SURVEY-REPORT-FPL-17 by Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of Southern Denmark

2009 University of Southern Denmark, Maritime Archaeology Programme Report prepared by: MAP Fieldwork Course and written by: Jens Auer

SURVEY REPORT OSTSEE BEREICH V, DARSS, FPL 17 Report on the survey of site FPL 17, Prerow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, conducted by the Maritime Archaeology Programme of the University of Southern Denmark as part of the Field school Course in July-August 2009.

Jens Auer: Survey Report Ostsee Bereich V, Darss, Fundplatz 17 Maritime Archaeology Programme University of Southern Denmark www.sdu.dk/maritimearchaeology

ÂŠ The author, Landesamt fĂźr Kultur- und Denkmalpflege Mecklennburg-Vorpommern & University of Southern Denmark

ISBN: 978-87-992214-3-1 Subject headings: maritime archaeology, survey techniques, shipwreck, Darss, Prerow, field school

Published by: Maritime Archaeology Programme University of Southern Denmark Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10 6700 Esbjerg Denmark Printed in Denmark 2010

Acknowledgements The MAP fieldwork team (Konstantinos Alexiou, Jens Auer, Marja-Liisa Grue, Bente Grundvad, Sarah Fawsitt, Liv Lofthus, Martin Lonergan, Thijs Maarleveld, Delia Ni Chiobhain, Andrew Stanek, Christian Thomsen and Cate Wagstaffe) would like to thank the Landesamt f체r Kultur und Denkmalpflege, Abteilung Arch채ologie und Denkmalpflege and in particular Dr Jens-Peter Schmidt for providing the opportunity to carry out the field school in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, supporting the project and organising accommodation in Prerow. Many thanks also go to the Gesamtschule Prerow, and in particular the caretaker Herr Sch체tt, for accommodating the excavation team in the school yard. Further thanks go to Frau Pfeiffer in the Kurverwaltung Prerow, who provided tables and benches for our outdoor kitchen and organised waste collection. And last but not least we would like to thank Familie Fiedler for their support, not only with welcome food on the first day, but also with crockery, a fridge, a handcart and the construction of our UMA.

iii

Contents 1.

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Background............................................................................................................................................. 1 Aim and Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 1 Co-ordinate System ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Site Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Site History ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Fieldwork in 2009 .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Organisation ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Time frame......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Personnel............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Logistics .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Diving ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Underwater recording .................................................................................................................................. 7 Excavation .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Positioning ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 The wreck................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Stem and stern construction ................................................................................................................... 10 Framing ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Planking ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Internal structure......................................................................................................................................... 13 Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Dating ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Site characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Historical context ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

References....................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix 1: Oversize Figures ........................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix 2: Timber records ............................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix 3: UMA measurements ................................................................................................................... 35

List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. Auer 2009 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons. .............. 2 Figure 2: Location of FPL 17. Auer 2009, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ÂŠLAiV M-V 2009 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: The Pioner Multi workboat anchored over the site. MAP, Auer 2009. ........................... 5 Figure 4: Two MAP students using the UMA to record the curvature of frames. MAP, Petrelius-Grue 2009. ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Plan of the wreck showing the results of the total station positioning and the areas of excavation. MAP, Auer 2009, based on the overview plan drawn and inked by Thomsen 2009. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 6: Side view of stempost with cutwater on the outside. The rake is clearly visible. Map 2009 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 7: Details of stempost and cutwater, showing impressions of fishplate and metal fastening plate. MAP 2009. ................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 8: Close-up of the draught mark IIII on the portside of the stempost. MAP 2009. ...... 11 Figure 9: View inside the stern of the vessel showing floor timbers notched to receive the keelson. Map 2009. ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 10: Floor timbers collapsed across the keelson near the bow of the vessel. The limber holes are clearly visible. MAP 2009. .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 11: Preserved outer planking on the starboard side. Trenail and iron nail fastenings are visible, as well as a repair (338). MAP 2009....................................................................................... 12 Figure 12: Panorama merged from four individual shots of the keelson. MAP 2009. .............. 13 Figure 13: Exposed mast (387) in trench B. MAP 2009......................................................................... 13 Figure 14: Photograph showing timbers in trench C in the stern of the wreck. Suspended sediment deteriorated visibility and prevented the use of a strobe. MAP 2009. ........................ 14 Figure 15: Close-up of the two heavily degraded softwood pump tubes in the stern of the vessel. MAP 2009. .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 16: Table showing typical dimensions of merchant vessel types in use in Germany between 1840 and 1926. After Szymanski 1929. ..................................................................................... 15 Figure 17: Plan of the wreck site showing the location of individual timbers where possible (S7). MAP 2009. ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 18: Top view drawing of site FPL 17. MAP 2009. ...................................................................... 21 Figure 19: Photomosaics of the outside of bow and stern of the wreck. MAP 2009. ................ 21 Figure 20: Photomosaics of wreck structure at bow and stern. Photographs are only stitched together to provide a visual reference and are heavily distorted. MAP 2009. ............................. 21 Figure 21: FPL 17 compared to line drawings of other 19th century merchant vessels. MAP 2009. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21

vii

List of tables: Table 1: Distribution of project dive time. ..................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Result of the total station survey. All co-ordinates in WGS84, UTM zone 33N. ............ 9

viii

1. Introduction Project Background The Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme (MAP) is a two year international postgraduate course in Maritime Archaeology. It is part of the Institute for History and Civilization and based at Esbjerg Campus. One of the components of the Masters programme is a 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 the students acquire in the 1st and 2nd semester and requires them to apply those in a practical setting. The curriculum states the following aims for the field school: “On completion of the course students should:  

have acquired a satisfactory level of competence in the use of maritime archaeological techniques and methods in the field; be able to place these activities in a broader analytical context with a view to describing, recapitulating and interpreting significant aspects of an archaeological excavation.”

For the year 2009, the field school course was organised in co-operation with the Landesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege, Abteilung Archäologie und Denkmalpflege, MecklenburgVorpommern (LKD M-V), the authority responsible for cultural heritage in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. A co-operation agreement regarding the organisation of field schools in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania was signed in June 2009. In order to facilitate the field school, the LKD M-V identified a wreck site that was located easily accessible in relatively shallow water and required archaeological documentation. The chosen site, Ostsee Bereich V, Darss, Fundplatz 17 (FPL 17), near the village of Prerow, is potentially affected by the construction of a harbour for pleasure craft, so that the results of the field school can be used to inform the environmental assessment for the planned project.

Aim and Objectives The aim of the field school was twofold: From a University point of view, the field school is an important part of the curriculum, which allows students to apply their knowledge and skills in a practical context. Students are supposed to learn the preparation, organisation and day to day running of field projects, as well as the tasks related to post-excavation analysis. In addition, the field school aimed at generating results which contribute to research in the field of maritime archaeology. More specifically the objectives were:  

to record FPL 17 as thoroughly as possible using limited excavation to reveal important technical details; to prepare a full archaeological report on the results of the survey, following the standards of the LKD M-V;

 

to prepare a section in the report on possible solutions for lifting/ recovering the wreck; to prepare an article for a scientific journal on the results of the survey.

Co-ordinate System All positions in this report 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 33U North.

2. Site Location FPL 17 is located in the Baltic Sea, just off the coast of the Fischland-Darss-Zingst peninsula in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg Western Pomerania) (Figure 1). The wreck lies near Prerow, a village in the Darss area of the peninsula. The

Figure 1: Location of Prerow on the Darss Peninsula in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. Auer 2009 on the basis of a map prepared by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons.

wreck position is E 343245.87; N 6036772.82. The stretch of coast near the wreck site is named Hohe Düne after a number of higher sand dunes just to the East. The village of Prerow is situated between Darsser Ort, a sandy hook that forms the northernmost tip of the peninsula and Zingst, another village to the East. Until 1874 the Prerow Strom connected the inland waters of the Bodstedter Bodden with the Baltic Sea. As a result of coastal dynamics, the mouth of the Prerow Strom shifted from a position on the 2

height of the wreck site in 1450 eastwards to a location well to the West. After a massive storm surge in 1872, the Prerow Strom was closed and the coast fortified (Thuerkow 2009a). While the Darss is strongly affected by coastal dynamics, such as erosion on the beaches facing westwards and accumulation on Darsser Ort, coastal fortification has slowed down sediment transport in the area of the wreck site. There are tendencies for a westward transport of sediment near the shoreline and eastward sediment transport further offshore, but the coastline near the wreck site has seen little change in the last 30 years (Thuerkow 2009b)(Tiepolt et al. 1999)(Janke et al. 1998).

Figure 2: Location of FPL 17. Auer 2009, based on aerial photographs retrieved from GAIA M-V, ÂŠLAiV M-V 2009

The wreck site is situated in 3m of water, ca. 170m from the beach1 and about 100m from a sandbank running parallel to the shore (Figure 2). The sediment around the wreck is made up of fine sand and silt. According to Dr Detlev Mohr, head of the local lifeguard service, the sedimentation on the wreck site and the level of exposure has not changed in a major way since the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s2. The prevailing wind direction in the area is from the West, so that the location of the wreck site is protected by the sandy hook Darsser Ort.

1 2

Measured from the centre of the wreck Pers. Comm. Dr. Detlev Mohr, 01.12.2009

3. Site History According to a local fisherman, the FPL 17 wreck has always been well known as a good fishing spot. Said fisherman could remember to have swum and dived to the wreck in the 1950’s3. Officially, the wreck site was re-discovered by the local sport diver Hans Joachim Hämer in the 1970’s. Hämer informed Dr Detlev Mohr, the head of the local beach lifeguards, who positioned the site using bearings to landmarks and cut a dendrochronological sample which did not date due to an insufficient number of tree rings. Mohr included the wreck in his catalogue of archaeological wreck sites off the Darss peninsula (Mohr 1977), but did not carry out further survey work4. According to the file on FPL 17 held by the LKD M-V, the wreck was next inspected by divers from the society for underwater archaeology Berlin/ Brandenburg in September 1999. Two divers located the wreck and started recording the site using a simplified type of trilateration with two datum points. Due to a lack of time, the survey could not be completed. In June 2002, three dendrochronological samples were taken on the site and submitted for dating. It is unclear why and where the samples were taken and whether they dated, as no further documentation is preserved. A further inspection of the wreck by the local society for ship archaeology took place in July 2002. It was observed that exposed timbers were affected by Teredo Navalis, but generally the wreck was described as “well preserved”. A final inspection report in the FPL 17 file dates to May 2007. Again the wreck was described as well preserved, with no new signs of Teredo Navalis. In addition the file contains a number of aerial photographs of the site, all of which seem to have been acquired in 1994. On most photographs the wreck is clearly visible.

4. Fieldwork in 2009 Organisation Time frame The survey of FPL 17 was carried out in the period from 26.07.09 to 13.08.09. Using the known GPS position, the wreck site was located and marked by means of snorkelling on the evening of the 26.07.09. Diving started on the27.07.09 and the last dives were conducted on 12.08.09. Diving took place on all days and no weather downtime occurred.

3 4

Pers. Comm from a local fisherman during the project Pers. Comm. Dr Detlev Mohr 01.12.2009

Personnel The survey team consisted of 12 divers, ten students of the Maritime Archaeology Masters Programme and two teaching staff. A number of guests visited the site during the survey and partook in the diving activities. All team members were qualified as commercial SCUBA or surface supplied divers or were trainees in the commercial SCUBA diving course. To maximise the learning outcome and provide a realistic work environment, the responsibility of planning and organising the day to day running of the survey was shared with the students. Each day one student acted as site director and had to plan the day, carry out a morning briefing and write the site diary. Days were then discussed during evening debriefings. Progress was constantly posted on the Maritime Archaeology Programme blog (Auer 2009). Logistics The survey team was accommodated in tents on the school yard of Gesamtschule Prerow in the village of Prerow. The washroom facilities in the school gym could be used and a gym changing room was converted to site office and housed computers and survey equipment. Access to a water hose allowed cleaning the equipment after diving. A field kitchen was established on the school yard.

Figure 3: The Pioner Multi workboat anchored over the site. MAP, Auer 2009.

A 5.5m long Pioner Multi workboat with 60HP outboard engine was used as diving and work platform (Figure 3). As the beach near the site is part of a nature reserve and not accessible by car, the boat was launched near the Regenbogen Camp to the west of the Pier in Prerow. The boat was kept in the water for the duration of the project and anchored on a two point mooring off the campsite each night. This anchorage was less exposed than the site and guarded by staff of a windsurfing school at night. Each morning, the boat was picked 5

up by a team of two and sailed over to the site. Diving equipment and the remainder of the dive team were picked up from the beach near the site. As the beach was inaccessible by car, all equipment was transported there using a handcart. For each dive, the boat was moored over the site on a single point mooring. After the dives personnel and equipment were exchanged on the beach. This way changeover times between dives could be kept to a minimum. Diving All diving was conducted under Danish commercial diving legislation (Dykkerlov). As confirmed in the co-operation agreement, Dr Jens Auer acted as diving supervisor for the project and was responsible for diving safety. Divers worked in teams of four with two divers in the water and a standby diver and diving supervisor in the boat. The diving supervisor was responsible for safety on the boat, checked divers before water entry and filled in the diving log sheets. The standby diver was dressed in his suit with a set of diving equipment prepared. Divers were marked with orange surface marker buoys, but otherwise untethered as they could often be seen from the surface. Diving was conducted using Interspiro Divator MKII equipment with half masks. All divers were equipped with drysuits. In average, three dives with two divers in the water were conducted per day. In the course of the 17 dive days, a total of 102 dives with 9039 minutes of bottom time were carried out (Table 1). Date 27.07.09 28.07.09 29.07.09 30.07.09 31.07.09 01.08.09 02.08.09 03.08.09 04.08.09 05.08.09 06.08.09 07.08.09 08.08.09 09.08.09 10.08.09 11.08.09 12.08.09

Number of dives 8 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 7 6 7 6 6 3 102

Table 1: Distribution of project dive time.

Bottom time (minutes) 341 497 493 611 515 607 610 732 552 609 429 525 519 654 626 620 99 9039

Methodology Underwater recording Before starting the underwater recording process, the wreck was cleaned with soft brushes and then photographed in order to plan the recording methodology. Initially, it was decided to produce a measured 1:50 top view drawing of the wreck, which was to be supplemented with measured sketches and photographs for areas of particular interest. A grid system consisting of two parallel lines, one on either side of the wreck, was set up. Thin metal bars served as datum points. Where the distance between datum line and wreck was too great for accurate measurements, namely in the bow and stern areas of the wreck, further datum lines were set up closer to the wreck. Each visible timber was then tagged with a unique identifier in the number range from 200425. For this, white waterproof labels were fastened to the timbers with long clout nails. After the tagging was completed, a first 1:50 outline drawing was produced, using offset measurements, first from the two main baselines, and after inaccuracies were noticed, also from the additional baselines. As the wreck was upstanding by up to a meter5, and the baselines were at seabed level, a full top view drawing was difficult to make using offset measurements. Therefore it was decided to first generate an outline drawing which presents the wreck flush with the seabed (Figure 17). Based on this outline drawing and additional baselines set up inside the wreck, a measured top view sketch of the wreck was produced (Figure 18). To get an overview of scantlings and constructional details, all timbers with tags were recorded, either on individual timber recording forms or on tables. As a minimum, moulded and sided dimension at one position (or width, thickness and length) were noted for each timber. Further information was recorded where appropriate. All information was collated in a Microsoft Access database (Appendix 2). To supplement the drawings, the wreck was photographed systematically using a Canon Powershot A620 digital camera in an Ikelite underwater housing (Appendix 5). In order to record the well preserved shape of the upstanding wreck, an â&#x20AC;&#x153;Underwater Measuring Apparatusâ&#x20AC;? (UMA), was built. This consisted of a vertical steel profile with a cross-shaped base and a spike underneath. Fastened to this at right angles was another steel profile, which could be moved up and down the vertical profile. The horizontal profile could be locked at any given position and was made to receive a folding rule or similar measuring device. The UMA was used to measure the curvature of individual framing timbers with vertical offsets. It was mounted on the seabed facing a frame and kept vertical using spirit levels. One diver generally operated the UMA, while another diver made sure it stayed vertical and noted measurements down on a drawing board (Figure 4). UMA measurements were first plotted in an MS Excel table (Appendix 3), but will be imported in a 3D modelling software (Rhinoceros 3D) in order to create a 3D reconstruction of the preserved hull shape. 5

Measured from the seabed outside of the wreck, inside the sediment level was slightly lower

Figure 4: Two MAP students using the UMA to record the curvature of frames. MAP, Petrelius-Grue 2009.

Excavation Limited excavation was used to investigate how much of the wreck was buried and to see whether buried elements could help to understand the nature of the site. Excavation was carried out using a small Honda water pump and stainless steel water dredge heads. A total of three trenches were dug (Figure 5): Trench A was excavated on the outside of the bow along the stempost. The fine sediment made excavation difficult, but the trench reached a depth of about 1m, revealing draught marks along the stempost. Trench B was dug inside the ship along the mast in order to reveal possible internal structure or remains of a deck. This trench reached a depth of 1.85m before sediment movement made it impossible to continue. Trench C inside the stern of the wreck revealed a solid layer of constructional and natural timbers after only 20cm and was not continued further. Positioning On the last day of the survey, the wreck was positioned using a total station. The LKD M-V surveyor Christian Hartlreiter established a Zeiss total station on top of a geodetic point at Hohe D端ne. A reflector was mounted on a long pole and brought in position by two divers. One diver positioned the tip of the pole, while the other diver stayed on the surface and kept 8

the pole vertical. Four points around the wreck were measured: stempost, sternpost and the seabed near frames 350 and 257 in the midship area. All points were re-taken to ensure maximum accuracy (Figure 5 and Table 2). Point Geodetic Marker 101 102 104 105 106 107 108 109

Easting 343911.35 343248.28 343244.05 343242.97 343248.26 343248.51 343244.30 343243.43 343248.45

Northing 6036310.46 6036781.80 6036765.71 6036773.26 6036772.32 6036781.30 6036765.74 6036773.10 6036772.72

Height 13.67 -3.70 -4.16 -4.14 -4.45 -3.67 -4.17 -4.16 -4.52

Table 2: Result of the total station survey. All co-ordinates in WGS84, UTM zone 33N.

Figure 5: Plan of the wreck showing the results of the total station positioning and the areas of excavation. MAP, Auer 2009, based on the overview plan drawn and inked by Thomsen 2009.

5. Results The wreck The wreck was found resting upside down with a slight list towards the starboard side. It is preserved from stempost to sternpost and lying in NNE SSW orientation with the stem facing towards the beach (Figure 18). The hull is almost entirely covered by sand, with only ca. 90cm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1m of the bottom structure protruding. The keel is missing, but the forward part of the keelson with the mainmast 9

stepped into it is preserved. In the centre of the wreck the hull structure has collapsed inwards, but in bow and stern area, some floor timbers remain in situ, crossing the full width of the floor. The portside is slightly better preserved with outer planking and ceiling planking remaining at bow and stern. At first sight, the wreck gives the impression of a full, flat-bottomed craft, but closer inspection shows that this is an optical illusion caused by the angle of list. The vessel had a very sharp stern, some deadrise, a round turn of the bilge amidships and a slightly fuller bow. A lot of the preserved framing timbers show a distinctive s-shaped curvature. The sternpost is straight, while the stempost has considerable rake (Figure 19). The visible length of the wreck measured from outside face of stempost to outside face of sternpost is 16.85m and at the widest point, slightly aft of the mast, the wreck measures 5.3m across. The sediment around the site consists of fine sand. Inside the hull the sediment level was slightly lower with a layer of soft sandy silt covering the seabed. A large number of branches, ropes and fishing lines inside and around the hull structure confirm that the wreck must have been exposed for some time. All exposed timbers show signs of natural erosion and are effect by Teredo worms. Stem and stern construction At the bow, the stempost (379) protrudes ca. 80cm from the sediment. It is made from oak and has a moulded dimension of 30cm and a sided dimension of 18-20cm. The original forward rake was approximately 20째 (Figure 6). About 20cm below6 the heel of the stempost, a cutwater (380), also from oak, measuring 21cm moulded by 14cm sided is attached to the post with iron bolts. Impressions in the wood show that cutwater and stempost were additionally connected with metal plates on either side (Figure 7). A gripe or forefoot would originally have been scarfed to cutwater and stem or keel. While the gripe is not preserved, the impression of a fishplate at the heel of the stem indicates where it might have been fastened (Figure 7). A stemson is attached to the inside of the stempost (242). The garboard strake is missing, but a number of outer planks are still in situ with their hood ends fastened to the stem rabbet. Figure 6: Side view of stempost with cutwater on the outside. The rake is clearly visible. Map 2009

Carved draught-marks were found on the starboard side of the stem post. The

The vessel is lying upside down and described as found.

numbers IIII, and in the excavated trench VI, VII and VIII, are clearly visible, but the mark of the number V was partially covered by a concretion (Figure 8). All draught marks measure 16cm in height and are spaced between 30 and 32cm apart7. At the stern of the vessel, the v-shaped floor timbers show increasingly steep angles, leading up to almost straight deadwood filling frames (300) and finally the sternpost (270). The straight sternpost is made from oak and measures 36cm moulded x 22cm sided. It is standing 65cm clear of the sediment. As with the stempost, all metal fastenings have been removed and are only visible as impressions in the wood. A 5cm wide iron band at the heel of the post might have served to fasten the keel. The first visible gudgeon was 6cm wide and originally fastened with square shafted iron nails.

Figure 7: Details of stempost and cutwater, showing impressions of fishplate and metal fastening plate. MAP 2009.

Framing Altogether 53 frames are visible on the starboard side and 48 on the portside. Their average sided-dimension is 14-16cm and they are 16-18cm moulded. The spacing between frames varies, but is generally 1015cm. All frames are made from oak. In bow and stern area, some floor timbers Figure 8: Close-up of the draught mark IIII on the portside of the stempost. MAP 2009. are preserved in situ. In the bow, the following frames are or were connected across the keel: 227-368, 228-372, 225-365/367 and 223-363. In the stern, floor timbers are often crutches which are squared off where they were in contact with the keel. On the inside they are notched to receive the keelson (Figure 9). In some of the forward floor timbers, the limber holes are still visible (Figure 10). Erosion and damage to the centre part of the vessel make it hard to establish the framing pattern. In general every other frame seems to have continued towards the keel, with the frames in between cut square at the turn of the bilge. Every six frames longer double frames are inserted (e.g. 204/205). These are connected with trenails. Notches in the keelson indicate a frame crossing about every 15-20cm in the area around the mast. Two interpretations are possible: The squared off frames could be second futtocks, butting against floor timbers which crossed the keel. This would make the longer frames first Measured from the bottom of one mark to the bottom of the mark above. This was difficult to measure accurately, as the visible marks were eroded and covered by concretion. 7

futtocks. Another possible interpretation could be that the longer frames are floor timbers crossing the keel and the squared off timbers represent first futtocks starting around the turn of the bilge. Although difficult to see, it appears that frames were fastened to the keel with iron bolts. Forward of frame 374, cant frames set at an angle to the keel were used to shape the bow section of the vessel (Figure 20). Figure 9: View inside the stern of the vessel showing floor timbers notched to receive the keelson. Map 2009.

Figure 10: Floor timbers collapsed across the keelson near the bow of the vessel. The limber holes are clearly visible. MAP 2009.

Planking Planking is preserved all around the wreck where covered by sediment. On the portside, 10 strakes of planking are exposed at the stern of the vessel (271281) and a further eight at the bow (229238). On the starboard side a preserved section of planking is visible just forward of the stern area (328-344). Some eroded ceiling planks can be seen at seabed level in various parts of the wreck, but the ceiling strakes in the bow (245-250) are the best preserved. All planks are oak and generally fastened with a single trenail of 30-35mm per frame and two iron nails at the butt ends. Iron nails have a square shaft of 7-8mm and a head diameter of 10mm. The hood ends of planks in the stempost rabbet are only fastened with iron nails. In various places around the wreck, iron bolts were observed in the planking, but no regular pattern could be established. Outer planks are between 20 and 30cm in width and up to 4.5cm thick. Ceiling planks have the same width and are up to 3cm thick.

In the stern, plank 272 was stepped into plank 271 to accommodate the vessel shape. On the starboard side, a graving piece repair (338) was observed in plank 342. The graving piece was fastened with a single trenail and a number of iron nails. Figure 11: Preserved outer planking on the starboard side. Trenail and iron nail fastenings are visible, as well as a repair (338). MAP 2009.

Internal structure The 7.8m long oak keelson (381) is the most recognisable element of the internal structure

Figure 12: Panorama merged from four individual shots of the keelson. MAP 2009.

of the vessel (Figure 12). The keelson measures 24cm moulded and 25cm sided and is notched on the underside to receive floor timbers. The notches are quite eroded, but could be measured as being 2-3cm deep, 15cm wide and spaced approximately 15-20cm apart. The aft end of the keelson is eroded, and the forward end was not accessible. The keelson was fastened to floor timbers and possibly the keel by iron bolts. The mast step is 70cm long and 10-12cm wide. The depth could not be measured with any degree of accuracy. Stepped into the keelson is a pine mast, 40cm in diameter (387) (Figure 13). In trench B, the mast could be exposed for a length of ca. 1.85m. No traces of a mast bank or other support were observed. A number of seemingly lose pine boards and smaller pieces of softwood were uncovered in the trench, but none of these seemed to be in situ. At a depth of 1.85m below the keelson, the nature of the sediment changed from soft sand to a relatively hard clay. At this depth the trench was discontinued as the sliding sand made it impossible to continue without opening a much larger section on the inside of the vessel. Figure 13: Exposed mast (387) in trench B. MAP 2009.

Trench C was started working from frame 331 towards the inside of the stern in order to reveal possible remaining structure and find out whether the vessel had a second mast at the stern. However, a solid layer of natural and constructional timbers prevented dredging to any depth. The exposed timbers seemed to consist of structural elements of the lower hull which had collapsed down and natural timbers which were washed into the wreck (Figure 14). Trench C was documented with photographs, but not drawn as none of the uncovered timbers was in situ. Figure 14: Photograph showing timbers in trench C in the stern of the wreck. Suspended sediment deteriorated visibility and prevented the use of a strobe. MAP 2009.

Two pump tubes (413) of a common suction pump were observed in the stern of the wreck between frame 305 and 306. The tubes are of softwood. They have an external diameter of 12cm and a bore of 6.7cm. Both tubes are slightly angled and forma v-shape (Figure 15).

Interpretation Dating All easily accessible timbers, such as frames and planks did not offer themselves for dendrochronological dating as they were relatively fast grown with few rings and wells squared so that no remains of sapwood were present. Larger structural elements, such as keelson or stempost might have been more promising, but it was considered unnecessary to destroy them for the purpose of dating. Therefore no Figure 15: Close-up of the two heavily degraded softwood pump tubes in the stern of the vessel. MAP dendrochronological dating was 2009. undertaken. Earlier samples taken on the site could not be dated either (see section 3). However, using characteristics, such as scantlings, fastenings, timber conversion and other features, a date of construction can be estimated: All scantlings are fairly uniform. Timbers are regular and well converted. A standardised framing pattern is visible. The ship was fastened using a combination of iron fastenings and trenails. The fastenings are of standardised sizes and follow a pattern (a single trenail per frame and two iron bolts at the butt ends and hood ends). All of these features point to a date of construction in the first 75 years of the 19th century. In his discussion of the German ship type Ever, Szymanski states that these vessels were primarily iron fastened after 1860/ 1870 (Szymanski 1932a, 49). This can probably be applied to other vessels as well. The common suction pump tubes in the stern give another indication of dating. While suction pumps were in use throughout the 19th century, pump tubes were more often made from metal in the second half of the 19th 14

century (Szymanski 1932b, 90; Oertling 1996; Stone et al. 1993, 49). A construction date in the first half of the 19th century would therefore seem most likely, although a later date of construction cannot currently be ruled out. Site characteristics Site FPL 17 represents the remains of a wooden, carvel-built sailing vessel. The visible length is 16.85m. The sternpost is almost straight, while the stempost has an outward rake of 20째. A 1.85m deep trench along the mast did not reach the level of the upper deck, so that the depth in hold can be assumed to be greater than 1.85m. Using this measurement in conjunction with the outward rake of the stempost, a length between the perpendiculars of approximately 17.5m can be assumed. The width of the site as measured on the seabed is 5.3m. Although this does not represent the actual beam of the vessel, it is probably relatively close. The resulting L/B ratio is 3.3. The vessel had a sharp stern, a relatively full bow and an s-shaped midship section with round turn of the bilge and some deadrise. The location of the pumps 2m forward of the sternpost indicates that the vessel had considerable drag. Evidence for a single mast, 6m aft of the stempost was found. The existence of a second mast either aft of the first mast, or at the stern is possible, but neither a mast nor a mast step could be seen. No traces of either cargo or ballast were found in the capsized vessel, and the trench inside the hull did not reveal any recognisable internal structure. FPL 17 is most likely the remains of a medium sized coaster or Baltic trader built in the first half of the 19th century. It is unclear where the vessel was built. The Baltic trade involved a considerable number of nations, and German, Danish, Swedish, Dutch and English vessels, among others, would have passed the Darss en route to other locations in the Baltic. The 16: Table showing typical dimensions of merchant vessel types in draught marks at the bow Figure use in Germany between 1840 and 1926. After Szymanski 1929. are spaced 30-32cm apart. Draught markings were normally measured in foot, and each country or area used a different definition for this unit of measurement. The 30-32cm spacing includes the British foot (30.48cm), the Danish foot (after 1683: 31.42cm, after 1820: 31.37cm, after 1835: 31.38cm) and the Prussian foot (31.38cm), all of which were in use in the Baltic in the 19th century. 15

In the 1930’s, Hans Szymanski attempted to provide an overview over typical wooden sailing vessels used and built in Germany in the course of the 19th century (Szymanski 1934; Szymanski 1929). Although his work clearly shows the difficulties of “ship typology” with vessel types called differently in different regions and a wide variety of hybrids between individual types, it provides valuable information and can serve as a basis to compare the known characteristics of FPL 17 with those of typical merchant vessels of the time. Using a table with typical dimensions for German sailing vessels between 1840 and 1926 (Figure 16), FPL 17 would compare to the ship types Schlup, Jacht, Ever, Galeasse and Schuner. Of these, the Ever has very different constructional characteristics, such as e.g. a plank keelson, and often a hard chine. The average length of the Schlup is slightly shorter than FPL 17, although larger examples existed as well (Szymanski 1934). The other three ship types all compare well with FPL 17 and were very common in the Baltic in the period in question. Figure 21 shows a sketch of FPL 17 compared with line drawings of the ship types named above. Historical context The loss of a medium sized sailing vessel close to the shore near a village in the 19th or early 20th century would almost certainly have left traces in the historical record. It is highly likely that FPL 17 can be identified using available historical sources. At the time of writing, a number of sources have been consulted, but as yet, no record of a shipwreck near Prerow has been found. The consulted sources were: Published sources:  

Beiträge zur Geschichte des Darßes und des Zingstes (Berg 1999): A general chronicle of the Darss area with a chapter on shipping accidents Entscheidungen des Ober-Seeamts und der Seeämter des Deutschen Reichs 18791920 (Reichsamt des Inneren 1879): All court cases relating to shipping accidents between 1879 and 1920. This overview includes every shipping accident that led to a court case in the period in question. It is therefore fairly unlikely that the wreck of FPL 17 occurred in this period.

Unpublished sources: 

Landesarchiv Greifswald, REP 80, 149, Strandungen 1875-1880: Files generated by the Strandhauptmann, the civil servant responsible for a section of the beach, on stranded vessels. All stranding incidents between 1875 and 1880 are filed here.

It is thus unlikely that FPL 17 sank after 1875. Berg mentions a number of shipwrecks of Galleasses in the years 1831 and 1867, but provides no further details (Berg 1999, 89ff.). One event the wreck could be related to is the storm surge which occurred on 13 th November 1872. As a result of the storm surge, 15 people died in Prerow alone and many local vessels were sunk or destroyed (Kiecksee 1972). Altogether, 41 ships stranded in the course of a single day and became wreck. The total number of shipping accidents was 654.

Two vessels stranded in Prerow. These were the Pomona of 256t and the Dutch Espoir. However, both vessels seem to be larger than FPL 17. Further searches will have to concentrate on the period before 1875. Sources to be consulted include:     

Landesarchiv Greifswald, earlier sources Stadtarchiv Stralsund: Verklarungsakten Stadtarchiv Barth: Verklarungsakten Church records Prerow Sundine, a weekly newspaper published in Stralsund which includes news on shipping accidents

6. Conclusion Besides serving a pedagogical purpose as a learning opportunity for students of the Maritime Archaeology Programme, the field school 2009 aimed at recording, interpreting and assessing the wreck site FPL 17. This report sums up the results. Wreck site FPL 17 could be characterised as a small to medium sized wooden merchant sailing vessel built in the 19th century. Further archival research will be undertaken in order to positively identify the site. The 19th century saw a massive increase in merchant shipping and thus also the construction of merchant ships. Vessels of the size of FPL 17 would have been a common sight in Baltic and North Sea harbours. As an example: in 1858 the merchant fleet of Pomerania included 189 Schlup and Jacht type craft, a number that rose to 297 in the year 1878 (Szymanski 1934, 140). Trade routes, life on board and cargo on these ships are well documented through historical records, ship registers and ship measurement records. Szymanski’s overview shows that sources on ship design and appearance are preserved as well (Szymanski 1934; Szymanski 1929). However, very few sources offer information on constructional details, scantlings or framing pattern. In most countries in Northern Europe wooden ships at this time were built on a multitude of small shipyards. Records were rarely kept or have been destroyed. While not of high archaeological importance in conventional terms, the value of well preserved sites like FPL 17 lies in the amount of detailed information, e.g. on ship construction, they can offer. From a site management perspective it would be preferable to leave FPL 17 in situ. As tourists showed great interest in the site and the field school project, it could be beneficial to prepare an information board on the beach in order to raise general awareness of the submerged cultural heritage off the coasts of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. If the site was endangered by the construction of the planned yachting harbour (see section 1) and had to be removed, three different options would be available:

1. Full underwater excavation, underwater disassembly and lifting, then recording on shore 2. Full underwater excavation and lifting in one piece, then recording on shore 3. Limited underwater preparation, recovery by grab and detailed recording on shore As the site is deeply buried in soft sediment, the first two options would require commercial dredging equipment. Option 1) and 2) would be difficult and time consuming due to the amount of sediment that has to be removed. It is likely that some kind of cofferdam would be necessary to stabilise the sediment around the wreck and prevent sand from sliding into the trenches. Option 1) would also require full recording of the exposed wreck prior to disassembly in order to allow a reconstruction after the recovery. As the bottom of the hull is missing and the wreck is lying upside down in the sediment, the remaining hull has little or no structural integrity. In order to prevent crushing the wreck, a cradle for lifting would have to be manufactured and put in place for option 2). In addition, a crane powerful enough to lift the wreck with associated cradle and with shallow enough draught to safely approach the site would have to be found. Both, option 1) and 2) will require a considerable amount of underwater time, as well as heavy dredging equipment and possibly sheet piling or the construction of an underwater cofferdam in order to prevent an infill of the excavated areas. Option 2 will also require heavy lifting equipment. In the light of the nature and importance of the site, option 3) would be recommended. This would require limited underwater fieldwork in order to:  

Tag all exposed timbers with more permanent tags on the basis of the existing plan Record three sections through the wreck at bow, stern and in the midship area to supplement the existing UMA measurements

The wreck could then be cleared with a large grab. The clearance operation should be closely monitored by archaeologists. It should be aimed at recovering large coherent sections of wreckage. Recovered sections should then be recorded on land using a total station, Faro arm or conventional recording methods. The report on wreck site SL4, which was recovered by grab in the course of a major dredging project in the Netherlands can serve as an example for the amount of information that can be extracted from shipwreck cleared in this way (Adams et al. 1990, 71ff.).

7. References Adams, J., van Holk, A.F., & Maarleveld, T.J. 1990. Dredgers and Archaeology. Shipfinds from the Slufter. Alphen aan den Rijn. Auer, J. 2009. Prerow Fieldschool 2009 « Maritime Archaeology Programme. Available at: http://maritimearchaeologyprogramdenmark.wordpress.com/tag/prerowfieldschool-2009/ [Accessed December 17, 2009].

Berg, G. 1999. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Darßes und des Zingstes. Janke, W., & Lampe, R. 1998. Die Entwicklung der Nehrung Fischland-Darss-Zingst und ihres Umlandes seit der Litorina Transgression und die Rekonstruktion ihrer subrezenten Dynamik mittels historischer Karten. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementbände 112: 177-194. Kiecksee, H. 1972. Die Ostsee-Sturmflut 1872. Heide: Boyens. Mohr, D. 1977. Katalog der aufgefundenen Schiffswracks an der Ostseeküste des Fischland und Darss zwischen Dierhagen und Müggenburg. Katalog für das Schifffahrtsmuseum Rostock. Oertling, T.J. 1996. Ships' Bilge Pumps. A History of Their Development, 1500-1900. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Reichsamt des Inneren. 1879. Entscheidungen des Ober-Seeamts und der Seeämter des Deutschen Reichs. Hamburg: Friederichsen. Stone, D., & Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia. 1993. The wreck diver's guide to sailing ship artifacts of the 19th century. Vancouver: Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia. Szymanski, H. 1929. Die Segelschiffe der deutschen Kleinschiffahrt. Szymanski, H. 1932a. Der Ever der Niederelbe : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Schiffahrt und zur Volkskunde Niedersachsens. Szymanski, H. 1932b. Der Ever der Niederelbe : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Schiffahrt und zur Volkskunde Niedersachsens. Szymanski, H. 1934. Deutsche Segelschiffe. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Meereskunde an der Universität Berlin. Historisch-volkswirtschaftliche Reihe 1934. Thuerkow, D. 2009a. Die Entwicklung des Prerower Stroms von 600 bis 2000 u.Z. Available at: http://mars.geographie.unihalle.de/geovlexcms/golm/geomorph/prerowstromgenese [Accessed December 17, 2009]. Thuerkow, D. 2009b. Entstehung und Dynamik der Landschaft Fischland-Darß-Zingst. Available at: http://mars.geographie.unihalle.de/geovlexcms/golm/geomorph/ausgleichskueste [Accessed December 17, 2009]. Tiepolt, L., & Schumacher, W. 1999. Historische bis rezente Küstenveränderungen im Raum Fischland-Darss-Zingst-Hiddensee anhand von Karten, Luft- und Satellitenbildern. Die Küste 61: 22-45.

Appendix 1: Oversize Figures Figure 17: Plan of the wreck site showing the location of individual timbers where possible (S7). MAP 2009. Figure 18: Top view drawing of site FPL 17. MAP 2009. Figure 19: Photomosaics of the outside of bow and stern of the wreck. MAP 2009. Figure 20: Photomosaics of wreck structure at bow and stern. Photographs are only stitched together to provide a visual reference and are heavily distorted. MAP 2009. Figure 21: FPL 17 compared to line drawings of other 19th century merchant vessels. MAP 2009.

2m Project: Site Code: Drawing No:

Figure 18

Prerow Fieldschool 2009 FPL 17 S11

Date:

09.08.2009

Scale:

1:50

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Photomosaic of the outside of the bow seen from portside forward. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.

Photomosaic of the outside of the stern seen from portside, aft. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale. Project: Site Code: Drawing No:

Figure 19

Prerow Fieldschool 2009 FPL 17 -

Date:

22.12.2009

Scale:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Photomosaic of the inside of the bow structure seen from above. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale.

Photomosaic of the inside of the stern seen from above. Merged from multiple photographs in Adobe Photoshop. Not to scale. Project: Site Code: Drawing No:

Figure 20

Prerow Fieldschool 2009 FPL 17 -

Date:

22.12.2009

Scale:

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Pommersche Jacht, Stralsund 1869. L: 16.2m. After Szymanski 1934.

Schuner, Luebeck 1832. L: 25.5m. After Szymanski 1934.

Rahschlup, Luebeck 1852. L: 19.5m. After Szymanski 1934. 6m

Mast 2m

Pumps 5.2m

17.5m

SimpliďŹ ed reconstruction of FPL 17. The midship section is reconstructed on the basis of UMA measurements. Galeasse Karl und Marie, Barth. Built in Ribnitz, 1884. L: 17.4m. After Szymanski 1934. 0

Project: Site Code: Drawing No:

Figure 21

Prerow Fieldschool 2009 FPL 17 -

Date:

22.12.2009

Scale:

1:150

Drawn by:

Inked by:

Digitised by:

Appendix 2: Timber records

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

Joined to

Additional comments

WA cm

WB cm

200

Frame

Oak

202

Frame

Oak

203

Frame

Oak

204

Frame

Paired

Paired with 205

Oak

205

Frame

Paired

Paired with 204

Oak

206

Frame

Oak

207

Frame

Oak

208

Frame

Oak

209

Frame

Oak

210

Frame

Oak

211

Frame

Oak

212

Frame

Oak

213

Frame

Oak

214

Frame

Oak

215

Frame

Oak

216

Frame

Paired

Paired with 217

Oak

217

Frame

Paired

Paired with 216

Oak

218

Frame

Oak

219

Frame

Oak

220

Frame

Oak

221

Frame

Oak

222

Frame

Oak

223

Frame

Oak

224

Frame

Oak

225

Frame

Oak

226

Frame

Oak

227

Frame

Oak

228

Frame

Oak

229

Plank

Outer

Oak

230

Plank

Outer

Oak

232

Plank

Outer

Oak

233

Plank

Outer

Oak

234

Plank

Outer

Oak

235

Plank

Outer

Oak

237

Plank

Outer

Oak

238

Plank

Outer

Oak

239

Frame

Cant

240

Very short

Paired

Paired with 412

MH cm

MI cm

SH cm

S-I cm

Wood species

Oak

Frame

Oak

241

Frame

Oak

242

Post

Oak

Stemson

Cant frame, more or less triangular in cross-section

T cm

Not sketched sits inside ship

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

Joined to

Additional comments

WA cm

WB cm

T cm

MH cm

MI cm

SH cm

S-I cm

243

Frame

244

Frame

245

Plank

Ceiling

246

Plank

Ceiling

247

Plank

Ceiling

248

Plank

Ceiling

Oak

249

Plank

Ceiling

Oak

250

Plank

Ceiling

Oak

270

Post

Sternpos t

271

Plank

Outer

272

Plank

Outer

273 & 271

273

Plank

Outer

274 & 272

274

Plank

Outer

276 & 273

275

Frame

276

Plank

Outer

278

Plank

Outer

279 & 276

279

Plank

Outer

280 & 278

280

Plank

Outer

281

Plank

Outer

281 & 279 280

284

Plank

Ceiling

286

Frame

Oak

287

Frame

Oak

288

Frame

Oak

289

Frame

Oak

290

Frame

Oak

Filling piece

Wood species Oak

18 / 20 Part of ceiling strake

19 .5

3. 5

Oak

32 Part of ceiling strake

Paired with 304 278 & 274

Remains of Iron band 5 cm wide. The first gudgeon is 6 cm wide. It is attached with 10 mm nails. The top of the first gudgeon is 36 cm from the bottom of the rudder. There is a step in this plank see sheet 272 272 steps into 271. The step is 6 cm high. There is 260 cm from the start of the plank to the step

Oak 2

Oak

4. 5

Oak Oak

24 st n 28 st n

25 fw d 29 fw d

Oak

4. 5

Oak

Cant frame.

Butt-ended plank. Two nails or butt-end bolts otherwise nails.

Plank seems slightly thicker than adjoining planks. Not many fastenings (iron bolts or nails)

24 st n 25 .5 st n 24

29 Plank edge disappears under sand so no width or fastenings observed. 26

Oak

25 bu tt 26. 3 fw d

Oak Oak

Oak

4. 5 44. 5

Oak

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

Joined to

291

Frame

Oak

292

Frame

Oak

293

Frame

Oak

294

Frame

Oak

295

Frame

Paired

Paired with 296

Oak

296

Frame

Paired

Paired with 295

Oak

297

Frame

Oak

298

Frame

Oak

299

Frame

Oak

300

Frame

301

Frame

302

Frame

303

Frame

303

Frame

304

Frame

305

Frame

306

Frame

307

Frame

308

Frame

309

Frame

310

Frame

311

Frame

325

Deadwo od filling frame Deadwo od filling frame Vshaped frame Vshaped frame Vshaped frame

Additional comments

WA cm

WB cm

T cm

MH cm

MI cm

SH cm

S-I cm

Wedge-shaped filling frame. Flat side forward. Crutch with flattened base 14 cm x 14 cm

Oak

Base 10 cm x 14 cm

Oak

Base 10 x 18

Base 10 cm x 18 cm Paired with 275

Wood species

Oak Oak

Cant frame.

12 18

Oak 15

Oak Oak

Vshaped frame

Oak

Treenail

Oak

Frame

Treenail

Oak

326

Frame

Treenail

Oak

327

Frame

Treenail

12 .5 13

328

Plank

329

Frame

Treenail

Oak

330

Frame

Treenail

Oak

331

Frame

Oak

332

Frame

Transverse treenail to 332 Treenail

Oak

333

Frame

Treenail

10 .5 14

334

Frame

Treenail

Oak

335

Frame

Treenail present

Vshaped frame

Outer

Base 12 cm x 30 cm

Base 11 x 24

Treenail 3-3, cm

Oak Oak

Oak

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

336

Plank

337

Frame

338

Plank

339

Frame

340

Frame

Paired

341

Frame

Paired

342

Plank

Outer

343

Frame

344

Plank

Outer

345

Plank

Outer

346

Plank

Outer

347

Frame

348

Frame

349

Frame

Paired

350

Frame

Paired

351

Frame

Joined to

Additional comments

WA cm

WB cm

Outer

T cm

MH cm

MI cm

SH cm

S-I cm

11. 5 Two strakes attached; one iron nail and one treenail in both Repair of plank 342. Length 56 cm. Four iron nails, two on each side, and one trenail connecting to a frame Treenails only? (average diameter between 3 and 3,5 cm) Part of a double frame; one visible transverse treenail to 341 Part of a double frame; one visible transverse treenail to 340. Other fastenings; only treenails. 3 iron and 3 treenails- fastened to every other frame Not possible to get moulded, since covered by sand. No fastenings visible. The timber continues outside the general outline of the wreck Fastened to every frame either with a set of two trenails or a set of one iron nail and one trenail. Also has one iron bolt of some kind of approx. 3 cm in diameter Strake is covered in sand. Measurements not possible Strake is covered in sand. Measurements not possible Only the very end visible from under the strakes. Futtock? Iron nail and treenail fastenings present Part of double frame fastened to 350. Little preserved Part of double framefastened to 349. Iron and treenail fastenings Iron nail fastenings present

Oak 15 .8

13 .5

12. 5

1. 5

Oak

16 .6

Oak

17 .4

Oak

10 .5

Oak

2, 5

Oak ?

Wood species

Oak

Oak Oak 16

Oak

15 .5 10

Oak

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

352

Frame

Paired

353

Frame

Paired

354

Frame

355

Frame

356

Frame

357

Frame

358

Plank

359

Frame

360

Frame

361

Frame

362

Plank

363

Frame

364

Frame

Paired

365

Frame

Paired

366

Frame

367

Frame

368

Frame

Oak

369

Frame

Oak

370

Plank

Outer

Oak

371

Plank

Outer

Oak

372

Frame

373

Frame

374

Frame

375

Plank

376

Frame

Oak

377

Frame

Oak

378

Frame

Cant

Oak

379

Post

Oak

380

Post

Stempos t Cutwater

Cant frame, more or less triangular in cross-section See sketch See sketch

Oak

Outer

Joined to

Additional comments

WA cm

WB cm

T cm

MH cm

S-I cm

Wood species

Oak

13 .5 16

Oak

Iron nail fastenings present Butt mid 357-359

Oak

Treenails present

Oak

Oak 18

Oak

Oak 18

Oak

Paired with 365

Oak

Paired with 364

Oak

Broken part of 364

Moulded depth heart ship 23 Vshaped frame Outer

SH cm

Part of double frame. Only the transverse treenail is left to prove the frames have been connected to 353, 353 other frame is badly preserved. One treenail ad iron nails. Part of double frame, transverse treenails the only visible clue of connection to 352, since this frame is badly preserved. Not possible to get measurements Treenail and iron nail fastenings present Treenail and iron nail fastenings present Very short

Iron nail fastenings present Treenails and nails present Outer

MI cm

Moulded depth 22

Oak

Oak Oak

Find No.

Type

Sub-type

Joined to

Additional comments

WA cm

381

Keelso n

396

Frame

397

Mast

401

Frame

Oak

403

Frame

Oak

404

Plank

Ceiling

Part of ceiling strake

406

Plank

Ceiling

Part of ceiling strake

11 .3 24

409

Plank

Ceiling

Part of ceiling strake

410

Plank

Ceiling

Part of ceiling strake

412

Frame

Paired

Paired with 209

413

Pump

lower pump shafts

67 mm diameter pipes. Shafts 120 mm diameter, 2 shafts at angle to each other

415

Frame

417

Frame

418

Plank

419

Frame

420

Plank

425

Frame

Measurement taken between 367 and 366. depth at notches 22

WB cm

T cm

MH cm

MI cm

SH cm

S-I cm

Oak

Mast, diameter 40mm

Outer

Wood species

Oak Pine

Oak Oak

1. 5 2

Oak

Timber outside the first outlining of the wreck on starboard side. Plank below (outer plank below 357) Iron nail and treenail fastenings Present Ceiling plank below Cant frame. This element is actually two elements joining in the bottom of the ship

Oak Softwood

18 .3 50

Oak

Oak 14

13 .5

4. 5

Oak Oak

Oak

Appendix 3: UMA measurements

Frame No.

On UMA

Distance to frame

289

103

107

109

122

111

124

120

294

293

294

295

297

Comments

1 treenail hole

1 treenail + 1 treenail hole

Frame No.

299

202

204

206

211

On UMA

Distance to frame

104

Comments

2 treenail holes + 1 iron concretion

1 treenail

Bit of iron concretion, maybe iron nail

1 treenail

1 treenailhole + 1 treenail

Frame No.

213

215

217

219

On UMA

Distance to frame

103

102

Comments

1 treenail + 1 treeailhole

1 treenail hole + iron concretion

treenail

2 treenails

Frame No.

On UMA

Distance to frame

Comments

221

1 treenail

103

109

128

103

118

103

113

223

225

369

368

366

1 treenail + hole

1 treenail

Frame No.

364

361

360

359

357

355

On UMA

Distance to frame

104

108

113

12.5

36.5

19.5

110

120

125

135

12.5

111

121

127

134

12.5

126

137

144

160

12.5

72.5

99.5

117

130

145

158

163

12.5

103

153.5

12.5

Comments

Frame No.

354

352

351

419

348

339

337

On UMA

Distance to frame

102

124

142

153.5

12.5

91.5

127.5

160

169

173

12.5

101

125.5

136.5

151

12.5

97.5

120

141

153

189.5

79.5

112

148

156.5

189.5

118.5

100.5

125

142

168

170

51.5

73.5

Comments

Planking begins

Frame No.

335

331

329

326

311

309

On UMA

Distance to frame

136.5

166

78.5

107.5

140.5

151

167.5

96.5

117.5

142.5

140.5

158

100.5

116.5

131

146

102

104

111

72.5

83.5

100

Comments

Harder to place UMA due to cover planks underneath

Frame No.

307

On UMA

Distance to frame

Comments