A late-sixteenth century freighter

A late-sixteenth century freighter from the Workumer Nieuwland Polder in Workum, Friesland

excavation report 18

by Robert S. Neyland and Kathleen McLaughin-Neyland

- ^

k Nederlands Instituut voor Scheeps- en OnderwaterArcheologie / ROB (NISA)

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat

Directie IJsseimeergebied

Rljkswaterstoat clrectie Usselmeergebied

bibliotheek postbus 600

8200 AP Lerystod

A late-sixteenth century freighter from the Workumer Nieuwland Polder in Workumr

Friesland

Excavation report 18

Robert S. Neyland and Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland

December 1996

Flevobericht 407 ISBN 90-369-1191-5

Neder lands I ns t i t uu t

voor Scheeps- en .Onderwate rArcheo log ie / ROB (NISA)

, 0 82432

Abstract

A late-sixteenth century freighter from the Workumer Nieuwland Polder in Workum, Friesland / by Robert S. Neyland and Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland; Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Netherlands Institute for Ship- and underwaterArchaeology/ROB (the NISA), Ketelhaven / Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat Directie IJsseimeergebied - Lelystad: RWS. RDIJ, 1996. - 78 p., 19 fig., 7 tab., 6 end.; 30 cm. - (Flevobericht 407).- (excavation report 18). Lit. opg. -ISBN 90-369-1191-5.

The remains of a late sixteenth-century vessel were excavated near the town of Workum, in the province of Friesland, during the summer of 1992. This wreck (designated FWN 92) may be typical of a pram-like freighter from the second half of the sixteenth century, particularly one which was used along the shoal Frisian shores of the Zuiderzee and on the growing number of canals there. The excavation and analysis of FWN 92 provide new insights into the late-medieval watercraft of Northern Europe. FWN-92 belongs to a broad group of Dutch vessels that are hard chined, having flat carvel-built bottoms with lapstrake sides. This group includes types such as the 'praam', 'bok', 'schuit', 'vlot and 'punter'. A great deal of continuity can be seen in the construction of FWN 92 with that of 'pramen' and 'bokken' that continued to be built in later centuries. Since there are many local names for relatively similar vessels and the term pram has a wide use outside the Netherlands, for classification, FWN 92 is categorized as a pram-like vessel. The relatively long and narrow, shallow-drafted construction of prams is an excellent design for negotiating the shoal waters of canals and inland waterways. It is perhaps for this reason that this construction is a well-defined boatbuilding tradition within Northern Europe from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era.

The wreck appeared to have been intentionally placed or sunk where it was located. A line of pine posts extended forward of the stem and also just aft of the sternpost was a pine post and hull timbers, two oak beams and two separate pieces of a pine plank, that were reused as stakes. The beams and decking appeared to have been taken from the vessel and reused as stakes. The extremely worn and heavily repaired hull indicated the vessel was at the end of its career when it was scuttled and possibly reused as part of a working platform or as an artificial shoal to aid in increased shoreline sedimentation.


Preface

In the summer of 1992, Bob Neyland and Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland, both Research Associates with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) at Texas A&M University, excavated a small pram-like vessel in the Workumer Nieuwland Polder. During the excavation they were assisted by two graduate students, Patrick Cole and Amy Knowles of the East Caroline University.

This excavation, on request of the Netherlands Institute for Ship- and un-derwaterArchaeology/ROB (the NISA) was the first one in a technical training program for foreign students under responsibility of INA Research Associates.

Within two years Bob and Kathleen worked out the excavation report carefully and with great knowledge. This report is now presented in the series Flevoberichten of the Department of Public Works - Directorate IJsseimeergebied of the Ministry of Transport and Public Works, still related to the period (till 1992) that the NISA was part of the Directorate IJsseimeergebied.

Once more this report secures the growing and valuable cooperation between the NISA of the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science and the INA at Texas A&M University.

Robert Oosting Head Shiparchaeological Department / NISA


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Centre and State Museum for Ship Archaeology for the opportunity to conduct the excavation of FWN 92 under their supervision. All costs of the excavation, recording and conservation, as well as our living expenses, were paid for by the Centre through the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience (IAESTE). Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), generously donated one free ticket and discounted another. As always, their service was both efficient and helpful. This work could not have been accomplished without the help of certain individuals. Dr. Jaap Morel and Engineer Rob Oosting, Centre for Ship Archaeology, were particularly supportive of the 1992 field work and in making arrangements for future excavations. Karel Vlierman contributed his wide knowledge of medieval cultural materials and archaeology. Lucas van Dijk and Jentje van der Land patiently conserved artefacts. Many other Museum staff-members were involved in the excavation and recording of FWN 92: Rudi Loos, Harm Post, Gert Schreurs and Hans Schraal. Special appreciation to Herre Wynia, a Dutch ship archaeologist, who volunteered his time to assist in recording the hull remains. Gordon Watts, Associate Professor at East Carolina University, was particularly helpful in locating two graduate students, Patrick Cole and Amy Jo Knowles, of the East Carolina University Program in Maritime History and Nautical Archaeology, who assisted with the project.


Table of contents

Abstract 3

Preface 5

Acknowledgements 7

1 The wreck of Workumer Nieuwland 11 1.1 Survey and excavation 7 7 1.2 Topography and stratigraphy 75

2 Construction 79 2.1 Damage 79 2 2 Construction of the hull 79 2.3 Cuddies, bulkheads and decking 31 2.4 Repairs 33 2.5 Reconstruction 35

3 Inventory 39 3.1 Architectural artefacts 39 3.2 Ship's equipment 40 3.3 Tools 40 3.4 Hearth and galley 41 3.5 Personal possessions 42 3.6 Cargo 44 3.7 Posts and associated structures 45

4 Dating, ship type and historical background 49 4.1 Dating 49 4.2 Ship type 49 4.3 Historical background 49

Summarizing conclusion / samenvattende conclusie 53

References cited 55

Responsibility 59

Appendices (1-3) 67

Glossary of ship terms 67

List of tables 73

List of figures 75

Enclosures 77


A late-sixteenth century freighter 10

1 The wreck of Workumer Nieuwland

1.1 Survey and excavation

In March of 1992, the remains of a shipwreck were discovered during the excavation of a new drainage ditch in a cattle pasture southwest of the city of Workum, Friesland. The ditch itself was dug as part of a larger program of agricultural land consolidation and re-allotment for this part of Friesland. The forward port side of the vessel was exposed when struck by the crane used to dig the ditch; further work was halted when the operator realized what he had encountered. The discovery was promptly reported to the Centre for Ship Archaeology at Ketelhaven by Mr. Bosma of the Grontmij and W.D. van Gelder, Department of Monuments for Friesland, and the initial survey and report were completed that same month (Schreurs 1992, Centre for Ship Archaeology archives).

The surveyors reported a lapstrake, flat-bottomed vessel with a hard chine, estimated to be over 10 meters in length. The hull remains were well preserved and the site was given a high priority for excavation. Since it was evident that continued excavation of the ditch and plans for deep plowing the overlying agricultural land would result in the destruction of this archaeological site, all the concerned parties agreed to delay work on the land until the vessel could be excavated and removed. The wreck was designated FWN 92 after the Workumer Nieuwland polder and the year of discovery.

The archaeological excavation was scheduled for the summer of 1992 to coincide with the arrival of a team of ship archaeologists and students from universities in the United States as part of a technical training arrangement established between the Centre for Ship Archaeology and Texas A&M University. The excavation team consisted of Research Associates with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) at Texas A&M University. Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland and Robert S. Neyland and East Carolina University Maritime History Program graduate students, Patrick Cole and Amy Jo Knowles. Other team members were from the Centre for Ship Archaeology (CSA) and included: Rob Oosting, Harm Post, Rudi Loos, Gert Schreurs and Hans Schraal.

The excavation of FWN 92 began on 5 June 1992. A crane was used to remove 1 meter of soil overburden, while hand excavation exposed the uppermost parts of the shipwreck, the frame heads and upper edges of the strakes, providing an outline of the shipwreck. Measurements of the hull remains were first taken with a metered tape stretched from the sternpost to the stem. The wreck's outline was then recorded on a preliminary site plan, which was used to map and record artefacts and loose hull timbers.

A more elaborate grid system, using a theodolite to record elevation, was established by Rob Oosting on 11 June. The following day, all of the interior ceiling planking was exposed (fig. 1) and a 1:10 scale architectural site plan of the wreck was initiated. On 17 June, Jan Eric Dilz, the developer of a pantograph designed to record three-dimensional views, used


Figure 1 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after the interior of the hull had been excavated.

• • V N ,

• *

^ \

Figure 2 A new type of pantograph, developed by Jan Eric Dilz, was used to produce a preliminary site plan of FWN 92


his pantograph to record FWN 92 17 June (fig. 2). In approximately four hours, he prepared a 1:20 scale site plan of the entire hull remains. This site plan was refined over the next three to four excavation days until a satisfactory archaeological site plan of the hull was produced (enclosure 1). Cross-sections of the hull were recorded by using a calibrated measuring beam, designed and built by the CSA staff, providing a more precise measurement of cross-sections than steel measuring tapes, which characteristically sag and sway in the wind.

After the site plans were completed, the ceiling planking was labeled, removed, and taken to Ketelhaven. By 1 July, it was possible to record floor timbers and frames that previously had been covered by ceiling planking (fig. 3). Each frame was numbered from the sternpost to the stem, given an identification label, and removed after labeling on the 1:10 scale site plan. The same procedure of recording and labeling was also used for the bottom and outer hull planking (fig. 4). Hull remains were then disassembled and loaded on wooden stretchers and transported to Ketelhaven for detailed recording. Planks that were too long for the stretchers were sawn

Figure 3 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after the removal of the ceiling planking and the excavation of the sediment between the frames.

' ""• i..

- <*»—

K


Figure 4 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after removal of all the frames

into manageable lengths and labeled for later reassembly. Sediment below the ceiling planking was removed from between frames, placed in labeled buckets and sieved through 1/16 wire mesh screen to retrieve small finds. Artefacts were also transported to Ketelhaven Museum for conservation and curation. Site photographs were taken throughout the excavation, especially at those intervals when the ceiling planking, frames and hull strakes, in turn, were exposed and removed. By 7 July, 1992, all of the hull remains had been transported to the Museum and the excavation was completed on 8 July.

The hull remains were recorded by Patrick Cole, Amy Jo Knowles, Robert S. Neyland, Gert Schreurs, and Herre Wynia. Scale 1:10 drawings of individual timbers and planks were made using pantographs, although a few drawings were made using a gridded table. Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland recorded and drew all of the artefacts.

A late-sixteenth century freighter L I

1.2 Topography and stratigraphy

FWN 92 lay a few kilometers southwest of the city of Workum, near the road called Lange Laan (fig 5). The coordinates for the site were given as 157.000-158.000/552.000-554.000 on page 61 of the Grote Topografische Atlas van Nederland, deel 2, Noord-Nederland (Schreurs 1992, Centre for Ship Archaeology Archives). The land here was 0.2 m below sea level. The wreck lay in the Workumer Nieuwland polder, immediately south of the modern Workum ship channel and was oriented along a north-south axis with its bow to the south. The wreck was located between the late

Figure 5 Map plotting the location of FWN 92 on agricultural land near the city of Workum, Friesland.


Figure 6 Map showing the old medieval dikes, Workum ship channel, and the location where FWN 92 was found.

medieval dike and the later dike completed in A.D. 1624; thus providing a terminus ante quim of A.D. 1624 for this wreck.

A comparison was made between Jacob van Deventer's sixteenth-century map and a twentieth-century map by incorporating the location of the FWN 92 wreck site on both maps. This was possible by orienting the medieval dike on both. The representations of this dike, drawn more than 400 years apart, are remarkable similar. The map (fig. 6) shows the sixteenth-century city and channel, the medieval dike and FWN 92. This map suggests that FWN 92 may have rested on the southern shore of the sixteenth-century ship channel (if that channel is extended in the map) or on the Zuiderzee beach. The remains of the vessel lay between 60 to 170 cm below field level. Two trenches were excavated for geologic profiles. One was placed near the sternpost (fig. 7a) and the other amidships (fig. 7b). Profiles were photographed and mapped. Ten discrete soil strata were recorded in the

A late-sixteenth century freightei 16

Figure 7 Geological profiles

_

Hm ::

•• : • ]

" • !

Sandy loam, root matrix Fine sand, sandy-clay mottles Shell Fine sand Wood, peat, sand matrix Banded sand, silty-clay Silt Silty-sand, peat mottles Peat Wreck

5 m

A

• •»


geologic profiles with soil samples taken for later analysis. Much of the vessel's bottom in the bow and amidship rested on a thick layer of peat. The peat had been mined sometime before the boat wrecked, as evidenced by shovel marks and sharply cut faces in this strata. The depth of this layer varied as a result of the mining. In some areas, predominantly in the stern, the vessel's bottom rested on a layer of grey silty sand mixed with peat or on a discrete layer of marine shells. The shells were identified in the survey report as the species /Viva arenaria (Schreurs 1992, Centre for Ship Archaeology archives). This shell layer was also found inside the hull above the ceiling planking and on the outside piled against the chine. Deposition of the shell layer and the wreck probably date to the same time. Inside the hull, the shell layer was found to be mixed with wood chips, tree bark, leaves and peat. Above this was a multi-depositional banded strata of fine grey sand and a darker grey silty-clay. A second layer of marine shells was found higher up in the sediment profile, just above the upper portions of the wreck. In places, this layer was mixed with a grey sandy matrix. Above the wreck and just below field level was light, fine-grained sand mixed with dark reddish-brown sandy clay while the plow zone consisted of a brown sandy loam. This field supported a lush growth of grass and was currently being used as cattle pasturage.


2 Construction

2.1 Damage

The wreck rested squarely on its bottom, only the stern had a slight starboard list where the underlying peat had been mined. This area of soft sediment allowed the stern to settle lower than the rest of the hull. Amidships, the hull survived up to the tops of the futtocks and inwale; however, in the bow and stern, the inwale and third strake were not preserved. The hood ends of the stealers survived and were still fastened to the posts, but only portions of some of the second side strake's hood ends survived on the port side. The upper portions of the wreck appeared to have been exposed for some time, as was evident from the degraded condition of the wood and the enlarged water-worn holes in the inwale (fig. 8). Flowing water had followed the wood grain, wearing away the softer parts of the timber, where formerly there had been treenail and nail holes. Below the upperworks the rest of the hull was well preserved.

Figure 8 View of the port side of the vessel showing enlarged, water worn holes where fasteneis had been located. „*-"" ^ •" fijr •%*

^

1 :

2.2 Construction of the hull

Bottom

The bottom of the hull was constructed of five strakes, consisting of a central strake running from stem to sternpost with two strakes on either side (enclosure 2). Each bottom strake was composed of two planks butted together (a total of ten planks made up the bottom). These butted joints were placed in a symmetrical pattern, with matching joints on the two strakes closest to the central strake and matching butt joints on the central strake and strakes of the port and starboard chines. This symmetrical placing of plank joints and the use of straight, regularly shaped strakes running from stem to stern differs distinctively from those flat-bottomed


prams in which the bottom is composed of a patch-work of planks, such as in the case of the eighteenth-century prams E 14 and A 71 (McLaughlin-Neyland and Neyland Flevobericht 383; 1993).

The butt joints of FWN 92 planks were not directly fastened together, but instead were all nailed to two floor timbers. The bottom strakes were not joined with scarfs, although flat scarfs were present in the side strakes. The central plank and port and starboard bottom chine planks butted together amidships, and all were nailed to the same floor timber. Plank ends of the other two strakes were joined by nailing to a floor timber 140 cm aft of the midships set of plank joints. Plank joints were thus staggered in the bottom with only two floor timbers used for fastening the plank ends. The boatwright used between 9 and 11 iron nails, driven from the bottom upward into the floor timbers, to fasten each plank end. The builder was not concerned with splitting a frame for he placed the nails in a row rather than staggered across the plank. The nail heads were recessed in holes shaped with a gouge to an average 1.5 cm in diameter.

Elsewhere, the bottom strakes were fastened to frames with treenails 2.5 to 3.0 cm in diameter. Occasionally, smaller treenails, 1.5 cm diameter, were used in the bow and stern and on the after starboard side. Larger treenails were cross-wedged and a few of the smaller treenails were wedged with 'deutels' (triangular wooden wedges). The smaller treenails might indicate the use of temporary cleats to hold the bottom planks in place during the initial hull assembly. On one of the aft starboard planks (WN GB1/SB), a small wooden peg (1.7 cm long with a maximum diameter of 0.5 cm which tapered to 0.2 cm) was driven from inboard, plugging what previously may have been a nail hole. This plank also had several other small treenail holes, all approximately 1.5 cm in diameter.

The central plank and five other bottom planks were sawn from oak timber (Quercus spp.); however, two or three planks on the stern starboard side were tentatively identified as beech (Fagus spp.). Beech planks indicate the use of an alternative timber source in refitting the boat. Plank widths vary; for example, the central plank was wider in the bow than in the stern. Both in the bow and in the stern the ends of the planks were shaped into rectangular toes that supported the heels of the stem and sternpost.

Traces of three separate builder's scribe lines were found on the bottom. A scribed line on the central plank was not continuous from stem to stern-post, but ran most of the length of the bottom from approximately underneath the mast step aft to the sternpost. A second scribe line was found on the strake to port of the center strake. The mark was scribed on the edge of the plank and was more visible before the bottom planking was disassembled. It ran from the 14th to the 22nd floor timber. Amidships and just aft of amidships were two series of seven diagonal lines. Probably these represent builder's measurements, however their spacing is irregular. Those found amidships were spaced further apart than those aft. Distance between the slashes were inconsistent, but there were three ranges of spacings for the slashes: 6 cm (2 1/2 inches), 9 to 13 cm (3 1/2 to 5 inches), and 18 to 20 cm (7 to 8 inches). None of these measurements correspond to the measurements of Amsterdam (inch or 2.35 cm, foot or 28.3 cm) or of Friesland (inch or 2.46 cm, foot or 29.6 cm) (Verhoef 1983), but the larger measurement of approximately 20 cm corresponds to the foot measure used between the draft marks on the sternpost. These


three measurements may correspond roughly to the breadth of the three middle fingers, a hand's breadth and a hand's length. The most frequent were three spacings of 18 cm and two spacings of 6 cm. A scribed line was also present on the after half of the port chine strake. No scribed lines were visible on the starboard side of the bottom, but lines present here on the original hull's bottom would have been lost during a later refit.

Scribed lines are not unusual on Dutch shipwrecks found in the polders (Neyland 1991; McLaughlin and Neyland 1993). Builder's marks usually consist of a scribed centerline accompanied with diagonal slashes and/or V and X shaped marks. The centerline aided the builder in shaping the hull during construction. The other marks are frequently related to the location of the mast step (although the mast step could be relocated after the vessel was given sea trials). On FWN 92, however, the diagonal slash marks were not located with the centerline nor were they in the area of the mast step. The function of these slash marks on FWN 92 is uncertain, although they probably represent measurements made by the builder. The purpose of the port scribe line in the stern is unclear, but its proximity to the plank edge may indicate that it was a scribe mark used as a guide by the boatwright when sawing.

The outermost planks or chine planks were notched to the thickness of the stealers, so that the ends of the stealers fit tightly into these notches. The stealer ends butted against the bottom planks, thus allowing for a smooth transition between the stealers and the second side strake. In the case of the forward starboard stealer, this joint was tightened by the insertion of a small wedge.

Two, possibly three, drain holes with plugs were found in the vessel. The plug in the after starboard strake was found outside of its hole. Unlike a treenail, the plug had a thicker and squared cross-section on its inboard end that facilitated removal.

Plank seams on the bottom were caulked from underneath with moss and a lath from a Pinus sp., possibly Pinus sylvestris (Appendix 3). Moss and laths were held in place by numerous wedge-shaped wooden tenons, called 'prikken', identified as a Quercus sp. and were possibly Quercus robur ("Appendix 3). The tapered edge of the tenon was wedged into a small mortise cut in the bottom edge of the plank and the thicker area of the tenon held the laths in place (fig. 9). The 'prikken' were usually 1.0 to 1.3 cm wide, 1.0 to 1.5 cm long, and had a maximum thickness of 0.2 to 0.4 cm tapering to a minimum of 0.05 cm. They penetrated the wood at least 0.6 cm and were spaced 0.4 to 0.5 cm apart. The butted planking ends also were caulked with moss held in place by 'prikken'. A few other archaeological examples of vessels from the Netherlands have had caulking held in place by 'prikken'. the twelfth-century Rotterdam 'punter'; the R 1, a late-medieval pram-like vessel; and a nineteenth-century 'bomschuit' found near Workum (Rob Oosting, personal communication). Therefore, this method of securing the caulking dates to at least the twelfth century, as evidenced by the punter-like boat dredged from Rotterdam harbour (Centre for Ship Archaeology, archives). The use of 'prikken' survived into the nineteenth century in the construction of the 'bomschuit' (Petrejus 1977:52).

The laths were 0.9 to 1.0 cm wide and 0.2 cm thick. Maximum lengths for laths were not recorded because most were broken during disassembly of


Figure 9 Caulking on the bottom of the hull consisted of moss and lath, which was held in place by numerous small tenons, called prikken'.

L"J

CL

LXL

- - • / y . i y . !...•/W.iW.iW. i.. J ••.-. r \ -.tr.-r.;-r

mr-s .rtlLUi

5 cm


Figure 10 Large moss and lath repair to planking seams of bottom.

the vessel. The lower edges of the bottom strakes were beveled about 0.5 cm less than the upper edge leaving a 1 cm gap for the moss and laths. The bevels tapered until the strake edges met flush, edge to edge, on the inboard sides. In one instance, a 3 cm wide by 0.6 cm thick piece of lath was used to repair a damaged plank edge and like the smaller lath, was held in place with 'prikken' (fig. 10). In the location of this repair the bottom edges of the two planks had a more acute angle to the bevel, the bottom being set in about 0.7 cm from the upper edge of each plank.

The outboard edges of the bottom chine planks were beveled to fit the angles of the side strakes. As with the caulking bevels, the lower edges of the planks were 0.5 cm less than the upper edges. In the bow and stern where the bottom strakes narrowed and curved in towards the posts, the lower plank edges formed a more acute angle and were 0.7 to 1.0 cm less than the upper edges of the planks.

The sides were fastened to the bottom with pointed wooden pegs and iron nails. The pegs were of a Salix sp., possibly Salix alba (Appendix 3). They were spaced about 1.4 to 1.6 cm apart (center to center) and were about 5 to 8.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter. Their ends tapered to a rounded point, but in some examples they had an octagonal cross-section (enclosure 5). Pegs and holes appear to have been caulked with a white-colored substance. On the outboard faces of the bottom planks, many pegs and peg holes were visible due to the excessive wear on the hull's bottom. Repair planks had been nailed over the exposed areas with a thick layer of moss caulking placed between the repair and the hull. In several cases, pegs were observed to be shorter than the pre-drilled holes. Iron nails were spaced from 4 to 10 cm apart and located between the wooden pegs. These could represent repairs to tighten up a leaking hull or just a double fastening.

Stem and sternpost

Both the heels of the stem and sternpost were joggled to fit over the toes


of the central plank. The forward toe was fastened to the heel of the stem with three iron nails and the stern toe to the sternpost with four nails. FWN 92 had a sharply raked stem, 120 cm of which survived. The stem had a trapezoidal cross-section, measuring 16 to 17 cm moulded, 10 cm sided inboard and 8 cm sided outboard. Rabbets were not present on either the stem or sternpost. The strake hood ends simply fit flush against the posts where they were fastened with iron nails and heavily tarred. A hole 3.5 cm in diameter, probably an attachment for a rope, transversed the moulded faces just forward and above where the stealer joined the post. A similar hole was present on NZ 43 (Moortel 1991:43) On the forward sided face, 3 to 4 cm above the hole, were the remains of a large spike or bolt (2 cm by 2 cm in section). Also on this face was a blind treenail, 2 cm in diameter, located 20 cm from the bottom of the post.

The sternpost was a more substantial timber, 125 cm of which survived, and was not raked as sharply as the stem. The sternpost's largerest trapezoidal section was 8.5 cm sided inboard and 5 cm sided outboard by 28 cm moulded. On the port side were draft marks for the one, two, and three foot levels. Only the two-foot draft mark survived on the starboard side. The marks were 1 to 1.2 cm diameter holes and drilled to a depth of 1 to 1.5 cm. The draft marks were spaced 22 to 24.5 cm (center to center) apart on the longitudinal axis of the timber, and 19 to 21 cm apart perpendicular to the bottom of the hull and the plain of the water. The latter measurement would have been the one used by the boat's operator. As with the scribe marks, the foot designated by these draft marks does not correspond to either that of Amsterdam (28.3 cm) or Friesland (29.6 cm). Possibly, it represents some local measurement, since each town often had its on measurements (Moortel 1991:105). Another alternative is that the builder could have merely used the length of his hand to measure the distance.

Above the three-foot draft mark there was a worn hole, 2 cm in diameter, somewhat like that described for the stem, but more oval in shape from wear or damage. This hole might have been used to fasten a safety line to the rudder to keep it from being accidentally lost. On both the port and starboard sides there was the impression left by the lower gudgeon. The gudgeon was fastened with numerous iron nails, 20 on the port side and 24 on the starboard side. No distinct evidence of the upper gudgeon survived. The upper gudgeon might have been of the forelocked eye-bolt type, such as was found on the late medieval M 107 and possibly existed on NZ43 (Moortel 1991:45).

Side strakes

Three overlapping side strakes survived on both the port and starboard sides. Each side consisted, from bottom to top, of forward and after stealers, two continuous side strakes and a thick inwale running inboard along the uppermost strake. All of these planks were of oak (Quercus spp.). The two upper strakes, and probably the inwale as well, each consisted of three planks scarfed together, while the stealers were all one plank. Preservation was relatively good, but considerable portions of the upper strakes and inwale did not survive. Stealer hood ends were still fastened to the posts, but only two of the second strake's hood ends and none of the third strake's survived.


Figure 11 View of bow showing grooves that were crudely cut into both of the stealers.

Four stealers were present, two in the bow and two in the stern. The opposite port and starboard stealers were symmetrical in length and shape. Forward stealers extended aft from the central plank toe 4.14 m (port) and 4.16 m (starboard). In the stern, the stealers extended forward from the central plank toe 3.89 m (port) and 3.79 m (starboard). The bottom of the hull was cut away along its outer edge to accommodate the stealers. Where the starboard, bow stealer terminated in a butt joint with the bottom strake, a shim (7 cm by 2.8 cm by 0.7 cm) was used to tighten this juncture. The placement of a shim here was a repair or an alteration made by the boatbuilder, since none of the other stealers were fitted with shims.

In the bow, where the stealers had their greatest width, both the port and starboard stealers had grooves crudely scored on their inboard faces (fig. 11). The grooves had a 1 cm maximum depth and extended from the hood ends aft to futtock 31, about 98 cm on the starboard side and 84 cm on the port side. On both sides, the grooves were located 10 cm below the upper edge of the stealer. The function of these crudely cut grooves is uncertain, but their placement seems to be deliberate. The crudeness of the grooves suggests that they were made after the hull was built, possibly as another repair. Sometimes, in Dutch small craft damaged hood ends are cut away and a wider post used to fill the gap (Lucas van Dijk, personal communication). Removal of a portion of the hood ends might have resulted in the need to pull the upper half of the stealers inward to fit against the stem. This might have been achieved by cutting a groove in the bow stealers and slightly cupping these planks.

Aft of the grooves and the first set of futtocks, both stealers have distinctive, slightly raised brown impressions. The best preserved of these occurs on the starboard stealer and is 16 cm long by 4 cm wide. The area forward of the marks is blackened from charring. Similar impressions were visible on other strakes as well and probably resulted from shaping and bending the strakes before they were placed in the boat. The raised impressions probably resulted from devices used as fulcrums, upon which the strakes were bent over a fire. The stern stealers, however, had neither grooves, bending impressions, nor evidence of charring. The bevel of the


Figure 12 Impression and scoring marks left on a side strake, which may indicate the methods used to bend the strakes.

s

stealer hood ends was a maximum 5 cm wide and beveled 35 to 38 degrees to fit flush against the stem. They were fastened to the stem with iron nails. The second strakes were the first continuous strakes between stem and sternpost. Amidships, between the stealers, they were fastened to the outer edges of the bottom planks with both wooden pegs and iron nails. As mentioned above, the strakes consisted of three planks fitted together with flat scarfs and fastened with two rows of iron nails at both ends of the scarf. One scarf on the starboard side contained at least four small wooden pegs (1.3 cm diameter), as well as iron nails. Possibly these pegs were used to plug holes from which nails had been removed or to hold the two planks together during hull assembly. Scarf tables were 41 to 42 cm long. Port and starboard planks were about the same length, and scarfs were placed in about matching locations on both port and starboard sides.

The second strakes were relatively wide (46 to 52 cm) and showed signs of having been bent and shaped by using fire. Each strake consisted of three planks. Scarfs were placed a little fore or aft of those on the second strake. Areas on the inboard face were charred and burned and several impressions (resulting from bending) similar to those seen on the two forward stealers were visible. At least three such marks were recorded on the port side and one on the starboard side. In some cases, the surface of the wood either forward or aft of the marks (depending on the direction of the stem or stern and the desired direction of bending) was reduced slightly (about 0.2 cm). Associated with one such impression and charred wood, on the port side in the stern, were a series of scoring marks, possibly made with a chisel (fig. 12). These may have assisted in bending the plank.

The third strake was also a wide strake (45 to 52 cm). Both the third and second strakes were at their minimum breadth amidships and may have become slightly wider towards the ends of the boat. Much of the third strake was not preserved, especially towards the bow and stern. This strake appeared to have suffered a great deal of wear prior to the sinking of the vessel, as was evident from the worn condition of the wood. The


long career and heavy use of the vessel was also indicated by heavy coatings of tar used inboard on the strakes, strake overlaps, and over the futtock heads. It appears that the owners attempted to hold the vessel together with tar and caulking.

The strake overlaps were fastened with iron nails, which were clenched, or "twice bent", inboard. Two sizes of iron nails were used to fasten the strake overlaps: nails with heads of about 1 cm alternated with larger nails having heads 2 to 3 cm in diameter. Strake overlaps were all caulked with moss and on the upper inboard edge of some strakes a thick moss-tar mixture had been applied. At least one instance of charring was observed on the third strake, forward on the port side.

The inwale rested on the heads of the futtocks and top timbers and was fastened to the upper inboard face of the third strake. The wale was trapezoidal in cross-section (8.5 cm at the upper moulded face by 6.5 cm at the lower moulded face by 12.5 cm sided). The trapezoidal shape probably allowed the boatbuilder to twist this thick timber to follow the curve of the hull. The inwale was fastened to the upper strake and to the notched heads of futtocks and top timbers by both treenails and iron nails. There were only a scant number of iron nails on the upper moulded face and these were not spaced in a recognizable pattern that indicated a covering board.

Very worn and fragmentary remnants of pine planks were found along both the port and starboard upper works of the sides. These had a maximum surviving thickness of 1 cm, but were so worn that they did not have any original surface remaining. Nor did any evidence of fasteners survive. Although a covering board would have protected the upper plank edge, wale and notched frame heads, it is uncertain whether the pine planks are the remains of covering boards, remnants of washstrakes, or served some other function.

One or two scarfs survived on the starboard side. A short piece, about 70 cm long, fitted in the stern, about where the shear begins to curve in toward the sternpost. The scarfs were about 13 cm long and fastened with iron nails and treenails.

The lack of preservation of the upper edge made it difficult to determine whether or not another strake was fastened above the third strake. There are examples of pram-like vessels from later periods having washstrakes supported by knees (Berk 1984:151). The one starboard fragment with a surviving upper edge had a few nail holes and a few plank fragments recovered could be the remains of an upper strake. The nail holes, however, may have only fastened the inwale to the strake. If there was another strake, it would have had to be supported by knees or top timbers since futtock heads ended at the wale and the top of the third strake. The few top timbers, which were preserved on the wreck, also appeared to end on the inwale.

Frames

Frames consisted of floor timbers, futtocks and top timbers (enclosure 2 and 3). There was a consistent arrangement of floor timbers alternating with futtocks; a framing pattern that is distinctive of 'pramen', 'punters', and other Dutch flat-bottomed vessels. Several top timbers survived in the


hull and others could be inferred from fastener remains in the side strakes. Many of the top timbers appear to have been paired with floor timbers; however, in some cases the top timbers were placed more closely to the futtocks. These arrangements might have served to support beams and bulkheads, although neither remained intact inside the wreck. Most port and starboard futtocks extended across the bottom so that their heels overlapped. The heels of opposite futtocks usually fit against each other, but were not fastened together. In FWN 92 there were a total of 15 floor timbers, 16 sets of port and starboard futtocks and 10 top timbers to port and 12 to starboard.

There were also two curved timbers, one in the bow and the other in the stern, which Dutch shipwrights call 'wrangen'. These frames rested on the stem and sternpost and were fastened not to the posts, but to the strakes. The floor timber count does not include the two forward-most pieces that served as blocks to support the ceiling planking. A small piece of peat was also used in this area as a support for a ceiling plank. Also not included are the three short pieces, located between the thirteenth pair of futtocks and the thirteenth floor timber forward of the stern, which were used to support the mast step.

The number of top timbers was reconstructed from those remaining in the hull and indicated by fasteners and impressions on the side strakes. There could be more or less than the actual number of top timbers reconstructed. Floor timbers were sided 8 to 14 cm and moulded 8 to 9 cm. Futtocks were sided 10 to 14 cm and moulded 7 to 9 cm on the legs and 8 to 17 cm sided and 8 to 13 cm moulded on the arms. Top timbers were sided 8 to 10 cm and moulded 3 to 11 cm.

Floor timbers were straight, spanning the bottom and ending a few centimeters short of the chine, allowing bilge water to circulate around their ends. The floor timbers were fastened to the bottom planks with treenails, except for the two covering the butt joints of the bottom planks, which were fastened only with iron nails.

Two floor timbers have smaller treenails, 1.5 to 2.0 cm in diameter, placed in both their sided and moulded faces. Both of these are from the very ends of the boat, FWN S2A/HS in the stern and FWN S30A/HS in the bow. These floor timbers were also fastened with treenails of 3.0 cm. It is uncertain why treenails were placed through the moulded faces, especially since no surviving structure was found in these locations. The small treenails, which were located in the moulded faces, probably held the bottom planking during assembly before the larger treenails were used. Those in the sided faces also might have been placed in the frames during the assembly process, although how they might have been used precisely is unknown. Most of the small treenail holes in the planking were located in the bow and stern.

Futtock heads supported the inwale, in some examples terminating underneath the inwale and in others notched to hold the inwale. Futtocks were fastened to the hull primarily with treenails, but also with iron nails. Treenails placed in floor timbers and futtock legs were cross-wedged on their outboard ends. Cross-wedges were also used on the inboard ends of treenails placed in the arms of futtocks. Occasionally iron nails and 'deutels' were used to wedge treenails.

Many of the futtocks had chocks nailed to their forward and after faces


Figure 13 Chocks were nailed to the frames to hold the removable ceiling planks in place.

(fig. 13). These varied in size and shape and secured the removable ceiling planks over the chine. The boatbuilder attempted to make most chocks triangular in shape, but a few were more rectangular and these could represent replacements. Chocks were used in a variety of sizes, lengths vary from 9 to 29 cm and widths from 5.5 to 10 cm and were 0.5 to 2.5 cm thick. They were fastened to the futtocks with one or more iron nails.

Aft of amidships, several futtocks had holes drilled through their heads (fig. 14). The holes, 2 cm in diameter, penetrated through the inboard sided face to either the forward or after moulded face. On the inboard face the area around the hole was gouged out to roughly a square or rectangular shape. One such area measured 2.8 by 4 cm. The holes were usually placed about 45 cm above the bottom planks or roughly 35 cm above the ceiling planking. The holes probably served to secure ropes holding cargo. One source suggested that they may have been used to tether livestock, such as cattle and sheep (J. Roelfzema 1992, personal communication). Since a significant part of the economy depended upon

A late-sixteenth century frelghtei 29

Figure 14 Holes were drilled in the moulded faces of the frames, probably as attachment points for ropes.

raising livestock and ethnograpic information corroborates this purpose, the use of these holes for tethering livestock is plausible.

Shims were nailed to the upper surfaces of several of the floor timbers and futtocks to support the ceiling planking. On the starboard side, just aft of the mast step, both the upper faces of the 11 th floor timber and 11 th pair of futtocks forward of the stern had a combination of shims and mortises to hold the ceiling planks.

Only the lower portions of top timbers survived in the hull. Top timbers were short timbers that began at the second strake and extended to the inwale. Like some of the futtocks, they were notched to fit the wale and fastened to the strakes with both iron nails and treenails. Top timbers were not always evenly spaced between the futtocks. In some instances, they were set only a few centimeters from a futtock. In these locations, a top timber and a futtock closely spaced together might have supported a beam or bulkhead.

Ceiling planking

FWN 92 had a tight-fitting ceiling across the bottom of the vessel, terminating a little over a meter forward of the stern (enclosures 2 and 5). Ceiling planking was constructed of a mixture of wood types. Both pine and oak were used, as well as some other unidentified hardwoods. The longer planks were of oak while many of the shorter ones were of pine. Some of the short planks at the very stern (between futtocks 3 and 5) were reused bottom planks. This is evident from the remnants of pegs in the edges of these planks. The planks also had small holes, 1.5 cm in diameter, in their inboard and outboard faces. Probably the holes were left by temporary clamping with cleats during hull construction and had been plugged with tar. It is possible these ceiling planks may have been planks replaced from the starboard side in the stern.

Amidships, in what was the main cargo area, the ceiling consisted primarily of four long oak planks. Some of these had been repaired or fitted with other smaller planks. Three planks were joined with scarfs: two of these


were repairs, but the two most centrally-located ceiling planks were fitted together with a 12 cm long scarf fastened with iron nails. Forward, this same plank had a large rectangular hole, 58 by 23 cm, which lay underneath the mast step. This hole may have served for draining the mast step or possibly at one time held the lower ends of planks for the tabernacle.

Over the chine, the space between the futtocks was protected by removable ceiling planks. These planks overlaid the main ceiling and their outboard edges rested against the side strakes. Small, 1 cm square strips of wood were wedged between the futtocks to support the outboard edges of these removable planks. Futtock chocks prevented the planks from flipping up and served as guides for sliding the planks in and out. Removal of these planks would have permitted access to the bilge for cleaning and bailing water. A few iron nails were present in some boards and are perhaps an indication that as the boat neared the end of its life these boards were nailed in place. Alternatively, the iron nails might indicate a prior use for these boards before being used as ceiling planking. On the starboard side between the 11th floor timber and 11th pair of futtocks, there was a gap in the ceiling planking.

The builder of the vessel went to great lengths to construct and maintain a tight ceiling. In the bow, the ceiling was thinner consisting of overlapping pine boards. Overlapping helped to make a watertight fit. Also, thin wedges (1 to 0.5 cm wide) were placed where the boards fit against the chine to insure a tight fit. This ceiling formed the floor of the forward cuddy and provided a dry place for a few goods, personal belongings, or for a person to curl up and sleep. A child's pair of shoes was found in this area on the port side, within a layer of hay.

Mast step

The small mast step was fastened directly to the ceiling planking. It was centered on the central ceiling plank over the notch in the ceiling. The mast was stepped far forward, 4.4 meters aft of the stem. The step was small, 50 cm by 10 cm by 3 cm thick. A worn oval area, 6 cm by 4 cm and 2 cm deep, was in the center of the piece for the heel of a small mast. Four small blocks braced the mast step. None of these were directly fastened together; instead, all were fastened to the ceiling with iron nails. Directly underneath the step and in the notch was a pine plank 52 cm long and 2 cm thick. This plank spanned the 12th floor timber and the leg of the 13th starboard futtock. Its forward end rested on the three chocks placed forward of the 13th futtock. This plank had a worn area, 7 cm wide and 1 cm deep, immediately aft of the mast step. The notch in the ceiling plank probably allowed for draining the mast step area. As mentioned below, the fragment of what might have been the sail beam, the literal translation of the Dutch 'zeilbalk' was found outside the boat. It is possible that this small mast step was a refit. The location of notches on this beam parallel those in the ceiling and could indicate a tabernacle that held a larger mast.

2.3 Cuddies, bulkheads, and decking

Although a forward cabin or cuddy did not survive, there is evidence for a bulkhead and thus a possible cuddy. Just forward of the mast step, a


board was nailed across and on top of the ceiling planking. This fragmentary piece survived for 103 cm. It was 9 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick and fastened to the ceiling by both iron nails and treenails. This fragment, along with other structural features, seems to signify the position of a bulkhead. Also in the bow, on the port side, was a mortise in the ceiling plank, which was immediately aft of the 16th starboard futtock. This notch, 6.5 cm long by 4.4 cm wide by 1 cm deep, might have held the heel of a stanchion or post. The bottom of the notch had almost worn through to the plank below. In the bow, the tightly constructed ceiling planking, remnants of a possible bulkhead, and a few personal possessions found there are possible considered indications of a forward cuddy.

Some transverse beams were probably used in the hull, although none were found in place. One beam, reused as a stake, was found outside of the hull on the starboard side of the stern. One end had been sharpened with an adze and driven into the ground, while the uppermost part had severely deteriorated, leaving a total surviving length of 185 cm. This timber has a maximum width of 13 cm on what was probably its moulded face and 11 cm on its sided face. It seems to have had some slight camber, 3 to 4 cm of rise. Two mortises were placed 21 cm apart; both were 8 to 9 cm wide by 6 to 8 cm long and 4 cm deep. Iron nails and treenails were present in both mortises, as well as a 2 cm diameter, cross-wedged peg in one mortise. It is possible that this is the transverse beam or sail beam, which braced the mast and that the mortises held the beam ends of carlings.

Also, the space between these mortises is approximately the same as that between the slots in the ceiling plank underneath the mast step. A similar construction using a mast step, sail beam, and carlings can be seen on the shipwreck from Capelle, excavated in 1822, and drawn by CJ. Glavimans (Reinders 1987: 13-14, 105). This wreck, dated to the siege of Geertruidenberg in 1593, is perhaps contemporary or at most only a few decades older than the Workumer Nieuwland vessel.

Numerous iron nails were present on what may have been the forward face of this transverse beam. These nails could have fastened the bulkhead planking to the beam. On the upper face, fewer iron nails were used, but here they were more regularly spaced, possibly for the deck planks. The sharpened end of the beam has the remnant of a treenail hole, which might indicate where the beam was fastened to a knee.

Another possible FWN 92 beam was driven into the ground outside the boat and close beside the above-mentioned beam. The lower end had been sharpened to a chisel-like edge and the upper end had deteriorated. This beam was also of oak, had a few iron nails on two opposite faces and two oval burn marks 0.3 cm deep into another face. In fact, when the worker trimmed this timber's end to form a stake he struck a nail, which bent but remained in the post (enclosure 5). This placed a 0.4 cm wide nick in the adze blade that was visible elsewhere on this timber and on the sharpened stake end of the above-mentioned beam. It would appear that this timber was transformed into a stake prior to the other timber being altered. The nail bent by the adze was small, a little over 3 cm long with a head of about 0.6 cm. It and the other nails in this timber could have fastened bulkhead planking. The beam was square in cross-section, with maximum dimensions of 11.5 cm by 12 cm. It was not possible to determine if this timber had any curve to an upper face.


Of the stakes found forward and after the vessel, only these two were of oak. Both originally had been sawn, with symetrical faces and square cross-sections, unlike the pine posts, which were round in cross-section, still retained some bark and had been worked only with an adze. The only other sawn wood used as stakes were two fragments of possible deck plank.

In the stern, two fragments of a small beam were found just forward of the sternpost at the height of the upper edge of the second strake. The two fragments fit together, giving a total surviving length of 95 cm, and are tentatively identified as pine. They were crudely worked, roughly 6 cm square with patches of bark remaining. Three small iron fasteners were present in one fragment. Other evidence of a short beam or small support are two grooves worn in the forward-most frame, an example of the V-shaped wrangen type. These were opposite each other on port and starboard inboard faces of the frame. As reconstructed, the position of the grooves indicate a beam just under the top edge of the second strake. There was no indication of any fasteners in the grooves.

On the port side, 25 to 33 cm east of the sternpost, two pieces of pine planking had been used as stakes and driven in the mud. These were discovered to be fragments of the same plank. After refitting the pieces together, the reconstructed fragment was 190 cm long by 34 cm wide (the original plank width) and 3 cm thick. This appears to be a deck plank fragment, either from the starboard stern or port bow areas. Its outboard edge has a curve that matches the reconstructed bow curve more than the stern's. The deck planking has a few nails, with 1.5 cm diameter heads, for fastening to a beam. There is a 5 cm wide impression, probably from a small beam, where two nails penetrate on the underside. The upper surface also shows staining around the outer edges of the plank.

2.4 Repairs

The worn, heavily repaired condition of FWN 92 is one of the overall impressions of the boat and along with other factors one of the indications that it had reached the end of its life and was abandoned. Repairs were made to the bottom and sides of the hull, particularly the area around the chine. Certain areas had thick applications of caulk and tar, such as the strake overlaps, upper parts of the frames and where the hood ends were fastened to the stem and sternpost.

Many of the repairs were to areas that must have received greater wear and stress and therefore were more prone to leakage. The bottom of the hull at the chine was one such area. This was especially true in the bow and stern, probably where the vessel received the brunt of grounding and broke the force of the waves. Here long patches of thin, tight-grained oak and a layer of moss were applied to the bottom. These protected the join of the bottom to the sides and covered the pegs that had become exposed. These repair planks may have been taken from the heartwood, since they all seemed to have been selected for a tight grain. The repair planks used outboard on the side strakes were of a similar composition.

Repair planks were also placed inboard against the bottom in the same locations as the above-mentioned repairs. Many of these also held a layer of moss. The majority of these repairs were on the starboard side in the fore-


ward half of the vessel. The boards used here were mainly oak, but a few may have been of other species. The boards used inboard were normal boards, unlike the hard, thin examples that were placed outboard. In the very bow, a large triangular-shaped plank lay against the bottom and two short blocks were placed above it to support the ceiling. Other areas on the bottom that had been patched were the planking seams. A few repairs were made both on the inboard and outboard sides, but were a little more frequent on the latter. Again, harder and thinner examples of oak boards were used. The replacement with beech planks in the stern (already described above) may have been one of the more extensive refittings of the vessel. One method of repairing damage to the seams between the bottom planks is found in an example of a large lath with moss caulking, which was overlaid by a repair plank (see fig. 10). This appeared to be a repair to a plank edge, damage that could have been occurred to the sap-wood along this edge. Only one repair of this type was noted.

Side strakes frequently had repairs over splits and knots in the wood, as well as scarfs. All of these frequently had patches on both inboard and outboard sides. The knots repaired were the larger examples, where the knot must have become loose. Some of these had been fitted with a plug and boards with moss caulking nailed over the knothole, usually from both sides of the strake. A heavy coating of tar had been applied liberally to the sides of the vessel, both inboard and outboard. This may have been an attempt to preserve the deteriorating wood of the vessel as well at to stop leaks. Several repair planks were placed over the strakes scarfs. These were similar to repair planks used elsewhere in the boat. One exceptional repair was the rectangular-shaped notch with beveled sides placed in a scarf on the starboard side strake. A larger repair patch covered the damaged area outboard.

Figure 15 2 0 Graph of hull displacement and dead weight capacity

metric tons

^ 1 6 . 9

15 displacement

/ • 1 4 0 1

•M2.2 /

10

msa /

* 9 . 3

dead weight capacity

5

• 3 . 9 8

I I

draft marks


Also, one of the two different sizes of iron nails used to fasten the strake overlaps could represent a refitting or reinforcement to the strake overlaps. It is difficult to be certain which one represents the later addition. It is also evident from the nail holes in the frames, placed just below the joggles, that nails were driven through the strake overlap into the frames.

The curious scores in the two bow stealers also probably represent a repair, possibly to enable rotted hood ends to be removed and the remaining wood to be nailed to the stem. The scoring is very crude and does not seen compatible with the original construction of the boat. Both stem and sternpost had been heavily caulked with tar where the hood ends joined the posts. In the stern a repair plank containing a thick bandage of moss was fastened over the lower part of the sternpost from the stealer to the 'wrangen' frame.

Analysis of the location of the repairs on FWN 92 illustrates, possibly what is obvious, that the hard chine in the areas of the bow and stern were the sources of leakage and resulted in frequent repairing. This may be one of the inherent design flaws of such hard-chined vessels. However, the shoal draft as well as ease and efficiency of construction may have outweighed such factors. On the sides fatigue to the wood, evidenced by splitting, and heavy applications of tar to the plank overlaps seems to be the most common repair. The numerous repairs, coatings of tar and poor condition of the hull suggest that the vessel had become costly, or perhaps impossible, to keep afloat.

2.5 Reconstruction

The reconstructed hull has a maximum length of 14 m, breadth of 2.77 m, and a midships maximum depth of 0.92 m with a minimum depth of 0.8 m further aft. FWN 92 has an estimated timber volume of 2.89 m3, which yields a weight of 2,080.8 kg (2.08 metric tons). The displacements and dead weight capacities (in metric tons) for drafts of one to three feet are shown in the following graph (fig. 15). Principal hull dimensions and coefficients are presented in Table 1.

T a b l e 1 Length of the keel Hull dimensions and proportions. L e n g t n o f w a l e r | , n e ( 3 . f e e t d r a t t )

Length between perpendiculars Overall length Maximum breadth Moulded breadth Draft (3 feet waterline) Maximum depth Depth of Hold Length/beam ratio Waterplane area, 3-foot draft Waterplane coefficient Midship coefficient Block coefficient Prismatic coefficient

11.49 m 12.66 m 13.68 m 14.00 m 2 77 m 2.70 m 0.75 m 0 92 m 0 79 m 4.94/1

26.24 m-0.79 0.88 0.67 0.77

Only the one foot draft mark, which is 28 to 29.5 cm as measured perpendicular to the bottom of the sternpost, reflects a measurement close to that of either an Amsterdam or Frisian foot. As mentioned above, the two and three feet marks, which are 18 to 20 cm apart, represent a much


shorter distance. If the boat builder had used the larger foot, he would have been unable to have had a three feet mark since this draft is greater than the minimum depth of hold. Therefore, the builder chose to use a shorter foot in order to have a three feet mark. This may represent a local system of measurement or perhaps a deceit on the part of the builder.

With a length to breadth ratio of 4 .9 /1 . the hull of FWN 92 has a ratio between that of earlier medieval prams and the pram freighters and boats of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The fine, lanceolate hull shape and the unique style of caulking the bottom may indicate a construction design borrowed from smaller craft.

Vessel K 73/74 has a fine lanceolate hull, but does not have a completely flat bottom from stem to stern. FWN 92's shape is not as full as that of the prams from later periods, which have a more box-like shape and an increased cargo capacity. However, FWN 92 was a relatively efficient freighter, as can be illustrated by comparing its hull proportions given in Table 1 with those of other late medieval cargo carriers. The fifteenth century Almere cog has a midship coefficent of 0.96, block coefficient of 0.66, prismatic coefficient of 0.69 and waterplane coefficient of 0.85. The later seventeenth-century 'beurtschip' has a midship coefficient of 0.96, block coefficient of 0.73, prismatic coefficient of 0.75, and water-plane coefficient of 0.87 (Hocker 1991:136,187).

The reconstruction of FWN 92 is based upon the information gathered during the excavation and the recording of the hull timbers. This material consists of the initial site plans and cross-sections drawn in the field, photographs, field reports and primarily the 1:10 scaled drawings made of all the timbers and planks after FWN 92 was disassembled. Of these, the latter drawings provided the primary data for the reconstruction of the hull, although other records were referred to occasionally in order to control the accuracy of the reconstruction and to determine structural relationships.

The enclosures show five views of FWN 92: the planking lines, a construction plan without ceiling planking, a plan illustrating the ceiling planking and exploded views of the hull's bottom and side strakes and frames. The planking lines were produced by comparing the heights and angles of the futtock joggles with the widths of the strakes and the cross-sections made in the field. The resulting lines were then adjusted to produce a fair set of lines. Where the ends of the strakes did not survive in the bow and stern the lines were carried through to the posts. Fortunately, the widths of the strakes were relatively uniform. The bottom was reconstructed with some curve; the amount of this hypothetical rocker was taken from that observed in the drawings of nineteenth and twentieth century pram-like vessels (Berk 1984). Based on these drawings, an average amount of rocker was applied to the hull reconstruction. The finished height of the stem and sternpost was also estimated by looking at drawings of nineteenth and twentieth century Dutch boats having constructions analagous to FWN 92.

The construction plan, for the most part, is based upon the timbers found in the hull, exceptions being many of the top timbers and portions of the inwale. Large portions of the upperworks did not survive or were too damaged to provide accurate information. The placement of many of the top timbers was based upon fasteners and impressions found between the futtocks. If a top timber was found on one side of the vessel and a


fastener hole existed in a similar location on the opposite side of the hull, then some port and starboard symmetry was assumed and top timbers reconstructed on both sides. In the bow, most of the inwale did not survive; however, based on the construction of other prams it can be assumed that the inwales ran to the stem and that inwale timbers were joined together with scarfs. The position of these scarfs can only be guessed at, but about where the inwale has the most curve would be the logical place. The shape, size, and position of the forward inwales was based on the surviving after starboard inwale construction, which consisted of a short transitional inwale timber joined to the forward and after timbers. Such features as the forward and after cuddies, bulkheads, and transverse beams were not reconstructed. Although these were probably in the vessel and some locations for these could be hypothesized, this would have been too speculative with the scant information that survived.

The exploded planking plan shows both the hypothetical reconstructed planking and the limits of preservation recorded. Significant features such as hull fasteners, repairs and the impressions left from bending the strakes are shown here. Many of the planks recorded were not well preserved and deteriorated further during the disassembly and thus some information may have been lost during disassembly and transport. In this plan, some damage to the planks was left out. plank distortion was accounted for and damaged planking edges were drawn as fair lines.

The exploded view of the frames, which includes the stem and sternpost, shows the after faces of the frames and the location of the treenails and nails that fastened the hull strakes. This plan, unlike the planking plan, shows the frames as they were found. No effort was made to reconstruct missing portions or correct for distortion, in order to provide other researchers the opportunity to carry out an alternative reconstruction if they should so desire. Together the planking and framing plans permit a model builder to reconstruct a scaled version of this hull.


3 Inventory

Only a few artefacts were recovered from FWN 92. The small assemblage consists of architectural materials, ship's equipment, tools, galley-related finds, personal possessions and cargo (fig. 16). The majority of artefacts are small brick fragments, most of which were recovered from the mud between the frames. The brick fragments are believed to be the remains of cargo because of their location in the hold area. Another possibility is that the vessel hauled refuse, such as building debris, from the city. Crone mentions that vessels such as 'bokken' were used in the twentieth century to haul away debris from road construction (Crone 1946:90). Since FWN 92 had a construction like that of nineteenth- and twentieth-century 'bokken', it would have been suitable for hauling building debris in the sixteenth century. Artefacts revealing more about daily life onboard the vessel include a child's mismatched pair of shoes, an adult's shoe, fragments of different leather garments (perhaps scrap leather saved for reuse), a copper eyelet from a garment, and sherds to a ceramic pan. The small size of the assemblage can probably be attributed to abandonment of the vessel. However, FWN 92 might have lacked a hearth and living accommodations, thereby also accounting for the small assemblage.

3.1 Architectural artefacts

Architectural materials include the hull and constructional features of the ship such as fasteners and fittings, as well as rigging elements attached to the hull. Iron nails recovered from the sediments in the hull predominate in this category. Two wooden plugs were also found, one of which was actually situated a short distance from the hole it had stopped. This cate-

Figure16 Artefacts recovered include ship's equipment (sheave, pin and part of a punting pole), hearth and galley (skillet fragments) and personal possessions (shoes and eyelet)

48

=30 14a

20, 20a + c. 22 ,23 .26


gory also includes a small block of peat from the bow, which had been used as a ceiling support and was intentionally wedged underneath the ceiling and against the side of the vessel to level the ceiling plank.

Table 2 Architectural artefacts

Number Object Class Provenience

J i Nail A Bow 28 Nail A Stern 31 Encrustation A Stern JS 4 nails A Stern 36 Encrustation A Stern 37 Encrustation A Stern 39 Nail A Stern 41 Nail -42 Spike A Stern 47 Plug A Amidship 76 Nail A 8'* 2 iron nails A Stern 90 Pin or plug A 92 Nail A 93 Nail A 107 Peat brick / ceiling support A Bow 114 Plug A Unknown

3.2 Ship's equipment

Ship's equipment are items necessary to operate the ship such as anchors, sails, cordage and spare equipment. Ship's equipment in FWN 92 is represented by only a few small, badly preserved fragments of right-twist rope measuring about 1 cm in diameter, a sheave and pin to a block and the point to a punting pole. Some of the leather scraps, listed in the category of personal possessions, could have been used in maintaining the ship's equipment. For example, as leather washers placed between the pins and sheaves in blocks to protect a blocks surface from wear, on the rigging, or as part of the valve in ships having pumps.

Table 3 Ship's equipment.

Number

34 43 •'.8 48 r)7

Object Class

Right twist rope i 3 Rope i i Sheave i a Pin to sheave Point to punting pole 1.

Provenience

Stern Stern Stern

Stern

3.3 Tools

The category of tools encompasses those items used for the management, maintenance and cleaning of the boat. The remains of three heather brooms or brushes comprise the total assemblage for this category. Two brushes were found near the mast step, but the third brush was found in the stern, just outside of the wreck on the port side. All of these were bundles of heather twigs with existing lengths from 5 to 22 cm. One recovered in the bow (FWN 92-19) had remnants of a thin narrow reed or willow binding around its center; however, handles were absent from all three brooms

A late-sixteenth century freighter •Hi

Table 4 Tools.

Number

19 25 50

Object

Heather brush Heather brush Heather brush

Class Provenience

6.4 6.4 6.4

8ow Bow Stern

3.4 Hearth and galley

The hearth and galley classification includes, for the purposes of this analysis, any item or feature related to the storage, preparation and consumption of food aboard ship.

Ceramic finds were fragmentary and no intact vessels were recovered. Artefacts representing the galley assemblage are predominantly composed of a green, lead-glazed greyware. Six fragments of greyware fit together to form part of a small skillet. This skillet had a flat bottom with a reconstructed base diameter of 13 cm. These sherds have an olive green lead-glazed interior. The ratio of redware to greyware (3 to 9) is surprisingly low since Hurst's et al. (1986) study of kiln and waster sites in the Netherlands documented the supplanting of greywares by redwares in the late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries; however, localized ceramic traditions are not well documented. Also, it is not well understood how local pottery traditions correlate over time with changes in the better documented northwest European ceramic traditions (Hurst et al., 1986). The missing handle to this skillet, which is essential for dating, increases the difficulty of comparing it with other ceramic collections.

One tiny shard of glass was found while sieving mud from between the frames. It was the only glass found and is a non-diagnostic body sherd. Glass seems to be relatively rare on Dutch inland wrecks during the sixteenth century. Similarly, glass occurs relatively infrequently in the inventories of the Dutch rural people (de Vries 1974:264). A fragment of a wooden barrel strap was also found in the mud between the frames near the mast step, in the vicinity of the forward cabin. It could represent either cargo or the provisioning of the vessel, however, because of its location it is placed in the category of hearth and galley.

Table 5 Hearth and galley


4 Greyware rim sherd 8 Amidship 7 Greyware body sherd 8 Bow 9 Redware sherd 8 Bow IO Greyware body sherd 8 1-.. IW

11 Greyware body sherd 8 Bow 20 Greyware skillet frag 8.4 Bow 20 A-C Greyware skillet frags. 8 i Bow 22 Greyware skillet frag. 8 4 Port 23 Sherd 8 Spoil 26 Greyware skillet frag. 8.4 Bow 49 Glass shard 9 Amidship 55 Redware sherd 8 Amidship 56 Redware body sherd 8 Amidship 59 Wood barrel strap 10 Bow 79 Sherd 8 Stern 84 Sherd 8 Bow 95 Redware nm sherd 8 Stern 96 Base sherd 8 Amidship


3.5 Personal possessions

Personal possessions are any item normally of private ownership including clothing, grooming accessories, pocket money, ornamentation, personal tools and items of leisure. This category usually provides the richest information regarding the daily life of the occupants. On FWN 92 very few items in this category survived. All of the surviving personal effects were of leather and were recovered in the bow, most of them forward of the mast step.

The two largest objects appear to be fragments of a garment, partial sleeves or pants legs. Pieces had been cut away and probably they were intended for other purposes. The leather fragments were found a meter or two apart and curiously each overlay a heather brush. A correlation between the leather scraps and brushes is difficult to understand, unless they were used to collect sweepings.

A small fragment of a cutwork-decorated knife sheath was found. It was identified as a knife sheath by the central fold impression and the stitch holes along the two edges that closed together. The knife for this sheath must have been large, at least 4 cm wide. It is impossible to estimate maximum blade size because the sheath was cut both at the top and bottom. This piece of leather was perhaps also intended for reuse. Another item recovered was a fragment to a garment or pouch. Portions of this piece also appeared to have been cut away; however, the leather was fragmentary and in very poor condition; only a few cut edges and one folded and stitched edge were clearly recognizable.

Another very deteriorated piece of leather was found in the hay on the starboard side tucked into a corner between a futtock and the side of the ship. This piece was too deteriorated to obtain an accurate measurement or to determine if the leather had belonged to a bag, garment, or shoe. What survived was roughly the size of the palm of the hand. The only items making this fragment interesting were the 3 to 4 small objects lying side-by-side in a neat row as if intentionally set on the piece of leather. These objects appeared to be and were later identified as thin rectangular strips of bark, possibly of a Betula sp. (Appendix 3), rolled almost like a cigarette would be rolled and of about the same size as a hand-rolled cigarette. The rolling was very tight and appeared to be intentional rather than accidental. Unrolling and sieving the material inside the rolled strips of bark did not reveal any medicinal substances, although this would seem to be a likely function (Appendix 3) (Newsome 1996, letter).

The remainder of the personal possessions consist of three leather shoes. Two of the shoes were situated next to each other in the bow. They were found between layers of hay next to the chine on the starboard side of the vessel and were a child's mismatched pair of shoes both measuring 18 cm long (fig. 17 and enclosure 6). They were complete with the exception of their stitching. When excavated, these appeared to be the right and left shoes of mixed styles; however, upon closer analysis, both shoes were originally manufactured as left shoes. One of them may have later been worn as a right shoe. One of these (FWN 92-14) had the back partially cut away, modifying it into a slipper. The vamp had a central slit and a strap at the edge of the vamp was threaded through the right side of this slit over towards the left side of the shoe. The strap was knotted on the inside; the shoe tongue would have protect-


Figure 17 Child's shoes found underneath the hay in the bow.

rJr- r-

ed the foot from this knot. The extreme right corner of the vamp, where it intersected with the side-quarter, had been patched. The other shoe (FWN 92-14a) had a 4.5 cm slit down the outer, left side of the vamp. A small strap was sewn in-place on the right-hand side of this slit overlapping to the left side of the shoe. A leather thong was attached to the end of this strap and knotted through small holes in the left side quarter to close it.

The third shoe (FWN 92-17) belonged to an adult and was in poor condition. The inner sole is estimated to be 25 cm long and appears to have been made for the right foot. A vamp, upper heel liner, and 2 side quarters were also recovered and the finished length of the shoe is estimated to have been around 27 cm. No lace, button or other form of closure was used. There is a central slit in the vamp so the shoe would slide off and on the foot.

The method of fastening the sole to the welting and the upper parts can be used to approximately date the shoes (Goubitz 1984:195). The adult shoe was fastened by a method dating from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries while the child's shoes were fastened together by a method popular from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries (Goubitz 1984:195 fig. 5, 5-6). One child's shoe (FWN 92-14a) has a

A l.il.-sixteenth century freighter 43

parallel from a site in Zwolle dating to the second half of the sixteenth century (Goubitz 1983:127, fig. 4b).

A small circlet of copper wire twisted into a loop and closed on the end was found while sieving mud. The function of this object is unknown, but possibly it is an eyelet from a garment. It bears a resemblance to twisted copper eyelets excavated from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sites in Amsterdam (Baartetal. 1977:157-58, figs. 170, 179).

Table 6 Number Object Class Provenience Personal possessions

12 Leather garment fragment ! 1 Amidship 13 Knife sheath fragment 11 Amidship 14 Child's shoe 11.2 Bow 14a Child's shoe 11 2 Bow 17 Adult shoe 11 2 Bow 18 Leather garment 11 Bow

24 Leather garment 11 Bow 29 Leather pouch 11 Bow

•' Copper wire eyelet Amidship

3.6 Cargo

Cargo includes items hauled to sell for a profit or for freight. There are indications of three possible cargos for this vessel (fig. 18). The strongest evidence is that bricks or waste from a brick kiln were once hauled as a cargo. The sediments between the frames exhibited a stratigraphy in which a solid layer of brick dust overlay a layer of peat and clay between 3.5 and 4.25 meters from the surviving end of the sternpost. Forty-one percent of 223 brick fragments recovered came from this area. Brick dust was ephemeral with concentrations mainly in the chine within the area 3.0 to 6.0 meters from the sternpost; however, this area contains 75% of all the brick fragments recovered. This roughly corresponds to the rear portion of the cargo hold, but forward of a possible cuddy.

Figure 18 Distribution inside the hull of remains of possible cargo brick rubble, peat, and hay

hay

peat

brick

5 m

The shipwreck rested on a previously mined peat bed, however, there is no positive evidence that the peat digging was contemporaneous with the vessel sinking. There is evidence; however, that peat was transported as cargo. Portions of cut peat blocks were found in the vessel. Also, a distinct layer of peat residue underlay the brick dust in sediments between the


frames and peat mixed with clay extended as far forward as the mast step and ended about where a bulkhead might have been located.

Hay or straw could have been another potential cargo, although it could also have represented bedding material from the bow compartment. A distinct layer of hay overlay the ceiling planking in the bow, 7.5 m forward of the sternpost. Hay was quite thick in places and the hay fibers seemed to be oriented parallel to the centerline of the shipwreck. The child's shoes were situated within this layer of hay. Concentrations of hay were heavier in the bow. Between 10.6 and 11.3 m from the sternpost concentrations were up to 3 cm thick across the breadth of the boat. Traces of hay were present aft, but were not as distinct as forward. Hay layers thinned towards the stern, aft of 7.5 m, with heavier concentrations in the chine. In the stern, traces of hay were present as far aft as 2.6 m from the sternpost, with concentrations 1 cm deep at the chine and 0.5 cm over the centerline of the vessel. Hay in this area, however, was not oriented in any direction. A similar depositional pattern was seen in the sediments between the frames, with heavier concentrations forward.

Provisions

Fish and bird or small mammal bones and a few hazelnut shells recovered from the wreck may represent the remains of provisions. The amount of material was scanty and randomly distributed within the hull. It cannot be identified with certainty as ship's provisions. However, one piece of a bone does appear to have cut marks from a thin-bladed knife.

Table 7 Cargo


16 Cut peal 12 Bow JO Peat 12 Amidship 3.' Brick fragment 12 Stern 38 Brick fragment 12 Stern 40 Brick fragment 12 51 Brick fragment 12 Stern 58 Brick fragments (25) !.' Amidship 60 Brick fragment •O Stern 61 Brick fragments (35) 12 Amidship 62 Brick fragments (13) 12 Stem 63 Brick fragments (12) 12 Amidship 65 Brick fragments (26) 12 Amidship 66 Brick fragment 12 Amidship 67 Brick fragments (3) 1? Bow 69 Brick fragments (17) 12 Amidship 70 Brick fragments (4) 12 Bow 71 Brick fragments (34) 12 Amidship 72 Brick fragments (6) 12 Amidship 73 Brick fragments (31) 12 75 Brick fragments (4) 12 Bow

109 Cut peat 12

3.7 Posts and associated structures

Since the posts both forward and aft of the boat appear to have been part of the FWN 92 site, they are briefly described here (fig. 19). Most of the pine posts were found forward of the bow. Forward of the stem, the pine posts formed two roughly parallel lines, about 0.17 to 0.18 m apart. One


Figure 19 Drawings of pine posts and possible beams of FWN 92 that were reused as stakes (scale 1:20).

£EL — ' ^fhsTT'jr' • • • — - •-

'

post was directly underneath the stem and appeared to have been pushed forward and bent, as if rammed by the stem of the boat. Two pine posts were also found in the stern between the starboard side of the hull and the two oak beams reused as stakes. The altered timbers and planks reused as stakes and driven in the mud after the stern of the boat have already been described above.

These posts were cut from poles, probably Pinus sylvestris. The ends of the posts had been shaped to a point by working all four faces with an adze. This work seems to have been conducted from inside the boat, as evidenced by the number of wood shavings recovered from the area of the mast step, many of which have tool marks matching those seen on the posts. The upper portions of the posts were round in cross-section having been worked only superficially, as evidenced by patches of bark still remaining. Most of the posts were a maximum of 6 to 7 cm in diameter, and this size appears to have been intentionally selected.


It is uncertain what purpose the poles served, although their position in relation to that of the boat and the reuse of wood from the vessel suggests a relationship. Another indication that both are contemporary in construction is the large number of wood shavings found inside the boat in the vicinity of the mast step. These appear to be from the same type of wood as the posts and were produced with an adze. They have widths matching the adze marks left on the posts and indicate an adze with similar nicks in the blade.

Possibly the poles and the boat, if abandoned, may have been part of a dike or some structure to help retain sediment. Another possiblity is that the poles forward of the bow represent the end of a pier and the posts after the stern secured the end of the FWN 92. Figure 6 shows the wreck positioned on the south side of the Workum ship channel. Even if the boat was abandoned at the end of a pier, it could have served as a dock or landing place for loading and unloading cargo. A third possibility is that the poles might represent stakes for supporting nets used to catch eels. Today, such lines of poles running parallel to the shore are a common site along the shores of the IJsselmeer.


4 Dating, ship type and historical background

4.1 Dating

Dendrochronological dating conducted by Ring. Stichting Nederlands Centrum voor Dendrochronolgie in Amersfoort, on seven samples from FWN 92's hull timbers assigns the felling of the trees to the mid-sixteenth century, most likely the period from A.D. 1547 to 1553 (Appendix 2). This date agrees with the dating for the slim artefact evidence from the boat. The child's shoe (FWN 92-14a) has a parallel with a shoe recovered from an archaeological site in Zwolle, dated to the second half of the sixteenth century. Judging by the amount of wear on FWN 92's hull, it was at the end of its career and was many years old when it sank. The usual life-span for a vessel such as FWN 92 is uncertain, but several vessels excavated from the Ijsselmeerpolders appear to have been in use for as long as fifty years or greater (van Hoik 1994). The loss of FWN 92 therefore could have occurred as late as the beginning of the seventeenth century.

4.2 Ship type

FWN 92, excavated in Workum, Friesland, is an example of a late sixteenth-century pram-like vessel built and operated at the beginning of a new era. It was a bulk carrier capable of navigating rivers, canals and coastal waterways. The remains of past cargoes discovered in the vessel include bricks, peat and hay; however, the FWN 92's construction indicates that it was also suited for carrying livestock. In hull shape, however, it is still finer than many later 'pramen', 'schuiten' and 'bokken'. This fine, lanceolate shape made the vessel maneuverable by punting, a feature that may have been more important to the boat builder than increased cargo capacity.

FWN 92 belongs to a broad class of Dutch flat-bottomed small craft, which includes the 'praam','bok', 'schuit', 'vlot' and 'punter'. Because there are many variant types of vessels similar to FWN 92, it is considered to be a pram-class vessel. Prams and related types commonly have a relatively high length to breadth ratio, flat bottom, and hard chine throughout. FWN 92's hull was a perfect design for negotiating shallow inland waterways.

4.3 Historical background

The dendrochronological dating of FWN 92's hull shows that it was built and used after A.D. 1550, during the remarkable period known as the Dutch Golden Age. This was a period of extraordinary change, demographic expansion and economic growth within the Netherlands. The Golden Age is notable for the development of a capitalistic and world-system economy, expansion of cities; innovations in technology, science and the arts, the rise of Prostestant and Calvinist confession and a revolution and war successfully waged against the Spanish.

It is apparent that the period following 1550 was a period of change for


the rural population, as it was for the city dwellers. Although overshadowed by the urban sector, the rural economy underwent a dramatic transformation during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In general, before 1550, Dutch rural society was characterized by the un-specialized and self-sufficient peasant household. Economic expansion, however, transformed farms into specialized commercial and capital enterprises with increased productivity due to advances in agriculture, animal husbandry, transportation, and marketing (de Vries 1974:120).

The intensification and specialization of agriculture, as well as the expanding population, created a surplus of cheap labor that resulted in a reduction in the cost of wages, as compared to the highs reached during the fifteenth century thereby giving rise to a nonagricultural working class (Schlichter van Bath 1963 and 1968; Wallerstein 1976). These craftsmen, laborers and merchants provided the crafts, transportation, marketing, and fuel that previously had not existed or was incorporated into the peasantry's system of self-sufficiency. The commercialization of agriculture created a demand for craft production, local markets and trade in fertilizer and animal fodder within the rural sector. It also stimulated the mining of peat for fuel, excavation of canals and led to investments in land reclamation and transportation. These changes in the rural sector furthered the development of an international trade in rural commodities, particularly in dairy and horticultural products, cattle, fodder and peat.

Did these remarkable events impact the design and use of FWN 92? FWN 92, after all, was a common boat produced for the rural economy, and its last port of call, Workum, was far removed from the large urban centers and dynamics of international markets that are evocative of the Golden Age. Does FWN 92 instead represent the antithesis of change, the continuity of conservative factors within a traditional agrarian society and the expression of ancient boatbuilding traditions?

Changes in the local economy did result in the growth of water transportation services and cost-effective transportation networks. The increasing number of new canals and transformation of rivers into canals contributed to the building of pram-like vessels. Construction of both prams and canals were two integral parts of a mutually reinforcing expansion of the transportation sector. Intensification of agriculture would not have been possible without a thriving commerce in fertilizer. The prams that hauled agricultural produce or peat to the cities frequently obtained a return cargo of night soil, manure, street sweepings and waste from brick kilns or other waste products that could be used for soil enrichment and fill. The demand for, as well as the design of, pram-like vessels was directly affected by the increased marketing of locally-produced goods at new local markets and the excavation of canals throughout the Netherlands.

One of the most significant factors in the use of prams was the peat industry, which required a large quantity of shallow draft boats to navigate small canals in the peat moors. The trade in peat, which was the fuel of industries, was a key factor in the use of pram-like craft and contributed to the continued excavation of canals and in land reclamation projects. Canals had to be dug to get at the peat and once dug became part of the transportation network. Once the peat was completely removed, the land was often reclaimed with drainage ditches and windmills and the soil enriched with fertilizer and raised with fill, thus providing more agricultural or pasture land. Like trade in horticultural produce and dairy products, the


shipment of peat insured a return cargo of bricks, salt, lime, or manufactured goods from the industrial centers.

Economic expansion in the rural sector was not merely a matter of the peasantry seizing new opportunities, there was also an element of crisis that added to these choices. Prior to 1550, Frisian seafaring communities such as Workum relied chiefly on a seafaring economy. During the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Workum conducted some international trade with England, Scotland and Ireland importing lumber, iron, beans, rope, plates and exporting coal, hay and cloth (Keikes and Obreen 1966). After 1550, however, their competiveness was compromised by the concentration of seafaring activities in the larger urban centers. Such international trade increasingly shifted to the cities, and com-munites like Workum were forced to look for new occupations and thus began to reclaim and consolidate their land for the production of dairy products, cattle and animal fodder Where before a seafarers wife had kept a cow or two, now the village land was augmented by reclamation and supported larger herds of cows. What had previously been common pastures came to be controlled by a smaller number of farmers (de Vries 1974:133).

Agricultural systems in the peat areas were mainly based on animal husbandry with cattle as the most important species (Groenman-van Waa-teringe & Wijngaarden-Bakker, 1990:287). The grazing of cattle in wood-pasture had a direct effect on the vegetation resulting in the decline of more palatable tree species, such as hazel and lime. Open spaces supported grasses, while in the woodlands the predominant tree species became oak, beech, hornbeam, and holly (Groenman-van Waateringe & Wijngaarden-Bakker, 1990:285). Evidence supporting this type of agricultural system was recovered from the excavation of FWN 92. Among the organic remains recovered from within the boat were leaves and twigs of holly, oak and beech, an acorn and a significant quantity of grasses. These organic remains suggest a wood-pasture agricultural system for late sixteenth-century Workum.

FWN 92 is a pram-like vessel whose construction reflects the transition between the late-medieval and post-medieval economies. Although its construction is based on boatbuilding traditions that have been well established within this area, since the Roman occupation of the Rhine River, FWN 92 shows the adaptation of these native boatbuilding skills to a more diversified local economy During the sixteenth century, the province of Friesland possessed a market oriented economy, involving both local villages and cities, and was dependent upon the cost-effective transportation of bulk goods over exceedingly shoal water. These economic and geographic factors reinforced the flat-bottomed design of vessels such as FWN 92.

Probably as significant as the pram design are the numbers of such vessels built. There are no records of the quantity of pram-like vessels built during this period, but it is likely that demand for such boats as FWN 92 increased as new opportunities emerged in the economy and improvements were made in the transportation sector. By looking at the prams of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with their box-like shapes, the influences of the changing economy are evident. FWN 92, however, retains a finer hull design and thus reflects a boat that served manifold functions in the local economy.


Summarizing conclusion / Samenvattende conclusie

FWN 92 would have been suitable for a number of tasks such as transporting bulk cargos, livestock, people, lightering goods off ships and perhaps some limited coastal fishing. It has the fine lines characteristic of many late medieval vessels, not unlike the late fifteenth-century K 73/74 and B 55 (Reinders et al. 1986). Compared to these vessels FWN 92 has a slightly greater breadth than the K 73/74, but its breadth was less than that of the poorly preserved B 55. B 55 was a much larger vessel however, and the length to breadth ratio of B 55 and FWN 92 may have been similar. FWN 92's shape is more like that of these medieval vessels than the later prams with their beamier, box-shaped hulls (Reinders et al. 1984).

Although FWN 92 carried a variety of cargoes, its hull still indicates general usage for a variety of tasks and does not suggest the specialization present in certain later pram-like freighters (McLaughlin-Neyland and Neyland 1993). Its hull construction shows careful work in several areas: obtaining a tight fit of the ceiling, precise placement of removable ceiling planks between futtocks, sawing of regularly-shaped frames and bending and shaping of side strakes with the use of fire. The use of 'prikken' to secure the moss and lath caulking saved the expense of 'sintels'. Although using 'prikken' instead of 'sintels' may have been less labor intensive, there is the question of whether 'prikken' were as durable or long-lasting.

The wreck appeared to have been intentionally placed or sunk where it was located. This is evidenced by the posts placed both in the bow and stern, some of which were FWN 92's timbers. The unplugged drain hole and piece of wood driven into the chine also support intentional scuttling. The extremely worn and heavily repaired hull indicates the vessel was at the end of its career when it sank. The small number of artefacts recovered also is indicative of a vessel that was abandoned.

In sum, FWN 92 appears to be a vessel designed for the transport of bulk goods, including raw materials and the products of industries. It also may

De FWN 92 zou voor verschillende functies geschikt geweest zijn, zoals: het vervoer van goederen, vee en personen, het gebruik als lichter; en (mogelijk) kustvisserij. Het heeft de fraaie lijnen die karakteristiek zijn voor veel laat-middeleeuwse schepen zoals de laat 15c eeuwse K 73/74 en de OB 55 (Reinders et al. 1986). In vergelijking met deze schepen is de FWN 92 iets breder dan de OK 73/74, maar minder breed dan de (slecht geconserveerde) OB 55. De OB 55 was echter veel groter, zodat de lengtebreedte verhouding van de OB 55 en de FWN 92 vergelijkbaar geweest kan zijn. De rompvorm van de FWN 92 komt eerder overeen met de genoemde laat-middeleeuwse schepen, dan met de latere pramen met hun vollere, doosachtige romp (Reinders et al 1984).

Hoewel de FWN 92 een verscheidenheid aan lading vervoerde, wijst de rompvorm nog steeds op een multifunctioneel gebruik en niet op een spe-cialisatie, als bij bepaalde latere praam-achtige vrachtschepen (McLaughlin-Neyland and Neyland 1993). Het schip is in meerdere onderdelen zorgvuldig afgewerkt: goed aansluitende buikden-ning-planken, een nauwkeurig tussen de inhouten passende, uitneembare wegering, regelmatig gezaagde spantdelen en het buigen en vormen van de boordgangen door middel van branden. Het gebruik van houten 'prikken' om het 'mos en moslat'-breeuwsel vast te zetten, spaarde het gebruik van ijzeren 'sintels'. Hoewel het gebruik van 'prikken' inplaats van 'sintels' minder arbeidsinten-sief was, kan men zich afvragen of 'prikken' even duurzaam waren.

Het wrak lijkt bewust op de vindplaats afgezonken te zijn. Dit wordt aangetoond door palen die bij beide stevens aangebracht zijn, en ten dele uit hergebruikte onderdelen van de FWN 92 zelf bestaan. Ook het open afvoergat en door de kim geslagen stuk hout tonen aan dat men het moed-willig vol heeft laten lopen. De sterk versleten en gerepareerde huid wijst op een schip dat aan het eind van zijn loopbaan was, toen het zonk. Ook het uiterst geringe aantal artefacten wijst op het afdanken van het schip.

Samenvattend kan gesteld worden dat de FWN 92 gebouwd lijkt voor het transport van bulkgoede-ren, met inbegrip van zowel ruwe grondstoffen als

A late-sixteenth century freighter '.3

reflect the regional specialization in fodder and livestock production. FWN 92 was an old vessel and if intentionally scuttled perhaps was reused as part of a working platform, an artificial shoal to increase shoreline sedimentation, or merely left to sink at the end of a pier. Since the wreck overlay a worked peat bed, it might have served as a dry working platform or dock. Alternatively, it may have been scuttled to serve as a barrier to increase sedimentation or served as a foundation for in-filling, a common form of medieval rural expansion, thus ending its career as part of an empolderment structure.

industrieprodukten. Het kan ook een voorbeeld zijn van regionale specialisatie in het transport van vee en veevoer. De FWN 92 was een oud schip en mogelijk, indien bewust afgezonken, als onderdeel gebruikt voor een werkplatform, een kunstmatig gecreeerde 'bank', die de afzetting van sedimenten - en daarmee de kustaanwas - bevorderde. Het schip kan echter ook aan het einde van een steiger achtergelaten zijn. Juist omdat het wrak op een ontvreemde ondergrond lag, kan het, als gesteld, als droge werkvloer of dok gediend hebben, maar het bevorderen van aanslibbing is en gebruikelijke methode van middeleeuwse landwin-ning, waardoor het schip zijn loopbaan als onderdeel van inpolderingswerkzaamheden beeindigde. Anderzijds kan men het hebben laten zinken als barriere om landaanwas te bevorderen of heeft het gediend als onderlaag voor landaangroei, een gangbare vorm van middeleeuwse plattelandsuit-breiding, waardoor het eigenlijk zijn carriere beeeindigd heeft als onderdeel van een inpolde-ringswerk.


References cited

Baart, J. et al., 1977,

Berk, G.L., 1984,

Crone, G.C.E., 1946,

Dijk, L. van.,

Elias, T.S., 1980,

Gasson, P., 1987,

Goubitz, O., 1983,

Goubitz, O., 1984,

Groenman - van Waateringe, W. and L.H. van Wijngaarden-Bakker. 1990,

Hocker, F.M., 1991,

Hoik, A. van. 1994,

Hurst, J.G., D.S. Neal, H.J.E. van Beuningen, 1986,

Opgravingen in Amsterdam: 20 jaar stads-kernonderzoek. Amsterdam.

De Punter. Weesp, The Netherlands.

Nederlandsche Binnenschepen. Amsterdam.

Personal communications, 1993. Mr van Dijk is Conservator at the Netherlands Institute for Ship- and underwaterArchaeology (NISA), The Netherlands.

The complete Trees of North America. Van Nostrand Reinhold company, New York.

Some implications of anatomical variations in the wood of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.), including comparisons with common beech (Fagus Sylvatica L). IAWA Bulletin n.s. 8(2) : 149-166.

Overijssel Historische Bijdragen. R.O.B., 207:125-127.

The drawing and registration of archaeological footwear. Studies in Conservation, 29: 187-96.

Medieval archaeology and environmental research in the Netherlands, in Medieval Archaeology in the Netherlands, J.C. Besteman, J M . Bos, and H.A. Heidinga eds., Van Gorcum. Assen/Maastricht.

The Development of a Bottom-Based Shipbuilding tradition in Northwestern Europe and the New World. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Letter and report to Jaap Morel, Centre for Ship Archaeology dated 27-04-1994.

Rotterdam Papers IV: Pottery Traded in North-West Europe 1350-1650. Foundation of Dutch Domestic Utensils, Museum Boymans, Rotterdam.


Keikes, W.H. and H.T. 1966,

McLaughlin-Neyland, K. and R.S. Neyland, 1993,

McLaughlin-Neyland, K. and R.S. Neyland, 1993,

Morel, J.-M.A.W.,

Workum: Inventaris der Obreen,Archieven. Bolsward, The Netherlands.

Two Sixteenth Century Ship Excavations in the Netherlands: 1992 Field Report. INA Quarterly 20.1:3-7.

Two Prams wrecked on the Zuider Zee in the late Eighteenth-Century. Flevobericht 383, Lelystad.

Personal communications, 1994, Dr. Morel is Director of the Netherlands Institute for Ship-and underwaterArchaeology (NISA), The Netherlands.

Moortel, A. van de, 1991,

Newsome L., 1996,

Neyland, R.S., 1991,

A Cog-1 ike Vessel from the Netherlands. Flevobericht nr. 331. Lelystad.

Letter report on wood samples to Robert S. Neyland, dated 16 August 1996. Dr. Newsome is Curator-/Archaeobotanist at Center for Archaeological Investigations, South Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

The preliminary hull analysis of two 18th-century Dutch prams, in J.C. Broadwater (ed.) Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. Richmond: 111-14.

Neyland, R.S., 1994,

Oosting, R.,

Technological Continuity and Change: A Study of Cultural Adaptation in Pram-Class Boatbuilding in the Netherlands. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Personal communications, 1990, Mr. Oosting is Head of Research at the Netherlands Institute for Ship- and underwaterArchaeology (NISA), The Netherlands.

Outer, R.W. den, Determination keys for important West-W.L.H. van Veenendaal European woods and tropical commercial and Chr. Versteegh., 1988, timbers. Agricultural University Wageningen

Papers 88-1, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Petrejus, E.W., 1977, De Bomschuit: een verdwenen scheepstype. Bussum and Maritime Museum Prins Hendrik, Rotterdam.

Phillips, E.W.J.,1941, The identification of coniferous woods by their microscopic structure. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London 52 (343): 259-320.

A late-sixteenth century freighter j t ,

Reinders, H.R., 1982, Shipwrecks of the Zuiderzee. Flevobericht nr. 197. Lelystad, The Netherlands.

Reinders, H.R., Vier Werkschuiten uit de Zeventiende Eeuw. H. van Veen, K. Vlier- Flevobericht nr. 235. Lelystad, man and P.B. Zwiers, 1984, The Netherlands.

Reinders, H.R., Drie Schepen uit de Middeleeuwen. H. van Veen, K. Vlier- Flevobericht nr. 166. Lelystad, man and P.B. Zwiers,1986, The Netherlands.

Reinders, H.R., 1987,

Roelfzema, Ir. J.,

Sarfatij, H., 1990,

Sclichter van Bath, B., 1963

Schreurs, G.W.W., 1992

Schutten, G.J., 1981,

Raakvlakken Tussen Scheepsarcheologie, Maritieme Geschiedenis in Scheepsbouwkunde Flevobericht nr. 280. Lelystad. The Netherlands.

Personal communications, 1990, Mr. Roelfzema is a retired Naval Architect living in Amsterdam, who has researched local boatbuilding techniques.

Dutch towns in the formative period (AD 1000-1400), in Medieval Archaeology in the Netherlands, JC. Besteman. J M . Bos and H.A. Heidinga (eds), Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht.

Agrarian History of Western, Europe, 500-1850. London.

Netherlands Institute for Ship- and underwaterArchaeology (NISA), Mr. Schreurs prepared the report on the initial survey of FWN 92.

Varen Waar Geen Water is. Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Sopers, P.J.V.M., 1974,

Verhoeff, J.M., 1983,

Vlierman, K.,

Vries, J. de, 1974,

Vries. J. de, 1981,

Schepen die Verdwijnen. Amsterdam.

De Oude Nederlandse Maten en Gewichten. Amsterdam.

Personal communications 1990, Mr Vlierman is Curator for the Netherlands Institute for Ship- and underwaterArchaeology (NISA). The Netherlands.

The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700.New Haven.

Barges and Capitalism: Passenger Transportation in the Dutch economy, 1632-1839. Utrecht.

A late-sixteenth century freighter S7

Vries, J. de, 1984, The decline and rise of the Dutch economy, 1675-1900. Research in Economic History, suppl. 3: 149-89.

Vries, J. de, 1985,

Wallerstein, I., 1976,

The population and economy of the pre-industrial Netherlands. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 15.4: 661-82.

The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York.

Wheeler, E.A., R.G. Pearson, T. Zack, and W. Hatley, 1986,

Zeeuw, J.W., 1978,

Zwiers, P.B. and K. Vlierman, 1988,

Computer-Aided Wood Identification. The North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin 474, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Peat and the Dutch golden age: The Historical meaning of energy attainability. A.A.G. Bijdragen 21 : 3-32.

De "Lutina". Een Overijssels Vrachtschip, vergaan in 1888. Flevobericht nr. 292. Lelystad, The Netherlands.

A late-sixteenth century freighter ' .8

Responsibility

Deze publicatie is tot stand gekomen mede dankzij Rijkswaterstaat

Directie IJsseimeergebied This publication has been made possible by Rijkswaterstaat Directie

IJsseimeergebied

Informant:

1992 Bosma, W.D. van Gelder; March 1992.

Survey:

Gert Schreurs, Harm Post; March 1992

Excavation:

Kathleen McLaughl in Neyland, Robert Neyland, Patrick Cole,

Amy Jo Knowles, Gert Schreurs, Harm Post. Rob Oost ing, Hans Schraal,

Rudi Loos; 5 June - 7 July 1992.

Report:

Robert S. Neyland, Kathleen McLaughl in-Neyland.

Final edit ing:

R. Oosting

Publication preparation:

G.J. Zand.

Graphics:

Kathleen McLaughl in-Neyland, Robert S. Neyland.

Hull Recording:

Patrick Cole, Amy Jo Knowles. Robert S. Neyland, Gert Schreurs,

Herre Wynia.

Photographs:

Robert Neyland, Hans Schraal.

Conservation:

Lucas van Dijk, Jentje van der Land.

Artefact Numbers: 1-114

Photograph Numbers:

NISA-archives, Ketelhaven.

Slide Numbers:

NISA-archives, Ketelhaven.

Drawing Numbers:

NISA-archives, Ketelhaven


Graphics Grontmij, Geogroep

Translation: A.T.T.

DTP and printing: Evers litho & druk, Almere

Manuscript submitted in December 1994.


Appendix 1 List of artefacts

A Greyware rim sherd 7 Greyware body sherd 9 Redware sherd

10. Greyware body sherd 11. Greyware body sherd 12. Leather garment fragment 13. Knife sheath fragment 14. Child's shoe 14a. Child's shoe 16. Cut peat 17. Adult shoe 18. Leather garment 19. Heather brush 20. Greyware skillet frag. 20a,c Greyware skillet frags. 21. Nail 22. Greyware skillet frag. 23. Sherd 24. Leather garment 25. Heather brush 26. Greyware skillet frag. 28. Nail

29. Leather pouch 30. Peat 31. Encrustation 32. Brick fragment 34. Right twist rope 35. 4 nails 36. Encrustation 37. Encrustation 38. Brick fragment 39. Nail 40. Brick fragment 41. Nail 42. Spike 43. Rope 47. Plug 48. Sheave 48. Pin to sheave 49. Glass shard 50. Heather brush 51. Brick fragment 55. Redware sherd 56. Redware body sherd 57. Point to punting pole 58. Brick fragments (25) 59. Wood barrel strap 60. Brick fragment 61. Brick fragments 62. Brick fragments


63. Brick fragments 65. Brick fragments 66. Brick fragments 67. Brick fragments 69. Brick fragments 70. Brick fragments 71. Brick fragments 72. Brick fragments 73. Brick fragments 75. Brick fragments 76. Nail 77. Copper wire eyelet 79. Sherd 84. Sherd 89. 2 iron nails 90. Pin or plug 92. Nail 93. Nail 95. Redware rim sherd 96. Base sherd

107. Peat brick / ceiling support 109. Cut peat 114. Plug


Appendix 2 Dendrochronological report

VERSLAG NBDERL. CENTRUM DENDROCHRONOLOGIE RING (ROB, Amersfoort) Object: Schip uit Workumer Nieuwland polder

Datum monstername : onbekend Datum aanvraag : November 1992

Gegevens over de aanvrager Naam Centrum voor S cheepsarcheo] ogie Instantie Museum Ketelhaven Straat Vossemeerdijk 21 Postcode 8251 PM Stad Dronten Tel. 03210-13287

Gegevens over de onderzoeker Naam E. Spoor Instantie RING/ROB Datum onderzoek '"lecember 1992

Vondstno. Filenaam kern spint/wk n

3 (kielplan WNS011 - 6 spint 91 6 (kielplank 2) WNS04 1 +10 - 139 9 (GB2/SB) WNS03 1 - grens 77 13 (GC1/SB) WNS07 1 - grens (+ 7) 51 16 (GC2/SB) WNS061 - 1 (+ 15) 95 17 (GD1/BB) WNS021 - grens 126 19 (GC2/BB) WNS051 - 7 (+ 7) 103

Statistiek Vondstno. Standaard Datering gl. t

3 Westf alen 1445--1535 AD 71.1 5 64 6 West: ill 1393--1531 AD 66.3 7 09 9 Westt alen 1456--1532 AD 71.1 6 L8 13 Westfalen 1486--1536 AD 75.0 5 15 16 Westtjl-in 1440--1534 AD 7 5.5 11 63 17 Westf alen 1403--1528 AD 60.8 6 4 5 19 Westfa en 1437--1539 AD 85.3 12 SS

gl = Gleichlaufigkeit (percentage overeenkomst van toe- en atnemende ringdikten tussen monster en standaardcurve op de door de datering van het monster aangegeven positie t.o.v. de gebruikte standaardchronologie);

t = De waarde die resulteert uit een Student's t-test op de correlatie tussen monster en standaardcurve. Een t-waarde van 5.0 ot hoger wijst op een goede datering.

INTERPRETATIE VAN DE DATERINGEN Vondstno. Datering inclusief spint

! •J

i 12 16 : 1 ; : •

Geschatte veldatum

1535 * : ; Plusmin 6 = 1549 plusmin 6 1531 - 20 plusmin 'J = 1551 plusmin 6 1532 - L6 plusmin 5 = 1548 plusmin 1. 1536 - L6 plusmin B = 1552 plusmin 5 1534 *- L9 plusmin 0 • 1553 plusmin 6 1528 + 20 plusmin 6 JI 1548 plusmin 6 1539 - 20 plusmin 6 = 1549 plusmin 6

De schattingen van het aantal ontbrekende spintringen zijn gebaseerd op Hollstein 1980 (bomen jonger dan 100 jaar: 16 plusmin. 5; bomen ouder dan 100 en jonger dan 200 jaar: 20 plusmin. 6).

Aannemend dat de monsters alle dezelfde veldatum hebben, moet de veldatum liggen in de periode waarin de geschatte veldata van alle monsters overlappen, dus in de periode 1547-1553 AD.


Appendix 3 Archaeobotanical report byLeeNewsom

I have completed my analysis of the archaeobotanical specimens from the Netherlands wreck. The three wood samples have been identified as follows.

Specimen Ship Member Wood Type

01 tenon Quercus sp , white oak group, including American white oaks and European species. Q robur, English oak. in particular

02 peg Salix sp. (cf S alba), willow (very probably white willow)

03 lath Pinus sp section Diploxylon, Sylvestris group

Some additional points and clarifications need to be mentioned in regard to each of the wood identifications. First, the oak specimen (sample 01) is assigned to the white oak anatomical group, which refers primarily to American species of oak. Nevertheless, several European and other Old World oaks have anatomy that approximates the American white group, including English oak, Q. robur. Upon direct anatomical comparison with modern oak specimens, the wood from the wreck more closely approximates by its cell structure the European species (using Q. robur as representative) than the American white oak group. I also analyzed your specimen using a determination key for European woods (Outer et al. 1988), and the result was a direct match with Quercus robur. According to Gas-son (1987:149) Quercus robur is prized for its strength and durability and is/was traditionally used for high-grade construction throughout Europe and for boat and ship building, fencing, interior woodwork, exterior joinery, flooring, coffins, beer casks, vats and furniture. Elias (1980:323) also mentions the long association of English oak with European ship construction and I have identified this particular wood from a number of Old World shipwrecks.

The second wood type from the Netherlands wreck belongs to the genus Salix sp., willows. Using the European key mentioned above, white willow (S. alba) is a particularly strong match and this was verified by comparison with modern reference specimens. I also keyed this wood by means of a computerized data base (Wheeler et al. 1986) resulting again in a solid match with Sa//x spp. I enclose three computer printouts related to this particular wood identification. The first represents a worldwide search for which you will see that 21 woods were matched. However, close inspection of the individual cases (see in particular the first row under each taxon "features not matching") shows that the willow genus is the only complete match (bottom of second page). I refined the search (second computer run) specifying a European origin and the list of matches then was trimmed to six genera, including in particular willow, pomegranate (Punica granatum) and two other Mediterranean genera (Palurus spina-christi and Zizyphus spp.). However, again willow is the only absolute match and character 44 (pits to vessels large), which is a very strong


feature of the archaeological specimen, is mismatched for all of the other woods in this second computer search. Thus, when I ran a third search that specified that character 44 is required, the willow genus is exclusively matched. European white willow is well-known as a source of pliable timber and has long been used for basketry and cricket bats and balls (the wood is resiliant), among other things (Elias 1980:494).

The third wood identification from the Netherlands wreck is a pine belonging to the Sylvestris anatomical group (Phillips 1941:294). Sylvestris pines include European P. sylvestris (Scots pine) itself, as well as several other Old World species and at least one North American pine. I have identified this type of pine among samples from a number of shipwrecks.

A fourth sample from the Netherlands wreck consists of bark fragments with associated sediments and organic debris. Five bark specimens are greater than 1 cm across and clearly demonstrate that the individual fragments derive from the same species, perhaps even the same original tree and/or section of bark. In terms of general morphology, the bark is composed of very thin (ca. 0.1 - 0.6 mm) papery layers and the exterior surface is smooth and light-colored (white-grey) with regular horizontal black flecks that represent lenticles in tangential perspective; also prominent are small horizontal branch scars. The interior layers of the bark fragments are golden-brown colored and some fragments retain a lustrous transparent, paperthin layer of cells that may represent the cambial tissues. A few fragments also possess the first layer(s) of xylem (wood) cells. The combination of morphological characteristics, including the thin, exfoliating layers, color, lenticles, and branch scars strongly suggests the birch genus (Betula sp.) for the bark fragments (see Elias 1980, pp 393-402). Both European birch (Betula pendula) and European white birch (B. pubescens) possess whitish, peeling bark (Elias 1980:400, 402). Comparative specimens of birch bark match very well with the archaeological specimens. Other trees may possess bark with similar characteristics, but based on the geography and prevalance of lowland habitats in the area of the wreck, birch seems highly probable as the correct identification.

One bark section was conspicuously rolled into a cylindar, suggesting that it may have been used as wrapping material, though its form may have occurred naturally (exfoliation and curling is very typical of birch bark). Unfolding the curled bark revealed no contents within, other than stray sedimentary debris. All of the remaining sediments associated with the bark specimens were gently water-sieved through a nested sieve series sized 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.42 mm. The contents of each sieve fraction were subsequently scanned for identifiable plant materials, all of which appear very typical of freshwater to brackish wetland deposits (fruit from herbaceous taxa, small gastropods, woody and herbaceous debris; see attached list). The only material of possible cultural significance is carbonized conifer wood, however charcoal from herbaceous stems is also present, which may suggest natural peat fires.

Lee Newsom Curator/Archaeobotanist. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale


Glossary of ship terms

Accomodation plan:

Backstays:

Bilge:

The internal spatial organization of the ship, whereby space is compartmentalized into specific activity areas.

Ropes forming part of the standing rigging, which stretch from the masthead and tend aft from the mast. Their lower ends are fastened on each side of the ship to chain plates. They serve to support the masts against forward pull.

The area of transition from bottom to side. Also, the place in the bottom of the vessel where water collects.

Bitt:

Bulkhead:

Carvel:

Carling:

Caulking:

Ceiling:

Chine:

Clamp:

Clinker:

A single vertical timber head, forward or aft, with a pin through it and around which mooring and towing lines are secured.

An internal, vertical partition.

Planking laid flush, edge-to-edge, rather than lapstrake.

A longitudinal beam, spanning the space between transverse beams.

The sealant placed between the edges of planks or their laps to make the hull watertight. On the Dutch vessel discussed in this work moss was held in place by lath and 'prikken'.

The internal lining of a ship's hull fastened to the inside faces of the frames. It functioned to keep heavy cargo from wearing against the hull planking and prevented foreign matter from entering the bilges.

The point at which the bottom of a boat meets the sides. In the E 14 and AZ 71 this is a sharp angle, which can be referred to as hard-chined.

A heavy stringer to the inboard side of the vessel, usually fastened to the inside faces of the frames and supporting the shelf or in small craft sometimes functioning as a part of the shelf.

A method of planking in which the lower edge

A late-sixteenth century freighter 6 /

Coaming:

Covering board:

Cramp:

Cuddy:

Dead eye:

Dead block:

Deadwood:

Deutel:

Entrance:

Fine:

Flat scarf:

Flat scarf (vertical):

Floor:

Floor timbers:

of a plank overlaps the upper edge of the one below it. The overlaps are fastened together with iron rivets riveted over iron washers called roves.

A raised wooden curb to keep out water usually bordering a hatch, but in the E 14 bordered the covering board.

The plank running longitudinally that covers the heads of the top timbers and standing knees. Its inboard edge is angled upward to permit water to drain outboard.

An U-shaped fastener, or a clamp, often used to hold timbers together.

A cabin or compartment in a small craft separated from the hold by a bulkhead at the forward or after ends of the vessel.

A disk of hard wood, strapped with rope or iron and pierced by three holes for the reception of lanyards.

A block without a sheave and used as a dead-eye; it usually has a large three-cornered hole in the middle and is also called a heart block.

Filling pieces added on top of the keel or keel plank.

A triangular-shaped wedge driven in the end of a treenail to wedge it securely in the hole. The Dutch traditionally wedge treenails with 'deutels' or cross-wedges.

The immersed part of the hull forward of the parallel body or, if the latter is nil, forward of the cross section of greatest area.

Sharper, having less curvature or bluffness. Usually applied to the underwater shapes of the bow and stern.

The joining of two timbers or planks whose diagonal ends were cut off perpendicular to their lengths.

Scarf cut with straight tables ending in feather edges rather than nibbed ends; commonly used for scarfing lapstrake planking.

The bottom of the vessel amidships.

Frames extended across the bottom of the hull


Frames:

Full:

Futtocks:

Gangway:

Gudgeon:

Hood end:

Hog:

Horizontal scarf:

Inwale:

Jibstay:

Keel:

Keel plank:

Keelson:

and perpendicular to the centerline of the hull.

Single or composite timbers mounted perpendicular to the centerline of the hull. They function to strengthen the hull and maintain its shape. The frames of prams and many other Dutch watercraft, are composed of four types: floor, timbers, futtocks, top-timbers and 'wrangen'.

Bluffer, rounder, with more curvature Usually applied to the underwater shapes of the bow and stern.

The frames that extended from the bottom, near the chine, up the sides of the hull to the upper face of the wale. In all but a few instances the futtock's heels abutted floor timbers

A narrow deck, plank, or timber running along the side of the vessel, usually to connect the fore- and afterdecks.

A metal fitting fixed to the sternpost into which the rudder pintles are fit. The gudgeon consists of a metal plate with a protruding eye, into which fits the pintle of the rudder

The end of a plank that fits into a rabbet of the stem or sternpost.

Vertical distortion of the hull in which the ends droop and the middle rises.

A scarf in which the table lies in an approximately horizontal plane, so that one component lies on top of the other.

A stringer fitted inboard at the heads of the frames in undecked vessels. It answers the purpose of the clamp used in decked boats.

A line running from high on the front mast to the stem or bowsprit from which the sail known as the jib is hung.

Central backbone timber that provides longitudinal strength to the hull. In cross-section it is usually as thick or greater than it is wide.

Central strake, sometimes thicker than the other bottom strakes, but always wider than its thickness.

A longitudinally-running timber lying atop the


frames that provides significant longitudinal stiffness to the hull. The mast step is sometimes cut into the keelson.

Knee:

Lap joint:

Lapstrake:

Leeboard:

Leeway:

Limber hole:

Loose-footed gaff sail:

Mast partner:

Mast step:

Mast-step mortise:

An angular V- or L-shaped timber used to brace or support planking or other hull timbers.

A joint in which one piece overlaps the other.

A method of planking a boat in which the lower edge of the upper plank overlaps the upper edge of the lower plank. The overlaps are fastened together with iron nails, wooden pegs, lashings and with rivets and roves.

A plate or frame of planks, constructed in a flat, fan-shaped construction, lowered over the lee side of a shallow-draft boat with flat bottom. It lessons the leeway when the vessel is sailing close-hauled by giving increased lateral resistance. There is usually one leeboard to each side, but sometimes a vessel only uses one. Leeboards are fixed to the hull by an adjustable bolt locked by a cotter pin.

The amount a vessel is carried towards leeward, off its true course, by the force of the wind.

A channel cut in the underside of a frame to allow bilge water to flow past the frame.

A four-sided fore-and-aft sail extended by two spars, a gaff and a boom, which has its forward side or luff pivoting about a mast to which it is attached by hoops or slides. In loose-footed gaff sails the foot is not laced to the boom, but is secured only to the tack and clew.

Timbers or planking for supporting a mast. The mast partner is fitted into apertures of the deck and rabbeted in the mast carlings.

The large timber fastened to the floor timbers and containing the mortise in which the heel of the mast is placed.

The area in the mast step that has been notched to contain the heel of the mast.

Mortise-and-tenon joint:

Pintle:

An edge-to-edge planking fastening consisting of a tenon fitting in mortises in opposing seam edges. It may be locked in place by a wooden peg driven through both plank and tenon.

A vertical pin, usually one of two or more, fixed to the front of the rudder that fits into


Rabbet:

Rake:

Ridgepole:

the ring of the gudgeon and holds the rudder to the vessel.

A groove cut into the stem or sternpost or other member for the purpose of seating planking edges.

The amount of inclination forward or aft.

A horizontal timber extending forward from the sail beam.

Run:

Sail beam:

The immersed part of the hull aft of the parallel body or, if the latter is nil, aft of the cross-section of the greatest area.

This is the literal translation of the Dutch term 'zeilbalk' and is frequently translated into English as midship beam, mast beam, or mast partner. However, it is not completely analogous with mast partner for it has more functions than the support of the mast. It is usually a relatively large beam either immediately forward or aft of the mast. Principally it strengthens the hull where the mast is stepped and supports the mast at deck level. It is usually the heaviest and longest transverse beam in the ship and also functions to support the gangway, deck or hatches. The bulkhead planking is sometimes fastened to the sail beam.

Scarf:

Sheave:

Sheerstrake:

Shim:

Sintel:

A joint in which timbers overlap longitudinally.

A grooved wheel in a block, over which a rope passes.

The uppermost strake in the hull. It forms the upper curvature or sheer of the hull.

A thin or small piece of wood used to raise a part to a plane surface or till up a space.

An iron staple used primarily in medieval northern European watercraft to hold caulking materials in a seam.

Skeg:

Standing knee:

An additional timber fastened under the stern of small craft, acting as a deep keel to keep the boat on a straight course.

An angular piece cut from that part of the tree where a large branch or root joined the trunk. Used to brace the juncture of a beam with the ship's side, its body was attached to the inner face of the hull planking and its arm fastened to the forward or after face of the beam.


Stanchion:

Stealer:

Stem:

Sternpost:

Strake:

Tabernacle:

A vertical post supporting a load above.

A short plank inserted into the hull to fill out the wider areas of its sides, towards the stem and stern. In this vessel the stealers were placed between the bottom and an upper strake.

The timber extending forward and up from the bottom that formed the upright post to which the two sides of the bow are attached.

The timber extending aft and upward from the bottom to which the sides of the stern are attached.

A run of planking made up of one piece or several planks scarfed together.

A vertical trunk to take the heel of a mast that does not pass through a deck. It is built so that the mast can be lowered, in which case a heavy bolt is fitted through the sides of the tabernacle and serves as a pivot for the mast. In these vessels it was constructed of two or three boards.

Top timbers:

Trekvaart:

Wale:

Washstrake:

Wrangen:

The uppermost frames supporting the sheerstrake and inwale.

A ship canal upon which boats carrying passengers, goods, or both were towed.

A heavy piece of planking strategically placed to gird the upper part of the hull.

A light plank, fastened above the sheer or caprail amidships, to keep spray off the deck.

V-shaped frames used in the very ends of a vessel. They sit atop the stem and sternpost, but are not necessarily fastened to the posts.

A late-sixteenth century freighter i).

List of tables

Table 1: Hull dimensions and proportions.

Table 2: Architectural artefacts.

Table 3: Ship's equipment.

Table 4: Tools.

Table 5: Hearth and galley.

Table 6: Personal possessions.

Table 7: Cargo.


A late-sixteenth century freighter '.,

List of figures

Figure 1 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after the interior of the hull had been excavated.

Figure 2 A new type of pantograph, developed by Jan Eric Dilz. was used to produce a preliminary site plan of FWN 92.

Figure 3 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after the removal of the ceiling planking and the excavation of the sediment between the frames.

Figure 4 View of FWN 92 from the stern, after removal of all the frames.

Figure 5 Map plotting the location of FWN 92 on agricultural land near the city of Workum, Friesland.

Figure 6 Map showing the old medieval dikes, Workum ship channel, and the location where FWN 92 was found.

Figure.7 Geological profiles.

Figure 8 View of the port side of the vessel showing enlarged, water worn holes where fasteners had been located.

Figure 9 Caulking on the bottom of the hull consisted of moss and lath, which was held in place by numerous small tenons, called 'prikken'.

Figure 10 Large moss and lathe repair to planking seams of bottom.

Figure 11 View of bow showing grooves that were crudely cut into both of the stealers.

Figure 12 Impression and scoring marks left on a side strake, which may indicate the methods used to bend the strakes.

Figure 13 Chocks were nailed to the frames to hold the removable ceiling planks in place.


Figure 14 Holes were drilled in the moulded faces of the frames, probably as attachment points for ropes.

Figure 15 Graph of hull displacement and dead weight capacity.

Figure 16 Artefacts recovered include ship's equipment (sheave, pin and part of a punting pole), hearth and galley (skillet fragments) and personal possessions (shoes and eyelet).

Figure 17 Child's shoes found underneath the hay in the bow.

Figure 18 Distribution inside the hull of remains of possible cargo: brick rubble, peat and hay.

Figure 19 Drawings of pine posts and possible beams of FWN 92 that were reused as stakes (scale 1:20).


Enclosures (1-6)

Enclosure 1. Site plan, 1:50 scale.

Enclosure 2. Reconstruction top views.

Enclosure 3. Reconstruction side views, cross-sections, body plan and main frame.

Enclosure 4. Exploded view of planking and frames.

Enclosure 5 Detailed constructional views.

Enclosure 6. Patterns of child's shoes.

A late-sixteenth century freighter Tl

In de reeks Flevoberichten zijn m.b.t. Scheepsarcheologie verschenen

140. REINDERS H.R, H VAN VEEN. K VLIERMAN en P B. ZWIERS Verslag van het onderzoek van een vissersschip op kavel W 10 in Oostelijk Flevoland. Lelystad. 1978

166 REINDERS H.R.. H. VAN VEEN, K VLIERMAN en P.B. ZWIERS. Dne schepen uit de late Middeleeuwen. Lelystad. 1980.

197. REINDERS, H.R. Shipswrecks of the Zuiderzee. Lelystad, 1982. 221 REINDERS. H.R (redactie). Drie Middeleeuwse rivierschepen gevonden bij Meinerswijk

(Arnhem). opgravingsverslagen 5, 6 en 7. Lelystad. 1983 235. REINDERS H.R, H. VAN VEEN, K VLIERMAN en P.B. ZWIERS Vier werkschuiten uit de

zeventiende eeuw: het onderzoek van vier werkschuiten, gevonden op de kavels B 19, Mz 6. B 13 en B 51 in Flevoland: opgravingsverslagen 8, 9, 10. 11 Lelystad, 1984.

248 REINDERS, H.R. Cog finds from the Ijsselmeerpolders, Lelystad, 1985. 258. ENTE, P.J.. J. KONING en R KOOPSTRA De bodem van Oostelijk Flevoland, Lelystad,

1986. 271 KONING. J. en P.J. ENTE. De bodemkundige code- en profielenkaart van Zuidelijk

Flevoland. schaal 1 : 25000, kaartbladen, toelichting Lelystad, 1986. 280. REINDERS, H R (redactie) Raakvlakken tussen scheepsarcheologie. maritieme

geschiedenis en scheepsbouwkunde inleidingen gehouden ti|dens het Glavimans Symposium 1985 Lelystad. 1987.

292. ZWIERS. P.B. en K. VLIERMAN. De Lutina, een Overijssels vrachtschip vergaan in 1888: het onderzoek van een vrachtschip gevonden op kavel H 48 in Oosteli|k Flevoland Lelystad, 1988.

322 REINDERS, H.R., R OOSTING (redactie) Scheepsarcheologie: prioriteiten en lopend onderzoek, inleidingen gehouden tijdens de Glavimans symposia in 1986 en 1988 Lelystad, 1991

323. OOSTING. R en K. VLIERMAN. De Zeehond, een Groninger tjalk gebouwd in 1878. vergaan in 1886 Lelystad, 1991

331 MOORTEL. A. VAN DE. A cog-like vessel from the Netherlands. Lelystad, 1991 383. Mc LAUGHLIN-NEYLAND. K. and B. NEYLAND. Two prams wrecked on the Zuider Zee

in the late eighteenth century 386 VLIERMAN, K ' V a n Zintelen, van Zintelroeden ende Mossen...' Een breeuwmethode

als hulpmiddel bij het dateren van Scheepswrakken uit de Hanzetijd. Scheepsarcheologie I. Lelystad. 1996.

395. NISA Jaarboek I. Jaarverslag 1994 Lelystad. 1996. 404. VLIERMAN, K Kleine bootjes en middeleeuws scheepshout met constructiedetails

scheepsarcheologie II. Lelystad, 1996 405 WIJSENBEEK, A. Vuur- en bakenloodjes voor een veilige vaarweg op de Zuiderzee

scheepsarcheologie III Lelystad, 1996. 406. PEDERSEN, RK. Waterschip ZN 42' a clenched-lap fishing vessel from Flevoland. the

Netherlands. Excavation report 17. Lelystad, 1996 407. NEYLAND. R.S. and K. McLAUGHIN-NEYLAND A late-sixteenth

century freighter from the Workumer Nieuwland Polder in Workum, Friesland Excavation report 18 Lelystad. 1996.

408. HOCKER. F.M. and K VLIERMAN A small cog wrecked on the Zuiderzee in the early 15th century Excavation report 19. Lelystad. 1996

409 NEYLAND, R.S and B. SCHRODER A late 17th century Dutch freighter, wrecked on the Zuiderzee. Excavation report 20 Lelystad, 1996.

410. VAN HOLK. A.F.L. Archeologie van de binnenvaart Wonen en werken aan boord van binnenvaartschepen. Scheepsarcheologie IV Lelystad, 1996.


A late-sixteenth century freighter

Documents

Transcript of A late-sixteenth century freighter