Maritime Archaeology

Newsletter from Denmark

Excavating the Tybrind Vig double burial. Photo: Langelands Museum.

No. 24 Summer 2009

2

CONTENTS:

For better or worse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A Mesolithic Double Gravein Tybrind Vig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A practical challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Utrecht Ship Type:A Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Maritime archaeological researchat 77° north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Aggressive shipworms eating underwatercultural heritage . New EU project toprotect underwater cultural heritage fromshipworm in the Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sternpost in the surf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

N0 . 24 SUMMER 2009

Published 2009:

ISBN 978-87-85180-56-8Published bythe Viking Ship Museum in Ros kilde .DKK 399 / EUR 54 + postage

For better or worse

When I was considering to move to Esbjerg, I asked advice of a few dear mentors . One of them was my maritime history teacher Jaap Bruijn, whom I knew to know the place . He had after all chaired the CMRS-board for many years . He dryly remarked that Esbjerg was a nice place, especially if you liked the smell of fish . Moreover, there would be plenty of time: ‘you will certainly not be busy with large numbers of students’ . How wrong he was on both accounts . The smell of fish has given way to the offshore industry, boosting even in the present recession . And students? They pour in to the Maritime Archaeology Programme and give us no end of work, fine tuning the programme, making their study and research rewarding, and last but not least because we offer them quite a bit of practice, includ-ing a full commercial diving course . But obviously they are my first priority and their enthusiasm is contagious, nice and inspiring . But it is true, you, the readers of the Maritime Archaeology Newsletter, have been let down, even though there was so much to report . In good tradition, you see a new volume, Wulfstan's voyage, announced on the left . I promised this place to it . But it could likewise have featured the fine publi-cation of the Ertebølle coastal settlement of Ronæs Skov, that Søren Andersen published earlier this year, or the booklet that the first group of students produced on the migra-tion period, as a background document for future research relating to the Gredstedbro ship-find . Otherwise, it has been a very busy period as well . In January, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage entered into force and the ongoing restructuring of the International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage ICOMOS-

3

able go-between between government, pro-fession and the avocational diving commu-nity . He continued as before when he was pensioned, helped me to move to Denmark and kept close contact, compiling a vol-ume of small-scale underwater researches in 2007 and editing last year's Glavimans vol-ume together with Rob Oosting . He made me put a big cross in my calendar for a party on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, but it was not to happen . Both Joost and Jef will be remembered as pioneers in the maritime archaeological profession, in the Netherlands and at some places in Denmark and further afield .

Thijs J. Maarleveld

ReferencesAdams, J ., A .F .L . van Holk and Th .J .

Maarleveld 1990: Dredgers and Archaeology . Shipfinds from the Slufter . Alphen aan den Rijn .

Akker, J . Van den et al . 2007: Bundel Maritieme Vindplaatsen . Amersfoort .

Andersen, Søren H . 2009: Ronæs Skov . Marinarkæologiske undersøgelser af en kystboplads fra Ertebølletid . Århus .

Ejstrud, B . & Th .J . Maarleveld, 2008: The Migration Period, Southern Denmark and the North Sea . A workbook in relation-ship to the Gredstedbro Find . Esbjerg .

Mioulet, J . & C . Barten 1994: De Romeinse brug tussen Cuijk en Middelaar: van ont-dekking tot reconstructie . Utrecht .

Oosting, R . & J . Van den Akker (red .) 2008: Boomstamkano’s, overnaadse schepen en tuigage . Inleidingen gehouden tijdens het tiende Glavimans Symposion . Amersfoort .

ICUCH has kept me really busy . With a new internal organisation and a wider member-ship across the globe, it will be able to fulfill its more extensive advisory role in the future . In Denmark itself, Marinet, the cooperation of museums with a maritime archaeological responsibility, has been active in negotiating new viable ways of distributing the work-load between themselves and the National Heritage Agency and in bringing maritime archaeology forward generally . Large proj-ects, like the many windfarm-projects that government promotes as their contribution to the global climate issues of Copenhagen, the future Fehmarn-belt connection, and the future management of the Wadden Sea as a national park has kept colleagues across the country busy beyond their normal respon-sibilities and research . The bad thing about an editor pleading to have been too busy, is that he can hardly tell the contributors that they should write anyway, busy or not . So, for the future's sake, I will just deny my own excuses . I hope you will accept them and do the same . Contributions for the next newslet-ter are already coming in!Besides all the positive developments, there have been sad events as well . Earlier this year, two much appreciated colleagues of my former team passed away . First, it was Joost Mioulet, who for many years had been a steady factor in the Scheurrak SO1 excava-tions, who together with Steve Waring ran the very cold Oostvoornse Meer Zuidoever project and who wrote a very nice popular book on the discovery of the Roman bridge of Cuijk, together with Carin Barten . He had long suffered from a repeated illness and died only 45 years old, leaving a car-ing wife and two young children . And then, completely unexpectedly, Jef van den Akker died in the late summer . Jef had called in my office as a volunteer in 1986, joined me the same day for a field assessment of the first wreck in the 'Slufter' and has never since been away, developing himself as a profes-sional archaeologist, a practical fieldworker, a writer, an editor, a policy advisor, and an

4

From 1978 up to 1987 yearly excavations took place at a settlement area with exten-sive waste deposits in the bay of Tybrind Vig on the west coast of Fyn (Andersen 1985) . A research campaign was arranged each sum-mer by the University of Århus / Moesgård Museum in cooperation with a group of recreational divers including the discoverers of the site . The campaigns included both sur-vey and excavation . In 1979 an inhumation grave was excavated that had been exposed by erosion . It contained the body of a young woman and an infant . The burial dates to 6440 BP .

In 2004 another burial was found, slightly further out in the bay . It was the same group of recreational divers, Marine Arkæologisk Gruppe Fredericia, that had been the main-

A Mesolithic Double Gravein Tybrind Vig

stay of the ten year long Tybrind Vig-project, who reported the find and who lifted some skull-fragments that were delivered at Moesgård Museum . The bones were dated by C14 and this showed a date of 5470-5320 BC . This is around a 1000 year older than the first grave of Tybrind Vig and means that it refers to the youngest phase of the Kongemose Culture .

Since the completion of the Tybrind Vig-project the Danish waters have been divided in five maritime archaeological areas, each under the supervision of a Museum . Tybrind Vig is part of the area for which Langelands Museum has the responsibility and in

The second burial at Tybrind Vig. Photo: Lan-gelands Museum

5

2007 the Heritage Agency of Denmark (Kulturarvsstyrelsen) gave the museum per-mission and funds for documentation and excavation of the grave . The Museum put together a team of maritime archaeologists from Langeland, Haderslev and Trondheim and took up its quarters in a cottage in the neighbourhood in September 2007 . The Museum ship “Mjølner” and the museum’s Kegnæs-dingy were used as working plat-form . The team had reserved two weeks for the job and started immediately with remov-ing the cover of sandbags and stones . Since 2004 kelp and bladderweed had changed the cover in a green oasis in an otherwise dull sandy bottom-environment where eel-grass (Zostera) is the dominant growth . The surface of the whole area is littered with flint artefacts and small pebbles and close by there are two fallen and submerged tree trunks .

The grave lies about 250 m from the shore in about 3 m of water, just at the outer edge of the site as defined in the Heritage

Agency’s database DKC . Tybrind Vig is a semicircular bay that is fully exposed to the West . It is very shallow at the shore and the 4-m depth contour lies about 500 m out . In the middle of the bay, at about 250 m out, the bottom topography shows the remains of a Prehistoric lagoon; this is slightly deeper and has an opening to the North . The set-tlement that has been examined since the 1970-ies lies at the eastside of the Lagoon’s mouth and the present grave lies in its deep-est, western part .

The Norwegian section of the excava-tion team came from the Science Museum in Trondheim . Like Langelands Museum it is accountable for maritime archaeology in a specific area . They made a couple of preliminary dives to get used to the Danish shallow water environment as well as to the impressive amounts of artefacts that lie on the sandy bottom of Tybrind Vig . It was hard for them to restrain themselves from collecting masses of axes and nicely worked flakes, but that was the instruction . With the limited time available, all efforts should be focused on the grave and there was no way we could use any resources for the catalogu-ing of large amounts of worked flint that had eroded out of context .

After the cover had been removed and the stones and sandbags had been deposited well away from the grave, a 4 x 4 m square grid was mounted on four galvanised pipes that had been rammed down vertically . The bottom-surface was subsequently levelled with the help of a transparent plastic hose that was connected to a datum on a metal tube . The top layers of loose sand were removed with a dredge and the finds in this layer were collected as a unit with a horizontal precision of about 2 m2, as these were considered to be in secondary posi-tion . The layer beneath consisted of a fine gyttja with so many sedge roots that at first it looked like peat . The top of this layer was carefully cleaned and levelled . The position of the grave became visible as a depression . At about an arm’s length distance there

The two persons were buried elbow to el-bow.

6

was a curved line of stones that apparently had been put in place just after discovery in 2004 . The position of the skeleton itself was marked by a piece of geo-textile, held in place by two oblique stainless steel pins . When the fabric was removed, some 60 cm of the spine lay clear in an almost perfect condition . It showed that the pelvis lay towards East and that the person had been buried with its head towards the West .

By that time it had become unlikely that it would prove possible to excavate and

document the grave in the time available: the weather had been so bad that we had only been able to work properly during two days with an additional two shifts of diving in bad weather . We therefore decided to cover up again and to postpone the further investigation .

The two bodies in the Tybrind Vig double grave lie flat on their backs with their heads towards the West. Photomosaic: Langelands Museum.

7

served bones . The knees were also damaged and so was the smaller person’s femur .

The bones were not studied closely during the excavation . Conversely, it was thought to be more important to try not to contaminate them with the excavators DNA . They were not touched with anything but gloved hands and they were put in plastic bags under water as soon as they were sufficiently free to be removed, after which they were put in the specially made lifting basket that con-servator Jesper Frederiksen had prepared . It is to be hoped that analytically significant DNA can be derived from the bones . In addition sediment samples of the skeletons’ surroundings were taken with the hope of isolating fossil human or animal DNA, from the period during which the settlement was in use . That kind of analysis has never been undertaken on submerged settlements, but saltwater is particularly conducive to the preservation of DNA .

No grave finds or fittings were found . Nor could an inhumation pit be observed . The investigation, however, was stopped imme-diately after the bones had been recovered, and a comprehensive horizontal excavation of the area could not be carried through for reasons of time . The grave was covered again and it will therefore be possible to return to it to resolve that issue .

Otto Christian Uldum

References:Andersen, S .H ., 1985: Tybrind Vig . A pre-

liminary report on a submerged Ertebølle settlement on the West coast of Fyn . Journal of Danish Archaeology 4, 52-59 .

A new team was put together for the 2008 season, in which the colleagues from Moesgård teamed up with the Langelanders in mid June . This time there was only one week available, and we could only hope for better conditions than the previous year . All the necessary work could be finalised in a total of two full working days, and with the two skeletons properly packed the team could leave Tybrind Vig behind .

The cover had kept well since 2007, and the sandbags and stones were again put aside . A thin layer of sand was quickly removed, and the excavation of the grave began immediately after . Contact with the second skeleton – that so far was only known from the discovery of the skulls in 2004 – was quickly made . The sediment was so firm, that we estimated that the bones could be fully exposed without danger of them washing away through currents or wave-action . On a long day, both skeletons were uncovered, and so the measuring could begin . The first, southernmost skel-eton was a large individual . The other one was slightly smaller and lay close to its left side, likewise with its head in the West . Both lay flat on their backs, with their hands in the pelvis region . During the excavation, we thought that the small individual had its right arm over the larger one, but the documentary photographs show that this is not the case . The small one lay slightly higher in the ground than the bigger one and could have been buried last . The two lower arm bones that obliquely overlay the larger individual belong to it, even though their proximal ends lay quite close to the smaller one’s humerus, but both its ulna and radius are present in the right anatomical position . The two persons were simply buried elbow to elbow .

Only very little of the shoulder region was preserved on both skeletons, as these had been in the highest position . The feet had also mostly disappeared . This could have happened shortly after deposition as these certainly lay as deep as other well pre-

8

For students of the essentially practical sub-ject of maritime archaeology who also are commercially qualified divers, the opportu-nity to work on a professional project in the fall of 2008 came as a welcome prospect .

In advance of the planned Nord Stream gas pipeline for transport of gas from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, an archaeological survey was conducted of the Bay of Greifswald, where the pipeline is projected to come to shore .

The archaeological investigations were carried out by Bureau for Culture and Care and Preservation of Ancient Monuments and Artefacts (LKD M-V) in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the objects under examination were anomalies from a series of side scan surveys that were

A practical challenge

conducted during the earlier stages of pipe-line planning .

From October to December 2008 stu-dents of the Maritime Archaeology Program at SDU Esbjerg took the chance to experi-ence at first hand the nature of the work in which they were training for . The work was performed from the Danish boat “Havgus” and the international archaeological team were comprised of divers from Germany, Ireland, and Norway . By night the boat was docked in a small village called Lauterbach on the scenic island of Rügen .

The work was planned for periods of 12 days in a row, with a 4 day break in between,

The Greifswald wreck. Photo: Paul Mont-gomery.

9

but the weather in the Baltic is rather unpre-dictable in November/December, so diving was not possible everyday . The team num-bered 6-7 divers on the boat, and for every dive there was a diver, one rescue standby diver and one tender . The searches were completed at various depths, ranging from 3 to 20 meters .

The objective of the diving survey was to assess whether the anomalies were of an archaeological nature . In the case of a site being recognised as being archaeologically significant they were to be reported for fur-ther archaeological work . During the diver survey sites were described, recorded and, in certain cases, further suggestions were made for archaeological investigations and actions .

During the project main site types were typically: natural features, single archaeo-logical items and major archaeological sites . An example of natural features would be turf banks or tree trunks . Turf banks were meas-ured, described and investigated for specific

features, whereas tree trunks were sampled and tested for dendrochronological analysis .

Single archaeological items, for example anchors, were assessed by divers for prelimi-nary documentation and such items were to be recovered sooner or later .

Major archaeological sites had to be assessed for further archaeological docu-mentation and rescue . An example of such a site was from a ship barrier measuring 980m long and located at the shallow mouth of the Bay of Greifswald . The barrier dates from 1512 and was extended during the early eighteenth century Great Northern War . The Swedish Navy sank 20 ships to create a bar-rier to safeguard their control of the area . The pipeline will run through the middle of the barrier and so one of the ships will require excavation . Prior to this, however, a survey was carried out which included

The everyday reality of a survey is to assess all sorts of inarticulate material. Photo: Paul Montgomery.

10

measuring and detailed recording sketches, photographic and video documentation of the ship remains . The plan for the wreck is to excavate it in the spring of 2009 and redeposit it in a freshwater lake for further preservation .

The students of the Maritime Archaeology Program at SDU wish to sincerely thank the Bureau for Culture and Care and

Preservation of Ancient Monuments and Artefacts and particularly Mike Belasus for giving us the opportunity to work on a professional archaeological project of such high standards and believe their experiences will aid to further their careers in the area of maritime archaeology .

Liv Gardsjord Lofthusand Delia Ní Chíobháin

Students of the SDU Maritime Archaeol-ogy Programme are integrated in the survey team: Photo: LKD M-V.

11

The Utrecht Ship Type: A Progress Report

In 1930, a peculiar ship was excavated in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and put on dis-play in the Centraal Museum at Utrecht . Instead of a keel or a flat bottom, it has a large logboat at its center that serves as a one-piece bottom element . This logboat was enlarged at its extremities by the addition of end boards and on the sides by the addition of planking . Even though the Utrecht I ship, as it is now known, was almost immediately recognized as an important step in the tran-sition from logboat to fully planked ship, it was not documented or accurately dated for

many decades . As a result, it became the topic of much speculation and controversy . Interpretations of the ship ranged from a fully decked seagoing Roman merchantman (Van der Wijk 1933) to the medieval forerunner of the hulk (Crumlin-Pedersen 1972: 186-187) . A full account of the ship’s excavation and conservation as well as of the range of scholarly opinions has been published by Vlek (1987) . Vlek himself concluded that the ship was the end-product of a long-lived logboat tradition and had no relation to the seagoing hulk .

Parts of five more vessels of the same type have now been excavated in the Netherlands (Utrecht, Velsen, Zeewolde) as well as at Queenhithe in the harbour of

The Utrecht I ship in the cellar of the Cen-traal Museum before the 1998-2000 MARES project. Photo: Werner Karrasch.

12

London (Goodburn 2000), and two small boats are known to have been excavated in Antwerp in the early 20th century (Ellmers 1969: 79) . Thus we may speak of a Utrecht ship type (Marsden 1976: 49) . The 8 cur-rently identified vessels of this type range from small to larger inland craft, but also include seagoing cargo ships, as the find from London demonstrates (Van de Moortel forthcoming a and b) .

In 1998-2000, at the initiative of Robert Vlek and with the enthusiastic cooperation of curators Frank Pietersen and Renger de Bruin of the Centraal Museum, a program of international cooperation was set up with the Centre for Maritime Archaeology at Roskilde, Denmark, with the aim of improv-ing the condition of the Utrecht I ship and carrying out a first detailed archaeologi-cal documentation and study . This interna-tional project was made part of the MARES program (Museological and Archaeological Revitalization of Early Ship-finds), which was sponsored by an EU Raphael grant (see Newsletter 10) . As a guest researcher at the Centre for Maritime Archaeology, I was asked to take charge of the documentation and study . The new data provided a wealth of useful information, enabling me to dem-onstrate that the logboat base of the Utrecht

I ship had been expanded and was the prod-uct of sophisticated woodworking skills (see Newsletter 14; Van de Moortel 2003) . In a second study, I explored the relationship of the archaeological Utrecht ship type to the historical hulk (Van de Moortel forthcom-ing a) .

In the spring of 2005, I was granted a research leave from my teaching position at the University of Tennessee to conduct library research at the University of Utrecht as well as at the facilities of the Dutch Archaeological Service (Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek) in Amersfoort . In November and December of that year I was given the opportunity to document the timbers of the so-called ‘Waterstraat boat,’ a river-going cargo car-rier excavated in Utrecht in 1974, which resembles the Utrecht I ship most closely . This documentation was carried out in close cooperation with the staff of the Dutch Institute of Ship and underwater Archaeology (Nederlands Instituut voor Scheeps- en onderwater Archeologie) at Lelystad . NISA’s staff also provided me with drawings and documentation of two smaller Utrecht-type boats from Utrecht and Zeewolde in the Zuyderzee polders . At the same time, den-drochronological study of timbers of the Waterstraat boat by Aoife Daly and Esther Jansma established that this vessel does not date to the 12th century but to the late 10th century .

The starboard profile of the Utrecht I ship as presently reconstructed. Drawn by A. Van de Moortel, inked by L. Dokkedahl

13

Seven of the eight Utrecht-type vessels have now been dated . They range from the late 10th century (Waterstraat boat, Queenhithe ship) to the early 11th cen-tury (Utrecht I ship), the 11th century (two Antwerp boats), the late 11th to late 12th century (Velsen boat), and the early 12th century (Lange Lauwerstraat boat) . A sum-mary of this new research and a possible link with later medieval plank-built vessels, including the hulk, was presented at the 11th ISBSA conference in Mainz (Van de Moortel forthcoming b) .

This spring I am enjoying a second research leave to finish my study and write the manuscript of the Utrecht ship type for publication in the series Ships and Boats of the North of Roskilde’s Viking Ship Museum . I am spending most of my time at Roskilde, working closely with Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and the museum staff . Careful examina-tion of the plank runs of the Utrecht I ship and Waterstraat boat already suggest that the curvature of the logboat base of the Utrecht I ship has been reconstructed as too flat, which in turn caused the problems in the reconstruction of the hull extremities described earlier (Van de Moortel forthcom-ing a) . A model is now planned to determine how much higher the hull should curve .

Aleydis Van de Moortel

ReferencesCrumlin-Pedersen, O ., 1972, The Vikings

and the Hanseatic Merchants: 900-1450 . In G .F . Bass (ed .), A History of Seafaring, 181-204 . London .

Ellmers, D ., 1969, Keltischer Schiffbau . Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 14: 73-122 .

Goodburn, D .M ., 2000, New Light on the Construction of Early Medieval “Frisian” Sea-going Vessels . In J . Litwin (ed .), Down the River to the Sea . Proceedings of the Eight Intermarional Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 1997, 219-224 . Gdansk .

Marsden, P ., 1976, A Boat of the Roman Period Found at Bruges, Belgium, in 1899, and Related Types . IJNA 5 .1: 23-55 .

Van de Moortel, A ., 2003, A New Look at the Utrecht Ship . In C . Beltrame (ed .), Boats, Ships and Shipyards . Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice, 2000, 183-189 . Oxford .

Van de Moortel, A ., forthcoming a, The Utrecht Type and the Hulk: Adaptation of an Inland Boatbuilding Tradition to Urbanization and Growing Maritime Contacts in Medieval Northern Europe . In R . Bockius (ed .), Between the Seas . Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology . Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz, 2006 (Mainz) . Paper presented at Connected by the Sea . Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 2003 but through editorial error not pub-lished in the proceedings .

Van de Moortel, A ., forthcoming b, ‘The Utrecht Ship Type: an Expanded Logboat Tradition in its Historical Context’, in R . Bockius (ed .), Between the Seas . Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology . Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz, 2006 (Mainz) .

Van der Wijk, P .H . 1933, Beschouwingen over het Utrechtse schip . Jaarboekje van “Oud-Utrecht”, 28-47 .

Vlek, R ., 1987, The Medieval Utrecht Boat . The history and evaluation of one of the first nautical archaeological excava-tions and reconstructions in The Low Countries . B .A .R . International Series 382 . Oxford .

14

It is not every day that Danish maritime archaeologists work well beyond the Polar Circle . But in 2008 there was such an occasion . In order to commemorate Mylius Eriksen’s so-called Danmark-Expedition of 1906-1908 an array of cultural institutions had joined forces to mark its 100-year anni-versary . The Danmark-expedition was one of the important, heroic and tragic polar

Maritime archaeological researchat 77˚ north

expeditions of the time . It returned home with unique scientific results, but the price was high: three of the participants – Mylius Eriksen himself amongst them – died on their cartographical mission in the fall of 1907 . Despite extremely difficult conditions, the expedition succeeded in completing the tasks set out for the journey . These were to map the coastline of the as yet completely

The position of the Danmark in its winter-station of 1907-08. The shore building (villa) and telephone cable are clearly visible in the map accompanying the original report.

Right: Diving af 77° north calls for specific safety measures, such as a rifle at hand to keep polar bears at bay. Photos: Odder Mu-seum

15

16

unknown northeastern part of Greenland and to carry through a range of scientific research in the area . The 100-year anniver-sary project of 2006-2008 was targeted towards research as well as awareness rais-ing and improving general knowledge on Mylius Eriksen’s endeavours . It consisted of a travelling exhibition that would start in Odder Museum and that presently can be seen In Ringkøbing Museum, a research project, the publication of a book and last but not least a commemorative expedition .

The first attempt at a commemorative expedition was planned in 2007 . It had to be aborted due to a failing reduction box on the Russian expedition ship Aleksey Marishev, which could not be shifted under way . In 2008, the Aleksey Marishev set out anew, with 48 paying participants and 8 curators from the different museums on board . The expedition set out from Longyearbyen on Svalbard on the 3rd of September . It headed for Danmarkshavn in northeast Greenland, and ended in Akureyri on Iceland on the 17th

of September, after having covered about 2000 miles of ice ridden seas . A few mari-time archaeological operations were carried through along the way by Jesper Frederiksen, conservator at the maritime archaeologi-cal division of Moesgaard Museum, and Ove Sørensen, ethnographer and director of Odder Museum . Ove Sørensen had scien-tific responsibility, while Jesper Frederiksen took care of preliminary preservation . Three surveys were carried through .

DanmarkshavnIn the late summer of 1906, Mylius Eriksen’s expedition ship “Danmark” dropped anchor in a bay that later was to be known as Danmarkshavn (Harbour of the “Danmark” or Harbour of Denmark) . An expedition hut was built on shore and connected tel-egraphically to the ship using a 150 meters long copper cable . The expedition hut was

At 17m depth, this is certain to be Alabama's anchor. Photo: Odder Museum.

17

named “The Villa” and it served as home for four of the participants . The rest of the crew lived on board the ship, which became the expeditions’ headquarter during the two-year period during which the ship was anchored up in the bay . At 77˚ north, the sea is ice free only 2 months of the year . The rest of the year the ship was caught in ice at least two meters thick . The ice surface was used as storage area and garbage dump . Several of the pictures taken a hundred years ago show how the garbage accumulated along the side of the ship during winter . Nature took care of cleaning up during summer, when the ice broke up and the garbage heap hit the bottom of the ocean, 25 meters below . The purpose of diving was to identify some of the historical items that fell to the bottom and if possible and desirable to try and recover them . However, the search for objects on the seabed in arctic areas can be very disap-pointing . The seabed, after all is usually very exposed to icebergs drifting in and out due to the tide, wind and ocean currents . This

is especially the case close to the shore . In those areas, the damaging icebergs make deep furrows in the seabed . Three dives were carried out in Danmarkshavn . The first dive quickly revealed that the icebergs had caused no damage in this instance . The sea-bed is very soft which had made it possible for objects to become embedded in the sedi-ment . Between land and the anchoring site, parts of the telephone cable that had con-nected the ship and the expedition hut were found . In the spot where the ship's sternpost used to lie, a large iron pot was found at a depth of 24 meters . The pot is approximately 80 centimeters in diameter and height, and it was lodged in the sediment and only about 10 centimeters of it were visible . Unfortunately, it was impossible to excavate and recover the iron pot, in the available

The mechanical force of scouring ground-ice and icebergs is such that very few archaeo-logical remains are safe. Photo: Odder Mu-seum.

18

time, but it certainly looks like one of the dumped pots in the original photographs .

Car wreck archaeologyIn the water outside Snenæs, some 16 miles from Danmarkshavn, the Denmark expedition’s automobile – the first one in Greenland – had sunk through the ice in 1907 . It had been on its way towards the ice cape carrying building supplies for young Peter Freudens observation hut in Pustervig . It never arrived, as after less than 40 km from Danmarkshavn the driver decided to turn back due to bad weather . But to no avail: after a bit he got the car stuck in the snow, left it behind and walked back to the ship, which was solidly ice-bound in Danmarkshavn . The car was rediscovered a few months later . But it sank through the ice and could not be recovered . To determine whether or not the car was still standing in the shallow water a 100 years later, a survey of the area around Snenæs was planned . It remained limited to a single dive . The visibil-ity was 15 to 20 meters and it soon became apparent that all sign of the car had gone . The seabed is very exposed to icebergs drift-ing along the coast . The car has probably been crushed or pushed into deeper water .

The anchor of “Alabama”The Danmark-Expedition is best recalled for the tragedy in which the leader Mylius-Erikson, the cartographer Høeg Hagen and the Inuit Jørgen Brønlund died under uncer-tain circumstances during a cartographical journey in north Greenland . This is the rea-son that there have been several expeditions aiming to solve the mystery . The first of these was lead by Ejnar Mikkelsen in 1909, using the sealing ship “Alabama” as expedition ship . He went ashore on Shannon Island and did not solve the mystery . Instead, he and engineer Iver Iversen were abandoned by the ship’s crew, who boarded a bypassing sealing ship . As a result Ejnar Mikkelsen and Iver Iversen had to spend three years on the coast of Shannon Island, before they were

brought home . The “Alabama” was crushed by the ice at only 50 meters from the shore . Considering this we set out to locate the wreck or parts thereof . Good visibility ena-bled us to search large areas of the bottom, up to 20 meters below us, from our zodiac . From here, the anchor of “Alabama” was located and the following dive showed that it was lying at a depth of 17 meters . It was well protected from the drifting icebergs, as it was lodged in a small crack in the cliff . The rest of the ship appeared to be destroyed by drifting icebergs, or perhaps pushed out onto deeper water .

In arctic waters, marine archaeological research requires a lot from the divers as well as the equipment . Due to the high salt content the water is super cooled, and the opportunity to receive qualified help in case of a diving emergency is very limited . This restricts the number and length of the dives . Nevertheless we succeeded in all three investigations within a very short time limit . We consider the outcome highly successful .

Ove Sørensen, Odder Museum

The first car on Greenland, brought by the 1907 expedition was lost through the ice.

19

Attacks by the wood boring mollusc, ship-worm, on underwater cultural heritage is on the increase in the Baltic . At the bottom of the Baltic Sea lie up to 100,000 well-preserved shipwrecks and other maritime related constructions . These have so far been protected from the aggressive shipworm because of low salinity water, but now it seems that they are spreading into the area, probably as a result of climatic changes . A new project Wreck Protect, which is funded by the European Commission, will now

Aggressive shipworms eating underwater cultural heritage .New EU project to protect underwater cultural heritage from shipworm in the Baltic

examine the growing spread of shipworm into the Baltic Sea and develop guidelines

Due to low salinity and continued absence of shipworm, preservation of wreck in the Baltic can be extraordinary, as is well illus-trated by this image of a ship of the 17th or 16th century. It lies at a depth of about 140m and was first presented to the world in the Swedish TV-programme Vrakleterna in 2008. Image: Deep Sea Productions.

20

for protection of the submerged cultural heritage .

Unique and well preserved collectionof shipwrecks in dangerIs it necessary to worry about these ship-worms, given that the shipwrecks are under-water? Yes . The Baltic Sea is one of the few places in the world where historic wrecks are intact and accessible for histori-cal research . This may not continue to be the case unless action is taken .

Shipworms must be foughtLow salinity water has so far protected wood-en shipwrecks from shipworm, but now it is starting to spread into the area . If the under-water cultural heritage is not physically pro-tected, it will be destroyed by the shipworm in a relatively short period of time . The stra-tegy to avoid this frightening scenario is to provide the archaeologists, conservators and museums responsible for the preservation of this heritage with tools to predict the spread of shipworm and provide cost effective methods to protect these sites before they are lost . This work is being supported with funding from the European Commission .

A team of experts come togetheragainst shipwormWreck Protect is funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Program to provide efficient tools for prediction of potential decay areas in the Baltic and to deliver guidelines for protection of ship-wreck . The project, which started on 1 May 2009 and extends over 2 years, includes marine archaeologists, biologists, archaeo-logical conservators and wood scientists from Sweden, Denmark the Netherlands, Finland, France and Germany . Experts from these countries will, through meetings and networking, exchange knowledge and then summarize it into practical tools and meth-ods . Wreck Protect's goal is to predict the spread and attack of shipworm in and around the Baltic and to find cost effective

ways to protect the underwater cultural heritage so that it can be preserved and safe-guarded for posterity .

Additional information:The overall project is coordinated by Dr Charlotte Gjelstrup Björdal, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, and Charlotte .GjelstrupBjordal@sp .se

About the project / project partnersin Denmark: Senior researcher David Gregory, National-museet: david .john .gregory@natmus .dk, 3347 3522Senior Researcher, Zyad Al-Hamdani, GEUS: azk@geus .dk, 3814 2911Museum Inspector, Jørgen Dencker, Vikingeskibsmuseet:jd@vikingeskibsmuseet .dk, 4630 0200Press Contact for the National Museum: Anni Mogensen, 3347 3007

Other consortium membersMartijn Manders & Bertil van Os, The Dutch Agency for Cultural Heritage, The Netherlands .Dr Jon Havaland & Christin Appelkvist, University of Gothenbrug, Sweden .

Advisory boardDr Friedrich Lüth, Director, Roman-Germanic Commission, German Archaeological Institute, Frankfurt am Main, Germany .Dr Giulia Boetto, Laboratory for Naval Archaeology, Centre Camille Jullian, Aix-en Provence, France . Stefan Wessman, Curator, National Board of Antiquities, Maritime Archaeology Unit, Helsinki, Finland .

FactsShipworms are a group of wood-boring marine molluscs, which can usually destroy wood exposed to sea water within a very short period of time; years or even months . However, they require a relatively high level of salt for their activity, and therefore, the

21

Baltic Sea with its low salinity has afforded natural protection of the underwater cul-tural heritage for centuries . Degradation of shipwrecks in the Baltic has until now only been caused by micro-organisms, fungi, and bacteria, and these processes are very slow and much less harmful .

David Gregory,The National Museum of Denmark

The shipworm is a wood-boring organism that threatens the preservation of any wood exposed to seawater. Image: National Mu-seum of Denmark.

22

In 2008, the Maritime Archaeology Program-me (MAP) was invited to carry out the annu-al underwater field school on the Swedish island Gotland in the Baltic Sea . Following an invitation by the local HUMA (Heritage Underwater – Maritime Archaeology) proj-ect, five students and two lecturers of the MAP arrived on Gotland on 4 August for a three week underwater survey .

The HUMA project was founded with the aim to research the maritime cultural heritage of Gotland and focuses specifi-cally on the remains of up to 15 ships lost off Visby during the Northern Seven Years’

Sternpost in the surf

War (1563-1570) . These ships were part of a Danish – Lübeck fleet, anchored off Visby after the battle of Öland in July 1566 . A mas-sive onshore gale hit the anchored vessels during the night of 28 July, and around 15 ships sank or stranded on the western coast of Gotland . Between 5000 and 7000 sailor allegedly drowned during the storm .

Following a number of earlier research efforts (Fordal 1989), the HUMA project aims at conducting overview surveys at

The survey area near Visby. Drawing: Christine Husum

23

sites thought to be associated with the 1566 disaster in order to identify core areas for further archaeological research .

One such area at Brusviken, just north of Visby on the west coast of Gotland, was assigned to the MAP team . Besides conduct-ing an area survey, the field school partici-pants were asked to concentrate on the recording of a number of timber elements located in the search area . These included a large triangular assembly, which proved to be part of a stern .

The research area at Brusviken measured approximately 225 meters seaward and 200 meters along the coast . Water depths ranged from 0 .3m above limestone slabs at the coast to 5-6m in the deepest part . An under-water ridge running parallel to the shore defined the outer perimeter of the research area . The area can best be described as a basin with an open entrance towards the southwest and gradually shallower water towards the northeast .

All diving was shore based . Divers worked in pairs and were marked with buoys . A standby diver was based in a small boat over the site, while a supervisor co-ordinated diving from the shore . With a very exposed shoreline, all diving was highly weather dependant as the surf could easily make water entry a difficult undertaking . In total, 10,904 dive minutes were logged during 11 days of diving with up to 16 dives a day .

Following the general methodology of the HUMA project, the research area was searched visually and with metal detectors by divers . A 150m long, previously estab-lished line served as a baseline parallel to the shore . Temporary search lines were run at regular intervals at an angle of 90 degrees to the main baseline seawards as well as towards the shore . Objects that warranted detailed recording were registered using offset measurements of one or more shorter baselines . These baselines were later tied in to the site plan by measuring their loca-tion in relation to the area survey baseline . Noticeable objects as well as corner co-ordi-nates for the search areas were marked with

Divers entering the water at Brusviken through the surf. Photo: Johnny Christensen.

24

Overview of areas searched with positions of artefacts and larger objects marked. Drawing: Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark.

25

buoys and later recorded by total station .

The area surveyIn the course of the area survey, a total of 29 search lines were put out . An area of 6,400m2 was visually inspected, and an area of 2,500m2 was searched by metal detector . Altogether, the area survey pro-duced few finds . A number of metal finds were made in the north-eastern part of the investigation area . These included a number of lead balls (approx . 30mm in diameter) and oval lead objects, a box-shaped metal object (approx . 50 x 50 mm) with a hole in one side and a corroded chain link .

A number of disarticulate and heav-ily eroded timbers, possibly plank remains, were located in the south-eastern visual search area . Find positions were noted, but none of the artefacts were recorded in more detail, as the area survey concentrated on artefact distribution rather than individual artefacts .

Altogether, the area survey showed a low concentration of archaeological artefacts in the investigation area . Disarticulate artefacts were mostly observed in crevasses and cracks in the limestone, in shallow water .

Detail recordingThis part of the fieldwork concentrated on the stern assembly described below, but a number of other objects were observed and recorded by drawing and/or photography . These include a small v-shaped floor timber or knee and an iron gudgeon located near the stern assembly and a broken iron anchor with wooden stock just outside the under-water ridge .

As the stern assembly was the most substantial and archaeologically interesting object on the site, it was decided to record it in detail on both sides and acquire two dendrochronological samples .

The assembly consists of four timbers and three planks, all of oak . It measures 3 .6m x 3 .5m and is heavily eroded on all sides . The sided edge of the stern post is relatively well

preserved and original, but due to erosion, the lower end cannot be determined . It is likely that the assembly was directly linked to the keel, but this cannot be determined with certainty .

The stern post has an overall remain-ing height of 3 .6m, the sided dimension is 15cm (heavily eroded) and the moulded dimension up to 50cm . Concretions at the stern facing side of the post show that it was fastened to the deadwood with iron bolts, possibly square headed, approx . 3cm in diameter .

Impressions and nail holes indicate the location of two rudder gudgeons, one above the preserved planking and one on the sec-ond plank in situ from the bottom . These are clearly visible on the portside, but only faintly on the starboard side . Both gudgeons seem to have been fastened with iron nails or bolts . The visible gudgeon impressions are 9cm wide . Nail holes indicate a total length of up to 1 .2m .

Three oak planks are preserved on the portside, which had been facing the sea-bed . They are up to 65cm wide and were fastened with treenails, 3-4cm in diameter . The butt ends at the post were additionally fastened with a row of iron nails . A narrow repair patch was inserted between the upper two planks at the stern and also fastened with iron nails . The original plank thickness is hard to establish due to heavy erosion of the surface, but a thickness of more than 5cm can be assumed .

A distinct lack of fastenings indicates that no further planks were directly attached above those preserved . Planking might have continued downwards enveloping the con-nection to the keel, whose position cannot be determined with certainty .

Due to erosion, it could not be estab-lished how the individual deadwood com-ponents were fastened to each other, but the presence of iron bolt impressions in the sternpost indicates a fastening of the whole assembly with long iron bolts .

A number of plugged nail holes and two

26

smaller iron bolts were observed in the deadwood . These could either be a result of the initial construction or be related to repairs .

An oak plank in the stern assembly and the sternpost itself can be dated to after 1496 and after 1532 respectively . The samples indicate a Dutch or north-western Ger-man provenance, but the limited number of samples does not allow a more detailed provenance analysis (Daly 2008) .

ResultsThe area survey off Brusviken has shown that a number of disarticulated objects and finds are located within the natural basin between the underwater ridge running par-allel to the coastline and the shore . Metal objects were detected in limestone gullies in the north-eastern part of the survey area and a number of individual eroded ship tim-bers were observed in shallow water in the south-west . Apart from the described stern assembly with its associated gudgeon and the v-shaped timber nearby, no larger coher-ent wreck parts were found in the basin .

Considering the relatively shallow water in the natural basin and the highly dynam-ic environment, this is not surprising . In

a stranding incident, larger vessels would probably ground outside the underwater ridge, but wreck parts would be washed into the basin . This assumption seems to be supported by the presence of guns and an anchor on the seaward side of the ridge .

Construction and dimensions indicate that the sternpost assembly with associated gudgeon was part of the stern construction of a larger wooden sailing vessel of 16th or 17th century date . This initial interpretation based only on evidence in the construction is supported by the dendrochronological samples of sternpost and one of the outer planks . Finds of stern assemblies from this period are rare . The find is therefore impor-tant in that it provides basic details . It is hard to determine ship size more accurately, but the data can be used in future compara-tive study . When setting the results of the fieldwork session in relation to the loss of the Danish – Lübeck fleet in 1566, there is no direct evidence that the recorded ship timbers and anchor stem from this event . However, considering the date, construc-tion and possible provenance of the stern assembly, an association is not unlikely . In this case, it can be assumed that one or more ships stranded further offshore in the area, and loose material as well as sections of wreckage were subsequently washed into the shallow basin near Brusviken .

In the name of the whole field school

Drawing of the sternpost assembly. Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark.

Maritime Archaeology

Newsletter No . 24 Summer 2009 from Denmark

ISSN 1902-0708

EDITORS:

Thijs J . Maarleveld & Helle Kildebæk Raun

Lay-out: Jens Lorentzen & Ewa Britt Nielsen

DTP: Helle Kildebæk Raun

PRINT:

PE offset A/S, Varde

© Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

and authors 2009

Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from

Denmark is a continuation of Maritime

Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde,

Denmark and is published once a year by:

The Maritime Archaeology Programme,

University of Southern Denmark

at the Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

Niels Bohrs Vej 9 DK-6700 Esbjerg

Tel . +45 6550 4177 Fax +45 6550 1091

e-mail: hkraun@hist .sdu .dk

The Newsletter is supported by:

University of Southern Denmark

Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

Fiskeri- og Søfartsmuseet

The National Museum of Denmark

The Danish Institute in Athens

Langelands Museum

The Viking Ship Museum

Holstebro Museum

Strandingsmuseum St . George

Bangsbo Museum

Moesgård Museum

Haderslev Museum

team, we would like to thank Göran Ankar-lilja and his HUMA team for the hospitality . Thanks also go to all field school participants and the divers and non-divers who sup-ported the work at Brusviken .

Jens Auer & Christine Husum

ReferencesFordal, R ., 1989: Sjökatastrofen vid Visby

1566 - ett marinarkeologisk project . Got-ländskt arkiv, 61: 157-172

Daly, A ., 2009: Dendrochronological Report Väskinde, Gotland 431-1480-08 . Den-dro .dk rapport, 11

The portside of the sternpost assembly in Brusviken is best preserved. Photo: Christine Husum.