Survey-Report-FPL-77

i

2010

University of Southern Denmark, Maritime Archaeology Programme Report prepared by: Dr Jens Auer, Marja-Liisa Grue, Bente Grundvad, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus and Christian Thomsen Edited by: Dr Jens Auer

FIELDWORK REPORT OSTSEE BEREICH IV, FPL 77 (4AM WRECK) Report on the recovery and recording of site FPL 77, 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, Marja-Liisa Grue, Bente Grundvad, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus and Christian Thomsen Fieldwork Report Ostsee Bereich IV, Fischland, Fundplatz 77 Maritime Archaeology Programme University of Southern Denmark www.sdu.dk/maritimearchaeology

© The authors, Landesamt für Kultur- und Denkmalpflege Mecklennburg-Vorpommern &

University of Southern Denmark

ISBN: 978-87-992214-4-8

Subject headings: maritime archaeology, survey techniques, shipwreck, Fischland, wreck, 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. Further thanks go to Dr Michael Schirren for allowing us to recover and record

the FPL 77 wreck and providing a dumpy level. We would also like to thank 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 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

4. Fieldwork in 2009 .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Organisation ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Time frame ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Personnel ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

Logistics .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Storage and preparation .............................................................................................................................. 5

Dismantling and recording ......................................................................................................................... 5

Sampling ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

5. Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

The wreck ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Clinker phase .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Carvel phase ................................................................................................................................................... 11

Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Dating and construction sequence........................................................................................................ 13

Site context ..................................................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

6. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix 1: Plates ................................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix 2: Timber records ............................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix 3: Report of dendrochronological analysis ............................................................................ 45

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the Weststrand near Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg

Western Pomerania. Auer 2010 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest,

Wikimedia Commons. ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Recovery of the FPL 77 wreck parts on the beach. MAP 2009 ........................................... 3

Figure 3: The wreck is kept wet with an oscillating lawn sprinkler during daytime. Auer

2009. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: MAP students drawing the overview plan of the clinker layer. The coloured tags

used to identify fastenings are visible in the foreground. Auer 2009. ............................................... 6

Figure 5: Removal of planking from FPL 77. Planks are carefully lifted with plastic wedges

and trenails are cut with a saw. Auer 2009. .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 6: 1:10 recording of frames. Auer 2009. ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 7: Schematic section through FPL 77 showing the construction sequence. Auer 2010

based on a drawing by Thomsen 2009. ........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 8: Toolmarks (axe) on frame 108. Auer 2009. ............................................................................... 9

Figure 9: Trapezoidal mark on frame 103. Auer 2009. ............................................................................ 9

Figure 10: Large mark on the moulded face of frame 106. The damage in the centre of the

mark is recent. Auer 2009. .................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 11: Distribution of scarf joints in the clinker planking of FPL 77. Auer 2009. ............... 10

Figure 12: Impression of iron nail head in the outside of clinker planking. Auer 2009. .......... 10

Figure 13: Wooden plug used to fill an old nail hole in the plank surface. Auer 2009. ............. 10

Figure 14: Filling piece 114 after removal. The 1m long and 11cm wide pine plank was held

in place by a single iron nail. Auer 2009. ...................................................................................................... 11

Figure 15: Plank 123 is the only oak component in the filling layer. The plank was re-used

and fastened to the outside of the clinker planking with a single iron nail. Auer 2009. ........... 11

Figure 16: Fastenings on carvel outer plank 100. The impression of an iron nail is visible

below the trenail. The red arrow marks a crescent shaped incision or cut. Grue 2009. .......... 12

Figure 17: Plugged trenail on plank 101. Grue 2009. .............................................................................. 12

Figure 18: Correlation of the clinker planking and framing of FPL77 with site and master

chronologies in Northern Europe. Daly 2010. ............................................................................................ 13

Figure 19: Correlation of the carvel planks and frame 104 with master and site chronologies

in Northern Europe. Daly 2010. ....................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 20: Distribution of registered archaeological sites and find spots in the vicinity of FPL

77. Schmidt 2010. ................................................................................................................................................... 16

vii

List of tables:

Table 1: Registered archaeological sites and find spots near FPL 77. Pers. comm. Jens-Peter

Schmidt LKD M-V 2010. ...................................................................................................................................... 16

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, 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 (Auer 2010). However, on the 26.07.09, the field school participants

were informed about the presence of another wreck or part of a wreck, Fundplatz 77 (FPL

77), on the Weststrand, a beach west of Prerow. They were asked to help with the recovery

and recording of this wreck. This led to the field school being split into two projects, the

underwater recording of FPL 17 and the recording of the recovered wreck part FPL 77 on

dry land.

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. With regards to site FPL 77, the specific objectives were:

2

to disassemble and fully record FPL 77 to sufficient standard in order to understand

the construction and construction sequence of the wreck;

to obtain samples for dendrochronological dating;

to prepare a full archaeological report outlining the results of the work, following

the standards of the LKD M-V;

to prepare an article for a scientific journal on the results of the work.

As FPL 77 will be subject of a master thesis at the University of Southern Denmark, this

report is kept at descriptive level. A full analysis and interpretation of the site will be carried

out as part of the planned thesis project in 2010.

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. Co-ordinate conversions are

conducted using GEOTRANS V 2.41.

2. Site Location

The wreck parts associated with FPL 77 were found on the coast of the Fischland-Darss-

Zingst peninsula in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg Western

Pomerania) (Figure 1). They were located on the Weststrand, a westward facing stretch of

beach leading up to the northernmost tip of the peninsula, Darsser Ort. The position was E

337166; N 6037318. The find spot lies in the core protection zone of the coastal national

park (Nationalpark Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft).

The Fischland-Darss-Zingst peninsula is

heavily affected by coastal dynamics.

Studies based on the evaluation of historical

maps have shown that the beaches on the

western side of the peninsula are subject to

constant coastal erosion. A detailed analysis

for the stretch of beach between coastal

kilometre 186,000 and 192,0001 shows the

varying rate of erosion and allows a

reconstruction of the coastline through time

(Plate 1 – Appendix 1) (Tiepolt et al. 1999;

Thuerkow 2009). With an average of 1.69m

per year, the highest rates of coastal erosion

occurred in the period from 1695-1835.

Erosion rates then decreased to ca. 0.55m

per year and are currently increasing again (Tiepolt et al. 1999). The adjacent area between

1 Beginning at the western border, in Priwall, the coast of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania has been subdivided into coastal kilometres. This system, called Küstenkilometrierung (KKM) allows easy orientation along the coastline. Fixed datum points are spaced a kilometre apart, with additional points in 200m or 250m distance between them.

Figure 1: Location of the Weststrand near Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. Auer 2010 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons.

3

coastal kilometre 192000 and 195000 includes the sandy hook Darsser Ort and is

characterised by accumulation. The wreck parts associated with FPL 77 were located near

coastal kilometre 190200. According to the reconstruction by Tiepolt and Schumacher, the

beach in this area has receded by approximately 400m since 1695 (compared to 1983)

(Plate 1 – Appendix 1) (Tiepolt et al. 1999). A more detailed analysis of the site location and

the possible association with known sites can be found in section 5.

When first noted, the wreck parts were almost fully exposed on the beach. Just before

recovery on the morning of the 28.07.09, increasing westerly winds led to high water level

and strong surf on the beach. As a result, the wreck parts were almost covered by sediment

with only a few planks visible.

3. Site History

The wreck parts on the beach were first noted by a tourist at the end of July 2009. It is

unclear how long they had been exposed for and where they came from. Weather forecasts

for the period in question report onshore winds, but no gales. The tourist notified the the

national park administration (Nationalparkverwaltung), which in turn contacted LKD M-V

on July 24th, 2009. On the same day, Dr Michael Schirren from the LKD M-V inspected the

site and started to organise a recovery2.

The field school participants were

approached to help recovering and

recording the site on July 26th, 2009.

Recovery was planned for July 28th, 2009,

5am to minimise interference with touristic

activities on the popular beach.

The wreck parts were recovered by a team

consisting of Dr Schirren and his family, all

members of the MAP field school and two

employees of the construction company

Ramm-, Erd- und Wasserbau Gerhard

Bossow. An officer from the national park

administration was also present.

The timbers were sketched and photographed in situ. Afterwards they were carefully

excavated by hand and with shovels and lifted with the help of a digger (Figure 2).

Suspended on a large wooden palette they could be transported to a waiting truck. As they

were to be recorded by field school participants, it was decided to store them outside the

gym at Gesamtschule Prerow for the duration of the recording project.

After disassembly, recording and sampling, the loose timbers were stored on the wooden

palette, wrapped in foil and secured with ropes. Old sleeping mats were used to support

fragile timbers. The palette was collected by Ramm-, Erd- und Wasserbau Gerhard Bossow on

2 Pers. Comm. Dr C. Michael Schirren, 13.01.2010.

Figure 2: Recovery of the FPL 77 wreck parts on the beach. MAP 2009

4

August 13th, 2009. It is currently stored by this company in the harbour of Barth, but will be

transferred to LKD M-V for conservation in the near future.

4. Fieldwork in 2009

Organisation

Time frame

The FPL 77 wreck parts were recovered on July 28th 2009. Recording started the same day

and was finished after 15 days on August 11th, 2009. The timbers were then prepared for

transport and collected on August 13th 2009.

Personnel

As the field school was originally planned around site FPL 17 only, the work programme had

to be rearranged after the discovery of FPL 77. The survey team consisted of 12 divers, ten

students of the Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme and two teaching staff. Dive

teams for FPL 17 were made up of four members with another four preparing the

subsequent dive. Dependent on other tasks and logistics, this left between two and four

people who could work on the recording of FPL 77.

Rather than having a fixed “recording team” each day, the work schedule on FPL 77 followed

the planning for FPL 17 in order to guarantee smooth diving operations. In practice, this

often meant that a drawing started by one person had to be finished by another. This made

good communication essential.

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). The site director was responsible for both, the underwater work on FPL 17, as

well as the recording of FPL 77 and diaries were kept for both sites.

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.

It was decided to store FPL 77 outside on the car park of the gym. In this location the

timbers were least affected by sunlight and a ramp allowed photography from a higher

position. The area was within reach of the freshwater supply of the gym and wastewater

drains were present. The wreck parts were left on the wooden palette they had been

recovered on.

5

Methodology

Storage and preparation

The wreck was kept wet with an oscillating

lawn sprinkler in daytime to prevent the

timbers from drying out. A freshwater well

at the gym provided the necessary water

supply (Figure 3).

Overnight, the timbers were covered with

thick black pond liner. After disassembly,

smaller parts were stored in makeshift

freshwater tanks built from old wardrobes

and pond liner. Long planks were kept

wrapped up in pond liner next to the wreck.

They were sprayed with freshwater at

regular intervals.

Prior to recording, the whole wreck was

carefully cleaned with soft brushes and

running water. All visible elements were

marked with waterproof tags with unique

identifiers starting with No 100 (see

Appendix 2 for a list of all timbers). This

process was repeated after the removal of each layer.

Dismantling and recording

A first quick survey of the recovered section indicated that it was part of a vessel which had

been converted from clinker to carvel by smoothing out the clinker outline with filling

pieces and subsequently re-planking with carvel outer planks (see section 5). This led to the

presence of three individual layers, each representing a stage in the construction sequence.

After consultation with Dr Schirren from the LKD M-V it was decided to fully dismantle the

section as to be able to record all details of construction and then conserve elements

individually.

In order to understand the construction sequence, it was decided to disassemble the wreck

section layer by layer, starting from the outside with the carvel planking. Each layer was

recorded in situ before removal. Recording consisted of:

a projected plan view of each layer, drawn at a scale of 1:10;

photographic documentation;

a written description;

and dumpy level spot height measurements along the frames.

The plan view was drawn using offset measurements from a central baseline. As the carvel

outer planking covered underlying layers, and there were no possibilities to fasten a

Figure 3: The wreck is kept wet with an oscillating lawn sprinkler during daytime. Auer 2009.

6

permanent baseline on the wreck section,

the baseline had to be relayed after the

recording of the carvel layer. The same

baseline was used for the remaining layers.

Plan view drawing were drawn with pencil

on millimetric permatrace and inked during

post-processing (see Appendix 1 for all

drawings).

After removal of the first layer, a multitude

of fastenings became visible, all part of

different phases of construction.

Consequently it was decided to tag all

fastenings with coloured tags in order to

gain a systematic overview of construction

sequence. Red tags served to mark all fastenings associated with the outer carvel re-

planking. Blue/ Green tags were chosen for original clinker planking fastenings and yellow

tags marked the fastenings of filling pieces. Further colours were added as necessary

(Figure 4).

A Pentax K10D digital SLR was used for photographic recording. All photographs were

captured as RAW files and processed in Adobe Lightroom 2.5. Each layer was recorded with

overview shots as well as with a number of detail photographs taken from either side of the

wreck section.

For lack of a total station, a dumpy level3

was used to document the elevation of

cross sections in the three planking layers

to get an idea of the horizontal and vertical

curvature of the hull in its different stages.

A reference point with the assumed height

of zero was established on the wooden

palette and height readings were taken in

relation to this point. They were noted on

clear sheets of permatrace overlaid over

the 1:10 section drawings. The process was

repeated for each layer.

All elevations were then imported into the

3D modelling software Rhinoceros3D and plotted as 3D lines. Surfaces generated from these

lines show the curvature of the wreck section (Plate 2 and 4, Appendix 1).

As soon as in situ recording of a layer was finished, it was removed. Plastic wedges were

driven underneath the planks from the sides to carefully lift them. Trenails were then cut

with a saw. Once loose, planks were lifted off the wreck, cleaned with brushes and prepared

for further recording (Figure 5).

3 The instrument was kindly provided by Dr Schirren, LKD M-V.

Figure 4: MAP students drawing the overview plan of the clinker layer. The coloured tags used to identify fastenings are visible in the foreground. Auer 2009.

Figure 5: Removal of planking from FPL 77. Planks are carefully lifted with plastic wedges and trenails are cut with a saw. Auer 2009.

7

First each major timber4 was drawn at a

scale of 1:10 (Figure 6). For planks the

inboard and outboard faces as well as a

number of sections were recorded. For

frames, all four sides were drawn. Initially

drawing was carried out in pencil on

millimetric permatrace. In post-processing

all drawings were inked and finally

digitised (see Appendix 1).

In addition, all timbers were photographed

from all sides, again with a Pentax K10D

digital SLR. Timber details, such as

fastenings or tool marks were also photographed. The RAW files were processed in Adobe

Lightroom 2.5 and XNView was used to catalogue and describe photographs and generate

photo lists for each timber.

Finally all timbers were described and sketched on pre-printed timber recording sheets. A

tabularised summary of the timber records can be found in Appendix 2.

Sampling

In order to date the wreck section, ten dendrochronological samples were cut. It was taken

care to include samples of framing and planking from all three layers of the construction.

Timbers to be sampled were chosen based on their level of preservation, the number of

treerings visible and the existence of sapwood. Their significance for an understanding of

the construction sequence was also considered. In all three frames, four clinker planks and

two carvel planks were sampled. One plank (123) was sampled although the number of

treerings was low, as it was assumed to be a repair in the clinker phase.

Samples were cut with a handsaw. Their locations were photographed and marked on

drawings and timber sheets. All samples were assigned unique numbers. They were

wrapped in cling foil and stored in sealed plastic bags. The dendrochronological samples

were analysed by Aoife Daly (Dendro.dk). More information on the methodology can be

found in the report (Daly 2009) (Appendix 3).

Additionally, samples of the waterproofing material and surface covering from the planking

layer were taken. As waterproofing material and caulking seemed to vary between layers,

two samples were collected for each layer. A surface covering on planks 120 and 135 was

also sampled. All samples were marked and stored in sealed plastic bags. They are currently

being analysed, but the results were not yet available for this fieldwork report.

4 The smaller parts of the filling piece layer between clinker planking and carvel planking were not all drawn individually at 1:10 and only recorded photographically and on timber sheets.

Figure 6: 1:10 recording of frames. Auer 2009.

8

5. Results

The wreck

Wreck part FPL 77 is a section of hull from a clinker vessel that was later re-planked with

carvel outer planks (Figure 7). It was found with the outer planking facing upwards, almost

entirely covered by sand (Figure 2). The overall dimensions were 5.23m x 1.8m. The hull

section consisted of eleven frames, all with joggles cut into the outside face to receive the

inboard faces of the clinker hull planking. Five strakes of clinker planking were preserved in

situ (Plate 4, Appendix 1). On the outside of these, a layer of irregular softwood pieces was

attached in order to provide a smooth surface for attaching the carvel outer planks (Plate 3,

Appendix 1). Two carvel planks were still

attached to the section (Plate 2, Appendix

1).

While carvel planks and the outside of

clinker planking and frames were very well

preserved, the inside faces of all clinker

planks and the frames were heavily eroded

by the roots of sea grass. This would

indicate that the wreck section was

originally located on the seabed with the

frames facing upwards and the planking

protected by sediment. The possible origin

of FPL 77 will be discussed at the end of

this chapter.

In the following section, the construction of

FPL 77 is described by layer, following the

possible construction sequence.

Clinker phase

The eleven clinker frames (103-112, 137) are all of oak. They are joggled on the outside face

to receive the clinker outer planks. Frame lengths range from 0.87m to 1.51m. Average

moulded dimensions are 9.5cm to 15cm while sided dimensions range from 8cm to 21cm

(see Plate 5-10, Appendix 1).

Frame heels either show remains of scarf joints (103, 105, 107, 108) or are cut square or at

an angle (104, 106, 110). Four frames are broken at the heel (109, 111, 112, 137). The

breaks are heavily eroded and thus probably not recent.

With two exceptions, frame heads are broken and/ or eroded. Some of the breaks are fairly

fresh which would indicate recent damage. In frame 107 and 109, the head tapers out,

possibly the remains of a scarf joint.

Judging by the presence of scarf joints at frame heels, it would appear that all preserved

frames are side timbers.

Figure 7: Schematic section through FPL 77 showing the construction sequence. Auer 2010 based on a drawing by Thomsen 2009.

9

While the outside face of most frames was

well preserved, all inside faces were

heavily eroded by sea grass which made it

difficult to recognise toolmarks. However,

visible toolmarks most probably stem from

axes (Figure 8).

On two (104, 105) of the three frames

sampled for dendrochronological dating, a

considerable amount of sapwood was still

present on the inside face. All sapwood had

been removed on the outside face that was

in contact with the outer planks (Daly

2009) (Appendix 3).

Trenails from all phases of construction

were observed in the framing timbers.

Those only associated with the clinker

phase were cut flush with the frame on the

inside, probably during the rebuild.

Trenails that fastened the carvel outer

planking protruded from the inside face of

the frames by up to 4.5cm, thus indicating

the presence and possible thickness of

ceiling planks. Ceiling planks seem to have

been fastened only by the "carvel layer"

trenails. Concretion around some iron nail

holes on the inside of the frames also

indicates a ceiling plank fastening with iron

nails, possibly as preliminary fastening

before the trenail holes were drilled.

Marks, the purpose of which is currently

unclear, were observed on the moulded

faces of frame 103 and 106. On frame 103

the mark is located at the heel. It consists of

a trapezoid shape with a line connecting

the two pointed ends (Figure 9).

At the heel of frame 106, another, larger

mark was found. This comprises of an X

with two angled lines at either side and an

additional line protruding between the

upper two wings of the X (Figure 10). An additional, very roughly hewn x-shaped mark was

found near the head on the same side of the frame. This coincides with a joggle and might be

marking the position of the step in the frame. Further, very rough marks were observed in

the moulded faces of a number of frames, but these were not as recognisable as those

described.

Figure 8: Toolmarks (axe) on frame 108. Auer 2009.

Figure 9: Trapezoidal mark on frame 103. Auer 2009.

Figure 10: Large mark on the moulded face of frame 106. The damage in the centre of the mark is recent. Auer 2009.

10

Five strakes of the original clinker planking

are partially preserved. Each strake, but for

the highest one (113) features a scarf and

thus consists of two planks or plank

fragments (132 / 134) (131 / 135) (120 /

133) (102 / 128). As with the frames, outer

surfaces are in a relatively good condition,

while the inside face of all planks is heavily

eroded by sea grass growth (Plate 11 to 14,

Appendix 1).

As far as could be determined, all clinker

planks are from radially split oak5.

Toolmarks indicate that the planks were

finished with axes or possibly adzes. On two

of the planks sampled for

dendrochronological dating, there was no

sapwood present. The other two planks

retain very little sapwood (Daly 2009)

(Appendix 3).

Only two of the nine planks are preserved

from end to end (120 and 131). These

measure 3.08m and 3.46m in length. The

length of the fragmented planks varies

between 1.16m and 3.68m, indicating that

the longest original planks would have been

over 3.68m in length. The average full

width of the planks is 20-25cm and they are

between 20mm and 30mm in thickness.

Overlapping strakes were secured by

square shafted iron nails driven through

augered holes from the outside and

clenched over roves on the inboard face.

Although most of the nails have eroded,

impressions of nail heads and roves are

clearly visible. The nails were placed along

the lower edge of the plank with an average

spacing of 15-25cm. The land varied from

5cm to 8cm. Overlaps were bevelled on all

planks. In some instances hollow grooves

for luting material were observed, but these

are not present on all planks. In addition all

planks were roughly bevelled along their lower edge. As this bevel has been more roughly

5 Three of four clinker planks sampled for dendrochronological dating are definitely split radially, for one of the planks the method of conversion could not be determined (Daly 2009) 8Appendix 3)

Figure 11: Distribution of scarf joints in the clinker planking of FPL 77. Auer 2009.

Figure 12: Impression of iron nail head in the outside of clinker planking. Auer 2009.

Figure 13: Wooden plug used to fill an old nail hole in the plank surface. Auer 2009.

11

worked than the rest of the plank surfaces, it seems likely that it was part of the

smoothening process in which the filling piece layer was applied.

Planks of the same strake are joined with simple scarfs, all oriented in the same direction

(aft) to prevent water entering the seams. The scarf direction indicates that the wreck

section was part of the port side of the vessel. Scarf lengths vary between 20cm and 30cm.

Often scored lines mark the beginning of scarfs. The joints were secured with a number of

iron nails and mats of tarred luting material were used to waterproof the seams. Plank joints

in neighbouring strakes are spaced at least

one or two frames apart to avoid weakening

the hull structure (Figure 11).

For photographic documentation and

drawing purposes all fastening associated

with the clinker phase were marked with

blue pins, green pins or white pins. The

three colours were used for supply reasons,

they do not in any way reflect a different

coding. Both, the original fastenings of this layer and any intermediate refastening of it were

marked. Fastenings include iron nails and trenails. Iron nails were used to secure overlaps

between planks and scarf joints, but were also positioned less systematically to fasten

planks to each other or to other elements. They had square shanks (4mm – 5mm square)

and round heads with a diameter of approximately 18mm (Figure 12). In many cases the

nail heads impressions sit in square recesses cut with a chisel or a similar implement. The

nails were clenched over iron roves of similar diameter on the inboard face of the planking.

Often, old iron nails were replaced and

small wooden plugs were used to seal the

nailholes (Figure 13).

Trenails fasten the clinker planking to the

frames. One trenail connects each plank to

every other timber. The treenails are not

wedged or plugged on the outside. They are

31mm to 34mm in diameter.

The waterproofing material between plank

overlaps and scarf joints was sampled. The

samples have been submitted for analysis, but at the time of writing of this report, results

were not yet available.

Carvel phase

Prior to re-planking with carvel outer planks, the steps in the clinker planking were filled

with roughly hewn, irregular softwood and oak pieces in order to provide a smooth surface

for the carvel planks to rest on. This “filling layer” consisted of 15 pieces (114, 115, 116/

1256 , 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 136). All but three (123,

6 116 and 125 are fragments of the same piece of timber.

Figure 14: Filling piece 114 after removal. The 1m long and 11cm wide pine plank was held in place by a single iron nail. Auer 2009.

Figure 15: Plank 123 is the only oak component in the filling layer. The plank was re-used and fastened to the outside of the clinker planking with a single iron nail. Auer 2009.

12

121, 115) pieces are made of softwood, either fir or pine. Piece 123 is the remains of a re-

used oak clinker plank. Although the plank was sampled for dendrochronological dating, it

did not have enough rings and a date could not be obtained (Daly 2009) (Appendix 3) (Plate

10, Appendix 1).

As they were sandwiched between clinker

and carvel planks, the filling pieces are well

preserved. Toolmarks from axe or adze and

in some cases possibly saw are clearly

visible.

Lengths vary from 30cm to 2m and above

and all pieces are wedge shaped or

triangular in section. Before being held in

place by the carvel planking, the filling

pieces were temporarily fastened to the

clinker planks with one or two square-

shanked iron nails each (Figure 14).

Two carvel planks remained in situ on the outboard side of FPL 77 (100, 101). Both are in

good condition, but show traces of abrasion on the outer face. The inside ends are slightly

eroded by sea grass growth. Both planks have been cut tangentially from the parent timber,

using a saw (Daly 2009) (Appendix 3)

(Plate 15, Appendix 1). Saw marks are

faintly visible on the plank surface and the

inside surfaces appear charred, possibly as

a result of deforming the planks over an

open fire, a common practice in the 16th and

17th century7.

The carvel planks have a maximum length

of 5.16m and are up to 48cm wide and 4cm

thick. They were fastened with treenails

(32-34mm) and iron nails. The treenails

were hammered into holes augered

through the filling layer, original clinker

planking and framing. They are either plain, wedged or plugged with a single square plug in

the centre. As the nails protrude from the inside sided face of the frames by two to three

centimetres, it seems likely that they also fastened the ceiling planking.

Iron nails with round head (2cm diameter) and square shaft (ca. 6mm x 6mm) were used at

plank butts and along the upper and lower edge of the planks, probably as a preliminary

fastening before the trenail holes were drilled. While some of the iron nail holes are plugged

with small wooden plugs over iron nail shafts still in place, other iron nails remained in the

plank. On plank 100, crescent shaped incisions or cuts in the outer plank surface seem to

indicate the position of fastenings.

7 See e.g. (Kuhn 1999, 63)

Figure 16: Fastenings on carvel outer plank 100. The impression of an iron nail is visible below the trenail. The red arrow marks a crescent shaped incision or cut. Grue 2009.

Figure 17: Plugged trenail on plank 101. Grue 2009.

13

Interpretation

Dating and construction sequence

In order to help understanding and interpreting the sequence of construction of FPL 77,

dendrochronological samples of all recognisable layers or phases were taken. Sampling

included clinker framing and planking and carvel planking. The filling layer was found

unsuitable for dendrochronological sampling. Plank 123, the only oak component of this

layer was sampled despite of a low tree ring count, but could not be dated. The full

dendrochronology report can be found in Appendix 3 (Daly 2009).

Internal correlation of the tree ring curves of all samples allowed dividing the material in

two distinctive groups, one consisting of the two carvel outer planks (100, 101) and a single

frame (104)8 and the second one containing all remaining clinker planks and frames (102,

113, 120, 131; 105, 109). Two of the clinker planks probably stem from the same tree (120,

131).

A correlation between the two mean curves of the ship and selected chronologies from

Northern Europe shows that the two timber groups originate in different areas. While

clinker planks and frames match best with chronologies from the Øresund region, the carvel

planks and clinker frame 104 achieve the highest correlation with material from the towns

Lübeck, Schwerin and Wismar (Figure 18, 19).

8 Frame 104 is the only frame in which no trenails from the clinker phase are present, thus supporting the assumption that this frame was inserted during the rebuilding.

Figure 18: Correlation of the clinker planking and framing of FPL77 with site and master chronologies in Northern Europe. Daly 2010.

14

Taking into account all material and allowing for missing sapwood, the felling date is

estimated to ca. AD 1590. It is not possible to differentiate the felling date of the two groups

of timbers and thus the construction phases of FPL 77 (Daly 2009).

However, when using the results of the dendrochronological analysis in conjunction with

the observations made during the recording of the wreck, it is possible to attempt a

reconstruction of the construction sequence.

It would seem that the ship was originally built as a clinker vessel from wood originating in

the Øresund region. All planks were radially split from oak and finished with axes or

possibly adzes. They were fastened to each other with iron nails, and trenails without

wedges or plugs were used to fasten clinker frames to planks. The clinker vessel must have

been in use for a while, as a number of iron nails were replaced and old nail holes were

plugged with wooden plugs.

At some stage, the vessel was completely rebuilt. Softwood filling pieces were nailed to the

outside of the original clinker planking, and the lower edges of clinker planks were bevelled

in order to provide a smooth outer surface. Inside the vessel, the ceiling planking was

removed (if it was present in the first place) and all old trenails were cut flush with the

surface of frames. The dendrochronological analysis indicates that at least one frame (104)

was replaced.

In a next step, carvel outer planks were nailed to the filling layer and clinker planking with

iron nails around their edges. The planks were tangentially sawn and deformed over open

Figure 19: Correlation of the carvel planks and frame 104 with master and site chronologies in Northern Europe. Daly 2010.

15

fire. Outer planks as well as frame 104 originate from the area around the Hanse town

Lübeck. At the same time ceiling planks were nailed to the inside of the existing framing.

Finally, news holes were augered through carvel outer planks, filling layer, clinker planking,

framing and ceiling planks and new trenails were hammered into place. Some of these nails

were secured with wedges or central plugs on the outside. The iron nails used for temporary

fastening were either left in place, or, where they were damaged or broken, the nail holes

were sealed with small wooden plugs from the outside.

The final result of the rebuilding was a conversion of FPL 77 to a carvel vessel. The original

clinker planking and framing remained sandwiched between carvel outer planks and ceiling

planks.

Site context

In this section an attempt will be made to reconstruct the original location of the wreck part

and thus the possible location of the site which FPL77 was part of. A possible association

with other known sites in the area will also be investigated.

In order to reconstruct the possible original location of FPL 77, three factors have to be

considered: coastal erosion, seabed environment and prevailing wind direction.

Coastal erosion is probably the most decisive factor. FPL 77 was found near coastal

kilometre 190200, and thus in an area of erosion (see section 2 and Plate 1, Appendix 1).

Using the data provided by Tiepolt and Schumacher (Tiepolt et al. 1999) it is possible to

reconstruct the coastline for the year 1696 (Plate 16, Appendix 1). Data for earlier periods is

not available, but the curve for 1696 is probably relevant considering a date of construction

of the vessel around 1590. Plate 16 shows the reconstructed coastline for an area of

approximately one kilometre to either side of the find spot running up to 400m further west

and thus seaward, than the present coastline.

With westerly winds prevailing on the western shore of the Fischland-Darss-Zingst

peninsula, section FPL 77 could have broken loose from a site located near the coastline of

1696 and drifted towards the shore.

A very likely area for the location of the wreck site which FPL 77 was part off would then be

a rectangle covering a 100m wide area 300m to either side of the find spot (Plate 16). Such a

rectangle would have the following corner co-ordinates: E 336981.625, N 6037785.224; E

336709.564, N 6037243.904; E 336621.06, N 6037290.744, E 336898.853, N 6037826.897.

Bearing in mind a westerly wind direction and an alongshore current running northwards,

this search area might have to be expanded towards the south-west. The water depth in this

area would be between 5m and 8m.

As stated before, the erosion of the inside of frames and planks by sea grass roots suggests

that FPL 77 was laying on the seabed with the inside of the vessel facing upwards and the

outer planking buried in sediment. Common sea grass (Zostera Marina) generally grows in

water depths of up to 10m, and could thus be found in the estimated search area9.

9 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gew%C3%B6hnliches_Seegras

16

To date, eight archaeological sites have been registered in the area around the find spot of

FPL 77. These include four ship wrecks, three loose ship timbers or timber assemblages

found on the beach and an assemblage of posts near the beach (Figure 20 and Table 1)10.

Site (Fischland, Ostsee IV)

Description Date

FPL 28 25m long wreck of a wooden, carvel-built vessel. Possibly 3 mast bark “Elisabeth”

Unknown

FPL 30 Unknown wreck near shore. Possibly fast attack craft (Schnellboot)

Unknown

FPL 31 Logboat from softwood Unknown

FPL 43 Wreck of schooner ”Barbro” 1940

FPL 72 Sternpost assembly 1819

FPL 73 Assemblage of wooden posts near shore Unknown

FPL 74 Wooden decoration Unknown

FPL 75 Fragment of oak plank Unknown

Table 1: Registered archaeological sites and find spots near FPL 77. Pers. comm. Jens-Peter Schmidt LKD M-V 2010.

However, the shipwrecks are unlikely to be associated with FPL 77, as they are either

located too far inshore or known to be of younger date. Of the loose finds, only the

fragmented oak plank (FPL 75) and the wooden decoration (FPL 74) could possibly be

connected with FPL 77. The sternpost assembly (FPL 72) can be seen as a good indication

for the presence of further, undiscovered wreck sites in the vicinity.

10 Pers. Comm. Jens-Peter Schmidt, LKD M-V, 20.01.2010

Figure 20: Distribution of registered archaeological sites and find spots in the vicinity of FPL 77. Schmidt 2010.

17

Conclusion

The work on FPL 77 provided a welcome addition to the field school in Prerow. Besides

working with the recording of an underwater site, students had the opportunity to record,

disassemble and study a wreck section in great detail on dry land. This report summarises

the results of the recording and provides preliminary conclusions on character and

construction of the wreck.

Wreck section FPL 77 could be identified as part of the port side of a vessel built around

1590. The vessel was originally constructed in the clinker tradition from trees felled in the

Øresund region. At some point in its career it was re-planked with carvel outer planks and

ceiling planks, and thus practically “converted” to a carvel built ship. The timbers used for

the rebuilding stem from the area around the German Hanse town Lübeck.

With these characteristics, FPL 77 is part of a relatively small group of ship finds from the

Southern Baltic that show signs of a similar clinker to carvel conversion or rebuilding

(Förster 2009; Mäss 1991; Ossowski 2006)11. FPL 77 has been chosen as the subject of a

master thesis at the University of Southern Denmark12. The thesis will attempt to compare

FPL 77 to other wrecks converted in a similar way and investigate the following aspects:

Which types or kinds of vessels were converted? Is it a specific vessel type that the

double planking is applied to and in that case what kind of vessel is it?

How were these vessels converted? What construction techniques were used?

Where they were built? Is there a specific area the converted vessels are

concentrated in or are they common all over Europe?

And ultimately: Why were these vessels converted? What is the purpose of the

carvel conversion? Was it a part of the original design, a repair to prolong the life

expectancy, or a reinforcement for a specific purpose?

6. References

Gewöhnliches Seegras – Wikipedia. Available at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gew%C3%B6hnliches_Seegras [Accessed February 16, 2010].

Auer, J. 2009. Prerow Fieldschool 2009 « Maritime Archaeology Programme. Available at:

http://maritimearchaeologyprogramdenmark.wordpress.com/tag/prerow-fieldschool-2009/ [Accessed December 17, 2009].

Auer, J. 2010. Survey Report Prerow FPL 17. Esbjerg: Maritime Archaeology Programme,

University of Southern Denmark.

11 Another wreck with similar characteristics was part of a ship barrier across the entrance of the Greifswalder Bodden in Mecklenburg western-Pomerania (Mönchgut FPL 67). This wreck was recently lifted and fully recorded. It dates to the late 17th century (Pers. Comm. Jana Heinze, site director LKD M-V) 12 Bente Grundvad, Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark. Thesis project due to be completed in autumn 2010.

18

Daly, A. 2009. Dendrochronology Report: 4AM Wreck, Darss, Germany FPL 77. Copenhagen:

dendro.dk. Förster, T. 2009. Große Handelsschiffe des Spätmittelaters: Untersuchungen an zwei

Wrackfunden des 14. Jahrhundert vor der Insel Hiddensee und Insel Poel 1st ed. Convent.

Kuhn, H.J. 1999. Gestrandet bei Uelvesbull : Wrackarchaologie in Nordfriesland. Husum:

Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft. Mäss, V. 1991. Prospects for underwater archaeology in the Eastern Baltic. The International

Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20(4): 313-320. Ossowski, W. 2006. Two double-planked wrecks from Poland. In L. Blue & F. Hocker (eds)

Connected by the sea : proceedings of the tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 259-265. Oxford: Oxbow

Thuerkow, D. 2009. 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.

19

20

21

Appendix 1: Plates

Plate 1: Location of the wreck parts associated with FPL 77. The areas of coastal erosion and accumulation after Tiepolt and Schumacher are marked in red, the diagram shows coastal erosion in the area between 1695 and 1983 (0-axis). Auer 2010, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2010 and Tiepolt & Schumacher 1999.

Plate 2: Overview of carvel layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template. The inset shows a 3D reconstruction of plank curvature based on the dumpy level measurements.

Plate 3: Overview of filling layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template.

Plate 4: Overview of clinker layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template. The inset shows a 3D reconstruction of plank curvature based on the dumpy level measurements.

Plate 5: Frame 103, 104.





Plate 10: Frame 137; Filling layer: plank 123, piece 115, 116.

Plate 11: Clinker plank 102, 113.



Plate 14: Clinker plank 133, 134, 135.

Plate 15: Carvel plank 100, 101. The planks were recorded at a scale of 1:10, but have been reduced to 1:20 to fit into the A3 report template.

Plate 16: Proposed search area for the original location of the wreck site associated with FPL 77. The reconstructed coastline for the year 1696 is shown in white.. Auer 2010, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2010 and Tiepolt & Schumacher 1999.

22

FPL 77E 337166, N 6037318

KKM 190250

KKM 192000

Area

of a

ccum

ulati

on

Area

of e

rosi

on

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 1: Location of the wreck parts associated with FPL 77. The areas of coastal erosion and accumulation after Tiepolt & Schumacher are marked in red, the diagram shows coastal erosion in the area between 1695 and 1983 (0-axis). Auer 2010, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2010 and Tiepolt & Schumacher 1999

Prerow Fieldschool 2009

FPL 77

Jens Auer

20.01.10

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 2: Overview of carvel layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template. The inset shows a 3D recon-struction of plank curvature based on the dumpy level measurements.


FPL 77

CT, BGN, CW, ML, PG, KA

CT

S2

1:20 (reduced from 1:10)

01.08.2009

JA

Top

Bottom

aft

forward

3D reconstruction of carvel plank curvaturemade in Rhinoceros3D, based on the dumpylevel measurements taken in the field.Reconstruction by Andrew Stanek.

0 1m

Top

Bottom

aftforward

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 3: Overview of filling layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template.


FPL 77

CT, BGN

AS

S6

1:20

03.08.2009

JA

Photograph of filling layer withfastenings marked by layer.Auer 2009.

0 1m

Top

Bottom

aftforward

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 4: Overview of clinker layer. The original drawing was produced at a scale 1:10, but has been reduced in order to fit into the A3 report template. The inset shows a 3D recon-struction of plank curvature based on the dumpy level measurements.


FPL 77

CT, BGN, KA

CT

S8

1:20

04.08.2009

JA

Photograph of clinker layer withfastenings marked by layer.Auer 2009.

3D reconstruction of clinker plank curvaturemade in Rhinoceros3D, based on the dumpylevel measurements taken in the field.Reconstruction by Andrew Stanek.

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 5: Frame 103 and 104.


FPL 77

BGN, JA, CW

BGN, CW

S24, S19

1:10

12.08.2009

JA

Frame 103 Frame 104

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

A= Sided, outside face; B= Moulded, forward face; C= Sided, inside face; D= Moulded, after face

Heel Head HeadHeel

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole

Rove head impression

Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

AS, LGL

As, LGL

S31, S27

1:10

12.08.2009, 11.08.2009

JA

Frame 105 Frame 106

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D


Heel Head HeadHeel

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

CW, MLPG

CW, MLPG

S29, S21

1:10

12.08.2009, 08.08.2009

JA0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Frame 107 Frame 108

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D


Heel Head HeadHeel

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

CT, MLPG, DNIC

CT, DNIC

S28, S30

1:10

11.08.2009, 12.08.2009

JA

Frame 109 Frame 110

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D


Heel Head HeadHeel

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

SF, CT, DNIC

CT, DNIC

S25, S18

1:10

10.08.2009, 09.08.2009

JA

Frame 111 Frame 112

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D


Heel Head HeadHeel

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 10: Frame 137, Filling layer: Plank 123, piece 115, 116.


FPL 77

KA, LGL; MLPG, CT; AS

LGL; MLPG; AS

S20, S11, S9

1:10

09.08.2009, 04.08.2009

JA

Frame 137

A

B

C

D


Heel Head

Plank 123, Filling layer<Bow Stern>

A= upper edge; B= lower edge

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

B

B

A

Piece 116, Filling layer

<Bow Stern>


Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Piece 115, Filling layer

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

DNIC; KA, CW, SF

DNIC, CW

S13, S16

1:10

08.08.2009, 09.08.2009

JA

Clinker plank 113


Clinker plank 102

<Bow Stern>

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Waterproofing

Surface covering

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

BGN, SF; MLPG

BGN, MLPG

S17, S12

1:10

09.08.2009, 05.08.2009

JA

Clinker plank 128


Clinker plank 120

<Bow Stern>

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Tar covering

Area eroded by sea grass

Area eroded by sea grass

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:



FPL 77

BGN, BGN

BGN, BGN

S22, S26

1:10

09.08.2009, 10.08.2009

JA

Clinker plank 132


Clinker plank 131

<Bow Stern>

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 14: Clinker plank 133, 134, 135.


FPL 77

LGL, CW, CT

LGL, CW, CT

S14, S23, S15

1:10

08.08.09, 10.08.09, 08.08.09

JA

Clinker plank 134


Clinker plank 133

<Bow Stern>

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Clinker plank 135

A

A

BB

Outboard face

Inboard face

0 50 cm

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 15: Carvel plank 100, 101. The planks were recorded at a scale of 1:10, but have been reduced to 1:20 to fit into the A3 report template.


FPL 77

BGN, MLPG

CT, MLPG

S4, S5

1:20

02.08.2009

JA

Carvel plank 101


Carvel plank 100

<Bow Stern>

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Outboard face

Inboard face

A

A

B

B

Charred material Charred material

Marks Marks

Wooden plug Slight dent Incised line Wooden plug

Chisel mark

Toolmark

Chisel mark

Trenail hole

Trenail

Trenail, wedged

Trenail, plugged

Wooden plug

Iron nail

Iron nail hole


Concretion

Surface Covering

Eroded surface0 1m

FPL 77E 337166, N 6037318

KKM 192000

KKM 191700

KKM 191400

KKM 191100

KKM 190800

KKM 190500

KKM 190200

KKM 189900

KKM 189800

KKM 189300

KKM 189000

KKM 188700

KKM 191100

KKM 189800

Proposed search area.Can be extended to SW.

Coastline reconstruction for the year 1696.Based on Tiepolt &Schumacher 1999.

Project:

Site Code:

Date:

Scale:

Drawing No:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Plate 16: Proposed search area for the original location of the wreck site associated with FPL 77. The reconstructed coastline for the year 1696 is shown in white. Auer 2010, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ©LAiV M-V 2010 and Tiepolt & Schumacher 1999.


FPL 77

Jens Auer

20.01.10

39

Appendix 2: Timber records

40

No. Type Description Fastenings Wood species

L cm

W-M cm

T cm

M-M cm

S-M cm

Dr.No.

L (Length), W-M (Width, maximum), T (Thickness), M-M (Moulded maximum), S-M (Sided maximum), Dr. No. (Drawing Number)

100 Carvel plank

Plank was trenailed to underlying planking and framing. Some saw- and axe marks are visible on the outboard face, the inboard face seems to be charred and is affected by sea grass growth. A number of wooden plugs in iron nail holes could be observed. On the outboard face, semicircular, crescent shaped marks seem to indicate the position of trenails. The plank has preserved butt ends on both sides.

Trenails, 30-40mm in diameter, some are wedged, one is plugged; rectangular iron nails, 20-25mm, some of which are plugged with wooden plugs

Oak, DS #3

516 44 4 S04

101 Carvel plank

The plank was nailed to underlying planks and frames with trenails. There are a number of tool marks on the plank that seem to have been made with a chisel. There is a crescent shaped marks on the planks. Near the plugged trenails concretion can be observed. One of the knots of the timber was plugged. On the inboard the plank seems to have been charred

Trenails, 30-40 mm in diameter, 2 of them are plugged; iron nails , square shank, round head (20-25 mm diameter) Not preserved, only the holes are left.

Oak, DS #2

388 48 4 S35

102 Clinker plank

One end is broken off while the other one is preserved 8scarf joint). Concretions are visible

Trenails ,30 mm in diameter

Oak, DS #4

285 265 2,5

103 Frame Joggled, concretions are visible around the trenails. Scarf joint at heel, head eroded.

Trenails, 30 mm in diameter

Oak 14 18 S24

104 Frame Timber is joggled. One end of the timber seems to have been broken. The timber is eroded by sea grass on inside sided face. Sapwood is evident on the edge. Cut marks made with axe or adze. Angled cut at heel, head broken.

Trenails, 25 mm in diameter; Trenail holes with diameter at 30 mm.

Oak; sapwood on the edge, DS #8

87 12 9 S19

105 Frame Bevelled edge; many tool marks, maybe from adze or axe. Concretion from iron nails. Inboard eroded by sea grass. Scarf joints at heel and head.

Trenails 30 mm in diameter; Iron nail holes 10 mm in diameter.

Oak , DS #9

150 13 18 S31

41


L cm

W-M cm

T cm

M-M cm

S-M cm

Dr.No.


106 Frame Timber is joggled to accommodate clinker planks. Planks have been fastened with trenails and iron nails. One side has a builder mark that is formed as a “X” and additional lines can be connected with the marks as well. Outboard side: tool marks from axe or adze, inboard is eroded by sea grass. Sapwood is present. Trenails protrude by 2.1cm-3cm on inboard sided face, indicating thickness of ceiling planks. Heel cut square, head broken.

Trenails, 30 mm in diameter; iron nails, only square concretion left

Oak 131 12 9 S27

107 Frame Timber joggled for 8 clinker planks. Up to 3 trenails are connecting the clinker planks to the frame. Trenails are likely to have been used to connect the carvel strakes on top of the clinker planks. Some trenails are cut flush on the inboard while others protrude 3cm- 3,5 cm- indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks. Tool marks from axe or adze are visible on one side, the other is eroded by sea grass. Sapwood was present. Heel: scarf joint, head tapered.

Trenails, 30mm – 35mm in diameter; Iron nails, some eroded, some possible removed.

Oak 95 11 19,3 S29

108 Frame Timber joggled for 7 clinker planks that have been fastened with trenails and iron nails. On the inside trenails are protruding 2,3cm- 4,5 cm indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks. Outboard eroded by sea grass, inboard: visible tool marks from axe or adze. Heel: scarf, head: fresh break.

Trenails, 30mm – 34mm in diameter, iron nails (only concretion left).

Oak 11,7 12,5 S21

109 Frame Timber joggled for 7 clinker planks that were fastened with trenails. The outboard side has rough and uneven tool marks from an axe or adze. Heel: break, head: scarf joint.

Trenails, 30mm – 34mm in diameter, one nail possibly wedged, iron nails (only concretion left).

Oak, DS #10

11 17,5 S28

42


L cm

W-M cm

T cm

M-M cm

S-M cm

Dr.No.


110 Frame Timber joggled for clinker planks. The steps have been made by axe or adze. Sap wood is present. Heel tapered, head, fresh break.

Trenails, 34mm in diameter. All seem to be from carvel phase.

Oak 151 13 8 S30

111 Frame Four joggles. Some trenails were cut during the second phase and new trenails were then added which is indicated by tool marks close to protruding trenail. Both ends broken.

Trenails, 30 mm in diameter, some have been cut during second phase; iron nails or concretion

Oak 11 21 S25

112 Frame Timber joggled for clinker planks. Tool marks are visible on all sides. Broken on both ends

Trenails, 34mm in diameter.

Oak 105 9,5 10 S18

113 Clinker plank

Timber contains many axe/adze marks. In the bow end four repairs have been made. scarf. Joined to plank #102. Plank complete with scarf joints at both ends.

18 trenails of which 4 from the original clinker layer; iron nails 10mm square (head 18mm diameter) running along edge of plank.

Oak , DS #5

368 30 2 S16

114 Filling timber

Several saw marks visible on both sides of the timber. Fastened with one iron nail and penetrated by trenail from carvel layer. Joined to clinker plank 131.

Iron nail (head 12mm diameter, shank 7mm square); Trenail 33mm in diameter

Soft wood

100 11 1,5- 0,2

115/ 126

Filling timber

Timber has tool marks on both sides. Timber appeared to be 2 planks from the outside but single piece split partially. One end cut square, other end bevelled.

Trenails 35mm in diameter; iron nails

Oak 164 13 3 S9

116 Filling timber

Plank broken in 3 pieces. Tool marks visible from adze or axe. In the middle there is an incised mark resembling a cross. Butt end joint.

Trenails; iron nails

Soft wood

193 9,9 2,2- 0,2

S11

117/ 127

Filling piece

Wedge shaped filling piece. Trenail holes run along the edge along with iron nails.

Trenail 33mm in diameter; iron nails, square shaft, 5mm to 9mm

Pine 206 12 2,3-0,5

118 Filling timber

Wedge shaped. Clear axe marks.

Trenails, some from the carvel layer ; iron nails w. Square shaft (5mm)

Soft wood

87 13,2 2,7-0,1

43


L cm

W-M cm

T cm

M-M cm

S-M cm

Dr.No.


119 Filling timber

Rectangular shaped timber. Joined to clinker plank 183

Trenails 33mm in diameter

Pine 93 10,5 2

120 Clinker plank

A chamfered edge is running along the plank. The end of the plank has a groove where a frame was situated. Brown surface covering and tar on the plank. Tool marks are visible. On the chamfered area there is a row of wooden plugs that have replaced iron nails. Complete with scarf joints at either end.

Trenails 3,35mm in diameter; Iron nails , square shanks (10mm), wooden plugs 10mm square

Oak 308 27,5 2 S17

121 Filling timber

No sign of toolmarks, possible scarf joint at one end

Trenails 30mm in diameter; iron nails, square shaft, 10mm1 in diameter.

Oak 94 11 2 0,8

122 3 filling timbers

The smallest piece shows axe marks. Joined to filling timber #118

Soft wood

34,26, 12

123 Filling timber

Clinker plank fragment, reused as filling piece. Visible tool marks from axe or adze. Surface covering on the surface. remains of waterproofing on underside. Concretion around metal fastenings. Sea grass between filling piece and clinker layer.

Trenail 34mm in diameter, nine iron nails associated with plank before reuse (head round, 22mm in diameter, shank 9mm x 8mm)

Oak, DS#1

73,2 19 1,9-2,2

S11

124 Filling timber

Wedged shaped timber. Possible saw marks and axe marks.

Trenails 32mm in diameter; iron nails w. Square shanks 7mm x 7mm

Soft wood

92 14 4,5-1,2

125 Filling timber

Roughly worked adze or axe marks.

Soft wood

66 12 2-0,5

126 See 115

127 See 117

128 Clinker plank

Waterproofing visible. Concretion along lower edge of plank. Tool marks on upper edge.

Trenails 35mm in diameter; iron nails that fastened filling timbers to planks as well as iron nails fastening planks to each other

Oak 182 23 2 S12

129 Filling timber

Very fragile softwood pieces, broke into five small pieces during recovery.

- Soft wood

- - -

44


L cm

W-M cm

T cm

M-M cm

S-M cm

Dr.No.


130 Filling timber

Axe marks and saw marks visible.

Pine 195 5,5 1,5

132 Clinker plank

Timber has chamfered edges. Heavily eroded by sea grass. Brown surface covering. Concretion around iron fastenings. Longitudinal edges also chamfered. Plank broken, possible scarf on one side.

Trenail 32mm in diameter; iron nails w. Square shaft, 10mm

Oak 310 14,5 2,5 S24

133 Clinker plank

Timber appears to have burn marks on one side. One side has a groove for the waterproofing material. Brown surface covering. Scarf on one side, break on other side.

Trenails; iron nails, some seems to have been removed; wedged trenail.

Oak 240 22 1,5 S14

134 Clinker plank

Timber eroded by sea grass (inside). A waterproofing patch was found at scarf Concretion around iron nails. One end scarf joint, other end broken.

Trenails 30mm in diameter.

153 18,5 2,5 S23

135 Clinker plank

Broken fragment, broken on one end, scarf on the other end.

Trenails 32mm in diameter, some are from the carvel layer and one is from the clinker layer; iron nails w. Square shafts, 7mm x 7mm.

Oak 24,5 2,5 2,5 S15

136 Filling timber

Roughly worked timber. Axe or adze marks visible. Remains of tar from waterproofing and sea grass on one side. Concretions around iron nails.

Trenails 32mm in diameter; iron nails w. Square shaft (5mm x 6mm) associated with filling timber.

Oak 73 12 1,7

137 Frame Joggled for two planks, head eroded, heel broken. Inside sided surface eroded, toolmarks from axe visible.

Trenails and iron nails

Oak 81 25 8,5 S26

45

Appendix 3: Report of dendrochronological analysis

46

Documents

Survey-Report-FPL-77