A critique of the works of Nicolaes Witsen

[Philemon1948]

The ship Nicolaes Witsen presents is not an 'average' ship, certainly not according to the general ratios and rules Witsen presents himself in his book. You could even argue the presented ship, Nicolaes' example ship 'by gedachten gebouwt' (built in mind),  isn't a pinas at all but another type of ship.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The two books, written by Nicolaes Witsen about shipbuilding in his time raises many questions. The core of both books consists of a ship Nicolaes calls a ‘pinas’, a type of ship built in the Dutch Republic as a merchant ship. A ship with a square stern and three masts. And Nicolaes mentions this ship to be ‘by gedachten gebouwt’, built in mind. Is this a virtual ship, a complete imaginary ship, purely made up by Nicolaes, assembled with bits and pieces of information he could get hold on, or is it a description of a ship that really existed?

It is interesting to examine and compare the information Nicolaes gives about his ‘example ship’ with the more general information he gives about the ratio’s and measurements of this type of ship, and with the information of specific ship types Nicolaes presents. If you do so, one thing starts to emerge: the significant difference between the measurements of his so called 'pinas', his ‘example ship’, and the general information of this same ship type, he presents.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

In the following posts I will give a few examples of the strange inconsistencies and/or omissions in the books of Nicolaes Witsen. The first one can be found on plate 42 from the edition of 1671. Here Nicolaes presents a longitudinal section of his example ship. He states the following about this plate: “Dit zyn de meest voorname Scheeps-deelen, die men byzonder op 't papier vertoonen kan. D'overige zullen best bekent worden, wanneer men haar in het Schip zelve aanwyst; waar toe ik het voorgestelde Schip in gedachten, doorgesneden in verscheide gestalten, ten toon stel, als hier volght”. (These are the most prominent ship-parts, which one can show in particular on paper. The other are best known by showing them in the ship itself, to which end I show the presented ship in mind, cut in several shapes as follows.)

The first sentence clearly indicates that drawings were made in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic. The second sentence refers amongst others to the longitudinal section at the bottom of this plate. After this sentence Nicolaes starts to mention the ship parts indicated by the different letters. One of the most intriguing parts in this longitudinal section are the main mast and the keel. About this keel Nicolaes states: “Dusdanige kiel van drie stukken wort sterker gehouden dan of men die van twee stukken maakte, dewyle in een kiel van drie stukken de lasschen voor en achter zyn, en in het midden, alwaar de kiel de meeste last heeft te lyden, van wegen de groote mast, geheel zonder lasschen komt te blyven; 't geen zeer goet is, en het Schip stevig maakt, dewyle het spoor van de groote mast gemeenlyk omtrent of in het midden van de kiel gestelt wort”. (A keel made from three parts is thought to be stronger than one made of two parts, because a keel made of three parts has joints fore and aft, while in the middle, where the keel is most heavily burdened, because of the main mast, remains without joints, which is very good and makes the ship strong, while the stepmast of the main mast usually is positioned around halfway the keel.) If this plate depicts Nicolaes’ example ship and Nicolaes states that it is better to make a keel out of three parts instead of two, then why present a picture with a keel made of two parts? If this is an imaginary ship, Nicolaes could have made the drawing exactly to his own wishes and recommendations. But he doesn’t. The keel is made of two parts and the main mast is standing exactly on top of the joint of the two keelparts. About this joint Nicolas states something else: “deeze lasschen moeten wel over malkanderen heen schieten; d’onder lasschen moeten altydt naar het achterste deel van ‘t Schip strekken”. (these joints should cover each other, the lower parts of these joints always point to the part of the ship aft.) In other words, the oblique surface of the joint has to have a direction downwards from fore to aft, so the second keelpart should rest on the first, but at this plate it is the other way round. Apart from the reason why the oblique surface of the joint should have this direction, Nicolaes makes a very specific statement about this direction but makes a drawing where he shows exactly the opposite. This deviaton cannot be explained by the fact the drawing of Nicolaes appears mirrored when copied in copper and subsequently printed.

The keel made of two parts, the main mast exactly positioned on the joint of the two keel parts and the lower part of the joint pointing forwards instead of backwards. Why? Why did Nicolaes made a drawing which shows exactly the opposite from what he describes in his text? I can’t explain this unless this drawing is made up from information Nicolaes had which leads to the conclusion the ship he describes wasn’t an imaginary ship but a real existing one, which had, for some reason, the features shown on plate 42. Still, if so, why doesn’t Nicolaes mentions this? Again, you can’t imagine he wouldn’t have spotted these inconsistencies. He made this drawing himself and he presumably wrote the text himself.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Philemon1948

[PietFriet]

Interesting points you raise although it is certainly not unusual for older books to have inconsistencies. We are probably reading them with a scrutiny that is unusual for those times and where these inconsistencies were not considered sufficient to update a far more elaborate publishing process. Particularly if a book is written over many years, earlier contributions (e.g. drawings) may become outdated before the book is actually published. It would certainly make sense that a keel is split in three as he describes and it is indeed funny to see that he then shows a drawing where that is not done. I'm sure they must have found out the hard way that it is better to not place the mast on a joint!

 

I am not sure why his 'imaginary' ship can not be a real ship anyway (a conclusion you draw from the inconsistency). It is always difficult to interpret 17th century language, particularly when then translated in English. When I read 'in gedachten' (in mind, imaginary?) then I interpret that as that he was not building the ship in reality (we know he was not a shipbuilder). However, that does not necessarily mean that what he describes is a complete figure of his imagination and that it does not reflect a real ship. How well it describes a real ship may be difficult to assess, considering that the ship designs evolved rather fast at the time. In that respect it is interesting to see how difficult it proves to determine ship types and how new finds often discredit earlier views. A bit similar as with determining the history of humans.

 

Anyway, it is a nice consequence of this hobby to dive into the history!

[Philemon1948]

Hello PietFriet,

 

Thanks for your reaction. You present  a slight but very interesting change in perspective for me. Nicolaes Witsen wasn't a shipwright. So with the phrase 'by gedachten gebouwt', built in mind, Nicolaes can never have meant he built or helped building this ship in reality let alone the stature of the man. That is quite an interesting way to interpret this phrase. When you look at the amount of information Nicolaes presents, this must have been an existing ship, at least that is what I think. For what I now understand of what Nicolaes wrote he isn't capable either of fully understanding the building process. So he makes use of information of a ship that has been built and builds, for himself and the reader, this ship again, hence the phrase 'built in mind'. There are some more considerations possible about this plate 42 as to the actual performance and geometry i.e. it might be possible they had, back then, considerations which resulted in an execution like this. But there are more inconsistencies in Nicolaes Witsen's work which have a much more severe consequence. I will try to say more about that in the next post.

[Philemon1948]

For me, the most striking enigma Nicolaes Witsen presents in his two books is the geometry of his pinas. In chapter nine Nicolaes starts with giving general ratios according to which a good ship should be built. To demonstrate how to derive the desired measurements, Nicolaes calculates these measurements using these ratio’s using a pinas with a length of 100 feet as an example. He goes on doing this about seven pages long. After that Nicolaes starts giving the mere measurements of his example ship he calls a pinas, measuring 134 feet over stem and stern. The striking thing is that all given measurements for this pinas differ from the ratio’s according to which Nicolaes states a ship should be built. All but one: the height of the bilge. And the difference is quite substantial, some measurement deviate more than 100 percent. Even the main measurements of this 134 feet pinas deviate significantly from the initial given ratio’s. The ratio of length to width for Nicolaes’ 134 feet pinas is 4,62 : 1, while the general ratio Nicolaes gives is 4 : 1. The same ratio of 4 : 1 is also given in Grebber’s table, a table of measurements for different parts of a ship for varying given lengths which is included in Nicolaes’ books. If you compare all the given main measurements for all the ships Nicolaes presents in his book, about 63 ships (edition 1671), the ratio length to width has an average of 4,18 : 1. Cornelis van Yk gives in his book the main measurements for 52 ships with an average of 4,24 : 1. The ‘fluitschepen’ or flutes in Witsen’ book have an average ratio of 4,89 : 1 although Witsen speaks of these flutes as ‘imaginary’ ships. The flutes presented by Cornelis van Yk are much wider. But the striking fact is the ratio of Nicolaes’ example pinas has a ratio of 4,62 : 1 which is by far the narrowest ship Nicolaes presents apart from the imaginary flutes. When we disregard these imaginary flutes, Nicolaes 134 feet pinas is the narrowest ship but one who has a ratio of 4,75 : 1. To make the enigma complete Nicolaes states: “Het schip hier in gedachten gebouwt is noch van de wydste noch van de naauwste slagh; welke maat met voordacht is genoomen, om zoo wel een Oorlogh-als een Koopvaardy-schip te vertoonen”. (The ship built here in mind is nor the widest nor the narrowest kind; which size is chosen deliberately, to be able to represent a warship as well as a merchant ship.)

A warship has a ratio length to width around 4 : 1 or a bit wider. A merchant ship has an average ratio around 4,2 : 1 as we have seen. So this statement from Nicolaes is far from the truth. How is that possible? The first thought that came to my mind is that you can hardly believe Nicolaes didn’t notice this very significant deviation and subsequently made this statement. In this respect it is interesting to compare the two editions of Nicolaes’ book. The second edition of 1690 is completely rewritten (!) and supplemented with much more information. You could suppose Nicolaes corrects mistakes and errors in this second copy of his book and he does. In both books for instance, Nicolaes gives a ‘kostencerter’ a cost overview for building a ship. In the 1671 edition he added the costs to a total amount which is wrong. This number is corrected in the edition of 1690. If you go to such great lengths to be as precise and complete as possible, one may assume Nicolaes didn’t regard the deviations of his example pinas as significant while all the information we can gather about his ship shows something completely different. Nicolaes didn’t change the information and comments about his 134 pinas in the second edition of his book. I don’t have an explanation for this. The most important thing it implies in my view is that this 134 pinas certainly wasn’t an imaginary or virtual ship but really existed. If you want to present a virtual ship you don’t make up all these measurements who differ so significantly from your own general rules and ratio’s. The ratio length : width also gives room for the thougt this ship wasn’t a pinas at all but more a flute like vessel. But of what kind? And is there a way to establish this?

Edited May 20, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The content of Nicolaes’ books raises more questions. The following example is a plate with a very peculiar omission. It concerns plate 49 from the edition of 1671. (Attachment 1). This plate shows the completed stern construction seen from the front. Nicolaes states about this plate: “Model van de Spiegel aen de binnekant te zien by L. (Model of the stern construction at the inside visible at L.).

Very peculiar are the missing gunports. In the Dutch seventeenth century, the bigger square sterned ships usually have two gunports, one at port and one starboard just below the wing transom. Even more curious is the fact the jambs making the vertical limitation of these ports are also missing in Nicolaes’ text. These jambs are in Dutch called ’tuimelaars’, tumblers. As far as I know there is no clear English term for these construction pieces. Nicolaes doesn’t mention them anywhere in his book. Even though these tumblers are visible at many other plates Nicolaes presents. Like plate 32 shows for instance. (Attachment 2). This is a picture of the complete stern construction seen from behind. Beneath the superstructure the lower stern construction can be seen with clearly two vertical tumblers in between the wing transom and the first transom. The large plate showing the completed ship at sea also clearly shows a gunport at port beside the sternpost. (Attachment 3). Attached is a cutout of this plate showing this gunport. Why are these tumblers missing in the overall drawing of the stern construction and why aren’t they mentioned in Nicolaes’ texts? These tumblers play a significant role in the stern construction and in the overall appearance of the large VOC and warships in the seventeenth century. How is it possible Nicolaes omitted these tumblers in this drawing and in his text while other pictures in his books show they were there? One could argue it is possible these tumblers disappeared in the transfer from drawing to copper plate. But if we look at the plates in the 1690 edition this stern construction appears exactly the same way. (Attachment 4). The construction pieces shown on this plate from the 1690 edition are copied from the edition of 1671 as most of these construction pieces, concerning the construction of Nicolaes’ example ship, are copied from the 1671 edition, hence the mirrored appearance of these construction parts. But Nicolaes corrects nothing in his second edition, the tumblers are still missing in the stern construction. If the text would mention them the omission at the plates could be explained as an error made by the engraver. But the tumblers are also absent in Nicolaes’ text in both editions which makes this the more strange. How reliable are these pictures Nicolaes presents? And did he really made these pictures himself? In the 1690 edition the caption: ’N. Witsen delin’, visible beneath all plates concerning the building of his example ship, disappears. You could say this is formally correct because the basis of the pictures in the 1690 edition are the engravings in the 1671 edition. Another question is why Nicolaes reorganised his plates concerning the building of his example ship? Nicolaes is able to cram the first seven of his original plates of his 1671 edition in one plate of his 1690 edition with considerable loss in quality, while twenty-four construction parts, shown in the first edition of his book, do not return in the second edition. One explanation can be Nicolaes developed a serious argument with Romeyn de Hooghe, whose studio made the engravings for the 1671 edition. Maybe Nicolaes did not posses the original copper plates and when he decided to publish a second edition of his book, was forced to make new plates using the pictures from his first edition. He apparently made use of this situation to reduce the number of plates considerably. But that can’t provide an explanation for the absence of the tumblers in his overall drawing of the stern construction and its subsequent description. The next post highlights an even more puzzling omission.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

Another, quite serious omission that can be found in Nicolaes’ books is the lack of trim by the stern when determining the height of the sternpost. Nicolaes is not very accurate in mentioning all the factors involved in constituting this height. He states: “Tot de lengte van de achter-steven brengt t'zaam, of addeert, de holte, het opzetten, en dat daar boven is” (For the length of the sternpost bring together or add the height (of the ship), the rising of the deck and what is above that.) Nicolaes mentions two specific measurements, the height of the ship, one of the three main measurements and the rising of the deck towards aft. The phrase ‘what is above that’ is less obvious but seems to refer to a measurement which comes on top the rising of the deck, so a structure aft. Cornelis van Yk also states in his book from 1697 how to establish the height of the sternpost: “De regte langte dan vande Agter-Steeven is, Vooreerst het Stuurlastig gaan van ‘t Schip, daar voor datmen op yder 50 Voeten, Schips Langte, een Voet, of wat meerder mag stellen. Ten tweeden Schips Holte onder sijn Overloop. Ten derden de Hoogte van ‘t Dek op de groote Hals, alwaar gemeenlijk dese tusschen Ruimte, in drie gelyke Deelen voor de Geschut Poorten verdeeld werd. Ten Vierden, zo veel als den Overloop agter behoord op te rysen, daar voor datmen voor yder 10 Voeten Schips Langte, 2 Duimen mag reekenen, meer of minder, na believen. Te weten, als het Schip in ‘t water leid. En eindelijk de Breedte vande Heckbalk, alle dese getallen nu t’ samen geteld, geven Steevens waare Langte.” (The straight length of the sternpost is, first the trim by the stern, for which one may take one foot, or a bit more, for every fifty feet ships length. Second, the height of the ship beneath the lower deck. Third, the height of the deck at the ‘groote Hals’ (the place where the height of the ship is also measured), where usually this height is divided in three parts for the gunports. Fourth, the rise of the lower deck towards aft, for which one may count two inches for every ten feet ships length, more or less as desired. To be established when the ship is lying in the water. And finally the width of the wing-transom, all these figures added give the sternposts true length.)

The list of measurements to determine the length of the sternpost is incomplete in Nicolaes’ books or so it seems. The most striking measurement missing, is trim by the stern. Here we encounter something quite fundamental. Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk both wrote books about the practice of shipbuilding in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic. If you want to understand something of what they wrote, we have to interpret the text i.e., interpret the given descriptons, plates and measurements. Thus viewing them in their context as was the case with the tumblers in de sternconstruction. The descriptions, plates and measurements are interdependent and by examining and compare them, you are able to make an interpretation or at least an educated guess. To be able to do that I choose the perspective of a shipwright. The overall question is: do these books contain enough information to be able to build a traditional wooden ship? To answer that question you need to know what you need to know. If a group of shipwrights want to build a traditional wooden ship, what do they have to know and what skills do they need? I came up with five understandings. First, material. What it is made of? Second, size, or measurement. How big is it? Third, shape. What does it look like? Four, sequence. What do you do first? Five, procedure. How do you do things? I compare the books from Cornelis and Nicolaes according to these five understandings. Together these understandings constitute a recipe. I couldn’t find a trade or craft which couldn’t be described by these five understandings. In this particular case, building a wooden ship,  the understanding ‘size’ needs to be connected to two more understandings which are vital in interpreting and/or using the measurements Cornelis and Nicolaes give: where to measure to, and, the direction in which to measure. These understandings will prove to be vital. For instance to answer the question if Nicolaes really forgot to mention trim by the stern when determining the length of the sternpost or that he negotiated this measurement in the measurements he does mention. In general it is very interesting to compare the books of Cornelis and Nicolaes on the basis of these five understandings, very interesting and very revealing.

[Philemon1948]

It is interesting to say a few more things about the mentioned five understandings, material, size, shape, sequence and procedure. If you are an outsider, which one of these understandings would be hard to describe? In other words, which understandings can be described by a spectator and which ones are hard to describe by a spectator? Material is not so very hard. Size might look quite innocent but isn’t. If you take into account the two understandings that accompany size, where to measure to, and, in what direction, it is clear that you have to describe how a measurement is taken. Many sizes are mentioned in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk and for many of them we almost automatically assume how they were taken. First of all the unit of measurement is important. In both books this is the Amsterdam foot, 0,2831 meter, divided in 11 inches, which is used for the construction of the parts of the hull. So this unit will not cause misunderstandings. But not knowing in which direction a measurement is taken can cause serious misunderstandings. Lets have a look, for instance, at the joint of the keel. In most cases this joint would be a plated scarf. (Attachment 1)

When the length of this joint is mentioned there is no explanation how this measurement is taken, not by Nicolaes, nor Cornelis. We automatically assume it is taken parallel to the axis of the keel or, in more practical terms, along one of the sides of the keel. But it is also possible to measure the length of this joint along the oblique surface of this joint. Because this conception, the length of a keel joint is measured parallel to the axis of the keel, is regarded as so obvious, makes it practically impossible to question this. Everybody thinks so and any other perspective is immediately rejected. Well, I am not interested in what ‘everybody’ says, I am interested in what is stated in the books of Nicolaes and Cornelis. In this case the two measurements will not deviate too much. But there are cases where this is not the case. A shipwright will ask such questions and it is by no means certain the length of a keel joint is measured alongside the axis unless this is clearly stated.

In general, it doesn’t matter how you measure, as long as you are consistent. And that’s the tricky part. In our time we are so used to the Cartesian way of taking measurements that it is almost impossible to imagine that in the largest part of our history this Cartesian way of taking measurements wasn’t there. The approach of an object to be built was, concerning sizing, different in the seventeenth century compared to what we do now. And thinking they would have done it the same way in the seventeenth century as we do it now is one of the most dangerous attitudes you can have towards describing a craft from a historic period. An example of  shifting definitions concerning the understanding ‘size’ is the following.

Cornelis van Yk mentions the two sizes of a cross section of the middle of the wing transom like this: “Haare Breedte, op en neer, is met de Dikte van de Kiel gelijk, en derselver dikte, langs Scheeps, is een vijvde minder dan haare Breedte”. (Her width, up and down, is equal to the thickness of the keel, en its thickness, longitudinal, is one fifth of her width). (Attachment 2).

Cornelis van Yk refers in this case to the width a vertical measurement and to the thickness as a longitudinal measurement. When Cornelis describes the ‘wrangen’ or first futtocks, this is exactly the other way round. Here the thickness is referred to as the ‘diepte’, or depth, ‘up and down’ as a vertical measurement and to the width as a longitudinal measurement. Cornelis mentions the direction of these understandings ‘thickness’ and ‘width’ in most cases because he knows, being a shipwright, how important this is. But he doesn’t always mention it, which can be puzzling. This mentioning of the direction in which to measure, constitutes the first clear difference between the texts of Nicolaes and Cornelis. Nicolaes also mentions the size of the wing transom as ‘dick’, thick, and ‘breet’, wide. But he doesn’t refer to the direction of this thickness and width. In Nicolaes’s case most of the measurements he gives for the wing transom indicate the cross section in the middle is almost a square or a square while in Cornelis’ case the cross section of the middle of the wing transom is per definition a standing rectangle. Although Nicolaes mentions the two sizes apart, he doesn’t mention what the direction of each measurement is. In many more cases Nicolaes doesn’t  mention this.

Measurements like the head end or the cross section of a beam constitute relatively simple ways of measuring. Much more complex is the way bevels are marked or measured and the way measurements are taken to fit one part on the other, which can sometimes be very complex, like is the case with fitting the garboard strakes in the rabbet of the keel. But a shipwright will always ask how a measurement is taken or how to line or mark out a measurement because a shipwright is well aware of the importance of this. Since Nicolaes is not a man of the trade he often forgets to make a note of this. It is not the only way you can tell Nicolaes isn’t a shipwright. There is a much more striking example of an understanding of the mentioned five where Cornelis outflanks Nicolaes: the procedure.

[Philemon1948]

Before I return to the lack of trim by the stern in Nicolaes’s books, while determining the height of the sternpost, I would like to say something more about the other three understandings shape, sequence and procedure. Shape is a very interesting one. In fact, shaping is what you do while building a ship and the central procedure for shaping is fairing. That is why there are so many different ways fairing can be done. You can’t overestimate the importance of this procedure for the shipbuilding process.

One of the most intriguing shapes which is made in the very beginning of the construction process is the sheer-strake. This plank is fitted at the construction at a moment there is almost nothing to see. In the case of Cornelis van Yk the keel, the stempost, stern construction and two main frame’s are standing on the slope of the shipyard. How did they manage to line out these sheer-strake without any structure that can be used as guidance over the entire ship length? Cornelis van Yk gives the shapes of these sheer-strakes for eight different ships. His description refers to the method using a ruler to measure the exact shape of an already existing piece of hull planking. He gives the following picture. (Attachment 1).

Here the ruler (cc) is attached to the ship to measure the exact curvature of the wale. After the measurements are taken, in which case it is very important to know and note in which direction these measurements are taken, the ruler is taken off and laid down on a flat plate of oak as is shown on the next plate. (Attachment 2).

The measurements are plotted on the plate and subsequently the plank is cut out of the plate. This plank will fit neatly against the wale if the job is precisely executed. This sheer-strake shows its characteristic ’s-shape’ as Cornelis presents. (Attachment 3).

A reconstruction of the profile of one of these sheer-strakes Cornelis describes in his book shows like the following plate. (Attachment 4).

The total length of this particular sheer-strake is approximately 50 meters while the ship measures 43,60 meters over stem and stern. The making of the sheer strake works almost exactly the same way as making a hull plank, only the other way round. And that is the intruiging part. The sheer-strake is made by plotting measurements on a flat plate of wood. But where do these measurements come from? There is no structure present at the ship where you can take measurements. And you can’t make up a sheer-strake with a length of 50 meters which matches exactly the shape of the hull when you fold it in place. Because that is the next step. A plank, plotted on a flat surface is folded so it becomes a three-dimensional object “gevende het selve aldaar sijnen omtrek”, (rendering the circumference of the ship). Cornelis mentions this literally: “En dewijl dese Bogten, by loutere Gissing, swaarlijk te treffen sijn, soo vinde ik seer ample Aanteekeningen, by verscheide Bouwmeesters desen aangaande gedaan”. (While these curves (of the sheer-strake) are difficult to determine by mere guessing, so I found several notes, made by several master-shipwrights concerning this). In other words, you need these measurements in advance. How did they establish them? Maybe by using and adapting earlier versions of sheer-strakes, hence the notes Cornelis mentions. Still, you need measurements, i.e., design in advance. The notion that a ship in the seventeenth century is built ‘by eye’ is complete nonsense. You need and use measurements and build accordingly. Building ‘by eye’ is a method of control, not a method of design. The same is true for the design of the main frame. This has to be etablished in advance. It is very conceivable and probable they would have used drawings to this end, drawings who are subsequently plotted on a 1 : 1 scale and translated into moulds.

Nicolaes doesn’t mention anything about how to make the sheer-strake. Nicolaes only uses the sheer-strake as a reference. Measurements he undoubtedly didn’t take himself. In general this is true for what Nicolaes presents. He doesn’t present a method, he presents a lot of data. The analytical approach to these data is in Nicolaes’ case not present in general, this in sharp contrast to the work of Cornelis van Yk. What Nicolaes does mention is the possibility to show structures on paper. Or to design structures on paper. And I don’t think Nicolaes would have mentioned this if it wasn’t common practice in those days.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

Sequence, the second last understanding, is something which could be observed by an outsider without any knowledge about shipbuilding. Or is it? I think it makes a difference if you understand what is happening in a building process while observing it and making notes of a sequence or that you do the same thing without knowing what the underlying process is. And it looks like that listing a sequence can make things miraculously appear. Chapter 11 of Nicolaes Witsens books opens with the building sequence of his example ship. Three lines read as follows: “54. Laet het schip op zy vallen., 55. Set het recht., 56. Maeckt de Stellen aen de Steven, en een plaat aen de kiel.” (54. Let the ship fall sideways., 55. Put it upright., 56. Make the googings at the stern(post) and a plank at the keel). This plank at the keel or ‘shoe’ isn’t mentioned anywhere in Nicolaes’ book except here. Why? The shoe is not an unimportant or insignificant construction piece if we read what Cornelis van Yk has to say about it. The shoe shields the keel against the shipworm, an organism which is able to devour most of the outer layers and the keel of a wooden ship. Between the shoe and the keel an amount of tar and cowhide is also applied to make an extra barrier against this shipworm and incoming water. So the function of this shoe is not insignificant at all, if you take into account that a journey at sea from the seventeenth century Republic of the Seven United Netherlands to Indonesia could take months. Why doesn’t Nicolaes mention this quite significant part in his descriptions? And how does it happen this shoe only appears in Nicolaes’ texts at one place, almost like a casual remark? However, the shoe might appear at plate 55. (Attachment 1).

This plate shows the ship fallen sideways, a situation already mentioned in the quoted sequence. The plate shows a shaded part at the underside of the keel which might reveal the presence of this shoe. An interesting detail, also visible at this plate is the lower wale, which doesn’t end at the wing-transom.

A second example of a sequence is a hidden one, which came to light while examining a plate in Cornelis’ book. (Attachment 2).

The plate shows part of the keel aft, laid down on stocks and wedges. There are some peculiarities and mistakes in this drawing but one of the most interesting characteristics is the rendering of the wedges. This rendering reveals a sequence which is not mentioned by Cornelis. The wedges are used to adjust the height of the keel and are loosened when it is time to launch the ship. To launch the ship these wedges are not necessary aft, so that is a mistake in this plate. But if you wonder how to use these wedges to adjust the keel at the beginning of construction, a close inspection of the plate reveals this. The stocks are firmly attached to the slope of the shipyard and to each other to prevent any displacement. The lower wedge is attached to the stock, the upper wedge is used to adjust the height of the keel by hitting it. The high end of the wedge is used to increase the height. If you look closely, you see that the upper wedge at the left has its high side at port. At the second set of wedges, the high side of the upper wedge is at starboard. At he third set, the highest side is again at port and at the last set at starboard. That is how you adjust these wedges, by hitting alternately at the port and starboard side. This prevents the keel to displace towards one side. I know it works like this because I have done this myself. This plate shows in the first place that Cornelis must have instructed the manufacturer of the plate to engrave it likes this. It is unlikely the engraver would have had this kind of knowledge. It is remarkable Cornelis doesn’t mention this sequence in his text. This plate also shows the relationship between sequence and procedure. The use of wedges for adjusting the keel can be regarded and described as a procedure. But, analysing this procedure, describing each individual step, you can break down this procedure to a sequence. You can’t do that ad infinitum. In other words, it is impractical to analyse each procedure and describe it by mentioning each step. A description like that will become unreadable. Another reason is that a procedure is a human activity. Making things is a typical human activity and some things are very hard to analyse. When you work as a shipwright and want to hammer a nail in a piece of wood it is almost impossible to tell what happens during this activity. There is a constant feedback between shipwright, hammer and wood which allows the shipwright to constantly adjust his way of working i.e. his procedure. But the essential thing concerning Cornelis’ plate with the keel and wedges is that it is typical for a shipwright to notice this placing of the wedges to facilitate adjusting the height of the keel. This is a fundamental insight. You need to be a shipwright to recognise these details and you need to be a shipwright to be able to fully understand the last understanding: procedure.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The last understanding of the five I use to describe shipbuilding in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic is procedure. It is the most elusive understanding. You could replace the word ‘procedure’ with the word ‘protocol’. Protocol in the meaning of: ‘a statement reporting an observation or experience in the most fundamental terms without interpretation: sometimes taken as the basis of empirical verification, as of scientific laws’. But that is a more philosophical approach, according to internet. The more practical approach is: how do you do things? It is also a typical understanding with which the craftsman identifies him- or herself. It is thus the understanding with which you can make a clear distinction between the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. Nicolaes Witsen wasn’t a craftsman, Cornelis van Yk was. Does that show in their respective books? Yes it does, and very distinct.

The procedure, a description how something can be done often lacks in Nicolaes’ books. A prime example is how to determine the profile of the stempost. Nicolaes gives a sequence for making the stempost. This sequence is in itself strange because it does not represent a workable situation i.e. the sequence in itself is wrong. But the way the profile of the stempost can be determined lacks all together. The only thing Nicolaes says is: “Om vorder dees Voor-steven te maken, zoo leght men de stukken op malkander, als gezeght is, en ziet of daar na begeerte bogt in is”. (Further to make this stem, so one lays the pieces on top of each other, as said, and look if the desired curve is there).

But how this curve is determined is not revealed. So when you want to build a ship with a length as desired, let’s say 160 feet, and you only have Nicolaes’ book at hand, you get stuck almost immediately. Cornelis van Yk does give a method to determine the profile of the stempost. He even gives two methods although the two procedures are traceable to one method. (Attachment 1 and 2).

With this method it is possible to determine a curve for a stempost while the height and rake of the stempost vary. So this method works for every combination of a height and rake. Nicolaes does gives some profiles of the sternpost on some of his plates. When analysed they show these profiles are for the most part circle cuts, or, in old English, a 'sweep'. But how to establish the centres and radii of these circles is not clear nor revealed. The presence of procedures in Nicolaes’ books is a moot point. They are there, although scarce, and if Nicolaes presents them, they are often so cryptic that, even when you know what is described, it is hardly understandable. This the case for instance with the description how to fit the garboard strakes in the rabbet of the keel. This is a quite complicated procedure. Cornelis describes this procedure in two, very long sentences. Long sentences are his speciality. But it is crystal clear what he presents. Nicolaes gives a description, also in two very long sentences. Two sentences I still don’t understand. If there is someone who can explain what is meant with the description of this procedure i.e. someone who can explain what the descriptions refer to exactly, he or she receives a first class bottle of champagne from me. The Dutch text is from the 1690 edition. A literal translation In English follows this Dutch text. Translating this text without really knowing what is meant with these sentences is a shot in the dark but I can’t do any better than this.

 

“Als men de Kiel-gang maakt, bytelt men hier en daar een gat in de plank, en neemt een passer, meetende of het binnen en buiten even wydt is; daar na tekent men met de passer by de kiel langs op de plank wat daar afmoet, neemt dan de plank af, en lynt met een lyn op de binnen-kant eerst wat daar af moet, na 't uitwyzen der doorgehouwen gaten; als het dan afgehouwen is, kant men de plank om, en lynt daar, alwaar men niet heeft konnen tekenen met de passer, houwt het aan de eerst gehouwen kant te niet, boorende alle 7 duim een gat, 1 duim van de kant, en houwt het buiten en aan de binnen-kant te niet; dan leght men mosch, dat met teer aangeleit is, op de afgehouwene kant, brengt de plank aan, en maakt hem wel vast aan de kiel; daar na lynt men de buiten-kant van de plank na begeerte, of hakt het af, en stelt daar weder een andere tegen aan. Hier na neemt men een krab-hout, daar men de ongelyke plaatzen, onder en boven, mede gelyk tekent, en na dat men de zelve heeft afgenoomen, afgehouwen, en wederom aan gezet, en het wel voegt, zoo neemt men klampen, waar door men de planken doet aan een blyven, leggende die binnen en buiten omtrent 3 of 4 voet van elkander: dit gedaan zynde, slaat men ook hier en daar op de kiel en kiel-gang een klamp, die over de kiel komt, en zoo wel op de kiel als op de kiel-gang sluit, en dus maakt men die op de kiel vast.”

 

(If one makes the garboard-strake, one chisels a hole here and there in the plank, and takes a compass, measuring if it is has an equal width inside and outside; after that one draws with the compass alongside the keel on the plank what has to be cut off, takes off the plank, and plots a line on the inside first what has te be cut off, as the cut holes show; after it is hewn off, turns the plank around, and plots there, where one couldn’t draw with the compass, cuts it at the first hewn side towards nil, drilling all 7 inches a hole, 1 inch from the side, and cuts it at the inside and outside to nil; than one lays moss, mixed with tar, at the hewn side, puts the plank in place, and mounts it secure to the keel; after that plots the outside of the plank as desired, or cuts it, and sets again another against it. After this, one takes a cross-wood, where one equalizes by drawing the unequal places, bottom and top, and after one takes it off, cut off, and again put in place, and fits well, so one takes cleats, by which one connects the planks, laying these inside and outside about 3 or 4 feet from each other: this being done, one puts a cleat her and there at the keel and garboard strake, who comes over the keel, and fits at the keel and the garboard strake, and thus connecting it to the keel).

 

This, for me complete cryptic description, is food for thought. If you are a craftsman, what can you do with a description like “one chisels a hole here and there in the plank”? I think I know what happens during this procedure of fitting the garboard-strakes on the basis of what Cornelis describes in his book. You can’t understand what is happening during this procedure of fitting the garboard-strakes without having a clear picture of the rabbet in the keel and the stages in which this rabbet is determined and cut. But Nicolaes barely mentions a word about this rabbet. Nicolaes mentions some familiar understandings in the translated procedure but the interdependence of all the mentioned actions and understandings is completely obscure. I have a suspicion Nicolaes himself didn’t have a clue what he wrote, if ever Nicolaes really wrote this himself. Which brings us again to the absence of trim by the stern in Nicolaes' description for establishing the height of the sternpost.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

Nicolaes Witsen doesn’t mention trim by the stern while establishing the height of the sternpost. You could argue the rise of the sheer-strake incorporates this trim of the stern and it does, but here also Nicolaes doesn’t utter a word about this. What is the consequence when you don’t add the trim of the stern to the length of the sternpost? Cornelis van Yk gives an answer to that question. The description of Cornelis is intruiging: “Ontrent de Langte vande Agtersteven, heb ik, by myn Tijd, verscheide Misslagen sien begaan. Eenige deselve zo kort nemende, datmen den overloop, die dog in Schips midden op gegeve Holte moet leggen, en van daar na voor, en agteren toe, soetelijk behoort op te rijsen, op dat het daar opvallende Water, van alle Kanten na Schips midden mogt vloejen, en aldaar geloost werden, genoodzaakt is geweest na agteren, om met het Geschut onder de Hekbalk, die dan ook nog van onderen iets wierd uitgehakt, door te konnen speelen, sodanig meer te buigen, datmen ook Spygaten in Schips Spiegel heeft moete maaken. d’ Oorsaak hier van was, dat den Bouwmeester, nog op den ouden dag, nog op het agter neersinken van ‘t Schip, gemeenlijk Stuurlastigheid genaamd, genoeg had agt gegeven”.

(Concerning the length of the sternpost, I have, in my time, seen several mistakes been made. One was made so short, so the lower deck, who has to be situated midships at the hold of the ship, and from there, towards fore, and aft, gradually has to rise, so the water the ships receives, will  be gathered from all sides to midships, and there drained, needed to be made aft, to be able to position the guns under the wing transom, which had to be cut at the underside, to be able to roll the guns through the gunports, and bend down in such a way, so one had to make scuppers in the square stern. The cause of this was, the master ship-wright, in his old day’s, did not pay enough attention to the sinking in aft of the ship, in general called trim by the stern).

This is a prime example of the inimitable long sentences Cornelis produces. He describes the lower deck is adjusted downwards to be able to position the guns right in front of the gunports beneath the wing transom and to be able to discharge the water gathering on this deck. If you try to imagine what Cornelis describes here and how this must have looked like you start to realize the absurdity of the situation. A ship with a lower deck with such an inclination, which causes this deck to discharge the water through scuppers, made in the stern construction instead of midships. And to be able to do that this deck has to be lowered in the construction. How practical in use is a ship like that? And at what point during the construction did they realize they made this mistake? Another interesting question is: who is able to realize how absurd this is while reading this text? I think the shipwright will realise this, exactly the person who, in all likelihood, will never read this passage. And the people who are capable of and inclined to read this passage will, in all likelihood, not realize how absurd this is. The question rises if this really happened or that there is something else at hand? There is another reason which makes you think this is not the description of a real event but a hidden comment instead, a comment to the absence of trim by the stern in Nicolaes’ book. This reason has to do with the capabilities of the shipwright. To understand that you have to realize that Cornelis starts with determining the inner profile of the stempost. In this procedure the height of the stempost is measured from the upside of the keel. This height is equal or almost equal to the height of the sternpost. This is true for the measurements given by Nicolaes and Cornelis. If trim by the stern is omitted while making the sternpost you will notice this immediately, especially the trained eye of the shipwright. Trim by the stern constitutes about 10-13% of the total height of the sternpost. Besides this, it is highly unlikely that a master ship-wright makes a mistake like that in his old age, not only because of his experience but also because he is not the only one around with experience and a trained eye. The difference in height of stern- and stempost when trim by the stern is left out of the equation is far too great to get by unnoticed.

All in all, I think this consequence of absence of trim by the stern as described by Cornelis is not the description of a real event but a hidden comment on the omission by Nicolaes. Cornelis didn’t have the stature to be able to openly criticize a man with a stature like Nicolaes. Cornelis mentions himself to be a ship-wright. There are people who attribute to Cornelis the title of master ship-wright but there is no shred of evidence for that. Besides, if he was, he would have presented himself like that while Cornelis also mentions he has left his trade to take up another occupation. So, as Cornelis presents himself as a ship-wright, it would be inappropriate to openly criticize a man with a stature like Nicolaes Witsen. There are other clues in Cornelis’ book which suggests Cornelis was not very impressed by Nicolaes’ book.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

Nine years ago I started to analyse the book of Cornelis van Yk with regard to the deceptively simple question: is it possible to build a ship with the information Cornelis provides? I started this work assuming the books, published by Nicolaes Witsen, were firmly scrutinised, so I could use this information to compare it with my own findings. To my amazement, not one single question, I asked myself, was answered in the publications about Nicolaes Witsen I could get my hands on. I was flabbergasted when I discovered this and for a time, I couldn’t believe it. Now I conclude that 350 respectively 324 years after publishing of these books by both authors, no one has ever written and published a thorough analysis of the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. That is a bit disappointing for a country that is so proud of her maritime history and traditions and is still so dependent on maritime trade and knowledge. I started analysing the book of Cornelis, but knowing this, I decided to record the books of Nicolaes Witsen into my analysis. But the question, lingering in the back of my mind, repeats popping up: how is this possible? How is it possible the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk are, up until this day, still not subjected to a thorough analysis? I have a strong inclication to think this has to do with the kind of questions one is able to ask. The central question for me is: what do I have to know to be able to build a ship? This question yielded the five above mentioned understandings. But there are many more questions which are, for a shipwright, very obvious to ask. I will give a few examples.

What is the inclination of the slipway? How does this inclination influences the laying down of the keel? How is the keel situated when the shipyard is subjected to tidal differences? What are the considerations and influences when determining the direction of the keel? (It turns out that the launch of the ship is the most influential consideration). What is the influence of rocker the keel is given? How is the profile of the rabbet in the keel established and how is this profile adapted to receive the garboard strakes? How do you make the sheer-strake? What is the relation between the sheer-strake, the wales and the lower deck? What is the direction of the futtocks of the frames of the ship with regard to the keel? What is the profile of the rabbet in the sternpost and what does the transition in this rabbet look like? What are the consequences of making freight ports in the square stern? Does the wing transom have a single or double curve? What is the sequence and procedure in making and fitting of all the parts for the stern construction?

These are just a mere fraction of the questions you can ask yourself. But I never saw these questions asked let alone be answered.

 

However, the basis for all these questions is how reliable the data are, as presented in the original sources. Historic research tends to try to get information from different sources to find confirmation of a certain assumption or conclusion. But there are hardly any written sources about shipbuilding dating from the seventeenth century, and certainly no sources with regard to the geometry as presented in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. You can't compare them to anything. So how do you establish any certainty in the reliability of the presented information in particular the geometry of the ship?

One method is trying to find any consistency in these data. And consistency is where the books of Nicolaes and Cornelis greatly differ. Nicolaes presents mere measurements, Cornelis also presents the procedure which allows you to see how to apply those measurements. In other words and in modern language, Cornelis has written a book which is very conceptual and allows you to understand the process of shipbuilding from the perspective of a shipwright. And that is something which almost completely lacks in Nicolaes’ books. You need the experience of a shipwright, which is, in my opinion, the reason nobody has ever attempted up until now, to analyse the books of Nicolaes and Cornelis with regard to this perspective.

How construction pieces and procedures correlate is hardly to make out from Nicolaes’ book. So you can’t establish to a certain degree how reliable these data Nicolaes presents are. What was their origin? Did Nicolaes measure the measurements given in his book himself?  If not, where did they come from? Did he write the parts about shipbuilding in his time himself? About the mentioned deviations and omissions, mentioned in the former posts, how can that be accounted for? How did he constitute his book?

The deviations and omissions in Nicolaes’ books are no incidents. On the contrary, the examples of those deviations and omissions are part of a pattern. In my opinion, on the basis of what I have found out now, Nicolaes Witsen’s books are flawed. And not just a little bit.

The moments I presented these deviations and omissions to people who regard themselves as experts, the reaction was always the same. Each individual case was designated as an ‘incidental mistake’, as ‘clumsy’ or just ‘coincidence’. So, every example was downplayed. I had to realise, so I was told, that Nicolaes Witsen was the first person to write about this subject.

Ok.

But does that mean he wrote a good book?

Of course not.

Does that mean you have to abandon every critical approach to his work?

Again, of course not.

All these considerations makes you think about what is happening concerning Nicolaes’ books and their content. I conclude that there is nothing happening with regard to the contents of the books of Nicolaes and subsequently Cornelis. No research, no discussion, nothing. Because nobody reads these books properly and thoroughly and tries to interpret them.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2021 by Philemon1948

[PietFriet]

19 hours ago, Philemon1948 said:

Because nobody reads these books properly and thoroughly and tries to interpret them.

Except for yourself of course.

[Philemon1948]

What I have done so far at this forum is showing the work of Nicolaes Witsen contains peculiarities, omissions and strange contradictions. These peculiarities, omissions and contradictions  are facts, not interpretations. Interpretations come in when we ask the question why are these peculiarities, omissions and contradictions there? I never see these questions asked. Why is that? Well, in the first place, so I learned from Socrates, asking questions doesn’t make you popular. Certainly not if you ask questions which embarrass the self proclaimed experts. Read Socrates’ apology. But concerning the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk, a lot of questions can be raised which, by asking alone, can shed a very different light on these books.

My provisional conclusions about Nicolaes’ example ship are:

1. His example ship wasn’t a virtual or imaginary ship. It is impossible to make up so much data about one ship. Besides this, the data for this ship deviate considerably from the general ratio’s and rules Nicolaes gives himself which makes it very improbable this ship was an imaginary ship. And last but not least, Nicolaes wasn’t a shipwright and much of the ship building process remained obscure for him, which is also a reason Nicolaes couldn’t have made this all up.

2. Nicolaes calls his ship a pinas and makes the remark this was an average ship: “Het schip hier in gedachten gebouwt is noch van de wydste noch van de naauwste slagh; welke maat met voordacht is genoomen, om zoo wel een Oorlogh-als een Koopvaardy-schip te vertoonen”. (The ship built here in mind is nor the widest nor the narrowest kind; which size is chosen deliberately, to be able to represent a warship as well as a merchant ship.) But the revealed data show this pinas  is certainly not ‘average’. If it was a pinas at all. And I think it wasn’t. If Nicolaes’ example ship wasn’t a pinas, what was it? I have some clues which I am not going to reveal here now, but conclusion 1 and 2 lead to conclusion:

3. Nicolaes used information about a ship he had not seen himself. He concluded or assumed it was a pinas but apparently he did not analyse the information he published in his book. He just copied information he could get his hands on without further ado. The fact that many things change and are corrected in the second edition of his book except the information concerning his example ship underline this.

 

This leads to thoughts about the reliability of Nicolaes’ data and the authorship of his books. It seems possible nowadays to let a computer ‘read’ a book and make an analysis of the consistency and qualities of the text. I am very curious what the result will be in Nicolaes’ case. In the literature about Nicolaes Witsen I have read so far, the texts about shipbuilding history and information about shipbuilding in other countries in Nicolaes’ books, are regarded as superfluous or obsolete. In any case irrelevant. But is that justly? When reading Nicolaes’ books from cover to cover, one thing struck me. And that is the complete different style of writing with regard to the chapters concerning the information of shipbuilding and the other ‘irrelevant’ chapters. You could argue this is not so strange due to the fact mere measurements and enumerations deliver or demand another ‘style’ of writing than a historic overview. But this distinction can also be made for the book of Cornelis van Yk and he is, over all, much more consistent in his language. And more prudent. Cornelis states for instance that he initially was reluctant to include information in his book about for instance the masts and sails because that was not his expertise. But Cornelis was convinced by his friends to include this information as he states:

“Waarom ik my dan ook bediend hebbe van zoodanige Menschen die haar Handwerk ook ontrent de Scheepen oeffenen, of eenige Leverantien daar aan hadde, ten eyndevan haar-lieden , in ’t geene ik onkundig was, onderrìgt te werden. Dog heb sommige der zelver zoo los en onbedreven daar ontrent gevonden, datse scheenen  by na alles meerder metter tast , en gissing uit te voeren, als eenige Regul te gebruiken. Ja oordeelden ook dat op haar Bedrijv geen Order konde, of behoorde gemaakt te wer den. Anderen, en die in vaster Schoenen scheenen te gaan, kwamen my zoo agterhoudende voor , datse meenden de Goud - Mijnen van Peru te zullen ondekken , indien iets van hare Konst openleide. Evenwel hebben sommige de Goedheid gehad, van, niet alleen, my daer van mondeling te onderrigten maar zelvs ook hare aanteikeningen , tot eigen Nut geschreven , ter-Hand te stellen , die ik dan ook , met zoo veel Oordeel, als my mogelijk is geweest, gevolgd hebbe.”

(Why I consulted such people who practise their craft around shipbuilding, or were suppliers to the trade, as to be educated by them in the things I was ignorant. But found some of them so lax and inexperienced concerning this, that it looked like they executed everything by guessing and feeling, instead of using any rule. Indeed, they judged their craft tolerated no order nor should order be made. Others, who seemed to stood more firm, appeared so secretive, they seemed to think one would find the gold mines of Peru, if they revealed something of their craft. However some of them have had the benevolence to, not only telling me something but also handed over their notes, written for their own sake, which I followed, with as much discretion as was possible for me.)

This is an interesting echo of the apology from Socrates and we see a glimpse of some of the lesser qualities some craftsmen display.

Nicolaes doesn’t mention much about the origin of his information which was certainly not his expertise. In general he states he had information at his disposal from his father, Cornelis Witsen, and the core of his book, his ‘example ship’, is probably part of this obtained information. Apparently Nicolaes did not analyse these data but published them as he found them and changed nothing in the second edition of his book, as we saw.

But again, I see no one asking these questions. And if I make this remark I am, just like Socrates, often met with hostility. For my work, the analysis of the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk, I use a definition of another critical mind, Christopher Hitchens, called ‘Hitchens razor’: ‘What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’. Every statement which is not supported by the necessary evidence is a useless statement. And I found quite a few of these statements over the years in the literature I have read. The same is true for fallacies I often encountered, especially with people who proclaim their own truth as the absolute truth, one of the biggest mortal sins in scientific work. All in all, the development and research with regard to the content presented in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk is quite pathetic. The only hope of any progress is a younger generation who gets interested in this subject.

To show what I mean with analysis, I will publish, distributed over a few coming posts, one part of what I have written so far about Cornelis van Yk. That is to say, I ask questions and try to answer them. You don’t have to agree with me but I sustain my statements in a very clear way. If you have something to say, say it clear and without resentment.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The length of the keel part one.

 

This passage about the length of the keel is a part of chapter three of the book I am writing. Chapter three is entirely devoted to the keel. The book itself deals with a ship of 155 feet in length as described by Cornelis van Yk in chapter 24 of his book in a so called ‘certer’, a list of specifications. Cornelis gives in chapter 24 a fair amount of information for this ship, and also in passages throughout his book. The ship itself can be identified as the ‘Eendracht’. This was a merchant ship built in 1664 in ‘Delfshaven’, the harbour of Delft, for the VOC chamber Delft and destined for Indonesia. Chances are fair Cornelis himself did some work on this ship.

My aim is to write a book which provides enough information to be able to build the described ship which is also the central question I try to answer. Does Cornelis give enough information to enable a team of shipwrights to build this ship?

Originally my text is written in Dutch. The great advantage of writing in Dutch is I can use the original text and text fragments from Cornelis van Yk and Nicolaes Witsen without having to translate them. For this occasion I translated these original text fragments into English. To give an impression of the original Dutch text however, I first quote this Dutch text and give a translation afterwards, which is, anyway, always an interpretation.

 

The length of the keel.

 

The certer of the ‘Eendracht’ describes a keel consisting of three parts. The length of these parts are not mentioned so these have to be established. These lengths may add up to approximately 9/10 of the length of the ship: “Haare langte (gelijk geseid is,) is na de langte van ‘t Schip: grosso modo mag men daar voor een tiende Deel minder reekenen (…..)” (Cornelis van Yk. p. 54, r. 14, 1697). (Her length (like being said,) is after the length of the ship: roughly speaking one may calculate for this one tenth less (…..)). This rule of thumb enables you to choose the right parts of wood who are, when put together, long enough to reach the desired length of the keel while the length of the ship is the basis for establishing this length. For the ‘Eendracht’ this length will be 155 feet minus one tenth is 139,5 feet. Concerning the length of the individual parts you will have to take into account the length of the joints with which the parts are connected to each other because you lose the length of one joint when joining two parts together. That means we assume this rule of thumb gives an approximation of the definitive length when the three parts are attached to each other.

Construction a ship at the yard starts with making the keel, stem- and sternpost. These parts require large and long pieces of wood or whole trees. To be able to pull these pieces up the yard they used capstans which can deliver a fair amount of force when handled by a group of people. The title page of Cornelis’ book shows one of these capstans which is obviously in use.

(Attachment 1. Cornelis van Yk. Title page. 1697).

 

These capstans were often movable and were deployed at different places as is shown at the following picture from the book of Åke Classon Rålamb.

(Attachment 2. Åke Classon Rålamb. Skeps byggerij eller adelig ofnings tionde tom. Plate I. 1691.).

 

At the platform of the slipway three capstans are visible, distributed over the length of the slipway. This platform is a reinforced part of the yard consisting of heavy planks who rest on a heavy foundation. On this platform the stocks, on which the keel rests, are firmly attached.

At the excavation drawing of the VOC yard at Delfshaven, made as a result of the excavations executed in 2009-2010, the placing of the capstans, designated with the letter 'K' is exactly at the top of the slipways.

 

.

 

(Attachment 3. Excavation drawing made by the Archeological Service Rotterdam.).

 

It is this yard where the ‘Eendracht’ was built. The excavation drawing shows a terrain with several slipways. De biggest slipway is where the largest ships like the ‘Eendracht’ were built. The other slipways were used for building or repairing smaller vessels or for pulling up the wooden parts needed for shipbuilding. Clearly can be seen that one slipway had one or two capstans. The wooden parts, required for the first parts of the ship, are lying in the water in front of the slipway. In the Dutch Republic this was the most common way of transport: by water either by ship or as a raft consisting of several pieces of wood tied together. To pull these pieces up the yard requires quite a lot of force as these pieces can weigh up to 3 to 5 ton each. When these pieces are situated at the slipway they can be judged and a decision can be made what purpose they are going to serve and in which sequence they are going to be used in the construction process.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The length of the keel part two.

 

The keel, stem- and sternpost are produced at the same time for which there is a good reason. “Gelijk de Voorsteven voor, zo bepaald ook de Agtersteven agter de Langte van ‘t Schip. Waarom den Bouwmeester niet onvoorsigtig sal doen, indien hy sijn Kiel niet onderhande neme, immers niet desselvs Lasschen inkorte, voor en al eer hy ook sijne Stevenstucken by het werk hebbe, op dat hy sien mogt hoe lang deselve sullen werke konnen. Want op d’ een Tijd de Kiel aan de Stevens, en op d’ ander Tijd, de Stevens aan de Kiel moeten Lengte bysetten, na dat sulks aan ‘t Hout wil te passe komen.” (Cornelis van Yk. p. 59, r. 20, 1697). (Like the stempost fore, so the sternpost likewise determines the length of the ship aft. Why the master shipwright will be cautious, if he takes care of the keel, indeed doesn’t curtail its joints, before he also has all the pieces for the stem- and sternpost at the side, so he is able to see how long they will pan out. Because one time the keel delivers length to the stem- and sternpost, another the stem- and sternpost deliver length to the keel, like the pieces of wood will deliver as such.)

Nicolaes mentions something likewise: “Doch schoon de Kiel het eerste lidt is dat men aanhaalt, om dat die gemeenlyk eerst geleght werdt, zoo begint het timmeren (ten minsten in gedachten) hier echter met de Achter-steven, om dat het besnoeijen der Kiel mede uit de zelve werdt gehaalt, en de even-maat der meeste Scheeps-deelen uit de Voor-steven volght. Het zal ook van weinigh belang zyn wat stuk men eerst ophaalt, als'er maar geene ontbreke, 't welk van de aanzienlykste niet gevoele.” (Nicolaes Witsen. p. 164,  k. 1, r. 11, 1690). (Yet although the keel is the first part one mentions, because in general it is laid down first, carpentry starts however (at least in mind) with the sternpost, because curtailing of the keel is derived from this part, while the proportions of most of the ship parts follows the stempost. It is of no importance what piece one chooses first, as long as not one is missing, without discrimination).

The keel is the first part that is laid down at the yard on stocks. This keel is curtailed, ‘besnoeijen’ as Nicolaes calls it, at the sternpost and jointed at the stempost. To be able to determine where to joint, you need to have the pieces of wood, out of which the stem- and sternpost are made, at the same time at the yard. You don’t know in advance what the pieces of wood will yield and the available pieces determine in the end how the joints will have to be made. That is to say, how long they can be made and where they end up. You need to be able to look at the parts from all sides, turn them around etc. to be able to establish this and the easiest way to do this is at the platform from the main slope or maybe at the adjacent wood-slope. This platform provides at the same time a stable surface to pull up the different parts without pulling them into the earth because the surrounding terrain consists of a compacted mixture of clay and sand.

In the most probable scenario the keel parts are transported as sawn beams, and the parts for the stem- and sternpost as heavy plates and not as complete trees. After an extensive survey and judgment the decisions are made and the parts can be marked out and adapted after which the main slope is made ready for laying down the keel.

The certer of the ‘Eendracht’ doesn’t give a total length for the keel. To be able to determine this length we have to look at how Cornelis constructs the total length of the ship and how the keel is part of this length. This total ship length is measured from the front of the stempost to the back of the sternpost. This means the length of the ship is measured over the perpendiculars who are, in theory, lowered from the stem- and sternpost. Because the ship is built on a slope the use of perpendiculars to determine measurements in the longitudinal direction is not possible. That is why the control of the length of the ship is being done at the slope by adding the rakes and the length of the keel. The rakes are thereby measured ‘within the square’ when the construction pieces lay flat at the yard. This measuring is done perpendicular to a base line which yields in essence the same situation as measuring between perpendiculars. In a much later stadium it is possible to measure the length of the ship inside the ship over the decks, when the hull is constructed for the biggest part.

Plate 4 shows how the length of the ship is constructed as described by Cornelis van Yk. (Attachment 4).

The total length is the horizontal red line L. This line is drawn between the perpendicular from the front of the stempost, the forward perpendicular FP, and the perpendicular from the back of the sternpost, the posterior perpendicular PP. In chapter two we saw Nicolaes and Cornelis both use this method. The rake of the stem- and sternpost is the projection of the inclination at the horizontal baseline. This baseline coincides with the upper side of the keel. In the drawing the rake of the stempost is designated with RF and de height with HF. The rake of the stempost is measured from point P at the horizontal baseline and the lines RF and HF are right angled. The rake of the sternpost is measured from a point at the the upper-aft side of the keel and is designated with RA, the height of the sternpost is designated with HA. The lines RF and HF provide the basis with which Cornelis determines the profile of the stempost. This means Cornelis starts with determining the inner profile of the stempost. The way he determines this profile is subject in the chapter about the stempost. The total length L of the ship is in Cornelis’ case therefore constituted out of four elements: the rake of the sternpost, RA, the total length of the keel LK, the rake of the stempost RF, and the width of the stempost at the point where the FP leaves the stempost. In this case we assume this width of the stempost is measured parallel to the baseline, so strictly horizontal.

[Philemon1948]

I am assigned a new thread: A critique of the works of Nicolaes Witsen. Interesting. I wonder to whom I owe this. The title of the thread is a bit misleading though. First of all I don’t give a critical analysis of the books of Nicolaes Witsen, I merely state that a thorough analysis of the books of Nicolaes Witsen doesn’t exist. And it is about time that changes. I am mainly concerned with an analysis of the book of Cornelis van Yk and use the books of Nicolaes for comparison. Anyway, here’s for something completely different:

 

The length of the keel part three.

 

Nicolaes describes the rake of the stempost as the distance from the front perpendicular to the fore-end of the keel which means the width of the top of the stempost is not present in the measurements which constitute the total length of the keel as can be seen at the following plate. (Attachment 5.)

This plate shows the way the total length of the keel is established as described by Nicolaes. The designated letters have the same meaning as in the previous plate. The fact the rake of the stempost is measured from the fore-end of the keel to the front perpendicular has a consequence: there is no margin concerning your sizing.

In the certer of the ‘Eendracht’ one of the five measurements constituting the length of the ship lacks: the length of the keel. However, this length is present in the certer of a ship of 154 feet of which Cornelis also gives a fair amount of information in chapter 24 of his book and which is related to the ‘Eendracht’. If we look at these measurements first we see something remarkable. You would expect that if you subtract the rakes and the width of the top of the stempost from the total length of the keel you end up with the length of the keel as is mentioned in the certer, but that isn’t the case. The mentioned measurements for this 154 feet ship are:

 

total length ship: 154 feet, 43,60 meter,

width top stempost: 33 inches, 0,85 meter,

rake stempost: 28 feet, 7,93 meter,

rake sternpost: 3,5 feet, 0,99 meter,

length keel: 126 feet, 8 inches, 35,88 meter.

 

If we subtract the width of the top of the stempost and the rakes from the total length of the ship this should yield the length of the keel LK as is shown at plate 4, 33,83 meter. The mentioned keel length however is 35,88 meter. This keel is longer with a difference in length of 2,05 meter. A part of the keel is apparently located in front of the designated point P. This is the part of the keel which is available for the joint with the stempost. This does not mean however, this difference in length of 2,05 meter defines the length of the joint with the stempost. The length of the joint between keel and stempost is mentioned in the certer of this 154 feet ship: 3 feet, 0,85 meter, considerably less than 2,05 meter.  The pieces out of which the stempost were assembled apparently couldn’t provide more mass to make the joint.

Using a fixed concept within which you can judge and handle the pieces of wood you use for construction has a great advantage. No matter how the keel and the stempost are assembled, this concept enables you to create an overview what the different pieces of wood yield and what variations these allow. As we saw this concept is not possible in Nicolaes’ case because the point from which the rake is plotted coincides with the head-end of the keel fore while the rake is plotted towards the front perpendicular. This allows no margins and no possibilities to look at different interactions and possibilities.

This difference between the mentioned keel length and the calculated keel length is also visible in five other certers from chapter 24 in Cornelis’ book where the concerned five measurements are given. In one case the mentioned keel length is shorter than the calculated keel length LK. In this case the pieces of the stempost will cover the shortage in keel length but Cornelis doesn’t mention this. In this certer with a keel with no length before point P the length of the joint between keel en stempost is given: 0,44 meter. This is almost the same measurement as the keel falls short. In this case it could very well be the stempost is composed out of three pieces instead of two, to compensate for the shortage of the keel but this is also not mentioned by Cornelis.

[Waldemar]

Hello,

 

I find your in-depth analysis of both Dutch works on shipbuilding very interesting.

 

Perhaps the most instructive is to see how various parts of the ships are dimensioned, usually taking into account their practical, structural context, rather than using more or less „theoretical“, conceptual approach. Or, in other words, that the ships are seen perhaps more as an assembly of real, structural parts, rather than a body in a geometrical, ie. conceptual sense.

 

P.S. It would be much easier to read if you would remember to insert empty lines between paragraphs.

 

Cheers, Waldemar

Edited August 15, 2021 by Waldemar

[druxey]

I've just stumbled across your thread and have read up to post #12 so far. Interesting stuff! I'm curious as to what started you on this analysis and critique of Witsen's work?

[Philemon1948]

Hello Waldemar,

 

What you propose is exactly what I am trying to do. So I tend to move back and forth between the 'conceptual' pole and the 'practical' pole. What I experienced is that many discoveries I made have a direct relationship with maritime archeological finds. Let me give an example. The keel is given a curve when placed on the stocks at the beginning of the building sequence. This 'rocker' of the keel influences the building process at different levels. One of them is the direction of the frames or stations. I think the frames in a Dutch ship are placed perpendicular to the keels upper surface. Because of this rocker the keel is given, these frames will have a tendency to fall backwards towards fore and forwards towards aft. I remember a remark from Fred Hocker that this is actually the case for some wreck finds and for the Vasa. This is just one example. Shipbuilding is a practical job, driven by experience and conceptual thoughts. And this caused friction because it was not always possible to build what they had in mind due to the fact they couldn't always find the right pieces of wood. I encountered many of these examples mainly by reading Cornelis van Yk. Cornelis is the practical man and he describes many examples, directly and indirectly, of the problems that arose while building a particular ship. These descriptions are absent in the books of Nicolaes Witsen which is quite predictable. In the end I hope I will have written a book where you can follow this construction of a ship, along more or less conceptual lines but in a practical way using the descriptions Cornelis van Yk gives, so with clear measures and shapes while I give a description how I derived these measurements and shapes.

[Philemon1948]

Hello Druxey,

 

I did not start with an analysis of the books of Nicolaes Witsen, but with the book of Cornelis van Yk. A thorough analysis of Cornelis' book does not exist so I thought I could give it a go assuming the books of Nicolaes where thoroughly scrutinised. But that proved not to be the case, alas. So I started to compare the two with the emphasis on the book of Cornelis van Yk.

[trippwj]

Like our colleague Druxey, I have also just stumbled across your thread. it is quite interesting!  I have wondered about the works by Witsen and van Yk but, as I do not speak the language, have relied on others to translate or provide analysis.

 

Have you had the opportunity to take a look at some of these - while there is a focus on the Batavia in some, there are also some more general comparisons.

 

Duivenvoorde, Wendy van van. 2015. Dutch East India Company Shipbuilding: The Archaeological Study of Batavia and Other Seventeenth-Century VOC Ships. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781623492311

Guy, Richard. 2012. “First Spaces Of Colonialism: The Architecture Of Dutch East India Company Ships,” January. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/29468.

Luiting, Jaap. 2017. “The Peculiar Core of Nicolaes Witsens Book.” https://www.academia.edu/33274842/The_peculiar_core_of_Nicolaes_Witsens_book.

———. n.d. “Hidden Understandings at van Yk and Witsen.” Accessed June 13, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/32312724/Hidden_understandings_at_van_Yk_and_Witsen.

Maarleveld, Thijs J. 2013. “Early Modern Merchant Ships, Nicolaes Witsen and a Dutch-Flush Index.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 42 (2): 348–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1095-9270.12022.

 

Keep on with your analysis - I for one find it quite interesting. I need to go back through it again and see how your observations align with what Ab Hoving describes.

 

Hocker, Fred. 2013. “Review - Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age.” The Mariner’s Mirror 99 (3): 359–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.2013.792595.

Hoving, A. J. 2012. Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age. 1st ed. Ed Rachal Foundation Nautical Archaeology Series. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-286-2

Hoving, Ab J. 2014. 17th Century Dutch Merchant Ships: Text, Photos and Plans for the Ship Modeler. Florence, OR: SeaWatch Books. http://www.seawatchbooks.com/114003. ISBN 978-0-9904041-1-8

 

[Philemon1948]

Thanks trippwj for the links. Some of them I already know, but there are a few very interesting ones on the list. I will look into them. Please let me know what your conclusions are concerning the comparison with the descriptions of Ab Hoving.

[Waldemar]

 

 

20 hours ago, Philemon1948 said:

it was not always possible to build what they had in mind due to the fact they couldn't always find the right pieces of wood.

 

Seems very true, and may explain many apparent „anomalies“ found today in the ancient shipwrecks. Somehow this conclusion escapes our minds all too often. It should be perhaps repeated over and over again, clearly, loudly, and in large letters.

 

Cheers, Waldemar

Edited August 16, 2021 by Waldemar

[druxey]

Just look at the mess of planks on the remaining upper deck of Mary Rose!

[Mark P]

Good Evening Philemon;

 

Thank you for all the posts, which certainly underline how much we don't know. Can you answer a query about Witsen for me, if possible. I have seen articles about him before, and one of them mentioned that somewhere in his book he stated that he could only do what he had done because he had inherited draughts of various ships from his father. This would possibly mean that his father was a shipwright, or that he had close contacts with shipwrights. Presumably some of his/his contacts' knowledge was part of Nicolaes' upbringing, and would help to explain either his knowledge, or his interest in setting it down.

 

all the best,

 

Mark P

Edited August 16, 2021 by Mark P

[amateur]

Nicolaes Witsen writes n the preface to the book that he could not have started this work had he not come across some drawings and writings of his father Cornelis Witsen, because he (Nicolaes) himself had no pratical knowledge of shipbuilding. He does not, however, mention that he did gather knowledge by visiting his father at his work, or by upbringing.

Which looks strange: most professions used to be handed over from father to son... But: although he states that he found some designs and notes from his father, he does not state that his father was a shipwright himself.

 

Jan

[amateur]

Wiki knows everything (almost):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Jan_Witsen

 

His father was perhaps interested in shipbuilding, but he was no shipwright. 

(And also in this family, professions tended to be handed over from father to son: both were Mayor of the city of Amsterdam  )

 

Jan