gesamtschule Prerow, and in particular the caretaker
Herr Schütt, for accommodating the excavation team in the school yard. Further thanks go
to Frau Pfeiffer in the Kurverwaltung Prerow, who provided tables and benches for our
outdoor kitchen and organised waste collection. And last but not least we would like to
thank Familie Fiedler for their support, not only with welcome food on the first day, but also
with crockery, a fridge, a handcart and the construction of our UMA.
iv
v
Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Aim and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Co-ordinate System ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Site Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Site History ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
4. Fieldwork in 2009 .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Organisation ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Time frame ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Personnel ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Logistics .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Diving ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Underwater recording .................................................................................................................................. 7
Excavation .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Positioning ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5. Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
The wreck ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Stem and stern construction ................................................................................................................... 10
Framing ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
Planking ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
Internal structure ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Dating ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Site characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Historical context ......................................................................................................................................... 16
6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
7. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1: Oversize Figures ........................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 2: Timber records ............................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 3: UMA measurements ................................................................................................................... 35
vi
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania.
Auer 2009 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons. .............. 2
Figure 2: Location of FPL 17. Auer 2009, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA
M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2009 ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3: The Pioner Multi workboat anchored over the site. MAP, Auer 2009. ........................... 5
Figure 4: Two MAP students using the UMA to record the curvature of frames. MAP,
Petrelius-Grue 2009. ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Plan of the wreck showing the results of the total station positioning and the areas
of excavation. MAP, Auer 2009, based on the overview plan drawn and inked by Thomsen
2009. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Side view of stempost with cutwater on the outside. The rake is clearly visible. Map
2009 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7: Details of stempost and cutwater, showing impressions of fishplate and metal
fastening plate. MAP 2009. ................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 8: Close-up of the draught mark IIII on the portside of the stempost. MAP 2009. ...... 11
Figure 9: View inside the stern of the vessel showing floor timbers notched to receive the
keelson. Map 2009. ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 10: Floor timbers collapsed across the keelson near the bow of the vessel. The limber
holes are clearly visible. MAP 2009. .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 11: Preserved outer planking on the starboard side. Trenail and iron nail fastenings
are visible, as well as a repair (338). MAP 2009. ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 12: Panorama merged from four individual shots of the keelson. MAP 2009. .............. 13
Figure 13: Exposed mast (387) in trench B. MAP 2009. ........................................................................ 13
Figure 14: Photograph showing timbers in trench C in the stern of the wreck. Suspended
sediment deteriorated visibility and prevented the use of a strobe. MAP 2009. ........................ 14
Figure 15: Close-up of the two heavily degraded softwood pump tubes in the stern of the
vessel. MAP 2009. .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 16: Table showing typical dimensions of merchant vessel types in use in Germany
between 1840 and 1926. After Szymanski 1929. ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 17: Plan of the wreck site showing the location of individual timbers where possible
(S7). MAP 2009. ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 18: Top view drawing of site FPL 17. MAP 2009. ...................................................................... 21
Figure 19: Photomosaics of the outside of bow and stern of the wreck. MAP 2009. ................ 21
Figure 20: Photomosaics of wreck structure at bow and stern. Photographs are only stitched
together to provide a visual reference and are heavily distorted. MAP 2009. ............................. 21
Figure 21: FPL 17 compared to line drawings of other 19th century merchant vessels. MAP
2009. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21
viii
List of tables:
Table 1: Distribution of project dive time. ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Result of the total station survey. All co-ordinates in WGS84, UTM zone 33N. ............ 9
1
1. Introduction
Project Background
The Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme (MAP) is a two year international
postgraduate course in Maritime Archaeology. It is part of the Institute for History and
Civilization and based at Esbjerg Campus. One of the components of the Masters programme
is a three week field school course. This course takes place in the period between the 2nd
and 3rd semester. Seen in the context of the curriculum, the field school builds on the
knowledge and skills the students acquire in the 1st and 2nd semester and requires them to
apply those in a practical setting. The curriculum states the following aims for the field
school: “On completion of the course students should:
have acquired a satisfactory level of competence in the use of maritime
archaeological techniques and methods in the field;
be able to place these activities in a broader analytical context with a view to
describing, recapitulating and interpreting significant aspects of an archaeological
excavation.”
For the year 2009, the field school course was organised in co-operation with the Landesamt
für Kultur und Denkmalpflege, Abteilung Archäologie und Denkmalpflege, Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern (LKD M-V), the authority responsible for cultural heritage in the German state
of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
A co-operation agreement regarding the organisation of field schools in Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania was signed in June 2009. In order to facilitate the field school, the LKD
M-V identified a wreck site that was located easily accessible in relatively shallow water and
required archaeological documentation. The chosen site, Ostsee Bereich V, Darss, Fundplatz
17 (FPL 17), near the village of Prerow, is potentially affected by the construction of a
harbour for pleasure craft, so that the results of the field school can be used to inform the
environmental assessment for the planned project.
Aim and Objectives
The aim of the field school was twofold: From a University point of view, the field school is
an important part of the curriculum, which allows students to apply their knowledge and
skills in a practical context. Students are supposed to learn the preparation, organisation
and day to day running of field projects, as well as the tasks related to post-excavation
analysis.
In addition, the field school aimed at generating results which contribute to research in the
field of maritime archaeology. More specifically the objectives were:
to record FPL 17 as thoroughly as possible using limited excavation to reveal
important technical details;
to prepare a full archaeological report on the results of the survey, following the
standards of the LKD M-V;
2
to prepare a section in the report on possible solutions for lifting/ recovering the
wreck;
to prepare an article for a scientific journal on the results of the survey.
Co-ordinate System
All positions in this report are stated in Easting and Northing based on the Universal
Transverse Mercator co-ordinate system (UTM), using the World Geodetic System 1984
(WGS 84) ellipsoid. The site falls into zone 33U North.
2. Site Location
FPL 17 is located in the Baltic Sea, just off the coast of the Fischland-Darss-Zingst peninsula
in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg Western Pomerania)
(Figure 1). The wreck lies near Prerow, a village in the Darss area of the peninsula. The
wreck position is E 343245.87; N 6036772.82. The stretch of coast near the wreck site is
named Hohe Düne after a number of higher sand dunes just to the East.
The village of Prerow is situated between Darsser Ort, a sandy hook that forms the
northernmost tip of the peninsula and Zingst, another village to the East. Until 1874 the
Prerow Strom connected the inland waters of the Bodstedter Bodden with the Baltic Sea. As a
result of coastal dynamics, the mouth of the Prerow Strom shifted from a position on the
Figure 1: Location of Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. Auer 2009 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons.
3
height of the wreck site in 1450 eastwards to a location well to the West. After a massive
storm surge in 1872, the Prerow Strom was closed and the coast fortified (Thuerkow
2009a). While the Darss is strongly affected by coastal dynamics, such as erosion on the
beaches facing westwards and accumulation on Darsser Ort, coastal fortification has slowed
down sediment transport in the area of the wreck site. There are tendencies for a westward
transport of sediment near the shoreline and eastward sediment transport further offshore,
but the coastline near the wreck site has seen little change in the last 30 years (Thuerkow
2009b)(Tiepolt et al. 1999)(Janke et al. 1998).
The wreck site is situated in 3m of water, ca. 170m from the beach1 and about 100m from a
sandbank running parallel to the shore (Figure 2). The sediment around the wreck is made
up of fine sand and silt. According to Dr Detlev Mohr, head of the local lifeguard service, the
sedimentation on the wreck site and the level of exposure has not changed in a major way
since the 1970’s2. The prevailing wind direction in the area is from the West, so that the
location of the wreck site is protected by the sandy hook Darsser Ort.
1 Measured from the centre of the wreck 2 Pers. Comm. Dr. Detlev Mohr, 01.12.2009
Figure 2: Location of FPL 17. Auer 2009, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2009
4
3. Site History
According to a local fisherman, the FPL 17 wreck has always been well known as a good
fishing spot. Said fisherman could remember to have swum and dived to the wreck in the
1950’s3.
Officially, the wreck site was re-discovered by the local sport diver Hans Joachim Hämer in
the 1970’s. Hämer informed Dr Detlev Mohr, the head of the local beach lifeguards, who
positioned the site using bearings to landmarks and cut a dendrochronological sample
which did not date due to an insufficient number of tree rings. Mohr included the wreck in
his catalogue of archaeological wreck sites off the Darss peninsula (Mohr 1977), but did not
carry out further survey work4.
According to the file on FPL 17 held by the LKD M-V, the wreck was next inspected by divers
from the society for underwater archaeology Berlin/ Brandenburg in September 1999. Two
divers located the wreck and started recording the site using a simplified type of
trilateration with two datum points. Due to a lack of time, the survey could not be
completed.
In June 2002, three dendrochronological samples were taken on the site and submitted for
dating. It is unclear why and where the samples were taken and whether they dated, as no
further documentation is preserved.
A further inspection of the wreck by the local society for ship archaeology took place in July
2002. It was observed that exposed timbers were affected by Teredo Navalis, but generally
the wreck was described as “well preserved”. A final inspection report in the FPL 17 file
dates to May 2007. Again the wreck was described as well preserved, with no new signs of
Teredo Navalis.
In addition the file contains a number of aerial photographs of the site, all of which seem to
have been acquired in 1994. On most photographs the wreck is clearly visible.
4. Fieldwork in 2009
Organisation
Time frame
The survey of FPL 17 was carried out in the period from 26.07.09 to 13.08.09. Using the
known GPS position, the wreck site was located and marked by means of snorkelling on the
evening of the 26.07.09. Diving started on the27.07.09 and the last dives were conducted on
12.08.09. Diving took place on all days and no weather downtime occurred.
3 Pers. Comm from a local fisherman during the project 4 Pers. Comm. Dr Detlev Mohr 01.12.2009
5
Personnel
The survey team consisted of 12 divers, ten students of the Maritime Archaeology Masters
Programme and two teaching staff. A number of guests visited the site during the survey
and partook in the diving activities. All team members were qualified as commercial SCUBA
or surface supplied divers or were trainees in the commercial SCUBA diving course.
To maximise the learning outcome and provide a realistic work environment, the
responsibility of planning and organising the day to day running of the survey was shared
with the students. Each day one student acted as site director and had to plan the day, carry
out a morning briefing and write the site diary. Days were then discussed during evening
debriefings. Progress was constantly posted on the Maritime Archaeology Programme blog
(Auer 2009).
Logistics
The survey team was accommodated in tents on the school yard of Gesamtschule Prerow in
the village of Prerow. The washroom facilities in the school gym could be used and a gym
changing room was converted to site office and housed computers and survey equipment.
Access to a water hose allowed cleaning the equipment after diving. A field kitchen was
established on the school yard.
A 5.5m long Pioner Multi workboat with 60HP outboard engine was used as diving and
work platform (Figure 3). As the beach near the site is part of a nature reserve and not
accessible by car, the boat was launched near the Regenbogen Camp to the west of the Pier
in Prerow. The boat was kept in the water for the duration of the project and anchored on a
two point mooring off the campsite each night. This anchorage was less exposed than the
site and guarded by staff of a windsurfing school at night. Each morning, the boat was picked
Figure 3: The Pioner Multi workboat anchored over the site. MAP, Auer 2009.
6
up by a team of two and sailed over to the site. Diving equipment and the remainder of the
dive team were picked up from the beach near the site.
As the beach was inaccessible by car, all equipment was transported there using a handcart.
For each dive, the boat was moored over the site on a single point mooring. After the dives
personnel and equipment were exchanged on the beach. This way changeover times
between dives could be kept to a minimum.
Diving
All diving was conducted under Danish commercial diving legislation (Dykkerlov). As
confirmed in the co-operation agreement, Dr Jens Auer acted as diving supervisor for the
project and was responsible for diving safety.
Divers worked in teams of four with two divers in the water and a standby diver and diving
supervisor in the boat. The diving supervisor was responsible for safety on the boat,
checked divers before water entry and filled in the diving log sheets. The standby diver was
dressed in his suit with a set of diving equipment prepared.
Divers were marked with orange surface marker buoys, but otherwise untethered as they
could often be seen from the surface. Diving was conducted using Interspiro Divator MKII
equipment with half masks. All divers were equipped with drysuits.
In average, three dives with two divers in the water were conducted per day. In the course
of the 17 dive days, a total of 102 dives with 9039 minutes of bottom time were carried out
(Table 1).
Date Number of dives Bottom time (minutes)
27.07.09 8 341
28.07.09 6 497
29.07.09 6 493
30.07.09 7 611
31.07.09 6 515
01.08.09 6 607
02.08.09 6 610
03.08.09 6 732
04.08.09 6 552
05.08.09 6 609
06.08.09 4 429
07.08.09 7 525
08.08.09 6 519
09.08.09 7 654
10.08.09 6 626
11.08.09 6 620
12.08.09 3 99
102 9039
Table 1: Distribution of project dive time.
7
Methodology
Underwater recording
Before starting the underwater recording process, the wreck was cleaned with soft brushes
and then photographed in order to plan the recording methodology.
Initially, it was decided to produce a measured 1:50 top view drawing of the wreck, which
was to be supplemented with measured sketches and photographs for areas of particular
interest. A grid system consisting of two parallel lines, one on either side of the wreck, was
set up. Thin metal bars served as datum points. Where the distance between datum line and
wreck was too great for accurate measurements, namely in the bow and stern areas of the
wreck, further datum lines were set up closer to the wreck.
Each visible timber was then tagged with a unique identifier in the number range from 200-
425. For this, white waterproof labels were fastened to the timbers with long clout nails.
After the tagging was completed, a first 1:50 outline drawing was produced, using offset
measurements, first from the two main baselines, and after inaccuracies were noticed, also
from the additional baselines.
As the wreck was upstanding by up to a meter5, and the baselines were at seabed level, a full
top view drawing was difficult to make using offset measurements. Therefore it was decided
to first generate an outline drawing which presents the wreck flush with the seabed (Figure
17). Based on this outline drawing and additional baselines set up inside the wreck, a
measured top view sketch of the wreck was produced (Figure 18).
To get an overview of scantlings and constructional details, all timbers with tags were
recorded, either on individual timber recording forms or on tables. As a minimum, moulded
and sided dimension at one position (or width, thickness and length) were noted for each
timber. Further information was recorded where appropriate. All information was collated
in a Microsoft Access database (Appendix 2).
To supplement the drawings, the wreck was photographed systematically using a Canon
Powershot A620 digital camera in an Ikelite underwater housing (Appendix 5).
In order to record the well preserved shape of the upstanding wreck, an “Underwater
Measuring Apparatus” (UMA), was built. This consisted of a vertical steel profile with a
cross-shaped base and a spike underneath. Fastened to this at right angles was another steel
profile, which could be moved up and down the vertical profile. The horizontal profile could
be locked at any given position and was made to receive a folding rule or similar measuring
device.
The UMA was used to measure the curvature of individual framing timbers with vertical
offsets. It was mounted on the seabed facing a frame and kept vertical using spirit levels.
One diver generally operated the UMA, while another diver made sure it stayed vertical and
noted measurements down on a drawing board (Figure 4). UMA measurements were first
plotted in an MS Excel table (Appendix 3), but will be imported in a 3D modelling software
(Rhinoceros 3D) in order to create a 3D reconstruction of the preserved hull shape.
5 Measured from the seabed outside of the wreck, inside the sediment level was slightly lower
8
Excavation
Limited excavation was used to investigate how much of the wreck was buried and to see
whether buried elements could help to understand the nature of the site. Excavation was
carried out using a small Honda water pump and stainless steel water dredge heads. A total
of three trenches were dug (Figure 5):
Trench A was excavated on the outside of the bow along the stempost. The fine sediment
made excavation difficult, but the trench reached a depth of about 1m, revealing draught
marks along the stempost.
Trench B was dug inside the ship along the mast in order to reveal possible internal
structure or remains of a deck. This trench reached a depth of 1.85m before sediment
movement made it impossible to continue.
Trench C inside the stern of the wreck revealed a solid layer of constructional and natural
timbers after only 20cm and was not continued further.
Positioning
On the last day of the survey, the wreck was positioned using a total station. The LKD M-V
surveyor Christian Hartlreiter established a Zeiss total station on top of a geodetic point at
Hohe Düne. A reflector was mounted on a long pole and brought in position by two divers.
One diver positioned the tip of the pole, while the other diver stayed on the surface and kept
Figure 4: Two MAP students using the UMA to record the curvature of frames. MAP, Petrelius-Grue 2009.
9
the pole vertical. Four points around the wreck were measured: stempost, sternpost and
the seabed near frames 350 and 257 in the midship area. All points were re-taken to ensure
maximum accuracy (Figure 5 and Table 2).
Point Easting Northing Height
Geodetic Marker 343911.35 6036310.46 13.67
101 343248.28 6036781.80 -3.70
102 343244.05 6036765.71 -4.16
104 343242.97 6036773.26 -4.14
105 343248.26 6036772.32 -4.45
106 343248.51 6036781.30 -3.67
107 343244.30 6036765.74 -4.17
108 343243.43 6036773.10 -4.16
109 343248.45 6036772.72 -4.52
Table 2: Result of the total station survey. All co-ordinates in WGS84, UTM zone 33N.
5. Results
The wreck
The wreck was found resting upside down with a slight list towards the starboard side. It is
preserved from stempost to sternpost and lying in NNE SSW orientation with the stem
facing towards the beach (Figure 18).
The hull is almost entirely covered by sand, with only ca. 90cm – 1m of the bottom structure
protruding. The keel is missing, but the forward part of the keelson with the mainmast
Figure 5: Plan of the wreck showing the results of the total station positioning and the areas of excavation. MAP, Auer 2009, based on the overview plan drawn and inked by Thomsen 2009.
10
stepped into it is preserved. In the centre of the wreck the hull structure has collapsed
inwards, but in bow and stern area, some floor timbers remain in situ, crossing the full
width of the floor. The portside is slightly better preserved with outer planking and ceiling
planking remaining at bow and stern.
At first sight, the wreck gives the impression of a full, flat-bottomed craft, but closer
inspection shows that this is an optical illusion caused by the angle of list. The vessel had a
very sharp stern, some deadrise, a round turn of the bilge amidships and a slightly fuller
bow. A lot of the preserved framing timbers show a distinctive s-shaped curvature. The
sternpost is straight, while the stempost has considerable rake (Figure 19).
The visible length of the wreck measured from outside face of stempost to outside face of
sternpost is 16.85m and at the widest point, slightly aft of the mast, the wreck measures
5.3m across.
The sediment around the site consists of fine sand. Inside the hull the sediment level was
slightly lower with a layer of soft sandy silt covering the seabed. A large number of
branches, ropes and fishing lines inside and around the hull structure confirm that the
wreck must have been exposed for some time. All exposed timbers show signs of natural
erosion and are effect by Teredo worms.
Stem and stern construction
At the bow, the stempost (379) protrudes ca. 80cm from the sediment. It is made from oak
and has a moulded dimension of 30cm and a sided dimension of 18-20cm. The original
forward rake was approximately 20° (Figure 6). About 20cm below6 the heel of the
stempost, a cutwater (380), also from oak,
measuring 21cm moulded by 14cm sided is
attached to the post with iron bolts.
Impressions in the wood show that
cutwater and stempost were additionally
connected with metal plates on either side
(Figure 7). A gripe or forefoot would
originally have been scarfed to cutwater
and stem or keel. While the gripe is not
preserved, the impression of a fishplate at
the heel of the stem indicates where it
might have been fastened (Figure 7). A
stemson is attached to the inside of the
stempost (242). The garboard strake is
missing, but a number of outer planks are
still in situ with their hood ends fastened to
the stem rabbet.
Carved draught-marks were found on the
starboard side of the stem post. The
6 The vessel is lying upside down and described as found.
Figure 6: Side view of stempost with cutwater on the outside. The rake is clearly visible. Map 2009
11
numbers IIII, and in the excavated trench VI, VII and VIII, are clearly visible, but the
mark of the number V was partially covered
by a concretion (Figure 8). All draught
marks measure 16cm in height and are
spaced between 30 and 32cm apart7.
At the stern of the vessel, the v-shaped floor
timbers show increasingly steep angles,
leading up to almost straight deadwood
filling frames (300) and finally the
sternpost (270). The straight sternpost is
made from oak and measures 36cm
moulded x 22cm sided. It is standing 65cm
clear of the sediment.
As with the stempost, all metal fastenings
have been removed and are only visible as
impressions in the wood. A 5cm wide iron
band at the heel of the post might have
served to fasten the keel. The first visible
gudgeon was 6cm wide and originally
fastened with square shafted iron nails.
Framing
Altogether 53 frames are visible on the
starboard side and 48 on the portside. Their
average sided-dimension is 14-16cm and
they are 16-18cm moulded. The spacing
between frames varies, but is generally 10-
15cm. All frames are made from oak.
In bow and stern area, some floor timbers
are preserved in situ. In the bow, the
following frames are or were connected across the keel: 227-368, 228-372, 225-365/367
and 223-363. In the stern, floor timbers are often crutches which are squared off where they
were in contact with the keel. On the inside they are notched to receive the keelson (Figure
9). In some of the forward floor timbers, the limber holes are still visible (Figure 10).
Erosion and damage to the centre part of the vessel make it hard to establish the framing
pattern. In general every other frame seems to have continued towards the keel, with the
frames in between cut square at the turn of the bilge. Every six frames longer double frames
are inserted (e.g. 204/205). These are connected with trenails. Notches in the keelson
indicate a frame crossing about every 15-20cm in the area around the mast. Two
interpretations are possible: The squared off frames could be second futtocks, butting
against floor timbers which crossed the keel. This would make the longer frames first
7 Measured from the bottom of one mark to the bottom of the mark above. This was difficult to measure accurately, as the visible marks were eroded and covered by concretion.
Figure 7: Details of stempost and cutwater, showing impressions of fishplate and metal fastening plate. MAP 2009.
Figure 8: Close-up of the draught mark IIII on the portside of the stempost. MAP 2009.
12
futtocks. Another possible interpretation
could be that the longer frames are floor
timbers crossing the keel and the squared
off timbers represent first futtocks starting
around the turn of the bilge.
Although difficult to see, it appears that
frames were fastened to the keel with iron
bolts.
Forward of frame 374, cant frames set at an
angle to the keel were used to shape the
bow section of the vessel (Figure 20).
Planking
Planking is preserved all around the wreck
where covered by sediment. On the
portside, 10 strakes of planking are
exposed at the stern of the vessel (271-
281) and a further eight at the bow (229-
238). On the starboard side a preserved
section of planking is visible just forward of
the stern area (328-344). Some eroded
ceiling planks can be seen at seabed level in
various parts of the wreck, but the ceiling
strakes in the bow (245-250) are the best
preserved.
All planks are oak and generally fastened
with a single trenail of 30-35mm per frame
and two iron nails at the butt ends. Iron
nails have a square shaft of 7-8mm and a
head diameter of 10mm. The hood ends of
planks in the stempost rabbet are only
fastened with iron nails. In various places
around the wreck, iron bolts were observed
in the planking, but no regular pattern
could be established.
Outer planks are between 20 and 30cm in
width and up to 4.5cm thick. Ceiling planks
have the same width and are up to 3cm
thick.
In the stern, plank 272 was stepped into
plank 271 to accommodate the vessel
shape. On the starboard side, a graving
piece repair (338) was observed in plank
342. The graving piece was fastened with a single trenail and a number of iron nails.
Figure 9: View inside the stern of the vessel showing floor timbers notched to receive the keelson. Map 2009.
Figure 10: Floor timbers collapsed across the keelson near the bow of the vessel. The limber holes are clearly visible. MAP 2009.
Figure 11: Preserved outer planking on the starboard side. Trenail and iron nail fastenings are visible, as well as a repair (338). MAP 2009.
13
Internal structure
The 7.8m long oak keelson (381) is the most recognisable element of the internal structure
of the vessel (Figure 12). The keelson measures 24cm moulded and 25cm sided and is
notched on the underside to receive floor timbers. The notches are quite eroded, but could
be measured as being 2-3cm deep, 15cm
wide and spaced approximately 15-20cm
apart. The aft end of the keelson is eroded,
and the forward end was not accessible. The
keelson was fastened to floor timbers and
possibly the keel by iron bolts. The mast
step is 70cm long and 10-12cm wide. The
depth could not be measured with any
degree of accuracy.
Stepped into the keelson is a pine mast,
40cm in diameter (387) (Figure 13). In
trench B, the mast could be exposed for a
length of ca. 1.85m. No traces of a mast
bank or other support were observed. A
number of seemingly lose pine boards and
smaller pieces of softwood were uncovered
in the trench, but none of these seemed to
be in situ. At a depth of 1.85m below the
keelson, the nature of the sediment changed
from soft sand to a relatively hard clay. At
this depth the trench was discontinued as
the sliding sand made it impossible to
continue without opening a much larger
section on the inside of the vessel.
Figure 12: Panorama merged from four individual shots of the keelson. MAP 2009.
Figure 13: Exposed mast (387) in trench B. MAP 2009.
14
Trench C was started working from frame 331 towards the inside of the stern in order to
reveal possible remaining structure and
find out whether the vessel had a second
mast at the stern. However, a solid layer of
natural and constructional timbers
prevented dredging to any depth. The
exposed timbers seemed to consist of
structural elements of the lower hull which
had collapsed down and natural timbers
which were washed into the wreck (Figure
14). Trench C was documented with
photographs, but not drawn as none of the
uncovered timbers was in situ.
Two pump tubes (413) of a common
suction pump were observed in the stern of
the wreck between frame 305 and 306. The
tubes are of softwood. They have an external diameter of 12cm and a bore of 6.7cm. Both
tubes are slightly angled and forma v-shape (Figure 15).
Interpretation
Dating
All easily accessible timbers, such as frames
and planks did not offer themselves for
dendrochronological dating as they were
relatively fast grown with few rings and
wells squared so that no remains of
sapwood were present. Larger structural
elements, such as keelson or stempost
might have been more promising, but it was
considered unnecessary to destroy them for
the purpose of dating. Therefore no
dendrochronological dating was
undertaken. Earlier samples taken on the
site could not be dated either (see section
3). However, using characteristics, such as scantlings, fastenings, timber conversion and
other features, a date of construction can be estimated: All scantlings are fairly uniform.
Timbers are regular and well converted. A standardised framing pattern is visible. The ship
was fastened using a combination of iron fastenings and trenails. The fastenings are of
standardised sizes and follow a pattern (a single trenail per frame and two iron bolts at the
butt ends and hood ends). All of these features point to a date of construction in the first 75
years of the 19th century. In his discussion of the German ship type Ever, Szymanski states
that these vessels were primarily iron fastened after 1860/ 1870 (Szymanski 1932a, 49).
This can probably be applied to other vessels as well. The common suction pump tubes in
the stern give another indication of dating. While suction pumps were in use throughout the
19th century, pump tubes were more often made from metal in the second half of the 19th
Figure 14: Photograph showing timbers in trench C in the stern of the wreck. Suspended sediment deteriorated visibility and prevented the use of a strobe. MAP 2009.
Figure 15: Close-up of the two heavily degraded softwood pump tubes in the stern of the vessel. MAP 2009.
15
century (Szymanski 1932b, 90; Oertling 1996; Stone et al. 1993, 49). A construction date in
the first half of the 19th century would therefore seem most likely, although a later date of
construction cannot currently be ruled out.
Site characteristics
Site FPL 17 represents the remains of a wooden, carvel-built sailing vessel. The visible
length is 16.85m. The sternpost is almost straight, while the stempost has an outward rake
of 20°. A 1.85m deep trench along the mast did not reach the level of the upper deck, so that
the depth in hold can be assumed to be greater than 1.85m. Using this measurement in
conjunction with the outward rake of the stempost, a length between the perpendiculars of
approximately 17.5m can be assumed. The width of the site as measured on the seabed is
5.3m. Although this does not represent the actual beam of the vessel, it is probably relatively
close. The resulting L/B ratio is 3.3.
The vessel had a sharp stern, a relatively full bow and an s-shaped midship section with
round turn of the bilge and some deadrise. The location of the pumps 2m forward of the
sternpost indicates that the vessel had considerable drag.
Evidence for a single mast, 6m aft of the stempost was found. The existence of a second mast
either aft of the first mast, or at the stern is possible, but neither a mast nor a mast step
could be seen.
No traces of either cargo or ballast were found in the capsized vessel, and the trench inside
the hull did not reveal any
recognisable internal
structure.
FPL 17 is most likely the
remains of a medium sized
coaster or Baltic trader built
in the first half of the 19th
century. It is unclear where
the vessel was built. The
Baltic trade involved a
considerable number of
nations, and German,
Danish, Swedish, Dutch and
English vessels, among
others, would have passed
the Darss en route to other
locations in the Baltic. The
draught marks at the bow
are spaced 30-32cm apart.
Draught markings were normally measured in foot, and each country or area used a
different definition for this unit of measurement. The 30-32cm spacing includes the British
foot (30.48cm), the Danish foot (after 1683: 31.42cm, after 1820: 31.37cm, after 1835:
31.38cm) and the Prussian foot (31.38cm), all of which were in use in the Baltic in the 19th
century.
Figure 16: Table showing typical dimensions of merchant vessel types in use in Germany between 1840 and 1926. After Szymanski 1929.
16
In the 1930’s, Hans Szymanski attempted to provide an overview over typical wooden
sailing vessels used and built in Germany in the course of the 19th century (Szymanski 1934;
Szymanski 1929). Although his work clearly shows the difficulties of “ship typology” with
vessel types called differently in different regions and a wide variety of hybrids between
individual types, it provides valuable information and can serve as a basis to compare the
known characteristics of FPL 17 with those of typical merchant vessels of the time.
Using a table with typical dimensions for German sailing vessels between 1840 and 1926
(Figure 16), FPL 17 would compare to the ship types Schlup, Jacht, Ever, Galeasse and
Schuner. Of these, the Ever has very different constructional characteristics, such as e.g. a
plank keelson, and often a hard chine. The average length of the Schlup is slightly shorter
than FPL 17, although larger examples existed as well (Szymanski 1934). The other three
ship types all compare well with FPL 17 and were very common in the Baltic in the period in
question. Figure 21 shows a sketch of FPL 17 compared with line drawings of the ship types
named above.
Historical context
The loss of a medium sized sailing vessel close to the shore near a village in the 19th or early
20th century would almost certainly have left traces in the historical record. It is highly likely
that FPL 17 can be identified using available historical sources. At the time of writing, a
number of sources have been consulted, but as yet, no record of a shipwreck near Prerow
has been found.
The consulted sources were:
Published sources:
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Darßes und des Zingstes (Berg 1999): A general
chronicle of the Darss area with a chapter on shipping accidents
Entscheidungen des Ober-Seeamts und der Seeämter des Deutschen Reichs 1879-
1920 (Reichsamt des Inneren 1879): All court cases relating to shipping accidents
between 1879 and 1920. This overview includes every shipping accident that led to
a court case in the period in question. It is therefore fairly unlikely that the wreck of
FPL 17 occurred in this period.
Unpublished sources:
Landesarchiv Greifswald, REP 80, 149, Strandungen 1875-1880: Files generated by
the Strandhauptmann, the civil servant responsible for a section of the beach, on
stranded vessels. All stranding incidents between 1875 and 1880 are filed here.
It is thus unlikely that FPL 17 sank after 1875. Berg mentions a number of shipwrecks of
Galleasses in the years 1831 and 1867, but provides no further details (Berg 1999, 89ff.).
One event the wreck could be related to is the storm surge which occurred on 13th
November 1872. As a result of the storm surge, 15 people died in Prerow alone and many
local vessels were sunk or destroyed (Kiecksee 1972). Altogether, 41 ships stranded in the
course of a single day and became wreck. The total number of shipping accidents was 654.
17
Two vessels stranded in Prerow. These were the Pomona of 256t and the Dutch Espoir.
However, both vessels seem to be larger than FPL 17.
Further searches will have to concentrate on the period before 1875. Sources to be
consulted include:
Landesarchiv Greifswald, earlier sources
Stadtarchiv Stralsund: Verklarungsakten
Stadtarchiv Barth: Verklarungsakten
Church records Prerow
Sundine, a weekly newspaper published in Stralsund which includes news on
shipping accidents
6. Conclusion
Besides serving a pedagogical purpose as a learning opportunity for students of the
Maritime Archaeology Programme, the field school 2009 aimed at recording, interpreting
and assessing the wreck site FPL 17. This report sums up the results. Wreck site FPL 17
could be characterised as a small to medium sized wooden merchant sailing vessel built in
the 19th century. Further archival research will be undertaken in order to positively identify
the site.
The 19th century saw a massive increase in merchant shipping and thus also the
construction of merchant ships. Vessels of the size of FPL 17 would have been a common
sight in Baltic and North Sea harbours. As an example: in 1858 the merchant fleet of
Pomerania included 189 Schlup and Jacht type craft, a number that rose to 297 in the year
1878 (Szymanski 1934, 140). Trade routes, life on board and cargo on these ships are well
documented through historical records, ship registers and ship measurement records.
Szymanski’s overview shows that sources on ship design and appearance are preserved as
well (Szymanski 1934; Szymanski 1929). However, very few sources offer information on
constructional details, scantlings or framing pattern. In most countries in Northern Europe
wooden ships at this time were built on a multitude of small shipyards. Records were rarely
kept or have been destroyed.
While not of high archaeological importance in conventional terms, the value of well
preserved sites like FPL 17 lies in the amount of detailed information, e.g. on ship
construction, they can offer.
From a site management perspective it would be preferable to leave FPL 17 in situ. As
tourists showed great interest in the site and the field school project, it could be beneficial to
prepare an information board on the beach in order to raise general awareness of the
submerged cultural heritage off the coasts of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania.
If the site was endangered by the construction of the planned yachting harbour (see section
1) and had to be removed, three different options would be available:
18
1. Full underwater excavation, underwater disassembly and lifting, then recording on
shore
2. Full underwater excavation and lifting in one piece, then recording on shore
3. Limited underwater preparation, recovery by grab and detailed recording on shore
As the site is deeply buried in soft sediment, the first two options would require commercial
dredging equipment. Option 1) and 2) would be difficult and time consuming due to the
amount of sediment that has to be removed. It is likely that some kind of cofferdam would
be necessary to stabilise the sediment around the wreck and prevent sand from sliding into
the trenches. Option 1) would also require full recording of the exposed wreck prior to
disassembly in order to allow a reconstruction after the recovery.
As the bottom of the hull is missing and the wreck is lying upside down in the sediment, the
remaining hull has little or no structural integrity. In order to prevent crushing the wreck, a
cradle for lifting would have to be manufactured and put in place for option 2). In addition, a
crane powerful enough to lift the wreck with associated cradle and with shallow enough
draught to safely approach the site would have to be found.
Both, option 1) and 2) will require a considerable amount of underwater time, as well as
heavy dredging equipment and possibly sheet piling or the construction of an underwater
cofferdam in order to prevent an infill of the excavated areas. Option 2 will also require
heavy lifting equipment.
In the light of the nature and importance of the site, option 3) would be recommended. This
would require limited underwater fieldwork in order to:
Tag all exposed timbers with more permanent tags on the basis of the existing plan
Record three sections through the wreck at bow, stern and in the midship area to
supplement the existing UMA measurements
The wreck could then be cleared with a large grab. The clearance operation should be
closely monitored by archaeologists. It should be aimed at recovering large coherent
sections of wreckage. Recovered sections should then be recorded on land using a total
station, Faro arm or conventional recording methods.
The report on wreck site SL4, which was recovered by grab in the course of a major
dredging project in the Netherlands can serve as an example for the amount of information
that can be extracted from shipwreck cleared in this way (Adams et al. 1990, 71ff.).
7. References
Adams, J., van Holk, A.F., & Maarleveld, T.J. 1990. Dredgers and Archaeology. Shipfinds from the Slufter. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Auer, J. 2009. Prerow Fieldschool 2009 « Maritime Archaeology Programme. Available at:
http://maritimearchaeologyprogramdenmark.wordpress.com/tag/prerow-fieldschool-2009/ [Accessed December 17, 2009].
19
Berg, G. 1999. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Darßes und des Zingstes. Janke, W., & Lampe, R. 1998. Die Entwicklung der Nehrung Fischland-Darss-Zingst und ihres
Umlandes seit der Litorina Transgression und die Rekonstruktion ihrer subrezenten Dynamik mittels historischer Karten. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementbände 112: 177-194.
Kiecksee, H. 1972. Die Ostsee-Sturmflut 1872. Heide: Boyens. Mohr, D. 1977. Katalog der aufgefundenen Schiffswracks an der Ostseeküste des Fischland
und Darss zwischen Dierhagen und Müggenburg. Katalog für das Schifffahrtsmuseum Rostock.
Oertling, T.J. 1996. Ships' Bilge Pumps. A History of Their Development, 1500-1900. College
Station: Texas A&M University Press. Reichsamt des Inneren. 1879. Entscheidungen des Ober-Seeamts und der Seeämter des
Deutschen Reichs. Hamburg: Friederichsen. Stone, D., & Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia. 1993. The wreck diver's
guide to sailing ship artifacts of the 19th century. Vancouver: Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia.
Szymanski, H. 1929. Die Segelschiffe der deutschen Kleinschiffahrt. Szymanski, H. 1932a. Der Ever der Niederelbe : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen
Schiffahrt und zur Volkskunde Niedersachsens. Szymanski, H. 1932b. Der Ever der Niederelbe : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen
Schiffahrt und zur Volkskunde Niedersachsens. Szymanski, H. 1934. Deutsche Segelschiffe. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Meereskunde
an der Universität Berlin. Historisch-volkswirtschaftliche Reihe 1934. Thuerkow, D. 2009a. Die Entwicklung des Prerower Stroms von 600 bis 2000 u.Z. Available
at: http://mars.geographie.uni-halle.de/geovlexcms/golm/geomorph/prerowstromgenese [Accessed December 17, 2009].
Thuerkow, D. 2009b. Entstehung und Dynamik der Landschaft Fischland-Darß-Zingst.
Available at: http://mars.geographie.uni-halle.de/geovlexcms/golm/geomorph/ausgleichskueste [Accessed December 17, 2009].
Tiepolt, L., & Schumacher, W. 1999. Historische bis rezente Küstenveränderungen im Raum
Fischland-Darss-Zingst-Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. Die Küste 61: 22-45.
20
21
Appendix 1: Oversize Figures
Figure 17: Plan of the wreck site showing the location of individual timbers where possible (S7). MAP 2009.
Figure 18: Top view drawing of site FPL 17. MAP 2009.
Figure 19: Photomosaics of the outside of bow and stern of the wreck. MAP 2009.
Figure 20: Photomosaics of wreck structure at bow and stern. Photographs are only stitched together to provide a visual reference and are heavily distorted. MAP 2009.
Figure 21: FPL 17 compared to line drawings of other 19th century merchant vessels. MAP 2009.
22
S11
1:50
09.08.2009
JA
Project:
Site Code:
Date:
Scale:
Drawing No:
Drawn by:
Inked by:
Digitised by:
Figure 18
0 1 2m
Prerow Fieldschool 2009
FPL 17
CT
CT
-
-
22.12.2009
JA
Project:
Site Code:
Date:
Scale:
Drawing No:
Drawn by:
Inked by:
Digitised by:
Figure 19
Prerow Fieldschool 2009
FPL 17
-
-
Photomosaic of the outside of the bow seen from portside forward. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.
Photomosaic of the outside of the stern seen from portside, aft. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.
-
-
22.12.2009
JA
Project:
Site Code:
Date:
Scale:
Drawing No:
Drawn by:
Inked by:
Digitised by:
Figure 20
Prerow Fieldschool 2009
FPL 17
-
-
Photomosaic of the inside of the bow structure seen from above. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.
Photomosaic of the inside of the stern seen from above. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.
-
1:150
22.12.2009
JA
Project:
Site Code:
Date:
Scale:
Drawing No:
Drawn by:
Inked by:
Digitised by:
Figure 21
Prerow Fieldschool 2009
FPL 17
-
-
0 5m
Galeasse Karl und Marie, Barth. Built in Ribnitz, 1884. L: 17.4m. After Szymanski 1934.
Schuner, Luebeck 1832. L: 25.5m. After Szymanski 1934.
Pommersche Jacht, Stralsund 1869. L: 16.2m. After Szymanski 1934.
Rahschlup, Luebeck 1852. L: 19.5m. After Szymanski 1934.
Simplified reconstruction of FPL 17. The midship section is reconstructed on the basis of UMA measurements.
6m
17.5m
2m
Pumps
Mast
5.2m
27
Appendix 2: Timber records
28
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
200 Frame 15 15 Oak
202 Frame 18 15 Oak
203 Frame 18 16 Oak
204 Frame Paired Paired with 205 18 14 Oak
205 Frame Paired Paired with 204 18 11 Oak
206 Frame 18 18 Oak
207 Frame Very short 17 15 Oak
208 Frame 17 15 Oak
209 Frame Paired Paired with 412 17 12 Oak
210 Frame 16 12 Oak
211 Frame 17 17 Oak
212 Frame 17 13 Oak
213 Frame 17 15 Oak
214 Frame 17 15 Oak
215 Frame 17 13 Oak
216 Frame Paired Paired with 217 17 14 Oak
217 Frame Paired Paired with 216 17 12 Oak
218 Frame 17 16 Oak
219 Frame 18 15 Oak
220 Frame 17 16 Oak
221 Frame 17 14 Oak
222 Frame 18 14 Oak
223 Frame 18 14 Oak
224 Frame 18 11 Oak
225 Frame 18 11 Oak
226 Frame 18 15 Oak
227 Frame 17 12 Oak
228 Frame 18 16 Oak
229 Plank Outer 27 Oak
230 Plank Outer 29 Oak
232 Plank Outer 31 23 Oak
233 Plank Outer 27 22 Oak
234 Plank Outer 25 22 Oak
235 Plank Outer 26 25 Oak
237 Plank Outer 21 Oak
238 Plank Outer 13 Oak
239 Frame Cant Cant frame, more or less triangular in cross-section
12 18 Oak
240 Frame 15 9 Oak
241 Frame 18 11 Oak
242 Post Stemson Not sketched sits inside ship
20 7 Oak
29
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
243 Frame Filling piece
Oak
244 Frame 18 / 20
12 Oak
245 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 19.5
3.5
Oak
246 Plank Ceiling 32 Oak
247 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 13 2 Oak
248 Plank Ceiling 3 20 Oak
249 Plank Ceiling 3 10 Oak
250 Plank Ceiling 3 25 Oak
270 Post Sternpost
Remains of Iron band 5 cm wide. The first gudgeon is 6 cm wide. It is attached with 10 mm nails. The top of the first gudgeon is 36 cm from the bottom of the rudder.
22 Oak
271 Plank Outer 272 There is a step in this plank see sheet 272
26 22 4.5
Oak
272 Plank Outer 273 & 271
272 steps into 271. The step is 6 cm high. There is 260 cm from the start of the plank to the step
Oak
273 Plank Outer 274 & 272
24 stn
25 fwd
4 Oak
274 Plank Outer 276 & 273
28 stn
29 fwd
4.5
Oak
275 Frame Paired with 304
Cant frame. 20 14 Oak
276 Plank Outer 278 & 274
Butt-ended plank. Two nails or butt-end bolts otherwise nails.
24 stn
25 butt
Oak
278 Plank Outer 279 & 276
25.5 stn
26.3 fwd
4 Oak
279 Plank Outer 280 & 278
Plank seems slightly thicker than adjoining planks. Not many fastenings (iron bolts or nails)
24 Oak
280 Plank Outer 281 & 279
29 4.5
Oak
281 Plank Outer 280 Plank edge disappears under sand so no width or fastenings observed.
4-4.5
Oak
284 Plank Ceiling 26 3 Oak
286 Frame 16 18 Oak
287 Frame 18 15 Oak
288 Frame 17 12 Oak
289 Frame 18 13 Oak
290 Frame 17 15 Oak
30
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
291 Frame 17 14 Oak
292 Frame 18 16 Oak
293 Frame 17 16 Oak
294 Frame 17 17 Oak
295 Frame Paired Paired with 296 17 14 Oak
296 Frame Paired Paired with 295 17 10 Oak
297 Frame 17 18 Oak
298 Frame 18 16 Oak
299 Frame 18 17 Oak
300 Frame Deadwood filling frame
Wedge-shaped filling frame. Flat side forward.
Oak
301 Frame Deadwood filling frame
Crutch with flattened base 14 cm x 14 cm
Oak
302 Frame V-shaped frame
Base 10 cm x 14 cm Oak
303 Frame V-shaped frame
Base 10 x 18 18 10 Oak
303 Frame V-shaped frame
Base 10 cm x 18 cm Oak
304 Frame Paired with 275
Cant frame. 17 12 Oak
305 Frame 18 15 Oak
306 Frame Oak
307 Frame V-shaped frame
Base 12 cm x 30 cm 18 16 Oak
308 Frame 17 15 Oak
309 Frame V-shaped frame
Base 11 x 24 15 15 Oak
310 Frame 14 12 Oak
311 Frame Treenail 14 14 Oak
325 Frame Treenail 16 12 Oak
326 Frame Treenail 16 12.5
Oak
327 Frame Treenail 16 13 Oak
328 Plank Outer Treenail 3-3, cm 31 Oak
329 Frame Treenail 15 13 Oak
330 Frame Treenail 16 14 Oak
331 Frame Transverse treenail to 332
16 14 Oak
332 Frame Treenail 16 10.5
Oak
333 Frame Treenail 17 14 Oak
334 Frame Treenail 16 14 Oak
335 Frame Treenail present Oak
31
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
336 Plank Outer 1-1.5
Oak
337 Frame Two strakes attached; one iron nail and one treenail in both
15.8
12 Oak
338 Plank Outer Repair of plank 342. Length 56 cm. Four iron nails, two on each side, and one trenail connecting to a frame
13.5
12.5
1.5
Oak
339 Frame Treenails only? (average diameter between 3 and 3,5 cm)
16.6
13 Oak
340 Frame Paired Part of a double frame; one visible transverse treenail to 341
17.4
13 Oak
341 Frame Paired Part of a double frame; one visible transverse treenail to 340. Other fastenings; only treenails.
17 10.5
Oak
342 Plank Outer 3 iron and 3 treenails- fastened to every other frame
21 18 2,5
Oak
343 Frame Not possible to get moulded, since covered by sand. No fastenings visible. The timber continues outside the general outline of the wreck
? 15 Oak
344 Plank Outer Fastened to every frame either with a set of two trenails or a set of one iron nail and one trenail. Also has one iron bolt of some kind of approx. 3 cm in diameter
28 25 Oak
345 Plank Outer Strake is covered in sand. Measurements not possible
Oak
346 Plank Outer Strake is covered in sand. Measurements not possible
Oak
347 Frame Only the very end visible from under the strakes. Futtock?
16 14 Oak
348 Frame Iron nail and treenail fastenings present
15.5
10 Oak
349 Frame Paired Part of double frame fastened to 350. Little preserved
10 5 Oak
350 Frame Paired Part of double frame-fastened to 349. Iron and treenail fastenings
15 9 Oak
351 Frame Iron nail fastenings present
16 13 Oak
32
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
352 Frame Paired Part of double frame. Only the transverse treenail is left to prove the frames have been connected to 353, 353 other frame is badly preserved. One treenail ad iron nails.
16 12 Oak
353 Frame Paired Part of double frame, transverse treenails the only visible clue of connection to 352, since this frame is badly preserved. Not possible to get measurements
? ? Oak
354 Frame Treenail and iron nail fastenings present
16 13.5
Oak
355 Frame Treenail and iron nail fastenings present
16 16 Oak
356 Frame Very short 16 Oak
357 Frame Iron nail fastenings present
16 10 Oak
358 Plank Outer Butt mid 357-359 28 Oak
359 Frame Iron nail fastenings present
18 14 Oak
360 Frame Treenails and nails present
17 13 Oak
361 Frame 17 14 Oak
362 Plank Outer Treenails present 31 Oak
363 Frame 18 14 Oak
364 Frame Paired Paired with 365 18 11 Oak
365 Frame Paired Paired with 364 18 15 Oak
366 Frame 15 13 Oak
367 Frame Broken part of 364 26 21 Oak
368 Frame 15 12 Oak
369 Frame 17 12 Oak
370 Plank Outer 24 Oak
371 Plank Outer 23 Oak
372 Frame Moulded depth heart ship 23
24 54 12 Oak
373 Frame 22 9 Oak
374 Frame V-shaped frame
Moulded depth 22 26 11 Oak
375 Plank Outer Oak
376 Frame 18 12 Oak
377 Frame 18 12 Oak
378 Frame Cant Cant frame, more or less triangular in cross-section
14 12 Oak
379 Post Stempost
See sketch 30 18 Oak
380 Post Cutwater See sketch 21 14 Oak
33
Find No.
Type Sub-type Joined to
Additional comments W-A
cm
W-B
cm
T cm
M-H
cm
M-I
cm
S-H
cm
S-I cm
Wood species
381 Keelson
Measurement taken between 367 and 366. depth at notches 22
25 25 Oak
396 Frame 17 9 Oak
397 Mast Mast, diameter 40mm
Pine
401 Frame 13 13 Oak
403 Frame 15 12 Oak
404 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 11.3
11 Oak
406 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 24 1.5
Oak
409 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 30 2 Oak
410 Plank Ceiling Part of ceiling strake 15 2 Oak
412 Frame Paired Paired with 209 17 10 Oak
413 Pump lower pump shafts
67 mm diameter pipes. Shafts 120 mm diameter, 2 shafts at angle to each other
Softwood
415 Frame 18.3
8 Oak
417 Frame Timber outside the first outlining of the wreck on starboard side.
50 14 Oak
418 Plank Outer Plank below (outer plank below 357)
4 Oak
419 Frame Iron nail and treenail fastenings Present
14 13.5
Oak
420 Plank Ceiling plank below 4.5
Oak
425 Frame Cant frame. This element is actually two elements joining in the bottom of the ship
12 Oak
34
35
Appendix 3: UMA measurements
36
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
289 15 49
25 53
35 62
45 72
55 84
60 94
65 97
68 103
294 20 46
30 60
40 65
50 78
60 88
70 107
75 109
80 122
293 20 50
30 58
40 65
50 75
60 75
70 98
75 111
80 124
84 120
294 20 47
30 56
40 58
50 62
295 30 48 1 treenail hole
40 56
50 61
60 70
65 80
70 85
75 93
297 20 40 1 treenail + 1 treenail hole
30 48
40 58
50 65
60 77
37
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
65 78
70 86
75 97
80 104
299 20 41 2 treenail holes + 1 iron concretion
30 46
40 55
50 62
60 71
65 76
70 80
75 80
80 93
202 20 41 1 treenail
30 47
40 55
50 63
60 72
65 76
72 85
204 34 43 Bit of iron concretion, maybe iron nail
40 50
50 61
60 70
65 73
70 77
75 88
206 6 45 1 treenail
30 51
40 58
50 65
60 74
65 76
70 83
75 88
80 98
211 20 45 1 treenailhole + 1 treenail
30 54
40 58
50 65
60 74
38
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
65 80
70 87
75 90
80 98
85 103
213 20 43 1 treenail + 1 treeailhole
30 48
40 55
50 62
60 68
65 72
70 78
75 82
80 87
85 95
215 12 42 1 treenail hole + iron concretion
22 46
32 50
42 55
52 62
62 71
72 77
74 81
80 83
85 98
217 13 35 treenail
23 46
43 54
53 62
63 73
73 85
77 94
219 12 43 2 treenails
22 48
32 54
42 63
52 72
58 76
65 86
78 96
82 102
39
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
221 12 37 1 treenail
22 45
32 50
42 60
42 65
42 68
42 73
42 78
42 93
42 103
223 13 43 1 treenail + hole
25 49
37 57
47 65
57 78
63 83
68 95
73 103
78 109
82 128
225 33 53 1 treenail
48 67
53 70
58 71
63 84
70 95
75 103
369 13 62
23 76
27 83
32 89
42 103
53 118
368 13 62
23 76
27 83
32 89
42 103
53 113
366 13 67
20 77
40
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
25 86
28 95
35 104
40 108
45 113
364 12.5 36.5
17 47
19.5 62
30 78
40 110
50 120
55 125
60 135
361 12.5 51
20 91
30 111
35 121
40 127
45 134
360 12.5 65
20 80
30 93
40 126
45 137
50 144
55 160
359 12.5 56
20 72.5
30 99.5
40 117
45 130
50 145
55 158
60 163
357 12.5 77
20 88
30 103
40 153.5
355 12.5 81
20 91
41
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
30 102
40 124
45 142
50 153.5
354 12.5 77
20 91.5
30 127.5
40 160
45 169
50 173
352 12.5 72
20 101
30 125.5
35 136.5
40 151
351 12.5 84
20 97.5
30 120
40 141
45 153
50 189.5
419 10 65
20 79.5
30 95
40 112
55 148
60 156.5
70 189.5
348 10 62
20 71
30 89
45 118.5
339 25 82
30 100.5
40 125
50 142
60 168
65 170
337 15 39 Planking begins
20 51.5
30 73.5
42
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
40 98
50 136.5
60 166
335 15 64
20 78.5
30 107.5
40 140.5
50 151
60 167.5
331 15 73 Harder to place UMA due to cover planks underneath
20 96.5
30 117.5
40 142.5
45 140.5
50 158
329 15 68
20 86
30 100.5
40 116.5
60 131
65 146
326 20 56
30 66
40 75
50 90
60 102
65 104
70 111
311 15 63
25 72.5
35 80
45 83.5
55 95
60 100
309 15 63
25 59
35 68
45 73
55 82
60 84
65 85
43
Frame No.
On UMA Distance to frame
Comments
70 91
307 15 57
25 63
35 68
45 69
50 70
55 69
Recommended