SURVEY-REPORT-FPL-17

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


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


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


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


206 Frame 18 18 Oak

207 Frame Very short 17 15 Oak

208 Frame 17 15 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



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


232 Plank Outer 31 23 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.



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



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


24 stn

25 fwd

4 Oak


28 stn

29 fwd

4.5

Oak

275 Frame Paired with 304

Cant frame. 20 14 Oak


Butt-ended plank. Two nails or butt-end bolts otherwise nails.

24 stn

25 butt

Oak


25.5 stn

26.3 fwd

4 Oak


Plank seems slightly thicker than adjoining planks. Not many fastenings (iron bolts or nails)

24 Oak


29 4.5

Oak

281 Plank Outer 280 Plank edge disappears under sand so no width or fastenings observed.

4-4.5

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.



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



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


Base 10 x 18 18 10 Oak


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


Base 12 cm x 30 cm 18 16 Oak

308 Frame 17 15 Oak


Base 11 x 24 15 15 Oak

310 Frame 14 12 Oak

311 Frame Treenail 14 14 Oak


326 Frame Treenail 16 12.5

Oak


328 Plank Outer Treenail 3-3, cm 31 Oak



331 Frame Transverse treenail to 332

16 14 Oak

332 Frame Treenail 16 10.5

Oak



335 Frame Treenail present Oak

31

Find No.



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.



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


16 10 Oak

358 Plank Outer Butt mid 357-359 28 Oak


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



366 Frame 15 13 Oak

367 Frame Broken part of 364 26 21 Oak

368 Frame 15 12 Oak

369 Frame 17 12 Oak



372 Frame Moulded depth heart ship 23

24 54 12 Oak

373 Frame 22 9 Oak


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.



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




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.


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.


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.


Comments


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


Comments

70 91

307 15 57

25 63

35 68

45 69

50 70

55 69

Documents

SURVEY-REPORT-FPL-17