Dutch, northern European shipbuilding in the 16th century

B

Bela

Joined
Jun 9, 2023
Messages
48
Points
58

Hello ,

There are quite a few very good research articles on shipbuilding here.
It's very impressive and well worth reading.
I am particularly fascinated by Dutch, northern European shipbuilding of the 17th century.
There is also quite a lot of contemporary source material available, be it building contracts, extensive writings or archaeological finds.
This forum brings together people with the highest level of expertise, who thankfully share their knowledge with us.

But what did the shipbuilding in question look like in the 16th century? The development of hull construction in particular in the second half would be of great interest to me.
Is there any source material on this, or where can I find it?

Thank you very much for your information

Bela
 
.​
Hi Bela,

In posing your question, are you still referring to the North Continental (skeleton-first) tradition, as opposed to the Mediterranean/English one? If so, you might try to find some archaeological report of a relevant wreck in good condition from that period, and there's a good chance that together we'll come to some meaningful result. The waters of the Baltic in particular are a veritable mine of dozens if not hundreds of such wrecks (e.g. the Swedish capital ship Mars 1564).

The thing is, however, that the current trend in archaeology is for wrecks to be left in situ (for various reasons, including financial), and under such conditions it is virtually impossible to take the exact hull shapes that would allow recognition of the conceptual method used. In addition, researchers/archaeologists consider these findings almost as their private property, and as a result are very reluctant to share useful information with anyone before their work is published, which can take decades, not happen at all, or not contain anything of real cognitive value in this aspect.

Concluding, the issue is very interesting indeed, yet – unfortunately – quite hopeless.
.​
 
-Waldemar- said:
.​
Hi Bela,

In posing your question, are you still referring to the North Continental (skeleton-first) tradition, as opposed to the Mediterranean/English one? If so, you might try to find some archaeological report of a relevant wreck in good condition from that period, and there's a good chance that together we'll come to some meaningful result. The waters of the Baltic in particular are a veritable mine of dozens if not hundreds of such wrecks (e.g. the Swedish capital ship Mars 1564).

The thing is, however, that the current trend in archaeology is for wrecks to be left in situ (for various reasons, including financial), and under such conditions it is virtually impossible to take the exact hull shapes that would allow recognition of the conceptual method used. In addition, researchers/archaeologists consider these findings almost as their private property, and as a result are very reluctant to share useful information with anyone before their work is published, which can take decades, not happen at all, or not contain anything of real cognitive value in this aspect.

Concluding, the issue is very interesting indeed, yet – unfortunately – quite hopeless.
.​
Click to expand...
Yes, I am interested in the northern continental tradition (shell first). But where does a search promise to be useful. So far I have not been able to find any usable sources.
But what sources are available to me?
 
.​
As far as archaeological material is concerned, in the first instance have a look at the excellent study by Christian Lemée, The Renaissance Shipwrecks from Christianshavn. An archaeological and architectural study of large carvel vessels in Danish waters, 1580–1640.

When it comes to structural and construction issues from the perspective of the most important written source on the bottom-first method, Ab Hoving's book – Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, is unbeatable.

.​
 
Many thanks for the tips.
I will look around for the first one. I am aware of the second. I'm just wondering how far Nicolaes Witsen is transferable to the second half of the 16th century.
I mean, when I compare the Mary Rose with Mathew Baker, for example, I wonder whether the considerable differences can be seen as part of a development process, just as there may have been a development in form towards Witsen's depictions.
 
.​
Bela, from the start of presumably unhurried adoption in the whole of the north of the continent of carvel-planked ships (i.e. in the 15th to 16th centuries) until roughly 1600, the situation is not at all clear when it comes to shipbuilding techniques. If you are most interested in the bottom-first method, then if I were you, I would first try to ascertain whether the bottom-first method was indeed in use outside the Netherlands even before the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, when there was only a veritable and confirmed invasion of this method in Germany and Scandinavia, through Dutch shipwrigths migrating outside Netherlands.

Besides, there are known cases where ships in the Baltic were built by Mediterranean (Venetian) shipwrights, specifically in the years 1570–1572.

Further, it would be very interesting to know anything about shipbuilding techniques in the German coastal cities from the declining Hanseatic period, however the sources are really desperately lacking either in written, iconographic and archaeological form. You are German, so you have a better chance to find something relevant in German archives.

It is also known, for example, that in the second half of the 16th century the Baltic port of Danzig was an exporter of ships on a huge scale, also sold to the Netherlands. There must surely have been a reciprocal exchange of experience and applied shipbuilding techniques, in both directions.

However, we can really only guess what was really going on in the Baltic region at the time, i.e. up to around 1600, in terms of shipbuilding methods.

.​
 
Last edited:
.​
On the other hand, it is indeed very likely that the bottom-first method, now associated exclusively with the Netherlands (or rather the north of the Netherlands), is in fact a continuation of the techniques used in the construction of medieval cogs, and these were built all over the north of the continent, including entire German coasts. Perhaps it is just that the bottom-first method died out at the latest in the Netherlands, which is why we only have written descriptions of this method from the Netherlands?

It is precisely because of these circumstances that I elected to use the term Dutch/North Continental rather than always simply Dutch.

.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top