|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 10, 2014 9:06:23 GMT
OK, we are cooking with gas now!
Clayton, the reason that Henrik and Arent were thought to be brothers has nothing to do with their height, since we have no idea how tall either one of them was. Arent was confused by early Vasa historians with another Dutch merchant with ties to Sweden, Arnaud Hybertsson. Arnaud was an associate of the Dutch arms entrepreneur Louis de Geer, who was heavily involved in the Swedish armaments industry after 1627. In the normal handwriting of 17th-century Sweden, "Arent" (or Arendt, as it was more often spelled in Sweden, although he always singed his name Arent de Groote)and "Arnaud" are almost impossible to tell apart. Henrik did have a brother, who is referred to once in the shipyard accounts, and it might have been Arnaud Hybertsson. A Dutch historian, Jirsi Reinders, managed to untangle this mess only a couple of years ago.
Arent called himself Arent de Groote, not Arent Jakobsson in his own correspondence and legal documents, and it may have been to associate himself with a well-known merchant family of that name. He was quite young when Vasa was built (he was born in 1600, according to baptismal records in Amsterdam)and still building a career. He might have gotten the nickname de Groot if he was a big man, but whether he would take this as his official name (with the spelling suggesting great rather than just big), who knows? People make all sorts of illogical decsions.
Jules, I think you are right that the lack of fasteners between the frame elements is a diagnostic feature for the bottom-based method (I would like to get away from the northern/southern distinction, since I think it is misleading). Archaeologically, the spijkerpennetjes are sometimes easier to spot, but the two together are pretty conclusive proof.
The models in the shipbuilding exhibit were decided on by the exhibit producer, Hans Soop, in the early 1990s. I can ask him why they chose to illustrate the bottom-based method, but it may be the Landström influence. It is an interesting choice, since Eva Marie favored the frame-based solution and she was still working at the museum then.
I think you are also right that this type of shipbuilding is becoming one of the best documented, in part because there have been a large number of wrecks excavated and studied in detail. I would say that we know an equal amount about Roman and Viking shipbuilding methods from archaeology, and that there has been a great deal of research on Venetian shipbuilding on the basis of treatises. The Dutch bottom-based methods (often called "Dutch flush" in the archaeological literature, for some reason)are unusual in that there is written and archaeological evidence for the same period, and that the correspond closely enough to be useful complements to each other. None of the studied wrecks is built exactly as Witsen describes, but there are enough similarities to make the comparison useful.
Witsen is certainly one of the most misused sources in the study of shipbuilding, since very few people have bothered to read it all the way through and understand the whole process he describes. Witsen does not help, since the organization is a little haphazard in places, but the writing is clear enough if you pay attention. I like the way Hoving organized his English translation to try to make the meaning a little more accessible. Clayton might start there before trying to Google translate the 17th-century Dutch.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by Clayton on Mar 10, 2014 13:35:53 GMT
Ha! So this person was wrong. Not too surprising, actually. This person also argued against something that I remember very clearly you telling me in 2011 (about Anders Franzen's political leanings), and you said it in front of other very knowledgeable Vasa-people onboard Sankt Erik when we were checking out your recent popular book. Thanks for the clarification!
A Google translate of 17th century Dutch would be interesting. Google translate works poorly, at best, even on modern versions of languages. I can begin to imagine the butchery that it would do to 17th century Dutch, or any several hundred year old version of a language!
Where do you get a copy of Hoving's English translation?
Cheers! Clayton
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 10, 2014 14:03:56 GMT
Hi Fred, Many thanks for your reponse, again. I will try to use the term 'bottom based' in future. I am surely interested to know what answer mister Soop will give, when you ask him how he came to decide to show the bottom based method in the museum. I think you're probably right in supposing that Landstrom's work had something to do with it. Would be interesting to know to, what mrs. Stolt's reaction was on Soop's decision. I am sure you're right in mentioning some other very well documented shipbuilding methods. My impression is that it's getting harder and harder to keep track with all the new archaeological dicoveries. I am very greatful I told myself I only have to focus on one period and one country: 17th century dutch shipbuilding. That's hard enough as it is. I am glad Vasa is now one of the archaeological sites I can focus on. It is after all the best documented site ever. And the only site of which the main technical guy (excuse the expression), is this approachable. I agree with your advice to Clayton: start with Hoving. But always keep in mind that there are different interpretations of Witsen's texts. Hoving's interpretation is not the only one, and surely isn't always the right one. Kind regards, Jules Ps. I attached the drawing depicting the dutch bottom based method from Arnoul's report of 1670.
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 10, 2014 16:04:40 GMT
I have always liked the material in Arnoul's report, he had a good eye and knew what was important to record. I think it is nice that the hull he showed was not flat-bottomed. Perhaps people should have taken that at face value!
Clayton, Hoving's English translation is published by Texas A&M University Press, you can get it from them. As Jules says, be careful, but I think his translation is pretty good. Interpreting what Witsen meant is up to you!
Fred
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 10, 2014 21:04:51 GMT
Hi Fred, Agree, when you look at Arnoul's drawing it is immediately clear that round hulls can be built with the bottom based method. Talking about Arnoul. His text is published in Colenbrander's 'Bronnen uit vreemde archieven', but unfortunately Colenbrander did not publish Arnoul's drawings. I have found two of Arnoul's drawings on the net by mere coincidence last week. One of them I included above, the other one is below. When I was in Paris years ago I even visited the Bibliotheque Nationale to have a look at them, but was turned away at the door because I was not an official student. The lady was pretty strict on that, no chance of getting in. One of Arnoul's drawings is in Jerzy Gawronski's 'De equipage van de Holandia en de Amsterdam' and I found the title page of Arnoul's report in Lemineur's 'Les vaisseaux du Roi Soleil', but am struggling to find more. I hardly dare to ask, but do you have any links for me so I can find the rest? Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by Clayton on Mar 11, 2014 1:26:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 11, 2014 13:48:12 GMT
Hi Clayton, It sure would be interesting to see if you, with your model ship building experience, come to different views on Witsen's texts. Make sure you share your thoughts with us. The thread may become even more interesting then. I do not think an English translation of Van Yk is available, never came across one. Alan Lemmers was kind enough to translate Hoving's Witsen-book. If he has Van Yk on his to-do-list next, I do not know. One question though. Why is it that when I have to struggle to come to grips with the Swedish text of Ralamb, no one seems to care, but as soon as one learns that Van Yk is only available in Dutch, the interest stops? Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Mar 11, 2014 15:18:39 GMT
Great discussion, that I follow very interested. I do not participate actively, because I don't have enough knowledge in this matter. Carry on! Alexander
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 12, 2014 9:00:26 GMT
I think van Yk is easier to read than Witsen, because of the more rigourous internal organisation, but the Dutch in it is not that different from the modern language once you get used to some spelling quirks. Rålamb is no problem, of course, so man up, Jules . I have not heard Hoving say anything about taking on van Yk, but it would be a simpler job than Witsen to translate. How about it Jules? Between the two of us, we ought to be able to make a readable English version. And then we could do Rålamb. Fred
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 12, 2014 10:39:35 GMT
Fred, you never stop to amaze me. All the things you have to do for work and for this forum, and you're still looking for extra work! If we concentrate on Ralamb first, you've got yourself a deal. We'll translate Ralamb in a month or so, and do Van Yk in the next couple of weeks. No problem.
I'll start things of with some of Van Yk though. I'll give the translation of the first couple of lines from the 'certer' of the big ship of 1629 I mentioned before. For Vasa-connaisseurs, like our forum-members, this 'certer' seems to be the most appropriate in Van Yks work. It describes a very large ship that was built in almost the same year as Vasa.
(Sorry for the lay out. The forum-support for tabs does not seem to be as sophisticated as in Word. Should have used the table-option probably.)
Contract of a Ship long 172, wide 39 Feet 9 Thumb, depth 20 Feet 8 Thumbs, built in the Year 1629.
Foot Thumb
The Keel was long 134 3 The Scarphs closed with 30 Bolts were long 11 0 The Ends were thick 0 4 Deep at the front 2 0 Deep at the middle 2 1 Deep at the end 1 5 Wide at the middle 2 1 Fore and aft according to the stem-and sternpost. The rabbet was hacked deep 0 3 1/2 Was at first hacked wide 0 7 Then hacked to 0 4 1/2 The inner rabbet was thick 0 4 1/4 Was hacked rising, up to the Garboard strake 2 0 Twisted Sharply, measured from the Heel 18 6 Was at the inner side of the Stem hacked up to the Keel 0 2 And there Keelward down 0 6 The keel was stacked hollow 0 7 The Holes of the Scarph-Nails stood wide 1 1 That's all we find about the keel. Van Yk continues with 9 pages packed with information about this ship. One of the features of this ship is that it, like Vasa, has four sets of wales below the first row of gunports.
I hope it becomes clear that it is hard to come to grips with this matter. Interpretation of this information is not straight forward and thus open to interpretation and discussion. Design drawings showing what this all means, can be posted to this forum. Making a design drawing based on this information might be a good practice for Clayton, preferably before he starts on Witsen.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 13, 2014 9:17:43 GMT
This looks like good stuff. The 1629 specification has always interested me. The keel length is very close to Vasa (128 Swedish feet, which is almost exactly 134 feet 3 inches in Amsterdam feet of 283 mm), although Vasa is slightly narrower and taller. Keel cross sections match up reasonably well too.
I would use inches rather than thumbs, and hewn instead of hacked, but I think most of this is pretty easy to follow.
As an alternative strategy, I will translate Rålamb and you can translare van Yk, and then we will exchange for corrections!
We actually plan to use a translation of this contract from van Yk as an appendix in Vasa III, because it is so close, and so you will be getting some question from me at that point.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 13, 2014 16:08:01 GMT
Thanks Fred, So you think the contract is in Amsterdam foot? Might be in Rotterdam feet to, you never know with Van Yk since he came from the south. But since Van Yk worked for the VOC and this contract probably concerns a big VOC-ship, I believe you're probably right; the VOC standardized to the Amsterdam foot. Problem is, by heart, I do not know in what year they standardized. If you're interested, I can try to find it in Van Dam for you. Hmm, I have to pass on your proposal for the translation of Ralamb and Van Yk. Van Yk: 370 pages, Ralamb: 70 pages. If you do the Ralamb, I'll do 70 pages of Van Yk of your choice. No problem on your requests for the translation: I'll use 'inch' and 'hewn' if you prefer it that way; your wish is my command. I'll give you the next bit of the 1629-contract of Van Yk. At this pace I should be ready by the time you have finished Vasa III (Any ideas when? So I can start planning). In foots and inches again:
The Stem, measured with the curve, was long | 47 | 0 | In the square, from the top of the keel | 32 | 8 | Fell to the front | 34 | 0 | Was thick | 1 | 6 | Was wide, at the top | 3 | 0 | In the middle | 2 | 6 | Below | 3 | 6 | The inner Rabbet was thick | 0 | 4 1/2 | The Rabbet was wide | 0 | 4 | was deep | 0 | 3 1/2 | The Stem was, at the bottom, hewn to, at each side | 0 | 1 |
That's all about the stem. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by Clayton on Mar 20, 2014 5:22:07 GMT
Jules, As I read Witsen I will post my thoughts and impressions. It could be a very interesting exercise. I had the privilege of reading some advance copy stuff from some of Fred's writings on the rigging process, and my general impression is that the methods used and the order things were done to rig the real thing compared to a model are very drastically different. Will be interesting if this seems the same.
Sorry kind of at danger of changing the subject...
I ordered the Hoving's translation from the A&M University Press, but haven't received a confirmation or other notification in several days. Maybe this is because they are on spring break. I look forward to it though.
Clayton
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 9:18:52 GMT
Hi Clayton,
I await your comments on Witsen with great anticipation. Let's make it an interesitng discussion.
You are in an enviable position if you have access to Fred's 'advance copy stuff'. Are you his co-reader?
On Hoving's book: it has a delivery time of 2 to 3 weeks in the Netherlands as well.
Jules
|
|
|
Post by Clayton on Mar 24, 2014 23:11:18 GMT
Hi Jules,
I am not officially Fred's co-reader. He just sent me a copy of some of the writings that are about how to rig a ship around the time that I was rigging my model. I think it was partially written or at least edited by Olof Pipping too. I would refer to people like Pipping as Fred's much more official co-readers!
I did end up getting a confirmation after I wrote that, and it looks like I should have Witsen in the mail tomorrow. Looking forward to reading! At the same time, I am building a model of a Donald Mckay built U.S. sloop from the late 19th century, the remains of which are very close to where I grew up (Duluth Minnesota). I am going to replicate the framing of the section of the hull that exists. I even ended up pretty much convincing my archaeologist friends of the orientation of it; as stern first to the beach rather than bow first as they burned it for its fasteners.
Interestingly, the remains show a wooden hull that is very solid, somewhat like Vasa's, with floors and futtocks of many different dimensions. Wood was one material that was in no shortage around that time in much of North America.
Cheers! Clayton
|
|