Converted clinker vessels from the 16th – 17th century

A case study of the Ostsee Bereich IV, Fischland, FPL 77 Bente Grundvad Nielsen

Maritime Archaeology Programme

University of Southern Denmark

Bente Grundvad Nielsen

Converted clinker vessels from the 16th-17th century in the Baltic area

A case study of wreck FPL 77 (The 4am wreck)

Esbjerg 2010 Front page: Recovery of FPL 77. SDU 2009

Contents Acknowledgement I Abstract III

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Aims and objectives 1

1.2 Structure of the report 2

1.3 Terminology 3

1.4 Methodology 5

1.4.1 Primary material 5

1.4.2 Reconstruction 5

1.5 Sources and literature review 6

1.6 Beginning of the project 7

2. Presentation of material 8

2.1 Background 8

2.2 Description of FPL 77 9

2.2.1 Clinker planking 9

2.2.2 Frames 11

2.2.3 Filler pieces 13

2.2.4 The carvel layer 15

2.2.5 Date and provenience 16

2.3 Interpretation 16

2.3.1 Construction 16

2.3.2 Reconstruction 17

2.3.3 Interpretation of the model 18

2.3.4 Contemporary Danish wrecks 18

3. Comparable sites 25

3.1 Identifying similar wrecks 25

3.2 Converted clinker vessels 26

3.2.1 The Maasilinn wreck 26

3.2.2 The Debki wreck 27

3.2.3 The W-36 wreck 28

3.2.4 The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck 29

3.2.5 The B&W 6 wreck 29

3.2.6 Wreck Mönchgut / Ostsee VI, FPL 67 30

3.2.7. The Hiddensee 12 wreck 31

3.2.8 The Nors Å wreck 33

3.3 Sub conclusion 34

4. Discussion 35

4.1 Where and when 35

4.1.1 The 14th century 37

4.1.2 The 16th century 37

4.1.3 The 17th century 37

4.1.4 The 18th century 38

4.1.5 The 19th century 38

4.2 How 39

4.2.1 Design and construction 39

4.2.2 Concept 42

4.2.3 Materials 44

4.3 Vessel type: Form and function 44

4.3.1 Form 44

4.3.2 Function 45

4.4 Why 45

4.4.1 Repair 46

4.4.2 Economy 47

4.4.3 Reinforcement and protection of the hull 48

4.4.4 Water tightness 50

4.4.5 Original carvel layer 51

4.4.6 Other explanations 54

5. Results and conclusion 56

Appendix 1: Timbers with importance for the FPL 77 model 59

Appendix 2: Selective glossary 69

References 74

Acknowledgment

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Jens Auer, not only

for his great help writing this thesis, but also for his enormous engagement and

passion for maritime archaeology. His commitment for the subject has been a

huge inspiration for me throughout these two years.

I am also grateful to all the people who have helped me with my research. In no

particular order: Mike Belasus for all his help understanding the Hiddensee 12

wreck and for giving me the opportunity to see the wreck. Jens-Peter Schmidt

for sending material about the Peninsula of Darss and for the publication on the

FPL 67 wreck. Jana Heinze for her kindness and for her help understanding the

FPL 67 wreck. Waldemar Ossowski for his additional information about the

Debki and the W-36 wreck. Pål Nymoen for his interest in the topic and for

sending me the report on the Strømsø Drammenselva wreck.

From the Viking ship Museum in Roskilde I would like to thank Vibeke Bischoff

for her ideas on how to reconstruct the FPL 77 model and for her help

interpreting it. Morten Gøtche for his help with the Nors Å wreck. My deepest

thanks go to Morten Ravn for all his encouragement and his interest in my

thesis, for sending me the Rhino files of the Amager Beach wreck, and for his

kindness looking through my thesis.

I would also like to thank Kerry Birmingham, Sylvia Bates, Sarah Fawsitt and

Andrew Stanek for correcting English spellings and grammar. A very special

thanks to Konstantinos Alexiou for his encouragement and support throughout

the writing and his overall help with the thesis and with various computer

programs.

Finally, I would like to thank the Map fieldwork team: Konstantinos Alxiou, Jens

Auer, Marja-Liisa Grue, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus, Martin Lonergan, Thijs

Maarleveld, Delia Ni Chiobhain, Andrew Stanek, Christian Thomsen and Cate

Wagstaffe who all contributed to a successful result of the recording of FPL 77

I

and for two amazing years with the Maritime Archaeology Programme, at the

University of Southern Denmark.

II

Abstract

The term ”converted clinker vessel” covers a special and rare type of vessel

built with an inner clinker hull and with a covering outer carvel layer. The

vessels are mainly dated to the 16th-17th century and only nine converted

clinker vessels have been found to date.

These vessels derive from a period where essential changes took place within

the shipbuilding construction. These changes are reflected in the converted

clinker vessel where two different shipbuilding traditions are clearly present:

the clinker-construction technique and the carvel-construction technique.

The main focus of this research is centered on the converted clinker vessel “FPL

77” found in 2009. This vessel will be thoroughly described, analyzed and

compared to 8 similar wrecks.

This study investigates various aspects of the converted clinker vessels from the

16th-17th century. Using examples of all known converted clinker vessels, this

study examines where and when the vessels derive from, how the clinker

conversion took place and what kind of vessel the converted clinker vessels

were. The main emphasis, however, is on why these seemingly normal clinker

vessels had an outer carvel layer applied to the original clinker hull.

As a result of this study, the FPL 77 was interpreted as being an 8-10 m. long,

local trading vessel. This size and type of vessel corresponds well with the size

of other known converted clinker vessels. From a comparable study it becomes

clear that most converted clinker vessels were low tonnage vessels and most

likely used for trade.

From the investigation it turns out that the converted clinker vessels are mostly

found in the Baltic area and are centered around a 100-year period, from 1550-

1650 which was the period where the carvel shipbuilding was introduced here.

The conversion of clinker vessels is most likely connected to the fact that the

carvel construction technique was slowly introduced to the Baltic in this period.

III

Two different kinds of clinker conversion took place. The most used one is

where the outer carvel layer was applied a number of years after the original

clinker vessel was built. The second kind is where the carvel layer seems to

have been a part of the original design. There may be many reasons for these

conversions but they were all connected to the advantages of carvel strakes.

Reinforcing the hull of the clinker vessel is one of the reasons for adding an

outer carvel layer. Repair, a more watertight hull, protection of the inner hull

etc. are a number of other reasons that can explain the double layer of

converted clinker vessels.

IV

1. Introduction

1.1 Aims and Objectives

In October 2009 I participated in the Maritime

Archaeology field school offered by the University

of Southern Denmark (SDU). The field school took

place in Prerow, Germany and the main aim was

to record the remains of a 19th century shipwreck

off the coast of Prerow. One day we received a

formal notice that wreck remains of a 16th century

vessel had been discovered on a beach close by.

The remains derived from a double layered vessel

of a type only scarcely known about. This wreck,

registered under the code Ostsee Bereich IV,

Fischland, FPL 77 will be the basis of this thesis.

Figure 1-1: Excavation of the FPL 77 wreck in August 2009. Grundvad 2009. SDU.

1

The FPL 77 wreck is one among nine similar

wrecks, built in a double planked manner, where

the inner hull is built in the clinker construction

technique but with an outer carvel layer nailed on

top. No written sources, known to the author,

mention these vessels and as they have never

been thoroughly investigated, they have never

been given a name. Because of the way the clinker

vessels were converted into carvel, they will here

go under the term: converted clinker vessels.1

These wrecks have never been analyzed together

and, therefore, the main aim of this report is to

get an overall insight of the rare converted clinker

vessels. The objectives of the report are to find

out:

1) Where and when were the converted clinker

vessels built? The distribution of the known

converted clinker vessels will be reviewed to try to

find out if these vessels only were concentrated in

a specific area, or if they were widely distributed

over the world.

2) How the converted clinker vessels were built.

What construction techniques were used for the

vessels? FPL 77 will be in focus in this chapter

where the construction analysis will be the main

emphasis.

3) What type, in terms of size and use, were the

converted clinker vessels? It will be investigated if

only specific types of vessels underwent clinker

conversion and in that case, what kind of vessel

was it?

4) Why were the converted clinker vessels built?

The purpose of the double hull, consisting of a

1 Term suggested by the author. Based on the construction technique of the vessels where the original clinker hull has been covered with carvel strakes and thereby visually converted into a carvel vessel.

clinker and a carvel layer, will be investigated to

find the meaning with the conversion.

The research will not only shed light upon a rare

vessel type from the 16th-17th century, it will also

shed light on a construction technique, not

investigated thoroughly before and only

infrequently seen in the archaeological record.

Converted clinker vessels are not very well

understood today, because of the lack of finds.

Looking at the newly documented material from

FPL 77 and at the few similar published wrecks

from the period, it is hoped that this paper will

clarify the construction techniques and the

meaning of converted clinker vessels. It is

furthermore the hope that this thesis can

contribute to further research and interpretations

of these vessels.

The report necessarily contains a great deal of

nautical terminology that can be unfamiliar to the

reader. In the hope of making the text more

readably, a selective glossary has been made at

the end of the paper. The terms given in this

paper will be based on the definition given by

Steffy (2006) and Lemée (2006b) as there seems

to be a widespread consensus on these.

1.2 Structure of the report

This introductory section starts with a terminology

review of what the definition of a clinker- , a

carvel-, and a converted clinker hull is. As many of

the vessels that are dealt with in this paper are

only fragmentarily preserved, it is difficult to know

the exact size and design of the original vessel. It

will therefore furthermore be reviewed how the

terms boat, ship and vessel are defined. Next

section describes the methodology used to solve

the problems described above. This will be

followed by a literature review.

2

In chapter two, the wreck remains of FPL 77 will

be presented. The main aim of this section is to

present and analyze the material of the wreck and

look at the building sequence of the vessel. The

different components of the vessel will be

described thoroughly as this wreck forms the basis

of the paper.

The subsequent section, chapter 3, presents

wrecks of similar construction to FPL 77. The

intention of this section is to provide comparable

material to the study of converted clinker vessels

from the 16th-17th century. The comparable

wrecks will be described in as much detail as

possible to get a base for the analysis. Wrecks that

will be described are the Debki wreck, the

Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck, the Mönchgut

67 / FPL 67 wreck, the Strømsø Drammenselva

wreck, the B&W6 wreck, the Hiddensee 12 wreck

and the Nors Å wreck. It should be noted that

where an inexact date has been given, the wreck

will here be categorized in a period between the

two given dates. This means that for example the

B&W 6 wreck, which has a date somewhere

between the 17th-18th century, will be categorized

under ca. 1650.

Chapter 4 will discuss a number of explanations to

the questions given above; where and when were

the converted clinker vessels built? How were the

converted clinker vessels built? What types of

vessels were converted from clinker to carvel?

And finally, why was the outer carvel planking

applied to these clinker vessels? A number of

different reasons have been proposed in a

number of publications. These explanations, along

with new possible interpretations, made by the

author, will be presented.

The discussion is followed by a concluding chapter

that sums up the outcome of the paper and the

importance of the double planked boats in a

broader historical and archaeological context.

1.3 Terminology

Below, the different building techniques used in

FPL 77 will be shortly reviewed.

Clinker construction technique

The clinker construction technique is defined as a

tradition where the hull of the vessel is

constructed with overlapping planks. The space

where the two planks overlap is called the land.

The planks are held together with closely spaced

rivets or nails clenched over metal washers, called

roves (Steffy 2006, 269). Clinker-built vessels were

often, but not always, built in a shell-first

construction where the planks define the hull

shape. This building process allows the shipwright

to visualize the shape of the hull during

construction as the technique does not require

graphical means. The shipwright is able to form

the hull as the building process goes along. He can

thus change the outline at any point of time

before the final fixing frames are applied. The

clinker tradition is especially linked to the Nordic

building tradition (Lemée 2006a, 8)

Figure 1- 2: Frame with clinker planks. Grundvad 2009.

Carvel-built ships

The carvel construction technique is often linked

to the Mediterranean area from where the oldest

carvel-built ship is known (Lemée 2006a, 9). As

opposed to the clinker constructed vessel the

carvel ship is defined as a vessel with flushed

3

planks. Carvel ships are often, but not always,

build in the so-called skeleton-first concept where

the skeleton, or the frames, defines the hull.

Building a ship in the skeleton-first method

demands an abstract way of thinking as the

finished result is not clear before the planks are

nailed to the frames. When building in the

skeleton-first method it is not possible to make

bigger changes of the hull form (Lemée 2006a, 7-

11).

Figure 1-3: Frames with carvel planks. Grundvad 2010.

The development of the carvel ships or non-edge

joined boats, as Greenhill (1995) calls them,

developed at different times in different parts of

the world. Carvel vessels were a rare sight in the

15th century in Northern Europe but were quickly

adapted and frequently seen by the end of the

17th century (Lemée 2006a, 8). It is most likely,

that the reason for the big success of the carvel

ships was economic. Western people required

bigger and more seaworthy vessels to carry bigger

amount of goods for more people and longer

journeys (Greenhill 1995, 58). In Denmark, where

FPL 77 possibly was built, the carvel-built vessels

were still not particular developed at this point of

time.

The clinker construction technique was never

totally abandoned, however. The technique

continued to be practiced on smaller vessels up to

the late 19th century and can still be seen on some

smaller boats today (Greenhill 1995, 58).

Converted clinker vessel

No specific term has ever been giving to the

clinker hulls with a carvel skin nailed to the

outside. Ossowski (2006) and Mäss (1994) (1991)

refer to these vessels as “double- planked” boats

which is a correct term. However, “double-

planked” covers a wide range of construction

types dissimilar to the vessels concerned about

here. “Double-planked” for example includes the

double- Dutch solution and the reinforcement or

protection of carvel ship with another carvel layer.

The vessels concerned with here were all built in

the clinker construction technique and were,

either originally or at a later point, converted to

carvel vessels by adding a flush laid skin on top of

the original clinker hull. “Converted clinker

vessels” therefore seem to be the best term to

use in this case. The size, the construction

technique and the provenience of the vessels are

indifferent to the term as long as the vessel

consists of a clinker hull with an outer carvel layer.

Figure 1-4: Converted clinker vessel with clinker

planks, filler pieces and an outer carvel layer.

Grundvad 2010.

4

Boat, ship and vessel

The terms “boat” and “ship” have been used with

many different meanings in various publications.

Confusion with the use of the terms is still a

problem today as the definition differs from

author to author. Steffy’s (2006) definitions are

the one used in this paper.

Boats are defined as smaller open vessels or

smaller vessel designed for operating in sheltered

waters (Steffy 2006, 7).

Ships are defines as larger vessels with a bowsprit

and three to five square-rigged masts or simply

just large vessels designed for deepwater

operations (Steffy 2006, 7).

Due to the confusion these two terms have cause,

Steffy advices to use more specific terms such as

vessel, merchantman etc. As most of the wrecks

dealt with in this paper is of unknown size and

form, it has been decided to call all wrecks, where

no further information is given; vessels. “Vessel“ is

a well used term in projects where the status of

the vessel is not yet known (Steffy 2006, 7). The

use of this term will eliminate the confusion that

arises with the use of “ship” and “boat”.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Primary material

The primary material from the excavation of FPL

77 is the main source to understand the converted

clinker vessels. The archaeological material is an

important source, as it provides direct information

about the past. The nature of the converted

clinker vessels can only be revealed through

archaeological finds, as iconographic and written

sources are lacking when it comes to converted

clinker vessels. Besides the archaeological

material from FPL 77, publications and primary

material from other similar wrecks will be used. A

database will be produced to get an overview of

the few converted clinker vessels found to date. A

big part of the methodology of the paper will be

comparison to other wrecks.

1.4.2 Reconstruction

As an attempt to find the size of FPL 77 and the

placement of the wreck part in the entire ship, a

model was built. The result of the model building

and analysis gives a plausible interpretation of the

building process of FPL 77 and the size of the

vessel.

The reconstruction of the longitudinal curvature of

the wreck was realized by building a 1:10 scale

model, based on the original excavation

documentation; 1:10 drawings, dumpy level

measurements and timber details from recording

sheets. A full reconstruction of the vessel was not

intended as the wreck part is too small to allow

for this. Uncertainty will always be a factor when

reconstructing the size of a vessel based on an 8m

x 5m wreck part. However, remaking the

curvature of the wreck and comparing the wreck

to somewhat similar vessels from the period, the

size of FPL 77 could carefully be assessed.

The method for the reconstruction of the wreck

was inspired from a system developed by the

Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde (Ravn et al. 2011)

Figure 1- 5: 1:10 model of FPL 77. Grundvad 2009.

5

and with guidance of Vibeke Bischoff. For the

reconstruction of the wreck-part, the original 1:10

drawings of the individual timbers were printed

out in scale and glued onto 2mm thick cardboard.

An exact template of the preserved planks in 1:10

were cut out and used for the building process.

Small holes were drilled through the cardboard,

along the edges of the planks, where iron nails

originally held the planking together. The different

parts were held together with needles that were

fixed on the back with little square rubber pieces.

Following the original beveled overlap of the

clinker planks and the original fastenings, the

longitudinal curvature of the wreck part could be

reconstructed. The frames were only cut out in

the moulded form in order to support the

curvature of the cardboard hull.

When the model was built, it was placed in a

frame where four kite stringers were following the

planks and the curvature of the vessel. At some

point the lines would naturally meet and the

length of the ship could be estimated. However,

this length is only an interpretation, as the

thickness of the planks, the fastenings, etc., were

not considered in these calculations.

1.5 Sources and literature review

There are only few publications on converted

clinker vessels, as very few finds of this vessel type

have been found. The wrecks have mostly been

published as reports or shorter articles and none

of them go further into the analysis and

interpretation of the converted clinker vessels.

Only Waldemar Ossowski and Jana Heinze have

included small sections where they try to explain

the double layer. No combined analysis has been

made of all the converted clinker vessels and the

information given in the reports are sparse.

Dr. Waldemar Ossowski, curator of the

Department of Maritime Archaeology of the Polish

Maritime Museum, has published the findings of

two “double-planked” wrecks from Poland. Here

he describes the construction of the two wrecks

that date to the same period as FPL 77. He

compares the “double-planked” wrecks from the

16th century to similar wrecks, and he takes up the

discussion on why these vessels were built

(Ossowski 2006, 259).

Maritime archaeologist Vello Mäss of the Estonian

Maritime Museum has also touched on the topic

in his article A Unique 16th century Estonian Ship

Find (Mäss 1991).

In 2009 Thomas Förster published the book Grosse

Handelsschiffe des Spätmittelalters (Förster 2009),

in which he mentions a wreck called “Das

Gellenwrack” (Hiddensee 12). This was a vessel

that had a secondary outer shell layer applied to

the inner clinker hull. The date of the wreck has

been controversial and will be discussed later on.

The publication of the Mönchgut 67 wreck is one

of the only ones where a somewhat full

excavation report was conducted. The report is

written by Jana Heinze who was in charge of the

recovery and documentation of the wreck.

Unfortunately, due to the bad state of the vessel,

crucial information about the wreck has been lost

(Heinze 2010).

Strømsø Drammenselva is another converted

clinker vessel where a report is available (Nymoen

2007). The wreck is not described in details and

the dendrochronological samples were never

analyzed as the wreck was considered insignificant

for further research.2

2 Pers. Comm. Pål Nymoen.

6

The last publication concerning converted clinker

vessels is the article about the sand vessels from

Denmark (Gøthche 1985). Only one of the so-

called sand vessels was a converted clinker vessel

and this wreck is only mentioned shortly in an

article regarding the sand vessels.

The carvel and clinker technique in ship

constructions have been investigated to a large

degree, by amongst others Cederlund (1985) in

The Main Principles in the Technology of

Shipbuilding. Also to be mentioned are Maarleveld

(1994), Hasslöf (1972a), Probst (1994), Kirby

(2000) and Lemée (2006b).

An indispensible book when dealing with vessels

from the Renaissance is The Renaissance

Shipwrecks from Christianshavn by Christian P.P.

Lemée (Lemée 2006b). The foundation of the

book is the excavation of the renaissance wrecks

from Christianshavn (Copenhagen, Denmark), but

it also deals with written sources in a wider

historical context. The book has provided essential

information for the study of this paper and for the

reconstruction of the FPL 77 model. In addition to

the importance this book has for the study of

renaissance wrecks in the North, it also shortly

describes a poorly preserved converted clinker

vessel, the B&W6.

1.6 The beginning of the Project

The incentive for this thesis began in 2009 with

the find, recovery and documentation of FPL 77.

The project was organized by the Maritime

Archaeology Programme from the University of

Southern Denmark that was conducting the field

school nearby, with Professor Thijs Maarleveld

and associate professor Jens Auer in charge. The

recovery, documentation and analysis of this

wreck became the beginning and the base of the

following paper.

Figure 1-6: FPL 77 recovered and ready for analysis. Grundvad 2009. SDU.

7

2. Presentation of material

2.1 Background

The main aim of this chapter is to present and

analyze the archaeological material of FPL 77.

Because of the thorough recording of FPL 77 and

due to the fact that the primary material has been

available for the author, this wreck will work as

the main base for the paper. The chapter will be

subdivided into two main sections: a descriptive

section and an analytical section.

The first section will in detail describe the wreck

parts of FPL 77 based on the documentation made

by the Maritime Archaeology Programme,

Denmark. A short catalogue (see appendix 1) of

the timbers, that are important for the

understanding of the wreck, will be available.

The second section presents the interpretation of

FPL 77. Here, the construction techniques and the

building sequence will be reviewed and the 1:10

model will be evaluated. Based on the available

material from the wreck and the analysis of the

model, the last section will be an attempt to find

out what kind of vessel FPL 77 could have been.

A report, written by Dr. Jens Auer and the field

school participants (including the present author)

was produced as a part of the field school and

published in February 2010 (Auer 2010). This

report will be the primary base for the following

review of the wreck.

Figure 2-1: Map of the Baltic showing the location of the FPL 77.

8

Figure 2-2: Excavation of the FPL 77 wreck on an early morning at 4AM.

2.2 Description of FPL 77

The FPL 77 wreck is a part of a hull from a clinker-

built vessel that was later re-planked with an

outer carvel layer. The total dimensions of the

wreck measured 5.23m x 1.8m. The hull section

consisted of 11 frames, five clinker planks and two

carvel planks. On the outside of the clinker

strakes, a layer of irregular softwood pieces was

attached to provide a smooth surface for the

carvel layer. All the main timbers were made from

oak, whereas the filling pieces were of lower

quality and made from pine.

FPL 77 was in general found to be in a good state

of preservation. The inboard of the clinker layer,

however, was heavily eroded by sea grass, which

made the recording of details complicated. The

sea grass indicates that the wreck had been lying

on the seabed with the carvel layer protected by

the sediments and the frames facing upwards.

When the wreck was found, the sea grass was still

fresh which designates that the wreck originally

was located on the seabed and washed to shore

recently prior to the finding of the wreck (Auer

2010, 15).

In the following, the different components of the

wrecks will be described chronologically and after

the supposed original construction sequence. The

description is commenced with the clinker layer,

next the framing, the filler pieces and finally the

carvel planks. For the description of the clinker

layer, the framing and the carvel layer, a small

catalogue has been developed (see appendix 1).

The catalogue will be used for the interpretation

and analysis of a 1:10 model of the wreck. Only

timbers with importance to the understanding of

the wreck or the model will be reviewed.3

2.2.1 Clinker planking

Nine clinker planks or five strakes are preserved in

the hull remains of FPL 77, all varying in size. The

clinker planks are well preserved on the outer

surface, but heavily eroded by sea grass growth on

the inner face. The planks are made from radially

split oak and they have visible axe and adze marks

from the finishing work. All planks are roughly

beveled along their lower edges, possibly a

construction feature in the smoothing process

3 For a complete timber catalogue see Auer (2009).

9

when the filling pieces were applied (Daly 2009,

2).

Only two of the nine clinker planks are preserved

in full (120 and 131). These measure 308cm and

346cm in length. The longest plank that is not fully

preserved measures 346cm in length. The

thickness of the planks range between 2cm to 3cm

and the length of the fragmented planks measures

from 116cm and 368cm. This indicates that the

longest plank must have been over 368cm long.

The full width of the planks is between 20-25cm

and in thickness they measure 2-3cm. The

thickness tapers down in the overlapping areas

and towards the end-scarves. In some instances

hollow grooves for luting material was observed,

but these are not present on all planks.

Sapwood was present on two of the planks that

were therefore used for dendrochronological

samples.

Clinker fastenings

The upper strake of the planking was held

together by square shafted iron nails driven

through augered holes from the outside and

clenched over roves on the inside of the hull. The

nails were placed along the lower edge of the

plank with an average spacing of 15-25cm (Auer

2010, 10). In some places the rivets were closer

spaced in order to reinforce and provide the

construction with additional strength.

The iron rivets are square shafted, ca. 0.7-1cm

long and with a nail head diameter of 1.8cm.

Many of the iron nails are eroded away, but their

existence is still evident because of nail head

marks. From these impressions it is evident that

the heads had been sitting in square recesses cut

with a chisel or similar. In addition to the rivet

fastenings, trenails had been holding the planks to

frames.

Iron nails were used to secure overlaps between

plank and scarf joints, but they were also used less

systematically to fasten different elements to each

other. Some places iron nails were used as a

preliminary fastening before the trenails were

inserted. All the nails had been clenched over iron

roves on the inboard face of the planking. Old iron

nails had sometimes been removed and replaced

with wooden plugs to seal the nail holes as a

repair.

Trenails fastened the clinker planking to the

frames. One trenail connected each plank to every

other timber. The trenails are plain and therefore

not wedged or plugged on the outside as seen

other places in the vessel. The diameter of the

Figure 2-3: Clinker phase of FPL 77 after removal of filler pieces and carvel layer. Auer 2009. SDU.

10

trenails ranges between 3.1cm and 3.4cm (Auer

2010, 11).

Each strake except from the highest one feature a

scarf that was overlapping with 20-30cm and

secured in each corner with a number of iron nails

and one or two additional rivets. Scored lines on

the planks mark the beginning of a scarf.

Tarred luting material was inserted to waterproof

the seams. The scarfs all pointed in the same

direction, aft, to prevent water entering the seams

(Auer 2010, 11). The directions of the scarfs imply

that the section was a part of the port side of the

vessel. Plank joints in neighboring strakes were

spaced at least one or two frames apart to avoid

weakening of the hull structure. The overlaps of

the planks, called “the land”, varied from 5-8cm

and the overlaps were beveled on all planks

Repairs

A number of repairs are visible on the clinker

planks. In some cases wooden plugs had replaced

iron nails where these were eroded away. In other

places, rivets had been hammered into the timber

to strengthen weak spots and on the uppermost

strake, towards the bow, a short plank had been

nailed to the outside of the clinker plank to

provide additional strength. This small plank and

the wooden plugs witness of a somewhat long

usage period of the clinker vessel before it was

converted.

Toolmarks

Toolmarks are clearly visible on all clinker planks.

These marks indicate that the tools used for the

final conversion of the timbers were done by axe.

Waterproofing

The waterproofing material between the plank

overlaps and the scarf joints were sampled and

sent for analysis. The result of the analysis has not

yet been analyzed by the submission time for this

paper. However, the waterproofing material

consisted of mats of, what seemed to be, tarred

animal hair.

2.2.2 Frames

Figure 2-4: Overview of the frames after removal of the clinker layer, the filler pieces and the carvel layer. Auer 2009. SDU.

Overall 11 frames of different sizes are preserved

from FPL 77. All frames are made out of oak. The

frames are joggled on the outside face to accom-

11

modate for the clinker planking. The length of the

frames ranges from 87cm to 151cm. The average

moulded dimension of the frames is 9.5cm while

the sided dimension varies from 8cm to 21cm.

The frame heels either show remains of scarf

joints (103, 105, 107, 108) or are cut square or at

an angle (104, 106, 110). Four of the frame heels

are broken (109, 111, 112, 137) and the breaks are

heavily eroded which mean that they are not

recent. The frame heads are not as well preserved

as the heels and only two heads are not broken

off or eroded. Some of the breaks seem fairly

recent. The head of frame 107 and 109 taper out,

which most probably indicates the remains of a

scarf joint (Auer 2010, 8).

The inside faces of the frames are heavily eroded

by sea grass while the outside faces are mostly

well preserved. This makes recognition of tool

marks difficult on the inside but on the outside

they can be recognized as deriving from either an

axe or an adze (Auer 2010, 12).

Frame fastenings

The frames were fastened to the clinker planks

with trenails. Trenails from all phases of the

construction were observed in the framing

timbers. On the inside of the frames the trenails

associated only with the clinker phase were cut

flush with the frames, probably during the rebuild.

Concretions on the inside face of the frames, as

well as trenails protruding 4.5cm, indicate the

presence and possibly the thickness of a new set

of ceiling planks (Auer 2010, 9). The ceiling planks

seem to have been fastened only by trenails from

the carvel layer and it can therefore be assumed

that the ceiling planks had been inserted when the

new carvel layer had been applied.

Markings on frames

Several marks are present on the framing timbers.

Marks can be observed on the moulded face of

frame 103 and 106. On frame 103 the mark is

situated at the heel and consists of a trapezoid

shape with a line connecting the two pointed

ends. On frame 106 the mark is located on the

heel as well, and it consists of a fairly big “X” with

two angled lines at either side and an additional

line protruding from between the upper two

wings of the “X”. On the same frame, near the

head, an additional roughly hewn X-shaped mark

can be observed. This mark is situated in

connection with a joggle and could have been a

mark indicating the position of the step. A number

of other marks are visible on the moulded side of

some frames, but these are not as recognizable as

the previously described.

X”–shaped marks seem like the obvious mark to

indicate that a specific frame has some kind of

significance. The markings were all discovered on

the outboard face, where they were visible when

the vessel was complete. It is possible that

markings are present on the inboard side as well,

but due to the heavily eroded surface, this is not

possible to verify.

The markings could have had several different

purposes. They could have worked as an

indication of where the frames were to be

Figure 2-5: Trapezoid mark on the heel of frame 103. Auer 2009. SDU.

12

situated in the vessel and they could have marked

the alignment of framing timbers. Other marks

could have been related to the production, sale

and transportation of the timbers. These marks

were created before the timbers were aligned and

therefore randomly placed in the ship. Other

markings, the so called “scribing marks”, were

used to lay out the cutting of joints (Marsden

2009, 74-75).

Figure 2-6: Could this mark on frame 106 indicate the position of stringers? Auer 2009. SDU.

The mark on frame 106 has already been

connected to the position of a clinker step.

Markings could also work as an indication of

master frames in a ship with pre-erected frames.

In clinker- and shell-first ship building it was

difficult to get a certain shape of the hull, because

drawings or plans were not used in clinker vessels.

The shape took place under the builder’s hands

and the master frames could help prevent the ship

from getting a wrong shape (Lemée 2006, 41). The

big mark on the heel of frame 106 could be such a

master frame or a sub-master frame. The lines

that go to the upper edge of the frame could be

marking where the stringers had been situated

inside the vessel. Stringers can be several meters

long, which would explain why only one of these

marks was present in the FPL 77.4

4 Pers. Comm. Toby Jones, Newport Medieval ship Project.

The triangular mark on the edge of frame 103

could have had a purpose after the frame was

inserted since it was visible from the outside. Its

purpose, however, is not yet known.

Three frames were sampled for

dendrochronological dating. Two of these (104,

105) had considerable amounts of sapwood

preserved on the inside face. Sapwood on the

outside faces had been removed where the

frames had been in contact with the outer carvel

strakes.

2.2.3 Filler pieces

The filling pieces constituted the second

construction phase of FPL 77. The purpose of the

filling pieces was to smooth out the steps of the

clinker planking in order to generate an even and

closed surface for the carvel planking.

Overall 15 filling pieces are preserved from the

wreck. They are all made from wedged soft wood

and possibly from scrap wood and on most of the

filling pieces deep tool marks are visible. All but

three of the filling pieces (123, 121, 115) are made

from softwood, either fir or pine. Piece 123 is the

remains of a reused oak clinker plank. This piece

was collected for sampling but could not be dated

because the lack of three rings.

The filling pieces were secured to the clinker

planks with small iron nails until the carvel planks

were in place. Several of the filling pieces were

penetrated by trenails from the carvel layer.

The wedged and triangular shaped filling pieces

vary in length from 20-200cm. As a preliminary

fastening, they were nailed to the clinker strakes

with a single iron nail and hereafter they were

held in place by the carvel planks (Auer 2010, 12).

13

Overview of the frames, the clinker layer and the filler pieces of FPL 77. Processed by Grundvad 2010. From SDU 2009. Frames Clinker planks Filler pieces

14

Because of the limited recording period, only a

few of the filling piece were drawn but all were

photographed and described.

Overall, the filler pieces are well preserved as they

had been sandwiched between the clinker and the

carvel layer. Considering the nature of the wood,

there seems to have been no criteria for the

quality, as this wood was very flimsy (Auer 2010,

12)

2.2.4 The carvel layer

The outmost layer of the wreck consisted of two

flushed laid oak planks (100, 101) with butt end

joints. They are both well preserved, but show

traces of abrasion on the outer face. The inside

faces are slightly eroded by sea grass but have

been protected against erosion by timbers from

the clinker phase. The carvel planks have a

maximum length of 516cm and are up to 48cm

wide and 4cm thick.

Carvel fastenings

Both carvel planks were fastened with iron nails

and trenails that went through the filler pieces,

the clinker layer and the frames. The trenails are

32-34mm in diameter. They are either plain,

wedged or plugged with a single square plug in

the center. The trenails were hammered into

augered holes and some of them protruded from

the inside face of the frames which indicate that

they most likely fastened the ceiling planks as

well.

The iron nails with round heads (20mm in

diameter) and with square shaft (ca. 6mm x 6mm)

were used to fasten the plank butts and were

used as preliminary fastenings along the edges of

the planks before the trenail holes were drilled.

Some of the iron nail holes were plugged with a

small wooden plug while others remained in the

plank.

Markings on carvel planks

Both carvel planks have half moon shaped

incisions on the outer surface that seem to

indicate where the trenail holes should have been

drilled into the wood. Similar marks have been

found on the Hiddensee 12 vessel. Here, the

position of the trenails is indicated with an incised

triangle still visible after the trenail was inserted.3

Aft, on the outboard face of plank 100, an “X”-

shaped mark is visible, ca. 10cm long.

Saw marks are only faintly visible on the surface

whereas axe or adze marks are clearly visible on

the planks (Auer 2010, 12). Around the trenails,

chisel marks can be observed. Cracked charcoal is

evident on the inside of the carvel planks. This is

possibly a result of the deformation of the planks

5 Pers. Comm. Mike Belasus, LKD M-V.

Figure 2-1: Overview of the carvel layer. Auer 2009. SDU.

15

over an open fire, which was common practice in

the 16th and 17th century (Kühn 1999, 63).

2.2.5 Date and Provenience

Ten samples were taken from the timbers of FPL

77, of which nine could be analyzed. Samples from

all phases of the construction were taken. The

filler pieces were found to be inadequate for

analysis as too few tree rings were present. Only

filler piece 123, made out of oak, was collected for

analysis but could not be dated due to the low

number of tree rings (Daly 2009).

All the timbers are Quercus. Sp. Oak. The timbers

can be divided into two groups according to their

tree ring curves. The first group consists of four

clinker planks (102, 113, 120, 131) and two frames

(105, 109). Clinker plank 120 and clinker plank 131

possibly derive from the same tree. The timbers

are from a time period covering 258 years, 1320-

1577. The second group consists of one frame

(104) and the two carvel planks (100, 101) and

covers a period of 196 years, from 1394-1589

(Daly 2009, 1). On five of the samples, sapwood

was present. Taking all the material and allowing

for missing sapwood, the felling date has been

estimated to ca. AD 1590 (Daly 2009, 1). It was not

possible to differentiate the difference in felling

date from two groups and thereby the

construction phases of FPL 77. However, from the

dendrochronology and the observations made

during the recording of the vessel, a possible

construction sequence will here be reconstructed.

2.3 Interpretation

On the basis of the archaeological material and

the 1:10 model of FPL 77, the following section is

an attempt to interpret the wreck as a whole. The

interpretation of the wreck will be split in two

sections. First section, the construction of the

vessel, concludes and summarizes the

construction of FPL 77 from the data given above.

The second section, Dimensions, reviews the

interpretations of the cardboard model of the

vessel, made in scale 1:10.

2.3.1 Construction

The two groups of timbers from FPL 77 originate

from two different locations. According to the

provenience decided by the dendrochronological

analysis, group 1 originates from the region

around Øresund, which is Skåne or Zealand. This

group has the highest correlation with timbers

from a shipwreck found at Amager beach on the

east coast of Zealand. Group 2 has the highest

correlation with timbers from the areas around

Lübeck, Schwerin and Wismar. The difference

between the two groups is also visible from the

conversion of the carvel and the clinker planking.

The two carvel planks have been cut tangentially

from the tree whereas the four clinker planks

were split radially (Daly 2009, 2). The conversion

of plank 113 and frames 104, 105 and 109 could

not be determined (Daly 2009, 2).

From the information above, the following can be

assumed about FPL 77: It seems like FPL 77 was a

vessel that originally was built with a clinker hull

and with wood originating from the Øresund

region. The planks were initially fastened to each

other with iron nails until trenails finally fastened

the frames to the clinker planks. The clinker vessel

must have been in use for quite a time before it

was rebuilt. This could be proved because some of

the iron nails were replaced or blocked with

wooden plugs.

After an unknown time span the vessel was

completely rebuilt. In that connection softwood

filling pieces were nailed to the clinker planking.

16

The lower edges of the clinker planks were

beveled in order to make a smooth outer surface

for the carvel strakes. Inside the vessel, all ceiling

planks were removed and the protruding trenails

were cut flush with the frames. The

dendrochronological analysis showed that at least

one frame, 104, could have been placed in the

wreck in period 2. This is supported by the fact

that no trenails from the clinker phase were found

to penetrate the timber (Daly 2009, 2).

The last step of the rebuilding was the fastening of

the carvel planking. Around the edges, the carvel

planking was contemporarily nailed to the filling

pieces and the original clinker layer with iron nails.

The timbers were tangentially sawn from wood,

originating from the area around Lübeck. Before

the planks were inserted they were deformed

over an open fire to give them the right curvature.

New ceiling planks that were nailed to the inside

of the frames were inserted during this phase.

Finally, new holes were augered for trenails that

penetrated all three layers, the frames and the

ceiling planks. Trenails were then hammered in

and some were secured with wedges or central

plugs on the outside.

The final result of the rebuild was that the clinker

built vessel, FPL 77, was converted into a carvel

vessel where the original clinker planking and

framing were hidden between the outer carvel

layer and the inner ceiling planks (Auer 2010, 15).

2.3.2 Reconstruction

While the previous sections in detail described the

construction features of FPL 77, the wreck alone is

not sufficient to complete our understanding of

the vessel’s overall design and construction. What

is preserved of FPL 77 is only a small section of the

portside. The keel, the wale or any floor timbers

are not preserved and nor are the stern or the

stem post. Due to all the missing parts we end up

with having an incomplete picture of the vessel as

a whole. As such, a complete picture of FPL 77 will

never be achieved as the archaeological remains

of the vessel are too small to allow for this. We

will never know the exact extent of the vessel, the

curve of keel, the curvature of the hull and the

shape of the bottom. However, the 1:10 model of

FPL 77 will be an aid to get an idea of the vessel as

it originally was. When dealing with so sparse a

material the reconstruction becomes a process of

inference, selective choice and educated

guesswork.

Inferences to the correct construction features

can come from holes in the existing material from

non-preserved features such as ceiling planks.

Selective choices are made from known

information from comparable archaeological

sources, archival material and pictorial images.

While many different solutions to the construction

lie within these sources, choices must be made as

to the most appropriate fit for FPL 77. When

working with ship reconstructions, one works on a

hypothetical basis that gives the possibility to

work intellectually with various interpretations.

Together, these interpretations show possible

variations but does not necessarily give one the

true answer (Ravn et al. 2011).

This next section will deal with the reconstruction

and interpretation of FPL 77. As an aid to

determine the size and outline of FPL 77, the

reconstruction of the wreck will be used. The

purpose with the reconstruction is to rebuild the

curvature of the wreck-part, try to prolong the

side and thereby get the approximate size of the

vessel. The result of the reconstruction gives a

plausible interpretation of the building process of

the original vessel. “When the work of the

shipbuilder is reconstructed, either at full size or in

scale models, one is confronted with problems

similar to those that faced the original shipbuilder

17

during the original ship’s construction” (Lemée

2006, 102). As the material is too sparse to

reconstruct the entire vessel, only the preserved

material will be reconstructed. It is important to

stress that the dimensions and hull form, given

here, are purely interpretations and should not be

seen as a final result, but merely an attempt to

give an indication of the shape of FPL 77.

2.3.3 Interpretation of the model

Placement of the wreck part

The first step in the reconstruction of FPL 77 is to

find out where the preserved hull section had fit

into the vessel. Looking at the aft turning scarfs, it

had already been established that the section

derived from the portside of the vessel. It has,

however, not been decided where on the portside

it was from. Instantly, the curvature of the hull

and the preserved frames did not give any

indication of the placement of the section.

Looking further and more detailed at the

preserved frames it becomes clear, though, that

some frames (110, 111) have a slightly different

curvature than the rest of the frames. Frame 110

and 111 that are situated closest towards the bow

in the wreck, have strong downwards turning

curvatures. The rest of the frames have a more

upwards turning curvature. Unfortunately, frame

113 is fractured and can therefore not give much

information on the curvature of the last preserved

frame situated closest to the bow.

Comparing the downwards turning curvature of

the floor timbers and the imaginative first futtocks

of the contemporary Bredfjed wreck from

Denmark, it becomes clear that, with the

curvature of frame 110 and 111 from FPL 77, the

wreck-part must have derived from an area close

the keel. The preserved frames in the wreck could

therefore be the so-called first futtocks of the

vessel. With such a “turn” in the curvature of the

frames, the keel must have been near the

preserved section. As a guidance to outline how

high the wreck part should be placed from the

keel, a print-out of a floor timber from the Amager

beach wreck was attached to the keel. This frame

fits well with the downwards turning frame 110 of

FPL 77. Looking at frame 110 and 111 in

connection with the other upwards turning

frames, it can be presumed, that FPL 77 had an S-

formed hull where the hull ran smooth to the keel.

Again, looking at frame 110 and 111, their

curvatures indicate that the wreck section was not

far from the bow area. The strong change in the

curvature of these frames is seen in other vessels,

where the hull is beginning to shape in towards

the bow or stern sections.

Figure 2-2: The wreck-part of FPL 77 comes from an area close to the bow and keel. Grundvad 2010.

Figure 2-3: Frame 6F from the Bredfjed wreck. A frame with this shape would make a good fit with frame 110 and frame 111 from FPL 77. After Bill 1997.

18

Of the 11 preserved frames, 9 frame heads are

fractures or broken. Only three (107, 109, 111) are

intact. Looking at the curvature of the hull and the

suspected placement of the section, it seems

more than reasonable to presume, that at least

one other set of futtocks must have been attached

to the preserved ones. With the placement of the

wreck part close to the keel, it seems unlikely that

more than one set of extra futtocks had been

present in the vessel. Based on these observations

it is presumed, that FPL 77 was approximately 2m

high.

Size

Now that it has been determined approximately

where on the vessel the wrecks-section was from,

an estimated length of FPL 77 can be pursued.

Flexible fiber glass stringers were attached to the

model, following the curvature of the planks. By

prolonging the sides via the stringers, the sides

could be prolonged till they met at a natural point.

Obviously, this gives a wide range of possibilities

for a “natural” curvature. With the placement of

the wreck-part, close to the bow and relatively

close to the keel, and by following the natural

curve of the wreck and the prolonging stringer,

the length of the vessel seems to have been lying

within 10m to maximum 12m.

From the preliminary 1:10 reconstruction of the

wreck-part it can carefully be estimated that the

original FPL 77 was a 10-12m long vessel,

approximately 2 m high.

2.3.4 Contemporary Danish wrecks

One of the first steps when working with wrecks is

to look at similar shipwrecks. Construction

features from similar wrecks can help to

understand the wreck that one is working with.

Pictorial references and literature that describe

ships from the period are good sources as well.

Based on the reconstructed curvature and size of

FPL 77 and the provenience decided area from the

dendrochronological analysis, the aim of this

section is to look at other clinker vessels, similar in

size and provenience to the FPL 77. This will be

done in order to get an idea of how the original

clinker vessel, FPL 77, could have looked like.

The author is well aware that the timbers of FPL

77 could have been exported or reused

somewhere outside Denmark. However, it has, by

the author, seemed reasonable to take Denmark

as the place of origin for two reasons: The

dendrochronological analysis provenience decided

the timbers to Denmark and the highest

correlation with the FPL 77 timbers comes from

another wreck found in Denmark, namely the

Amager Beach wreck off Zealand’s east coast (Daly

2009, 2).

Figure 4: Approximately 8-10m is the estimated length of FPL 77 based on the reconstructed 1:10 model. Grundvad 2009.

19

Looking at contemporary and similar wrecks may,

by comparison, help to clarify if FPL 77 was built in

Denmark. The description of the similar clinker

vessels may also give a more total image of how

clinker vessel from the late 16th / early 17th

century could have looked like and thereby

possibly how FPL 77 would have appeared. The

Amager Beach wreck is one of the comparable

wrecks, the Bredfjed wreck, the Grøndsund wreck,

the Knuds Grund wreck and the Nationalbanken

wreck are the others. All were 16th century

shipwrecks. Only the Amager Beach wreck and the

Bredfjed wreck will be described in detail to get a

thorough description of two 16th century vessels.

Constructional features of the three other wrecks

will be reviewed in table 1.

The Amager beach wreck

The wreck was found in 2004 during construction

work at Amager beach in Denmark. It was quickly

recognized that the wreck was significant and it

was therefore excavated and recorded with

FaroArm (Ravn 2009, 9). The wreck is

dendrochronologically dated to 1560-1570 and

provenience decided to Øresund (Daly 2008). The

Amager beach wreck is thus approximately the

same age, has the same provenience as FPL 77

and was built as FPL 77 was originally built, with

clinker strakes.

The keel was not preserved in the wreck, but the

floor timbers indicate that the keel was most

probably T-shape (Ravn 2009, 10). In the most

forward part of the stem area, five floor timbers

are preserved. The most forward lying floor

timber has a relatively low deadrise that covers

four plank strakes in each side. Drift bolts in the

gripe indicate that a false keel, a “wear keel” or a

repair keel had been present on the ship. Which of

the three elements it was will never be known for

certain, but it is most likely that it was a “wear

keel” or a repair keel. It is possible that numerous

beachings of the vessel had worn down the keel in

such a degree that a repair was necessary. The

repair could have been total or partial (Ravn 2009,

10).

Of the stern, only 95.3cm and five contact faces

are preserved. The sternpost was tapped to the

keel, which is also a known feature from the

Bredfjed wreck. The stern and the keel were also

attached to each other with a knee. The knee was

attached to the keel with iron nails and trenails.

From the knee, an angle of 117 degrees could be

estimated between the keel and the stern post

(Ravn 2009, 111). The sternpost contains holes,

which indicates a tail rudder.

From the stem area the gripe and the cut-water

are preserved. The cut-water was attached to the

gripe with bolts. A cut-water increases the width

of the stem and thereby gives the vessel better

stability in the water.

Eleven floor timbers are preserved from the

wreck, of which only five are preserved in situ.

Four floor timbers indicate the presence of a

keelson, which measure 14cm sided and 8-10cm

moulded. The floor timbers have joggles to

accommodate for four plank strakes on both sides

towards the stern. The planks were attached to

the frames with trenails with a diameter of 2.5-

3cm. In average the distance between each frame

measured 69cm from middle to middle. Because

the keelson was not preserved, the position of the

mast(s) could only be estimated. However, based

on the placement of the main mast it has been

estimated that the vessel had two masts (Ravn

2009, 19). Amidships the floor timbers covered six

strakes and three strakes in the ends.

The planks of the wreck are all radially split and in

average they measure 24cm in width and 2.5cm in

thickness. They were held together by iron nails

20

with a head diameter of 2.5cm, all with clear

indications of roves.

Repairs are present on many of the planks and

consist of wooden patches that were sitting on the

outboard face of the vessel. In other places there

was evidence that entire strakes had been

replaced.

A preliminary reconstruction was made of the

Amager beach vessel. From this reconstruction, it

has been interpreted that the vessel was

approximately 11.5m long, 3.5m wide, 1.8m high.

The stem has been interpreted as being 2.5m

high. The remains of the keelson witness of a

vessel with at least one sail. The keelson covered

frame 4 to 7, where frame 6 is interpreted as the

master frame. Depending on the mast placement

at either frame six or seven, the vessel could have

had one or two sails (Ravn 2009, 19).

The Bredfjed wreck

The Bredfjed wreck was found during dredging for

a new established summer house area in Rødby

Fjord in the city Bredfjed. The preservation of the

wreck was good when it was first discovered, but

it had been damaged earlier in time, where a

trench was dug right through the wreck.

The hull of the vessel was measured and

disassembled in order to document and analyze

the ship thoroughly. It was found in an area where

ferry traffic to Northern Germany was lively and it

was built specifically to resist the difficult sailing

conditions on the southern coast of Lolland-

Falster.

A reconstruction with two masts that both carried

a single square sail was made of the vessel (Bill

1999, 178). The sea trials demonstrated great

sailing performance, as a so-called skude. From

the reconstruction, the wreck turned out to have

been a 12-13m long clinker-built vessel. It was

built from sawn planks and dendrochronological

dated to 1600 AD (Bill 1999, 177). The keel was

23cm high and 21cm wide and was preserved in

its full length of 901cm. The keel had a massive U-

shape section throughout its entire length and the

underside showed signs of wear. Along the

longitudinal length of the keel, rabbets were

found on both sides for the garboard strake. They

were uniform in angle and became steep close to

the stern.

The planking of the vessel is made entirely from

sawn oak boards. Their width varies from 18-

33cm. They have beveled edges in order to

provide the right angle to the following strake as

well as to form a place for the luting material that

is made from cattle hair and wool.

The original Bredfjed ship had sixteen frames,

which are all preserved. Each frame consists of a

floor timber in the bottom, made from a regular

piece of oak. The dimensions of the floor timbers

vary from 15-20cm sided and the moulded sides

increase gradually towards the keel. Most of the

floor timbers spanned over eight strakes in both

sides. In the aft, they were noticeably shorter,

which may have been due to the narrow cross-

section of the hull in this area. The floor timbers

are all joggled and fastened to the strakes with

one trenail, 3cm in diameter. The trenails are

made from juniper and were inserted from the

outside. The upper part of the frames is

constructed with futtocks and had been joined to

the floor timbers with long, flat scarfs. Apart from

one small fragment, remains of futtocks were only

preserved from the port side, and all of them had

lost their upper ends.

The keelson was not preserved, but the presence

of it was clear with a series of notches, cut in the

lower part of the floor timbers. Another feature

that was missing was the lack of longitudinal

21

Danish Clinker vessels from ca. 1600 compared to FPL 77

Amager Bredfjed The Grønsund- wreck

The Knuds Grund-wreck

The Nationalbank-wreck

FPL 77

Dendro-dating

1560-1570 1600 After 1530 1537 After 1580 1590

Form and size

Length x breadth x height

11.5m x 3.5m x 18m

12-13m long 17m long 5m wide

13m long 4.5m wide 1.6m high

8-10m long

Frames s/m 8-10cm / 14cm 15-20cm sided 9.5cm / 8-21cm 87-152cm long

Planks 24cm wide 2.5cm thick

18-33cm wide 21-28cm wide 2.5cm thick

20-25cm wide 2-3cm thick Up to 368cm long

Land 4-5cm - 5-8cm

Trenail head 2.5-3cm 3cm 3.1-3.4cm

Distance between frames

69cm - Down to 22cm 63.5cm in average Ca. 60cm in average

Ca 30cm

Iron nail head 2.4cm - 1.8cm

Concept Master frame - Possible sub master frame ?

waterproofing yes Cattle hair and wool

Animal hair

Conversion Clinker planks Radially split sawn Radially split sawn Radially split

Materials Clinker planks Oak Oak Oak

frames Oak Oak Oak

Trenails Oak Juniper Oak

Keel Shape T-shape U-shape -

Size - 9.01m long 23cm high 21cm wide

7.75m long 18cm high

-

Connection Simple scarf Flat, long scarfs Simple scarfs

Table 1: Information is taken from Ravn (2009)

22

reinforcement, in the shape of stringer. None

were preserved and there were no indications of

the stringers either. Only one indication of a

longitudinal reinforcement was indicated with five

spike holes on the inward surface of the futtocks

at the ninth strake.

The hull shape had four major characteristics: a

sharp keel, a fairly flat bottom with a rounded, but

clearly distinguishable chine, a full bow and a

slender stern. The sharp keel comprised of the

keel itself and the garboard strake.

The Bredfjed ship shows features from the

transition in the ship building methods that took

place around the beginning of the 17th century in

smaller vessels. It has a number of features that

are only known from large shipyard- built ships of

its time. The stem is shaped in the same way as

on lager vessels and it has a hole for a robe that

was used to drag the ship over sand-banks or up

on a flat coast. The planks of the ship were sawn

and shaped symmetrically, which is atypical to the

medieval building methods. From the recovery of

the wreck, it also became evident that the shape

of the garboard strakes on one side of the wreck is

an exact mirroring of those on the other side. The

planks must thus have been copied from each

other in order to rationalize the construction

process. The stem was tapped into the keel and

the hull form measured 13.21m in length and

4.67m in width (Bill 1999, 178).

2.3.5 Comparison of Danish wrecks

The description of the Amager beach wreck and

the Bredfjed wreck gives two ideas on how a 16th

century vessel from Denmark could have looked. If

the information on these two wrecks is compared

to the information we have from FPL 77 it would

be possible to get a general idea on how FPL 77

could have looked like or not looked like at all. It

could possibly also help to clarify if FPL 77 was

Danish or not. Beneath, a comparison between

FPL 77, the Amager beach wreck and the Bredfjed

wreck will be described.

The three wrecks had a large number of

similarities, but they also reflect different ways of

constructing a late 16th / early 17th century vessel.

The biggest similarity between two wrecks was

found between FPL 77 and the Amager beach

wreck. Timber group 1 from FPL 77 (four clinker

planks and two frames) matched best with a range

of chronologies that originated from the region

around Øresund, i.e. Skåne or Zealand. This group

of timbers achieved the highest correlation with

the timbers found in the Amager beach wreck.

Could this indicate that the two wrecks were built

in the same area in Øresund? Besides the

dendrochronological similarities and the

correlation between the timbers of FPL 77 and the

Amager beach wreck, the size of the different

components of all three vessels are very similar.

From table 1, and corresponding

dendrochronological evidence, it becomes clear

that the biggest comparison can be made

between the Amager beach wreck and the FPL 77.

The size of FPL 77 and the Amager beach wreck

range between 8-11m in length whereas the

Bredfjed wreck is slightly bigger with its 12-13m.

All three vessels are medium sized clinker vessels

made from oak and waterproofed with animal

hair. The sided side of the frames of the Amager

beach wreck and FPL 77 range from 8-10cm,

whereas the Bredfjed wreck outstands with 15-

20cm. The moulded side of the frames from the

Bredfjed wreck has not been declared. The size

between the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77,

however, corresponds approximately. The size of

the planks all range within the same size, but

again, slightly bigger in the Bredfjed wreck. The

23

size of the lands and the trenails are similar for all

three vessels.

The biggest difference between the Amager beach

wreck and FPL 77 is found in the spacing of the

frames. The spacing of the frames in the Amager

beach wreck was the double of that in the FPL 77.

The Amager beach wreck must thus have been in

need of a closer frame spacing as opposed the FPL

77. What the reason is for this, can only be

speculated at this point of time.

Another distinctive and remarkable feature that

separates the Bredfjed wreck from the two other

wrecks is the conversion of the clinker planks. The

planks of the Bredfjed wreck are sawn, whereas

those of the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77 are

radially split. The conversion of planks with saw

had many advantages: the quality of the wood did

not have to be as high as when splitting the

timbers and the waste of material was minimum

(Bill 2000, 10). The disadvantages of sawn planks

were that the planks lost strength and that poor

quality wood was often used, which meant that

the timbers split. This was exactly was happened

in the case in the Bredfjed wreck.

The Bredfjed wreck thus has much dissimilarity to

the Amager beach wreck and FPL 77 and is finally

separated with the sawn clinker planks. FPL 77

and the Amager beach wreck, on the other hand,

bear a huge number of similarities in size,

construction and material. It cannot be concluded

for certain, but based on the dendrochronological

and technical similarities between the Amager

beach wreck and FPL 77 it is tempting to assume

that FPL 77 was originally Danish built.

From written sources we know that the Danish

vessels from the renaissance were active in the

western part of the Baltic Sea. Old hanseatic cities,

such as Stettin, Greifswald, Rostock, Stralsund,

Wismar and Lübeck were especially well visited by

Danish vessels. From 1635-1648 all vessels going

in to Rostock were documented in “Warnemünder

Lizentsbücher”. Within 13 years, 16,118 vessels

were registered as sailing in and out of Rostock,

out of these; 12,721 came from Denmark, mostly

cities such as Nykøbing, Gedser, Stubbekøbing,

Loland, Nakskov, Nysted, Skelskør, Ærø, Helsingør

and Femern and Slesvig (Mortensøn 1995, 146-

147). Ship types that were often mentioned were

færge (ferry) skib (ship), “skude” and båd (boat).

Could the FPL 77 be one of these Danish vessels

that were involved in the lively trade with the

Hanseatic, and could it be that during one of its

journeys underwent a hull conversion? We will

never find out if this is the true story of FPL 77,

but it is seems like a possible one.

24

3. Comparable sites

3.1 Identifying similar wrecks

The fundamental question on how converted

clinker vessels were built in the 16th-17th century

can only be answered through an analysis and

comparison of similar wreck remains. Although a

variety of other sources exist on shipbuilding and

construction techniques from the 16th-17th

century, none could be found that mention clinker

conversion, and none of them could have

provided as much specific information on

construction techniques as the archaeological

remains. Since no written sources known to the

author are available on clinker conversion, the

archaeological evidence becomes critical in

understanding how and why converted clinker

vessels were constructed. The variety of

documented converted clinker vessels from the

16th-17th century that has been published to date,

cover a time period from approximately 1508 to

1658. The find area is stretching from the

northwest coast of the Baltic Sea all the way up to

Estonia.

A comparable study of converted clinker vessels

will help to illustrate similarities and difference in

the construction techniques that were used in the

converted clinker vessels. In addition, a

comparison will provide information about the

major trends in 16th and 17th century and it will

help illustrating the types of clinker vessels that

were converted to carvel vessels; were they big or

small vessels, merchant vessels or warships, local

vessels or global crafts? It should be noted,

though, that the archaeological material has

certain limitations. Each ship wreck is only an

isolated example and may therefore not be

typical. With few examples available, it is difficult

to make decisive and general statements about

the nature of converted clinker vessels. The

incomplete nature of the wrecks and the lack of

awareness of their importance also contribute to

forming only a partial dataset. Material from the

rigging and the upper parts of the vessels have not

survived on any of the vessels, which leaves the

archaeologists with only small fragments of the

vessels. Even with these limitations, the collection

of the data as a whole offers a ground for analysis.

Five wrecks of similar construction to FPL 77 have

been found along the Baltic coast from the 16th-

17th century. These wrecks are: The Debki wreck,

the Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck, the

Mönchgut wreck/ FPL 67 and the B&W 6 wreck. In

Figure 3-1: Converted clinker vessels from 1550-1850.

25

addition, three other converted clinker vessels

found outside the Baltic or from different

centuries will be reviewed. These are: The

Hiddensee 12 wreck from the Baltic (with a

controversial dating), the Nors Å wreck from Nors

River in Denmark dated to the 19th century and

the Strømsø Drammenselva wreck from Norway,

dated to the 17th-18th century. These wrecks all fall

out of the category either because of the dating or

because of the find site. However, all wrecks were

converted clinker vessels which had been changed

into carvel ships for various reasons. These nine

vessels are the only published vessels of this type,

which are known to the author.

3.2 Converted clinker vessels

In the following, a review of all the known

converted clinker vessels from the 16th-17th

century will be given. The data will later be used in

an attempt to find possible similar construction

features, distribution patterns, investigate if the

converted clinker vessels were of a special type

and to find out why they were built this way.

Converted clinker vessels that fall out of the group

will also be reviewed to help with the

interpretation on why they were built. Even

though they were not from the same period

and/or place, they will offer a better basis for the

interpretation of the 16th century converted

clinker vessels. The wrecks will be presented

sequentially with the oldest wrecks first regardless

of the origin.

3.2.1 The Maasilinn wreck

The Maasilinn wreck was discovered in the

summer of 1985 off the West Estonian

archipelago. The wreck was situated on the

bottom of the strait of Väile-Väin, in the outer

roads of the medieval castle Maasilinn, at 3m of

depth. The Castle was situated on the shores of a

strait that separates the islands Saaremaa and

Muhu. The strait served as a busy shipping route

during the medieval period, and the ancient fort

of Muhu was an important naval harbor in the 16th

century.

C14 and dendrochronological analysis date the

Maasilinn wreck to around 1550 and confirm that

the ship was built in Estonia (Mäss 1994, 189).

Besides the date of the wreck, the Maasilinn

wreck had some rather interesting features similar

to those of FPL 77. The ship was originally built in

the clinker construction technique and was later

covered with a thick and strong outer carvel layer.

However, no filler pieces were applied to the

clinker steps in order to level them out for the

carvel layer. No beveling of the steps was done

either.

A noteworthy feature of the vessel is the way the

planking was not fastened to the frames. Normally

the trenails pass through the planks on its centre

line. In the Maasilinn wreck, however, the

planking was secured to the frames by trenails

passing through the overlapping edges of the

planks at the step of the frame. This fastening

system seems to have been unknown in Western

Europe but rather typical in the Eastern Baltic

(Mäss 1994, 192) and is also seen in the FPL 77

wreck.

Mäss has not published any dimensions of timbers

from the Maasilinn wreck in this publications but

from his 1:20 drawing of the cross section of the

keel and the double planking the following

dimensions could be estimated: clinker planks:

2.5cm in thickness, 15cm in width; frames: 19cm

moulded; carvel planks: 4.1cm in thickness,

19.1cm in width.6

6 Measured from 1:20 drawing in Mäss 1994.

26

From the cross section of the stem and keel it was

evident that the stem and keel rabbets were

exceptionally wide and deep for the clinker layer

alone. The depth of the rabbet, however,

corresponded with the thickness of the double

planking. (Mäss 1994, 192-193)

Another significant feature of the Maasilinn wreck

is that the keel had no contact with the frames

over the vessel’s entire length. This means that a

deep water course was formed in the bottom of

the vessel, which was perfect for cargo such as

grain, salt and slaked lime. Slaked lime was in fact

found in the hull of the vessel (Mäss 1994, 190).

Preliminary reconstructions revealed the

Maasilinn wreck as being a single-masted sea-

going vessel built for trading in the Baltic. The

estimated dimensions of the wreck were: 16m in

length, 5.5m in width and with a depth amidships

of 3m (Mäss 1991, 317).

3.2.2 The Debki wreck

Following a big storm in 2002 a large fragment of

a vessel was washed ashore near the village of

Debki in Estonia. It was quickly realized that the

fragment was from the bow-end of a double

planked vessels and that the piece derived from

the bottom. The date of the vessel was difficult to

determine exactly, as the dendrochronological

samples did not succeed in determining the age of

the wreck. The highest similarity to the chronology

came from Hamburg, 1508-1653 (Ossowski 2006,

262).

The wreck fragment measured 9.2m in length and

3.5m in width. The inner layer of planking

consisted of clinker strakes with a thickness of 3-

3.5cm and a max width of 36cm. The inner layer

was fitted and fastened using the shell-first

method. In the seams of the clinker layer, caulking

material made out of animal hair was inserted.

The land of the clinker planks measured 4cm in

width and the plank scarfs measured 13cm in

length. The planks were fastened with nails and

the strakes were fastened with iron rivets and

rectangular roves, spaced 14-15cm apart. After

the planks were fastened, some or all of the

frames must have been fastened to the planks

with nails as well (Ossowski 2006, 261).

On top of the clinker planks, a leveling layer was

fitted to smoothen out the clinker steps. Then a

pine carvel layer was fastened with oak trenails.

The carvel layer was caulked with moss in

between the seams. The carvel planks measured

6cm in thickness and 17-22cm in width.

Figure 3-2: The bottom of the Maasilinn wreck. Note the slacked lime and that the floor timbers, which are not in contact with the keel. After Mäss 1994.

Figure 3-3: Double layer of the Debki wreck. After Ossowski 2006.

27

One of the characteristic features of the Debki

wreck was the frame elements. They were of

great variability in scantling and length and they

were closely spaced to one another. From

evidence of wear, it was clear that some of the

frames were of secondary use. The carvel strakes

were fastened to the frames by trenails 34mm in

diameter, and by metal bolts. The ceiling planks

were nailed directly to the floor timbers. They

measured 4.5cm in thickness and 16cm in width.

After this process, all elements were joined

together with wooden trenails going through all

phases (Ossowski 2006, 261).

As the tree-ring curve for the Debki wreck did not

match any curves from other Polish wrecks, it has

been assumed that the vessel was built from raw

materials from other areas, possibly the Northern

Baltic. In one case, however, the test did show

that the clinker planks and the carvel planks were

of same age (Ossowski 2006, 262).

3.2.3 The W-36 wreck

The W-36 wreck was discovered in 2001 by divers

approximately 250m from the shore in Gdynia-

Orlowo, Poland. The wreck was situated at a

depth of 2.7m and appeared under the water as a

mound of bricks, which was the vessel’s main

cargo. After the bricks had been removed, the hull

structure showed that the wreck was a double-

planked vessel, originally built with clinker planks.

According to the dendrochronological results the

construction of the vessel took place after 1596.

The 3cm thick clinker planks were made of oak

and measured 3.5-3.7m in length and 32-35cm in

width. The lands were 4-5cm wide and had coves

for caulking material on the inner surface. The

scarfs were connected with 5 nails, 30cm long and

driven in a vertical line. The ship was built in the

shell-first method and therefore, the frames were

fastened to the planks by means of oak trenail,

2.7cm in diameter.

A 5.3m long fragment of the keel was recovered

from the wreck. It was T-shaped, 18cm high and

with a max width of 21cm. The after-end was

formed by a 28cm long, beveled, flat scarf for the

sternpost (Ossowski 2006, 260).

After an unknown period, pine filling pieces,

triangular in cross section, were inserted and

fastened with small metal nails. This was done in

order to smooth out the steps from the clinker

layer. A sawn pine carvel layer was then nailed to

the hull. The carvel planks were 3cm thick, 23-

31cm wide and fastened at the edges by nails

driven in, every 35cm. The planks were also

fastened to the floor timbers with oak trenails

that were dotted on the outside and wedges on

the inside (Ossowski 2006, 260).

Based on the structural elements of the vessel,

the size of the vessel has been estimated to have

been 15-18m long. It is thus likely that W-36 was

the remains of a small vessel used in coastal or

local waters in the Bay of Gdansk (Ossowski 2006,

260). The dendrochronological report supports

this assumption, as the used timbers have been

cut in the area of Vistula Bay. This area contained

numerous brickyards from the beginning of the

16th century (Ossowski 2006, 260).

Figure 3-4: Preserved parts of the W-36. After Ossowski 2006.

28

3.2.4 The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck

A converted clinker vessel was found in Strømsø in

Norway in 2007 during the construction of a pipe

ditch. An archaeological survey quickly made it

clear that the wreck was over 100 years old and

thereby protected by law. All the timbers that

were recovered were found altered from what

seemed to be a very solid vessel. Overall, eight

floor timbers, five futtocks and parts of nine plank

strakes were found. The vessel had originally been

built with a clinker hull, but later it was reinforced

with an outer carvel layer (in Norwegian called

“kravellering”) (Nymoen 2007, 5).

The carvel layer was fastened to the hull by means

of trenails, 4.5-5cm in diameter. A nail hole found

on the inside face of a futtock indicated that the

vessel had ceiling planks. The floor timbers and

the futtocks were heavily built and most likely

made from pine. In average, the width of the

futtocks measured 23cm and the width of the

strakes ranged from 24-29cm.

A cobber bolt, 4.5cm in diameter was found in one

of the floor timbers. The bolt fastened the floor

timber to the keel and could have been inserted

as a repair many years after the vessel was

originally built. Cobber bolts of this type were not

introduced in the Norwegian ship building

tradition before the second half of the 18th

century. The other futtocks did not have any other

fastenings besides treenails. The rest of the

building technique in the vessel, with the heavily

constructed clinker planking, would date the

wreck to the 17th century.

The construction features, the double planking

and the reinforcement with the cobber bolt bear

witness of a vessel that was used for a long

period. It is most likely that the vessel is no older

than the 18th century (Nymoen 2007, 8). Due to

the lack of funding, the dendrochronological

samples were unfortunately not analyzed.

3.2.5 The B&W 6 wreck

The B&W 6 wreck was found among seven other

vessels discovered in Grønnegaard Harbor in

Christianhavn (Copenhagen, Denmark). The wreck

was heavily damaged and only a few timbers were

preserved, none of which were complete. The

surviving timbers consisted of a part of a stem, a

portion of the keel, two damaged frames and a

few fragmented oak planks (Lemée 2006, 268).

The keel was an oak timber, T-shaped in profile,

2.7m long, 36cm sided and 15cm moulded. One

end had a scarf preserved, whereas the other end

was broken. The heel had a rebate for the

garboard strakes preserved on each side, 7cm

wide, 3.2cm high at the outer edge and 4.5cm

thick in the bottom of the rabbet.

The stem had a trapezoidal cross-section and was

heavily damaged. The top of the stem was broken

off but the lower end had a preserved diagonal

vertical scarf. As with the keel, the starboard side

of the stem had traces after two different rabbets,

2.5cm and 3.0cm deep. The inner rabbet line had

steps to accommodate for six clinker planks that

Figure 3-5: Recovery of the Strømsø Drammenselva wreck. After Nymoen 2007.

29

were fastened with iron nails. The outer line also

had steps, however, not as marked as those on

the inner rabbet. The two different rabbets

indicate that the B&W 6 wreck was a double

planked vessel that was originally built with a

clinker hull and then later covered with a new

outer carvel layer. Unfortunately, it was not

possible to take dendrochronological samples

from the poorly preserved wreck, but from the

stratigraphical layers of the find context, it has

been assumed that the date of the vessel range

between the 17th and the 18th century (Lemée

2006, 270).

3.2.6 Wreck Mönchgut, Ostsee VI, FPL

67

FPL 67, or the Wreck Mönchgut 67, was found in

connection with the relocation of a pipeline that

was to run through the bay of Greifswald to

Lubmin. The construction of the pipeline was

planned to be running through a Swedish ship

barrier from 1715, which consisted of 16 ships.

The barrier is one of the most important

archaeological monuments in the Baltic region

and fortunately, only few ships were affected by

the pipeline project. One of the few affected

wrecks was wreck 67 (Heinze 2010, 3). In the

autumn/winter 2008, a preliminary investigation

was made on the site, which resulted in a salvage

and full documentation of the FPL 67.

A total of 11 frames, 30 planks and a number of

small timbers were recovered from the wreck.

Most of the planks and frames were in a good

state of preservation. The vessel was built entirely

of oak and was originally built as a clinker vessel

(Heinze 2010, 14).

The clinker planks were aligned with wooden

trenails with a head diameter of 3-3.5cm. The

dimensions of the clinker planks varied and only

a few planks were preserved to their full length.

The longest fully preserved plank measured

5.35m in length. The width of the planks varied

from 15-36cm and the thickness ranged from

1cm to 3.5cm. The many square holes and the

concretions in the wood indicate that iron nails

were used to fasten the other carvel planks as

well. Some of the trenails were wedged and

some of the nail holes were plugged with

wooden plugs (Heinze 2010, 13).

Figure 3-6: The stem timber of B&W 6 showing two rabbets: An inner line that is stepped to accommodate for clinker strakes and an outer and straighter line for the outer carvel layer. After Lemée 2006.

30

Caulking and tar were used between the clinker

planks to waterproof the vessel. The caulking was

made from animal hair and was well preserved on

the wreck.

After an unknown period, filler pieces were

applied to the clinker

hull and an outer

carvel layer was

attached to the

construction (Heinze

2010, 14). From the

carvel layer, nine

planks were

recovered. Their

width varied from 22-

42cm and the

thickness ranged from

3.5-5cm. The outer

planking of the hull

was thus much

stronger than the

inner clinker layer

(Heinze 2010, 14).

The frames, of which a total number of 11 units

were present, had sided sides ranging from 10.6-

29.2cm and moulded side ranging from 10.4-

22.2cm.

It is difficult to get the original curvature of the

vessel as the heavy ballast stones, which were

found in the wreck, had distorted the planks.

Judging by the inboard planking of the hull, it has

been presumed that the wreck was a part of the

port side of a vessel. The floor timbers indicate

that the wreck was the bottom-part of a flat-

bottomed vessel (Heinze 2010, 17).

As no sapwood was preserved on any of the

timber the dendrochronological samples could

only date the wreck to some point after 1654. The

provenience was not decided exactly but it could

be determined, that the wood did not originate

from the Irish, Scandinavian or Polish region. It is

more likely that the timbers originated from the

Baltic coast of Schleswig-Holstein and

Mecklenburg-Western Pomeranian area (Heinze

2010, 21).

3.2.7 The Hiddensee 12 wreck

The Hiddensee 12 wreck was recovered in 1997

off the Hiddensee Island (Ostsee VI, Hiddensee,

find Site 12) in Mecklenburg / Western

Pomerania. What was preserved was a 15.9m long

and 3.6m wide clinker built wreck-piece from the

portside of a vessel (Förster 2009, 292). The wreck

piece derived from the ship’s center to the

beginning of the stern, and from the second plank

strake near the keel to the fifteenth strake near

the bilge. Unlike the FPL 77 wreck, this vessel was

built entirely out of light brown pine wood. No

parts of the stem or stern were found.

In accordance with the clinker conversion

technique, the hull fragment comprised of 3 layers

of planking. The vessel was originally built in the

clinker construction technique where the seams

between the planks were caulked with animal hair

soaked in pitch. Later, the clinker layer was

leveled by means of battens with triangular cross

sections and on top of this layer a new flushed

carvel layer, was attached (Förster 2009, 292).

These seams between the carvel strakes were

caulked with tree bast. The dendrochronological

analysis revealed that the ship was built in 1378

and underwent a thorough repair in 1393 where

the filler pieces and the carvel layer were attached

(Förster 2009, 292).

Even though the keel and the stern were not

preserved, an attempt to reconstruct the vessel

was made. This reconstruction of the Hiddensee

Figure 3-7: Wreck part from the Mönchgut 67 wreck. After Heinze 2010.

31

12 wreck worked as a basis for the theoretical

calculations. According to these calculations, the

vessel’s length at the waterline was approximately

22m and the full length measured 28m. In the

area of the amidships section, the overall width

amounted to 7m, resulting in a length-width ratio

of 3.14:1. A vessel of this size would, according to

Förster, have possessed some 26 plank strakes on

each side and 65 ribs (Förster 2009, 293). The ribs

and the surviving plank strakes indicate that the

keel was square with a cross-section measuring

45cm by 50cm. The height of the ship, in the area

of the midsection, has been calculated to ca. 3.3m

and the draught to approximately 1.8-2.5m. Based

on the outlines of the ribs, it has been assumed

that the bottom of the ship was wide and flat with

a steep bilge forming the transition to the upper

part of the ship (Förster 2009, 154-155).

The 1:10 reconstruction of the Hiddensee 12

wreck gave an indication of the building

technology and sequence of the vessel. The

reconstruction showed that the garboard strakes

were fastened with iron nails to the keel. The

angle from the keel to the garboard strake had

been fairly steep. The frames furthest towards the

stem and stern had been made out of massive

natural V-formed logs in order to stabilize the

construction. The presence and nature of a

keelson indicate that the mast was situated in the

first third towards the stem. The height of the

mast had been between 25m-28m long (Förster

2009, 154).

The clinker planks of the wreck measured

between 3.3-8m in length, where 5.63m was the

average. The width of the planks ranged from

25cm to 35cm with an average of 30.91cm. The

thickness of the planks was between 8cm closest

to the keel and 4.5cm closest to the wale. The

overlap of the clinker planks, the land, ranged

from 5-7cm. The planks were aligned with iron

nails at a distance of 15- 20cm apart. The nails had

rectangular heads measuring 1.5cm x 2cm. The

shafts of the iron nails were rectangular in cross

section and measured 30 x 21 x 2.5cm (Förster

2009, 144-145).

After a period of approximately 16 years, the

vessel underwent a large-scale refurbishment,

where the outer carvel layer was attached to the

original clinker layer. The clinker steps were

smoothed out by filler pieces. This renovation of

the vessel was originally dated to around 1394

(Förster 2009, 293). Overall, 26 filler pieces were

preserved in the wreck section and had an

average length of 3.8m. The filler pieces were

attached with a distance of 50-70cm apart and

nailed to the hull with a single iron nail. When the

filler pieces were attached and the clinker steps

smoothened, the carvel planks were inserted. 25

carvel planks were preserved in the Hiddensee 12

wreck whereof 13 planks were complete. The

length of the planks differed from 3.54-7m, with

an average length of 5.54m. The planks were

between 20cm-25cm wide, with an average width

of 22.6cm. The thickness of the planks measured

approximately 5cm (Förster 2009, 148-150).

During the excavation of the Hiddensee 12 wreck,

two ceiling planks were discovered in the wreck.

They measured 4.4m in length, 25cm in width and

5cm in thickness. Impressions in the frames

indicated that the ceiling planks had been

attached with iron nails (Förster 2009, 145-146).

Throughout the recovery of the wreck, 28 frame

parts were discovered. All the preserved frames

were floor timbers. From the tool marks on the

Figure 3-8: The Hiddensee 12 wreck as it was found in situ. After Förster 2009.

32

frames it was evident that the timbers used for

the frames were converted with axe or adze.

Amidships, the frames were spaced 70cm apart

and down to 35cm by the ends; (Förster 2009,

146). The preserved frames measured between

21-30cm on the sided side and approximately 17-

26cm on the moulded side. The frames were

fastened to the clinker planks with trenails

measuring 3-3.2cm in diameter.

One visible repair was present in the wreck which

was a partial replacement of a floor timber

(Förster 2009, 148). This shows that the clinker

vessel was in use throughout a longer period and

was somewhat worn.

The original dendrochronological analysis showed

that the wood from the ship was cut during the

winter of 1378, around the western coast of the

Baltic Sea. A more accurate provenience cannot

be given. However, according to Förster, it is likely

that the wood originates from the area around

Mecklenburg, as this area is rich on pine (Förster

2009, 143-149).

The original date of the Hiddensee 12 wreck was

dated to the 14th century in 2000 (Förster 2009).

New dendrochronological analysis in 2010,

however, showed that the timbers could not be

dated with the existing chronologies. According to

the current researcher, Mike Belasus, the

technical features of the construction and the

typological dating of the finds suggest an early

modern context of the vessel, possibly the 18th or

19th century.7

3.2.8 The Nors Å wreck

The date of the Nors Å wreck is falls somewhere

between the 17th century and the 19th century

(Gøthche 1985, 304). If it was built in the 17th

century it would be very similar in date to the FPL

77, whereas if it is dated to the 19th century there

is a 200 years period between the two wrecks.

Even if the vessel is from a later period it can still

throw light upon the conversions of clinker

vessels.

Over the years, several wrecks have turned up

along the north and west coast of Jutland in

Denmark. Some of these vessels are the so-called

sand vessels. The sand vessels were simple crafts,

built particularly for the trade between Denmark

and Norway that took place in the 18th-19th

century (Gøthche 1985, 299). They got their name

because of the way they landed directly on the

sandy shores when they were beached. They were

clinker-built vessels built on a keel and with soft

lines. The vessels did not contain iron nails, but

only trenails, which gave the vessels their

flexibility. The length of the vessels ranged from

ca. 12-15m and from ca. 3.5-4m in width. Most of

the vessels only carried one mast (Gøthche 1985,

302).

Only a small number of sand vessels have been

found to date and only one wreck is interesting,

regarding the converted clinker vessels. The

respective wreck is called the “Nors Å” wreck and

was found in 1984 near Klitmøller, Denmark. This

vessel was clinker-built with juniper treenails,

7 Pers. com. Belasus 23.8 2010.

Figure 3-9: Double layer of the Hiddensee 12 wreck. Grundvad 2010.

33

both in the planks and in the frames. The oak

planking had butt-end joints and the frames were

made out of pine. The presence of the so-called

factory-made Norwegian spikes connected the

wreck to the beginning of the 20th century

(Gøthche 1985, 304). However, these spikes were

not a part of the original construction but derived

from newer carvel layer that was nailed directly

onto the outside of the clinker planking (Gøthche

1985, 304). No leveling wedges were present

between the layers.

In Scandinavia this specific way of construction is

described as “putting the ship into an envelope”

i.e., strengthening the hull by putting a layer of

carvel planking on top of the original clinker sides

(Gøthche 1985, 304).

3.3. Sub conclusion

At first sight, the FPL 77 seemed to be a unique

find with no comparable material. After some

investigation, it turned out that a small number of

somewhat similar wrecks have been discovered,

which were mainly centered to Baltic area.

Unfortunately, for many of the wrecks, only few

details could be recorded due to the bad

preservation e.g. the B&W 6, W-36 and Debki.

Other wrecks were not considered significant

enough to make thorough recording and were

therefore neglected after the report was written

e.g. Strømsø Drammenselva.

Even though FPL 77 is not significant in the way

that it is not wholly unique, it is, together with FPL

67 and the Mönchgut 67, the best documented

converted clinker vessel from the 16th century.

Based on the brief synopsis given about the

converted clinker vessels here, next chapter will

be an analysis of different aspects of these

vessels.

Figure 3-10: A two masted skude. Could any of the clinker converted vessels have looked like this? After Mortensøn 1995.

34

4 Discussion

This chapter aims to discuss some of the themes

that have emerged from the review of the

converted clinker vessels. As mentioned above,

only few converted clinker vessels have been

discovered around the world. Not many

publications have been made and only limited

interpretations of the specific ships building

method have been published.

Based on the publications, the recorded material

from FPL 77, as well as the synopsis of the

comparable sites from chapter 3, this chapter

aims to highlight and discuss contradiction in the

interpretations of the converted clinker vessels.

The themes to be examined here are:

1) Where and when do the converted clinker

vessels appear? Was there a certain period of time

and a certain area, where the converted clinker

vessels appeared, or was it an international

recognized construction method?

2) How were the vessels built? Was there a certain

technique and building method that was used for

the converted clinker vessels or did it differ from

vessel to vessel?

3) What type of vessel were the converted clinker

vessels? Could all types of vessels, big as small and

regardless of the origin be converted, or was it

only a certain type of vessel?

4) And the last but not the least: Why were these

vessels converted from clinker to carvel? What

was the purpose of applying a new layer on top of

another, either as a part of the original design or

as a later addition to the hull?

Some discussions are based on different authors

opinions on the various subjects and others are

discussions and interpretations that the present

author would like to take up.

4.1 Where and when

Hull repairs using double planking of the bottom

have been used in many hulls around the world,

but with bigger or smaller modifications to the

converted clinker vessels (Ossowski 2006, 263).

Double planking is known in general from,

amongst others, the Double Dutch solution

(Maarleveld 1994) and sheathing of hulls using a

thick carvel layer on top of an inner and thinner

carvel layer (Lemée 2006, 227). Double planked

vessels with an inner clinker hull and an outer

carvel layer is not that common, however, and the

earliest recoded vessel of this kind is the Maasilinn

wreck from ca. 1550. This following section will

review the place and origin of all known converted

clinker vessels to see if there are any periods and

places where these vessels were more exposed

than others.

Figure 4-1: Converted clinker vessels distributed by year. Grundvad 2010.

35

Figure 4-2: Location of nine converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010 on the basis of a map prepared by Mysid , Wikimedia Common.

36

4.1.1 The 14th Century

For many years, it was believed that the

Hiddensee 12 wreck was a 14th century cog. This

belief was based on the original

dendrochronological dating of the ship timbers.

However, as mentioned earlier, new

dendrochronological analysis made by Mike

Belasus in 2010 showed that the timbers could not

be dated with the existing chronologies. According

to Belasus the technical features of the

construction and the typological dating of the

finds suggests an early modern context for the

vessel, possibly the 18th or 19th century. When

this paper was started, the wreck was categorized

as the absolute youngest converted clinker vessel

according to the old dates. Now, with the new

investigations and interpretations of the wreck it

is more likely that the Hiddensee 12 wreck should

be categorize as one of the youngest converted

clinker vessels.

4.1.2 The 16th Century

No converted clinker vessels have been found

from the 15th century. In the Baltic area, the lack

of carvel constructed vessels is obvious as the

carvel technique was only introduced in the

second half of this century. No vessels, known to

the author, have been found outside the Baltic

area from this period either.

The 16th century, on the other hand, seems to

have been one of the main periods for clinker

conversion. Of the nine known vessels, four are

specifically dated to this period. The respective

wrecks are: Debki from Poland (1508- 1653),

Maasilinn from Estonia (1550), FPL 77 from

Germany (1590) and the W-36 from Poland

(1596). All wrecks were found in the Baltic area,

mainly on the North-eastern coast of Germany.

Only the Maasilinn wreck falls out of this group

with its find site on the Estonian west coast.

4.1.3 The 17th Century

The 17th century, in a continuously line from the

16th century, seems to have been the main period

for converting clinker vessels. Unfortunately, the

dates of the wrecks categorized under this century

are poor and sometimes with a deviation of up to

a century. Two of the wrecks could therefore also

be from the 18th century (B&W 6 and Strømsø

Drammenselva).

Wreck Mönchgut 67 is one of three converted

clinker vessels dated to the 17th century. The

wreck was found in the Baltic and was

dendrochronologically dated to some point after

1660.

The Strømsø Drammenselva wreck was found in

Norway and was dated to a period that falls

between the 17th and 18th century. The

dendrochronological analyses have not yet been

Figure 4-3: 44.45 % of the converted clinker vessels are from the 16th century. Grundvad 2010.

Figure 4-4: 33.33 % of the converted clinker vessels are from the 17th century. Grundvad 2010.

37

conducted and the construction features of the

wreck give a wide range of date possibilities. Some

construction features seem to lead the date to the

17th century whereas the big cobber bolt indicates

that the wreck could not be any older than the

18th century. Unfortunately, a precise date will not

be possible before the dendrochronological

samples will been analyzed. However, chances are

that the cobber bolt derives from a later period,

e.g., when the vessel was rebuilt, and therefore

the date of the wreck has here been categorized

under the 17th century.

The date of the B&W 6 wreck expands over

several years as well. No dendrochronological

samples were taken of the timbers due to the bad

condition of the wreck. The wreck has been dated

according to the stratigraphy in which it was

found. The wreck was found on a glot that had

been reclaimed during the building of an 18th

century extension of a wharf. Here, the wreck was

most probably used to stabilize the ground. The

remains of this wharf were dendro- dated to 1689

and 1743 which gave a terminus post quem of the

wreck to before the 18th century. Another

interpretation is that the wreck was abandoned

next to the wharf between 1639 and 1745, when

the plot was reclaimed (Lemée 2006, 270).

4.1.4 The 18th Century

With the new dendro-dates made in 2010

combined with the construction features, it

became clear that the Hiddensee 12 wreck more

likely belonged to the 17th or 18th century, rather

than the 14th century. This new possible date

brings the wreck from being the oldest converted

clinker vessel to being one of the youngest and

possibly the only one from the 18th century. It

must, however be noted that this date is only

based on construction features and finds

connected to the wreck. The date has been only

been estimated to fall somewhere between the

17th and the 18th century.

As with the other late converted carvel vessels

(Strømsø Drammenselva and the B&W 6 wreck)

the Hiddensee 12 wreck is poorly dated and might

as well be from the 17th century instead of the 18th

century. We will not know the true answer to the

dates of these vessels before new dendro-samples

will be taken and analyzed.

4.1.5 The 19th Century

Figure 4-6: Figure 4-5: 11.1 % (1) of the converted clinker vessels is from the 19th century. Grundvad 2010.

Only one wreck derives from the 19th century and

that is the Nors Å wreck. This vessel has been

dated to the 17th to the 19th century, which is an

extensive and highly inaccurate margin for a date.

Based on historical sources, however, the wreck is

believed to have originated from a period after

1850.8 The wreck was found in a small river

stream, called Nors Å, which leads out to the

North Sea. This wreck is thus one of the few

8 Pers. Comm. Morten Gøthche 2.11.2009

Figure 4-5: 11.1 % (1) of the converted clinker vessels is from the 18th century. Grundvad 2010.

38

converted clinker vessels found outside the Baltic

region.

Summary

From the review above, it seems that the

converted clinker vessels are clustered around

two periods: period 1 from ca. 1550-1650 and

period 2, from the end of the 18th century to the

end of the 19th century.

As mentioned above, the Hiddensee 12 wreck was

originally believed to be the youngest converted

clinker vessel but with the new investigations, the

starting period of this construction technique has

moved no less than two centuries, namely to the

16th century.

The age of the converted clinker vessels seems to

have begun at the end of the 16th century and had

its heyday within a 100 year period, from ca.

1550-1650, where 78% of the wrecks have been

dated to. It is interesting that the clinker

conversion took place in exactly this period in the

Baltic, where 55% of the wrecks from period 1

were found. The reason for this will be assessed

later.

4.2 How

Overall, nine converted clinker vessels have been

found around the world. Seven out of these

vessels date to a period that falls between the

middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th

century. The two wrecks that fall out of this

category, the Nors Å wrecks and the Hiddensee 12

wreck (whether it is from the 14th or the 19th

century) are 200-300 years off the period dealt

with here. A comparison of the construction

technique of the group 2-wrecks to the group 1-

wrecks will not necessarily help to clarify how the

16th century converted vessels were built. It will

however help clarifying whether or not the

construction of converted clinker vessels could

only be done in one way. All wrecks will therefore

be included here.

4.2.1 Design and construction

The design of any kind of vessel gives an indication

of the methods and the technology used at a

given point of time. It also gives a clue to how the

technology and methods evolved and changed in

ship building construction. The designs can be

grouped and compared in different ways and

regardless of date and origin. Here the

constructional analysis will be based on the size of

the vessels and size and design of the different

components of the wrecks.

Vessel size

Only the size of five wrecks has been estimated

due to the bad preservation of the wreck parts.

From the estimated sizes, which vary between

approximately 8-18m, it becomes evident that at

least the Maasilinn wreck, FPL 77, W-36 and the

Nors Å wreck can be grouped as small to

medium sized vessels. The Hiddense 12 wreck

stands out with an estimated length of 28m and

a width of 7m.

That the vessels mostly were smaller to medium

sized is no surprise as clinker hulls normally were

too fragile for larger ships. The much later and

much bigger clinker built vessel, the Hiddensee

12 wreck, was built in a very different manner to

the 16th and 17th century vessels and the clinker

strakes may have worked better on this very flat

and wide vessel.

The clinker planks

The length of the clinker planks have not been

taken into consideration in this review as most

39

Figure 4-7: Table showing the construction features of nine different converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010.

40

of them were fragmented, and thereby not

worth the comparison.

The thickness of the planks is given for six of the

wrecks and is in average 3.3cm. Without the

exceptionally thick planks of the Hiddensee 12

wreck (4.5-8cm) the average is 2.6cm. Leaving

out the Hiddensee 12 wreck, there seems to be a

standardized system in the 16th century for the

size of clinker planks that ranged from ca. 1-

3.5cm.

In his publication on the Maasilinn wreck, Vello

Mäss (1994) refers to the clinker planks of the

wreck as particularly thin. He explains that the

outer carvel planks were necessary for the

stability of the hull because the clinker planks

were too tiny to keep the hull steady. Comparing

the clinker planks of the Maasilinn wreck to the

clinker planks of the other vessels it becomes

evident that the clinker planks of the Maasilinn

wreck not are particularly thin. The Maasilinn

planks are in some instances thicker than the

planks from FPL 77 and the Mönchgut 67 wreck.

Another aspect of the clinker planks is the

connection between two clinker planks. Three of

the wrecks that are dated to period 1 bear

simple vertical scarfs that vary from 13-30cm in

length. This way of connecting two planks is the

most used in clinker built hulls as scarfing makes

up a strong joint. The Hiddensee 12 wreck and

the Nors Å from period 2 both have butt joint.

Butt joints are also sometimes called carvel

joints (Steffy 2006, 268) as they were mainly

used on carvel vessels where the strength of the

frames, and not the planks, was important. Thus,

there seem to be a clear distinction between the

two periods given above. The clinker planks in

period 1 are connected with a simple vertical

scarf joint whereas in period 2 they are

connected with a butt joint. In fact, the butt joint

of the Hiddensee 12 is one of the construction

features that speak against the original dating to

the 14th century, one of the things that made

Mike Belasus apprehensive of this date.

Frames

The moulded and the sided dimensions of the

frames vary individually and between the

different wrecks. Between the wrecks, the

biggest moulded dimensions range between

15cm (in FPL 77) to 30cm (in the Hiddensee 12

wreck). The biggest variation in moulded and

sided dimensions is from the Mönchgut 67

wreck.

In her report, Heinze (2010) correctly points out

that the frames of the Mönchgut 67 vary

significantly in size and sometimes with

variations of up to 20cm sided. Equally, the

moulded dimensions of the frames from the

Hiddensee 12 wreck range from 21-30cm and

therefore also make up a significant size

difference. Why the variation in size is

considerably bigger in these wrecks can only be

speculated. It can, however, be deduced that the

16-17th century vessels cannot be grouped

together based on the size variation of the

frames. The explanation may be found

somewhere else such as in the tree trunks

available during the construction of the wrecks,

or it could be a matter of reuse.

Carvel planks

The size of the carvel planks varies in width from

19cm (in the Maasilinn wreck) to 48cm (in FPL

77). The thickness of the planks varies in general

from 3-6cm where the thinnest is from W-36

and the thickest from the Debki wreck. With this

vast variation, it seems like there were rules of

size for the carvel planks used for the

conversion. Regardless of the dating and

provenience there is no pattern to the size of

41

carvel planks. It must therefore be presumed

that the design of the carvel planks was decided

individually by the boat builder.

Keels and stems

The keel of any vessel reveals fine information

about the construction but unfortunately only

four keels from converted clinker vessels have

been recovered. Out of these four, only the

dimensions of two have been published. Both

the keels of W-36 and B&W 6 are described as T-

shaped. The keels of the wrecks were too

damaged for further analysis but for B&W 6 the

preservation of the stem was one of the crucial

factors for the interpretation of the wreck.

The B&W 6 stem was the timber that revealed

the vessel as being a converted clinker vessel. On

the starboard side of the timber, two different

rabbets were found. The inner rabbet was

clearly marked to accommodate for four clinker

planks. The outer rabbet had steps too, though

not as marked as those belonging to the inner

rabbet.

Summary

Based on the timber design of the converted

clinker vessels, the constructional part of the

wrecks can be grouped into two. 1) The early

converted clinker vessels from the 16-17th century

and 2) The Nors Å wreck and the Hiddensee 12

wreck from the 18th-19th century. These groups

precisely match period group 1 and period group 2

that was found in the section above. For some

features, such as the size of the frames and the

carvel planks, however, the groups are mixed and

show no relation.

4.2.2 Concept

The concept of the converted clinker vessel will

deal with constructional features that are

connected to the conversion. It will thus be a

review on how the conversion was done. This

includes repair of the clinker hull, the

smoothening of the clinker steps, the use of

ceiling planks and the conversion of carvel as well

as clinker planks.

Repair of the clinker hull

Repairs of the clinker hull have only been

described for two wrecks in the respective

reports. No repairs have been described for the

rest of the wrecks. This, however, does not

necessarily mean that they were not present.

Repairs were done for certain on the clinker phase

of FPL 77. Empty nail holes were closed with

wooden plugs and rivets were hammered into the

timbers to strengthen weak spots. A reused oak

plank was used as a filler piece in the hull. Surface

covering and waterproofing was found on the

timber.

In the Hiddensee 12 wreck a floor timber had

been replaced. It has not been expressed to when

this floor timber is dated but this could be very

interesting for the understanding of the

conversion.

Even though Heinze (2010, 14) describes the

wooden plugs in the clinker hull of Mönchgut 67

as being filled into the holes right after the trenails

were inserted, they could also be explained as

repairs. Wooden plugs are seen numerous places

in FPL 77 where they were used as a replacement

for eroded iron nails. Replacing new iron nails with

wooden plugs shortly after they had been inserted

seems like unnecessary double work. Moreover,

clinker planks are primarily attached to each other

with iron nails, so taken them out would be a bad

42

initiative. Thus, plugged iron nail holes in clinker

planks are more likely to represent repairs.8

The smoothening process

The first step in the process of clinker converting

is to make a smooth base for the carvel layer. This

is easiest done with wooden pieces, triangular in

cross section, that are nailed on to the steps of the

clinker strakes. This process makes sure that a

smooth base is created for the carvel layer to be

nailed on to. Triangular filler pieces were found

between the clinker and the carvel layer of FPL 77,

W-36 and Hiddensee 12. Filler pieces were found

in the Debki wreck as well, but the shape of them

has not been described. Based on the quality of

the filler pieces from FPL 77 it seems like the

quality was not of great importance. Flimsy scrap

wood made out of pine is was what had been

used for the smoothening process in this wreck.

Not all clinker steps, however, have been leveled

with triangular filler pieces. The steps of

Mönchgut 67 were smoothened out in an

outstanding manner that is only seen in this

wreck. The even base for the carvel strakes was

made by physically trimming down the clinker

steps till a smooth surface was created.9

The clinker steps of two wrecks (the Maasilinn

wreck and the Nors Å wreck) were not beveled at

all. Here, the carvel layer was nailed directly on

top of the clinker layer. This way of converting

creates gabs between the two layers.

A number of different methods have thus been

used to prepare the clinker hull for the outer

carvel layer. Most used was the leveling of the

clinker steps by the use of filler pieces that were

placed between the steps. This seems more

8 Pers. Com. Jens Auer 23.8 2010 9 Draft of the Mönchgut 67 report. Sent to the author by Jens Auer 25.2 2010

practical than beveling the steps with an axe as

done with the Mönchgut 67 wreck. Other wrecks

had the carvel layer attached on the top of the

clinker hull with no further preparation. It thus

seem like this intermediate stage could be done in

various ways or not done at all. Overall, leveling

out the clinker steps must have been an individual

decision and when done it was done in a very

rough manner, either with scrap wood filler pieces

or by roughly beveling the steps of the clinker

strakes. Thus, this part of the process was not of

great importance for the conversion of clinker

vessels.

Timber conversion

The conversion of timbers could have been

interesting and important for the understanding

of the converted clinker vessels. Unfortunately,

the conversion of the planks has only been

published for two wrecks. One of them is FPL 77,

the other one is W-36.

FPL 77 follows the general conversion technique

of clinker and carvel planks. Because the main

strength in vessels built in the clinker construction

technique lie within the planks, this type of vessel

needs stronger planks than vessels built in the

carvel construction technique. For that reason,

planks used for clinker planks were usually radially

split whereas planks for carvel planks were sawn.

When splitting the planks one makes sure that the

natural strength of the wood is kept. When sawing

the planks this strength is lost.

Not all vessels follow this general pattern of

timber conversion however. The Bredfjed wreck is

an example of this. This vessel, which was built in

the 17th century, had sawn clinker planks. Bill

(1999) describes the Bredfjed wreck as a vessel

that shows features from the transitional stage of

shipbuilding, which took place in the 17thcentury.

This was the period where the cleft planks of the

43

clinker building tradition slowly gave way to the

sawn timbers of the carvel building tradition

(Lemée 2006, 305). The Knuds Grund-wreck it

another 16th century clinker vessel with sawn

planks. As all the converted clinker vessels are

from this transitional stage or later, it can

therefore not be concluded whether or not all the

clinker and carvel planks follow the same pattern

as FPL 77. The conversion of the clinker planks in

the Bredfjed wreck and the Knuds Grund-wreck

testify to the complexity and diversity of the

clinker construction technique.

Ceiling planks

For three of the converted clinker vessels, the

presence of ceiling planks could be proved. No

remains have been found in the rest of the wrecks

which, again, does not necessarily mean that they

were not there originally.

In FPL 77 two phases of ceiling planks was found.

The first phase is connected to the original clinker

phase. The presence of ceiling planks was

specified with trenails that were cut flush with the

frames during the rebuild. These flushed trenails

indicate that a layer of ceiling planks were present

in the original clinker vessel but that they were

removed and cut flush at some point, possibly

during the rebuild. The new layer of carvel

planking was nailed to the hull with trenails. The

same trenails that were used to secure the carvel

planks were found to protrude two or three

centimeters when the wreck was documented.

This indicates the presence and the thickness of a

new layer of ceiling planks that was inserted

during the rebuild.

4.2.3 Materials

The plank strakes of the converted clinker vessels

were all made out of either oak, or pine or a

combination of both. It is not surprising that the

vessels were built of these wood species. Oak is a

strong heavy wood that is widespread all over the

world. Its hardness requires more effort to work

with, but it takes fastenings well and can be

shaped readily (Steffy 2006, 258). Pine is easy to

work and bend, and the durability, strength,

availability and resistance to rot, make pine ideal

for shipbuilding (Steffy 2006, 258). Most vessels

had clinker strakes made out of oak except from

the Debki wreck, which was made out of pine.

Where filler pieces were present, they were made

out of pine and oak as well.

The clinker planks were fastened to each other

with iron nails and in principal the frames were

fastened to the planks with trenails, either made

from pine or oak. The Nors Å wreck, however, had

juniper trenails.

Iron nails were also used to secure the carvel

planking to the clinker hull, but only as preliminary

fastenings. When everything was put in place,

new trenails were hammered through all layers of

the newly converted clinker vessel.

There seem to be no clear division as to when or

where oak or pine were used in the converted

clinker vessels. Oak and pine were used in

different combinations both for the clinker hull,

the outer carvel layer, the frames and the filler

pieces. The material used must have been

dependant on the accessible wood species in the

given area at the given time.

4.3 Vessel type: Form and function

4.3.1 Form The estimated length of the vessels indicate that

most of the converted clinker vessels must have

been low tonnage vessels, categorized as small to

44

medium sized (Lemée 2006, 298). Only the

Hiddensee 12 wreck stands out with its 28m.

As only small fragments of each converted clinker

vessel have been recovered, it is difficult to say

much about the form of the vessels. However,

from the preserved keels of W-36 and B&W 6 it

becomes evident that at least these two wrecks

had T-shaped keels. This, on the other hand is not

the case for the Hiddensee 12 wreck with its wide

and almost barge-like flat bottom. The Hiddensee

12 wreck seems to stand out with this hull form

and the size of the vessel.

4.3.2 Function

In some of the wrecks (the Maasilinn and the W-

36) cargo was found. The cargo consisted

respectively of slaked lime stone found in the

Maasilinn wreck and bricks that were found in the

W-36 wreck. Vello Mäss (1994) explains the

Maasilinn wreck as having been built specifically

for the purpose of transporting goods in the

compartment made from the gap between the

floor timbers and the keel. In here, the cargo

would remain dry and contemporaneously work

as ballast. What was common for the cargo in

both wrecks was that it was very heavy cargo that

must have worked as ballast while being

transported. Numerous brickyards are known

from the beginning of the 16th century in Vistula

Bay, where the Maasilinn wreck is from. It is

therefore likely that the vessel was used for the

transportation of bricks to coastal locations in the

bay of Gdansk (Ossowski 2006, 260).

The Cargo found in the Maasilinn wreck and W-36

implies that the at least some of the converted

clinker vessels could have been in use as trading

vessels. With its flat bottom, the Hiddensee 12 is

likely to have been a trading vessel used in local

waters. The flat bottom meant that it could

transport heavy cargo and still navigate in shallow

waters where deeper hulled vessels could not

usually go.

From the written source “Warnemünder

Lizentsbücher” (see chapter 2) it is furthermore

mentioned that the Danish vessel were active in

the trade with the Hanseatic cities. No trading

related evidence has been found related to FPL

77, but it is possible that it was one of these

vessels that were active in the lively trade

between Denmark and the Germany. This

assumption is based on the fact that the timber

provenience puts the clinker phase in Denmark

and the carvel phase in Germany, where it was

also found.

4.4 Why

After having presented and outlined the

constructional and functional aspects of the

converted clinker vessels, the main question

“Why” can be sought.

It is not the doublet planking that makes the

wrecks significant. Double planking is seen in

many vessels such as the Double Dutch ships. It is

not the fact that a carvel layer was nailed to the

clinker vessels either, as this is a well known

method of repairing the bottom of a hull. What

makes these vessels interesting and significant is

that the clinker layer was left underneath the

outer carvel layer.

The following section will review all converted

clinker vessels from all periods of time and from

different places in the world. By looking at similar

wrecks, from all periods one can get an idea why

vessels were converted at other points in time.

This does not necessarily mean that the same was

the reasons in later periods.

45

The purpose of the clinker conversion can be

divided into two main stands where: 1) the carvel

layer was a later rebuild or repair and 2) the carvel

layer was a part of the original design. The reason

for the clinker conversion may be explained in the

following ways:

1) The conversion was a part of a bigger repair.

Repairs on the clinker hull indicate that the clinker

vessel was in use a number of years before the

carvel layer was applied. The term “repair” also

comprises the conversion as a total repair of the

entire vessel. The carvel layer was thus applied in

order to make an overall repair of the clinker

vessel.

2) The double layer was a reinforcement of the

hull. Reinforcing the hull could be necessary in

order to drag ships onto the sandy beaches of the

Baltic coast.

3) The conversion of the clinker vessels was done

for economic reasons. In an attempt to prolong

the life expectancy of a worn out but otherwise

good clinker vessel, the carvel layer was applied to

the original hull.

4) The outer carvel layer was applied to make the

hull more watertight.

5) The double layer was a part of the original

design.

6) Other explanation and ideas, concerning the

clarification and understanding of clinker

conversion that cannot be verified from looking at

the constructional features of the wrecks.

Regardless of the reason for converting clinker

vessels into carvel, the process ensures that an

otherwise stable and good vessel got an expanded

number of living years. In the following, the above

mentioned reasons for clinker conversion will be

critically discussed based on the available

archaeological finds, documentation and literary

sources.

4.4.1 Repair

From the Baltic area we know from written

sources, that repairs using double planking were

used in the 16th century in ship yards on the

Vistula River estuary (Ossowski 2006, 42). In a

book from an Elblag carpentry workshop from

1587 it is mentioned that a builder, called Claus,

made various repairs on ships. These repairs

included the reinforcement of 24 oak vessels, by

providing the hull with an outer layer of planking

and by caulking them with moss and oakum:

“Tak na przyklad w roku 1587 budowniczy

(schiffbauer) Claus Wykonal róznego rodzaju prace

naprawcze przy lodzi: uszczelnianie dna mchem i

pakulami, wzmocnienie 24 klepek debowych

kadluba nalozeniem dodatkowej (zewnetrznej) ich

warstwy, uszcelnienie tych klepek mchem i

pakulami, umocowanie steru itp” (Gierszewski

1961, 80).

Unfortunately, the source does not say anything

about the use of clinker or carvel. What is

important here is that this carpenter from Elblag

in the 16th century repaired and reinforced hulls

with double planking. Comparing this piece of

information with the finds we have of converted

clinker vessels, it seems reasonable to assume

that the use of double planking was a fairly

popular method to repair hulls on the southern

shores of the Baltic Sea. Whether clinker

conversion and thereby double planking with a

clinker and a carvel layer was just as popular can

only be speculated at this point of the research.

46

Repair of the clinker hull

Construction features of FPL 77 point to the

interpretation that the carvel layer was applied

during a larger rebuild of the vessel. The time span

between the original construction and the

thorough rebuild is unknown, but it is clear from

the small repairs of the clinker planks that the

clinker vessel itself had been in use for a period of

time. Minor refurbishments had been made with

smaller patches (timber #123) and wooden plugs.

From this piece of information, it thus becomes

clear that the double layer of FPL 77 was applied a

number of years after the original clinker hull was

made. However, from the minor repairs of the hull

and the well preserved clinker strakes, it does not

seem reasonable to think that it was a thorough

repair of the entire hull that was the reason for

the conversion. The reason for this conversion

must thus be found elsewhere.

Another wreck that can be deduced as being built

in two phases by the presence of repairs is the

Hiddensee 12 wreck. The later replacement of a

floor timber in this vessel witness of an unknown

usage period prior to the carvel phase.

Dendrochronological samples verify that the

repair was done during the period of the clinker

phase and not the carvel phase. However, as with

FPL 77, the clinker planks of the wreck did not

seem to have been worn out to such a degree,

that the reason for the outer carvel layer was an

urgent repair.

Clinker repair vs. carvel repair

An additional repair aspect that appears like a

reasonable explanation for the conversions is that

in some instances, it was easier to restore and

repair carvel vessels than clinker vessels.

In order to replace a carvel plank from a hull, the

treenails and the iron nails have to be taken out of

the hull. A new plank can then be inserted directly

into the hull and fastened with new trenails. In

contrast, in a clinker-built hull, the clinker nails will

first have to be cut and extracted. Hereafter, the

clinker plank will have to be fitted into the hull, so

it fits with the overlap of the strakes above and

underneath. Before the plank is finally fastened,

caulking material will have to be inlayed (Lemée

2006, 306). An example of a vessel where the

clinker planks were substituted for carvel planks is

the Sebbersund wreck, found in the Limfjord in

Denmark. This wreck was originally a 13m long

clinker-built vessel, but when old and worn out,

the 6-7th bottom strakes were replaces with carvel

planks to give the vessel some extra life time

(Gøthche 1991, 88). Although the Sebbersund

wreck is different in the way that the clinker

strakes were removed and replaced with a carvel

layer, it shows that carvel strakes were preferred

in a hull. This substitution of the planks may have

been done so that future repairs of the lower hull

were more easily and economically accomplished.

4.4.2 Economy

Economical benefits bring us to another

explanation for converting clinker vessels into

carvel vessel. When an old but otherwise well

functioning vessel was worn out, its life could be

expanded a number of years with the outer carvel

layer. The reason for using carvel strakes and not

new clinker strakes can be explained with the

Figure 4-8: repairs in the clinker hulls proofs that the carvel layer was applied to the vessel a later point in time. Grundvad 2010.

47

economical benefits of sawing planks rather than

radially splitting them.

Material saving benefits as well as all the

advantages that is connected with the carvel

construction technique, makes it an economically

good deal to convert clinker vessels into carvel

hulls. Carvel strakes not only made it simpler to

build symmetrically, but it also saved time and

money because it was not necessary to shape

each side of the planks (Bill 2000, 10). Wood made

for carvel planks can be much poorer and thus

cheaper than wood used for clinker planks. Oak

trunks used for splitting need to be very thick,

straight in growth and without many knots. On the

other hand, practical any piece of timber can be

turned into a plank with a saw. Therefore, one is

not only saving time on the conversion, the waste

of material and problems in finding suitable

timber are also minimized (Bill 2000, 10)

4.4.3 Reinforcement and protection of the hull

Reinforcement of the hull by using a double layer

of planking is known from a number of wrecks

around the world. Reinforcement of the hull was a

necessity for many clinker vessels in the Baltic, as

the sandy shores of this area was rough on the

hull when the vessels were launched (Mäss 1994,

191).

Reinforcement and protection of the hull is by

Chistian Lemeé (2006, 227) divided into two

distinct groups: Doubling (or wooden sheathing

with a thin outer protective carvel layer) and

double planking (where the purpose of the outer

carvel layer was to reinforce the hull).

The method used to interpret whether a

conversion was made as reinforcement or a

protection of the hull is by looking at the wear of

the inner clinker planks. Clinker planks, showing

signs of wear and repairs indicate that the

conversion was done, because the entire hull

needed a thorough repair. Hulls where the clinker

planks seem to have been in a good state during

the conversion and more importantly; the outer

carvel layer was thinner and with no structural

importance for the hull, indicate that the

conversion was made for other reasons. This could

be as a protection of the hull against shipworms

or possibly to increase the water tightness.

Doubling planking

The outer planking of vessels with doubling

planking or sheathing had no structural function.

The role of the outer layer was simply to protect

the hull against shipworms (Lemée 2006, 227).

The observations made by Sir Richard Hawkins

during a journey to the South Seas in 1593

describe different sheathing techniques on the

16th century vessel: “…In Spain and Portingall,

some sheathe their shippes with lead (…). Another

manner is used with double plankes, as thicke

without as within, after the manner of furring (…)

(Hawkins 1593).

Evidence of such doubling layers is present in a

number of written sources, especially covering

sailing to tropical waters. Hull doubling, or

sheathing, does not seem common for sailing in

Northern waters.

None of the carvel strakes of the hitherto found

converted clinker vessels proved to be a wood

sheathing layer. On one side of the Maasilinn

wreck, however, a thin layer of metal covering

was found. The double planking of this wreck can

thus not be interpreted as the protective layer for

the inner clinker hull, as this would give the vessel

two such layers. It is more likely that the carvel

layer was set as a reinforcement of the thin inner

clinker layer. The metal sheathing worked as the

protective layer against ship worms. Could it be

48

that the Maasilinn wreck was on its way to new

waters, where shipworms were a threat to the

hull, like Sir Hawkins explains? And could it be that

the original clinker vessel got the extra reinforced

carvel layer to support the hull? Unfortunately,

we will never know where the Maasilinn wreck

was going or where it was coming from since such

a thorough reinforcement and protective

mechanism had to be made.

An example of a doubling layer made out of wood

is found in the B&W2 wreck from Christianshavn.

According to the dendrochronological analysis, the

wreck was built around 1606 and rebuilt between

1618 and 1625. During the rebuilding phase, the

hull was doubled with a layer of oak planks and

sheathed with a layer of pine boards (Lemée 2006,

227). The B&W2 wreck is very similar to two

Dutch vessels from the same period, namely

Batavia and Mauritius, which both had sheathings

similar to B&W 2 (Lemée 2006, 227). Batavia was

discovered on the coast of Western Australia were

it wrecked in 1629. Mauritius was discovered on

the West coast of Africa and is dated to 1609

(Lemée 2006, 227). All three wrecks have very

similar features in the original design as well as

the manner in which the hull was reinforced

before a trip to the tropics (Lemée 2006, 227).

Double planking

Double planking is, as opposed to the doubling a

construction method, where the outer planking

consist of two layers of planking, both with

structural importance. Two of the converted

clinker vessels mentioned in the previous chapters

show features that could lead the interpretation

of the double planking to the reinforcement

theory.

The first vessel to be considered is FPL 77. This

wreck, with its well preserved clinker planks, does

not seem to have been worn out to such a degree

that a new carvel outer layer was necessary. Only

a small repair was visible on the wreck in the form

of the little wooden “patch” (timber #123). The

dendrochronological analysis of the wreck gave a

provenience of the clinker layer to two different

areas. As mentioned before, there are written

sources on vessels that, when changing their

environment they got an additional protective

layer. Knowing that FPL 77 had clinker planks

originating from the area around Zealand and a

carvel layer made from wood originating from the

area around Lübeck, it is possible that the outer

carvel layer was applied because of the change of

environment. It is most likely that the outer layer

was not working as a protective layer against

shipworms since the vessel stayed in the Baltic

Sea. The outer layer could have been to protect

the hull against the shallow waters of, for

example, Darss or other of the shallow harbors in

the Baltic.

Another example of a conversion made to

reinforce the original hull structure is the sand

vessel from Nors Å. As mentioned in the previous

chapter, the Nors Å wreck is an example of

“putting an old vessel into an envelope”, i.e.,

giving an old vessel new life by adding a

strengthening carvel layer on top of the original

hull. The “putting it into an envelope” method was

used on ships in the Baltic because the original

hull needed extra protection against the beaching

of the vessels on to the flat and sandy shores.

Another reason for the double layer of the small

Figure 4-9: B&W 2 had a doubling of oak and sheathing of pine. After Lemée 2006.

49

sand vessels was to protect the hull against the icy

waters, which is often seen in the Baltic during

winter months. Not all sand vessels were clinker

converted, though. In fact, the Nors Å wreck is the

only sand vessel of its kind.

The reinforcement of hulls with the use of double

planking seem mostly to have been applied on

smaller vessels in the Baltic to give them a few

more living years. Larger ships, however, also had

their hull strengthened with multiple layers. So is

the case with Henry V’s the Grace Dieu from 1420,

one of the world’s greatest medieval ships (Rose

1977, 3). She was more than 40m long and had an

estimated displacement of 27500 tons. The ship is

still standing on the bottom of the Hamble River,

but several investigations of the ship show that it

was built with three layers of clinker planking

(Prynne 1968, 24). Whether the three clinker

layers were a part of the original design or they

were applied sequentially to strengthen the hull is

not yet known. Many scholars have described the

Grace Dieu as a colossal technical mistake and the

proof that clinker planking is too weak for larger

vessels with more than 1000 tons capacity (Rose

1977, 3).

Could it be that the two outermost clinker layers

of the Grace Dieu were put on top of the original

clinker layer in order to try to gain additional

strength to a ship said to be too big to have been

built with clinker planks?

Obviously, the Grace Dieu is a different matter

than the converted clinker vessels, as this vessel

was set with two extra clinker layers and not

converted into a carvel ship. However, the ship is

an example of a clinker-built vessel that was given

additional strength with two extra clinker layers

and the proof that not only smaller vessels were

strengthened with double/treble planking.

4.4.4 Water tightness

Applying an extra layer of carvel planking on top

of a clinker hull would easily be explained as a

desire to make the hull more watertight. Looking

at the wreck remains, however, does not reveal

whether or not this was the reason for the

conversion and the double planking. Trying to

make clinker vessels more watertight could in

principle be the explanation for all the converted

clinker vessels. Amongst others, Vello Mäss is of

the opinion that the Maasilinn wreck was built

with an outer carvel layer in order to make the

hull more watertight. It is more than likely that

more of the clinker vessels were converted into

carvel vessels in order to make the hulls more

watertight. By adding an outer carvel layer on top

of the clinker layer the gab that automatically

appears between the strakes will be covered and

thus not get in contact with water.

As mentioned before, repairing clinker hulls was

more complex than repairing carvel hulls.

Problems related to leaks could be fixed by adding

an outer carvel layer on top of the clinker layer

instead of going through the more difficult

process of repairing and replacing clinker strakes.

Figure 4-10: The bottom of the Maasilinn wreck with its deep water course. After Mäss 1994.

50

4.4.5 Original carvel layer

Several vessels have been doubled intentionally.

An example of this is the vessels defined as

double-Dutch. These vessels represent a vessel

type where the double layer was a part of the

original design but where the double layer

comprised of two carvel layers. Four larger

double-Dutch ships shall here be mentioned;

Gideon from Denmark (1584), Batavia from

Western Australia (1629), Mauritius (1602) and

Scheurrak SO1 (the end of the 16th century)

(Maarleveld 1994, 155). The double layer of the

double-Dutch ships reveals a shipbuilding method

where the hull was first built of one layer of carvel

strakes and then subsequently covered by a

second layer with approximately the same

thickness. The double layer of the 4 mentioned

ships makes up a strong and watertight shell, over

20cm thick but with no conceptual approach. T.J.

Maarleveld argues that the extra layer was

applied to these ships because of a lack in

confidence to the new Dutch flushed technique

(Maarleveld 1994, 162).

For many of the converted clinker vessels it can be

proved that the outer carvel planking was applied

to the clinker hull a number of years after the

original clinker hull was built. This sequence of

building appears most logical and it can be difficult

to understand what the purpose of intentionally

building a clinker vessel with outer carvel strakes

on top. Nevertheless, in the publication of three

converted clinker vessels (the Maasilinn wreck,

the Debki wreck and the Mönchgut 67 wreck) the

carvel layer has been interpreted as belonging to

the original design.

The Maasilinn wreck

The Maasilinn wreck has been subjected for a

great deal of discussion since it was found.

Immediately, the double planking appears to have

been the result of a repair or rebuilding, but some

structural features shows that the hull was initially

built with two layers. There are a number of

features that speak for and a number of features

that speak against an original double planked hull

in the Maasilinn wreck

Vello Mäss (1991) is of the conviction that the

Maasilinn wreck was built originally with an outer

carvel layer. He bases his assumption on the

following construction features: First of all, he

points out that the two stem- and keel rabbets

were conspicuously wide and deep for the clinker.

The width, however, corresponded neatly with the

thickness of the double planking. Second of all the

massive carvel planking was imperative to prop up

the keel in order to make the ship enough

monolithic. It was crucial for the keel to be so

powerful that it could lift the whole weight of the

vessel during building and launching. It was

important that the hull could withstand when

touching the sea floor. The carvel layer thus had

the purpose of supporting the vessel whenever

the vessel had to be taken into shallow waters or

when loading and unloading. Generally, there is a

lack of sufficient deep harbors in the West-

Estonian archipelago where the wreck was found.

The badly damaged keel is a proof of this. The

vessel’s main cargo, lime stone, which was found

in the wreck, must have made the vessel heavy to

haul onto land and therefore a strong hull was

needed. Mäss also refers to the tiny clinker planks

that must have needed support in order to stay

stabile and afloat.

These construction features indicate that the

seemingly later carvel layer was laid

simultaneously with the clinker planking in order

to the support the keel and to strengthen and

reinforce the hull structure.

It has nonetheless been maintained from many

scholars that the outer carvel planks of the

51

Maasilinn wreck was added at a later time, after

the original clinker-build hull had been build. From

the reports made by Vello Mäss (Mäss 1991) and

(Mäss 1994) it is not stated where the

dendrochronological samples were taken. It would

be interesting to see if the dendrochronological

samples from the keel, the clinker layer, and the

carvel layer are the same. Mäss’ argument that

the double layer of the Maasilinn hull must have

been made simultaneous because of the deep and

thick rabbet for the garboard strakes needs

support by a dendrochronological dating. It is not

uncommon that parts of vessels were changed

completely because of wear or rebuilding.

Something similar is seen in the Princes Channel

wreck, where the stem post rabbet was changed

in order to accommodate for new lines of the

vessel after a furring layer was applied (Auer et al.

2007, 228).

Furthermore, the manner in which the keel was

constructed is a highly unstable and peculiar way

of constructing a keel. If the double planking was

in the original planning it appears peculiar to build

the keel like this for any vessel. It would, however,

make sense if the keel was moved down during a

bigger refurbishment of the entire vessel. This

could have been done when the carvel planking

was applied to the clinker hull at a later point in

order to fit in the carvel strakes.

Another feature that speaks against Mäss’

arguments is the size of the clinker planks. Mäss

explains that the carvel layer must have been

original as the inner and thinner clinker planks

were too fragile to carry the weight of the ship

alone. Nevertheless, in the section above, it was

determined that the size of the clinker planks, in

the Maasilinn wreck, correspond to the size of

other clinker vessels. The size of the clinker planks

can thus not be used as an argument for the

double layer.

Based on Mäss’ interpretation of the Maasilinn

wreck as being built originally with the double

hull, it cannot be verified whether or not the

carvel layer was a part of the original design. The

design of the keel may even point more to the

opposite; that it was taken down and away from

the floor timbers in order to fit in the seemingly

later applied carvel strakes.

The Debki wreck

Only a small section of the Debki wreck was

preserved and information about the conversion

of the vessel could only be observed through five

cross-sections made by cutting the hull into

pieces. It was therefore not possible to determine

which treenails that belonged to the clinker phase

and which to the carvel. The oak trenails were

dottled on the outside and wedged on the inside

and they were of the same length in order to join

the ceiling planks, the frames, the outer and inner

planks simultaneously. Assuming that the trenail

holes were not drilled twice, we can only conclude

that the outer carvel layer was nailed to the

clinker planking as a part of the original design.

Unfortunately, the dendrochronological samples

did not succeed in determining the age of any of

the timbers. However, in one case, the tests

confirmed that one of the clinker planks was of

the same age as one of the carvel planks.

Waldemar Ossowski (2006) uses the

Figure 4-11: Cross section of the keel and the double planking of the Maasilinn wreck. After Mäss 1994.

52

dendrochronological dates as a proof that the

carvel layer was attached during the original

construction (Ossowski 2006, 262).

Following the construction sequence, given by Dr.

Ossowski, the first stage was fitting and fastening

of the clinker planks using the shell-first method.

Next, some or all the frames were fitted in the hull

with nails. The filler pieces and the carvel planking

was then nailed on top of the clinker layer and

caulked with moss. Next step was the attachment

of more floor timber and futtocks. The ceiling

planks were then nailed from above and into the

framing timbers. All the elements were then

joined together with trenails penetrating through

all five construction elements (Ossowski 2006,

262).

Had the analyses for the dendro-dates succeeded

and dated the clinker planks to the same period as

the carvel planks, this would not be a certain

proof that the vessel was built originally with the

carvel layer. The trees for the timbers could have

been stored for a period and used at a later point.

This specific example illustrates one of the

problems with dendrochronology; the results

shows the year when the trees for the vessel were

felled but not when the vessel was built. Dendro-

dates can therefore not determine whether a

carvel layer was original or not. The only feature

that indicates that double layer of the Debki wreck

should have been original is thus the trenails.

Mönchgut 67

The Mönchgut 67 wreck was, by Jana Heinze

(2010), also interpreted as having been built

originally with the double layer. Heinze bases her

interpretation on the dendrochronological dating

of the clinker layer and carvel layer which she

claims is from 1660.

There are a number of very strong indications that

work against this theory, however. Initially, as

mentioned above, dendrochronology gives the

year of the felling date of the timbers and not the

year of the building process. The timbers for the

carvel layer could therefore have been stored a

number of years before they were put into use. A

similar dating of the clinker phase and the carvel

phase does not determine a contemporary

building sequence.

Even if the dating in general could determine

whether or not the double layer was built

originally, there is a serious problem with the

dating of the Mönchgut 67 wreck. No sapwood

was preserved in the wreck which, as Heinze

herself points out (Heinze 2010, 20), only dates

the wreck to somewhere after 1660.

Consequently, it is impossible to conclude

whether or not the date of the clinker planks and

the carvel planks is the same.

There are also more technological construction

features that speak against the carvel layer as

originally built with the vessel. The clinker steps of

the Mönchgut 67 was not leveled out with filler

pieces as seen in many of the other wrecks.

Figure 4-12: Stages of construction for the Debki wreck as interpreted by Ossowski (2003).

53

Instead, the clinker steps had been roughly

beveled in order to create a smooth surface for

the carvel layer. Hence, right after the newly built

vessel was finished, the steps from the clinker

steps were cut down. This seems like a peculiar

thing to do with a beautiful new-built vessel with

no wear or damage. It seems more logical that the

carvel strakes were applied to the clinker hull after

the hull had been worn down or needed

reinforcement for one reason or the other. This

brings us to another argument against Heinze’s

theory.

It has been mentioned before that the plugged

iron nail holes in the clinker phase of Mönchgut 67

were more likely repairs rather than fillings of

preliminary iron fastenings for the clinker planks.

Repairs on the clinker hull is the best proof that

the carvel layer was not original as they show that

the vessel definitely had been in use for an

unknown period before the carvel layer was

applied. Had the outer carvel layer been present

from the beginning, there would be no use for

repairs on the protected and hidden clinker hull.

Clinker hulls where the presence of repairs

revealed that they for certain were in use before

the carvel layer was applied is FPL 77, the

Hiddensee 12 wreck and now with 95 % certainty;

Mönchgut 67..

Indications that the double layer was original

Had the conversion of the clinker planking and the

carvel planking been better analyzed, this could

also give an indication of whether or not the

carvel layer was original. As mentioned earlier,

clinker planks for shell-first built vessels were

mostly radially split in order to obtain the strength

of the wood. Carvel planks, on the other hand,

were often sawn to their overall shape because

the planks in a frame-first construction only were

of secondary importance to the stability. If the

outer carvel layer of the converted clinker vessels

were meant for the original design, the inner

clinker planks would have been of secondary

importance to the construction and they would

most probably be sawn.

Cleft clinker planks would most likely mean that

the clinker vessel had sailed before the carvel

layer was applied. Sawn clinker planks could

indicate that the inner clinker hull in itself did not

need much strength and stability, and therefore,

that the outer carvel layer was a part of the

original design.

However, the conversion of clinker planks with a

saw is not a certain proof that the double layer

was original. Sawn clinker planks are seen in the

Bredfjed wreck. This vessel has been interpreted

as being a vessel built as a combination between

the clinker construction technique and the carvel

construction technique in the transitional period

of clinker and carvel strakes.

Overall, there is not much evidence as whether

any of the wrecks should have been double

planked originally. It is difficult to find definite

evidence that can determine if the double

planking was original. On the other hand, by the

presence of small repairs it is easy to determine if

the carvel layer was applied to the clinker hull at a

later point.

4.4.6 Other explanations

In theory, there could be great number of other

and different reason for nailing a carvel layer onto

a clinker hull. All converted clinker vessel could

have had different reasons for the rare

construction sequence and technique. The most

common interpretations are the ones described

above. However, the reasons could be many. In

the book, Holzbootsbau, C. W. Eichler describes

54

that fishermen prefer carvel vessel because the

smooth carvel layer avoid fishing nets in getting

caught in hull, as is the case with clinker steps:

Natürlich hat sie einige Nachteile, dir kurz erörert

werden sollen. – So ist die Aussenhaut aussen

nicht glatt. Die Fischer schätzen dies nicht, weil

sich die netze nicht so leicht binnenbords holen

lassen wie bei einer Karweel-Aussenhaut.(Eichler

1991, 218).

The sharp edges of clinker steps were therefore a

potential danger for fishing nets when being

trawled after vessels. The fishing nets either got

caught in the steps or they were ripped by the

edges. By adding a smooth carvel layer on top of

the original clinker hull, problems with fishing nets

could be solved.

Summary

From the synopsis above it becomes clear that the

reason for converting clinker vessel can be

subdivided into two, where the outer carvel

planking was: 1) applied a number of years after

the original clinker vessel was built and 2) was a

part of the original design.

Regardless of the groups, there are numerous

reasons why outer carvel layers could be applied

to clinker hulls. Unfortunately the recovered

pieces of the wrecks do not always contain

enough information to clarify what the reason

was. None of the wrecks shows signs that the

clinker hull was in such a state that a thorough

repair was needed. Economy, reinforcement and a

need for a more watertight hull, on the other

hand, could be the explanations for all of the

converted clinker vessels. Building with carvel

planks gave a number of advantages that were not

present in clinker hulls.

Three of the converted clinker vessels were

interpreted as having been built originally with the

outer carvel layer. The evidence for this

interpretation presented in the respective reports,

however, does not prove whether or not this

actually was the case. For Mönchgut 67 and the

Maasilinn wreck the construction features of the

wreck part more speak against this than for it.

Consequently, we have no converted clinker

vessels that for definitely were built originally with

the carvel layer in mind.

Figure 4-13: Possible reasons for the conversion of the nine converted clinker vessels. Grundvad 2010.

55

5. Results and conclusion

The main aim of this paper has been to examine

various aspects of the converted clinker vessels

from the 16th-17th century, with the case study

and an emphasis on the FPL 77 wreck.

Other converted clinker vessels have been

analyzed and compared in order to answer some

of the questions connected to these few and only

partly preserved wrecks. On the basis of the

Hiddensee 12-, the Debki-, the Maasilinn-, the

FPL 77-, the W-36-, the Mönchgut 67-, the

Strømsø Drammenselva-, the B&W6- and the

Nors Å wreck, it has been possible to carry out an

analysis of various aspects of the converted

clinker vessels.

Based on the analysis of these different wrecks,

the ship building methods, the provenience, the

period, the vessel type and the reason for the

clinker conversion has been reviewed and

discussed. With a limited number of known

converted clinker vessels only tentative and

preliminary conclusions can be drawn. The

methodology applied for the different wrecks has

been inconsistent in the publications and the

details presented in them are disparate due to

either bad preservation or a belief that the

vessels as insignificant.

Origin and dating

The first of the four major questions addressed in

this study was whether any correlation of time and

place could be found for the converted clinker

vessels. The oldest known converted clinker vessel

is the Maasilinn wreck from ca 1550 and the

youngest is the Nors Å wreck, which is dated to the

1850’s. It is thus a phenomenon that stretches

throughout three centuries. Two different clusters

of converted clinker vessels can be established:

period 1 from ca. 1550-1650 and period 2, from

the end of the 18th century to the end of the 19th

century. The study establish that seven out of nine

converted clinker vessels known and published to

date were built within a period of 100 years, from

approximately 1550- 1650 and seven out of these

nine were found in the Baltic. It seems like the

converted clinker vessels mainly were a Baltic

phenomenon from a period not long after the

carvel construction technique was introduced in

the area but the conversion kept on going until at

least the 19th century. The reason for converting

clinker vessels in 16th- 17th century is likely to have

been different than from the 18th-19th century.

Construction techniques

The second major question was whether the

archaeological evidence reflects comparable

material for the construction techniques used for

clinker conversion. The methods used in the

converted clinker vessels from the 16th-17th

century combine clinker building methods as well

as carvel building methods, and thereby reflects

two different ways of forming a hull. The vessels

are either made from oak or pine and are built in

the clinker construction technique but with an

additional outer carvel layer on top.

In general, the construction of the converted

clinker vessels can be subdivided into two groups:

1) the early converted clinker vessels from the 16-

17th century and 2) the later and smaller group of

converted clinker vessels from the 18th-19th

century. Except in the case of the 16th-17th century

56

wrecks that are similar in size and construction,

the Hiddensee 12 wreck and the Nors Å wreck

outstands from the group in many ways. The

differences include: butt-end joints of the clinker

strakes and the conversion of the planks as well.

The two groups represent two periods with two

very different construction techniques. The clinker

hulls of the converted clinker vessels from the

16th-17th century seem to have been built in the

typical clinker construction technique regarding

smaller vessels, whereas the vessels from group 2

shows construction techniques that more

represents the carvel construction technique.

Vessel type

The third major question asked in this paper was,

if there was a certain type of clinker vessels that

were converted into carvel vessels. For three

wrecks, the Maasilinn wreck, the W-36 wreck and

the much later Hiddensee 12 wreck, indications

that lead the interpretation towards trading

vessels were found. In the instances where

remains of cargo have been found, such as lime

stone in the Maasilinn wreck, this could indicate

that the converted clinker vessels could have been

small local trading vessel. W-36 may have been a

small vessel connected to one of the many

brickyards that are known from the 16th century in

Vistula Bay. The majority of all converted clinker

vessels seem to have been low tonnage vessels

between 10-20m long. The Hiddense 12 wreck

with its 28m length does not quite follow this

description but it was most probably a trading

vessel as well. The wide and almost flat bottom of

the hull made this vessel excellent for transporting

heavy cargo in shallow waters.

Purpose

The fourth and final major question considered in

this study was what the purpose was with the

carvel planking on top of the clinker hulls. The

function of the clinker conversion and the double

layering in the 16th-17th century will probably

never be known for certain, but many explanation

and interpretations have presented. It is the

authors opinion that this cluster of clinker

converted vessels is connected to the newly

introduced carvel construction technique in the

Baltic. Shipbuilders had often seen carvel vessels

and may have repaired a few as well. They knew

the advantages of a flushed laid carvel layer, but

did not know the basic construction techniques of

such a vessel. By applying an outer carvel layer on

top of a clinker built vessel, the shipwright could

achieve some of the advantages with flushed laid

planking; a stronger hull, a more watertight vessel

etc.

Partially or fully double planking seem to have

been a well used method for repairing vessels

from far back in time and all the way up to

modern times. It is difficult to say if the conversion

was done because the entire vessel needed a

thorough repair. None of the vessels seem to have

been in such a state that an outer carvel layer was

needed. Carvel strakes were easier to repair and

they were more watertight. Furthermore, by

adding a carvel layer on top of a clinker layer

reinforced the hull and made it more resistant to

beaching on sandy shores.

Looking at the reinforced converted clinker vessels

and the doubling planking above we learned that

a reason for reinforcing clinker hulls could have

been a change from the original environment.

Written sources mention sheathing as a

protection from shipworm on trips to the tropics.

The documentary sources refer to doubling as a

thin layer of metal sheathing or wood sheathing.

Protecting the ships from worms with an outer

layer of either metal or wood seems to have been

a most necessary feature when sailing Northern

European ships to the tropics. The doubling layer

and thus maybe the double planking may have

57

been used as a protective layer for ship worms

when the ship changed milieu from one area to

another (Lemée 2006, 227).

Three out of the nine converted clinker vessels

were interpreted, by the respective authors, as

being built originally with the outer carvel layer.

Had the converted clinker vessels been built

originally with the double layer this could

illustrate an attempt to follow the new tendencies

of building carvel hulls instead of the “old fashion”

clinker hulls. Converted clinker vessels built

originally with the double layer may show a need

to built larger, stronger and more watertight hulls

by the use of additional planking. The hull

construction was therefore based on the rules of

the clinker technique but imitated the solutions

used on larger ships. None of the converted

clinker vessels, however, seem to have clear

evidence that they were originally double planked.

In fact, there is more evidence that point to the

opposite.

When looking at the 16th-17th century converted

clinker vessels, it is important to look at the period

in which they were found. With the new carvel

ships that were normally built in the frame-first

method it became possible to build large ocean

sea-going vessels that were able to stay at sea for

longer periods than the clinker vessels. Additional

strength and water tightness and the fact that they

were easier to repair are some of the reasons why

carvel vessels became so popular. The new large

oceangoing vessels quickly became a part of the

everyday life in the 17th century. Despite the many

advantages that building with the carvel

construction gave, smaller vessel still continued to

be built by boat builders in the countryside, where

skeleton techniques did not become fashion before

the 1850s and onwards (Kirby 2000, 94)

The outcome of the report

This study demonstrates that the converted

clinker vessels were a phenomenon that started in

the middle of the 16th where they had their

heyday. Clinker conversion seems to have been a

method of giving a clinker hull an expanded

lifetime.

The research provides answers and interpretations

to the preliminary research and identification and

understanding of the clinker converted vessel.

Although many of the problems and questions that

were given have been answered, the study

demonstrates how complex the converted clinker

vessels are. Therefore, several issues are still left

unanswered and are waiting to be investigated

more thoroughly.1

Apart from representing a exceptional

archaeological find complex of very rare and, in

literature almost overlooked group of vessels, the

clinker converted shipwrecks from the 16th-17th

century contribute to the understanding of the

shipbuilding methods in the 16th-17th century

Baltic area. A period that saw a gradual change

away from the old clinker construction technique

towards the new and more modern carvel ships.

1 The author will be happy to hear from persons that have knowledge about potential other similar wrecks.

58

Appendix 1: Timbers with importance for the FPL 77 model

Catalogue of important clinker planks

The description and illustrations of the timbers that had significance for the interpretation of FPL 77 has

been standardized as far as possible. The catalogue is commenced by ID numbers (P1, P2 etc.) and then the

main measurements.1 This is followed by a short description of the timber. The layout of the illustrations is

summarized beneath. Each plank is drawn with its outboard face at the top and the inboard face placed

below. The longitudinal profile positioned underneath. All planks are placed with the bow to the left and

the stern to the right. The timbers are not shown in any scale.

1 L= length, W= width (max), T= thickness (max). Template: Grundvad 2010.

59

ID number: 102

L 285cm, W (max) 26.5cm, T(max) 4cm

The bow-end is intact with a scarf joint while the stern end is broken off. Chamfered edges are present on

both sides. Tool marks were not registered on the plank. Concretions are present around the iron nail

holes. Notice the two different sized trenail holes from respectively the clinker and the carvel phase.

A 1: Clinker plank 102 2

2 Drawn by Ni Chiobhain. Inked by Ni Chiobhain. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

60

ID number: 120

L 308cm, W(max) 27.5cm, T(max) 2cm

The plank is complete with scarf joints at both ends. A chamfered edge is running along the plank. Note

that on the chamfered area there is a row of wooden plugs that have replaced small iron nails. This is

evidence that the clinker hull was in use before the carvel layer was applied. Tool marks from axe or adze is

visible on the surface. The end of the plank has an impression where a frame was situated. Brown surface

covering and tar is visible on the plank.

.

A 2: Clinker plank 1203

3 Drawn by Grundvad. Inked by Grundvad. Digitilized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

61

Catalogue of important frames

Surviving elements of the frames only comprised of what seems like the vessel’s first futtocks. The layout of

the framing catalogue are described and ordered in a similar manner to the hull planks except from the

width and the thickness is now substituted with a maximum moulded measurement (M(max)) and a

maximum sided measurement (S(max)). The layout of the illustrations is summarized beneath. The frames

have been drawn as if viewed from the sided, outside face and then turned around to the moulded forward

face, the sided inside face and then the moulded aft face. The head is situated on the left and the heel to

the right.

62

ID number: 105

M(max) 13mm, S(max) 18mm

The frame is complete with scarf joints at head and heel. The floor timbers and the second set of futtocks

must have been fastened to the frame here. The frame has a beveled edge and tool marks visible from axe

or adze. Concretions from iron nails are visible. The inboard face of the frame is eroded by sea grass.

A 3: Frame 1054

4 Drawn by Stanek. Inked by Stanek. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

63

ID number: 106

M(max) 12cm, S(max) 9cm

The heel is cut square with a butt-end whereas the head is broken off. The timber is joggled to

accommodate for at least six clinker planks. The outboard face has tool marks from axe or adze. One side

has a mark formed like a “X” and additional lines can be connected with the mark as well. Could this be a

mark of a sub master frame? Trenails protrude by 2.1-3cm, indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks.

A 4: Frame 1065

5 Photo by Auer 2009.

64

ID number 107

M(max) 11cm, S(max) 19.3cm

Complete frame where the heel has a scarf joint and the head is tapered. The frame is joggled to

accommodate for eight clinker planks. Tool marks from axe or adze are visible. Some trenails are cut flush

on the inboard face and others are protruding 3-3.5cm indicating the thickness of the ceiling planks.

A 5: Frame 1076

6 Drawn by Wagstaffe. Inked by Wagstaffe. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

65

ID number: 110

M(max) 13cm, S(max) 8cm

The heel is tapered, whereas the head has a fresh break. The frame is joggled to accommodate for at least

five clinker planks. The steps have been made with axe or adze. Notice how the heel of the frame has a

downwards turning curve in opposed to the other frames. This indicates that the wreck part is close to the

keel and bow.

A 6: Frame 1107

7 Drawn by Ni Chiobhain. Inked by Stanek. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

66

ID number: 111

M(max) 11cm, S(Max) 21cm

The frame is damaged on both sides. It has four joggles to accommodate for at least five clinker planks.

Some trenails were cut during the conversion and new trenails were inserted which is indicated with tool

marks close to the protruding tool marks. Notice the downward turning heel that indicates that the wreck

part is close to the keel and the bow.

A 7: Frame 1118

8 Drawn by Thomsen. Inked by Fawsitt. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009).

67

Catalogue of important carvel planks

The catalogue for the carvel planks has the same layout as the catalogue made for the clinker planks. The

timbers are illustrated the same way and the data is given in the same order.

ID number: 100

L 516cm, W(max) 44cm, Thickness (max) 4cm

The plank is nailed to the underlying planks and frames. Saw and axe marks are visible on the outboard

face. The inboard face is charred and eroded by sea grass growth. A number of wooden plugs and iron nail

holes is observed. On the outboard face semicircular, crescent marks seem to have marked the position of

the trenails. The plank has both butt ends preserved.

ID number: 101

L 388cm, W(max) 48cm, T(max) 4cm

The plank is nailed to the underlying planks and frames with trenails. A number of tool marks on the plank

is visible, which seemed to have been made with a chisel. A crescent shaped mark on the plank is present.

Near the plugged trenails, concretions could be seen. One of the knots is plugged. On the inboard face the

plank is charred.

A 8: Overview of the carvel layer9

9 Drawn by Thomsen, Grundvad, Wagstaffe, Petrelius-Grue, Alexiou. Inked by Thomsen. Digitalized by Auer. From Auer (2009)

68

Appendix 2: Selective Glossary The terminology used in this thesis is based on the terminology used in especially Lemée (2006) and Steffy (2006).

English Dansk Deutch explanation

Bevel Smig, affasning Schmiege (f) An angled face on the

edge of a timber, cut to

fit against each other.

Bow Bov Bug (m) Forward end of the

ship.

Butt Stød Stoss The end of a timber or

plank when cut square.

A butt joint is the

junction of two timbers

finished in this manner.

Carvel- built Kravel- bygget Karweelgebaut Vessel planked so that

the seams are smooth

or aligned.

Caulking Kalfatring Breeuwen Oakum, moss, animal

hair or other fibrous

material driven into the

seams of the planking

and covered

with pitch to make the

seams watertight. See

also luting.

Ceiling Garnering Wegering The internal structural

planking of the hull.

Clinker-built Klink-bygget Klinkergebaut A vessel constructed so

that its outer planking

overlaps, and is

fastened to, the plank

immediately below it.

The surface of a plank

overlapped by a

neighbor is called a

land (continued)

69

English Dansk Deutch explanation

(continued) and this

double. thickness is

normally held together

with closely spaced

rivets or nails clenched

over metal washers

called roves. Northern

European specialists

limit the term “clinker

built” to vessels whose

planks are rivitted

together; hulls whose

overlapping planks are

fastened with clenched

nails are called

clenched lap or

lapstrake hulls.

Converted clinker

vessel1

Konverteret

klinkbygget fartøj1

Umgevandelt

klinkgebaut Fahrzeug1

Clinker-built vessel

with an outer carvel

layer.

Dendro-dating Dendro-datering Dendro-datierung (f) Determinnation of the

age of a wooden timber

object by analysis of the

width of its tree rings.

Also extends to

identifying regions of

origin. Analysis is by

comparison of sample

data obtained from

known and dated

sources.

Driftbolt Stubbolt Stub nagel Massive iron nail that

don’t go through the

timber.2

1 Terms suggested by the author 2010 2 Pers. Com. Morten Ravn August 19 2010.

70

English Dansk Deutch explanation

Frame Spant Spant (m, n) A transverse timber or

group of

connected/related

timbers set against the

inner surface of the

planking that provide

substantial transverse

strength and stiffness

to the hull.

Garboard Kølbord Kielgang (m) First strake on either

side of keel.

Gripe, cutwater Krig Schegg (m)

Luvkloz (m)

A piece of wood

fastened on the stem,

extending the

longitudional lateral

plane of the hull and

stem in order to enable

a ship to sail closer to

the wind.

Keel Køl Kiel (m) The central

longitudionalbottom

element, often

described as the

“backbone” of the hull’s

construction. May be

scarfed together from

several pieces.

Nail Nagle/spieger/søm Nagel (m) Iron fastening with a

head and a pointed

shaft. Nails were cut

from flat sheet (cut

nails); more recently

nails parallel-sided

shanks.

Rabbet Spinding Sponung The continuous groove

in (continued)

71

English Dansk Deutch explanation

(continued) the keel-

stem-sternpost

elements to take the

lower edge of the

garboards and the

hooding ends of the

planking.

Sapwood Splitved Splintholz Part of a tree beteen the

heartwood (the core)

and bark; often

eliminated during

shipbuilding.

Scarf Skar/lask Schäftung (f) Overlapping joint

between two planks or

timbers.

Spike Spiger, søm Spiker (m)

Nagel (m)

An Iron fastening,

usually square in

section with flattened

or pyramidal head;

originally with a

tapered shank.

Spike-plug Spigerpind Spikerpinn (m) Small wooden plug

driven in nail holes

after the removal of

temporary cleats used

to fasten the planks

together during shell-

first construction.

Stringer Væger Weger (m)

Stringer (m)

Longitudinal structural

reinforcement inside

the framing, typically

square in section and

thicker than a plank

Square wedge Duttle Deutel(m), Vierkantiger

keil (m)

A spike-shaped wooden

wedge driven in the

end of (continued)

72

English Dansk Deutch explanation

(continued) a treenail

in order to lock it in

position in the hull.

Treenail Trænagle Holznagel (m) Elonged, sometimes

slightly tapered piece of

carefully selected and

dried timber, usually

oak, and cut by splitting

and axeing to a rough

cylinder with a faceted

section. The shape will

compress when driven

into a hole connecting

two or more elements,

helping prevent

withdrawal. Various

methods of wedging

and caulking are found

to improve

watertightness and

resistance to

withdrawal.

73

6. References

Auer, J., & Belasus, M. 2008. The British Brig Water Nymph or ... even an Englishman cannot take

the liberty to deride a civil servant on German soil. International Journal of Nautical

Archaeology 37(1): 130-141.

Auer, J., & Firth, A. 2007. The ‘Gresham Ship’: an interim report on a 16th-century wreck from

Princes Channel, Thames Estuary. 2007(41 (2)).

Bill, J. 1997. Small Scale Seafaring in Danish Waters Ad 1000-1600. Copenhagen: University of

Copenhagen.

Bill, J. 1999. Fra Vikingeskib til bondeskude. Middelalderens almuesøfart under lup.

Nationalmuseets arbejdsmark.: 171-185.

Bill, J. 2000. The Bredfjed ship recreated (1). Maritime archaeology newsletter from Roskilde 2000(14): 14-19.

Daly, A. 2008. Amager Strandvraget. In Dendro.dk rapport 17: 2008 Daly, A. 2009. Dendrochronology Report: 4AM Wreck, Darss, Germany FPL 77. Copenhagen:

dendro.dk.

Eichler, C.W. 1991. Holzbootsbau : und der Bau von stählernen Booten und Yachten. Kiel: RKR-Verl.

Förster, T. 2009. Große Handelsschiffe des Spätmittelalters : Untersuchungen an zwei

Wrackfunden des 14. Jahrhunderts vor der Insel Hiddensee und der Insel Poel.

Bremerhaven: Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum.

Gierszewski, S. 1961. towy w latach 1570 - 1815. Gdansk.

Greenhill, B. 1995. The archaeology of boats & ships : an introduction. London: Conway Maritime

Press.

Gøthche, M. 1985. "Sandskuder" - Vessels for Trade Between Norway and Denmark in the 18th

and 19th Centuries. In Postmedieval boat and ship archaeology : papers based on those

presented to an International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology in Stockholm in

1982, Osney Mead Oxford England: B.A.R.

74

Gøthche, M. 1991. Three Danish 17th - 19th- Century Wrecks as Examples of Clinker Building

Techniques Versus Carvel Building Techniques in Local Shipwrightry. In Fifth International

Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 1988.Carvel construction technique

: skeleton first, shell first, Oxbow

Hasslöf, O. 1972. Main Principles in the Technology of Ship-Building. In Ships and shipyards, sailors

and fishermen : introduction to maritime ethnology, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Univ. Press,

Rosenkilde and Bagger

Hawkins, R. 1593. The Observation of Sir Richard Hawkins in his voyage into the South Sea, 1953.

In C.R. Drinkwater Bethune (ed).Hakluyt Society I, 118-121. London

Heinze, J. 2010. Abschlussbericht zur Dokumentation

und Bergung des Wrackes Mönchgut, Ostsee VI, Fundplatz 67 aus der schwedischen

Schiffssperre von 1715

im Greifswalder Bodden. Schwerin: Landesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Archäologie

und Denkmalpflege, Swerin.

Kirby, D.G. 2000. The Baltic and the North Seas. London: Routledge.

Kühn, H. 1999. Gestrandet bei Uelesbüll: Wrackarchäeologie in Nordfriesland. Husum: Druck- und

Verlagsgesellschaft.

Lars Tiepolt, & Schumacher, W. Historische bis rezente küstenveränderungen im Raum Fischland-

Darss-Zingst-Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. Die Küste 1999(61):

22-45.

Lemée, C. 2006a. Kravelbyggeriet i historisk perspektiv : på sporet af kravelbygningsteknologien og

dens spredning til Danmark set ud fra de historiske kilder. Maritim kontakt 28: 7-41.

Lemée, C.P.P. 2006. The renaissance shipwrecks from Christianshavn : An archaeological and

architectural study of large carvel vessels in Danish waters, 1580 - 1640. Roskilde: The

Viking Ship Musem.

Marsden, P. 2009. Mary Rose - your noblest shippe : anatomy of a Tudor warship. Portsmouth:

Mary Rose Trust.

Mohr, D. 2001. Schiffswracks an der Ostseeküste von Fischland und Darss - eine Übersicht. Nau 8:

59-66.

75

Mortensøn, O. 1995. Renæssancens fartøjer : sejlads og søfart i Danmark 1550 - 1650. Rudkøbing:

Langelands Museum.

Mäss, V. 1991. Prospects for underwater archaeology in the Eastern Baltic. International Journal of

Nautical Archaeology 20(4): 313-320.

Mäss, V. 1994. A Unique 16th century Estonian Ship Find. In C. Westerdahl (ed.) Crossroads in

ancient shipbuilding : proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship

Archaeology Roskilde 1991, 189-194. Oxbow monograph 40.

Maarleveld, T.J. 1994. Double Dutch Solution in Flush-Planked Shipbuilding: Continuity and

Adaption at the Start of Modern History. In Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding : proceedings

of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, ISBSA

6, Oxford: Oxbow Books

Nymoen, P. 2007. Arkeologisk registrering av skipsfunn i rørgtøft. Elvebredden Strømsø. Drammen

Kommune, Buskerud Fylke. Oslo: Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum.

Ossowski, W. 2006. Two double-planked wrecks from Poland. In L. Blue, F. Hocker, & A. Englert

(eds) Connected by the sea : proceedings of the tenth International Symposium on Boat and

Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003, 259-265. Oxford: Oxbow

Probst, N.M. 1994. The Introduction of Flushed-Planked Skin in Northern Europe - and the Elsinore

Wreck. In C. Westerdahl (ed.) Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding : proceedings of the Sixth

International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, ISBSA 6, 143-152.

Oxford: Oxbow

Prynne, M. 1968. Henry V's Grace Dieu. The Mariner's mirror (54:2): 115-128.

Ravn, M. 2009. Renæssancevraget fra Amager strandpark - præsentation og foreløbig

rekonstruktion. In E. Gøbel (ed.) Maritim Kontakt 32, 7-23. København

Ravn, M., Bischoff, V., Englert, A., & Nielsen, S. 2011. Recent Advances in Post-Excavation Documentation, Reconstruction and Experimental Maritime Archaeology. In A. Catsambis, D. Hamilton, & B. Ford (eds) Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, Texas: Oxford University Press. (Not yet published)

76

Rose, S. 1977. Henry V's Grace Dieu and Mutiny at Sea: Some New Evidence. The Mariner's mirror

(63:1).

Steffy, J.R. 2006. Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. Texas: Texas A&M

University Press.

Tiepolt, W., & Schumacher, W. 1998. "Historische bis rezente Küstenveränderungen im Raum

Fischland - Darß - Zingst - Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. In Die

Küste 61, 22-45.

77

Master thesis September 2010