Fieldwork Report Ågabet Wreck, Langeland 2012

FIELDWORK REPORT

Ågabet Wreck, Langeland 2012

�ƐďũĞƌŐ�DĂƌŝƟŵĞ��ƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐǇ�ZĞƉŽƌƚƐ�ϲ

�ĚŝƚĞĚ�ďǇ�:ĞŶƐ��ƵĞƌ͕ �,ŽůŐĞƌ�^ĐŚǁĞŝƚǌĞƌ�Θ��ŚƌŝƐƟĂŶ�dŚŽŵƐĞŶ

University of Southern DenmarkMaritime Archaeology Programme

Fieldwork Report 2012

Esbjerg Maritime Archaeology Reports 6

Edited by Jens Auer, Holger Schweitzer and Christian Thomsen

Ågabet Wreck, Langeland

Edited by:Jens Auer, Holger Schweitzer, Christian Thomsen

With contributions by:Jens Auer

Alexander CattrysseMassimilano Ditta

Margaret LoganDan Nicolescu

Dimitra PerissiouStephanie Said

Holger SchweitzerChristian Thomsen

Caroline Visser

Esbjerg Maritime Archaeology Reportsare an internally peer reviewed series

published byMaritime Archaeology Programme

University of Southern Denmarkwww.maritimearchaeology.dk

under supervision ofseries editor Thijs Maarleveld

© 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 sup-ported 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 Jöns-son from the Øhavsmuseet conservation department for not only carrying out the textile and fibre analy-sis, 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. With-out 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 pos-sible.

The excavation team in front of the Action Efterskole in Bagenkop..

Many thanks also go to our ‘volunteers’ Sanne Hoffman, Anders Olesen and Rolf Bjørling Salo-monsen, and our day visitor and filmmaker Jes-per Rossen.

Fellow SDU students and land survey team mem-bers Sylvia Bates, Natalia Bain and Moriah Sher-man also helped a great deal to keep the field-school running smoothly.

Preface

The Potential of Maritime Archaeology can be fulfilled through a closer networkMaritime Archaeology in Denmark ought to be like a jewel in the crown in relation to research and dis-semination 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. Need-less 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

vii

Contents1. 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

viii


1

Introduction

1. Introductionby Jens Auer

1.1 Project backgroundThe Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme (MAP) is a two-year international postgradu-ate 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 sec-ond semester, and requires them to apply those in a practical and realistic setting. The field school course follows a project-based approach to learn-ing.

It is planned and prepared by the course lec-turer 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 supervi-sion of the work on site. The data gathered dur-ing the fieldwork is analysed and processed in the course of the third semester, and the result-ing publication or report is prepared jointly by all field-school participants.

In 2012, the field school was organised in Den-mark and in conjunction with one of the five Dan-ish museums with responsibility for maritime archaeology, the Øhavsmuseet based in Rud-købing and Fåborg. It took place in Bagenkop, a small village at the southern tip of the island Langeland.

1.2 Aims and ObjectivesThe primary aim of the field school course is edu-cational. The course is an important part of the curriculum during which students learn the prep-aration, organisation and day-to-day running of field projects and get an insight into the analy-sis of gathered data and the production of field-work reports. However, the course is also geared towards generating research results, which con-tribute 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 ana-lyse 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 over-view 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 tim-bers where possible and to collect sufficient information for a detailed description and anal-ysis 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 abso-lutely necessary for an understanding of the site. All timbers were to be left in-situ, but a number of samples were acquired for dendrochronologi-cal 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 positioningAll 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 co-ordinate 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.

2


2. Site Locationby 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 nar-row 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 Dovn-sklint and Gulstav are visible for many nautical miles.

On the western side of the island, only three kilo-metres from the southern tip lies the fishing vil-lage 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.

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 domi-nated by characteristic pronounced rounded hat hills formed in the last period of the latest Ice Age.

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 pos-sible 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 exten-sions and additions.

Less than half a kilometre from the church, a small fortification was built as a refuge or strong-hold 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 signifi-cant natural harbour on a coastline which is oth-erwise 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 har-bour 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

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.

3

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.

m

Bage

nkop harbour

Ågabet Wreck

Figure 2: Site location north of Bagenkop. Auer 2013, map produced in Quantum GIS based on Kort 10 geodata, Geo-datastyrelsen.

4


3. Site Historyby 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 north-ern 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 under-standing the discovery.

In 2011, Øhavsmuseet established contact with the Maritime Archaeology Programme at the Uni-versity 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 Hum-mingbird 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 sup-ported by underwater photographs, the discov-ery of yet another wreck in the Bay near Bagen-kop seemed likely.

In order to solve this question and collect more information for a possible future excavation cam-paign, a second, more extensive two-day inspec-tion 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 Øhavs-museet. Using a dredge, the site was partially

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 neces-sary, 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.

5

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.

6


4. Fieldwork 2012By Jens Auer & Dan Nicolescu

4.1 Organisation

Time frameThe field school was planned for a three-week period between July 23rd 2012 and August 10th 2012. However, strong westerly winds made div-ing 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 Uni-versity course during the autumn semester 2012.

PersonnelThe main survey team for the wreck site was comprised of eight 2nd year MAP Masters stu-dents, two supervisory SDU staff members and one professional archaeologist from Øhavsmu-seet. 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 par-ticipated 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 arrangementsField school participants were housed in the former Sydlangelands Maritim Efterskole (now Action Efterskole), situated near the harbour in Bagenkop. Besides bedrooms and sanitary facili-ties, the school made available a shed for equip-ment 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.

ScheduleDaily 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.

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 opera-tor. 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 mem-ber 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.

EquipmentTwo 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 com-pensators. To economise air consumption and allow for better surface communication, the full-face masks were exchanged for half masks. Divers could be seen from the surface at all times and could be alerted using sound signals.

7

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.

DivingWith the exception of a few site-specific altera-tions, 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 rela-tively small wreck site, and work tasks required the divers to move around the site, surface teth-ers were considered a hazard. Furthermore, the extremely shallow water depth and good under-water visibility allowed all divers to be monitored from the surface. Tethers and surface communi-cation 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 oversee-ing dives, while the in-water supervisor moni-tored 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 efficiencyDiving 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 under-water.

4.2 Methodology

SearchAlthough 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 relo-cated. 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 sys-tematic 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.

ExcavationAfter 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 Øhavsmuseet boat served as a platform for the dredging pumps and was manned by a pump operator. MAP 2012.

8


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 clear-ing 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).

Despite the best efforts to protect and stabilize the excavated areas, the site was covered up dur-ing 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 networkAs a first stage in the recording process, all rec-ognizable 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 conse-quence appeared very bright in recording pho-tographs. 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 supple-mented 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 com-puters.

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-

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 dis-tance from excavated area to the exposed stern-post and rudder was more than 10m, it was decided to record the stern using a separate base line.

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 sta-tion 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 posi-tioned above the endpoints of all base lines by a diver and a surface swimmer. Points and dis-tances were recorded directly into Rhinoceros3D software using the Termite plugin developed by Frederik Hyttel (Hyttel, 2011). The average accu-racy achieved with this method was +/- 8cm, which was deemed sufficient considering the purpose (Figure 7).

Underwater drawing was carried out using pen-cils and millimetric permatrace. After each dive, but at the latest at the end of each day, the under-water drawings were transferred onto a master site plan in the office. This ensured consistency in the drawing and allowed to check recording accu-racy and fit between individual drawings.

In addition to the site plan, four offset profiles were recorded at 4m, 7m, 8m and 9.8m respec-tively.The finished site plan was scanned in post-

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.

9

Fieldwork 2012

processing and digitised using Adobe Illustrator CS5 (Appendix IV).

The drawn record was supplemented with pho-tographs 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.

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 selec-tion was drawn and photographed in the photo laboratory of Øhavsmuseet in Rudkøbing (see section 5.2).

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

support a possible future exhibition or showcase on the shipwreck (see section 5.2).

SamplingA 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.

Rope and textile found on site was also sampled. These samples were analysed by the conservators Ida Hovmand and Nanna Jönsson of Øhavsmu-seet. The textile and fibre analysis was explained and discussed with the field school participants during a day of post-processing at the conserva-tion facilities of Øhavsmuseet in Rudkøbing.

Bow

Stern (Rudder)

0 50m

Bagenkop

Survey Methodology

TIM-048 TIM-026

TIM-049

TIM-051

TIM-027

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 Integra-tion and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (ian.umces.edu/symbols/)..

10


5. Results of in-situ recording

5.1 The WreckBy 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 addi-tion, a keyhole excavation was carried out around the rudder and sternpost. The preserved remains of the ship consist mainly of framing and plank-ing 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 pro-tected 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 construc-tional elements of the surviving hull structure recorded during the 2012 excavation. It has to be kept in mind that the presented data is lim-ited as the wreck was not fully excavated and a non-destructive approach was taken for excava-tion and recording (see section 4). Structural hull elements are presented and grouped according to function and descriptions include detailed infor-mation on raw materials, position, dimension and form, joints and fastenings.

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 pos-sibilities of interpretation exist, these are offered.

Position, dimensions, form and fasteningsThe exposed part of the bow is composed of five major elements. Four of these are compassed tim-bers 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 tim-ber 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 pro-trudes 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 rab-bet for clinker planking are visible underneath the concretion on both sides of the timber (Fig-ure 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 forma-tion processes. The concretion around the timber

11

Results of in-situ recording

TIM-048

TIM-026

TIM-049

TIM-051

TIM-027

Sternpost and Rudder (11m southeast of excavated area)

Keel (broken away underneath wreck)(56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 67)

Possible keelson or deadwood (002)

Apron for original stempost (Clinker) (002)

Original stempost (Clinker) (75, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92)

Second stempost and possibly cutwater (Carvel) (73, 74)

Sternpost

Rudder

TIM-074

TIM-073

TIM-058/059

TIM-099

TIM-151

TIM-002

TIM-097

TIM-093

TIM-075

TIM-093

TIM-083

TIM-082

TIM-081

TIM-084

TIM-092

TIM-091 TIM-085/012

TIM-004

TIM-085/012

Dendro-sample

TIN-067TIM-060

TIM-068

TIM-056/057

TIM-058/059

TIM-100

TIM-151

TIM-098

Indentation of iron ring

TIM-096

TIM-095

TIM-094

Concretion

TIM-008

TIM-007

TIM-010

TIM-011

TIM-035

TIM-033

TIM-029

TIM-025

TIM-028

TIM-022

TIM-024

TIM-079

TIM-076TIM-077TIM-078TIM-080


TIM-009

TIM-006

TIM-003

TIM-013TIM-014

TIM-015

Dendro Sample

TIM-016 TIM-017

TIM-036

TIM-018

TIM-034

TIM-019

TIM-030

TIM-031

TIM-020

TIM-032

TIM-023

TIM-021

TIM-037

TIM-064

TIM-070

TIM-065

TIM-072

TIM-150

TIM-142

TIM-148

TIM-069

TIM-146

TIM-144

TIM-038

TIM-039

Dendro Sample

TIM-071 TIM-040

TIM-041

TIM-042

TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-046

TIM-050

TIM-145

TIM-052

TIM-061

TIM-054TIM-053

TIM-055

TIM-062

TIM-063

TIM-147

Dendro-sample

Iron

Dendro-sample

TIM-001Tim-005

0 1m

Figure 8: Elements of the bow assembly, keel and stern are highlighted in grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digi-tised by Cattrysse 2012.

12


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 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).

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 afore-mentioned 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 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.

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.

13


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. 38˚ forward and are lying with the same portside slant as the remain-der of the bow assembly. They are exposed for a length of ca. 45cm. The inner timber (74) meas-ures 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.

KeelDuring the excavation, it was expected that the keel would be found below the framing in the cen-tre 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 inter-pretation as keel or parts of the keel.

Dimensions and formAs the timbers are deeply embedded in surround-ing sediments, their full extent could only be exposed in a small keyhole on the starboard side (Figure 8). Four different elements were discern-ible. 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 obvi-ous scarfs or other fastenings were observed.

The sided dimension of these timbers could not be established as the overlying deadwood pro-hibited access. However, assuming that both elements have similar widths, a sided measure-ment 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 lay-ered parts, these could be termed keel (56-59), rider keel (60) and false keel (67).

Sternpost and rudderSternpost 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 associ-ated structural elements at the stern of the wreck. Although the upper ends are eroded, both, stern-post 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 formThe visible part of the stern consists of two soft-wood 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 tim-ber an elaborate carved mark was observed (Fig-ure 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-

14


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

slightly towards the starboard side. The total pre-served width is 1.04m, while the thickness is ca. 25cm.

The rudder is comprised of three different soft-wood 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 meas-ured as being ca. 22cm long and having a diam-eter of 5cm.

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.

PlankingThe 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.

Figure 12: Carved draught mark in the moulded side of the inner sternpost (27). Auer 2012.

15


TIM-074

TIM-073

TIM-058/059

TIM-099

TIM-151

TIM-002

TIM-097

TIM-093

TIM-075

TIM-093

TIM-083

TIM-082

TIM-081

TIM-084

TIM-092

TIM-091 TIM-085/012

TIM-004

TIM-085/012

Dendro-sample

TIN-067TIM-060

TIM-068

TIM-056/057

TIM-058/059

TIM-100

TIM-151

TIM-098


TIM-096

TIM-095

TIM-094

Concretion

TIM-008

TIM-007

TIM-010

TIM-011

TIM-035

TIM-033

TIM-029

TIM-025

TIM-028

TIM-022

TIM-024

TIM-079



TIM-009

TIM-006

TIM-003

TIM-013TIM-014

TIM-015

Dendro Sample

TIM-016 TIM-017

TIM-036

TIM-018

TIM-034

TIM-019

TIM-030

TIM-031

TIM-020

TIM-032

TIM-023

TIM-021

TIM-037

TIM-064

TIM-070

TIM-065

TIM-072

TIM-150

TIM-142

TIM-148

TIM-069

TIM-146

TIM-144

TIM-038

TIM-039

Dendro Sample

TIM-071 TIM-040

TIM-041

TIM-042

TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-046

TIM-050

TIM-145

TIM-052

TIM-061

TIM-054TIM-053

TIM-055

TIM-062

TIM-063

TIM-147

Dendro-sample

Iron

Dendro-sample

TIM-001Tim-005

0 1m

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.

16


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, prob-ably 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 exca-vated 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 hid-den 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 materialsInformation regarding timber conversion and wood technology is limited as it is based on the samples acquired for dendrochronological anal-ysis 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.

DimensionsAs mentioned above the inner layer of hull plank-ing is of comprised of a bottom section of 10 clinker strakes followed by flush laid carvel plank-ing from below the turn of the bilge upwards (Fig-ure 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 infor-mation 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 in-situ (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 aver-age 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.

17


TIM-074

TIM-073

TIM-058/059

TIM-099

TIM-151

TIM-002

TIM-097

TIM-093

TIM-075

TIM-093

TIM-083

TIM-082

TIM-081

TIM-084

TIM-092

TIM-091 TIM-085/012

TIM-004

TIM-085/012

Dendro-sample

TIN-067TIM-060

TIM-068

TIM-056/057

TIM-058/059

TIM-100

TIM-151

TIM-098


TIM-096

TIM-095

TIM-094

Concretion

TIM-008

TIM-007

TIM-010

TIM-011

TIM-035

TIM-033

TIM-029

TIM-025

TIM-028

TIM-022

TIM-024

TIM-079



TIM-009

TIM-006

TIM-003

TIM-013TIM-014

TIM-015

Dendro Sample

TIM-016 TIM-017

TIM-036

TIM-018

TIM-034

TIM-019

TIM-030

TIM-031

TIM-020

TIM-032

TIM-023

TIM-021

TIM-037

TIM-064

TIM-070

TIM-065

TIM-072

TIM-150

TIM-142

TIM-148

TIM-069

TIM-146

TIM-144

TIM-038

TIM-039

Dendro Sample

TIM-071 TIM-040

TIM-041

TIM-042

TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-046

TIM-050

TIM-145

TIM-052

TIM-061

TIM-054TIM-053

TIM-055

TIM-062

TIM-063

TIM-147

Dendro-sample

Iron

Dendro-sample

TIM-001Tim-005

0 1m

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.

18


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 var-ied from 7cm near the keel to around 5cm near the turn of the bilge.

Strake overlapsPlank overlaps of adjoining clinker strakes are fastened with small wooden nails of 15mm diam-eter, 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 indica-tion towards the width of the planks seams. Bev-els were visible on the exposed lands.

Joints between strake planksAdjoining clinker planks in the same strake are not scarfed together as known from e.g. medi-eval 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 aver-age 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 mate-rial 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).

WaterproofingMats of animal hair, most likely horse hair (Ida Hovmand, Øhavsmuseet 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 FeaturesHoles 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.

19


TIM-074

TIM-073

TIM-058/059

TIM-099

TIM-151

TIM-002

TIM-097

TIM-093

TIM-075

TIM-093

TIM-083

TIM-082

TIM-081

TIM-084

TIM-092

TIM-091 TIM-085/012

TIM-004

TIM-085/012

Dendro-sample

TIN-067TIM-060

TIM-068

TIM-056/057

TIM-058/059

TIM-100

TIM-151

TIM-098


TIM-096

TIM-095

TIM-094

Concretion

TIM-008

TIM-007

TIM-010

TIM-011

TIM-035

TIM-033

TIM-029

TIM-025

TIM-028

TIM-022

TIM-024

TIM-079



TIM-009

TIM-006

TIM-003

TIM-013TIM-014

TIM-015

Dendro Sample

TIM-016 TIM-017

TIM-036

TIM-018

TIM-034

TIM-019

TIM-030

TIM-031

TIM-020

TIM-032

TIM-023

TIM-021

TIM-037

TIM-064

TIM-070

TIM-065

TIM-072

TIM-150

TIM-142

TIM-148

TIM-069

TIM-146

TIM-144

TIM-038

TIM-039

Dendro Sample

TIM-071 TIM-040

TIM-041

TIM-042

TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-046

TIM-050

TIM-145

TIM-052

TIM-061

TIM-054TIM-053

TIM-055

TIM-062

TIM-063

TIM-147

Dendro-sample

Iron

Dendro-sample

TIM-001Tim-005

0 1m

Figure 18: Overview plan of the wreck. Composite carvel frames are highlighted in dark grey, single frames are high-lighted in light grey. Auer 2013 based on the site plan digitised by Cattrysse 2012.

20


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.

FramingA total of twenty framing elements were uncov-ered 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-assem-bled 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 dam-aged. This makes the use of traditional terminol-ogy (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.

Raw materialsAll recorded frames are made of softwood, most probably pine. One frame was sampled for den-drochronological analysis (39), however the results are still pending. Most frames appear to be well squared and sapwood was not observed.

PositioningAlthough the excavation only provides limited insight into the framing of the vessel, it was pos-sible to observe a general framing pattern. Com-posite carvel frames are spaced at fairly regular intervals of 2m, measured from centre to centre. Three composite frames were uncovered dur-ing 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, indicat-ing 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 formThe composite carvel frames are assembled from up to five individual elements, which are scarfed together and fastened to the adjoining compo-nents 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

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.

21


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 tim-bers. 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 water-proofing abutting clinker planks are situated, joggles spanned two strakes to accommodate for the chock positions (Figure 20). With the transi-tion 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 22: Cross-section through a composite carvel frame. The keel is not preserved and has been reconstructed freely. Ditta 2013.

Figure 21: Cross-section through a single frame. The keel is not preserved and has been reconstructed freely. Ditta 2013.

22


Joints between framing componentsThe individual elements of composite frames are joined together with scarf joints. These vary in length between 50cm and 1.27m. The irregu-lar 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 avail-able 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 adjoin-ing components of single frames simply abut each other. This was observed sternwards of the exca-vated area as well as in frames 45/ 66 and 50.

FasteningsThe frames of the vessel are fastened to the under-lying planking with wooden trenails. Plain tre-nails 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. Compos-ite 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 observa-tion the purpose of these nails could not be deter-mined.

Ceiling plank or stringerThe 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 con-nected 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.

23


5.2 ArtefactsBy Margaret Logan

During the excavation a small number of artefacts were recovered from the wreck, including rig-ging 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, suggest-ing 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 sheaveA 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 rig-ging element and consisted of wooden shells con-taining 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 cen-tre (Figure 24). The piece appears to be made of lignum vitae, a tropical hardwood known for its strength and density (Kemp, 1976). A sharply-defined 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

turned along the sheave’s edge to receive a rope of ca. 20mm circumference.

Rope/ CordageThe discovered cordage remains were largely in very good condition due to the excellent preserva-tion 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 selec-tion of cordage remains for further analysis. This showed that jute fibres were used as raw mate-rials 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 pro-cess. Rope is comprised of fibres that are spun into yarns, which are in turn spun in the oppo-site 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,

0 5 cm

Figure 24: Wooden sheave (ART-012). MAP 2012.

24


TIM-074

TIM-073

TIM-058/059

TIM-099

TIM-151

TIM-002

TIM-097

TIM-093

TIM-075

TIM-093

TIM-083

TIM-082

TIM-081

TIM-084

TIM-092

TIM-091 TIM-085/012

TIM-004

TIM-085/012

Dendro-sample

TIN-067TIM-060

TIM-068

TIM-056/057

TIM-058/059

TIM-100

TIM-151

TIM-098


TIM-096

TIM-095

TIM-094

Concretion

TIM-008

TIM-007

TIM-010

TIM-011

TIM-035

TIM-033

TIM-029

TIM-025

TIM-028

TIM-022

TIM-024

TIM-079



TIM-009

TIM-006

TIM-003

TIM-013TIM-014

TIM-015

Dendro Sample

TIM-016 TIM-017

TIM-036

TIM-018

TIM-034

TIM-019

TIM-030

TIM-031

TIM-020

TIM-032

TIM-023

TIM-021

TIM-037

TIM-064

TIM-070

TIM-065

TIM-072

TIM-150

TIM-142

TIM-148

TIM-069

TIM-146

TIM-144

TIM-038

TIM-039

Dendro Sample

TIM-071 TIM-040

TIM-041

TIM-042

TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-046

TIM-050

TIM-145

TIM-052

TIM-061

TIM-054TIM-053

TIM-055

TIM-062

TIM-063

TIM-147

Dendro-sample

Iron

Dendro-sample

TIM-001Tim-005

0 1m

008

012

021

013

015

016

044

053

072

067

008

012

021

013

015

016

044

053072

067

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.

25


depending on whether the maker is right-handed or left-handed. As right-handed rope makers pro-duce “Z” twists, these are generally more com-mon. 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. Deter-mining 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 cord-age 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.

TextilesSeveral fragments of fragile textile (ART-053) were found between the two layers of hull plank-ing (see section 5.1). Despite its delicate condition the weave could still be identified. Although por-tions 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 5 cm

Figure 29: Textile fragment found between the two lay-ers of hull planking (ART-053). MAP 2012.

0 5 cm

Figure 27: Rope in iron concretion (ART-066). MAP 2012.

0 2 cm

Figure 26: Length of cordage (ART-044). Bain 2012..

0 2 cm

Figure 28: Slipped reef knot in length of jute cordage (ART-067). Logan 2012.

26


the weft travels over one and under one warp-thread (Andersen, 1995). Both the weft and the warp threads are “Z” twisted. Analysis showed it was made of jute, and probably made on a stand-ing loom. Due to the looseness of the weave, it was most likely handmade and of lower quality. Lower-quality cloth was usually used for pack-ing 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).

CeramicThe 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 fric-tion 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 earthen-ware known as faïence. Tin glazing involves glaz-ing 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 imita-tion of Chinese porcelain. In the following centu-ries the technique spread across Europe and by the 19th century faïence could be found wide-spread 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 10 cm

Figure 33: Crescent shaped wooden object with unknown function (ART-013). MAP 2012.

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.

27


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 cross-section. In addition ART-005 has an “H”-shaped scratch on the surface of the unworked side (Fig-ure 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 Nor-wegian frigate Lossen (Molaug & Scheen, 1983), the Swedish ship of the line Prinsessan Hedvig Sophia (Auer and Schweitzer 2011). While gam-bling 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 artefactA crescent-shaped wooden object (ART-013) of unknown purpose was recovered from between frame timbers (Figure 33). It is in good preser-vation 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 thick-ness 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 pur-pose of the object could not be determined with certainty. It resembles, however, crosstrees as known e.g. from eighteenth and nineteenth cen-tury British warships (Marquardt, 1992). Nev-ertheless the possibility remains that the object is not related to rigging or other naval usage and may have belonged to the ship’s furniture.

28


6. Interpretation and comparative analysis

6.1 Dating and constructionBy 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 meas-ured as 24m, while the distance between the cen-tre 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 fas-tened 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 plank-ing, 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 conver-sion, care was taken to obtain dendrochronologi-cal samples from both layers.

To date, three samples were analysed (65, 72, 146). All are pine and none had sapwood pre-served. The samples match best with curves from the Swedish east coast, Gotland and the Åland isles. A match with curves from the Finnish main-land 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 charac-terized 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 constructionDuring the in-situ recording a number of inter-esting construction features were observed (see

section 5.1). The presence of two layers of outer hull planking has already been mentioned. Fur-ther ‘anomalies’ include the presence of clinker strakes in the bottom of the hull, the use of com-posite 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 dis-cussion of the concept behind the design and con-struction of the ship (see section 6.4). Although the authors present the sequence of construction they consider the most likely, alternative possi-bilities 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 interpreta-tion. Based on the fact that clinker planking is generally an indication of he ‘shell-first’ concept (Hasslöf et al., 1972), it would seem highly proba-ble 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 (Fig-ure 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.

29

Interpretation and comparative analysis

Figure 36: Preparing for the insertion of composite frames. Ditta 2013.

Figure 35: Constructing the clinker bottom. Ditta 2013.

Figure 34: Laying the keel and erecting the posts. Ditta 2013.

30


Figure 39: Planking up. Ditta 2013.

Figure 38: Fastening ribbands and inserting filling frames. Ditta 2013.

Figure 37: Setting up the composite carvel frames. Ditta 2013.

31


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 fill-ing 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 pre-assembled 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 compos-ite frames are related to the second carvel skin and thus represent a rebuild. In this case, how-ever, there should be visible remains of the half-carvel 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 contempo-rary with the inner half-carvel shell.

Figure 36 shows the use of moulds as one pos-sible 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 fill-ing 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 con-struction 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 con-struction, or does it represent a later modifica-tion? 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 par-tially 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 con-struction 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, how-ever, 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 construc-tion 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 rep-resents a later modification, this would have changed the vessel significantly. Not only by add-ing extra weight to the outside, but also by chang-ing 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 studyBy 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.

MethodologyThe 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. Strand-ing 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 docu-ments deal with cases where the ship was either

32


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 statis-tics (‘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 Mari-time Library in Copenhagen (Indenrigsminis-teriet, 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’ (match-ing both ‘grundstødt’ (grounded) and ‘grundstød-ning’ (grounding)) and ‘strand’ (matching both ‘strandede’/’strandet’ (stranded) and ‘stranding’ (stranding)). The search in the stranding docu-ments and the lists of sea-accidents yields five possible matches with our wreck. These five pos-sible 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 can-not be identified in greater detail.

The five possible matches are shown in Table 1. The entry for the accident of Anna Amalia men-tions that the ship is made of oak (Indenrigsmin-isteriet, 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 remain-ing 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 aban-doned (Langelands Avis, 1893b). Accordingly, only Petto may have entered in the archaeological record near the coast of Langeland. The newspa-per 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 ‘sjö-manshus’ in Rauma. The ‘sjömanshus’ was origi-nally 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 ‘sjöman-shus’ 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 ‘sjöman-shus’ of ‘Östersjöskepparen’ (‘Baltic Sea skipper’) Gustaf Hafverman, the owner of Pettu when it stranded in 1893.

Furthermore the Rauma Maritime Museum pro-vided ownership documents for two owners, each

Ship name Stranding date Stranding location Home port Source

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.

33


owning part of the ship, from 1873 (18730514 PETTU certificat A-B, 1873; 18730514 PETTU skonert certificat C-D, 1873); an ownership docu-ment form 1874 (18740418 PETTU skonert cer-tificat 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. Unfor-tunately it was not possible to locate any docu-ments relating to the building of Pettu, or to the shipyard where she was built. The Tammisaari (Ekenäs), Karjaa (Karis) and Pohja (Pojo) munici-palities 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: Särk-isalo) 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 au-thor 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).

34


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 nine-teenth 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 mas-ter 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. How-ever, Jansson might be identical with a Justus Wil-helm 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 (Bal-thasar, 2010).

Because the ‘bilbref’ is not available, only the doc-uments 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 ‘skon-ert’ (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 chap-ter 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 (sec-tion 6.1) and further support a positive identifica-tion 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 prob-ably looked similar to the contemporary Minerva and Neptunus (Figures 41 and 42 and section 6.3).

Owning PettuIt 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.

35


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 rakentajan-todistus 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 Swedish-speakers. In many cases they came from seafar-ing 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.

36


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 reg-istered 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 availa-ble record of him from the ‘sjömanshus’ in Rauma shows him sailing out as a jungman (deckhand) on the 23rd of September 1863 (Hafverman Gus-taf 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 pur-chased half of the ship from Sofia Lindroos. That year he sailed to Britain twice. He stopped sail-ing Pettu again in 1875 and sailed on Dygden instead until 1878 when he returned to the Pettu after becoming its sole owner (Hafverman Gus-taf 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.

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 skip-per David Lundgren on the 7th of October 1893.

After that Hafverman continued sailing to Ger-many 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 voy-ages 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 composi-tion 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 styr-man’, so pilot as well as first mate. Other recur-ring 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 ‘kajut-vakt’ 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

37


Hafverman (born in 1879). Quite possibly this is a similar situation, in which skipper Gustaf Hafver-man 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 Finn-ish 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 men-tioned 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, Pyhä-maa, Uusikaupunki (Nystad), Pori (Björneborg) and Tampere (Tammerfors)).

Apart from the two trips two Britain in 1874, Pettu sailed only on the Baltic destined for Ger-many. On the 20th of April 1874 Pettu sailed to Vuojoki to load timber (trävarer) and then con-tinued 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 Lon-don on the 24th of October 1874. The only other reference to cargo in the crew lists of the ‘sjöman-shus’, 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 mag-istrate’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 charac-teristic for vessels carrying timber. It is therefore likely that Pettu transported timber on most or all of its trips. Economic growth in Germany cre-ated a high demand for timber and the German Baltic area lacked significant forests (Kaukiainen, 2004a).

The end of PettuWhen Pettu stranded she was en route from Flens-burg 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 Pro-vincial 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 div-ing and salvaging activities arrived at the strand-ing 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 agree-ment with a salvaging company to refloat Pettu and bring it to the nearest harbour for 1000 kro-

38


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 auc-tion was held in the harbour of Bagenkop sell-ing 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, stand-ing rigging and running rigging, a winddriven pump (”vindmølle med pumpe”), two other pumps, two wrecked masts, bars and yards, haw-sers and blocks, two side lights, one ship’s clock, water barrels, meat vessels, pots and kettles, sup-plies, planks, and a large amount of firewood and iron (Langelands Avis, 1894) (Figure 43).

6.3 Reconstructing PettuBy Massimiliano Ditta

The following chapter is built around a sim-ple thought expressed by Richard Steffy (Steffy, 1994):

“Your ship is a three-dimensional structure, so why not research it in three dimensions whenever pos-sible?”

However, unlike Steffy, who considered com-puters 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 reconstruct-ing the past if not easier, at least less time-con-suming.

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 ship-wreck 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 dur-ing 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 recon-struction of the possible appearance of the ship.

WorkflowThe visual reconstruction involved three major steps. In a first stage, the preserved archival sources were consulted for information on dimen-sions 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 reconstruc-tion of Pettu.

Figure 43: Advertisement of the salvage auction in Bagenkop in Langelands Avis 1894.

39


The use of archival and pictorial sourcesThe archival research produced a number of doc-uments containing information relevant to the reconstruction of Pettu (see section 6.2). How-ever, no pictorial sources seem to be preserved. Nevertheless, a wealthy and rich collection of paintings and photographs are available for simi-lar contemporary Finnish vessels.

The maritime museum in Rauma provided a number of examples. The painting of the Skon-ert Minerva (Figure 41) was chosen as a pos-sible iconographic basis for the reconstruction, as it displays considerable similarities with the preserved description of Pettu. In the registra-tion 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 deck-house. While the term ‘skans’ originally described the superstructure in the aft part of a ship (quar-ter deck) (Röding, 1793) by the 19th century it was used as a general term for crew accommo-dation. The term ‘kajuta’ referred to the accom-modation for officers aft in the ship (Svenska Akademien, 2010). In the case of Pettu, accom-modation 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 sec-tion, probably from the top face of the keelson to the underside of the deck-beam. Even informa-tion 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 doc-ument, 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 (Sven-ska 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 sail-ing 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 accommo-dation 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 accommo-dation under the ‘ruff’. The galley was not men-

40


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.

PhotogrammetryClose-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 limita-tions (Skarlatos & Kiparissi, 2012, p.300).

However, in recent years, the development of open source software packages led to the avail-ability of low cost alternatives to expensive pro-prietary software. Some of these were experi-mented 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-from-Motion 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 Model-ling 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

improvements have been made in the automated extraction of image correspondences and a con-siderable 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 rud-der/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://pho-tosynth.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 perform-ing automatic image matching and computing the camera calibration, thus accelerating the acqui-sition 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 remain-ing 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 sub-sequently acquired, cleaned and meshed with the help of an open-source software called Meshlab (http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/), an applica-tion 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 44: Example of the point cloud of the bow area. Ditta 2013.

Figure 45: Meshed and texturised models of the bow component. Ditta 2013.

41


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 tree-nails for the Bow structures and length of the tim-bers for the rudder/sternpost. As already dem-onstrated 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 recon-struction 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 car-ried out with Rhinoceros3D 4.0 (also known as Rhino), a NURBS-based 3D modelling software.

Section drawingsSince the primary purpose of the reconstruction was to show the lines of the preserved part of the underwater hull, the section drawings are the pri-mary source. The profiles of all four sections were copied into Rhinoceros3D and placed at the rela-tive 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.

Plank surface reconstruction and frame extrusionAt 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 sec-tion 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 fairingBefore proceeding with describing the methodol-ogy, 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 pre-viously 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 sur-faces. A NURBS curve is defined by B-spline ver-tex 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 obtain-able by a series of cubic (third-degree) polynomi-als, 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 46: Meshed and texturised models of the rudder/stern post. Ditta 2013.

Figure 47: Screenshot of Rhinoceros3D workplace show-ing the placing of cross-sections. Ditta 2013.

42


draw organic curves in a digital 3D environment, thus avoiding the use of physical tools like pen-cils 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 differ-ent technical sectors such as architecture, indus-trial design or shipbuilding.

However, a curve of which the mathematical derivative is a smooth curve is generally consid-ered fair. It must be borne in mind that there is no standardised mathematical definition of fair-ness. 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 fair-ness of curve or surface trough a derivative cur-vature 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 substan-tially changing the original shape during the fair-ing process. One way to control this process is by keeping the original input curves drawing in a dif-ferent 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 linesThe curvature or angle of bow and stern are fun-damental 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 mod-els, 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

the bow, which is composed of several timbers. This ability is, however, needed in order to cor-rect 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. Subse-quently the different timbers were traced directly in Rhinoceros3D, surfaced and extruded into sep-arate models. These were not only lighter, and thus faster to work with, but could also be modi-fied 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 stern-post 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 reconstructionThe 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 reconstruc-tion. 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 hypo-thetical stem and stern outlines and an assumed lower hull shape in the stern area, it is considered accurate enough for the intended outcome (Fig-ure 52).

Lines plan and hypothetical sail planThe 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

43


Figure 50: Final 3D model of the wreck with plotted outlines extracted from the painting of Minerva. Ditta 2013.

Figure 49: 3D model with the addition of the solid and rectified bow and stern components. Ditta 2013.

Figure 48: 3D model of the recorded section frames and planking. Ditta 2013.

44


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 exca-vated area was limited and information on the hull shape above the bilge is missing, some obser-vations 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 esti-mated 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 water-lines. However, this piercing entrance of the bow is counterbalanced by an impressive fullness of the waterlines, starting at the fourth frame sta-tion. 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 sourcesFor the sake of completeness, a sail plan recon-struction was carried out. The archival docu-ments classify Pettu as a Skonert, which can be translated as schooner. However, the icono-graphical research shows that the term Skonert describes a variant of the classic schooner rigging and sail plan. The great majority of two masted

Figure 52: Surfaced hull. Ditta 2013.

Figure 51: Highlighted cross-sections, stern and stem lines necessary for the surface reconstruction. Ditta 2013.

45


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 Dan-ish term Skonnertbrig, which is used in the Dan-ish 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).

ConclusionsIn conclusion, the combination of photogramme-try, 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 pre-served and reconstructed elements of the hull and thus allows to qualify the reconstructed hull shape. Combining archaeological data with archi-val 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 Ågabet 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 sec-ond layer of carvel planking? And when was it applied?

The choice of construction material and the remarkable absence of iron fastenings also war-rant further investigation, especially when con-sidering 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.

46


only with other finds of similar construction, but also with different technologies of shipbuilding and concepts of ship design.

Finnish shipbuilding and industrialisationA comparison of Pettu with the British brig Water Nymph, built in 1840, shows remarkable differ-ences in construction. The Water Nymph was built almost exclusively from oak, which was sourced from a number of different places, including Eng-land, France, the Baltic, Africa and North America. The oak planking was fastened with both trenails and copper bolts, and major construction ele-ments 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 ele-ments 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 Swed-ish kingdom since the Middle Ages, Finland was incorporated into the Russian empire as autono-mous Grand Duchy after the Finnish War in 1809.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, economic development in Finland remained rel-atively 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

rights) and peasants or farmers were allowed to trade within the Baltic (Kaukiainen, 1993). From the 1840s farmers, mainly from the Turku archi-pelago 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 con-temporary “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; Gus-tafsson, 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 vil-lages 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 var-ied, but could easily reach 200 or more, espe-cially in the 1860’s and 1870’s (Papp, 1977, p.63; Greenhill & Manning, 2009, p.194).

Shares could be bought with money, or raw mate-rial needed for the construction. Next, a suitable building site near the beach was found and a tem-porary shipyard was established (Figure 55). A master shipbuilder was hired by the sharehold-ers, as were workers. However, Ingrid was built

47


112

B

2

BAA

PE

TTU

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

mea

suri

ng c

ertif

icat

e [2

0th

June

187

9]

Leng

th b

etw

een

perp

endi

cula

rs:

88.8

ft

=

26.

36m

Beam

out

side

of

plan

king

:

27.3

8 ft

=

8

.12m

Dep

th m

easu

red

in c

entr

e se

ctio

n:

10.

75 ft

=

3

.19m

Tonn

age:

1

50.1

1 Re

g. T

ons

02

5 m

eter

s

Max

imum

Bre

adth

Max

imum

Bre

adth

Figure 54: Reconstructed lines plan of Pettu. The preserved parts of the wreck are displayed with continuous lines. Ditta 2013.

48


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 & Man-ning, 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 & Man-ning, 2009, p.194).

Seen against this background, the construction details observed on the wreck of Pettu clearly reflect the process and resources of rural ship-building. The use of wooden nails to connect clinker strakes might increase stability and flex-ibility, 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 phenomenonAlthough 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 lim-ited 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, simi-lar to the one Pettu would have been built on. Gustafsson 1974.

49


“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 carvel-fashion. 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 construc-tion? The desire to built a carvel vessel combined with the inability to use the design- and construc-tion techniques related to the skeleton-first prin-ciple? 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 con-struction related reasons for half-carvel construc-tion? 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 eco-nomic, 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 con-struction 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 for-ward by Anders Mattson in 1938 can therefore not be applied to Pettu. In addition, the use of composite carvel frames, which seem to be con-temporary with the inner shell (see section 6.1) is generally associated with “skeleton-first” con-struction and thus directly contradicts the argu-ment put forward by Hasslöf and Eriksson (Hass-löf et al., 1972; Eriksson, 2010). So how was Pettu designed and constructed?

In the 19th century, a variety of different meth-ods 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 (Hass-löf 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 aforemen-tioned building on one or more ribs. These meth-ods 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 build-ing on ribs meant integrating the process of shap-ing 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 & Man-ning, 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 excep-tion 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 varia-tions can be found from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic coasts, as well in inland waters (Bloesch, 1994), and has deep roots in the medieval Medi-terranean (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),

50


to five (Damianidis, 1998). However, the con-cept remains the same. The basic devices used to shape the frames are:

» -the master mould”, also known as ‘maître-gabarit’ in the French tradition. This tool accu-rately 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 indi-cate 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 con-nected 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 inter-vals 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 prob-lem. They do not rely on any mathematical reduc-tion but the reduction extracted directly from a drawing.

A half circle or a quarter of circle is drawn hav-ing as radius a given measure. This varies accord-ing 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 begin-ning of the building process.

Figure 56: Principles of whole-moulding method from the British Isles, as illustrated by McKee (1983, p.122).

51


The plan includes only the deck line, the water-line 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 geo-metrical or mathematical reduction systems.

In the English shipbuilding tradition a similar method to the moulding with adjustable tem-plates is known under the name of whole-mould-ing. 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 Hed-derwick 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 ris-ing 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 water-lines, which will be otherwise useful in laying off the cant-timbers and fashion-pieces […]”

The above synthetic description of whole-moulding is better clarified in the work of McKee (McKee, 1983), where an account of one “whole-moulding” 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 sir-marks on the breadth mould for the narrowing. The green lines give the breadth sirmarks also on the breadth mould. Ditta 2013.

52


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 hol-low 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 differ-ent Mediterranean moulding methods which use reduction diagrams such the ‘metzarola’, the ‘graminhos’, the ‘mezzaluna’ or the reduction diagrams used in the French methods ‘maitre-gabarit, la tablete et le trebuchet’ or the ‘gabarit de Saint-Joseph’, the method above uses a reduc-tion 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.

53


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 sir-marks 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 expe-rience. 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 expla-nation 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 ves-sels. 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 ton-nage 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 “clinker-aided 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 concep-tual 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 carvelIf 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 archaeologi-cal evidence, it is currently assumed that the sec-ond skin was applied at some point after the ini-tial construction (see section 6.1). However, the exact point in time is hard to determine without a detailed dendrochronological analysis. The his-torical 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 origi-nally been built with two layers of planking. In that case, the clinker layer would purely have been a design feature, allowing a clinker ship-builder 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 eco-nomical. In Sweden, carvel vessels were eligible for tax reductions during the 17th and 18th cen-tury, a fact that seemingly prompted some own-ers 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 fish-ing with nets (Eichler, 1994). As carvel planking is far easier to maintain, repair and to keep water-tight, 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 plank-ing 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

54


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 conver-sion 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 com-mon practice according to Papp and the ship list compiled by Gustafsson (Papp, 1977; Gustafsson, 1974a).

6.5 Trade, life on board and navigationBy 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). Like-wise, 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 light-house on Langeland for a lighthouse on Fehmarn? How were coastal merchant vessels navigated?

Pettu and the Baltic tradeIt 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 ship-yard 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 mer-chant. 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

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 interna-tional 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 gener-ally returned to Rauma for the winter. Informa-tion 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 regis-tered in a staple town, Pettu was used for the tra-ditional 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 Fin-land to Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein for cen-turies before the construction of Pettu (Kauki-ainen, 1995).

In the 1840’s the demand for timber started ris-ing, a fact that led to an enormous increase of export tonnage in the traditional timber export-ing 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 situa-tion. In these towns and regions larger ships, suit-able 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. Mer-chants 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, Stock-holm or Saint Petersburg in England, while find-ing a return cargo in northern Germany seemed more problematic (Kaukiainen, 1995).

55


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 (Kauki-ainen, 2004a). These vessels called at small ports not frequented by steamers. Furthermore, the timber cargo was also often loaded in elemen-tary 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 vesselLife 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 Fin-land 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 subordi-nate had the right to defend himself (Kaukiainen, 1997).

The day of a Finnish sailor was organised fol-lowing 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. Condi-tions 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 relation-ship between the various crew members (Kauki-ainen, 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 excep-tion 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 subor-dinate to masters who had sole decision power (Kaukiainen, 1992).

A day on board PettuThe archival research tells us name and function of the sailors on board Pettu during her fatal voy-age in 1893 (see section 6.2 and Appendix III). Using this information it is possible to recon-struct a typical day on the ‘skonert’:

Pettu was commanded by Johan David Lund-gren and the crew consisted of ‘konstapel’ Gus-taf Justen, ordinary seamen Karl Emil Palmroth and Viktor Emil Granlund, deckhands Frans I. Suominen, Oskar A. Urko and Karl Reinaar and cook Otto Björkqvist.

56


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 Palm-roth, and deckhands Suominen and Urko. Conse-quently, 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 work-ing 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 respon-sible for the sailing of the ship and did not have to perform any regular maintenance duties (Kauki-ainen, 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 tradeFrom 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 spe-cifically 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 Chan-nel to have graduated, and for masters sailing beyond the North Sea, a ‘sjökaptensexamen’ (sea-captain’s exam) was required (Papp, 1977). David

Lundgren, Pettu’s master on the last voyage, was born in 1850 and registered with the ‘sjöman-shus’ 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 Uusikau-punki 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 expe-rience at sea (Kirby & Hinkkanen, 2000).

A better insight into navigation on Finnish ves-sels 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, binocu-lars, a parallel, a navigation book, a barometer, and a collection of nautical charts in his posses-sion (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 naviga-tion. They warned the ships of dangerous navi-gational features such as sandbanks, protruding peninsulas, and islands but also worked as eas-

57


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 vari-ous 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-Ped-ersen, 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 (Her-mansen, 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 Marien-leuchte 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.

58


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 aver-age) 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.

59

Site formation and management

7. Site formation and managementBy Stephanie Said

7.1 Site formationVery often, the material found on an archaeologi-cal 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 com-pared to a jigsaw with missing pieces. The recon-struction of site formation, understanding the processes a site was subjected to before its dis-covery 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 underwa-ter 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 inspec-tion 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 south-westerly winds would be enough to fully cover the site again. Altogether the wreck site of Pettu can be described as a dynamic underwater envi-ronment affected mainly by wind direction. Pro-longed periods with strong winds from a south-westerly 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, how-ever, that this occurs as well.

7.2 Site management plan

LegislationBeing 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 under-water cultural heritage, cf. subsection (1), that belongs to others without the permission of such persons”.

In-situ preservationAlthough 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 Her-itage:

“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

60


field” (Manders, 2011b). Although UNESCO and other legal frameworks have put emphasis on in-situ preservation, excavation is still an alterna-tive option. But the latter has substantial financial implications and entails further considerations such as the long-term preservation and conserva-tion 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 dur-ing the field school has allowed for a relative extensive analysis, the results of which are pre-sented in this report, full excavation is presently not needed to understand the site. The location and nature of the site would also make it possi-ble 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-west-erly, 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. How-ever, 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 deterio-ration. The wreck is located at a shallow depth where wave action is the predominant factor in the environment. Wind generated waves increase

in strength as they get closer to the shore, eventu-ally breaking on the shoreline. Storms and local currents result in sediment transportation, which is very evident on the site, as was observed dur-ing the fieldschool in 2012. The constant move-ment and shifting of sand, exposes the wreck to mechanical deterioration, which weakens the wreck structure overall, disarticulating the com-ponents and at the same time exposing it to bio-logical 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 favoura-ble, are wood-boring organisms. More commonly known as teredo navalis or shipworm, these organisms attack the hull of wooden ships, weak-ening the exterior shell and leaving the wood to rot away.

The key environmental parameters that deter-mine the distribution of those species are salinity, temperature, oxygen and ocean currents (Man-ders, 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 south-ern 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 dis-solved 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 degra-dation of shipwreck sites in situ. Different meth-ods 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

61

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 Björdal & 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.

MonitoringAs 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 occa-sionally inspect the site, e.g. after storms and to notify the responsible museum on any changes.

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 envi-ronment under water or on land.

Raising public awarenessAlthough 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.

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 sum-mer period and students who attend the Action Efterskole in Bagenkop, further raising aware-ness 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 underwa-ter 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).

62


8. Virtual Pettu: an experimentBy 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 cul-tural resources. And even those can find it hard to understand and interpret complex sites if they are lacking the necessary knowledge and experi-ence. Besides television and other popular media (Jameson & Scott-Ireton, 2007), virtual reality and virtual models have been used by archae-ologists to overcome these problems since the 1990’s.

As stated by Sanders, three-dimensional visu-alisation “offers a more engaging, participatory, and exciting means of understanding and teaching complex situations (such as cargo arrangements, shipwreck scenarios, or trim conditions)” (Sand-ers, 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 walk-through 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 comple-tive, 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 vir-tual space using the freeware version of the soft-ware 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 his-torical 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 dem-onstrate 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.

63

Virtual Pettu: an experiment

The immersive atmosphere was reached through the following “sensimotor” stimuli:

» Visual: The whole scene is illuminated by simu-lated natural day light and enhanced by a slight fog which gives a sense of depth and distance. All objects are texturized using photorealis-tic 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 typi-cal 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-per-son 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 informa-tion 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 exclama-tion 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 excava-tion 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 environ-ments for outreach in maritime archaeology.

Figure 61: A hotspot in the Virtual Pettu environment. The ship is moored in the background. Ditta 2013.

64


9. Conclusions and outlookBy 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 sum-mer field school of the Maritime Archaeology Programme.

The reasons for this choice were mostly practi-cal: 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 archaeologi-cal 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 cen-tury, an opinion that changed within the first few days of the project. Once some of the archaic con-struction 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 anal-ysis, and the identification of the site, the project returned to the initial status. The Ågabet wreck was indeed that of a 19th century merchant ves-sel, 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 signif-icance of an archaeological site defined? And how significant can a 19th century merchant schooner be? The webpage of English Heritage lists a num-ber of criteria for assessing the importance of wrecks (English Heritage, 2013). The following factors are considered:

» Period

» Rarity

» 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 rel-evance in this case. A Renaissance merchant ves-sel would automatically have been considered more significant, based on the assumption that for an earlier period less wrecks would be pre-served 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 cer-tainly 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 partic-ular. A number of construction features observed on the wreck clearly reflect the process of rural or peasant shipbuilding, a fairly unique phenom-enon in an otherwise industrialised Europe. In addition Pettu might be an example of a clinker-aided 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 documenta-tion 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.

65

Conclusions and outlook

Considering the points above, it is difficult not to argue for the archaeological and historical signifi-cance 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 interpre-tation 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 impor-tance of good co-operation with local recrea-tional 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, nei-ther for the site’s protection and continued exist-ence, nor to address research questions that have presented themselves as urgent. Obviously we hope, however, that the present report and nota-bly 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.

66


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 Visu-alization 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 dokumen-tation. 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 Archae-ology 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.sau-nalahti.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 fisk-erleje 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 Boat-yards. 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-wreck-sites/> [Accessed 9 April 2013].

67

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 Scandi-navia 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 tech-niques 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-her-mansen> [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 Associa-tion.

68


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 Uni-versitetsforlag, 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 Eco-nomic 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_Predict-ing_web_1.PDF> [Accessed 2 January 2013].

Manders, M.R. ed. (2011b) Guidelines for Protection of Submerged Wooden Cultural Heritage, includ-ing 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 ship-building : 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.

69

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 Under-water Cultural Heritage. Master thesis, Flinders University, Department of Archaeology. Available from: <http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/fms/archaeology_files/dig_library/theses/Nicole%20Ortmann.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 Uni-versity 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.

70


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 Sources009 PETTU 01 (1891) Registermyndighetens i Raumo protokoll för den 19. Februari 1891. Turku Pro-

vincial 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 1863-1888).

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 1863-1888).

1875 PETTU skonert fribrev (1875) Fribref å 5/8 i skonerten ‘Pettu’ - Isak Gustaf Plyhm. Turku Provin-cial 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 frem-mede farvande og for fremmede skibe i danske farvande indtrufne søulykker. Indenrigsminis-teriet. 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).

71

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).

72


73

Appendix I

Appendix I

List of timbers recorded during the excavation. Timber dimensions reflect the state of preserva-tion and accessibility.

74


ID Context Type Construction DescriptionTIM-001 bow area apron joined to keelson (TIM-002) with a diagonal scarf rein-

forced 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 rein-forced 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 clinker lies above TIM-004 and TIM-012/85. Length 5,15m. Width 10cm.

TIM-004 bow area outer plank Length 78cm. Width 8cm. Thickness 4cm. TIM-005 bow area chock wedged between Keelson (TIM-002) and Knee (TIM-

001). Length 10cm. Width 7cm. Thickness 2cm.TIM-006 bow area outer plank clinker Caulking found on top of the plank. Length 5,28m.

Width 16cm. Thickness 4,5cm.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 clinker Measured length 1,78m. Width 22cm. Thickness

4,5cmTIM-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.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 Lies on top of TIM-023. Length 44cm. Width 17cm.

Thickness 4cm.TIM-023 fore outer plank clinker Lies above TIM-021 and below TIM-022, TIM-024.

Length 1,6m. Width 20,5cm. Thickness 4cm.TIM-024 fore filling board Lies on top of TIM-023. Length 53cm. Width 12cm.

Thickness 4cm.TIM-025 fore outer plank clinker Lies above TIM-020 and below TIM-028. Length 81cm.

Width 21cm. Thickness 4,5cm.

75

Appendix I

ID Context Type Construction DescriptionTIM-026 Stern area rudder com-

ponentButt 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 clinker Lies below TIM-029, TIM-031. Length 1,97m. Width 23cm. Thickness 5cm.

TIM-031 fore filling board Lies on top of TIM-030. A layer of caulking is visible under the chock. Length 90,5cm. Width 20cm. Thick-ness 5cm.

TIM-032 fore outer plank clinker Lies above TIM-020 and below TIM-028. Length 2m. Width 24cm. Thickness 6cm.

TIM-033 fore filling board Lies on top of TIM-034. Length 42cm. Width 15cm. Thickness 3cm.

TIM-034 fore outer plank clinker Lies below TIM-033 and above TIM-018, TIM-019. Length 1,8m. Width 22cm. Thickness 4cm.

TIM-035 fore filling board Lies above TIM-036. Length 49cm. Width 13cm. Thick-ness 3cm.

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.




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.


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.




clinker joined to TIM-066 (framing timber) with a diagonal scarf 50cm long. Length 2,40m. Moulded 29cm. Sided 20cm.



TIM-048 stern area rudder com-ponent

Butt joined to TIM-026. Visible length 70cm. Sided A 20cm. Sided B 25cm. Moulded 25cm.

TIM-049 stern area rudder com-ponent

Butt joined to TIM-026. The free side is symmetrically chamfered. Length 95cm. Sided A 44cm.Sided B 45cm. Thickness 25cm.


clinker Limber hole present. Length 3,39m. Moulded 27cm. Sided 21cm.

TIM-051 stern area component of sternpost

Chamfered to receive the rudder. Length 1,1m. Moulded 24cm. Sided 30cm.

76


ID Context Type Construction DescriptionTIM-052 fore framing

timbercarvel Component of a double frame. Lies above TIM-145

(framing timber), joined with treenails and a horizon-tal scarf running the whole length of the timber. Also joined with treenails to TIM-053, TIM-054 and TIM-061 (framing timbers). Length 3,3m. Moulded 21cm. Sided 24cm.


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.


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-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.


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.


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. Vis-ible width 6cm. Thickness 4,5cm.

TIM-065 fore outer plank carvel Lies below TIM-070. Length 2,25m. Width 21,5cm. Thickness 5,5cm.


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

timbercarvel 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

Joined to TIM-074 (component of stem post). Square scarf, 5cm wide on the top surface. Length 45cm. Moulded 20cm. Sided 22cm.

77

Appendix I

ID Context Type Construction DescriptionTIM-074 bow area component

of the postJoined to TIM-073 (cutwater). Rectangular protru-sion, 4.5cm wide and 8,5cm long on the sided surface. Length 43cm. Moulded 21cm. Sided 24cm.


Length 23cm. Width 10cm. Thickness 0,7cm.

TIM-076 fore filling board Lies beneath frame TIM-041. Length 6cm. Width 19cm. Thickness 4cm.



TIM-079 fore filling board Lies beneath frames TIM-040, TIM-041. Length 13cm. Width 22cm.



Length 39cm. Width 11cm. Thickness 4cm. On the top side there is a squared, 7x7cm, stain/impression of an absent attachment.


Length 6cm. Width A 13cm. Width B 8cm.


Length 13cm. Width A 2,5cm. Width B 7cm.


Length 17cm. Width 26cm. Thickness 4cm.






Length 28cm. Width 4cm.


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 outer plank 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

78


ID Context Type Construction DescriptionTIM-144 amidships framing

timbercarvel Component of a double frame. Joined with treenails

to two untagged framing timbers. Also joined with treenails to TIM-146 (ceiling plank). Limber hole pres-ent. Length 3,53m. Moulded 21,5cm. Sided 22,5cm.


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

Lies on top of TIM-063, TIM-147, TIM144 and 7 more untagged frames aft. Length 3,6m. Width 24cm. Thickness 8cm.


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 be-tween 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

Garboard plank of the starboard side. Length 1,33m. Thickness 6cm.

79

Appendix II

Appendix II

List of finds recovered during the excavation

80


X-No ID Context Material TypeX01 ART-044 found 940cm on baseline, 20cm

portbotanic fibres cordage/rope

X02 ART-021 found under TIM-001 botanic fibres cordage/ropeX03 ART-066 found underneath TIM-072 botanic fibres cordage/ropeX04 ART-052 found between two carvel

planks, in silt/gravel layer, ca 25cm from the textile fragment ART-053 490cm on baseline and 340cm off set port

botanic fibres 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,

between the outermost carvel layer and inner carvel layer

textile Fragment of coarse textile

X10 ART-002 surface find zoological fibres caulking materialX11 ART-008 found near TIM-050 zoological fibres/

horse haircaulking with tar

X12 ART-015 bow area under TIM-001 zoological fibres caulking with tarX13 ART-059 surface find wood treenailX14 ART-022 surface find wood piece of wood with cordageX15 ART-063 surface find concretion compacted sand and pebbles X16 ART-065 surface find wood wedge of pineX17 ART-064 surface find wood gaming piece or plug of pineX18 ART-026 found at 1250cm on baseline,

between frameswood Piece of fir or pine from levelling layer

between clinker and carvel planksX19 ART-001 surface find wood treenailX20 ART-058 surface find concreted sand,

pebbles (and possibly metal)

metal concretion

X21 ART-054 surface find wood wedged treenailX22 ART-039 found between TIM-054, TIM-

055wood 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 ironX26 ART-032 surface find wood fragment of plank with treenail holeX27 ART-057 surface find wood worked wood with concretionX28 ART-013 found between frames TIM-

41 and TIM 42 by carvel plank TIM-80

wood worked beech wood, possible rigging part

X29 ART-047 surface find wood treenailX30 ART-048 surface find wood treenail

81

Appendix II

X-No ID Context Material TypeX31 ART-036 found between shore and

wreck, with ART-034, 035, 037 wood possible marlinspike

X32 ART-029 found at 1250cm on the base-line, between frames

wood board of fir or pine

X33 - surface find wood worked wood, wreck pieceX34 ART-019 surface find wood worked wood, unknown functionX35 ART-018 found 1110cm on baseline and

245cm offset port sidewood worked wood, unknown function

X36 ART-030 surface find wood fragment of wreck timberX37 ART-033 surface find wood board of beech wood, with nail holesX38 ART-009 surface find wood board of fir or pineX39 ART-007 surface find wood fragment of plankingX40 ART-025 found at 1250cm on baseline,

between frameswood treenail

X41 ART-031 surface find wood piece of planking with concretionX42 ART-023 surface find wood fragmented wooden blockX43 ART-062 surface find ceramic shard of white faience X44 ART-005 surface find wood Wooden gaming piece or plugX47 ART-012 under TIM-001 wood pulley /block sheaveX48 ART-014 surface find wood treenailX49 ART-017 1100cm on baseline and 245cm

offset port sidewood block?

82


83

Appendix III

Appendix III

List of voyages made by Pettu in the years 1873-1893, based on crew lists.

84


ID Embarking Returning Departure Destination Captain1 15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström

15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström15 April 1873 - Bjerno parish Raumo Lars A. Borgström

2 28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström28 June 1873 15 August 1873 Raumo Kristinestad, German Baltic Lars A. Borgström

3 25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström25 August 1873 22 October 1873 Raumo German Baltic (forestry) Lars A. Borgström

4 20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman20 April 1874 23 July 1874 Raumo Vuojoki, England (Hull, timbers) G. Hafverman

5 - 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

6 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 -

85

Appendix III

Function First names Surname Year of birth Age Born in Pay (Mark)Konstapel Joh. Fredrik Nordblom - 32 Raumo 75Båtsman Isak Nikodemus Ekroos - 39 Ulfsby 50Timmerman Nikodemus Högfors - 22 Luvia 35Jungman Gustaf Mannert Reilander - 19 Pyhämaa 27Jungman Karl Robert Molander - 17 Raumo 18Jungman Karl Sjöman - 16 Raumo 17Kock Frans August Ringbom - 12 Raumo 10Lots styrman C.R. Gallén - - - -Konstapel J. Nordblom - 32 Raumo 80Timmerman J. Ekman - 40 Euraåminne 55Båtsman J. Gustafsson - 40 Raumo 55Matros Gustaf Silfven - 23 Raumo 35Lättmatros Gustaf Reilander - 19 Pyhämaa 32Jungman E. Grönman - 18 Raumo 30Jungman J. Rosendahl - 16 Raumo 18Kock Frans Ringbom - 12 Raumo 11Matros Gustaf Kestilä - 30 Raumo 45Konstapel A. Windahl - 50 Raumo 65Båtsman Joh. Gustafsson - 40 Raumo 60Timmerman Sam. Landmark - 35 Raumo 60Matros Joh. Emanuelsson - 32 Kumol (?) 40Matros Gust. Reilander - 21 Pyhämaa 35Jungman Em. Grönman - 18 Raumo 35Jungman Wilhelm Helin - 35 Lappo 50Kock Gust. Stenberg - 16 Raumo 20Konstapel Johan Hafverman - 31 Raumo 75Timmerman Ananijas Gustafson - 30 Letala 30Matros Daniel Friberg - 25 Raumo 46Lättmatros Gustaf Wirsen - 23 Raumo 35Lättmatros Carl Bärnt Löytty - 22 Euraåminne 35Jungman Niels Alexander Grundberg - 17 Raumo 18Kock Gustaf Gustafson - 17 Raumo 18Konstapel J. Hafverman - 31 Raumo 75Timmerman Emanuel Lindahl - - - 50Båtsman Daniel Friberg - 25 Raumo 48Matros Michael Bäklund (?) - - - 50Lättmatros Carl Rusval (?) - - - 40Jungman Gustaf Sejlander (?) - - - 20Jungman Niels Alexander Grundberg - 17 Raumo 18Kock Gustaf Gustafson - 17 Raumo 18Konstapel Johan Hafverman 1842 33 Raumo 80Timmerman Sam. Granlund 1851 24 Letala 48Båtsman I.E. Lemberg 1842 33 Kulla 50Matros H. Bergendahl 1851 24 Siikais 50Matros Anton Sjöblom 1856 19 Raumo 40Kock C.A. Blom 1858 17 Raumo 18Timmerman Absalon Reilander - - Pyhämaa 60

86


ID Embarking Returning Departure Destination Captain15 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 -

7 26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm26 August 1875 - Raumo Baltic Sea […] I.G. Plyhm

8 5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm5 May 1876 - Raumo Baltic Sea I.G. Plyhm

9 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 -

10 18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman18 May 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

11 26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman26 June 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

12 31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

87

Appendix III

Function First names Surname Year of birth Age Born in Pay (Mark)Konstapel Matilda Plyhm 1832 43 Åbo 5Matros Johan Silvan 1815 60 - 50Kajutvakt Alfred Plyhm 1865 10 Raumo 5Konstapel Johan Hafverman 1842 33 Raumo 80Timmerman Absalon Reilander - - Pyhämaa 60Timmerman Sam. Granlund 1851 24 Letala 48Båtsman I.E. Lemberg 1842 33 Kulla 50Matros Anton Sjöblom 1856 19 Raumo 40Matros Johan Silvan 1815 60 ? 50Jungman Isak Laurell 1854 21 Letala 25Kock C.A. Blom 1858 17 Raumo 18Konstapel Karl Palmroth 1839 37 Raumo 80Timmerman Absalon Reilander 1848 28 Pyhämaa 65Båtsman E. Lemberg 1842 34 Kulla 55Matros Anton Sjöblom 1856 20 Raumo 45Jungman Isak Laurell 1854 22 Letala 35Jungman Samuel Rosvall 1853 23 Kodisjoki 25Jungman Gust. Tuomola 1852 24 Wirmo 25Kock Joh. Moberg 1853 23 Letala 16Konstapel K.T. Palmroth 1839 37 Raumo 80Timmerman G. Tuomola 1852 24 Wirmo 40Båtsman I.E. Lemberg 1842 34 Kulla 65Matros A. Sjöblom 1856 20 Raumo 45Jungman Fredrik Wahlgren 1855 21 Raumo 38Jungman Sam. Rosvall 1853 23 Letala 35Jungman Joh. Wilh. ?? Uatila (?) - - Waimro (?) 20Kock Ludvig Enlund 1859 17 Raumo 22Kock Johan Alander 1860 16 Raumo 28Konstapel Joh. L. Stenroos 1839 49 Raumo 70Timmerman I. Redlig 1844 44 Euraåminne 45Båtsman Osk. F. Cederman 1863 25 Raumo 45Lättmatros Frans Fredr. Sjöberg 1861 27 Raumo 18Jungman Frans Ferd. Fagerström 1872 16 Raumo 18Jungman Joh. Isak Nord 1867 21 Raumo 16Kock Adolf Engelbr. Söderman 1871 17 Raumo 12Konstapel J.L. Stenroos 1839 49 Raumo 70Timmerman Karl V. Ström 1858 30 Raumo 60Båtsman Isak Redlig 1844 44 Raumo 45Matros G.W. Rickstén 1843 45 Raumo 42Lättmatros F.W. Kordelin 1871 17 Raumo 28Jungman J.H. Rosvall 1870 18 Raumo 25Jungman Adolf Söderman 1871 17 Raumo 18Kock Samuel Lundström 1873 15 Raumo 13Kajutvakt Wilhelmina Hafverman 1846 42 Raumo 10Kajutvakt Olga Hafverman 1879 9 Raumo 5Konstapel J.L. Stenroos 1835 53 Raumo 70Timmerman Gust. Kylänpää 1860 28 Lappo 54

88


ID Embarking Returning Departure Destination Captain31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman31 July 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman2 August 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman2 August 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

13 7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen7 September 1888 - Raumo Germany F.N. Lahtonen

14a 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 -24 October 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea -24 October 1888 - Raumo Baltic Sea -

15 8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman8 May 1889 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

16 14 June 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman14 June 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman14 June 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman14 June 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman14 June 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman

17 23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman

89

Appendix III

Function First names Surname Year of birth Age Born in Pay (Mark)Båtsman Isak Henriksson 1864 24 Lappo 50Matros Gust. Rickstén 1843 45 Raumo 45Matros Joh. Henriksson 1862 26 Raumo 40Matros Ewert Wass 1865 23 Euraåminne 38Jungman Joh. Herm. Volin 1872 16 Raumo 16Kock Karl Wald. Söderman 1872 16 Raumo 18Matros Efraim Efraimsson 1852 36 Letala 40Jungman Gustaf Laine 1861 27 Raumo 35Konstapel J.L. Stenroos 1835 53 Raumo 80Timmerman Gust. Laine 1861 27 Euraåminne 40Båtsman Ludvig Ahlquist 1849 39 Raumo 50Matros Gustaf Rickstén 1844 44 Raumo 50Matros Emil Grönlund 1867 21 Euraåminne 45Jungman Joh. H. Volin 1872 16 Raumo 25Jungman Arvid W. Hellfors 1870 18 Tammerfors 17Kock Joh. Alfred Wilkman 1870 18 Tammerfors 17Konstapel Fredrik Wiik 1862 26 Raumo 70Timmerman Johan Låugfors 1857 31 ? 55Båtsman Gustaf Rickstén 1843 45 Raumo 55Matros Viktor Roslöf 1858 30 Raumo 55Matros Johan Sjölund 1848 40 Raumo 45Lättmatros Emanuel Nyroos 1867 21 Pyhämaa 35Jungman Arvid Urnberg 1876 12 Raumo 30Kock Gustaf Rosendahl 1873 15 Raumo 20Konstapel Viktor Ström 1858 30 Raumo 100Timmerman Johan F. Gabrielsson 1850 38 ? 55Jungman Isak Jals 1863 25 Raumo 25Kock Frans A. (?) Ro?? 1866 22 Raumo 25Konstapel Viktor Ström 1858 31 Raumo 75Timmerman Johan Gabrielsson 1844 45 Raumo 55Matros Viktor Roslöf 1858 31 Raumo 53Matros Evvald Heinonen 1859 30 Letala 55Jungman Sigfrid Johansson 1871 18 Euraåminne 25Jungman Frans Wilh. Almquist 1871 18 Raumo 22Jungman Joh. Alex. Forsman 1870 19 Euraåminne 16Kock Joh. Adrian Wirtenen 1871 18 Euraåminne 16Konstapel Evaald (?) Heinonen 1852 37 Letala 65Båtsman Karl Samuel Blom 1849 40 Nystad 55Jungman Julius Herib. Wiitanen 1869 20 Pyhämaa 22Kock Krist. Edoin Heltonen 1874 15 Pyhämaa 16Lättmatros K.H. Alex. Lindström 1863 26 Raumo 38Konstapel Isak Aaltonen 1849 40 Pyhämaa 65Timmerman Johan Enblom 1854 35 Raumo 50Båtsman Karl Sam. Blom 1849 40 Nystad 55Matros Viktor Roslöf 1858 31 Raumo 50Matros Viktor Laitonen 1870 19 Pyhämaa 38Jungman Alexander Forsman 1870 19 Euraåminne 23

90


ID Embarking Returning Departure Destination Captain23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman23 July 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman

18 24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman24 Augustus 1889 - Raumo - G. Hafverman

19 9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman9 May 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

20 24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén24 Augustus 1892 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Wilén

21 7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman7 June 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea G. Hafverman

22 7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren7 October 1893 - Raumo Baltic Sea D. Lundgren

91

Appendix III

Function First names Surname Year of birth Age Born in Pay (Mark)Jungman Julius Wiitanen 1869 20 Pyhämaa 23Kock Gustaf Kinimäki 1875 14 Raumo 15Konstapel Isak Aaltonen 1849 40 Pyhämaa 65Timmerman Johan Enblom 1854 35 Raumo 50Båtsman Viktor Roslöf 1858 31 Raumo 50Lättmatros Alexander Forsman 1870 19 Euraåminne 28Jungman Sam. Mich. Hollstén 1866 23 Raumo 25Jungman Otto V. Wesander 1870 19 Raumo 30Kock Frans Lundgrén 1870 19 Raumo 14Konstapel S. (?) Wallberg (?) 1876 16 Raumo 70Båtsman Eman. Gustafsson 1839 53 Raumo 50Timmerman Vikt. Ferd. Lindbom 1865 27 Raumo 55Lättmatros Gustaf Wirtanen 1872 20 Raumo 38Lättmatros Joh. Enblom 1854 38 Raumo 50Jungman Johan Gust. Lindbom 1875 17 Raumo 20Jungman Juko Jalo 1865 27 Nakkila 38Kock Oskar Holmström 1874 18 Raumo 15Konstapel Viktor Lindbom 1865 27 Raumo 70Båtsman ? ?auvalin 1865 27 Raumo 50Matros Efr. Heinonen 1865 27 Raumo 37Matros Julius H. Wiitanen 1869 23 Pyhämaa 35Matros V. Wilh. Nieminen 1870 22 Euraåminne 30Jungman Joh. Gust. Lindbom 1872 20 Raumo 25Lättmatros Gust. Wirtanen 1872 20 Raumo 38Kock Alfred Saren 1876 16 Pyhämaa 18Konstapel Hans Henr. Nordman 1864 29 Pyhämaa 60Timmerman Wilhelm Fredling 1861 32 Letala 45Matros Johan Samuel Landmark 1867 26 Raumo 30Matros Gustaf Wirtanen 1872 21 Raumo 35Jungman Joh. Gust. Lindbom 1875 18 Raumo 23Jungman J.F. Laakoonen 1870 23 Raumo 20Kock Joh. Erik Nordman 1875 18 Raumo 10Jungman Gustaf Emil ?? 1874 19 Lappi 25Konstapel Gust. Justen 1852 41 Raumo 65Lättmatros Karl. Em. Palmroth 1876 17 Raumo 35Lättmatros Vikt. Em. Granlund 1874 19 Björneborg 26Jungman Frans Is. Luominen 1872 21 Raumo 25Jungman Osk. A. Urko 1875 18 Euraåminne 25Jungman Karl Reinaar 1868 25 Raumo 20Kock Otto Björkquist 1877 16 Raumo 20

92


93

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

Oversize site plan in pocket at the back of report.

Legend:Wedged treenail

Treenail

Treenail hole

Main baseline

Øhavsmuseet

TIM-048

TIM-026TIM-049

TIM-051

TIM-027

TIM

-074

TIM

-073

TIM

-058

/059

TIM

-099

TIM

-002

TIM

-097

TIM

-093

TIM

-075

TIM

-093

TIM

-083

TIM

-082

TIM

-081

TIM

-084

TIM

-092

TIM

-091TI

M-0

85/0

12

TIM

-004

TIM

-08

5/01

2

Den

dro-

sam

ple

TIM

-067TI

M-0

60

TIM

-068

TIM

-056

/057

TIM

-058

/059

TIM

-100

TIM

-151

TIM

-098 In

dent

atio

n of

iron

ring

TIM

-096

TIM

-095 TI

M-0

94

Conc

retio

n

TIM

-008

TIM

-007

TIM

-010

TIM

-011

TIM

-035

TIM

-033

TIM

-029

TIM

-025

TIM

-028

TIM

-022

TIM

-024

TIM

-079

TIM

-076

TIM

-077

TIM

-078

TIM

-080

TIM

-086

TIM

-087

TIM

-088

TIM

-090

TIM

-009

TIM

-006

TIM

-003

TIM

-013 TI

M-0

14TI

M-0

15

Den

dro

Sam

ple

TIM

-016

TIM

-017TI

M-0

36

TIM

-018

TIM

-034

TIM

-019

TIM

-030

TIM

-031

TIM

-020TI

M-0

32

TIM

-023

TIM

-021

TIM

-037

TIM

-064

TIM

-070

TIM

-065

TIM

-072

TIM

-150

TIM

-142

TIM

-148

TIM

-069

TIM

-146

TIM

-144

TIM

-038

TIM

-039

Den

dro

Sam

ple

TIM

-071

TIM

-040

TIM

-041

TIM

-042

TIM

-066

TIM

-045

TIM

-046

TIM

-050

TIM

-145

TIM

-052

TIM

-061

TIM

-054

TIM

-053

TIM

-055

TIM

-062

TIM

-063

TIM

-147

Den

dro-

sam

ple

Iron

Den

dro-

sam

ple

TIM

-001

Tim

-005

Holes after square-shaftet iron nails

Baseline cut 4 meters to reduce drawing size

0 1m

Project:

Site Code:

Drawing No:

Date:

Scale:

Ågab Wreck

ØHM 15312

1

03-04-2013

1:20

Drawn by: Fieldschool 2012

Digitised by:

Layout by: Auer and Thomsen

Finds

Alexander Cattrysse

008

012

021

013

015

016

024

044

053

067

Concretion

TIM-146TIM-147

9.8 meter crosssection

8 meter crosssection

TIM-061TIM-052

TIM-145

Section drawings


TIM-066TIM-045

TIM-142

TIM-072

TIM-060

TIM-059

TIM-058

TIM-007

TIM-006

TIM-010TIM-003

TIM-012

TIM-016

TIM-017

TIM-018 TIM-019

TIM-034 TIM-030

TIM-020 TIM-021

TIM-022TIM-023

TIM-065


Section 4 mSection 7 mSection 8 mSection 9,8 m

ISBN 978-87-996237-0-9Øhavsmuseet

Documents

Fieldwork Report Ågabet Wreck, Langeland 2012