FIELDWORK REPORT Ågabet Wreck, Langeland 2012
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland Fieldwork Report 2012
Edited by Jens Auer, Holger Schweitzer and Christian Thomsen
University of Southern Denmark Maritime Archaeology Programme
Esbjerg Maritime Archaeology Reports 6
Edited by: Jens Auer, Holger Schweitzer, Christian Thomsen With contributions by: Jens Auer Alexander Cattrysse Massimilano Ditta Margaret Logan Dan Nicolescu Dimitra Perissiou Stephanie Said Holger Schweitzer Christian Thomsen Caroline Visser Esbjerg Maritime Archaeology Reports are an internally peer reviewed series published by Maritime Archaeology Programme University of Southern Denmark www.maritimearchaeology.dk under supervision of series editor Thijs Maarleveld Š Copyright
Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark ISBN: 978-87-996237-0-9 Subject headings: maritime archaeology, shipwreck, Langeland, Denmark, field school, excavation Layout and DTP Jens Auer Printed in Denmark 2013
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the staff of Øhavsmuseet and in particular Peter Thor Andersen, Otto Uldum and Christian Thomsen for a successful co-operation and constant support before, during and after the project. Further thanks go to the Bagenkop Action Efterskole for providing accommodation and facilities and helping with solving all those little practical problems a field excavation entails.
We are indebted to the Bagenkop diving club Proppen and its chairman Søren Lindbjerg, which supported us with technical knowledge of old pumps and helped during the long diving hours of sand removal. The members of Proppen also agreed to monitor the site from time to time, a very important part of the in-situ management of the wreck. Aoife Daly kindly agreed to very quickly carry out a first dendrochronological analysis and thus greatly helped with the identification of the wreck. We would also like to thank Ida Hovmand and Nanna Jönsson from the Øhavsmuseet conservation department for not only carrying out the textile and fibre analysis, but also sharing their knowledge in a day seminar. Furthermore, we would not have been able to write this report without the extraordinarily kind and enthusiastic support of Mikko Aho of the Rauma Maritime Museum, who provided us with an extensive list of archival documents from Finland and helped to shed light on the history of the wreck.
Last but not least, we would like to express our thanks to all field school participants and visitors. Without the hard work of Alexander Cattrysse, Massimilano Ditta, Victoria Hawley, Margaret Logan, Dan Nicolescu, Dimitra Perissiou, Stephanie Said and Caroline Visser, this report would not have been possible. Many thanks also go to our ‘volunteers’ Sanne Hoffman, Anders Olesen and Rolf Bjørling Salomonsen, and our day visitor and filmmaker Jesper Rossen. Fellow SDU students and land survey team members Sylvia Bates, Natalia Bain and Moriah Sherman also helped a great deal to keep the fieldschool running smoothly.
The excavation team in front of the Action Efterskole in Bagenkop..
Preface The Potential of Maritime Archaeology can be fulfilled through a closer network Maritime Archaeology in Denmark ought to be like a jewel in the crown in relation to research and dissemination of Danish cultural heritage. Nevertheless it seems like this special task and approach to the study of our common heritage is more or less unknown to the greater public and politicians. This has to be changed in the coming years. The way to do so is of course a matter of resources, but more so it is a matter of building up a strategic and socially close network between museum, university and private persons and groups, e.g. recreational divers, with an interest in Maritime Archaeology. Although the wreck near “Ågabet” in the Funen Archipelago and the related field school is a small scale study, the case illustrates just this point.
Øhavsmuseet (the Museum of Southern Funen and the islands) has the task, on behalf of the Danish Agency for Culture, to investigate the waters east of Jutland (between the fiords of Flensborg and Vejle) as well as the waters around Funen and the smaller islands Als, Ærø, Langeland and Tåsinge. Needless to say this enormous area cannot be monitored closely without the help of passionate recreational divers like Jacob Toxen-Worm, who found the wreck in 2010. Although the wreck turned out to be quite “modern”, less than 150 years old, his observation contributes to our understanding of the submerged cultural heritage in this area. We are so fortunate, that the University of Southern Denmark has a Maritime Archaeology Masters Program as part of the Institute for History. In recent years the relations between our museum and the department at the University have been strengthened immensely. Therefore a field school at our museum with the aim of locating, excavating and interpreting this wreck was an obvious choice. I am convinced that it is possible in the years ahead to show the public and thereby the politicians that Maritime Archaeology in Denmark has great potential and should be brought into a stronger position than today through a close network between the professionals and researchers of the museums, the researchers and students at the universities and a growing group of recreational divers. Peter Thor Andersen
Head of Øhavsmuseet
Contents 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project background.....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Aims and Objectives....................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Co-ordinate System and positioning............................................................................................................1 2. Site Location....................................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Site History......................................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Fieldwork 2012................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Organisation................................................................................................................................................6 4.2 Methodology...............................................................................................................................................7 5. Results of in-situ recording.............................................................................................................................. 10 5.1 The Wreck................................................................................................................................................. 10 5.2 Artefacts................................................................................................................................................... 23 6. Interpretation and comparative analysis........................................................................................................... 28 6.1 Dating and construction............................................................................................................................ 28 6.2 Archive study............................................................................................................................................ 31 6.3 Reconstructing Pettu................................................................................................................................. 38 6.4 Clinker and Carvel - some thoughts on the construction of Pettu............................................................... 45 6.5 Trade, life on board and navigation............................................................................................................ 54 7. Site formation and management...................................................................................................................... 59 7.1 Site formation........................................................................................................................................... 59 7.2 Site management plan............................................................................................................................... 59 8. Virtual Pettu: an experiment............................................................................................................................. 62 9. Conclusions and outlook................................................................................................................................... 64 10. References...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix I............................................................................................................................................................. 73 Appendix II............................................................................................................................................................ 79 Appendix III........................................................................................................................................................... 83 Appendix IV........................................................................................................................................................... 93
vii
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland
viii
Introduction
1. Introduction by Jens Auer
1.1 Project background
The Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme (MAP) is a two-year international postgraduate course in Maritime Archaeology. It is part of the Institute for History and based at the Esbjerg Campus of the University of Southern Denmark.
One of the components of the Masters programme is a practical three-week field school course. This course takes place in the period between the 2nd and 3rd semester. Seen in the context of the curriculum, the field school builds on the knowledge and skills, which the students have acquired in the first and second semester, and requires them to apply those in a practical and realistic setting. The field school course follows a project-based approach to learning. It is planned and prepared by the course lecturer and the participating students. During the project responsibilities are shared, and students are actively involved in the daily planning and decision-making process. Each day, a different student acts as “site director of the day” with full responsibility for planning, briefing and supervision of the work on site. The data gathered during the fieldwork is analysed and processed in the course of the third semester, and the resulting publication or report is prepared jointly by all field-school participants. In 2012, the field school was organised in Denmark and in conjunction with one of the five Danish museums with responsibility for maritime archaeology, the Øhavsmuseet based in Rudkøbing and Fåborg. It took place in Bagenkop, a small village at the southern tip of the island Langeland.
1.2 Aims and Objectives
The primary aim of the field school course is educational. The course is an important part of the curriculum during which students learn the preparation, organisation and day-to-day running of field projects and get an insight into the analysis of gathered data and the production of fieldwork reports. However, the course is also geared towards generating research results, which contribute to the field of maritime archaeology. The
secondary aim of the field school was therefore to record the so-called Ågabet wreck in situ, to analyse the site and to produce the present report, which summarises the results of the research. Specific objectives were:
»» To excavate or partially excavate the site to a level sufficient to allow for archaeological recording; »» To record the site in-situ and produce an overview plan/ drawing of the excavated part of the wreck and its surroundings at a scale of 1:10;
»» To carry out in-situ recording of individual timbers where possible and to collect sufficient information for a detailed description and analysis of the construction;
»» To interpret the site on the basis of the acquired archaeological data and other available sources. It was decided not to lift more objects than absolutely necessary for an understanding of the site. All timbers were to be left in-situ, but a number of samples were acquired for dendrochronological analysis. A strategy for the management of the wreck was to be decided by Øhavsmuseet in the course of the field school. Such a strategy would depend on the environmental conditions on site, the level of preservation of the wreck and the importance assigned to the site.
1.3 Co-ordinate System and positioning
All positional data referred to in this report was either acquired using differential GPS receivers or a combination of total station and differential GPS. Positions are stated in Easting and Northing, based on the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system (UTM) using the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) ellipsoid. The site falls into zone 32 North. Positions were converted using the MSP Geotrans 3.2 software, made available by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (Akers & Mullaney, 2012). Unless otherwise stated, all geodata has been provided by Øhavsmuseet.
1
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland The Ågabet wreck is located in a shallow, 800m wide bay just north of Bagenkop. The wreck lies approximately 120m from the shore at a depth of 3m. The site coordinates are: E 0607718, N 6069157 (Figure 2).
Until 1853, the Ågabet (river opening), which still lends its name to the area, connected the bay with the protected waters of Magleby Nor (Berg et al., 1961). This brackish fjord or bay extended inland from Ågabet to the small village of Magleby. The Nor was surrounded by a hilly landscape dominated by characteristic pronounced rounded hat hills formed in the last period of the latest Ice Age.
Figure 1: Bagenkop on the southern tip of the island of Langeland. The highlighted area is shown enlarged in Figure 2. Auer 2013, based on Kort 10 geodata, Geodatastyrelsen and a svg file by Los688, Wikimedia Commons.
2. Site Location by Christian Thomsen
The island Langeland is located in the southern part of the Great Belt (Store Bælt) between the Islands Funen (Fyn) and Lolland. As the name implies Langeland (long island) is a long and narrow island, stretching for 50km from north to south. In the east, the island is separated from Falster by a narrow strait, Langelandsbæltet, which is also the southern entrance to the Great Belt between Funen and Zeeland (Figure 1). The southernmost point of Langeland faces the Baltic Sea. From the sea side the two bluffs Dovnsklint and Gulstav are visible for many nautical miles.
On the western side of the island, only three kilometres from the southern tip lies the fishing village Bagenkop. Modern Bagenkop is dominated by its recreational yacht harbour, which is very busy during the summer months. Outside the tourist season the main occupation is fishing. The village still has a fleet of small to medium sized fishing vessels.
2
Although Magleby is only a small village today, historical sources indicate that it once was the dominating town on southern Langeland. The church of Magleby lies on one of the highest hat hills around the edge of the Nor and it was possible to sail straight to the foot of the hill and the church. The church is a typical 12th century Romanesque stone built church with later extensions and additions. Less than half a kilometre from the church, a small fortification was built as a refuge or stronghold against attacks from pirate raids on another hill in the Nor. The stronghold dates to the early 12th century, a period when Danish shores were frequently attacked by Wendish raiders (Skaarup, 2005). On one of the first Danish nautical charts drawn by the cartographer Jens Sørensens in 1692, the entrance to the Nor, is called “havn” (harbour) of Magleby Nor. The protected waters and a row of small islands near the waterway, formed a significant natural harbour on a coastline which is otherwise exposed to westerly winds.
One of the small islands within the protected waters was called “Skibholm” (Ship island) and the name probably refers to the island’s function as primary mooring site for ships and boats. Until the damming of Magleby Nor in 1853 and the construction of the first harbour of Bagenkop in 1858, Magleby Nor was the entrance to the whole of southern Langeland and the best winter harbour for local ships. The fairly deep waters also allowed larger boats to navigate the Nor (Berg et al., 1961). A long and narrow land tongue, which stretches from Bagenkop in the south to Ågabet in the north formed the barrier between Magleby Nor and the sea. At the tip of this tongue Sandhagen
Site Location (sandy hook), a Renaissance fishing village, was excavated by Langelands Museum in the years 1953-55. The village only survived for a few generations, and after having been damaged by floods repeatedly, it was abandoned around 1620 only ca. 70 years after it was founded. From the artefact material retrieved during the excavation, Berg concludes that the village had a complex social and economic structure based partially on fishing but also on foreign trade. The amount of imported luxury goods such as glazed stove tiles,
high quality drinking glasses and glazed pottery clearly shows that this little village was neither isolated nor forgotten, but had frequent contact with foreign traders (Berg et al., 1961).
Before excavation started, a relation between the stranding location of the shipwreck and the entrance to Magleby Nor was thought to be likely. However, the present research shows that this is not the case.
Ba ge n
Ă…gabet Wreck
our arb h p ko
m
Figure 2: Site location north of Bagenkop. Auer 2013, map produced in Quantum GIS based on Kort 10 geodata, Geodatastyrelsen.
3
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
3. Site History by Christian Thomsen
In October 2010 Øhavsmuseet was contacted by Jacob Toxen-Worm with information about a wooden wreck in the bay north of Bagenkop. Toxen-Worm was swimming between the northern hook of the bay and Bagenkop habour when he noticed a wooden structure on the seabed beneath him. Toxen-Worm counted 19 exposed frames and observed planking with an average width of 22-24cm and a thickness of 5-6cm. He also described the wreck as clinker built. After his initial report, Toxen-Worm returned to the site equipped with the museum’s underwater camera in order to document the wreck. Unfortunately the majority of the photographs turned out to be out of focus and helped little towards understanding the discovery. In 2011, Øhavsmuseet established contact with the Maritime Archaeology Programme at the University of Southern Denmark. The co-operation between the two institutions led to two initial surveys.
The first survey took place on August 15th, 2011. The primary aim was to locate the shipwreck. Using the reported position as a starting point, the seabed was searched with divers and a Hummingbird side imaging sonar. At the end of the day, the wreck was found, completely covered by sand, at a distance of 70m from the reported position. When uncovering some of the timbers by hand fanning, these seemed to be from a carvel built vessel. At this point, it was unclear whether a second shipwreck had been discovered, or whether Toxen-Worm had made a mistake in his initial report. As Toxen-Worm’s identification was supported by underwater photographs, the discovery of yet another wreck in the Bay near Bagenkop seemed likely. In order to solve this question and collect more information for a possible future excavation campaign, a second, more extensive two-day inspection of the site was planned. This was carried out on October 13th and 14th, 2011 by students of the Maritime Archaeology Programme in conjunction with staff from Øhavsmuseet. Using a dredge, the site was partially
4
exposed and the wreck was sketched (Figure 3). However, again only carvel built remains could be recorded.
As the wreck was found substantially preserved and further documentation was deemed necessary, it was decided to establish a co-operation between the Maritime Archaeology Programme and Øhavsmuseet and record the Ågabet wreck during the annual underwater field-school of the Maritime Archaeology Programme in 2012.
Fieldwork 2012
Figure 3: Preliminary site sketch, drawn after the second short survey in October 2011. During this survey, only carvel timbers were observed. Nielsen 2011.
5
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
4. Fieldwork 2012 By Jens Auer & Dan Nicolescu
4.1 Organisation Time frame The field school was planned for a three-week period between July 23rd 2012 and August 10th 2012. However, strong westerly winds made diving impossible after August 6th. As the weather forecast predicted gale force winds for the rest of the week, it was decided to cut the project short and return to Esbjerg. The field school team left Bagenkop on August 7th, 2012. Data processing and analysis was undertaken in the form of a University course during the autumn semester 2012.
Personnel The main survey team for the wreck site was comprised of eight 2nd year MAP Masters students, two supervisory SDU staff members and one professional archaeologist from Øhavsmuseet. In addition, the project’s working force was supplemented by a maritime archaeologist from Copenhagen, who volunteered to partake in the project from the 25th to the 30th of July and two further 2nd year MAP Masters students who participated for two days each. Further support was provided by the resident diving club Proppen, whose divers offered their help with underwater tasks such as the initial uncovering of the wreck. Living arrangements Field school participants were housed in the former Sydlangelands Maritim Efterskole (now Action Efterskole), situated near the harbour in Bagenkop. Besides bedrooms and sanitary facilities, the school made available a shed for equipment storage as well as a roofed outdoor area, which could be used for the preparation of meals. A former classroom provided office space for data processing and the storage of artefacts.
Schedule Daily planning was generally undertaken by the participating students with input from MAP and Øhavsmuseet staff. Each day, a different student was nominated “site director” and put in charge of project management. This included planning the dives, organising briefings and writing the site diary, as well as a blog entry for the project blog (www.maritimearchaeology.dk). It was generally aimed at carrying out four dives a day in a morning and an afternoon diving session.
6
At the beginning of each session all eight project participants were taken out to site on the two workboats. A maximum of four divers were in the water simultaneously, with the remaining four acting as tenders, standby diver and pump operator. Divers were exchanged on a rolling basis and once the first four divers had finished, three of them were taken back to shore on one of the boats in order to start recharging cylinders and prepare lunch. The fourth diver assumed the role of a pump operator on the other boat. During each diving session, one MAP staff member skippered the main work boat and acted as diving supervisor, while the other staff member supervised work underwater. Working days started with communal breakfast between 6:00 and 7:00. After setting up, the first dive team was ready for departure by 8:00, and the first diver was generally deployed around 8:15. Diving then continued until mid-day, when all divers returned to port for lunch and in order to refill the diving cylinders.
The second group of divers left port around 13:00, and returned between 16:00 and 17:00. After diving, the equipment was cleaned and prepared for the next day and the data gathered in the course of the working day was processed. Daily progress and planning was discussed at the project debriefing after dinner. Equipment Two different craft were used during the project. The MAP work boat Mapper, a 5.5m long Pioner Multi, served as the main diving platform and transfer vessel. Øhavsmuseet provided a smaller boat with half cabin and outboard engine, which was mainly used as a platform for two Honda water pumps. Both boats were anchored on site on a single point mooring for the duration of the dives (Figure 4). Diving was undertaken using Interspiro Divator equipment and Scubapro Master Buoyancy compensators. To economise air consumption and allow for better surface communication, the fullface masks were exchanged for half masks. Divers could be seen from the surface at all times and could be alerted using sound signals.
Fieldwork 2012 Custom made dredges, driven by small Honda water pumps were used for sediment removal.
Cylinders were filled using a Bauer Mariner 250 compressor, which was positioned near the team accommodation. Diving With the exception of a few site-specific alterations, all diving was carried out in accordance with the standard procedures provided for by Danish diving legislation. As a maximum of five divers were deployed simultaneously on the relatively small wreck site, and work tasks required the divers to move around the site, surface tethers were considered a hazard. Furthermore, the extremely shallow water depth and good underwater visibility allowed all divers to be monitored from the surface. Tethers and surface communication were therefore omitted. Dive teams generally consisted of four divers, an in-water supervisor, a surface standby diver and supervisor and a pump operator. The standby diver was dressed in a suit with diving equipment ready to be donned.
The diving supervisor was in charge of carrying out pre-diving checks and recording and overseeing dives, while the in-water supervisor monitored work progress and helped with recording tasks. While divers were exchanged after each dive, supervisors stayed on the boat and in the water for the duration of the morning session or afternoon session respectively.
Time planning and efficiency Diving took place on 12.5 out of 19 planned dive days, which means that 6.5 days were lost to weather, a result of the exposed location of the wreck site. In this period 11 divers (excluding day visitors) conducted 180 dives resulting in a total of 21.074 minutes or 351 hours of bottom time. The highest number of dives per day was 19, resulting in 2440 minutes spent working underwater.
4.2 Methodology
Search Although the field school team was in possession of a GPS position for the wreck site from prior surveys (see section 3), the site had to be relocated. The GPS position was marked with a buoy from the surface and divers were deployed to locate the site using circular searches. When this produced no result, the circular searches were first combined with probing and then with systematic test trenches. As the wreck could still not be found, a water lance was used to dig deeper tunnels in a star-shaped pattern around the buoy sinker. This last method was successful. The wreck was located under between 1m and 1.5m of sand, only a few metres away from the initial GPS position. Excavation After discovery, the site was cleared from sand using three water dredges. Care was taken to deposit the sand away from the site in order to prevent it from being covered up again by wave
Figure 4: Work boats moored above the wreck site. The Ă˜havsmuseet boat served as a platform for the dredging pumps and was manned by a pump operator. MAP 2012.
7
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland
Figure 5: Diver removing sand with a water dredge. Up to three dredges were used simultaneously in order to clear the site from overlying sediment. Auer 2012.
Figure 6: Underwater drawing in progress. The site was drawn at a scale of 1:10 using offset baselines. Auer 2012.
action or currents. Based on earlier observations and using the timber structure as guidance, the full site extent was established (Figure 5). As the sheer volume of overlying sediment made clearing the whole site within the available time frame impossible, it was decided to concentrate efforts on two separate areas: A 10m long hull section at the bow of the wreck and the stern with attached rudder. The area in between the two sections was left unexcavated (Appendix IV).
tional cross lines were established at an angle of 90° to the main base line at 4m, 7m and 9m respectively. This limited the distance from base lines to measuring points to a maximum of 1.5m and thus increased measuring accuracy. Further temporary measuring lines were set up between existing base lines whenever needed. As the distance from excavated area to the exposed sternpost and rudder was more than 10m, it was decided to record the stern using a separate base line.
Despite the best efforts to protect and stabilize the excavated areas, the site was covered up during several spells of strong westerly winds. This led to a staged working approach. Once cleared of sand, a small section was immediately recorded, while the next section was excavated.
Recording , positioning and reference network As a first stage in the recording process, all recognizable timbers were tagged with orange cow ear markers with unique numbers. In previous projects, yellow markers were used, but these were found to be too reflective, and as a consequence appeared very bright in recording photographs. All tagged timbers were then recorded using pre-printed timber recording sheets. These contained information on timber type, scantlings, fastenings and notable features and were supplemented with sketches where applicable. At the end of each day, this information was checked and transferred to a shared FileMaker database, which could be accessed from a number of computers. With the site being fairly flat, it was decided to draw all excavated areas at a scale of 1:10 using offset baselines. The main baseline was set up running from the bow to the midship area along the projected direction of the keel. Three addi-
8
In order to link individual site elements and to tie the site in with the surrounding area and thus assign geographical coordinates, a Leica TCR 407 reflectorless total station was used. The total station was set up on the shore and positioned by recording a number of recognisable landscape features as datum points. A standard round prism was then mounted on a long metal pole and positioned above the endpoints of all base lines by a diver and a surface swimmer. Points and distances were recorded directly into Rhinoceros3D software using the Termite plugin developed by Frederik Hyttel (Hyttel, 2011). The average accuracy achieved with this method was +/- 8cm, which was deemed sufficient considering the purpose (Figure 7).
Underwater drawing was carried out using pencils and millimetric permatrace. After each dive, but at the latest at the end of each day, the underwater drawings were transferred onto a master site plan in the office. This ensured consistency in the drawing and allowed to check recording accuracy and fit between individual drawings. In addition to the site plan, four offset profiles were recorded at 4m, 7m, 8m and 9.8m respectively.The finished site plan was scanned in post-
Fieldwork 2012 processing and digitised using Adobe Illustrator CS5 (Appendix IV).
support a possible future exhibition or showcase on the shipwreck (see section 5.2).
Artefacts encountered during the excavation were positioned using the offset baselines, but only lifted if necessary. All recovered artefacts were recorded on artefact sheets and entered into a purpose built FileMaker database. While all artefacts were photographed on site, only a selection was drawn and photographed in the photo laboratory of Øhavsmuseet in Rudkøbing (see section 5.2).
Rope and textile found on site was also sampled. These samples were analysed by the conservators Ida Hovmand and Nanna Jönsson of Øhavsmuseet. The textile and fibre analysis was explained and discussed with the field school participants during a day of post-processing at the conservation facilities of Øhavsmuseet in Rudkøbing.
The drawn record was supplemented with photographs taken with a Panasonic FT3 camera and an Olympus E520 in underwater housing and with video footage captured with a GoPro HD Hero 2 camera.
Sampling A total of nine wood samples were acquired for dendrochronological analysis. Care was taken to sample timbers of all possible building phases of the shipwreck. The samples were analysed by Aoife Daly in Copenhagen.
Based on the acquisition policy of Øhavsmuseet, the majority of the less well preserved artefacts were discarded after recording. A few objects were kept as teaching material or with a view to Survey Methodology
Bagenkop
Stern (Rudder)
TIM-048
TIM-051 TIM-026
TIM-049
TIM-027
Bow
0
50m
Figure 7: Location of the wreck site in relation to the shoreline. Baselines are shown in red. The inset illustrates the methodology used to link all site elements and to position the site. Auer 2012, using symbols provided by the Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (ian.umces.edu/symbols/)..
9
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland
5. Results of in-situ recording
5.1 The Wreck By Dimitra Perissiou
The wreck is located approximately 100 m from the shore in a southeast - northwest orientation with the bow facing southeast into the bay. It is lying with a slant towards the portside. The total length is 24m. During the excavation an area measuring 12m x 4.7m was uncovered, starting at the bow. In addition, a keyhole excavation was carried out around the rudder and sternpost. The preserved remains of the ship consist mainly of framing and planking on the portside from the level of the keel to the turn of the bilge. Two separate layers of outer planking, an inner clinker/ carvel layer and an outer carvel layer, were recorded. While the bow assembly is still in-situ, the keel has broken away and is only preserved near the bow. Although buried under ca. 50cm to 1m of sand prior to the excavation, the wreck was certainly exposed over prolonged periods of time in the past. Consequently the condition of the wooden structural elements varies significantly. Some are heavily deteriorated due to erosion and marine borers, while others, which are covered and protected by a compact layer of marine clay, are in an excellent state of preservation.
As the sediment cover was too deep for accurate probing, the level of preservation beyond the limit of the excavation is not known. Judging by the results of the survey in October 2011, parts of the starboard side might be preserved in the area towards the stern (see section 3). The following section describes the constructional elements of the surviving hull structure recorded during the 2012 excavation. It has to be kept in mind that the presented data is limited as the wreck was not fully excavated and a non-destructive approach was taken for excavation and recording (see section 4). Structural hull elements are presented and grouped according to function and descriptions include detailed information on raw materials, position, dimension and form, joints and fastenings.
10
Bow assembly The analysis and interpretation of the bow assembly proved to be a complex task. The bow is damaged and deeply buried in the surrounding seabed, which made recording difficult. As only partial excavation was possible, the composition of individual elements is not entirely clear and the use of traditional terminology is problematic. This chapter attempts to describe and interpret the results of the in-situ recording. Terminology is applied with care, and wherever several possibilities of interpretation exist, these are offered.
Position, dimensions, form and fastenings The exposed part of the bow is composed of five major elements. Four of these are compassed timbers protruding from the seabed at an angle. The fifth is joined on the inside and extends towards the midship area for a length of 3.14m. All timbers are made of softwood, most likely pine, and are heavily eroded on the top. A thick layer of metal concretion between and around the compassed elements makes the recognition of details and joints a difficult task. The current interpretation of the bow is based on a construction in two phases, a first half-carvel phase and a later carvel phase (see section 6.1).
Based on this interpretation, the compassed timber tagged 75, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 92 would be the stempost (Figure 8 and 11). Although the eroded and concreted surface of the timber gives the appearance of separate elements and tags were applied accordingly, this is likely to be a single timber. Reflecting the general slant of the wreck, it protrudes from the seabed at an angle. The visible moulded dimension is 23cm and the timber has a siding of 27cm. The preserved length is ca. 30cm. The vague outlines of what appears to be a rabbet for clinker planking are visible underneath the concretion on both sides of the timber (Figure 10).
Although there is now a gap between this timber and the neighbouring elements, this is likely to be a result of the wrecking event or site formation processes. The concretion around the timber
Results of in-situ recording TIM-144
TIM-146
TIM-147
TIM-063
TIM-062
Sternpost and Rudder (11m southeast of excavated area) TIM-055
Rudder TIM-061
TIM-04
TIM-054
8
TIM-053
6
TIM-02
TIM-052 TIM-145 TIM-142
1
9
TIM-05
TIM-04
TIM-050
TIM-046
7
TIM-02 TIM-066 TIM-045
Sternpost
TIM-042
TIM-088
TIM-090
TIM-087
TIM-086
TIM-078
TIM-080
TIM-148
TIM-076
TIM-077
TIM-041
TIM-040
TIM-071
TIM-079
Dendro Sample
TIM-039 TIM-009 TIM-150
TIM-069
TIM-038
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-015
TIM-036
TIM-034
TIM-031
TIM-032
TIM-037
TIM-070
TIM-023
TIM-064 Iron
TIM-028
Keel (broken away underneath wreck) (56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 67)
TIM-072
Dendro-sample
TIM-008
TIM-030 Dendrosample
TIM-011 Dendro Sample TIM-058/059
TIM-035 TIM-024 TIM-033
TIM-007
TIM-029
TIM-060 TIN-067
TIM-010
TIM-068
TIM-022 TIM-025
TIM-006 TIM-016
TIM-017
Dendrosample
TIM-056/057 TIM-021
TIM-065 TIM-020 TIM-018 TIM-100 TIM-019
TIM-058/059
TIM-099
TIM-098
TIM085/012 TIM-151 TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
Possible keelson or deadwood (002)
TIM-003
TIM-002
TIM-097 TIM-095
Apron for original stempost (Clinker) (002)
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-094
TIM-093 TIM-004
Concretion
TIM-091 TIM-085/012 TIM-093 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082TIM-084
Second stempost and possibly cutwater (Carvel) (73, 74)
Original stempost (Clinker) (75, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92)
TIM-083
TIM-074
0
1m
TIM-073
Figure 8: Elements of the bow assembly, keel and stern are highlighted in grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.
11
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland The moulded dimension is ca. 27cm, while the siding ranges from 57cm near the seabed to 27cm at the top. The bottom end of the apron is joined to either the keelson or a deadwood element (02) with a diagonal scarf joint, which is chocked with a small timber (05) (Figure 9).
Figure 09: Joint between apron and deadwood element. Timber 5 is a small chock that has been inserted in the scarf joint. Auer 2012.
Figure 10: Rabbet for clinker planking in the stempost forward of apron 01. Auer 2012.
could be an indication for iron fasteners or other metal reinforcements.
A large compassed timber that is fastened to the inside of the stempost (01) is interpreted as the apron. It protrudes from the seabed by ca. 50cm.
The exposed starboard side of the apron is well preserved. The outer surface has been smoothed and traces of waterproofing are visible. Trenails with a diameter of 35mm and square-shafted iron nails (10mm x 10mm) probably served to fasten outer planking against the moulded side of the apron. A single incised line in the starboard moulded side of the timber follows the angle of the outer planking and might have indicated the position of a plank. Timber 02 is joined to the apron with the aforementioned scarf. It is currently interpreted as either keelson or deadwood. It survives to a length of 3.14m and tapers in width from 29.5 cm (forward) to 33cm (aft). As the timber extends into the seabed, its moulded dimension could not be determined.
Seven treenails of 20mm to 30mm diameter and a single iron bolt (30mm) protrude from the upper surface on the inside. These might have served as fasteners for framing timbers, which are now missing. If this is the case, timber 02 is more likely to represent deadwood, as the keelson is located above the frames.
Figure 11: Stitched panorama of the bow assembly. From left to right apron (01), clinker stempost and the two post associated with the carvel planking (73, 74) are visible. Auer 2012.
12
Results of in-situ recording The remaining two compassed elements of the bow assembly are located on the outside of the stempost (73, 74). As they have carvel outer planking running towards them, they are thought to be later additions, associated with the process of converting the original half-carvel to a carvel vessel by adding an additional layer of outer planking (see section 6.1). Both timbers are angled ca. 38Ëš forward and are lying with the same portside slant as the remainder of the bow assembly. They are exposed for a length of ca. 45cm. The inner timber (74) measures 22cm sided by 20cm moulded, while the moulded dimension of the outer element (73) is slightly greater at 34cm.
A single trenail hole of 30mm diameter is visible in the starboard moulded surface between both timbers. The trenail might have served to fasten the carvel outer planking. A chamfer measuring 4.5cm by 8.5cm and 1cm depth was observed on the top of timber 74. Furthermore a 4cm high rectangular ridge, probably part of a scarf, was recorded on the top end of timber 73.
Although a dedicated rabbet could not be observed, the fact that the carvel outer planking runs towards timbers 73 and 74, to which it was probably fastened, speaks for an interpretation as stempost and possibly also gripe for the vessel after the addition of the second carvel skin. Keel During the excavation, it was expected that the keel would be found below the framing in the centre of the vessel. However, several test trenches along the centreline only produced evidence of heavily fragmented softwood splinters, where the keel should have been (Figure 23). However, during the excavation of the bow area, a number of long, fragmented softwood timbers were found protruding at an angle towards the starboard side from underneath the deadwood component (56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 67). The size of these timbers, as well as the angle at which they are oriented would speak for an interpretation as keel or parts of the keel.
Dimensions and form As the timbers are deeply embedded in surrounding sediments, their full extent could only be exposed in a small keyhole on the starboard side (Figure 8). Four different elements were discernible. From top to bottom these are 56/57, 58/59,
60 and 67. It is, however, possible that 56/57 and 58/59 are parts of a single, cracked timber. Due to the fragmented nature of the elements no obvious scarfs or other fastenings were observed. The sided dimension of these timbers could not be established as the overlying deadwood prohibited access. However, assuming that both elements have similar widths, a sided measurement of ca. 33cm for the keel appears likely. The moulded dimension of the four recorded timbers adds up to a total of 76cm. A heavily fragmented rabbet was observed in the topmost component (56/57). Both rabbet and back rabbet measure 9cm. The presence of another rabbet just below the first is possible, but the damage to the timber in this area makes it difficult to confirm this.
Assuming that the keel is composed of three layered parts, these could be termed keel (56-59), rider keel (60) and false keel (67). Sternpost and rudder Sternpost and rudder are located ca. 11m aft of the excavated area and were exposed in a keyhole excavation (Figure 8 and 13). A sediment cover of 1m or more did not allow uncovering any associated structural elements at the stern of the wreck. Although the upper ends are eroded, both, sternpost and rudder are generally well preserved and still resting in their original position. Both elements are heeling towards the portside at an acute angle so that only the starboard side could be recorded. Dimensions and form The visible part of the stern consists of two softwood timbers. The inner timber (27) is exposed over a length of 60cm and measures 30cm sided and 20cm moulded. On the inboard edges of the timber the remains of two rabbets are visible. The rabbet measures 6cm, while the back rabbet has a length of 7cm.
On the lower part of the moulded side of the timber an elaborate carved mark was observed (Figure 12). The mark, most likely a draught mark, has a total height of 14cm and resembles the number 7 partially encircled by a curled incised line. The outer timber (51) was uncovered for a length of 1.10m. Its moulded side measures 24cm while the sided dimension is 30cm. The remainder of a flat scarf of 13cm length is visible on the top part of the timber. Below this scarf remnants of the gudgeon are indicated by an iron concretion. Beneath the concretion a chamfer, probably asso-
13
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland slightly towards the starboard side. The total preserved width is 1.04m, while the thickness is ca. 25cm. The rudder is comprised of three different softwood timbers (26, 48, 49), which are scarfed together. The timbers are held together by a 10cm wide and 2cm thick bracket for the pintle. The pintle itself is concreted, but could be measured as being ca. 22cm long and having a diameter of 5cm. Figure 12: Carved draught mark in the moulded side of the inner sternpost (27). Auer 2012.
ciated with gudgeon, is visible. Although timbers 27 and 51 are likely to be fastened to each other, no fastenings could be observed.
Timber 27 and 51 are probably the remains of the inner and outer sternpost. If the draught mark on timber 27 represents the number seven, it would be located seven Swedish foot or 2.072m from the bottom of the keel. The rudder could be exposed over a height of 95cm. It is attached to the sternpost and angled
The after piece of the rudder (48) has a width of 20cm. The middle piece (26) is 34cm wide and the main piece (49) has a width of 45cm. The inner edge of the main piece is bevelled to allow sideways movement of the rudder. A rebate underneath the pintle allows the rudder to be hung into the sternpost gudgeon. Planking The outer planking of the vessel consists of two separate layers. The “inner” shell underlying the frames consists of planking constructed in half carvel fashion, eg. a lapstrake bottom turning to carvel below the turn of the bilge. A second “outer” shell consists of hull planking entirely constructed in carvel (Figure 14 and 16).
Figure 13: Rudder (48, 26, 49) and sternpost (27, 51). The edge of the rabbet is visible on the inner sternpost (27) on the right. Auer 2012.
14
Results of in-situ recording TIM-144
TIM-146
TIM-147
TIM-063
TIM-062
TIM-055
TIM-061 TIM-054 TIM-053 TIM-052 TIM-145 TIM-142 TIM-050
TIM-046
TIM-066 TIM-045
TIM-042
TIM-088
TIM-090
TIM-087
TIM-086
TIM-078
TIM-080
TIM-148
TIM-076
TIM-077
TIM-041
TIM-040
TIM-071
TIM-079
Dendro Sample
TIM-039 TIM-009 TIM-150
TIM-069
TIM-038
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-015
TIM-036
TIM-034
TIM-031
TIM-032
TIM-037
TIM-070
TIM-072
Dendro-sample
TIM-008
TIM-023
TIM-064 Iron
TIM-028 TIM-030
Dendrosample
TIM-011 Dendro Sample TIM-058/059
TIM-035 TIM-024 TIM-033
TIM-007
TIM-029
TIM-060 TIN-067
TIM-010
TIM-068
TIM-022 TIM-025
TIM-006 TIM-016
TIM-017
Dendrosample
TIM-056/057 TIM-021
TIM-065 TIM-020 TIM-018 TIM-100 TIM-019
TIM-058/059
TIM-099
TIM-098
TIM085/012 TIM-151 TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
TIM-003
TIM-002
TIM-097 TIM-095
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-094
TIM-093 TIM-004
Concretion
TIM-091 TIM-085/012 TIM-093 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082TIM-084
TIM-083
TIM-074
0
1m
TIM-073
Figure 14: Overview plan of the wreck. The outer planking of the first (half-carvel) phase is highlighted in grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.
15
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland The preserved remains do not give any indication as to how the hull structure originally continued above the turn of the bilge. The vast majority of structural elements, including hull planking, are preserved on the port side of the vessel. Here at least 15 strakes are clearly visible spanning from the garboard strake to the turn of the bilge. The few surviving planking remains on the starboard side are heavily damaged and splintered, probably as a result of the wrecking of the ship. The number of planks per strake could not be determined as only parts of the wreck were excavated and the densely spaced framing largely obstructed the view to the underlying planking. Neither was it possible to determine the exact number of outer carvel strakes, as these are hidden by the overlying inner shell. The section near the bow of the ship offers the best insight into nature and construction of the planking as much of the internal framing is missing.
Raw materials Information regarding timber conversion and wood technology is limited as it is based on the samples acquired for dendrochronological analysis as well as on observations on the exposed in-situ timbers. Both, planks from the inner- and outer shell were sampled. All planks seem to have been tangentially sawn from pine. Sapwood could not be observed.
Dimensions As mentioned above the inner layer of hull planking is of comprised of a bottom section of 10 clinker strakes followed by flush laid carvel planking from below the turn of the bilge upwards (Figure 14). Although the maximum plank length measured for clinker planks is ca. 5.3m, the limitations in access to the planks do not allow for secure information on average plank lengths used. Otherwise the measured dimensions show that the average dimensions for clinker and carvel planks of the inner shell are quite similar. Clinker planks are on average 20.5cm wide with average thickness of 4.5cm, while the carvel planks show average dimensions of 16cm width and 5cm thickness. The outer layer is exclusively made out of carvel planks of which up to five strakes survive insitu (Figure 16). However, only a short section of this second shell was accessible for recording constructional details. Between the outer carvel planking and the inner clinker strakes, wooden chocks had been placed “levelling� the clinker steps in order to provide a smooth surface for the carvel planking. The dimensions of the chocks are guided by the clinker hull structure. An average thickness of 2cm to 3cm was recorded. As no chocks were fully exposed their lengths could not be established.
Figure 15: Exposed clinker planking forward of frame 38. Clinker planks are fastened with small, wedged wooden nails. The sealing boards fastened to the inside of the clinker hull planks are clearly visible in the foreground. Auer 2012.
16
Results of in-situ recording TIM-144
TIM-146
TIM-147
TIM-063
TIM-062
TIM-055
TIM-061 TIM-054 TIM-053 TIM-052 TIM-145 TIM-142 TIM-050
TIM-046
TIM-066 TIM-045
TIM-042
TIM-088
TIM-090
TIM-087
TIM-086
TIM-078
TIM-080
TIM-148
TIM-076
TIM-077
TIM-041
TIM-040
TIM-071
TIM-079
Dendro Sample
TIM-039 TIM-009 TIM-150
TIM-069
TIM-038
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-015
TIM-036
TIM-034
TIM-031
TIM-032
TIM-037
TIM-070
TIM-072
Dendro-sample
TIM-008
TIM-023
TIM-064 Iron
TIM-028 TIM-030
Dendrosample
TIM-011 Dendro Sample TIM-058/059
TIM-035 TIM-024 TIM-033
TIM-007
TIM-029
TIM-060 TIN-067
TIM-010
TIM-068
TIM-022 TIM-025
TIM-006 TIM-016
TIM-017
Dendrosample
TIM-056/057 TIM-021
TIM-065 TIM-020 TIM-018 TIM-100 TIM-019
TIM-058/059
TIM-099
TIM-098
TIM085/012 TIM-151 TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
TIM-003
TIM-002
TIM-097 TIM-095
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-094
TIM-093 TIM-004
Concretion
TIM-091 TIM-085/012 TIM-093 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082TIM-084
TIM-083
TIM-074
0
1m
TIM-073
Figure 16: Overview plan of the wreck. The outer hull planking of the second, outer carvel phase is highlighted in grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.
17
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland Although most of the exposed outer carvel planks were heavily eroded it was possible to record basic measurements. The average width was 18cm to 23cm, while the recorded thickness varied from 7cm near the keel to around 5cm near the turn of the bilge.
Strake overlaps Plank overlaps of adjoining clinker strakes are fastened with small wooden nails of 15mm diameter, which are secured with hardwood wedges. The nails are spaced ca. 16cm apart, although variations between 12cm and 24cm occur. The area of the plank overlaps, known as land, could only be measured for the plank 15 where it is 6cm in width. Nevertheless, it was observed that the fasteners are consistently positioned 2cm to 4cm from the edge of the plank, thus giving an indication towards the width of the planks seams. Bevels were visible on the exposed lands. Joints between strake planks Adjoining clinker planks in the same strake are not scarfed together as known from e.g. medieval and early modern clinker vessels. Instead, the planks are laid edge to edge and butt joints are sealed with thin pine boards nailed to the inside of the planks. These boards have an average length of 43cm long and are around 3cm thick (Figure 15, 17). The overlying framing has been rebated to fit over the sealing boards. Mats of waterproofing material were applied between sealing boards and
clinker planks and the boards are fastened with rows of two to three small, wedged softwood nails of 15mm diameter. Similar boards, albeit shorter in length were used to even out the inside of the clinker hull underneath composite carvel frames (see section on framing below).
Waterproofing Mats of animal hair, most likely horse hair (Ida Hovmand, Ă˜havsmuseet 2012, pers. comm.) were used to seal the joints between clinker strake planks. Clinker strake overlaps were also waterproofed with animal hair and tar. The same material was used for caulking the carvel planks of the inner half-carvel shell. In the area where clinker planking would have been fastened to the keel, large amounts of moss were recovered. This might have been used for waterproofing the garboard strake. It was not possible to sample caulking material belonging to the second, outer carvel shell. However, fragments of jute, woven in a tabby weave were recovered from in-between the inner and outer carvel shell (see section 5.2). While these might be associated with the cargo, a use as waterproofing material is also possible. Other Features Holes from square-shafted iron nails (10mm x 10mm) were observed on the inside of clinker and carvel planks as well as on sealing boards and the boards used to even out the inner clinker shell. These could be associated with iron nails or spikes used to temporarily hold elements in place before they were finally fastened with small tre-
Figure 17: Composition of the hull. From top to bottom: Sealing board, abutting clinker planks, thin boards to even out the clinker steps and carvel outer plank of the second phase (12). Auer 2012.
18
Results of in-situ recording TIM-144
TIM-146
TIM-147
TIM-063
TIM-062
TIM-055
TIM-061 TIM-054 TIM-053 TIM-052 TIM-145 TIM-142 TIM-050
TIM-046
TIM-066 TIM-045
TIM-042
TIM-088
TIM-090
TIM-087
TIM-086
TIM-078
TIM-080
TIM-148
TIM-076
TIM-077
TIM-041
TIM-040
TIM-071
TIM-079
Dendro Sample
TIM-039 TIM-009 TIM-150
TIM-069
TIM-038
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-015
TIM-036
TIM-034
TIM-031
TIM-032
TIM-037
TIM-070
TIM-072
Dendro-sample
TIM-008
TIM-023
TIM-064 Iron
TIM-028 TIM-030
Dendrosample
TIM-011 Dendro Sample TIM-058/059
TIM-035 TIM-024 TIM-033
TIM-007
TIM-029
TIM-060 TIN-067
TIM-010
TIM-068
TIM-022 TIM-025
TIM-006 TIM-016
TIM-017
Dendrosample
TIM-056/057 TIM-021
TIM-065 TIM-020 TIM-018 TIM-100 TIM-019
TIM-058/059
TIM-099
TIM-098
TIM085/012 TIM-151 TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
TIM-003
TIM-002
TIM-097 TIM-095
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-094
TIM-093 TIM-004
Concretion
TIM-091 TIM-085/012 TIM-093 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082TIM-084
TIM-083
TIM-074
0
1m
TIM-073
Figure 18: Overview plan of the wreck. Composite carvel frames are highlighted in dark grey, single frames are highlighted in light grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.
19
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland Raw materials All recorded frames are made of softwood, most probably pine. One frame was sampled for dendrochronological analysis (39), however the results are still pending. Most frames appear to be well squared and sapwood was not observed.
Figure 19: Transition from clinker to carvel construction on frame 38. Auer 2012.
Figure 20: Wide joggle cut to fit over a sealing board. Observed on frame 38. Auer 2012.
nails. It is also possible that iron nails were used to fasten the wooden boards or chocks applied to the outside of the clinker shell before the second carvel skin was put on. Two parallel, incised lines on Plank 72 are potentially score marks cut by the shipbuilder to mark the position of frames prior to their fitting.
Framing A total of twenty framing elements were uncovered during the excavation. The majority of these are single frames, which are partially joggled to reflect the clinker planking at the bottom of the hull. However, every fifth frame is a pre-assembled composite carvel frame.
Although generally well preserved, the ends of most framing elements are either broken off or eroded, so that none of the recorded lengths reflect original dimensions. It is also difficult to establish, which frames would have extended across the keel, as the starboard side of the wreck is missing and the area around the keel is damaged. This makes the use of traditional terminology (e.g. floor timber, futtock, etc.) problematic. Framing components will therefore be referred to by their position in the hull and interpretative terms will be avoided.
20
Positioning Although the excavation only provides limited insight into the framing of the vessel, it was possible to observe a general framing pattern. Composite carvel frames are spaced at fairly regular intervals of 2m, measured from centre to centre. Three composite frames were uncovered during the excavation with a fourth one indicated by the pattern of trenails forward of the preserved frames (see Figure 18). Based on the length of the vessel, a total of seven composite carvel frames can be assumed.
Four single frames are located between each pair of carvel frames. These are also spaced regularly at approximately 38cm intervals measured from centre to centre. All composite carvel frames would have extended across the keel and beyond the turn of the bilge.
It is, however, difficult to establish the original length of single frames, as most of the ends are heavily eroded or broken. Four single frames (42, 45/66, 50 and 147) definitely extended across the keel. Of these, two end in a square cut on the 13th strake (45/66, 50). The remaining framing timbers either have scarfs at their head, indicating a continuation (62, 147), or continue beyond the limit of the excavation at the turn of the bilge. Only one single frame ends cut square just before the keel (62). Sternward of the excavated area, a butt joint between two framing timbers was observed. A continuation of trenail holes in line with framing timbers 45/66 and 50 also suggests the existence of adjoining framing elements. This means that single frames were also composed of different timbers, which were either fastened to each other with scarf joints, or butted against each other. Dimensions and form The composite carvel frames are assembled from up to five individual elements, which are scarfed together and fastened to the adjoining components by means of trenails driven through the moulded face of the timbers. The longest preserved carvel framing timbers measure 3.53m. However, smaller elements with
Results of in-situ recording lengths of around 1m were also encountered. Moulded dimensions vary between 17cm and 25cm, while the timbers are between 19cm and 25cm sided. Rectangular limber holes of ca.10cm depth and 10cm width are evident for framing elements 61, 71 and 144.
In order to fit the carvel framing timbers into the clinker shell, small wooden boards were applied to the inside of the clinker planking (see section on planking)(Figure 22). The recorded and preserved length of single framing timbers ranges from 2.4m to 3.88 m. The moulded dimensions vary between 25cm and 30cm and the sided from 16cm to 27cm.
The half-carvel construction of the inner hull planking is reflected in the single framing timbers. The outboard faces of the frames are joggled from the keel up to the level of the tenth strake (Figure 19 and 21). Where chocks for waterproofing abutting clinker planks are situated, joggles spanned two strakes to accommodate for the chock positions (Figure 20). With the transition from clinker to carvel from the tenth strake upward joggles make way to smoothly curved outboard surfaces. Rectangular limber holes measuring 9 to 10cm in width and 5 to 7.5cm in height are present on a number of floor timbers (Figure 23).
Figure 21: Cross-section through a single frame. The keel is not preserved and has been reconstructed freely. Ditta 2013.
Figure 22: Cross-section through a composite carvel frame. The keel is not preserved and has been reconstructed freely. Ditta 2013.
21
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland Joints between framing components The individual elements of composite frames are joined together with scarf joints. These vary in length between 50cm and 1.27m. The irregular nature of the joints as well as the presence of smaller, almost chock-like framing components give the impression that the composite frames were assembled using whatever timber was available in order to obtain the desired shape. Scarf joints were also observed in single framing timbers. Frame components 45 and 66 are joined with a 50cm long scarf. On frame 147 a 60cm long scarf is visible on the keel end of the timber. Frame 62 ends in a 60cm long scarf at the height of the 15th strake. However, in some cases adjoining components of single frames simply abut each other. This was observed sternwards of the excavated area as well as in frames 45/ 66 and 50. Fastenings The frames of the vessel are fastened to the underlying planking with wooden trenails. Plain trenails of 32mm diameter occur as well as wedged examples. Many of the trenails on both single and composite frames are spaced very closely or even intercut each other (Figure 18). This could be a result of the two phases of construction evident in the hull planking (see section on planking).
Small, wedged wooden nails of 1.5cm diameter and the remains of square-shafted iron nails (1cm x 1cm) were regularly encountered on the sided
surfaces of framing timbers. These may have served as fasteners for ceiling planking. Composite carvel frames were connected with wedged trenails, 32mm in diameter.
On the moulded surface of composite frame 144 several small, wedged wooden nails were observed evenly distributed towards the head of the timber. As this presents an isolated observation the purpose of these nails could not be determined. Ceiling plank or stringer The only element of internal planking uncovered during the excavation is ceiling plank 146. It was sampled for dendrochronological analysis. The plank is tangentially sawn from pine and could be dated to after 1846 (Aoife Daly, 2012, pers. comm.). It is located in the midship area of the wreck towards the turn of the bilge, overlying framing timbers 63 and 147, as well as a number of untagged frames.
The plank is preserved to a length of 3.6m. It is 24cm wide and 8cm thick. Plank 146 was connected to the underlying frames by a combination of square-shafted iron nails and trenails of 32mm diameter. It is not clear, whether the trenails only connect the ceiling plank to the frames or fasten outer planking as well.
Figure 23: Limber holes on either side of the keel in single frame 147. The outline of the first joggles is visible to the right of the limber holes. Auer 2012.
22
Results of in-situ recording 5.2 Artefacts
0
5 cm
By Margaret Logan
During the excavation a small number of artefacts were recovered from the wreck, including rigging elements, cordage, textile, and ceramics. The limited number of recovered finds can partly be explained by the extensive salvage efforts shortly after the wrecking occurred (see section 6.2). Furthermore, other items left behind after the salvaging may have been washed away over time.
The relatively small assemblage of artefacts recovered from the wreck was by and large found between frames where deposits of compacted organic material provided excellent preservation conditions (Figure 25). Some of the objects were found in close proximity to one another, suggesting possible association. A selected number of finds are described and discussed below, while a complete catalogue of the recovered artefacts can be found in Appendix 2. Rigging
Block sheave A wooden block sheave (ART-012) was found wedged between the potential original apron and stempost. Remains of rope coiled around an unidentified concretion (ART-066) were found immediately next to the sheave and may have been originally associated with it (see below). Pulleys and blocks were an important and common rigging element and consisted of wooden shells containing one or more sheaves, (Marquardt, 1992). Sheaves are cylindrical discs rotating around a central pin and are made to fit certain strength of rope, which would be fed though the block.
Sheave ART-012 measures 15cm in diameter and 22mm in width with a horizontal perforation measuring 40mm in diameter through its centre (Figure 24). The piece appears to be made of lignum vitae, a tropical hardwood known for its strength and density (Kemp, 1976). A sharplydefined triangular-shaped rebate was cut 1cm deep into one side to receive the coak, a metal element reinforcing the central pinhole. The coak was fastened with 3 nails measuring ca. 10mm in diameter driven from the opposite face and placed in the corners of the triangular recess. As the coak is missing, it can be assumed to have been made in iron rather than yellow metal or brass. Wear marks resulting from the sheave rotating against the shell of the block are evident as concentric circles on both sides. A groove was
Figure 24: Wooden sheave (ART-012). MAP 2012.
turned along the sheave’s edge to receive a rope of ca. 20mm circumference. Rope/ Cordage The discovered cordage remains were largely in very good condition due to the excellent preservation conditions for the survival of organic material in the lower sections of the wreck. However, none of the cordage remains were of sufficient length or nature to draw conclusions on their original purpose. The discovered cordage remains are likely to have found their way between the frames of the lower hull either accidentally or as waste material during the lifespan of the vessel.
Nevertheless, some rope remains still showed evidence for coiling or knots. The good level of preservation allowed for safe recovery of a selection of cordage remains for further analysis. This showed that jute fibres were used as raw materials to manufacture at least some of the rope. Jute was a material indeed used for cordage in the nineteenth century, but not one of the more common materials, such as hemp, manila, flax, or sisal. No rope remains from the wreck were dissected for detailed analysis. The presented information is therefore based on visual inspection of the material in its as-found condition.
All of the cordage recovered was twisted or laid, which is indicative of the manufacturing process. Rope is comprised of fibres that are spun into yarns, which are in turn spun in the opposite direction into strands. The finished ropes are made by twisting two, three, or four strands together back in the opposite direction. The direction can be either “S” twist or “Z” twist,
23
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland TIM-144
TIM-146
TIM-147
044 044
TIM-063
016 016
TIM-062
TIM-055
TIM-061 TIM-054 TIM-053 TIM-052 TIM-145 TIM-142
008 008
TIM-050
TIM-046
TIM-066 TIM-045
TIM-042
TIM-088
TIM-090
TIM-087
TIM-086
TIM-080
013 013
TIM-078
TIM-148
TIM-076
TIM-077
TIM-041
TIM-040
TIM-071
TIM-079
Dendro Sample
TIM-039 TIM-009 TIM-150
TIM-069
TIM-038
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-015
TIM-036
TIM-034
TIM-031
TIM-032
TIM-037
TIM-070
TIM-072
Dendro-sample
TIM-008
TIM-023
TIM-064
072 072
053 053
Iron
TIM-028 TIM-030
Dendrosample
TIM-011 Dendro Sample TIM-058/059
TIM-035 TIM-024 TIM-033
TIM-007
TIM-029
TIM-060 TIN-067
TIM-010
TIM-068
TIM-022 TIM-025
TIM-006 TIM-016
TIM-017
Dendrosample
TIM-056/057 TIM-021
TIM-065 TIM-020 TIM-018 TIM-100 TIM-019
TIM-058/059
TIM-099
TIM-098
TIM085/012 TIM-151 TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
067 067 TIM-003
TIM-002
TIM-097 TIM-095
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-094
TIM-093
012 012 015 015 021 021
TIM-004
Concretion
TIM-091 TIM-085/012 TIM-093 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082TIM-084
TIM-083
TIM-074
0
1m
TIM-073
Figure 25: Overview plan of the wreck. The location of artefacts found on the wreck site is marked in red. Logan 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.
24
Results of in-situ recording depending on whether the maker is right-handed or left-handed. As right-handed rope makers produce “Z” twists, these are generally more common. Ropes made of three strands laid together in a “Z” twist are commonly known as hawser ropes (Sanders, 2010).
Rope fragment ART-044, one of the largest ropes recovered, could be identified as being from a hawser-laid rope. The 19cm long fragment is made of jute fibres and has a thickness of 20mm. It is comprised of three strands laid in a “Z” twist (Figure 26).
As mentioned above the fragments of a rope coiled around an unidentified iron concretion (ART-066) were found next to the block sheave (ART-012). Coiled to five loops, the fragment was in relatively good condition with only the ends frayed and having come apart. The rope was made of unknown material and measured 5mm in diameter with two strands laid in an “S”-twist (Figure 27). Despite having been found in close proximity to the sheave, the rope cannot be safely attributed to the block as its thickness does not match the width of the sheave’s groove. Determining the original usage of rope is extremely difficult as ropes of all types and sizes were used on-board ships for a multitude of purposes. A length of cordage (ART-067) made of jute (Ida Hovmand, Øhavsmuseet 2012, pers. comm.) and woven to a knot was recovered near the bow area, embedded in silty organic material between framing timbers (Figure 28). The knot, which measures 50mm by 70mm appears to be most likely a reef knot or slipped reef knot (D. Pawson 2012, pers. comm.). The knot was woven from a single, untwisted “yarn” of jute fibres of ca. 10mm thickness. The manufacture and size of the cordage make it likely that the knot was used to secure a small package or bundle of objects. Slipped reef knots can be easily untied by tugging on the short end of the bight. As the knot was found on its own it can be assumed that it had fallen between the frames after it had come apart from the package or bundle it was used to secure. Textiles Several fragments of fragile textile (ART-053) were found between the two layers of hull planking (see section 5.1). Despite its delicate condition the weave could still be identified. Although portions of the weaving are loose it is largely intact, allowing for identification of the weave pattern as a plain, or tabby, weave (Figure 29). It is the oldest weave known and made 1/1, which means
0
2 cm
Figure 26: Length of cordage (ART-044). Bain 2012.. 0
5 cm
Figure 27: Rope in iron concretion (ART-066). MAP 2012. 0
2 cm
Figure 28: Slipped reef knot in length of jute cordage (ART-067). Logan 2012. 0
5 cm
Figure 29: Textile fragment found between the two layers of hull planking (ART-053). MAP 2012.
25
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
0
2 cm
Figure 30: Faïence sherd (ART-062). Surface find from the covering sand layer. MAP 2012. 0
5 cm
Figure 31: Possible gaming pieces ART-064 (left) and ART-005 (right). MAP 2012. 0
2 cm
Figure 32: H-shaped mark or incision on the bottom of gaming piece ART-005. MAP 2012.
the weft travels over one and under one warpthread (Andersen, 1995). Both the weft and the warp threads are “Z” twisted. Analysis showed it was made of jute, and probably made on a standing loom. Due to the looseness of the weave, it was most likely handmade and of lower quality. Lower-quality cloth was usually used for packing material onboard (N. Jönsson, Øhavsmuseet 2012, pers. comm.). Although the fragment may well have originally been part of cargo packaging, its find location between the two layers of hull planking may also indicate that the material was used for waterproofing the second carvel layer of planking (see section 5.1).
Ceramic The lone example of ceramic was recovered as a surface find from the wreck and is a small sub-triangular shaped sherd of glazed pottery (ART-062) measuring 52mm by 30mm and 3mm thickness (Figure 30). It is slightly curved and the edges have been heavily worn due to friction and wave action. Consequently it cannot be safely attributed to the wreck. The small size and absence of diagnostic features do not allow for an interpretation to the type and size of the original vessel. The sherd is likely a type of tin-glazed earthenware known as faïence. Tin glazing involves glazing the earthenware with a lead glaze to which tin oxide is added, in order to create a white, opaque glaze. The technique originated in the 9th century AD in Mesopotamia where it was created in imitation of Chinese porcelain. In the following centuries the technique spread across Europe and by the 19th century faïence could be found widespread across Europe (Oost, 1997).
Gaming pieces Two small wooden discs of similar size were also among the artefact assemblage (Figure 31). Disc ART-005 has a diameter of 27mm and a height of 0
Figure 33: Crescent shaped wooden object with unknown function (ART-013). MAP 2012.
26
10 cm
Results of in-situ recording 25mm, while ART-064 has a diameter of 29mm and height of 20mm. Both have the edges of one side carved giving a roughly dome-shaped crosssection. In addition ART-005 has an “H”-shaped scratch on the surface of the unworked side (Figure 32). The interpretation as potential gaming pieces is based on similarities in size and shape to gaming pieces known from other wrecks, such as the Norwegian frigate Lossen (Molaug & Scheen, 1983), the Swedish ship of the line Prinsessan Hedvig Sophia (Auer and Schweitzer 2011). While gambling was by and large prohibited on board ships, games like chess, checkers, backgammon, and Nine Man’s Morris were popular games among sailors (Molaug et al. 1983).
Unknown wooden artefact A crescent-shaped wooden object (ART-013) of unknown purpose was recovered from between frame timbers (Figure 33). It is in good preservation condition and measures 49.5cm length and 40mm by 40mm in cross-section. It is well worked with smooth surfaces on all sides. Well defined flat rebates of 55mm length are worked horizontally into both ends reducing the thickness of the piece to 30mm. In line with these rebates 50mm long and 10mm wide notches have been cut into the ends. Two finely incised lines run parallel along the outer surface of the wood roughly corresponding the width of the notches. Notches and rebates at both ends suggest that the object was formerly connected or joined to another unknown piece. No fasteners are evident and the original purpose of the object could not be determined with certainty. It resembles, however, crosstrees as known e.g. from eighteenth and nineteenth century British warships (Marquardt, 1992). Nevertheless the possibility remains that the object is not related to rigging or other naval usage and may have belonged to the ship’s furniture.
27
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
6. Interpretation and comparative analysis
6.1 Dating and construction By Jens Auer
The results of the in-situ recording (section 5.1) allow a first characterization of the Ågabet wreck. The remains preserved on the seabed consist of stempost arrangement, sternpost and the lower hull on the port side up to the level of the turn of the bilge. The overall length of the site was measured as 24m, while the distance between the centre of the keel and the turn of the bilge was 3.5m.
Depending on the rake of the posts, the ship, which stranded near Ågabet would thus have been relatively large with a length of 25-27m and a beam of at least 7m. The vessel was built entirely from softwood, most likely pine and fastened almost exclusively with trenails and a few iron bolts. Iron spike nails seem to only have been used as temporary fasteners. One of the most noticeable construction features is the presence of two layers of outer hull planking, an inner clinker-carvel layer and an outer carvel layer. As the limited in-situ recording did not offer any clues as to whether the ship was originally built in this way, or the double outer planking represented a later repair or conversion, care was taken to obtain dendrochronological samples from both layers.
To date, three samples were analysed (65, 72, 146). All are pine and none had sapwood preserved. The samples match best with curves from the Swedish east coast, Gotland and the Åland isles. A match with curves from the Finnish mainland is also likely (Aoife Daly 2012, pers. comm.). The timbers date to after 1830 (65, carvel plank outer layer), after 1777 (72, carvel plank inner layer) and after 1846 (146, ceiling plank). Altogether the Ågabet wreck can thus be characterized as the remains of a relatively large sailing vessel, which was built after 1846, either in the eastern Baltic, or from eastern Baltic timber.
Sequence of construction During the in-situ recording a number of interesting construction features were observed (see
28
section 5.1). The presence of two layers of outer hull planking has already been mentioned. Further ‘anomalies’ include the presence of clinker strakes in the bottom of the hull, the use of composite carvel frames in the clinker bottom, as well as the fastening and waterproofing of the clinker strakes. In the following section, an attempt will be made to reconstruct the sequence of construction of the Ågabet wreck. This might help to understand some of the particular features mentioned above and can also serve as a basis for an in depth discussion of the concept behind the design and construction of the ship (see section 6.4). Although the authors present the sequence of construction they consider the most likely, alternative possibilities are discussed as well. The construction of the ship from Ågabet would probably have started with laying the keel and erecting stempost and sternpost (Figure 34).
The next step leaves more room for interpretation. Based on the fact that clinker planking is generally an indication of he ‘shell-first’ concept (Hasslöf et al., 1972), it would seem highly probable that the first ten clinker strakes were fastened next. Strake overlaps were secured with small wedged wooden trenails and strake planks butted against each other. The butt joints were sealed by thin boards trenailed over mats of waterproofing material to the inside of the clinker planks (Figure 35). Theoretically it is also possible to first erect the composite carvel frames and afterwards start planking up the clinker strakes. This would, however, be quite difficult, especially as sealing boards, as well as filling boards would have to be nailed over plank joints prior to fastening the planks.
The sequence of construction in this case is directly related to the question why clinker planking was used for the lowermost strakes in the ship. As this question in turn relates to the concept behind clinker and carvel construction and the phenomenon of half-carvel vessels, it is discussed in more detail in section 6.4.
Interpretation and comparative analysis
Figure 34: Laying the keel and erecting the posts. Ditta 2013.
Figure 35: Constructing the clinker bottom. Ditta 2013.
Figure 36: Preparing for the insertion of composite frames. Ditta 2013.
29
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland
Figure 37: Setting up the composite carvel frames. Ditta 2013.
Figure 38: Fastening ribbands and inserting filling frames. Ditta 2013.
Figure 39: Planking up. Ditta 2013.
30
Interpretation and comparative analysis After planking up the clinker strakes, the seven composite carvel frames would have been erected, evenly spaced apart at a distance of 2m on the keel. In order to fit the carvel frames into the clinker shell, small boards were trenailed to the inside of the clinker planking, effectively filling the space between planks and providing a smooth surface. As individual components of the composite frames are fastened to each other with trenails, it is clear that the frames were preassembled before being fastened to the keel. The shape of the frames must have been based on the existing clinker shell and could have been determined using a number of different methods, which are discussed in section 6.4. There is also the possibility that the composite frames are related to the second carvel skin and thus represent a rebuild. In this case, however, there should be visible remains of the halfcarvel frames, which had to be removed prior to insertion of the carvel frames, e.g. in the form of plugged trenail holes. As these were not observed, the carvel frames are considered to be contemporary with the inner half-carvel shell. Figure 36 shows the use of moulds as one possible method of taking off the clinker shape and determining frame shape.
With the composite frames in place, the skeleton of the ship was finished. Composite frames and posts could now be connected by thin ribbands in order to visualise the three-dimensional shape of the hull (Figure 37, 38). Using the ribbands as a guide, the remaining filling frames could be made and inserted. Floor timbers were joggled to fit over clinker strakes and sealing boards at the bottom of the vessel. Now internal members, such as keelson, beams and knees could be inserted and the hull could be planked up, either starting from the sheer or from the edge of the clinker planking below the turn of the bilge (Figure 39). This concludes the construction of the ship with a single layer of outer hull planking. One or two phases? But what about the second, carvel layer of outer hull planking? Was it applied during initial construction, or does it represent a later modification? And what purpose does it serve? Keel and posts would probably offer vital clues as to the answer of those questions. However, the keel was heavily fragmented and the posts were only partially accessible.
Based on the fact that clinker planking of the inner shell and carvel planking of the outer shell seem to run into separate posts at the bow, a construction in two phases is currently assumed. This assumption is supported by the very deep keel, which seems to consist of multiple layered elements and the possible presence of a second rabbet underneath the first. At the stern, however, only a single rabbet was observed. The presence of many inter-cutting trenails and the careful fastening and waterproofing of the lower clinker strakes also speak for a construction in two stages. Had the inner shell only been intended as a strengthening or shaping element, it would not have been necessary to fasten and waterproof it in such an elaborate way. If the second layer of outer hull planking represents a later modification, this would have changed the vessel significantly. Not only by adding extra weight to the outside, but also by changing the shape of the lower hull. The deep keel and added stempost assembly could thus also be an attempt to improve the ship’s sailing abilities after the modification. Possible reasons for adding a second carvel shell will be discussed in section 6.4.
6.2 Archive study By Caroline Visser
Considering the relatively modern date of the Ågabet wreck, it was thought possible to identify the site with the help of archival material. The following section outlines the methodology and results of the archival study.
Methodology The stranding documents (‘Dokumenter vedrørende stranding’) of the Langeland district bailiff (‘herredsfoged’) are taken as a starting point for the archival research. These documents, that can be found in the regional archive for the island Funen (‘Landsarkivet for Fyn’) in Odense, appear to give a nearly complete overview of stranding cases near the island of Langeland from 1861 until 1896. On average, the documents give an account of one stranding case a year. Stranding and grounding may have been more common, but ships would probably often have been able to continue their voyage on their own after dumping ballast or at higher sea levels. It seems the documents deal with cases where the ship was either
31
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland lost entirely or had to be salvaged (pulled free or pulled to a nearby harbour), or where goods came ashore one way or another (as a result of shipwreck, salvaging or dumping).
From the stranding documents all cases are selected that are reported to have stranded in Magleby parish (‘sogn’) and that are not referred to as steamers (‘dampskib’). Furthermore, all strandings on the southwest coast of Langeland are selected from the Danish sea-accident statistics (‘Dansk Søulykkestatistik’) of the years 1893 to 1916. These documents list all accidents of Danish ships at home and abroad and accidents of foreign ships in Danish waters. The lists of reported sea-accidents from 1893 onwards are available online through the website of the Maritime Library in Copenhagen (Indenrigsministeriet, 1900). In order to find all cases that might be relevant to our research, the digital documents are searched using the geographical keywords ‘Langeland’, ‘Magleby’ and ‘Bagenkop’, and keywords referring to the nature of the accident: ‘grundstød’ (matching both ‘grundstødt’ (grounded) and ‘grundstødning’ (grounding)) and ‘strand’ (matching both ‘strandede’/’strandet’ (stranded) and ‘stranding’ (stranding)). The search in the stranding documents and the lists of sea-accidents yields five possible matches with our wreck. These five possible matches are wooden sailing vessels that are reported to have stranded near the town of Bagenkop, within Magleby parish or on a location on the south or west coast of Langeland that cannot be identified in greater detail. The five possible matches are shown in Table 1. The entry for the accident of Anna Amalia mentions that the ship is made of oak (Indenrigsministeriet, 1900). Since the wreck we found is of a ship made entirely out of pine, Anna Amalia is not a match for it. The dates of the four remaining stranding cases are then checked against the
nineteenth-century issues of the local newspaper Langelands Avis, available in the town archive of Rudkøbing (Rudkøbing Byhistoriske Arkiv).
All four stranding cases are mentioned in the newspaper. And while Minna, Anna Gertrüde and Curonia all seem to have been salvaged, salvage attempts of Petto are reported to have been abandoned (Langelands Avis, 1893b). Accordingly, only Petto may have entered in the archaeological record near the coast of Langeland. The newspaper describes the stranding of the ship a quarter mile north of Bagenkop harbour as a violent event (Langelands Avis, 1893c). This matches the ship remains with the splintered keel that has been torn from under the ship. The newspaper further mentions that the ship’s home port was Raumo (Swedish spelling; Rauma in Finnish), in Finland (Langelands Avis, 1893c). Therefore the Rauma Maritime Museum (‘Rauman Merimuseo’) was contacted. It turned out that this museum holds several copies of original documents on Pettu, as the ship was actually called. The documents include crew lists from the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma. The ‘sjömanshus’ was originally a Swedish institution, which registered sailors in order to make it easier for the navy to recruit in times of war. It gradually developed into an institution which hired men and registered wages and working agreements (Kaukiainen, 2004b, p.5). Each major seaport had a ‘sjömanshus’ and every merchant sailor would in theory be registered at one (Kaukiainen, 2004b, p.6). Nevertheless, the crew lists of Pettu show that many crewmembers were not. Crew lists of the years 1873-1876, 1888-1889 and 1892-1893 are available, as well as the register at the ‘sjömanshus’ of ‘Östersjöskepparen’ (‘Baltic Sea skipper’) Gustaf Hafverman, the owner of Pettu when it stranded in 1893. Furthermore the Rauma Maritime Museum provided ownership documents for two owners, each
Ship name
Stranding date
Stranding location
Minna
26 February 1874
Langeland, south coast
Stettin
Dokumenter vedrørende stranding, Langeland herredsfoged
Anna Gertrüde 23/24 December 1875
Langeland, west coast ("Snedkergrunden")
Kiel
Dokumenter vedrørende stranding, Langeland herredsfoged
Curonia
30 November 1883
Magleby Sogn
Riga
Dokumenter vedrørende stranding, Langeland herredsfoged
Petto
9 December 1893
Magleby Sogn
Raumo
Dokumenter vedrørende stranding, Langeland herredsfoged
Anna Amalia
9 April 1898
Bagenkop
Strynø
Dansk Søulykkestatistik
Table 1: Possible matches for the Ågabet wreck. Visser 2012.
32
Home port Source
Interpretation and comparative analysis owning part of the ship, from 1873 (18730514 PETTU certificat A-B, 1873; 18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D, 1873); an ownership document form 1874 (18740418 PETTU skonert certificat A-C, 1874); a registration document and a charter (‘fribref’) issued for five eights of the ship to owner Isak Gustaf Plyhm in 1875 (1875 PETTU skonert fribrev, 1875; 18750419 PETTU skonert rakentajantodistus A-B, 1875); and the registration documents for Pettu from the Rauma town magistrate’s office from 1891 (009 PETTU 01, 1891; 009 PETTU 02, 1891; 009 PETTU 05a, 1891; 009 PETTU 03, 1877; 009 PETTU 04, 1879; 009 PETTU 05b, 1879). These documents refer to a building certificate (‘bilbref’) issued on the 2nd of October 1865 and a certificate of measurements (‘mätebref’) issued on the 9th of April 1866 by the Ekenäs (Finnish: Tammisaari) town magistrate’s office. Unfortunately it was not possible to locate any documents relating to the building of Pettu, or to the shipyard where she was built. The Tammisaari (Ekenäs), Karjaa (Karis) and Pohja (Pojo) municipalities were merged together on 1 January 2009 into the Raasepori (Raseborg) municipality. The Raasepori town archivist was approached by
the Rauma Maritime Museum. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Raasepori town archive holds no documents on Pettu. Pettu’s history
Construction of Pettu Pettu was built in 1865 at the Pettu shipyard of Finnby kapell in Bjerno parish. Bjerno (also spelled Bjärnå) is the Swedish name for Perniö. This old church town is located in the southwest of Finland, roughly in between Turku (Swedish: Åbo) and Helsinki. Finnby kapell (Finnish: Särkisalo) is located just southeast of Perniö on the island Isoluoto (Figure 40).
Another small island in the same archipelago, not visible on Lindeman’s map, is called ‘Pettu’. Whether this has any relation to Pettu shipyard where the ship was built, is unclear. However, Mikko Aho of the Rauma Maritime Museum thinks a connection is likely (Mikko Aho 2012, pers. comm.). Because no documents relating to the building of Pettu are available, it is not known under what circumstances and by whom she was built.
Rauma
Finby Kapell/ Pettu
Figure 40: Lindeman’s Suomenmaan Kartta / Karta öfver Stor-Furstendömet Finland from 1881 annotated by the author with the location of Rauma and Finby Kapell. The island of Pettu is not visible on the map. University of Jyväskylä Digital Archive (http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201103101879).
33
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland Pettu was not necessarily built on an established shipyard, either. For the Åland islands off the coast of southwest Finland, David Papp observes that shipbuilding in the second half of the nineteenth century was taking place on a large scale and with many involved parties on the village commons (Papp, 1977). The ‘bilbref’ of Pettu was issued on the 2nd of October 1865 by master shipbuilder (‘byggmästare’) Justus Wilhelm Jansson (18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D, 1873). It is not known whether Jansson was also involved in the actual construction of Pettu. However, Jansson might be identical with a Justus Wilhelm Jansson who was born in Dragsfjärd in the southwest of Finland on the 25th of April 1823 and died there on the 23rd of March 1881 (Balthasar, 2010). Because the ‘bilbref’ is not available, only the documents from the Rauma town magistrate’s office where Pettu was registered, offer information on its construction. These state that the vessel was carvel built out of pine, with frames made of pine and spruce. Fastenings consisted of treenails and iron bolts. The vessel had a flat stern, one deck, two masts and a bowsprit, and was rigged as a ‘skonert’ (which in this case cannot be translated as schooner, because the ‘skonert’ rigging in this
area and this period differed from the schooner rigging; the rigging is further discussed in chapter 6.3).
The deck was furnished with a galley in the bow and a ‘skans’ (room for the crew) and a ‘kajuta’ (cabin) under the same roof (‘under samma tak’) in the aft part of the ship. The ship measured 88.80 Swedish foot (26.37 metres) in length, 27.38 Swedish foot (8.13 metres) in width and 10.75 Swedish foot (3.19 metres) in depth of hold. The length of the ship was measured between the perpendiculars (the outsides of the stem and stern posts), the beam on the outside of the planking, and the depth of hold in the centre section. These dimensions as well as the building material are consistent with the Ågabet site (section 6.1) and further support a positive identification of the wreck.
The ship had a net tonnage of 150.11 register tons (009 PETTU 02, 1891; 009 PETTU 05a, 1891; 009 PETTU 05b, 1879). There are no images of Pettu. But based on the information available, she probably looked similar to the contemporary Minerva and Neptunus (Figures 41 and 42 and section 6.3). Owning Pettu It is unknown who ordered Pettu to be built or who the original owner was. What is known
Figure 41: Skonert Minerva, built 1835 in Rauma. Rauma Maritime Museum 2012.
34
Interpretation and comparative analysis is that merchant skipper (‘kofferdiskeppare’) Lars August Borgström sold half of the ship to a woman called Sofia Lindroos, who was a widow of a ‘Patrullslupsuppsyningsman’ (patrol sloop supervisor) by deed of the 20th of January 1873 (18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D, 1873). Therefore, Lars August Borgström was the sole owner of the vessel before the 20th of January 1873. However, it remains unclear how long he had owned Pettu. Sofia Lindroos bought half of the vessel for the sum of 9,250 Finnish mark (18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D, 1873). She then sold her half to merchant skipper Gustaf Hafverman by deed of the 3rd of January 1874 for the sum of 11,000 Finnish mark (18740418 PETTU skonert certificat A-C, 1874).
By deed of the 26th of November 1877 Gustaf Hafverman became the sole owner of Pettu and remained so until the vessel’s demise. He became sole owner of Pettu by buying five eights of the vessel from merchant skipper Isak Plyhm (009 PETTU 03, 1877). It cannot be reconstructed, however, how Isak Plyhm came into possession of five eights of the ship, or how Gustaf Hafverman came to own three eights of the ship after first owning half of the ship.
It is clear that Isak Gustaf Plyhm owned five eights of Pettu on the 19th of April 1875, when he and Gustaf Hafverman were registered as shared owners (18750419 PETTU skonert rakentajantodistus A-B, 1875) and Isak Plyhm requested a charter (‘fribref’) for his five eights of the vessel (1875 PETTU skonert fribrev, 1875). This charter was necessary for ships going and trading abroad. The ‘fribref’ of 1875 just states that Isak Gustaf Plyhm has proved to be the owner of part of the ship as well as its skipper. But the transcript of the ‘fribref’ issued to Gustaf Hafverman in 1877 furthermore states that no foreigner (“någon främmande eller utländsk man”) owns part of the ship, which is sailed by skipper Hafverman and a domestic crew (“besättning af inhemskt sjöfolk”) (009 PETTU 03, 1877).
Sailing Pettu According to Merja-Liisa Hinkkanen (Hinkkanen, 1989), Finnish merchant seamen in the second half of the nineteenth century were fairly young. They came mostly from the coastal areas and the Åland islands and were therefore often Swedishspeakers. In many cases they came from seafaring families. Maritime occupations were a natural and often the only choice for the young men in the coastal areas to earn a living (Hinkkanen, 1989). Yrjö Kaukiainen states that in Rauma at the end of the 1850s 62 percent of all seamen were between
Figure 42: Skonert Neptunus, built in a small rural shipyard in Sideby in 1874. Rauma Maritime Museum.
35
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland the ages of 15 and 24 (Kaukiainen, 2004b). Being a sailor was a young man’s profession. It was not a lifetime occupation, but a profession with great mobility and a high proportion of short-term workers. These men were part of a local labour pool, which according to Kaukiainen was not exclusively maritime in character. Gustaf Hafverman was born in 1844 and was registered at the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma at the age of twelve or thirteen on the 24th of August 1857. Unfortunately there seem to be no records left of his first voyages. The first available sheet from the register of the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma refers to an earlier sheet, now missing. The first available record of him from the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma shows him sailing out as a jungman (deckhand) on the 23rd of September 1863 (Hafverman Gustaf 1844, n.d.). He did not return to Rauma until November the next year. He then sailed out again on the 16th of May 1865 as a ‘konstapel’. This can be translated as second mate (Papp, 1977, p.241). On the 26th of October 1869 he was temporarily dismissed to go to navigation school in Turku (Åbo).
On the 30th of April 1870 he sailed out for the first time as skipper (‘skeppare’). On the 14th of August 1871 he was supposed to sail out on the skonert Usko, but he never did. Instead Usko was sailed by skipper I.G. Plyhm, presumably the same I.G. Plyhm Gustaf Hafverman later on shared the ownership of Pettu with. Gustaf Hafverman instead sailed out with the barque Union and did not return until the 23rd of June 1873, with the same Union.
The next trip was his first trip with Pettu, on the 20th of April 1874, three months after he purchased half of the ship from Sofia Lindroos. That year he sailed to Britain twice. He stopped sailing Pettu again in 1875 and sailed on Dygden instead until 1878 when he returned to the Pettu after becoming its sole owner (Hafverman Gustaf 1844 Rauma 33, n.d.). He then went on to sail Pettu almost continuously until her stranding in 1893 (Hafverman Gustaf 1844 Rauma 698, n.d.). Every trip he made with Pettu from June 1878 had Germany as its destination. He mostly made two to three trips each year. The available crew lists show that in 1873 Pettu was sailed by Lars Borgström and in 1875 and 1876 by Isak Plyhm (Pettu, skonert, n.d.). The crew lists from 1888, 1892 and 1893 show that although Hafverman exclusively sailed Pettu, Pettu was not exclusively sailed by Hafverman.
36
Gustaf Hafverman made three trips with Pettu in 1888 and returned from the third trip on the 4th of September. Pettu then made another trip in October (skipper and exact departure date are unclear). In 1892 Hafverman made only one trip from the 9th of May until the 8th of July. Pettu then went out again on the 24th of August with skipper G. Wilén. The same is true for the ill-fated year 1893 when Hafverman made a single trip from the 24th of May until the 16th of September. The ship was then taken on its last voyage by skipper David Lundgren on the 7th of October 1893.
After that Hafverman continued sailing to Germany on other ships for a few years, and one time sailed to the Mediterranean (1896-1897). But his trips became fewer and we have no records of him sailing after 1902.
With the crew lists we can reconstruct 22 voyages of Pettu (Appendix X) Looking at the crew list, Pettu in most cases (n=12) sailed out with a crew of nine (including the skipper), sometimes eight (n=4), sometimes ten (n=2). The composition of the crew varied from trip to trip. There would always be a ‘konstapel’ (second mate) on board and in most cases (n=18) also a ‘båtsman’ (boatswain). Only in one case, on the trip from the Perniö (Bjerno) parish archipelago to Rauma on the 15th of April 1873, was there a ‘styrman’ (first mate) on board. This man was actually referred to as a ‘lots styrman’, so pilot as well as first mate. Other recurring members of the crew were the ‘timmerman’ (carpenter; n=19), the ‘matros’ (able seaman; n=16), the ‘lättmatros’ (ordinary seaman; n= 11), the ‘jungman’ (deckhand; n=21) and the ‘kock’ (cook; n=22).
On three occasions Pettu had a crew of eleven. This might be misleading however. Two of these trips also mention the presence of a ‘kajutvakt’ (cabin boy), a member of the crew that never occurred on any of the other trips. On the first one of these two trips, on the 15th of July 1875, there is also mention of a second ‘konstapel’. Unlike the first ‘konstapel’, who made 80 Finnish mark per month, this one only earned five Finnish mark per month. Her name is Mathilda Plyhm. The ‘kajutvakt’ on this trip is called Alfred Plyhm. Possibly they are the wife and son of skipper Isak Gustaf Plyhm, who sailed the vessel at this time. On the other occasion, on the 26th of June 1888, there is mention of two ‘kajutvakter’. They merely make ten and five Finnish mark a month and are called Wilhelmina Hafverman (born in 1846) and Olga
Interpretation and comparative analysis Hafverman (born in 1879). Quite possibly this is a similar situation, in which skipper Gustaf Hafverman took his wife and daughter to sea.
In the third case where there is a crew of eleven, two of them boarded the vessel at a later date. They may have been an addition to the crew deemed necessary for whatever reason, or they may have replaced two crew members who boarded earlier. The wages of individual crew members differed substantially. A ‘konstapel’ made between 65 and 80 Finnish mark per month, whereas a ‘kock’ made no more than between 10 and 25 Finnish mark per month. The average age of the crew members was between 26 and 27 years old. The youngest crew member, apart from the skipper’s children mentioned above, was a twelve year old ‘kock’, Frans August Ringbom. The oldest crew member was a sixty year old ‘matros’ called Johan Silvan. All the crewmembers were born in the area around Rauma (Rauma, Kolla, Luvia, Lappi, Eura, Eurajoki (Euraåminne), Letala (Latila), Kodisjoki, Pyhämaa, Uusikaupunki (Nystad), Pori (Björneborg) and Tampere (Tammerfors)).
Apart from the two trips two Britain in 1874, Pettu sailed only on the Baltic destined for Germany. On the 20th of April 1874 Pettu sailed to Vuojoki to load timber (trävarer) and then continued to Britain. She returned from Hull on the 23rd of July of the same year. She sailed out again to Britain (date unknown), to return from London on the 24th of October 1874. The only other reference to cargo in the crew lists of the ‘sjömanshus’, is for a trip to the German Baltic carrying forestry products on the 23rd of June 1873. According to the records of the Rauma town magistrate’s office, Pettu had three hatches to the hold from the deck, a ballast port on port side as well as on starboard side, and a cargo port in the bow (009 PETTU 01, 1891). This last feature is characteristic for vessels carrying timber. It is therefore likely that Pettu transported timber on most or all of its trips. Economic growth in Germany created a high demand for timber and the German Baltic area lacked significant forests (Kaukiainen, 2004a).
The end of Pettu When Pettu stranded she was en route from Flensburg back to Rauma carrying ballast. According to the local newspaper she stranded on the 9th of December 1893 around ten o’clock in the evening. The crew had mistaken the Fakkebjerg lighthouse
on the south coast of the Danish island Langeland for the lighthouse on Fehmarn. When they tried to steer well north of what they believed to be the lighthouse on Fehmarn, they consequently sailed right onto the coast of southwest Langeland.
Because of the force with which they ran aground, the hull pushed itself into the seabed and the ship made water. The crew members were able to reach the shore on their own (Langelands Avis, 1893c).
Pettu’s logbook – which was kindly translated from Finnish by Jari Lybeck of the Turku Provincial Archives – tells a slightly different story. According to the logbook, Pettu, which had left Flensburg on the 9th of December 1893, stranded on the 10th of December. The vessel was pushed into the shallows by ‘thick air’ and a current, causing it to run aground with force. In the hold there were shattered pieces of keel, water was rushing in and the crew was unable to pump it out quickly enough. A boat came from ashore to save the crew, their chests and cloths, and Pettu’s compasses. Fakkebjerg lighthouse was visible (Jari Lybeck 2012, pers. comm.). This last remark suggests that Fakkebjerg lighthouse was not only visible, but also recognised as such. What the exact reason for the stranding was – the weather, a human error, or a combination of both – will remain a matter of speculation. On Monday the 11th of December 1893 the ‘dykkerdamper’ Hertha, a steamship used for diving and salvaging activities arrived at the stranding site. At this point it was unclear whether it was going to be worthwhile to try to refloat the 27 year old ship again. The damage of the ship could not be inspected due to high sea level. A message was telegraphed to Gustaf Hafverman, asking him what further measures he wanted to take and whether he was willing to pay the steam ship an advance of 1500 kroner for an attempt at salvaging the ship (Langelands Avis, 1893c). The next day the steam ship Hertha left the stranding site because they could not reach an agreement with the ship owner. The steam ship had lowered its claim from 1500 to 1000 kroner, but Gustaf Hafverman did not want to pay more than 500 kroner (Langelands Avis, 1893d).
Eventually the ship was sold to a consortium of fishermen for 500 kroner and the stranding costs. The fishermen simultaneously reached an agreement with a salvaging company to refloat Pettu and bring it to the nearest harbour for 1000 kro-
37
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland 6.3 Reconstructing Pettu By Massimiliano Ditta
The following chapter is built around a simple thought expressed by Richard Steffy (Steffy, 1994):
“Your ship is a three-dimensional structure, so why not research it in three dimensions whenever possible?” However, unlike Steffy, who considered computers not the appropriate tool for the task, the methodology applied in this project is entirely computer-based. The development of powerful software and digital recording tools in the recent years has made the difficult task of reconstructing the past if not easier, at least less time-consuming.
Figure 43: Advertisement of the salvage auction in Bagenkop in Langelands Avis 1894.
ner. In Bagenkop it was considered relatively easy to retrieve the ship (Langelands Avis, 1893a).
However, salvage attempts were abandoned in the end. The ship was stripped and cut up and the wreckage was taken ashore (Langelands Avis, 1893b). On the 23rd of January 1894 an auction was held in the harbour of Bagenkop selling the salvaged goods from Pettu. The auction was announced and authorised by Langelands ‘herreders kontor’ on the 6th of January 1894 and published in the newspaper on the 9th of January 1894.
The following items were announced to be sold on auction: sixteen sails, three anchors with c. 100 fathoms chain, a second part of the chain, standing rigging and running rigging, a winddriven pump (”vindmølle med pumpe”), two other pumps, two wrecked masts, bars and yards, hawsers and blocks, two side lights, one ship’s clock, water barrels, meat vessels, pots and kettles, supplies, planks, and a large amount of firewood and iron (Langelands Avis, 1894) (Figure 43).
38
A virtual replica or model of a boat or ship can, to a certain degree, offer the same opportunities for research as a traditional reconstruction model. However, by keeping the reconstruction process digital, time as well as resources can be saved and changes can easily be implemented. The three-dimensional reconstruction of a shipwreck can help to further the understanding of the vessel it once was, whether under a merely visual point of view or in order to research the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic properties of the hull. Based on the limited excavation carried out during the field school, the aim of this reconstruction is to visualize the shipwreck on the basis of both archaeological data and historical information. The intended outcome is a reconstructed lines plan of the lower hull, as well as a visual reconstruction of the possible appearance of the ship.
Workflow The visual reconstruction involved three major steps. In a first stage, the preserved archival sources were consulted for information on dimensions and appearance of Pettu. This information was then compared and combined with that from pictorial sources on comparable contemporary vessels. Simultaneously, a three dimensional model of the wreck was built. This was based on a combination of data extracted from the site plan and a photogrammetry survey of the bow section. In the third stage all data was combined in order to produce the lines plan and visual reconstruction of Pettu.
Interpretation and comparative analysis The use of archival and pictorial sources The archival research produced a number of documents containing information relevant to the reconstruction of Pettu (see section 6.2). However, no pictorial sources seem to be preserved. Nevertheless, a wealthy and rich collection of paintings and photographs are available for similar contemporary Finnish vessels.
The maritime museum in Rauma provided a number of examples. The painting of the Skonert Minerva (Figure 41) was chosen as a possible iconographic basis for the reconstruction, as it displays considerable similarities with the preserved description of Pettu. In the registration documents from 1891, Pettu is described as carvel built with frames from fir and spruce, assembled with the use of regularly distributed treenails and bolted with iron (009 PETTU 05a, 1891): “Att segelfartyget Pettu, som är byggd år 1865 å Pettu warf i Finnby Kapell och Björno socken af furu på kravel med spantet af furu och gran jämte trädbindningar och jernbultad,...” The same document describes the general appearance of the ship as:
”endäckad med två master och bogspröt, platt akter, riggad till skonert och försedt med kabyss i fören samt skans och kajuta i akter under samma tak, 3 luckor till rummet fra däck, barlastport på babords och styrbords sidan samt lastport i fören,...” Pettu had a flat stern and was single decked. The galley was located forward, probably in a deckhouse. While the term ‘skans’ originally described the superstructure in the aft part of a ship (quarter deck) (Röding, 1793) by the 19th century it was used as a general term for crew accommodation. The term ‘kajuta’ referred to the accommodation for officers aft in the ship (Svenska Akademien, 2010). In the case of Pettu, accommodation for both, crew and the ship’s officers seems to have been located under the same roof aft. Moreover, there were three cargo hatches on deck and a cargo port was located forward at the bow. Ballast ports could be found on portside and starboard side. The ship was equipped with two masts and a bowsprit, and rigged as schooner.
“namnbräde akterut samt på sidorna, namnet såväl som hemorten å dessa målade med tydliga bokstäfver,...”
The name and the homeport were written on boards aft and on portside and starboard side with clear letters.
According to the measurement certificate dated June 20th 1879 (009 PETTU 05b, 1879), Pettu had a length of 26.36m, a beam of 8.12m and a depth in hold of 3.19m (see section 6.2). The document states that the length referred to is the length between perpendiculars, the breadth was measured on outside of planking whereas the depth refers to the height in the centre section, probably from the top face of the keelson to the underside of the deck-beam. Even information about the tonnage is available and described in detail. The calculations of the tonnage are expressed in Swedish Cubic foot and given for each room as follow:
»» Room under deck: 15258
»» Superstructure: Ruff 1598, Cabin aft 198
»» Space for crew: Captain’s cabin: 171 Mate’s cabin: 171 Crew cabin: 788 Total: 1130 The total tonnage, as reported in the original document, is 16.242,00 Swedish cubic ft, equivalent to 425,20 m3 or 150,11 Gross Register Tons.
While the definition of the room under deck is clear, the appearance of the term ‘ruff’ is puzzling. In the dictionary of the Swedish Academy (Svenska Akademien, 2010), ruff is defined as a space on board a ship with a roof that protrudes above deck level and portholes or windows.
However, ruff can also be used to describe a cabin with such a roof or a deckhouse on a larger sailing vessel. The only superstructure for which the volume is provided is the ‘ruff’ and the aft cabin. While this suggests that Pettu’s ‘ruff’ could be a deckhouse, maybe associated with the galley in the forward part of the ship, it is more likely that the term refers to accommodation, which is partially elevated above the poop deck aft. This would also explain the relatively large volume, and would be consistent with the description of Pettu, which mentions cabin and crew accommodation under the same roof aft. In this case, Pettu should be reconstructed with a poop deck, above which the aft accommodation is partially elevated. The aft cabin would also have been a separate visible superstructure and would probably have been higher than the aft accommodation under the ‘ruff’. The galley was not men-
39
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland tioned in the measurement certificate and was probably located in a small deckhouse in the fore part of the ship. The painting of Minerva (Figure 41) shows a very similar layout with a small deckhouse forward of the foremast, a larger superstructure partially elevated above the poop deck aft and a separate, higher cabin in the stern of the vessel.
Photogrammetry Close-Range Photogrammetry, a technology which converts images of an object into a 3D model, has often been used as a method for the geometric documentation of land sites or even artefacts, combining high accuracy and quality requirements with time or accessibility limitations (Skarlatos & Kiparissi, 2012, p.300). However, in recent years, the development of open source software packages led to the availability of low cost alternatives to expensive proprietary software. Some of these were experimented with in an underwater context (Skarlatos et al., 2012). Algorithms for 3D reconstruction from pictures sequences have been studied for a while in the computer vision literature (Agnello & Brutto, 2007; Remondino, 2011). However the approach presented here is an open-source Dense Stereo Reconstruction solution based on two algorithms, called SFM or Structure-fromMotion and IBM or Image-Based-Modelling.
The SFM algorithm determines the parameters of a camera (position and orientation of the trigger points) and produces a low density point cloud from a simple collection of images taken around the object in question, while Image-Based Modelling allows to obtain a reconstruction of the scene creating a cloud of high density points starting from a simple collection of images (Auer et al., 2012). In recent years, continuous and enormous
Figure 44: Example of the point cloud of the bow area. Ditta 2013.
40
improvements have been made in the automated extraction of image correspondences and a considerable number of algorithms for both methods have been developed. This includes the automatic computation of camera calibration for IBM.
For this project the image datasets have been acquired using a Compact Digital camera with underwater casing, Easypix-VX931, with an equivalent focal length of 35 mm and fixed focus during acquisition. The areas recorded with this technique were the bow structures and the rudder/sternpost. For these areas 54 and 52 images respectively were freely acquired and processed automatically using Photosynth (Uricchio, 2011), a free Microsoft web-based service (http://photosynth.net/) for the bundle adjustment and the SFM output, and CMVS (Furukawa et al., 2010) an IBM open-source software for a dense point cloud extraction. Photosynth has the great advantage of performing automatic image matching and computing the camera calibration, thus accelerating the acquisition and post-processing stages. The CMVS software is based on a multi-image matching implementation and only calculates points that are visible in at least three photos. The remaining points are considered as precise due to their high redundancy and their estimation from least square multi image matching (Skarlatos D. et al., 2010).
The resulting point clouds (Figure 44) were subsequently acquired, cleaned and meshed with the help of an open-source software called Meshlab (http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/), an application created to manage point clouds and allow surface reconstruction and texturisation. Since the aim of this process concentrated only on extracting the 3D model of the object in question without focusing on a photorealistic texturisa-
Figure 45: Meshed and texturised models of the bow component. Ditta 2013.
Interpretation and comparative analysis tion, equalization and colour correction has not been carried out on the images set.
Both resulting meshed and texturised models (Figure 45 and 46) were scaled using known identifiable features on the surface, such as treenails for the Bow structures and length of the timbers for the rudder/sternpost. As already demonstrated in the recording of the wreck timbers from Cuxhaven (Auer et al., 2012), this method has proven to be accurate and reliable, generating a fully measurable output. Thus, the final scaled models could be used for data implementation and merged in the 3D-CAD modelling process. 3D reconstruction The main basis for a three-dimensional reconstruction of the lower hull of Pettu is the site plan with relative section drawings, which allows obtaining basic dimensions, positions and angles of the relevant timbers. The reconstruction attempt and the resulting model has been carried out with Rhinoceros3D 4.0 (also known as Rhino), a NURBS-based 3D modelling software.
Section drawings Since the primary purpose of the reconstruction was to show the lines of the preserved part of the underwater hull, the section drawings are the primary source. The profiles of all four sections were copied into Rhinoceros3D and placed at the relative points of intersection at 4 m, 7 m, 8 m and 9.8 m on the baseline of the site plan (Figure 47). The vertical orientation angle of each section and their intersections with the centre line of the keel was reconstructed using reference elements such as the heels of floor timbers, limber holes and the position of each strake from the site plan. This allowed to correct any deformation caused by site formation processes.
Figure 46: Meshed and texturised models of the rudder/ stern post. Ditta 2013.
Plank surface reconstruction and frame extrusion At this stage, with the profiles in position and the keel axis-line extracted from the site plan, the lines of the planks, recognisable from the section drawings and the site plan, could be drawn by connecting known points. This information was sufficient to rebuild a simple surface using the command “surface from a network of curves”. In addition, the profile drawings could be used to extrude solids of the relevant frames, making use of the dimensions retrieved from the plan (Figure 48).
Definition of cross section curves and fairing Before proceeding with describing the methodology, a premise is necessary. In order to build the surface of the hull it is necessary to define the cross-section curves that describe the curvature and shape of the surface. Rhinoceros3D, as previously stated, is a three-dimensional modelling software based on the use of NURBS. NURBs are Non-Uniform, Rational, Basis-splines, which are results of equations used to define curves or surfaces. A NURBS curve is defined by B-spline vertex points, called knots, and is generally smoother than a curve passing through the defining vertex points, although the curve is not automatically fair. Hence, changing the positions of the defining vertex points influences the shape of the curve. The cross-sections needed to draw the surface were traced using the command “Curve through points” which creates interpolating curves, a type of NURBS curve. An interpolating curve is defined as a curve that passes through fixed points obtainable by a series of cubic (third-degree) polynomials, each having the form y = Ax3 + Bx3 + Cx + D, and which simulates the output described by a spline held in position by ducks, a method often used by shipbuilders (Schneider, 1996). Mathematical investigation into the physical properties of a spline has made it possible to
Figure 47: Screenshot of Rhinoceros3D workplace showing the placing of cross-sections. Ditta 2013.
41
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland draw organic curves in a digital 3D environment, thus avoiding the use of physical tools like pencils and splines. In this case the anchoring points were chosen from the uppermost visible corners of each plank, in order to rebuild a frame based lines plan. Although the defined curves already presented a certain degree of smoothness, they needed to be faired to correct the deformations caused by site formation processes. Defining a fair curve is neither easy nor unidirectional, and different concepts of faired curves apply to different technical sectors such as architecture, industrial design or shipbuilding. However, a curve of which the mathematical derivative is a smooth curve is generally considered fair. It must be borne in mind that there is no standardised mathematical definition of fairness. Although Rhinoceros3D is equipped with an in-built feature to automatically fair a curve or surface, the degree and definition of fairness are controlled by the user and the curve does not necessarily maintain the original shape.
Rhinoceros3D provides a way to check the fairness of curve or surface trough a derivative curvature graph. The fairing process thus sees the operator actively involved, although assisted by the software, and is one of the most delicate steps in the whole reconstruction procedure of a shape, since it can heavily influence the final result if not correctly performed (Pérez-Arribas et al., 2006).
As stated previously, there is a danger of substantially changing the original shape during the fairing process. One way to control this process is by keeping the original input curves drawing in a different layer to check how far the changes affected the final shape compared with the original. Once more, no computer program is able to provide a good balance between accuracy and faired shape without input from the operator. Insertion of the stem and stern lines The curvature or angle of bow and stern are fundamental for accurately reconstructing the shape of a hull. Since the site plan does not give any information about the elevation, dimension and angle of these structures and the related sections were not drawn due to the time limitation, these data have been retrieved from the meshed models, which resulted from the photogrammetrical recording. Since the mesh is a solid 3D component, it is not possible to take action on individual components or elements. This is e.g. noticeable in the case of
42
the bow, which is composed of several timbers. This ability is, however, needed in order to correct any deformation.
To solve this problem, the scaled mesh models were positioned and oriented using the site plan and the visible baseline on the meshes. Subsequently the different timbers were traced directly in Rhinoceros3D, surfaced and extruded into separate models. These were not only lighter, and thus faster to work with, but could also be modified individually. With the exception of the apron, which seems to have preserved its original position, the bow timbers were modified and straightened because they evidently collapsed forward during the years. The same routine was applied to the sternpost timbers and the preserved rudder (Figure 49). With all structural elements in the correct position and in correspondence with the profile of the stern and the possible stem post, stem and stern were outlined. The sternpost reached an angle of 60°. The outlines of both posts were then extended based on the hull shape of the Finnish schooner Minerva (Figure 50).
Hull surface reconstruction The first step towards the reconstruction of the ship’s hull was plotting curves that contained the geometrical information of the surfaces to be built (Figure 51). Although several commands are available for the surface reconstruction from a series of curves, the most suitable for the given case was the “Loft” command. This creates an interpolating surface which fits through selected profile curves laying on parallel planes, in this case the faired curves that define the surface cross-sections and the stern/stem post outlines.
Moreover, several options of lofting give a range of choices for a more or less precise reconstruction. In this case a tight loft was chosen since the “Tight” option forces the surface to stick closely to the original curves. Although the resulting surface is based on hypothetical stem and stern outlines and an assumed lower hull shape in the stern area, it is considered accurate enough for the intended outcome (Figure 52).
Lines plan and hypothetical sail plan The final step in the reconstruction process was producing a lines plan (Figure 54) of the preserved part combined with partially reconstructed lines. The lines plan was drawn using a Rhinoceros3D
Interpretation and comparative analysis
Figure 48: 3D model of the recorded section frames and planking. Ditta 2013.
Figure 49: 3D model with the addition of the solid and rectified bow and stern components. Ditta 2013.
Figure 50: Final 3D model of the wreck with plotted outlines extracted from the painting of Minerva. Ditta 2013.
43
Ă…gabet Wreck, Langeland plugin for marine design called Orca3D. The only necessary input is a surface from which sheer lines, buttock lines and body lines can be defined. The surface built in the previous step was used for this purpose. Continuous lines represent the known preserved part of the vessel while dotted lines indicate the hypothetical continuation. Although the excavated area was limited and information on the hull shape above the bilge is missing, some observations can be made.
Pettu had a flared bottom with a hollow near the keel, which vaguely reminds of the shape of a wine glass. Although garboard strake and keel are missing the angle of deadrise can be estimated as being ca. 6°. The sharp entrance at the
bow is clearly visible in both the sheer and half breadth plan. Looking at the half breadth plan the sharp entrance is more visible through the waterlines. However, this piercing entrance of the bow is counterbalanced by an impressive fullness of the waterlines, starting at the fourth frame station. When examining the known dimensions of Pettu, the fullness of the hull is also shown by a length/beam ratio of 3.24.
Sail plan from iconographic sources For the sake of completeness, a sail plan reconstruction was carried out. The archival documents classify Pettu as a Skonert, which can be translated as schooner. However, the iconographical research shows that the term Skonert describes a variant of the classic schooner rigging and sail plan. The great majority of two masted
Figure 51: Highlighted cross-sections, stern and stem lines necessary for the surface reconstruction. Ditta 2013.
Figure 52: Surfaced hull. Ditta 2013.
44
Interpretation and comparative analysis skonert depictions show what in the English terminology is called top-sail schooner with the addition of a fore course sail alongside a fore gaff sail. This arrangement coincides with the Danish term Skonnertbrig, which is used in the Danish documentation on Pettu. Using the gathered information and the reconstructed lines plan, an artistic reconstruction of the Pettu was produced, letting the Finnish skonert sail, at least virtually, once more (Figure 53). Conclusions In conclusion, the combination of photogrammetry, traditional surveying techniques and digital processing has proven to be a powerful way to achieve a virtual reconstruction of the wreck of Pettu. The resulting lines plan clearly shows preserved and reconstructed elements of the hull and thus allows to qualify the reconstructed hull shape. Combining archaeological data with archival and pictorial sources, it was also possible to visualise the possible appearance of Pettu as a typical example of a 19th century coastal trader in the Baltic.
6.4 Clinker and Carvel - some thoughts on the construction of Pettu By Jens Auer, Massimiliano Ditta and Caroline Visser
With the identification, a more complete picture of the Ă…gabet wreck emerges, but a number of questions remain. The most obvious are related to the clinker and carvel construction and the application of a second carvel skin:
Why was the bottom of the vessel built up from clinker planks? What is the function of the second layer of carvel planking? And when was it applied? The choice of construction material and the remarkable absence of iron fastenings also warrant further investigation, especially when considering the relatively recent date of construction well after the industrial revolution (1865). The following section aims at discussing these questions and placing the wreck in context, not
Figure 53: Artistic interpretation of the rigged Pettu. Ditta 2013.
45
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland only with other finds of similar construction, but also with different technologies of shipbuilding and concepts of ship design. Finnish shipbuilding and industrialisation A comparison of Pettu with the British brig Water Nymph, built in 1840, shows remarkable differences in construction. The Water Nymph was built almost exclusively from oak, which was sourced from a number of different places, including England, France, the Baltic, Africa and North America. The oak planking was fastened with both trenails and copper bolts, and major construction elements were held together by large copper alloy bolts. Breast hooks and crutches were partially of iron, and the deck beams were held in place by a combination of iron bands and hanging knees (Auer & Belasus, 2008).
Pettu was built from local pine and spruce, both of which were considered lower quality timber and therefore generally not used for hull construction (Murray & Creuze, 1863). The lowermost clinker strakes and the associated sealing boards were exclusively fastened with small wooden trenails. Iron nails were seemingly only used to fasten ceiling planks and some major construction elements in bow and stern (see section 5.1). Although almost contemporary, of similar size and built for the same purpose, Water Nymph and Pettu are very different vessels. Compared to the earlier British brig, Pettu’s construction appears almost archaic.
In order to understand the construction of Pettu, it is necessary to take a closer look at the country she was built in. Having been part of the Swedish kingdom since the Middle Ages, Finland was incorporated into the Russian empire as autonomous Grand Duchy after the Finnish War in 1809.
During the first half of the nineteenth century, economic development in Finland remained relatively slow. The country was still very rural in character and most people lived from subsistence agriculture. Tar and sawn timber remained the main export products and these were produced using preindustrial methods (Kaukiainen, 1993). From the 1830s cargo volumes of Finnish export started to increase dramatically. At the beginning of the 1870s sawn goods and timber made up 85 percent of the outward cargo space (Kaukiainen, 1993). By 1830 all coastal towns were allowed to trade abroad with their own vessels (active staple
46
rights) and peasants or farmers were allowed to trade within the Baltic (Kaukiainen, 1993). From the 1840s farmers, mainly from the Turku archipelago and the Åland islands, started sailing to German and Danish ports carrying sawn goods and timber from Finland and northern Sweden. With this development, the traditional open clinker-built vessels were gradually replaced with schooners and brigs built according to contemporary “urban” models (Kaukiainen, 1993).
During the Crimean War between Russia and Turkey and later also Britain and France, Russian as well as Finnish ships were captured. When the war ended in 1856, the Finnish coastal towns started rebuilding the merchant fleet. This was encouraged by the state in the form of loans to ship owners and the abolition of all custom dues on shipbuilding materials. The government also allowed Finnish merchants to charter farmer’s vessels for trips no farther than England or the North Sea (Kaukiainen, 1993). In 1868 the freighting and trading market became open to all, as rural ship owners were granted unlimited right to navigation and the traditional system of staple rights for towns was abandoned (Kaukiainen, 1993). Built on a small rural shipyard or building site, the so-called Pettu shipyard in Finnby Kapell, Pettu can serve as an example for 19th century rural or peasant shipbuilding in the Southwest of Finland (see section 6.2).
The building process of such a “peasant” vessel is described by several authors (Papp, 1977; Gustafsson, 1974b; Greenhill & Manning, 2009).
It started with finding shareholders who would help financing the construction and part own the vessel. This could be done by walking around villages and farms with a list (Papp, 1977, p.83), or, as was the case with the schooner Ingrid built in 1906 in the Åland islands, it could be the result of a winter party (Greenhill & Manning, 2009, pp.193–194). The number of shareholders varied, but could easily reach 200 or more, especially in the 1860’s and 1870’s (Papp, 1977, p.63; Greenhill & Manning, 2009, p.194).
Shares could be bought with money, or raw material needed for the construction. Next, a suitable building site near the beach was found and a temporary shipyard was established (Figure 55). A master shipbuilder was hired by the shareholders, as were workers. However, Ingrid was built
1
2
0
A
2
A
Maximum Breadth
5 meters
B
B
10.75 ft =
150.11 Reg. Tons
Depth measured in centre section: Tonnage:
3.19m
8.12m
27.38 ft =
26.36m Beam outside of planking:
=
88.8 ft
Length between perpendiculars:
According to the measuring certificate [20th June 1879]
PETTU
Maximum Breadth
1
2
Interpretation and comparative analysis
Figure 54: Reconstructed lines plan of Pettu. The preserved parts of the wreck are displayed with continuous lines. Ditta 2013.
47
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland by 20 of the shareholders, who paid for their shares with manual labour (Greenhill & Manning, 2009, p.198). In later periods, the shipbuilder was responsible for providing the workforce (Papp, 1977, p.84). Construction timber was mostly sourced from local forests (Papp, 1977, p.85; Gustafsson, 1974b, p.139) and iron was bought cheaply at auctions (Papp, 1977, p.85), or reused from older or wrecked vessels in order to minimise cost. Even the expensive rig was often taken from older vessels, which had been wrecked or were decommissioned (Papp, 1977; Greenhill & Manning, 2009; Gustafsson, 1974b). Greenhill calls the construction of the schooner Ingrid:
“…the common venture of a highly democratic and relatively prosperous agricultural community with a strong seafaring tradition” (Greenhill & Manning, 2009, p.194).
Seen against this background, the construction details observed on the wreck of Pettu clearly reflect the process and resources of rural shipbuilding. The use of wooden nails to connect clinker strakes might increase stability and flexibility, as suggested by Morten Gøthche (Gøthche, 1991), but it also saves money. Considering the circumstances under which ships like Pettu were built, the raw material for iron fastenings would
almost certainly have been more expensive than the production of small trenails, which could be sourced locally.
The half-carvel phenomenon Although Pettu is listed as “carvel-built” in the registration document from 1891 (see section 6.2 and 6.4), the ten lowermost strakes in the inner shell of Pettu are clinker laid with overlapping strakes, effectively making the ship a half-carvel (Hasslöf et al., 1972). However, let us take a closer look at the clinker portion of the hull: While in other half-carvels, clinker planking usually extends to or past the turn of the bilge (Eriksson, 2008; Eriksson, 2010; Alopaeus et al., 2011; Hasslöf et al., 1972), the clinker planking of Pettu stops well below the turn of the bilge. The pine planks are sawn and butt joined. Joints are sealed with boards applied to the inside of the planking (see section 5.1).
The appearance of half-carvels seems to be limited to the Eastern Baltic with archaeological remains known from Sweden and Finland. The oldest half-carvel found to date was built in 1577 (Eriksson, 2008), but the majority of finds date to the 18th and 19th century (Eriksson, 2010). But why build a half-carvel? In an interview in 1938, the Swedish shipbuilder Anders Mattsson of Kongsviken stated (Hasslöf et al., 1972):
Figure 55: Skonert Fortuna on the stocks in Västanfjärd in 1918. This is a good example for a temporary shipyard, similar to the one Pettu would have been built on. Gustafsson 1974.
48
Interpretation and comparative analysis “It’s a bit tricky, carvel- building. You see, you have to knock up the ribs first. Then you can’t see what sort of a bottom she’s going to get. And that’s the most important part of a ship, after all. Now when you build clinker, the ship takes shape under your hands. And if it don’t turn out right, you can put it right, just like it should be. But once you’ve got over the bilge, the worst’s over. Then you can put in the futtocks and raise the toptimbers. They can only go one way. And then you can fill in the rest carvelfashion. And you can use thicker planks, too, when there’s a rib you can pull against to get a bend in the thick stuff. Well, you need it for the big ‘uns.” Is this the main reason for half-carvel construction? The desire to built a carvel vessel combined with the inability to use the design- and construction techniques related to the skeleton-first principle? Or as Eriksson puts it (Eriksson, 2010):
“If you only have the know-how to build a clinker, but you have the social ambitions of the owner of a carvel ship, the technique of the former and the look of the latter form a perfect compromise: you make the ship a half-carvel!” Or could there be other, more practical or construction related reasons for half-carvel construction? Was the clinker bottom maybe considered advantageous in terms of flexibility or strength? Such reasoning seems unlikely considering how little of the ship’s lower hull is clinker-built. In addition, the use of sawn planks and butt joints between strake planks was probably fast and economic, but would certainly have had a limiting effect on hull strength.
If the reasons for using clinker in the lower hull of Pettu are to be sought in the ship design and construction process, this aspect warrants a closer investigation. As mentioned before, only a very small part of Pettu’s lower hull is clinker built. This is striking and very different from what has been called half-carvel. The argument put forward by Anders Mattson in 1938 can therefore not be applied to Pettu. In addition, the use of composite carvel frames, which seem to be contemporary with the inner shell (see section 6.1) is generally associated with “skeleton-first” construction and thus directly contradicts the argument put forward by Hasslöf and Eriksson (Hasslöf et al., 1972; Eriksson, 2010). So how was Pettu designed and constructed? In the 19th century, a variety of different methods of ship design were available to the carvel
shipbuilder. Ships could be built according to lines plans or geometrical systems, or their shape could be visualized using block models or they could be shaped on the stocks, either with shell building techniques or with a method known as building on one or more ribs in English (Hasslöf et al., 1972), or as “klampbygning” in Danish (Møller Nielsen et al., 2000).
While the use of drawings or lines plans was becoming more widespread in the course of the 19th century, the majority of smaller merchant vessels were still designed based on practical experience of the shipwright (Hasslöf et al., 1972; Møller Nielsen et al., 2000; Greenhill & Manning, 2009). In Northern Europe, this generally meant either the use of block models or the aforementioned building on one or more ribs. These methods are based on the same principle: The shape of a vessel is “sculpted” by the shipbuilder, based on experience and requirements. When using block models, the shaping process is undertaken at reduced scale prior to construction, while building on ribs meant integrating the process of shaping the hull into the construction.
As late as 1906 the Finnish schooner Ingrid was built based on an up-scaled half-model of an earlier and smaller vessel (Greenhill & Manning, 2009), and Hasslöf observed the practice of building on a rib on small Swedish shipyards in the 1950’s (Hasslöf et al., 1972). With the exception of the shell-first carvel techniques practiced in the Netherlands, all of the methods mentioned above would or could result in systematically placed composite carvel frames as observed in Pettu. However, none of the methods would necessitate a clinker-laid bottom, as hull shape is defined by the skeleton of frames. Of the geometrical ship design methods, the moulding with adjustable templates is probably the most common. This method with its variations can be found from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic coasts, as well in inland waters (Bloesch, 1994), and has deep roots in the medieval Mediterranean (Barker, 2003; E. Rieth, 1996; Rieth, 2003; Bellabarba, 1993). The moulding with adjustable templates uses a number of simple geometrically-based devices to generate smooth curves suitable for the adjustment of frames along a hull, provided that the interval between stations is uniform for each curve.
The numbers of tools used in the design process can vary from two, as in the case of the method known as ‘gabarit de Saint-Joseph’ (Rieth, 1996),
49
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland to five (Damianidis, 1998). However, the concept remains the same. The basic devices used to shape the frames are: »» -the master mould”, also known as ‘maîtregabarit’ in the French tradition. This tool accurately reproduces half a master frame and has a series of sirmarks indicated on it. A maximum of three groups of sirmarks can be found: the narrowing of the floor timbers (‘varangue’), the narrowing of the futtock heads (‘genou’) and the reduction of the breadth (‘allonge’); and
»» -the rising table or rising square, also known as ‘tablette d’acculement’ This piece represents the keel of the boat and the sirmarks on it indicate the rising for the floor timbers on the keel.
However, depending on the tradition, further tools can be employed such as the hollow mould or ‘latte de talon’ that provides the shape of the floor timbers. In the Greek tradition (Damianidis, 1998), the sirmarks for the futtock head and the sirmarks for reduction of the breadth can have their own tools, bringing the number of total tools used in the process of shaping a boat up to five. Fundamental elements of this method, along with the shaping devices are the sirmarks. Depending on the tradition, different geometrical reduction methods are applied. In the French tradition, the
most common method is ‘le procédé du triangle rectangle’ (Rieth, 1996). The builder creates a triangle rectangle of base AB, which is the length between the tail frames, and this length is dived by intervals (the number of wanted frames) given by an arithmetic progression. The apex C is connected to each interval on AB by lines. Further parallel lines are drawn at given distance from AB according to the manner of the builder. The intervals of these new lines are the sirmarks for the rising and narrowing of the correspondent tools. Other methods known as ‘mezzaluna’ (Marzari, 1998) and ‘graminhos’ (Castro, 2005) use a graphical and geometrical approach to the problem. They do not rely on any mathematical reduction but the reduction extracted directly from a drawing.
A half circle or a quarter of circle is drawn having as radius a given measure. This varies according to the tradition and for the reduction needed. Subsequently, the drawn arc is divided by a set number of equal parts, which are projected on a table, giving the desired reduction. In order to find the shape and all the sirmarks of the moulds in the Greek tradition, as exhaustively described by Damianidis (1998), the boat builder drew a simple lines plan of the boat at the beginning of the building process.
Figure 56: Principles of whole-moulding method from the British Isles, as illustrated by McKee (1983, p.122).
50
Interpretation and comparative analysis The plan includes only the deck line, the waterline and the profile of the boat. Using this simple drawing the builder extracted five measurements to draw five diagrams, which allowed to establish the sirmarks on the correspondent moulds. The diagram known as ‘metzarola’ is the result of two arcs with a radius determined by a measurement taken from the simple plan and divided in equal distant parts corresponding to the number of frames, usually seven. All the above-mentioned methods share the same features: moulds, an outline of the vessel and geometrical or mathematical reduction systems.
In the English shipbuilding tradition a similar method to the moulding with adjustable templates is known under the name of whole-moulding. This term appears in English treatises only in the 18th century (Rieth, 2003) and the origin is perhaps traceable to the Mediterranean (Barker, 2003). In his treatise on naval architecture, Peter Hedderwick gives an exhaustive definition and description of the method (Hedderwick, 1830): “Whole-Moulding is a method of drawing the rounding part of all the square-frames by a sweep of the same radius, or with a mould formed to answer this purpose, called the Bend-mould. This
method of moulding was formerly much used for constructing boats or ships which were narrow abaft, and had a considerable round on the side […]” This method can be realized either directly on paper or on the slip through the use of sweeps or moulds. Hedderwick also describes the tools needed and the procedure. A general outline of the vessel is drawn (breadth, sheerline and rising line) and its moulds are fabricated. The ship is built with the use of a rising square, the master mould, a hollow mould and a reduction system extracted from the basic outline on paper of the vessel. However, the design and building process do not rely only on these tools, but as Hedderwick continues (Hedderwick, 1830): “Although the lines for every frame laid down in this way may appear fair, when considered by themselves, they may not produce perfect fair lines in a fore-and-aft direction; but this may be easily corrected by forming some ribband and waterlines, which will be otherwise useful in laying off the cant-timbers and fashion-pieces […]” The above synthetic description of wholemoulding is better clarified in the work of McKee (McKee, 1983), where an account of one “wholemoulding” method is reported. The described technique is still used in the British Islands to
Figure 57: Schematic representation of a possible outlines plan for whole-moulding. The sections are used to extract the different sirmarks. The red lines give the sirmarks for the rising square. The blue lines provide the rising line sirmarks on the breadth mould for the narrowing. The green lines give the breadth sirmarks also on the breadth mould. Ditta 2013.
51
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland build a vessel with “square section” and transom (Figure 56).
According to this method, as first step the builder draws a simple plan of the vessel: a sheer line (height), a rising line, the maximum breadth of the sheer line and a mould for the master frame. This gives a sort of simple 2D outline of the ship, which is necessary to extract all the information to build the rest of the hull.
The design process of the hull is driven by three tools: a breadth mould, a rising square and a hollow mould. The sirmarks for the rising square are taken from the rising line at given sections (in this case usually 5). On the breadth mould there are three sets or marks: rising line, floor head and breadth. The rising line marks give the narrowing of the mould and align with the ones of the rising square. The rising line sirmarks are taken by the breadth of sheer line from the plan (Figure 57).
The sirmarks for the breadth are taken from the heights of sheer line from the plan. McKee does not provide any information about the sirmarks for the hollow mould and the ones for the floor head on the breadth mould. It must be supposed that those sirmarks are extracted using a similar procedure. However, the interesting element of this method is the total absence of diagrams or geometrical reduction methods. Compared with the different Mediterranean moulding methods which use reduction diagrams such the ‘metzarola’, the ‘graminhos’, the ‘mezzaluna’ or the reduction diagrams used in the French methods ‘maitregabarit, la tablete et le trebuchet’ or the ‘gabarit de Saint-Joseph’, the method above uses a reduction method extracted from a drawing on paper. If the concept of whole-moulding was applied to Pettu, the first ten clinker laid strakes would pro-
Figure 58: Taking the lines from the inside of the hull of Pettu at the double frames sections, it becomes visible how the rising and narrowing lines of the floor are formed. Those lines and sections could be used to extract the necessary sirmarks to be applied to a master mould (breadth mould using the whole-moulding terminology). Ditta 2013.
52
Interpretation and comparative analysis vide the shipbuilder with two important lines: The rising line and the narrowing line of the floor could have been extracted from the clinker shell and transferred either to paper or the moulding loft. These lines could then be translated to sirmarks and could be used to reduce a given master mould (Figure 58).
This means the shipbuilder would only have needed the height of the sheerline and a simple master mould in order to design a frame first carvel vessel, based on clinker shipbuilding experience. Mathematical knowledge or geometrical skills would not have been required. In this case, the clinker strakes would only have been used as an aid for designing a carvel hull. They would have been entirely hidden from view below the waterline, invisible to the eyes of any observer. Would a ship built in this way have been called a “carvel-built vessel”, as stated in the registration documents from 1891? While entirely speculative, the above theory is currently thought to be the most likely explanation for the clinker bottom of Pettu. Unlike a range of other vessels from the same period and area (Gustafsson, 1974a), Pettu is not recorded to have been converted from clinker to carvel, or half-carvel to carvel for that matter. Instead she is registered as carvel-built in 1865 (see section 6.2). Most of the construction features observed in Pettu are typical for “skeleton-first” carvel vessels. If the invisible clinker strakes in the bottom of the ship were merely a design aid, Pettu could well have passed as a carvel ship. Considering the period and the tradition in the area in question, most shipbuilders would have been used to the construction of clinker ships. Papp states, that it was only during and after the Crimean War that carvel built ships became more common in the Åland isles. In 1852, the total tonnage (in lasts) of carvel-built ships in the Åland isles was 573, 34, while the tonnage of clinker built vessels was 4872,42 (Papp, 1977). In 1865, the year Pettu was built, carvel construction would still have been a fairly recent phenomenon in south-western Finland. Thus using the old knowledge of clinker shipbuilding as an aid for designing a carvel vessel with new techniques would not seem unlikely. If this is the case, Pettu would be a “clinkeraided carvel”, and as such another instance of the “merging of the two methods”, which, as Jonathan Adams points out, demonstrates “that
shipwrights through time have had no conceptual problems in adapting their procedures in the face of various stimuli, even though it may involve overriding ideological objections and preferences” (Adams, 2003).
From clinker-aided carvel to carvel If Pettu was indeed seen as a carvel vessel, why would a second carvel skin have been applied and when did this happen? Based on the archaeological evidence, it is currently assumed that the second skin was applied at some point after the initial construction (see section 6.1). However, the exact point in time is hard to determine without a detailed dendrochronological analysis. The historical documents, which are preserved for Pettu, do not offer any information on a major repair or possible conversion.
The oldest converted or carvelled clinker vessels found, date back to the 16th century (Mäss, 1994; Ossowski, 2006; Auer, 2010; Grundvad, 2010), but the phenomenon is also known from the 18th, 19th and even the 20th century. The reasons for conversion vary. The 16th century Maasilinn wreck found in Estonia is thought to have originally been built with two layers of planking. In that case, the clinker layer would purely have been a design feature, allowing a clinker shipbuilder to produce a carvel vessel (Mäss, 1994). This interpretation has, however, been doubted by other scholars (Grundvad, 2010). The reasons for a conversion could also be economical. In Sweden, carvel vessels were eligible for tax reductions during the 17th and 18th century, a fact that seemingly prompted some owners of clinker ships to have these converted to carvel (Eriksson, 2010).
Practical reasons for the application of a second outer carvel skin could also be protection against ice or the preference of a flush outer hull for fishing with nets (Eichler, 1994). As carvel planking is far easier to maintain, repair and to keep watertight, a carvel skin could also represent a measure to repair a clinker vessel, or to prolong the life of a well designed clinker ship.
This was most likely the case with a 16th century converted clinker vessel, parts of which were found on the beach on the German Baltic coast. Here, the original, radially split clinker planking and the tangentially converted carvel planks were sourced in different areas (Auer, 2010; Grundvad, 2010). An extreme case of rebuilding is reported by Hasslöf. In 1892, the clinker yacht
53
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland Liljan, built in 1880 was converted to a carvel galleass. During the conversion, the clinker ship was cut in half and lengthened in the midsection. In bow and stern, the clinker planking stayed in place underneath the new carvel skin, effectively making Liljan a converted clinker vessel (Hasslöf et al., 1972).
Assuming that Pettu was originally seen as a carvel ship, rather than a half-carvel, a conversion for design, or tax reasons can be ruled out. This leaves repair or rebuilding as the most likely causes for the second carvel skin. Considering the relatively long life of Pettu (28 years), she would almost certainly have undergone minor or major repair or even rebuilding (‘förbyggnad’), a common practice according to Papp and the ship list compiled by Gustafsson (Papp, 1977; Gustafsson, 1974a).
6.5 Trade, life on board and navigation By Alexander Cattrysse and Caroline Visser
We know that Pettu foundered en route from Flensburg to Rauma, but the preserved archival documents hold no information as to the trade the vessel was involved in (see section 6.2). Likewise, the names of all crew members are known, but how was life on board organised? The reasons for Pettu’s loss differ between the official logbook and the Danish newspaper account (see section 6.2). Did the crew really mistake Fakkebjerg lighthouse on Langeland for a lighthouse on Fehmarn? How were coastal merchant vessels navigated? Pettu and the Baltic trade It has already been pointed out that Pettu is a typical example for rural shipbuilding in 19th century Finland, but what about the trade she was involved in? Pettu was built on a rural shipyard during the period of reconstruction after the Crimean War, just before the system of staple right for towns was abandoned in 1868.
During this period, rural vessels could already be chartered by urban merchants (see section 6.4). As no documents on the first years of Pettu are preserved, it is unclear, whether she sailed in the rural trade prior to being based in Rauma, or whether she was built to order for a Rauma merchant. The first journey recorded for Pettu in April 1873 lists the Bjerno Parish archipelago as place of departure, while all following trips departed in Rauma (see Appendix III). It is therefore quite likely, that Pettu was part of the so-called rural
54
fleet before June 1873. After this date, the vessel was based in the staple town Rauma (see section 6.2).
However, Pettu was not involved in the international blue-water trade. With the exception of two journeys to England in 1874, all recorded trips were made within the Baltic Sea. The list of recorded journeys also shows that Pettu generally returned to Rauma for the winter. Information on the cargo is only available for two trips. In both instances timber or forestry products were carried, in 1873 to Germany and in 1874 to Hull in England (see section 6.2 and Appendix III). Equipped with a loading port at the bow, Pettu would have been well suited for the trade of sawn goods (see section 6.2 and 6.3).
It would seem that, although owned and registered in a staple town, Pettu was used for the traditional coastal trade, carrying timber and sawn goods in the Baltic and on two instances across the North Sea. According to Kaukiainen, this trade was generally reserved to rural vessels, as urban shipowners considered timber cargoes too cheap for their large ships (Kaukiainen, 1993). Finnish sailing ships had been employed in the transport of timber from the southwest of Finland to Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein for centuries before the construction of Pettu (Kaukiainen, 1995).
In the 1840’s the demand for timber started rising, a fact that led to an enormous increase of export tonnage in the traditional timber exporting towns in southwest Finland. Shipowners around Rauma and Uusikaupunki (Nystad) and in the area of the Turku and Åland archipelagos were aware of this and responded to the situation. In these towns and regions larger ships, suitable for the Baltic trade, were constructed.
These ships would transport timber from Finland and the northern Swedish sawmills to Denmark and northern Germany. After the Crimean War the timber trade in the Baltic stagnated while trade with Great Britain increased enormously fuelled by a rising demand in the 1860’s. Merchants preferred the trade with Britain in this period since it was easier to find a return cargo in the form of coal destined for Copenhagen, Stockholm or Saint Petersburg in England, while finding a return cargo in northern Germany seemed more problematic (Kaukiainen, 1995).
Interpretation and comparative analysis The boom in North Sea trade came to an abrupt end in the late 1870’s, due to competition from steamers. In the Baltic, however, sail remained important. It is estimated that cargo carried on modest wooden sailing vessels from Finland to Danish and northern German ports increased by a third between 1885 and 1895 (Kaukiainen, 1993). In the ports of Rauma and Uusikaupunki (Nystad), which mainly exported wood within the Baltic area, sailing vessels represented 70 percent of all loaded departures in 1890 (Kaukiainen, 2004a). These vessels called at small ports not frequented by steamers. Furthermore, the timber cargo was also often loaded in elementary ports, which made the trade unattractive for steamers (Kaukiainen, 1993). This development is perfectly reflected in the voyages of Pettu (see Appendix III), making the ‘skonert’ a good example for the timber trade during the last heyday of Finnish sailing ships (Kaukiainen, 1993). Pettu’s crossings to England with timber cargo fall into the period of booming wood exports to Britain. After 1874 and until her loss in 1893, Pettu was exclusively involved in the Baltic timber trade, carrying sawn goods from Finland to smaller Baltic ports like Flensburg.
Life on board Finnish merchant vessel Life on board Finnish merchant vessels in the 19th century was organised very much like that on board of vessels from Britain or the United States. The so-called naval management, which involved strict discipline was introduced in Finland during the 17th century, when long-distance trade was quickly developing and there was a shortage of experienced Finnish masters. Shipowners hired foreign masters who in turn introduced naval management in Finland. Before the introduction of naval management, life on board was organised in a more democratic way. The Swedish maritime code of 1677 shows that punishments came in the form of fines and the master could hit a subordinate as a punishment only once; if he repeated the action the subordinate had the right to defend himself (Kaukiainen, 1997).
The day of a Finnish sailor was organised following western examples. During daytime (up until 1930 this meant from 6:00 until 18:00), the men on watch had to sail the ship and undertake maintenance duties, while at night they were just expected to keep the ship sailing. Every watch worked 28 hours for every 48 hours (Kaukiainen, 1997).
The salary on Finnish ships was relatively low. Due to the abundance of available labourers in Finland crews were paid significantly less than their counterparts in other nations. The wage for an able-bodied Finnish seaman was two-thirds of that of his English colleague and one-half of that of a North American sailor (Kaukiainen, 1997).
However, it is likely that the conditions described above did not apply to rural seafaring. Conditions on board rural vessels probably resembled the governing traditions in Finnish agriculture (Kaukiainen, 1997). Masters aboard these ships did not earn their rank by taking an exam but would have earned it based on seniority and knowledge of the waters. The rank of the various crew members would have depended on their skills which resulted in a more fraternal relationship between the various crew members (Kaukiainen, 1992). This was, however, not always the case on-board rural ships. After the Crimean War, when rural shipping started growing rapidly, bigger ships, designed for long distance trade were built in the rural fleet. There are known examples of masters of rural vessels enforcing naval management, although it seems that this was more the exception than the norm.
Furthermore ships with crews of ten or more would also have a more stratified organisation of the crew than the smaller ships. According to Kaukiainen, the ships sailing in the Baltic would have been border cases between the egalitarian model of the more local peasant shipping and the naval management model. The division of labour and the enforcement of discipline would have been less strict but the normal men before the mast would have had short-term contracts, often for single voyages, and would have been subordinate to masters who had sole decision power (Kaukiainen, 1992). A day on board Pettu The archival research tells us name and function of the sailors on board Pettu during her fatal voyage in 1893 (see section 6.2 and Appendix III). Using this information it is possible to reconstruct a typical day on the ‘skonert’: Pettu was commanded by Johan David Lundgren and the crew consisted of ‘konstapel’ Gustaf Justen, ordinary seamen Karl Emil Palmroth and Viktor Emil Granlund, deckhands Frans I. Suominen, Oskar A. Urko and Karl Reinaar and cook Otto Björkqvist.
55
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland Day and night would have been divided into watches of four, five, or six hours. A sailor would have been on service during one watch, and then free the next. The sailors were divided into two watches so that the members of the crew were either part of the starboard watch, which included the ship’s master, or the port watch (Papp, 1977). For the sake of this example the authors will use six hour shifts. The starboard watch could have consisted of the master, ordinary seaman Palmroth, and deckhands Suominen and Urko. Consequently, the port watch would have been made up ‘konstapel’ Justen, ordinary seaman Granlund and deckhand Reinaar. The day would start when the first watch, for example the starboard watch, was prodded at 5.30h. This watch worked until 12:00, after which they were free until 18:00, the end of the working day. After this dinner would be served, the deck would be cleaned, and the pumps would be manned. Of course the starboard watch would now be on duty from 18:00 to midnight, but unlike during the day, they would only be responsible for the sailing of the ship and did not have to perform any regular maintenance duties (Kaukiainen, 1992).
At midnight the port watch would take over and be on duty until 6:00. The two watches would also change shifts so that some days the first shift of the day was manned by the starboard watch and other days by the port watch. The cook would have worked outside of this system. If we look at the example of the Åland based ‘skonert’ Freja, then the cook would be on duty from 04:00 until 21:00 while in port and from 05:30 until 22:00 while at sea (Papp, 1977) Navigation in the coastal trade From 1863 it became mandatory for Finnish ship masters to have graduated from navigation school. Exceptions applied to masters involved in national coastal shipping, trading with Russian ports on the Gulf of Bothnia, or those who had experience sailing on the Baltic or the North Sea. Two decrees, in 1866 and 1868, were issued specifically to allow masters in the rural fleet to sail to the North Sea without having passed an exam. In 1875, however, it became obligatory for the masters of all the ships sailing in the Baltic, the Kattegatt, the North Sea, and the English Channel to have graduated, and for masters sailing beyond the North Sea, a ‘sjökaptensexamen’ (seacaptain’s exam) was required (Papp, 1977). David
56
Lundgren, Pettu’s master on the last voyage, was born in 1850 and registered with the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma in 1883 after he went to school and passed the required exam in 1881. The only record we have of him shows him sailing to France on two occasions in 1891 and once to Germany in 1892 (Lundgren Johan David 18501019 Uusikaupunki 543, n.d.). How much experience he had before 1891 is unknown, but he would probably have been fairly experienced, considering that he skippered vessels outside the Baltic.
In the early 19th century many sailors did not use the various new instruments and charts that became available due to progress in navigation, science, and technology. A poet, Frans Michael Franzén, described that in 1800 Finnish vessels would navigate for the most part without making any use of charts. They relied on their knowledge of the coasts and the seas, and on their own experience at sea (Kirby & Hinkkanen, 2000). A better insight into navigation on Finnish vessels can be gained by looking at the inventories of rural Finnish masters in the 19th century (Papp 1977). Erik Gustav Westerlund, who died at sea in 1864, a year before the building of the Pettu navigated his ship using an octant, a spyglass, two ship’s clocks, and nautical charts on the North Sea, the Kattegat, and Skagen, as well as five charts of the Baltic, nine charts on the gulf of Finland and the gulf of Bothnia, and six out-of-date charts. Master Alexander Mattsson sailed in 1877 with an octant, a parallel, a pair of dividers, a ship’s clock and again a number of nautical charts (three of the North Sea, three of the gulf of Bothnia, and four of the Baltic).
The inventory of master Leander Sjölund in 1887 comes the closest to the final year of Pettu. Sjölund had a sextant with a magnifier, binoculars, a parallel, a navigation book, a barometer, and a collection of nautical charts in his possession (Papp, 1977).
These inventories show that masters in the rural fleet were certainly using charts and were also capable of astronomical navigation. It is likely that Pettu would have been similarly equipped and that master Lundgren would also have been trained in the use of astronomical navigation. Lighthouses played an important role in navigation. They warned the ships of dangerous navigational features such as sandbanks, protruding peninsulas, and islands but also worked as eas-
Interpretation and comparative analysis ily recognisable markers on the coast visible at night. In the island-rich waters delineated by the east coast of Jutland, the northern German coast and the coast of southern Sweden, the use of various forms of lights was of significant importance.
Until the 18th century very few lights existed in Denmark. With the beginning of the 19th century the Danish Lights and Buoys Service was further developed and lights were not only placed along the main shipping routes but also along the Great Belt and the west coast of Jutland (Hahn-Pedersen, 1996).
On the southern tip of Langeland, two light houses were erected. The 37m high Fakkebjerg lighthouse was lit for the first time on the 15th December 1806, and was visible from both sides of Langeland. In 1885 a second light was constructed at Kjelds Nor on the southeastern side of the island. This
was rebuilt as a modern 39 m high lighthouse in 1905 and ultimately replaced the Fakkebjerg lighthouse. The lighthouse at Kjelds Nor can, however, not be seen from the southwest because of the obstruction formed by Fakkebjerg (Hermansen, 2011). On Fehmarn, three lighthouses were active in 1893. Of these, only one, Marienleuchte in the north of the island would have been visible for the crew of Pettu coming from Flensburg.
If Pettu had an experienced master and was equipped with charts and other navigational aids, why was the vessel lost? Did the crew really mistake the lighthouse at Fakkebjerg for Marienleuchte on Fehmarn as claimed in the Danish newspaper report? Coming from the mouth of Flensburg Fjord, the difference between intended course and actual course of the Pettu is less than 10 degrees, a very
Figure 59: Fakkebjerg lighthouse on Langeland. From an old postcard, Bagenkop Historical Society.
57
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland small error, especially in a stormy December night. The weather had been bad, as the first newspaper article states the vessel stranded “under storm og regntykning” (storm and rainclouds) (Langelands Avis, 1893c). Considering the conditions at sea, the only navigational aids that could realistically have been used on board would have been the compass, charts and any visible lights. Mistaking the two lighthouses could certainly have caused the navigational error that ultimately led to the stranding of Pettu, but the version recorded in the logbook is just as likely. Perhaps the fact that the crew was relatively young (22 years on average) and that there was no ‘styrman’, ‘båtsman’ or ‘matros’ on board, played a role. It is not possible to say. Altogether we cannot be sure why Pettu stranded on a trip it made so many times before.
58
Site formation and management
7. Site formation and management By Stephanie Said
7.1 Site formation
Very often, the material found on an archaeological site either underwater or on land, consists of a number of broken items and faint traces, which the archaeologists attempt to analyse and fit together to reach some level of understanding of the past. An archaeological site can be compared to a jigsaw with missing pieces. The reconstruction of site formation, understanding the processes a site was subjected to before its discovery is generally a part of this analysis. As the historical events that led to the loss of Pettu have already been outlined in section 6.2, this chapter will concentrate on the events during and after the stranding with a view to understand the site formation processes. Both the Danish newspaper and the logbook of Pettu describe the stranding as a violent event, which caused heavy damage to the underwater hull (see section 6.2). This is consistent with what was observed on site (see section 5.1). The bow of the wreck is deeply buried in the seabed and the keel was torn from underneath the ship. However, the full extent of the initial damage is not described in the archival sources, and it is unclear whether the damage observed at the keel was caused by the impact when the vessel struck, or resulted from wave action after the stranding.
Despite initial plans to refloat the ship, Pettu was finally salvaged on site. The accessible parts of the ship were cut up and taken ashore to be sold at an auction (see section 6.2). The degradation process thus continued with human interaction on the wreck. After this event, what remained of the ship seems to have been forgotten, at least there are no known records concerning Pettu after the auction in Bagenkop (see section 6.2).
In 2010 the wreck was almost fully exposed when it was discovered by Jacob Toxen-Worm. In August 2011, the site was fully covered, while it was found fairly exposed during the second inspection in October 2011 (see section 3). Less than a year later, in August 2012, the site was buried under more than a metre of sand. It would seem that strong winds from the southwest transport a substantial amount of sediment into the bay north of Bagenkop. It is possible that the construction of a new pier for the ferry to Kiel in 1966 affected the pattern of sediment transport in the area. No
scientific research has been done on this aspect, but observations made by locals suggest that the amount of sediment transported in and out of the bay has increased. This also showed during the excavation when a single day with strong southwesterly winds would be enough to fully cover the site again. Altogether the wreck site of Pettu can be described as a dynamic underwater environment affected mainly by wind direction. Prolonged periods with strong winds from a southwesterly direction seem to lead to sediment transport into the bay. It is as yet unclear what causes the sediment to be moved out of the bay again. The discovery of the wreck shows, however, that this occurs as well.
7.2 Site management plan
Legislation Being older than 100 years, the wreck site is protected under the Danish Consolidated Act on Museums (Ministry of Culture, 2006). Section 28a (4) of this act declares:
“It is prohibited to alter the state of underwater cultural heritage, cf. subsection (1), that belongs to the Danish state, Danish citizens or legal persons resident in Denmark without the permission of the Minister for Culture. Danish citizens and legal persons resident in Denmark may not alter underwater cultural heritage, cf. subsection (1), that belongs to others without the permission of such persons”. In-situ preservation Although protected by legislation, the wreck site of Pettu still requires a management plan and a monitoring plan. The importance of preservation in-situ is highlighted by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage:
“The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage” (Article 2, 5). However, to date “very few protection methods [for the in-situ preservation of underwater sites] have been thoroughly, scientifically tested and there is a huge potential for development in this
59
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland field” (Manders, 2011b). Although UNESCO and other legal frameworks have put emphasis on in-situ preservation, excavation is still an alternative option. But the latter has substantial financial implications and entails further considerations such as the long-term preservation and conservation of wood, artefacts and other excavated items that are removed from the underwater site. Once the items are treated, these need either to be well stored or exhibited for the public to view.
When managing an underwater site, one has to consider the following factors prior to deciding upon whether to excavate the site or preserve it in-situ (Ortmann, 2009): »» the significance of the site,
»» the environment in which the site is found and »» access to funding
For the wreck of Pettu, in-situ preservation was found to be the most viable and cost-effective option. As the limited recording undertaken during the field school has allowed for a relative extensive analysis, the results of which are presented in this report, full excavation is presently not needed to understand the site. The location and nature of the site would also make it possible to revisit the wreck in order to study specific aspects. Furthermore, although significant from a construction point of view (see section 6.4) and as an example for the 19th century timber trade in the Baltic (see section 6.5). The wreck of Pettu is by no means unique and would probably not warrant conservation or exhibition.
Understanding the environment, a wreck site is located in, and identifying potential threats is a requirement for deciding on the best method for in-situ preservation (Gjelstrup Björdal & Gregory, 2011). The wreck of Pettu lies in very dynamic conditions; the prevailing winds are south-westerly, and there is a fetch of over 50km, allowing for considerable waves to form before the shores of Langeland are reached. The wreck is exposed to both physical and environmental threats. However, threats such as development, industrial extraction, the exploitation of marine resources and sports activities are limited in the area. The two main factors threatening the wreck at Ågabet are biological and mechanical deterioration. The wreck is located at a shallow depth where wave action is the predominant factor in the environment. Wind generated waves increase
60
in strength as they get closer to the shore, eventually breaking on the shoreline. Storms and local currents result in sediment transportation, which is very evident on the site, as was observed during the fieldschool in 2012. The constant movement and shifting of sand, exposes the wreck to mechanical deterioration, which weakens the wreck structure overall, disarticulating the components and at the same time exposing it to biological threats.
Biological threats include bacteria and fungi, which destroy the material on which they grow, and boring crustaceans and mollusca (Gregory, 2004b). A major biological threat to all wooden wrecks, especially where conditions are favourable, are wood-boring organisms. More commonly known as teredo navalis or shipworm, these organisms attack the hull of wooden ships, weakening the exterior shell and leaving the wood to rot away.
The key environmental parameters that determine the distribution of those species are salinity, temperature, oxygen and ocean currents (Manders, 2011a) The Baltic Sea has provided us with several well preserved wrecks, as the conditions do not favour the survival and reproduction of shipworm. However, recent investigations have shown outbreaks of teredo navalis in the southern Baltic and Kattegat area (Manders, 2011a). Teredo navalis is present on several parts of the wooden hull of Pettu. The colonisation of teredo navalis depends heavily on the amount of dissolved oxygen (Gregory, 2004b). Regulating this factor can reduce the negative impact shipworm has on the hull structure. The MoSS (Monitoring, Safeguarding and Visualizing North-European Shipwreck Sites) project was undertaken with the aim of developing methods to monitor the degradation of shipwreck sites in situ. Different methods for preservation were devised and tested in order to come up with more suitable methods for protection in-situ.
In the preliminary project plan two methods for preservation were discussed, namely covering methods and barrier methods. Both methods aim to create an anoxic environment in which the shipworm cannot survive. The latter method consists of wrapping materials around the wreck timbers (Gjelstrup Björdal & Gregory, 2011). Such techniques include nettings, artificial sea-grass and geotextiles. Although these techniques are costly, the results have been positive and show that such methods do indeed protect the wooden
Site formation and management structures from further degradation. Some have dual functions, not only acting as a barrier but also slowing down the effects of the currents that prevail over the site. In the case of Pettu, a more economically viable method was chosen. This consisted of covering the wreck with sandbags and loose sand. The sandbags were positioned in areas of the ship that had frequently been exposed. Sandbags also act as a barrier against shipworm but do not protect the site against scour (Gjelstrup Bjรถrdal & Gregory, 2011). During a storm that terminated the excavation in 2012 the dredged area around the wreck was filled up very quickly. Until further work, the site will remain covered over with the sand bags and sand. The sediment coverage helps to reduce the diffusion of oxygen and thus the growth of shipworm. The thicker the layer, the better protected the wooden remains are from microbial degradation.
Monitoring As part of the management plan, the site has to be monitored in order to make sure that the sand bags remain in place and the wreck is covered. Frequent monitoring of the site would provide a better understanding of how sediments shift in the area. Data loggers were developed as part of the MoSS project, capable of measuring physical conditions in open water and marine sediments, where data is collected every hour for a period of three months (Gregory, 2004a). Data loggers are an excellent way of managing a site in situ and the Pettu wreck would highly benefit from such a method. However, due to limited funding, an alternative cost-effective solution was suggested. In order to keep the site under observation, a local diving club in Bagenkop has agreed to occasionally inspect the site, e.g. after storms and to notify the responsible museum on any changes.
The first public event, as part of making this wreck a known heritage site, was a lecture given to the local historical society in Bagenkop. Other talks can be delivered to visitors during the summer period and students who attend the Action Efterskole in Bagenkop, further raising awareness of the submerged cultural heritage found within close proximity of the village.
It would also be possible to install information panels at the harbour in Bagenkop and on the beach near the site. In this way the wreck could be presented to visitors and locals alike. Such panels should include the history of the wreck and the trade it was involved in, images of the underwater site and a reconstruction of the wreck in at least three languages (Danish, English, German). Other ways to raise awareness and present the site include GPS guides for smartphones as well as the development of a computer game, which allows exploring the wreck (see section 8).
The results of such monitoring should indicate whether further protection measures should be undertaken, such as the re-deposition or reburial of the wooden structure in a more benign environment under water or on land. Raising public awareness Although the site lies in shallow waters and in close proximity to the shore, the wreck is only occasionally visible to the public, as it is covered over by sand during most of the year. Keeping the wreck exposed is not financially viable and will only make it more vulnerable to deteriorating agents.
61
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
8. Virtual Pettu: an experiment By Massimiliano Ditta
One of the challenges in maritime archaeology is public accessibility. Access to underwater sites is generally limited by a variety of factors. Only trained divers are able to visit submerged cultural resources. And even those can find it hard to understand and interpret complex sites if they are lacking the necessary knowledge and experience. Besides television and other popular media (Jameson & Scott-Ireton, 2007), virtual reality and virtual models have been used by archaeologists to overcome these problems since the 1990’s.
As stated by Sanders, three-dimensional visualisation “offers a more engaging, participatory, and exciting means of understanding and teaching complex situations (such as cargo arrangements, shipwreck scenarios, or trim conditions)” (Sanders, 2011). Interactive visualisations are also being used for research purposes, e.g. for reconstruction of shipwrecks, terrain analysis and interpretation, hypothesis testing and contextual simulations (Sanders, 2011).
Virtual Pettu represents an interactive walkthrough created to make the now buried site accessible to the interested public. It could e.g. be presented as part of a museum exhibition, or be installed at Bagenkop harbour as part of a display
on the wreck of Pettu (see section 7). A CD-ROM with the full version of Virtual Pettu can be found in the back of this report.
In order to produce a means for the acquisition of knowledge, which is not substitutive, but completive, a semi-passive interactive walkthrough has been created. This is based on the reconstructed virtual model of Pettu presented in section 6.3. The model was inserted into an interactive virtual space using the freeware version of the software Unity 3D (http://unity3d.com/). Unity 3D is a development engine that provides functionality to create games and other interactive 3D content. Unity allows the user to assemble models and assets into scenes and environments and to add lighting, audio and physical properties to objects. Finished projects can be published on a variety of platforms, including PC, Mac and the Internet.
The model of Pettu was placed into a matching natural environment, in this case a small harbour with a simple dock and background. Although all elements visible on the ship correspond to historical information and the full-scale proportions enhance the realism of the model, it was chosen to show Pettu moored in the harbour under full sails. While unrealistic, this was the only way (within the limitations of the software) to demonstrate the full rig of the ‘skonert’.
Figure 60: Top view of the virtual environment in Unity. Virtual Pettu is moored at a pier in a small harbour. Ditta 2013.
62
Virtual Pettu: an experiment The immersive atmosphere was reached through the following “sensimotor” stimuli:
»» Visual: The whole scene is illuminated by simulated natural day light and enhanced by a slight fog which gives a sense of depth and distance. All objects are texturized using photorealistic material textures such as stone, wood and metal. Furthermore, the textures were enriched with lighting and environmental maps with the ability to recreate the reflective and shadow properties of the different objects. Glass and water have different reflective properties than wood and stone. This ultimately creates a more realistic rendering. »» Auditive: In order to create a more inclusive and natural environment, it has been decided to complement the scene with sound effects typical for a harbour, such as seagull cries and the splashing of the water.
»» Physical: To allow the exploration of the virtual space, the user has the control of a first-person camera which permits to simulate natural movements such as rotation of the visual and movements to 360 degrees. Furthermore, the first-person camera is positioned at a height of 1.7m thus avoiding misinterpretation in the visual perception of space and dimensions. The virtual space is enhanced by the addition of an important everyday factor: the physicality of objects and the force of gravity. All the elements visible in the virtual space possess physical substance and constitute solid obstacles.
In order to produce a cognitive interaction with the model and allow the absorption of information through user actions in the virtual space, the scene has been enriched with visual hotspots. Looking at the plan in Figure 60, the user starts his navigational experience on the quayside. The visual hotspots (Figure 61) are placed in the space between the user and the ship. Floating exclamation marks over symbolic objects that represent the information to be communicated attract the attention of the user.
When the cursor is placed on top of such an object, a textbox appears and notifies the user of associated information. It is then possible to open a window with textual information or rich media, such as pictures and videos. For instance, clicking on an old diving helmet will open a window with information relating to the underwater excavation and clicking on a pile of timber will open a window with information relating to the Finnish timber trade in the 19th century. Virtual Pettu was an experiment conducted to see whether it was feasible to creative an effective virtual reality outreach tool using freely available software. It is hoped that the project will help to showcase the potential of virtual reality environments for outreach in maritime archaeology.
Figure 61: A hotspot in the Virtual Pettu environment. The ship is moored in the background. Ditta 2013.
63
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
9. Conclusions and outlook By Jens Auer
The Ågabet project started as a simple field assessment of a site reported to Øhavsmuseet by a recreational swimmer. After the wreck had been located and identified as the remains of a, probably fairly modern, carvel-built vessel from pine, it was chosen as subject for the annual summer field school of the Maritime Archaeology Programme. The reasons for this choice were mostly practical: The site was easily accessible and had not yet been recorded, thus offering potential for a more comprehensive scientific analysis. At the same time, the wreck was overseeable in size and the necessary infrastructure could be organised in Bagenkop.
Field schools always represent a balancing act between providing a learning opportunity for the participants and producing useful archaeological data, something for which the Ågabet wreck seemed well suited.
At the start of the field school, the wreck was thought to be a typical representative of a medium-sized merchant vessel of the 19th century, an opinion that changed within the first few days of the project. Once some of the archaic construction features became visible and the wreck was recognised as a converted half-carvel, there were thoughts - or hopes? - that it might be older, possibly connected to the Renaissance settlement near Ågabet. With the results of the dendrochronological analysis, and the identification of the site, the project returned to the initial status. The Ågabet wreck was indeed that of a 19th century merchant vessel, a very late one at that, with a date of sinking in 1893 only barely covered by the 100 year rule in Danish heritage legislation.
But should we be disappointed? How is the significance of an archaeological site defined? And how significant can a 19th century merchant schooner be? The webpage of English Heritage lists a number of criteria for assessing the importance of wrecks (English Heritage, 2013). The following factors are considered: »» Period »» Rarity
64
»» Documentation »» Group Value
»» Survival/ Condition
»» Fragility/ Vulnerability »» Diversity »» Potential
While some of these do not apply to our site (Group value, Potential), the Ågabet wreck would score fairly low in others (Survival/ Condition, Fragility). However, some criteria warrant a closer look: Period, Rarity and Diversity are directly related, while Documentation is of particular relevance in this case. A Renaissance merchant vessel would automatically have been considered more significant, based on the assumption that for an earlier period less wrecks would be preserved and less knowledge would be available, which would make the site rare.
Pettu was built in the middle of the 19th century, when hundreds of wooden merchant vessels were constructed all over Europe. So she is certainly not rare as an example of a 19th century European or even Finnish merchant vessel.
However, in this context it is interesting to take a look at Diversity. Not all wooden merchant vessels in the 19th century were built alike, and it could be shown that Pettu’s construction is quite particular. A number of construction features observed on the wreck clearly reflect the process of rural or peasant shipbuilding, a fairly unique phenomenon in an otherwise industrialised Europe. In addition Pettu might be an example of a clinkeraided carvel design, an interesting technique that shows the ability of the shipwrights to adapt in a period of transition from building clinker vessels to building carvel ships. And finally, the preserved archival documentation shows that Pettu is a good example for the last heyday of Finnish sail, which continued well into the age of steam, serving a specialised trade that was not profitable for the larger steamships. The wealth of preserved archival material also highlights another point, namely the potential of interdisciplinary research using both historical and archaeological sources, which is aided by the recent date of the wreck.
Conclusions and outlook Considering the points above, it is difficult not to argue for the archaeological and historical significance of the fairly ‘modern’ wreck of the Finnish ‘skonert’. Altogether, the archaeological objectives set for the 2012 field school could be achieved. The Ågabet wreck has been partially excavated and recorded, and the results of the archaeological survey permitted an identification and interpretation of the site.
A decision was made to leave the wreck in situ. The site was stabilised with sandbags, and was fully covered a week after the end of the field school. The local diving club Proppen has kindly agreed to monitor the site from time to time and report on its condition.
As already mentioned in the foreword, the importance of good co-operation with local recreational divers cannot be stressed enough. Without the interest and dedication of Jacob Toxen-Worm, Øhavsmuseet would never have become aware of the existence of the wreck, and without the interest of Proppen and its dedicated members, a monitoring scheme would not be financially viable. Further work on the site is certainly possible. An excavation of e.g. the full bow area, or the stern would need relatively heavy dredging equipment, but would probably also provide further details on the construction and might help to solve some of the open questions regarding the conversion to carvel or the initial ship design and construction. At present the need for this is not obvious, neither for the site’s protection and continued existence, nor to address research questions that have presented themselves as urgent. Obviously we hope, however, that the present report and notably the interpretations presented in section 6 will contribute to the ongoing scientific debate, and that this will lead to new and sharply formulated research questions.
65
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland
10. References
Adams, J. (2003) Ships, innovation and social change. Stockholm.
Agnello, F. & Brutto, M.L. (2007) Integrated surveying techniques in cultural heritage documentation. In: Proceedings of ISPRS International Workshop 3D-ARCH on 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. pp.141–147. Available from: <http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.153.6050&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 19 November 2012]. Akers, B. & Mullaney, D. (2012) MSP GEOTRANS 3.2 Geographic Translator [Internet]. Available from: <http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/> [Accessed 12 September 2012].
Alopaeus, H., Ulfhielm, B. & Dahlström, J. (2011) Engmanvraket. Arkeologisk undersökning och dokumentation. Gävle, Länsmuseet Gävleborg.
Andersen, E. (1995) Square sails of wool: Woollen material for sails. In: O. Olsen, J. S. Madsen, & F. Rieck eds. Shipshape: Essays for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen on the occasion of his 60th anniversary February 24th 1995. Roskilde, The Viking Ship Museum.
Auer, J., Ditta, M. & Logan, M. (2012) Esbjerg Maritime Survey Reports 1. Survey Report: Cuxhaven BSH-Nr. 1557. Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark. Auer, J. ed. (2010) Fieldwork Report: Fischland, Ostsee IV, Fpl. 77 (4am Wreck). Esbjerg, Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark.
Auer, J. & Belasus, M. (2008) The British Brig Water Nymph or ... even an Englishman cannot take the liberty to deride a civil servant on German soil. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 37 (1), pp.130–141. Balthasar, C. (2010) Byggmästare Justus Wilhelm Jansson [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.saunalahti.fi/christ1/Slakt/Hinders/p75e2d009.html> [Accessed 17 October 2012].
Barker, R. (2003) Whole-moulding : a preliminary study of early English and other sources. Shipbuilding practice and ship design methods from the Renaissance to the 18th century., pp.33–65. Bellabarba, S. (1993) The ancient methods of designing hulls. Mariner’s Mirror, 79, pp.274–292.
Berg, H., Jørgensen, L.B., Mortensøn, O., Bendixen, K. & Hatting, T. (1961) Sandhagen: Et langelandsk fiskerleje fra renaissancen. Rudkøbing, Langelands Museum.
Bloesch, P. (1994) Inventing the ‘barque du Léman’, Lake of Geneva, Switzerland/France. Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding, pp.229–233.
Castro, F.V. de (2005) Pepper Wreck: A Portuguese Indiaman At The Mouth of the Tagus River. Texas A&M University Press.
Damianidis, K. (1998) Methods used to Control the Form of the Vessels in the Greek Traditional Boatyards. In: Concevoir et Construire les Navires de la Triere au Picoteux. Eres, Eric Rieth, pp.217–244. Eichler, C.W. (1994) Holzbootsbau - und der Bau von stählernen Booten und Yachten. Kiel, Alte Schiffe Verl.
English Heritage (2013) Criteria for Designating Wreck Sites [Internet]. Available from: <http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/criteria-for-protection/criteria-designating-wrecksites/> [Accessed 9 April 2013].
66
References Eriksson, N. (2008) An early ‘half-carvel’ in the Northern Baltic. Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Denmark, (23), pp.4–9.
Eriksson, N. (2010) Between Clinker and Carvel: Aspects of Hulls Built with Mixed Planking in Scandinavia between 1550 and 1900. In: A. Girininkas ed. Underwater Archaeology in the Baltic Region. Archaeologia Baltica. Klaipeda, pp.77–85.
Furukawa, Y., Curless, B., Seitz, S.M. & Szeliski, R. (2010) Towards Internet-scale multi-view stereo. In: IEEE, pp.1434–1441. Available from: <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/downloadCitations> [Accessed 20 November 2012]. Gjelstrup Björdal, C. & Gregory, D. (2011) WreckProtect : decay and protection of archaeological wooden shipwrecks. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Gøthche, M. (1991) Three Danish 17th-19th century wrecks as examples of the clinker building techniques versus carvel building techniques in local shipwrighty. In: R. Reinders & K. Paul eds. Carvel Construction Technique: Fifth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 1988. Oxbow Monographs. Oxford, Oxbow, pp.85–88.
Greenhill, B. & Manning, S.F. (2009) The evolution of the wooden ship. New York, Blackburn Press. Gregory, D. (2004a) Data Loggers. MOSS Newsletter, (2), p.8.
Gregory, D. (2004b) Degradation of wooden shipwrecks: threats. MOSS Newsletter, (2), p.4.
Grundvad, B. (2010) Converted clinker vessels from the 16th - 17th century. Master Thesis. Esbjerg, University of Southern Denmark. Gustafsson, A. (1974a) Åboländsk bygdesjöfart under segel: gynnande vind 1 : [1856-1880]. Dalsbruk, Förf.].
Gustafsson, A. (1974b) Åboländsk bygdesjöfart under segel: gynnande vind 2 : 1880-1914. Dalsbruk, Förf.]. Hahn-Pedersen, M. (1996) The History of the Danish Lightship Fleet. In: Pilots and Lighthouses: Aids of Navigation. The Provincial Museum of Kymenlaakso. Kotka, pp.24–41.
Hasslöf, O., Henningsen, H., Christensen, A.E. eds. (1972) Ships and shipyards, sailors and fishermen. Introduction to maritime ethnology. Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Press; Eksp.: Rosenkilde og Bagger. Hedderwick, P. (1830) A Treatise on Marine Architecture ... Illustrated with Twenty Large Plates.
Hermansen, O. (2011) Danmarks fyrtårne og Fyrskibe: Beskrivelse og Historie fra 1560 til i Dag. Værløse, Billesø & Baltzer. Available from: <http://bog.nu/titler/danmarks-fyrtaarne-og-fyrskibe-ove-hermansen> [Accessed 15 November 2012].
Hinkkanen, M.-L. (1989) A survey of the mentality of Finnish merchant sailors at the turn of the century. Scandinavian Journal of History, 14 (4), pp.299–309. Hyttel, F. (2011) Digital Recording in Maritime Archaeology: Total station, Rhinoceros and Termite. Master Thesis. Esbjerg, University of Southern Denmark.
Kaukiainen, Y. (1992) Five Years Before the Mast: Observations on the Conditions of Maritime Labour in Finland and Elsewhere. In: L. R. Fischer & W. Minchinton eds. People of the Northern Seas. Research in Maritime History. St. John’s, Newfoundland, International Maritime Economic History Association.
67
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland Jameson, J.H. & Scott-Ireton, D.A. (2007) Out of the blue: public interpretation of maritime cultural resources. New York, Springer. Available from: <http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView. do?ptiID=302214> [Accessed 8 April 2013].
Kaukiainen, Y. (1993) A History of Finnish Shipping. London and New York, Routledge.
Kaukiainen, Y. (1995) Baltic Timber-trade under Sail: an Example of the Persistence of Old Techniques. In: Folk og Erhverv. Odense University Studies in History and Social Sciences. Odense, Odense Universitetsforlag, pp.225–233.
Kaukiainen, Y. (1997) Finnish Sailors, 1750-1870. In: P. C. van Royen, J. R. Bruijn, & J. Lucassen eds. Those Emblems of Hell? European Sailors and the Maritime Labour Market, 1570-1870. Research in Maritime History. St. John’s, Newfoundland, International Maritime Economic History Association, pp.211–232. Kaukiainen, Y. (2004a) Baltic Timber-Trade under Sail: An Example of the Persistence of Old Techniques. In: Sail and Steam: Selected Maritime Writings of Yrjö Kaukiainen. Research in Maritime History. St. John’s, Newfoundland, International Maritime Economic History Association, pp.101–111. Kaukiainen, Y. (2004b) Finnish sailors, 1750-1870. In: Sail and Steam: Selected Maritime Writings of Yrjö Kaukiainen. Research in Maritime History. St. John’s, Newfoundland, International Maritime Economic History Association, pp.1–20.
Kemp, P. ed. (1976) The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. Oxford University Press.
Kirby, D. & Hinkkanen, M.-L. (2000) The Baltic and the North Seas. London and New York, Routledge.
Manders, M.R. ed. (2011a) Guidelines for predicting decay by shipworm in the Baltic Sea. Available from: <http://wreckprotect.eu/fileadmin/site_upload/wreck_protect/pdf/Guidelines_Predicting_web_1.PDF> [Accessed 2 January 2013]. Manders, M.R. ed. (2011b) Guidelines for Protection of Submerged Wooden Cultural Heritage, including cost-benefit analysis. Available from: <http://wreckprotect.eu/fileadmin/site_upload/wreck_ protect/pdf/Guidelines_Protection_web.pdf> [Accessed 27 January 2013].
Marquardt, K.H. (1992) Eighteenth century rigs & rigging. London, Conway Maritime Press.
Marzari, M. (1998) Evolution of shipbuilding techniques and methodologies in Adriatic and Tyrrhenian tradional shipyards. In: Concevoir et Construire les Navires de la Triere au Picoteux. Eres, Eric Rieth, pp.181–215.
Mäss, V. (1994) A unique 16th century Estonian ship find. In: C. Westerdahl ed. Crossroads in ancient shipbuilding : proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, ISBSA 6. Oxbow Monographs. Oxford, Oxbow Books, pp.189–194. McKee, E. (1983) Working Boats of Britain: Their Shape and Purpose. Conway Maritime Press.
Ministry of Culture (2006) Consolidated Act on Museums.
Molaug, S. & Scheen, R. (1983) Fregatten ‘Lossen’. Et kulturhistorisk skattkammer. Oslo.
Møller Nielsen, E., Museumsrådet for Sønderjyllands Amt & Aabenraa Museum (2000) Fra klamp til konstruktion: fra håndværk til ingeniørkunst i Aabenraa’s sejlskibsbyggeri ca. 1800-1880. Aabenrå, Museumsrådet for Sønderjyllands Amt : i samarbejde med Aabenraa Museum.
Murray, A. & Creuze, A.F.B. (1863) Ship-building in Iron and Wood. A. and C. Black.
68
References Oost, T. (1997) Het kleurrijk product van een wereldhaven. Antwerpse majolica uit de 16de en 17de eeuw. In: F. Bonneure & J. L. Meulemeester eds. Uit Aarde en Vuur: Keramiek in Vlaanderen. Tielt, Lannoo, pp.30–37.
Ortmann, N. (2009) Exploring Practitioners’ Attitudes Towards in Situ Preservation and Storage for Underwater Cultural Heritage. Master thesis, Flinders University, Department of Archaeology. Available from: <http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/fms/archaeology_files/dig_library/theses/Nicole%20 Ortmann.pdf>. Ossowski, W. (2006) Two double-planked wrecks from Poland. In: L. Blue & F. Hocker eds. Connected by the sea : proceedings of the tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003. Oxford, Oxbow, pp.259–265.
Papp, D. (1977) Åländsk allmogeseglation: med särskild hänsyn till sjöfarten på Stockholm - sjöfarten i Lemlands socken 1800-1940. Stockholm, Rabén & Sjögren.
Pérez-Arribas, F., Suárez-Suárez, J.A. & Fernández-Jambrina, L. (2006) Automatic surface modelling of a ship hull. Comput. Aided Des., 38 (6), pp.584–594. Remondino, F. (2011) Heritage Recording and 3D Modeling with Photogrammetry and 3D Scanning. Remote Sensing, 3 (12), pp.1104–1138.
Rieth, E. (1996) Le maître-gabarit, la tablette et le trébuchet. Essai sur la conception non-graphique des carènes du Moyen Âge au XXe siècle. Cths - Comité des Travaux.
Rieth, É. (2003) La méthode moderne de conception des carènes du whole-moulding : une mémoire des chantiers navals méditerranéens du Moyen Age. Shipbuilding practice and ship design methods from the Renaissance to the 18th century., pp.17–32. Röding, J.H. (1793) Allgemeines Wörterbuch der Marine. Hamburg.
Sanders, D. (2010) Knowing the Ropes: The Need to Record Ropes and Rigging on Wreck-Sites and Some Techniques for Doing So. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 39 (1), pp.2–26.
Sanders, D.H. (2011) Virtual reconstruction of maritime sites and artifacts. In: A. Catsambis, B. Ford, & D. L. Hamilton eds. The Oxford handbook of maritime archaeology. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press, pp.305–326. Schneider, P.J. (1996) NURB Curves: A Guide for the Uninitiated. The journal of Apple technology, (25), pp.48–74. Skaarup, J. (2005) Øhavets middelalderlige borge og voldsteder. Rudkøbing, Langelands Museum.
Skarlatos D., A, A. & M, R. (2010) Photogrammetric support on an underwater archaeological excavation site: The mazotos shipwreck case. In: EUROMED 2010 - Digital Heritage 8th - 13th November 2010 - Lemesos. Lemnos.
Skarlatos, D., Demestiha, S. & Kiparissi, S. (2012) An ‘Open’ Method for 3D Modelling and Mapping in Underwater Archaeological Sites. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 1 (1), pp.1– 24.
Skarlatos, D. & Kiparissi, S. (2012) Comparison of laser scanning, photogrammetry and sfm-mvs pipeline applied in structures and artificial surfaces. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, I-3, pp.299–304. Steffy, J. (1994) Wooden ship building and the interpretation of shipwrecks. 1st ed. College Station, Texas A&M University Press.
69
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland Svenska Akademien (2010) Svenska Akademiens ordbok - SAOB [Internet]. Available from: <http:// g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/> [Accessed 12 March 2013].
Uricchio, W. (2011) The algorithmic turn: photosynth, augmented reality and the changing implications of the image. Visual Studies, 26 (1), pp.25–35. Primary Sources 009 PETTU 01 (1891) Registermyndighetens i Raumo protokoll för den 19. Februari 1891. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB.
009 PETTU 02 (1891) Skriftlig ansökan. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB. 009 PETTU 03 (1877) Afskrift af fribref. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB.
009 PETTU 04 (1879) Afskrift af mätebref. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB. 009 PETTU 05a (1891) Byggmästereintyg. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB.
009 PETTU 05b (1879) Utdrag ur skeppsmäteboken för Raumo stad. Skonerten ‘Pettu’ hemma i Raumo. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAB.
18730514 PETTU certificat A-B (1873) Certifikat å 1/2 uti skonerten Pettu - Lars August Borgström. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAA 4 (Ship Register documents 18631888). 18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D (1873) Certifikat å 1/2 i skonerten Pettu - Sofia Lindroos. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAA 4 (Ship Register documents 1863-1888).
18740418 PETTU skonert certificat A-C (1874) Certifikat å hälften i skonerten Pettu - Gustaf Hafverman. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAA 4 (Ship Register documents 18631888). 1875 PETTU skonert fribrev (1875) Fribref å 5/8 i skonerten ‘Pettu’ - Isak Gustaf Plyhm. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAA 4 (Ship Register documents 1863-1888). 18750419 PETTU skonert rakentajantodistus A-B (1875) Skonerten Pettu rederi - Isak Gustaf Plyhm, Gustaf Hafverman. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma magistrate archives EHAA 4 (Ship Register documents 1863-1888). Hafverman Gustaf 1844 Gustaf Hafverman 1863-1874. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma Registrar’s Office for Seamen archives Aa2. Hafverman Gustaf 1844 Rauma 33 Gustaf Hafverman 1875-1890. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma Registrar’s Office for Seamen archives Aa4.
Hafverman Gustaf 1844 Rauma 698 Gustaf Hafverman 1890-1902. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma Registrar’s Office for Seamen archives Aa6.
Indenrigsministeriet (1900) Statistik oversigt over de i aaret 1898 for danske skibe i danske og fremmede farvande og for fremmede skibe i danske farvande indtrufne søulykker. Indenrigsministeriet. Available from: <http://www.sbib.dk/soeulykke.htm> [Accessed 23 September 2012]. Langelands Avis (1893a) Den finske Skonnert ‘Petto’ (28.12.1893).
Langelands Avis (1893b) Den finske Skonnert ‘Petto’ (30.12.1893).
70
References Langelands Avis (1893c) Stranding (12.12.1893).
Langelands Avis (1893d) Strandingen ved Bagenkop (13.12.1893).
Langelands Avis (1894) Strandingsauktion paa Bagenkop. Tirsdag den 23de d. M. Form. kl. 10 (09.01.1894). Lundgren Johan David 18501019 Uusikaupunki 543 David Lundgren. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma Registrar’s Office for Seamen archives Aa6. Pettu, skonert Sjömansrulla. Turku Provincial Archives, Rauma Registrar’s Office for Seamen archives Bc (Crew lists).
71
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland
72
Appendix I
Appendix I List of timbers recorded during the excavation. Timber dimensions reflect the state of preservation and accessibility.
73
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland ID
Context
Type
Construction
TIM-001
bow area
apron
joined to keelson (TIM-002) with a diagonal scarf reinforced by a chock (TIM-005). Length preserved 50cm. Sided 27cm. Moulded 32cm head, 57cm heel.
TIM-002
bow area
keelson/ deadwood
joined to apron (TIM-001) with a diagonal scarf reinforced by chock (TIM-005). Another L-shaped, 17cm long and 26cm wide scarf is present on the aft edge. Length 3,14 m. Sided 30 to 33cm.
TIM-003
bow area
outer plank
TIM-004
bow area
outer plank
Length 78cm. Width 8cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-005
bow area
chock
wedged between Keelson (TIM-002) and Knee (TIM001). Length 10cm. Width 7cm. Thickness 2cm.
TIM-006
bow area
outer plank
TIM-007
fore
filling board
lies on top of TIM-006. Length 53cm. Width A 13cm. Width B 9cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-008
fore
filling board
lies on top of TIM-006. Length 71,5cm. Width A 18cm. Width B 14,5cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
TIM-009
fore
outer plank
TIM-010
fore
filling board
lies on top of TIM-003 and TIM-009. Length 75cm. Width A 14,5cm. Width B 10cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
TIM-011
fore
filling board
lies on top of TIM-009. Length 54,5cm. Width A 10,5cm. Width B 17cm. Thickness 3cm.
clinker
clinker
clinker
Description
lies above TIM-004 and TIM-012/85. Length 5,15m. Width 10cm.
Caulking found on top of the plank. Length 5,28m. Width 16cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
Measured length 1,78m. Width 22cm. Thickness 4,5cm
TIM-012/085 bow area
outer plank
carvel
lies below TIM-003, TIM-004 and TIM-009. Length 5,3m. Width 11cm. Thickness 9cm.
TIM-013
fore
outer plank
carvel
Butt joined to TIM-014Length 32cm. Width 8,8cm. Thickness 6cm.
TIM-014
fore
outer plank
carvel
Butt joined to TIM-013. Length 22,5cm. Width 11,3cm. Thickness 7cm.
TIM-015
fore
outer plank
clinker
Lies below TIM-038 and above TIM-016. Measured length 1,65m. Width 23cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-016
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-015. Length 2,17m. Width 16cm. Thickness 5cm.
TIM-017
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-017. Length 1,27m. Width 16cm. Thickness 5cm.
TIM-018
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-034 and TIM-036. Length 1,38m. Width 20cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-019
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-034. Length 1,17m. Width 18cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-020
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-025 and TIM-032. Length 1,24m. Width 20cm. Thickness 5cm.
TIM-021
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-023 and TIM-037. Length 2m. Width 17cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-022
fore
filling board
TIM-023
fore
outer plank
TIM-024
fore
filling board
TIM-025
fore
outer plank
74
Lies on top of TIM-023. Length 44cm. Width 17cm. Thickness 4cm. clinker
Lies above TIM-021 and below TIM-022, TIM-024. Length 1,6m. Width 20,5cm. Thickness 4cm. Lies on top of TIM-023. Length 53cm. Width 12cm. Thickness 4cm.
clinker
Lies above TIM-020 and below TIM-028. Length 81cm. Width 21cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
Appendix I ID
Context
Type
TIM-026
Stern area rudder component
Butt joined to TIM-048 and TIM-049. Length 95cm. Width A 34cm. Width B 33cm. Thickness 25cm.
TIM-027
Stern area component of sternpost
Rabbeted. Draught mark is present. Length 60cm. Moulded 20cm. Sided 30cm.
TIM-028
fore
filling board
Lies above TIM-025 and TIM-032. Length 1,39m. Width 22,5cm. Thickness 4.5cm.
TIM-029
fore
filling board
Lies above TIM-030. Length 44cm. Width 17,5cm. Thickness 2,5cm.
TIM-030
fore
outer plank
TIM-031
fore
filling board
TIM-032
fore
outer plank
TIM-033
fore
filling board
TIM-034
fore
outer plank
TIM-035
fore
filling board
TIM-036
fore
outer plank
clinker
Lies above TIM-017, TIM-018 and below TIM-035. Length 1,51m. Width 22,5cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
TIM-037
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies above TIM-064 and TIM-021. It is butt joined with TIM-023. Length 58cm. Width 20cm. Thickness 2,5cm. Dendro sample.
TIM-038
fore
framing timber
clinker
Length 2,51m. Moulded 11cm. Sided 16cm.
TIM-039
fore
framing timber
clinker
Length 2,97m. Moulded 24cm. Sided 23cm.
TIM-040
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined to TIM-071 by a diagonal scarf 47cm long. Also joined with treenails to TIM-041 (framing timber). Length 2,63m. Moulded 13cm. Sided 19cm.
TIM-041
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined with treenails to TIM-040 (framing timber). The head of the frame has signs of a rectangular metal concretion 5,5x7cm. Length 2,96m. Moulded 21cm. Sided 19cm.
TIM-042
fore
framing timber
clinker
Length 3,20m. Moulded 23cm. Sided 27cm.
TIM-045
fore
framing timber
clinker
joined to TIM-066 (framing timber) with a diagonal scarf 50cm long. Length 2,40m. Moulded 29cm. Sided 20cm.
TIM-046
fore
framing timber
clinker
Length 2,65m. Moulded 19cm. Sided 27cm.
TIM-048
stern area rudder component
Butt joined to TIM-026. Visible length 70cm. Sided A 20cm. Sided B 25cm. Moulded 25cm.
TIM-049
stern area rudder component
Butt joined to TIM-026. The free side is symmetrically chamfered. Length 95cm. Sided A 44cm.Sided B 45cm. Thickness 25cm.
TIM-050
fore
TIM-051
stern area component of sternpost
framing timber
Construction
clinker
Description
Lies below TIM-029, TIM-031. Length 1,97m. Width 23cm. Thickness 5cm. Lies on top of TIM-030. A layer of caulking is visible under the chock. Length 90,5cm. Width 20cm. Thickness 5cm.
clinker
Lies above TIM-020 and below TIM-028. Length 2m. Width 24cm. Thickness 6cm. Lies on top of TIM-034. Length 42cm. Width 15cm. Thickness 3cm.
clinker
Lies below TIM-033 and above TIM-018, TIM-019. Length 1,8m. Width 22cm. Thickness 4cm. Lies above TIM-036. Length 49cm. Width 13cm. Thickness 3cm.
clinker
Limber hole present. Length 3,39m. Moulded 27cm. Sided 21cm. Chamfered to receive the rudder. Length 1,1m. Moulded 24cm. Sided 30cm.
75
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland ID
Context
Type
Construction
Description
TIM-052
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Lies above TIM-145 (framing timber), joined with treenails and a horizontal scarf running the whole length of the timber. Also joined with treenails to TIM-053, TIM-054 and TIM061 (framing timbers). Length 3,3m. Moulded 21cm. Sided 24cm.
TIM-053
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined to TIM-054 (floortimber) with a diagonal scarf 1,27m long. Also, joined with treenails to TIM-052 (framing timber). Length 1,30m. Moulded 16cm. Sided 19cm.
TIM-054
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined to TIM-053 (floortimber) with a diagonal scarf 1,27m long. Joined to TIM-061 with a diagonal scarf 75cm long. Also, joined with treenails to TIM-052 (framing timber). Length 2,68m. Moulded 21cm. Sided 21cm.
TIM-055
fore
framing timber
clinker
Length 3,24m. Moulded 30cm. Sided 20cm.
TIM-056/057 bow area
component of the keel
Lies on top of TIM058/059. Rabbeted. Length 2,13m. Moulded 22cm. Sided 9cm.
TIM-058/059 bow area
component of the keel
Lies on top of TIM-060 and below TIM-056/057. Length 1,05m. Moulded 28 to 35cm. Sided 4 to 13cm.
TIM-060
bow area
component of the keel
Lies on top of TIM-067 and below TIM-058/059. Length 60cm. moulded 16cm.
TIM-061
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined to TIM-054 (floortimber) with a diagonal scarf 75cm long. Also, joined with treenails to TIM-052 (framing timber). Length 1,05m. Moulded 25cm. Sided 22cm. Traces of limber hole.
TIM-062
amidships framing timber
clinker
An L-shaped scarf, 60cm long, is present on the head. Length 3,2m. Moulded 20cm. Sided 22cm.
TIM-063
amidships framing timber
clinker
Joined with treenails to TIM-146 (ceiling plank). Length 3,2m. Moulded 28cm. Sided 23cm.
TIM-064
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-037 and TIM-038. Length 26cm. Visible width 6cm. Thickness 4,5cm.
TIM-065
fore
outer plank
carvel
Lies below TIM-070. Length 2,25m. Width 21,5cm. Thickness 5,5cm.
TIM-066
fore
framing timber
clinker
Joined to TIM-045 (framing timber) with a diagonal scarf 50cm long. Limber hole present. Length 1,20m. Moulded 12cm. Sided 20cm.
TIM-067
bow area
component of the keel
Lies below TIM-060. Length 24cm. Moulded 3cm. Sided 7cm.
TIM-068
bow area
outer plank
Length 52cm. Width 7cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-069
fore
outer plank
carvel
Between TIM-148 and TIM-150. Length 1,7m. Width 21cm. Thickness 7cm.
TIM-070
fore
outer plank
carvel
Sits above TIM-065. Length 47cm. Width 6cm.
TIM-071
fore
framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined to TIM-040 by a diagonal scarf 47cm long. Length 84cm. Moulded 12cm. Sided 21cm. Traces of limber hole.
TIM-072
fore
outer plank
carvel
three carved grooves run the width of the timber. The grooves are 22cm long, 0,5cm wide and 1,5cm deep and part of scarf to missing plank.
TIM-073
bow area
component of the post
76
Joined to TIM-074 (component of stem post). Square scarf, 5cm wide on the top surface. Length 45cm. Moulded 20cm. Sided 22cm.
Appendix I ID
Context
Type
TIM-074
bow area
component of the post
Joined to TIM-073 (cutwater). Rectangular protrusion, 4.5cm wide and 8,5cm long on the sided surface. Length 43cm. Moulded 21cm. Sided 24cm.
TIM-075
bow area
component of the post
Length 23cm. Width 10cm. Thickness 0,7cm.
TIM-076
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 6cm. Width 19cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-077
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 5cm. Width 22cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-078
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 5cm. Width 21cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-079
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frames TIM-040, TIM-041. Length 13cm. Width 22cm.
TIM-080
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 5cm. Width 20cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-081
bow area
component of the post
Length 39cm. Width 11cm. Thickness 4cm. On the top side there is a squared, 7x7cm, stain/impression of an absent attachment.
TIM-082
bow area
component of the post
Length 6cm. Width A 13cm. Width B 8cm.
TIM-083
bow area
component of the post
Length 13cm. Width A 2,5cm. Width B 7cm.
TIM-084
bow area
component of the post
Length 17cm. Width 26cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-086
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 4cm. Width 22cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-087
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 3cm. Width 21cm. Thickness 4cm.
TIM-088
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 13cm. Width 19cm. Thickness 2cm.
TIM-090
fore
filling board
Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 5cm. Width 20cm. Thickness 3cm.
TIM-091
bow area
component of the post
Length 28cm. Width 4cm.
TIM-092
bow area
component of the post
Length 15cm. Width 8cm.
TIM-093
bow area
outer plank
clinker
Lies above plank TIM-094. length 1,32m. Thickness 6cm.
TIM-094
bow area
outer plank
carvel
Lies below plank TIM-093. Length 2,26m. Thickness 6cm.
TIM-095
bow area
outer plank
carvel
Length 1,16cm.
TIM-096
bow area
outer plank
Plank joined to TIM-100 with a diagonal scarf 29cm long. Length 2,75m. Thickness 6cm.
TIM-097
bow area
outer plank
Length 1,85cm.
TIM-098
bow area
outer plank
Length 79cm.
TIM-099
bow area
outer plank
Length 48cm.
TIM-100
bow area
outer plank
Plank joined to TIM-096 with a diagonal scarf, 29cm long. Length 84cm.
TIM-142
amidships outer plank
carvel
Outer carvel plank. Starboard of TIM-148. Width 22cm.
TIM-143
bow area
clinker
Inner clinker garboard plank of the port side, lies below TIM-002. Caulking material found on top of the plank. Length 1,04m. Width 33cm. Thickness 6,5cm
outer plank
Construction
Description
77
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland ID
Context
TIM-144
Construction
Description
amidships framing timber
carvel
Component of a double frame. Joined with treenails to two untagged framing timbers. Also joined with treenails to TIM-146 (ceiling plank). Limber hole present. Length 3,53m. Moulded 21,5cm. Sided 22,5cm.
TIM-145
fore
carvel
Component of a double frame. Lies below TIM-052, joined with treenails and a flat scarf running the whole length of the timber. Joined with treenails to TIM-053, TIM-054 and TIM-061 (framing timbers). Limber hole present. Length 3,21m. Moulded 17cm.
TIM-146
amidships ceiling board or stringer
TIM-147
amidships framing timber
clinker
An L-shaped scarf, 50cm long is present on the head of the timber. Joined to TIM-146 (ceiling plank) with treenails.Limber hole present. Length 3,88m. Sided 22cm. Moulded 25cm.
TIM-148
amidships outer plank
carvel
Port of TIM-142. Length 5,1m. Width 21cm. Thickness 6cm.
TIM-149
fore
outer plank
clinker
Lies below TIM-031. A layer of caulking is visible between TIM-031 and TIM-149.
TIM-150
fore
outer plank
carvel
The outer plank is missing. Lies between TIM-069 and TIM-072. Textile, rope, caulking material, and a thin layer of clay-like material were found on top of this plank. Length 1,45m.
TIM-151
bow area
Garboard strake
78
Type
framing timber
Lies on top of TIM-063, TIM-147, TIM144 and 7 more untagged frames aft. Length 3,6m. Width 24cm. Thickness 8cm.
Garboard plank of the starboard side. Length 1,33m. Thickness 6cm.
Appendix II
Appendix II List of finds recovered during the excavation
79
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland X-No
ID
Context
Material
Type
X01
ART-044
found 940cm on baseline, 20cm port
botanic fibres
cordage/rope
X02
ART-021
found under TIM-001
botanic fibres
cordage/rope
X03
ART-066
found underneath TIM-072
botanic fibres
cordage/rope
X04
ART-052
found between two carvel botanic fibres planks, in silt/gravel layer, ca 25cm from the textile fragment ART-053 490cm on baseline and 340cm off set port
cordage
X05
ART-067
found ca 150cm along baseline, ca 15cm starboard, on TIM-098
botanic fibres
cordage with knot
X06
ART-020
Found 1250cm from bow
botanic fibres/ wood
rope wrapped around wood
X07
ART-069
Between frame TIM-062 and TIM-063
wood
board of pine
X08
ART-068
surface find
wood
board of pine
X09
ART-053
5,15m on the baseline, TIM-150, textile between the outermost carvel layer and inner carvel layer
Fragment of coarse textile
X10
ART-002
surface find
zoological fibres
caulking material
X11
ART-008
found near TIM-050
zoological fibres/ caulking with tar horse hair
X12
ART-015
bow area under TIM-001
zoological fibres
caulking with tar
X13
ART-059
surface find
wood
treenail
X14
ART-022
surface find
wood
piece of wood with cordage
X15
ART-063
surface find
concretion
compacted sand and pebbles
X16
ART-065
surface find
wood
wedge of pine
X17
ART-064
surface find
wood
gaming piece or plug of pine
X18
ART-026
found at 1250cm on baseline, between frames
wood
Piece of fir or pine from levelling layer between clinker and carvel planks
X19
ART-001
surface find
wood
treenail
X20
ART-058
surface find
concreted sand, pebbles (and possibly metal)
metal concretion
X21
ART-054
surface find
wood
wedged treenail
X22
ART-039
found between TIM-054, TIM055
wood
board (sawn)
X23
ART-016
found 925cm on baseline and 280cm offset towards port side. Between frames TIM-62 and 63, near TIM- 146
wood
unknown artefact of spruce or pine with tool markings
X24
ART-024
found at 1250 cm on baseline between timber-frames
wood
double wedged treenail
X25
ART-056
surface find
metal
concreted iron
X26
ART-032
surface find
wood
fragment of plank with treenail hole
X27
ART-057
surface find
wood
worked wood with concretion
X28
ART-013
found between frames TIM41 and TIM 42 by carvel plank TIM-80
wood
worked beech wood, possible rigging part
X29
ART-047
surface find
wood
treenail
X30
ART-048
surface find
wood
treenail
80
Appendix II X-No
ID
Context
Material
Type
X31
ART-036
found between shore and wreck, with ART-034, 035, 037
wood
possible marlinspike
X32
ART-029
found at 1250cm on the baseline, between frames
wood
board of fir or pine
X33
-
surface find
wood
worked wood, wreck piece
X34
ART-019
surface find
wood
worked wood, unknown function
X35
ART-018
found 1110cm on baseline and 245cm offset port side
wood
worked wood, unknown function
X36
ART-030
surface find
wood
fragment of wreck timber
X37
ART-033
surface find
wood
board of beech wood, with nail holes
X38
ART-009
surface find
wood
board of fir or pine
X39
ART-007
surface find
wood
fragment of planking
X40
ART-025
found at 1250cm on baseline, between frames
wood
treenail
X41
ART-031
surface find
wood
piece of planking with concretion
X42
ART-023
surface find
wood
fragmented wooden block
X43
ART-062
surface find
ceramic
shard of white faience
X44
ART-005
surface find
wood
Wooden gaming piece or plug
X47
ART-012
under TIM-001
wood
pulley /block sheave
X48
ART-014
surface find
wood
treenail
X49
ART-017
1100cm on baseline and 245cm offset port side
wood
block?
81
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland
82
Appendix III
Appendix III List of voyages made by Pettu in the years 18731893, based on crew lists.
83
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland ID
Embarking
Returning
Departure
Destination
Captain
1
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
2
3
4
5
6
84
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
15 April 1873
-
Bjerno parish
Raumo
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
28 June 1873
15 August 1873
Raumo
Kristinestad, German Baltic
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
25 August 1873
22 October 1873 Raumo
German Baltic (forestry)
Lars A. Borgström
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
Raumo
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
20 April 1874
23 July 1874
Raumo
Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
-
24 October 1874 Raumo
England (London)
G. Hafverman
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
14 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
Appendix III Function
First names
Surname
Year of birth Age
Born in
Pay (Mark)
Konstapel
Joh. Fredrik
Nordblom
-
Raumo
75
32
Båtsman
Isak Nikodemus
Ekroos
-
39
Ulfsby
50
Timmerman
Nikodemus
Högfors
-
22
Luvia
35
Jungman
Gustaf Mannert
Reilander
-
19
Pyhämaa
27
Jungman
Karl Robert
Molander
-
17
Raumo
18
Jungman
Karl
Sjöman
-
16
Raumo
17
Kock
Frans August
Ringbom
-
12
Raumo
10
Lots styrman
C.R.
Gallén
-
-
-
-
Konstapel
J.
Nordblom
-
32
Raumo
80
Timmerman
J.
Ekman
-
40
Euraåminne
55
Båtsman
J.
Gustafsson
-
40
Raumo
55
Matros
Gustaf
Silfven
-
23
Raumo
35
Lättmatros
Gustaf
Reilander
-
19
Pyhämaa
32
Jungman
E.
Grönman
-
18
Raumo
30
Jungman
J.
Rosendahl
-
16
Raumo
18
Kock
Frans
Ringbom
-
12
Raumo
11
Matros
Gustaf
Kestilä
-
30
Raumo
45
Konstapel
A.
Windahl
-
50
Raumo
65
Båtsman
Joh.
Gustafsson
-
40
Raumo
60
Timmerman
Sam.
Landmark
-
35
Raumo
60
Matros
Joh.
Emanuelsson -
32
Kumol (?)
40
Matros
Gust.
Reilander
-
21
Pyhämaa
35
Jungman
Em.
Grönman
-
18
Raumo
35
Jungman
Wilhelm
Helin
-
35
Lappo
50
Kock
Gust.
Stenberg
-
16
Raumo
20
Konstapel
Johan
Hafverman
-
31
Raumo
75
Timmerman
Ananijas
Gustafson
-
30
Letala
30
Matros
Daniel
Friberg
-
25
Raumo
46
Lättmatros
Gustaf
Wirsen
-
23
Raumo
35
Lättmatros
Carl Bärnt
Löytty
-
22
Euraåminne
35
Jungman
Niels Alexander
Grundberg
-
17
Raumo
18
Kock
Gustaf
Gustafson
-
17
Raumo
18
Konstapel
J.
Hafverman
-
31
Raumo
75
Timmerman
Emanuel
Lindahl
-
-
-
50
Båtsman
Daniel
Friberg
-
25
Raumo
48
Matros
Michael
Bäklund (?)
-
-
-
50
Lättmatros
Carl
Rusval (?)
-
-
-
40
Jungman
Gustaf
Sejlander (?)
-
-
-
20
Jungman
Niels Alexander
Grundberg
-
17
Raumo
18
Kock
Gustaf
Gustafson
-
17
Raumo
18
Konstapel
Johan
Hafverman
1842
33
Raumo
80
Timmerman
Sam.
Granlund
1851
24
Letala
48
Båtsman
I.E.
Lemberg
1842
33
Kulla
50
Matros
H.
Bergendahl
1851
24
Siikais
50
Matros
Anton
Sjöblom
1856
19
Raumo
40
Kock
C.A.
Blom
1858
17
Raumo
18
Timmerman
Absalon
Reilander
-
-
Pyhämaa
60
85
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland ID
7
8
9
10
11
12
86
Embarking
Returning
Departure
Destination
Captain
15 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
15 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
15 July 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea and North Sea
-
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
26 August 1875
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea […]
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
5 May 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
I.G. Plyhm
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
26 June 1876
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
18 May 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
26 June 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
Appendix III Function
First names
Surname
Year of birth Age
Born in
Pay (Mark)
Konstapel
Matilda
Plyhm
1832
Åbo
5
43
Matros
Johan
Silvan
1815
60
-
50
Kajutvakt
Alfred
Plyhm
1865
10
Raumo
5
Konstapel
Johan
Hafverman
1842
33
Raumo
80
Timmerman
Absalon
Reilander
-
-
Pyhämaa
60
Timmerman
Sam.
Granlund
1851
24
Letala
48
Båtsman
I.E.
Lemberg
1842
33
Kulla
50
Matros
Anton
Sjöblom
1856
19
Raumo
40
Matros
Johan
Silvan
1815
60
?
50
Jungman
Isak
Laurell
1854
21
Letala
25
Kock
C.A.
Blom
1858
17
Raumo
18
Konstapel
Karl
Palmroth
1839
37
Raumo
80
Timmerman
Absalon
Reilander
1848
28
Pyhämaa
65
Båtsman
E.
Lemberg
1842
34
Kulla
55
Matros
Anton
Sjöblom
1856
20
Raumo
45
Jungman
Isak
Laurell
1854
22
Letala
35
Jungman
Samuel
Rosvall
1853
23
Kodisjoki
25
Jungman
Gust.
Tuomola
1852
24
Wirmo
25
Kock
Joh.
Moberg
1853
23
Letala
16
Konstapel
K.T.
Palmroth
1839
37
Raumo
80
Timmerman
G.
Tuomola
1852
24
Wirmo
40
Båtsman
I.E.
Lemberg
1842
34
Kulla
65
Matros
A.
Sjöblom
1856
20
Raumo
45
Jungman
Fredrik
Wahlgren
1855
21
Raumo
38
Jungman
Sam.
Rosvall
1853
23
Letala
35
Jungman
Joh. Wilh. ??
Uatila (?)
-
-
Waimro (?)
20
Kock
Ludvig
Enlund
1859
17
Raumo
22
Kock
Johan
Alander
1860
16
Raumo
28
Konstapel
Joh. L.
Stenroos
1839
49
Raumo
70
Timmerman
I.
Redlig
1844
44
Euraåminne
45
Båtsman
Osk. F.
Cederman
1863
25
Raumo
45
Lättmatros
Frans Fredr.
Sjöberg
1861
27
Raumo
18
Jungman
Frans Ferd.
Fagerström
1872
16
Raumo
18
Jungman
Joh. Isak
Nord
1867
21
Raumo
16
Kock
Adolf Engelbr.
Söderman
1871
17
Raumo
12
Konstapel
J.L.
Stenroos
1839
49
Raumo
70
Timmerman
Karl V.
Ström
1858
30
Raumo
60
Båtsman
Isak
Redlig
1844
44
Raumo
45
Matros
G.W.
Rickstén
1843
45
Raumo
42
Lättmatros
F.W.
Kordelin
1871
17
Raumo
28
Jungman
J.H.
Rosvall
1870
18
Raumo
25
Jungman
Adolf
Söderman
1871
17
Raumo
18
Kock
Samuel
Lundström
1873
15
Raumo
13
Kajutvakt
Wilhelmina
Hafverman
1846
42
Raumo
10
Kajutvakt
Olga
Hafverman
1879
9
Raumo
5
Konstapel
J.L.
Stenroos
1835
53
Raumo
70
Timmerman
Gust.
Kylänpää
1860
28
Lappo
54
87
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland ID
13
14a
Embarking
Returning
Departure
Destination
Captain
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
31 July 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
2 August 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
2 August 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
7 September 1888
-
Raumo
Germany
F.N. Lahtonen
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
16 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
14b 24 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
24 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
15
16
17
88
24 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
24 October 1888
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
-
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
8 May 1889
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
14 June 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
14 June 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
14 June 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
14 June 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
14 June 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
Appendix III Function
First names
Surname
Year of birth Age
Born in
Pay (Mark)
Båtsman
Isak
Henriksson
1864
24
Lappo
50
Matros
Gust.
Rickstén
1843
45
Raumo
45
Matros
Joh.
Henriksson
1862
26
Raumo
40
Matros
Ewert
Wass
1865
23
Euraåminne
38
Jungman
Joh. Herm.
Volin
1872
16
Raumo
16
Kock
Karl Wald.
Söderman
1872
16
Raumo
18
Matros
Efraim
Efraimsson
1852
36
Letala
40
Jungman
Gustaf
Laine
1861
27
Raumo
35
Konstapel
J.L.
Stenroos
1835
53
Raumo
80
Timmerman
Gust.
Laine
1861
27
Euraåminne
40
Båtsman
Ludvig
Ahlquist
1849
39
Raumo
50
Matros
Gustaf
Rickstén
1844
44
Raumo
50
Matros
Emil
Grönlund
1867
21
Euraåminne
45
Jungman
Joh. H.
Volin
1872
16
Raumo
25
Jungman
Arvid W.
Hellfors
1870
18
Tammerfors
17
Kock
Joh. Alfred
Wilkman
1870
18
Tammerfors
17
Konstapel
Fredrik
Wiik
1862
26
Raumo
70
Timmerman
Johan
Låugfors
1857
31
?
55
Båtsman
Gustaf
Rickstén
1843
45
Raumo
55
Matros
Viktor
Roslöf
1858
30
Raumo
55
Matros
Johan
Sjölund
1848
40
Raumo
45
Lättmatros
Emanuel
Nyroos
1867
21
Pyhämaa
35
Jungman
Arvid
Urnberg
1876
12
Raumo
30
Kock
Gustaf
Rosendahl
1873
15
Raumo
20
Konstapel
Viktor
Ström
1858
30
Raumo
100
Timmerman
Johan F.
Gabrielsson
1850
38
?
55
Jungman
Isak
Jals
1863
25
Raumo
25
Kock
Frans A. (?)
Ro??
1866
22
Raumo
25
Konstapel
Viktor
Ström
1858
31
Raumo
75
Timmerman
Johan
Gabrielsson
1844
45
Raumo
55
Matros
Viktor
Roslöf
1858
31
Raumo
53
Matros
Evvald
Heinonen
1859
30
Letala
55
Jungman
Sigfrid
Johansson
1871
18
Euraåminne
25
Jungman
Frans Wilh.
Almquist
1871
18
Raumo
22
Jungman
Joh. Alex.
Forsman
1870
19
Euraåminne
16
Kock
Joh. Adrian
Wirtenen
1871
18
Euraåminne
16
Konstapel
Evaald (?)
Heinonen
1852
37
Letala
65
Båtsman
Karl Samuel
Blom
1849
40
Nystad
55
Jungman
Julius Herib.
Wiitanen
1869
20
Pyhämaa
22
Kock
Krist. Edoin
Heltonen
1874
15
Pyhämaa
16
Lättmatros
K.H. Alex.
Lindström
1863
26
Raumo
38
Konstapel
Isak
Aaltonen
1849
40
Pyhämaa
65
Timmerman
Johan
Enblom
1854
35
Raumo
50
Båtsman
Karl Sam.
Blom
1849
40
Nystad
55
Matros
Viktor
Roslöf
1858
31
Raumo
50
Matros
Viktor
Laitonen
1870
19
Pyhämaa
38
Jungman
Alexander
Forsman
1870
19
Euraåminne
23
89
Ågabet Wreck, Langeland ID
18
19
20
21
22
90
Embarking
Returning
Departure
Destination
Captain
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
23 July 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1889
-
Raumo
-
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
9 May 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
24 Augustus 1892
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Wilén
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 June 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
G. Hafverman
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
7 October 1893
-
Raumo
Baltic Sea
D. Lundgren
Appendix III Function
First names
Surname
Year of birth Age
Born in
Pay (Mark)
Jungman
Julius
Wiitanen
1869
Pyhämaa
23
20
Kock
Gustaf
Kinimäki
1875
14
Raumo
15
Konstapel
Isak
Aaltonen
1849
40
Pyhämaa
65
Timmerman
Johan
Enblom
1854
35
Raumo
50
Båtsman
Viktor
Roslöf
1858
31
Raumo
50
Lättmatros
Alexander
Forsman
1870
19
Euraåminne
28
Jungman
Sam. Mich.
Hollstén
1866
23
Raumo
25
Jungman
Otto V.
Wesander
1870
19
Raumo
30
Kock
Frans
Lundgrén
1870
19
Raumo
14
Konstapel
S. (?)
Wallberg (?)
1876
16
Raumo
70
Båtsman
Eman.
Gustafsson
1839
53
Raumo
50
Timmerman
Vikt. Ferd.
Lindbom
1865
27
Raumo
55
Lättmatros
Gustaf
Wirtanen
1872
20
Raumo
38
Lättmatros
Joh.
Enblom
1854
38
Raumo
50
Jungman
Johan Gust.
Lindbom
1875
17
Raumo
20
Jungman
Juko
Jalo
1865
27
Nakkila
38
Kock
Oskar
Holmström
1874
18
Raumo
15
Konstapel
Viktor
Lindbom
1865
27
Raumo
70
Båtsman
?
?auvalin
1865
27
Raumo
50
Matros
Efr.
Heinonen
1865
27
Raumo
37
Matros
Julius H.
Wiitanen
1869
23
Pyhämaa
35
Matros
V. Wilh.
Nieminen
1870
22
Euraåminne
30
Jungman
Joh. Gust.
Lindbom
1872
20
Raumo
25
Lättmatros
Gust.
Wirtanen
1872
20
Raumo
38
Kock
Alfred
Saren
1876
16
Pyhämaa
18
Konstapel
Hans Henr.
Nordman
1864
29
Pyhämaa
60
Timmerman
Wilhelm
Fredling
1861
32
Letala
45
Matros
Johan Samuel
Landmark
1867
26
Raumo
30
Matros
Gustaf
Wirtanen
1872
21
Raumo
35
Jungman
Joh. Gust.
Lindbom
1875
18
Raumo
23
Jungman
J.F.
Laakoonen
1870
23
Raumo
20
Kock
Joh. Erik
Nordman
1875
18
Raumo
10
Jungman
Gustaf Emil
??
1874
19
Lappi
25
Konstapel
Gust.
Justen
1852
41
Raumo
65
Lättmatros
Karl. Em.
Palmroth
1876
17
Raumo
35
Lättmatros
Vikt. Em.
Granlund
1874
19
Björneborg
26
Jungman
Frans Is.
Luominen
1872
21
Raumo
25
Jungman
Osk. A.
Urko
1875
18
Euraåminne
25
Jungman
Karl
Reinaar
1868
25
Raumo
20
Kock
Otto
Björkquist
1877
16
Raumo
20
91
Ă&#x2026;gabet Wreck, Langeland
92
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Oversize site plan in pocket at the back of report.
93
0
Legend: Wedged treenail Treenail
Treenail hole Holes after square-shaftet iron nails Finds 1m
Drawing No:
Project: Ågab Wreck Drawn by:
Site Code: ØHM 15312 Digitised by:
1
Date: 03-04-2013
Scale: 1:20
Layout by:
Alexander Cattrysse
Auer and Thomsen
TIM-030
TIM-019 TIM-020
TIM-147
TIM-073
053
TIM-018
TIM-074
Dendrosample
Iron
TIM-072
TIM-069
TIM-012
TIM-034
TIM-083
Dendrosample
TIM-065
TIM-064
TIM-070
TIM-150
TIM-066
TIM-017
TIM-085/012 TIM-091 TIM-081 TIM-092 TIM-075 TIM-082 TIM-084
TIM-037 Dendro-sample
TIM-040
TIM-041
TIM-148
TIM-060
TIM-093
TIM-021
TIM-022
TIM-024
TIM-023
TIM-039
TIM-076
TIM-006
Concretion
TIM-004
TIM-020
TIM-025
TIM-028
TIM-032
TIM-077
TIM-003
012 015 021
TIM-019
TIM-029
TIM-030
TIM-031
TIM-078
TIM-142
TIM-010
TIM-093
TIM-018
TIM-033
TIM-034
TIM-079
013
TIM-145
TIM-007
TIM-094
TIM-017
TIM-035
TIM-036
TIM-080
TIM-046
TIM-050
TIM-052
TIM-053
016
TIM-058
TIM-095
TIM085/012
Dendro Sample
TIM-015
TIM-016
TIM-013 TIM-014
TIM-038
TIM-086
TIM-042
008
TIM-055
TIM-062
TIM-063
TIM-061
TIM-097
TIM-002
TIM-003
TIM-011
TIM-010
TIM-008
TIM-009
TIM-087
TIM-045
TIM-054
TIM-147
TIM-146
TIM-059
Tim-005 TIM-001
TIM-151 Indentation of iron ring TIM-096
067
Section 4 m TIM-098
Section 7 m
TIM-099
Section 8 m
TIM-058/059
Section 9,8 m
TIM-056/057
Main baseline TIM-006
48
TIM-007
TIM-0 Dendro Sample
49
TIM-071
26 TIM-0 TIM-088
TIM-0
TIM-090
27
TIM-066
TIM-061
51
TIM-068
044
TIM-0 TIM-144
TIM-0
TIM-100
TIM-060 TIM-067
TIM-058/059
Baseline cut 4 meters to reduce drawing size 024
Section drawings 4 meter crosssection TIM-016 TIM-022 TIM-023
TIM-021 TIM-065
7 meter crosssection TIM-045 TIM-142
TIM-072
8 meter crosssection TIM-052
TIM-145
9.8 meter crosssection TIM-146
Concretion
Fieldschool 2012
Øhavsmuseet
Ă&#x2DC;havsmuseet ISBN 978-87-996237-0-9