A critique of the works of Nicolaes Witsen

[Mark P]

Thanks Jan;

 

That is very helpful to know; it would be good to know what exactly was in the drawings and writings his father had, but that is asking for too much, methinks!

 

On a separate note, nepotism is no new thing, obviously. Thanks for the biographical note, something else which I was not aware of. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Philemon1948]

Hello Mark,

Amateur has enlightened your path already. I can give a few additional remarks. The questions you ask are more the expertise of a historian which I am not. I am a shipwright and my approach of the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk is from this perspective. But I can give some educated guesses. The question of the origin of the information Nicolaes presents is the basis of any interpretation of his work, also my work. Where does the information Nicolaes presents come from and how reliable is it? One approach for answering this question is historical research. This approach produces questions like what is the context of Witsen’ books? There is one author I know of who wrote a book about Nicolaes Witsen which is more concerned with his whereabouts and activities in general and his life. This is Marion Peeters, https://www.linkedin.com/in/marion-peters-ab369277/?originalSubdomain=nl and https://marion-peters.nl.

She graduated on the subject but I don’t know if the text is available in English. Nicolaes himself reveals in a few passages the origin of (some) of his information. You mentioned his father, Cornelis Jan Witsen and Nicolaes does that too in the preface of his book. This is a very intruiging remark and I quote this from the edition of 1690: “Nimmer zoude ik ook het werk van den nieuwen Scheeps-bouw hebben durven opvatten, 't en zy my in handen waren gevallen eenige grondt-slagen, en tekeningen, voormaals ontworpen by wylen myn Vader Cornelis Witsen: en 't geene dat'er van my toe gedaan is, hebbe ik getrokken uit de mondt en ontwerp van brave Meesters; want zelver in practyk een Scheeps-timmerman of Zee-man te zyn vermete ik my niet: doch eigene bespiegeling, en ondervinding, is daar echter by gekomen”.

(Never I would have undertaken describing the new shipbuilding, unless some basic principles and drawings fell into my hands, previously designed by my deceased father Cornelis Witsen: while the things I added are derived from the mouths and designs of brave masters: because I don’t imagine myself a to be ship-wright or seaman: however my own reflection and experience are added).

Here Nicolaes describes in one sentence what the sources of his presented information were. As to the activities of his father Cornelis, there are no indications he was a shipwright. He was however a member of the Board of the Admiralty of Amsterdam, one of the five Admiralties in the Dutch Republic. Apparently Cornelis Jan Witsen (1605-1669) made drawings and designs which is, as far as I know, quite unusual for a magistrate and administrator. One of the most intruiging conclusions  is they made drawings in the seventeenth century for the purpose of shipbuilding and apparently from very early on in this century. Nicolaes also consulted ‘masters’, so people from the trade and he did some research himself what he also literally reports in some passages of his book. So this changes the emphasis of the question of the origin of his information a bit in: what is the balance of these sources in his book?

Another question is what the purpose of Nicolaes’  book was. It could very well be that his father Cornelis was the one who came up with the idea to write a comprehensive book about this subject of shipbuilding. Nicolaes wrote his book in his twenties, when he was young. I have the impression this book was primarily meant to make his name known before Nicolaes engaged in administrative business for which he was destined, given his origin and upbringing. This is reflected in the amount of information which is dedicated to the actual process of shipbuilding in his time which is about 40% of his book. 60% is about subjects other than practical shipbuilding. His book is, in the end, entitled: “Aeloude en hedendaagsche scheepsbouw en bestier”. (Ancient and contemporary shipbuilding and management).

Nicolaes’ book had to be a scholarly book and it was very unlikely anyone of the people who actually did the carpentry at the ships in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic would ever read his book if they ever could. Not so different with today. For comparison, Cornelis van Yk’ book contains 20% information about other subjects, apart from the practise of shipbuilding, 80% is purely devoted to shipbuilding in his time.

It is also interesting to look at other texts Nicolaes produced in his twenties, like ‘De Moskovische Reise’ (The journey to Moscow). The comparison of the language in this travelogue with Nicolaes’ book about shipbuilding, also written in his twenties, is revealing. Reading ‘De Moskovische reise’ is also interesting because it gives you an insight in what kind of person Nicolaes was which turns out in his favor as far as I am concerned. He was not an arrogant or a bloated figure. Unfortunately, all these texts are written in old Dutch which is even for many modern Dutch people difficult to read.

I hope this might enlighten you a bit.

[Waldemar]

 

While I do have reprints of both Dutch shipbuilding treatises in my home library, they are not always the first-choice books to be consulted (Langerveld 1971 edition for van Yk, and van Wijnen 1994 edition for Witsen; but now their digital copies must be available on the internet too).

Sometimes other works have a preference, and among them:

 

– A. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012, which may be regarded as the most readable, clearly arranged interpretation of the methods described by Witsen,

 

– L'Art de batir les vaisseaux, 1719 (Omega 1990 reprint), which is – in effect – a shortened, but still useful compilation of the Dutch works, provided one would not need extremely detailed shipbuilding manual (although in French, it is still written from the strictly Dutch point of view),

 

– G. C. Dik, De Zeven Provinciën, van Wijnen 1994, which should be regarded perhaps as a practical, impressive application of the „manual“ by van Yk, rather than its comprehensive interpretation in the Ab Hoving style.

 

Besides, there are many more modern works: by H. Ketting, H. N. Kamer, E. Rieth, to name a few, which possibly should not be excluded from someone‘s research or analysis.

 

For a number of reasons, I would be probably unable to enter discussion each time, or on the very detailed level, but perhaps you may wish to consider the following, taken from l’Art de batir les vaisseaux:

 

1. Length of ships (refers to your post #6)

 

It is rather shortly explained on page 19, that the usual length/breadth proportion for the warships is 4:1 (or similar) indeed, and for the merchantmen more – as much as 5:1 for many fluits. Even a sample fluit with the ratio of 5,45:1 (120 feet : 22 feet) is mentioned on page 16.

 

Today, one would be tempted to take it as a simple rule to follow – shorter warships and longer merchantmen, and to judge it from the perspective of the true/untrue statements. But should we? Personally, I consider this statement as a reflection of a general trend only, and from this point of view – perfectly valid. Such approach is not even violated by reading a document from 1628, concerning a captured merchantman, which was considered fit for the naval service, but only after lengthening of its hull.

 

2. Keel’s bend (refers to your post #22)

 

It seems that you consider the intentional bend of the keel (in the newly-built Dutch ships) always in the downward direction. Nevertheless, on page 71 of l’Art de batir…, one can read, that some (Dutch) shipwrights profiled this bend in the upward direction (hoping the keel would later get straight under the cargo weight), and that other shipwrights built their ships with straight keels from the start, arguing it is better for the ships‘ behaviour when sailing (as if they ignored the phenomenon of the longitudinal distortion of the ship’s hull).

 

Cheers, Waldemar

 

[amateur]

A remark on the books you mention:

the book by Dik (although interesting enough), is hardly to be considered a book on Dutch shipbuilding. Dik's intention was to build a model of the Zeven Provincien, and his research was primarily focussed on this specific ship. Besides, as his intention was not writing a scientific book, he does not (at least explicit) give alternative solutions for puzzles and problem he encounters. With respect to the drawings he gives, they are quite strongly inspired by the drawings of Wagner/Winter of the socalled Hohenzollern Model in Berlin.

 

Ketting main focus was to describe the model of the Prins Willem in Amsterdam, using this specific model as a basis of presenting some information of shipbuilding. Again, a very nice book, but not a thorough study of Dutch shipbuilding.

 

I know only one book by Kamer, and I am not very impressed by that one. 

The books by Hoving I know, the one on Witsen is a nice one to get an impression of what Witsen wrote, but as Philemon somewhere in his postimgs remarked, it is an inteoduction to Witsen, not a study into the question whether what Witsen writes was correct, or whether or not alternative methods existed. It certainly is not a comparison of design principles used in different periods/regions. (And whether or not variations in methods/principles lead to marked differences in ships build)

 

Jan

 

 

 

[mtaylor]

14 hours ago, Philemon1948 said:

Another question is what the purpose of Nicolaes’  book was. It could very well be that his father Cornelis was the one who came up with the idea to write a comprehensive book about this subject of shipbuilding. Nicolaes wrote his book in his twenties, when he was young. I have the impression this book was primarily meant to make his name known before Nicolaes engaged in administrative business for which he was destined, given his origin and upbringing.

 

 

This part strikes me.  Is it possible that Nicolaes basically finished or edited the book 

that his father actually wrote?  

[Waldemar]

Jan,

 

You are perhaps too hard on these works.

 

As it is, we are still waiting for a single book – scientific, thorough study on shipbuilding, giving alternative solutions, authoritative, impressive, comparing design principles used in different periods/regions, embracing their influence on the differences in ships construction, with no shortcuts nor any mistakes, be it Dutch or otherwise.

 

Hopefully, someone‘s efforts will produce such an ideal book in the near future. Do you perhaps know of any attempt to produce such a single study?

 

… And I have just compared the plates from the books by Dik and Winter. No visible signs of plagiarism you are suggesting.

 

Greets, Waldemar

Edited August 17, 2021 by Waldemar

[Mark P]

Thank you Philemon;

 

That does indeed increase the enlightenment. So Witsen was primarily an administrator, and a member of his local Admiralty board. HIs knowledge was acquired from his father's papers, and as he also says: 'from the mouths and designs of brave masters', to which he added his own experiences etc. It would be interesting to know exactly what he meant by 'designs'. Would this be draughts of ships, which we know existed in England long prior to Witsen's era; or simpler sketched details. 

 

Thanks again to both yourself and Jan for your help.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[amateur]

I did not say plagiarism: I said ‘starting point’

 

Jan

[Waldemar]

 

Whatever you have meant (please be more specific), it is hard to imagine a thorough study on Dutch shipbuilding, or even only a reconstruction attempt of a large 17th century Dutch warship, while ignoring one of the most relevant source artefact – Hohenzollern model.

 

Waldemar

[Philemon1948]

 

Hello Waldemar, amateur, mtaylor and Mark P,

 

A forum like this is not very suitable to have real ‘in depth’ conversations but it is the point where the fun begins, at least for me. As my hero Richard Feynman once said about practicing science: “for the fun of it”. Writing is for me thinking and your reactions immediately trigger thoughts which propels my thinking further. You need to communicate and share your thoughts and discoveries to help developing our knowledge. I will try to incorporate my reactions to your posts in one post.

About the mentioned books and authors, they all but one have one thing in common: they don’t give a real analysis. In general they merely state what Witsen and van Yk already mention in their books. An analysis is in my view something else. I try to give an example of what is an analysis for me with the texts about the length of the keel I am posting here. The keel in itself raises a lot of questions I have never seen asked before. One understanding concerning the keel of is rocker. Waldemar makes the remark that: “It seems that you consider the intentional bend of the keel (in the newly-built Dutch ships) always in the downward direction“. Waldemar quotes from l’Art de Batir. This quote is taken from the books of Nicolaes Witsen (page 331, 1690). Witsen mentions the fact that the keel can be laid down in three different ways: deepest point in the middle, straight and highest point in the middle. I discuss this remark from Witsen extensively in the part of my book about rocker and I conclude that the most probable way they build most ships was with a keel with the deepest point in the middle. As such this is described by Witsen, van Yk, Ollivier and in the charters of the 18^th century Republic (the procedure is maintained in the 18^th century Republic). It is interesting to look at what influence rocker has at several building stages and at the geometry of the ship in general. Partly because of the conclusion I draw about how the keel is laid down at the beginning of construction, I think the keel of the Vasa is not laid down as it was done it at the beginning of construction.

As to the length of ships, I limit myself to the data mentioned in the books of Nicolaes and Cornelis. The flutes in Witsen’ book are imaginary ship as he states so himself. These imaginary flutes have a ratio about 5:1 or narrower. This in contrast to the two flutes mentioned by Cornelis who are much wider: 4,58:1 and 4,4:1. When you look at the ships who are specifically mentioned by Cornelis as warships they tend to be 4:1 or broader, merchant ships have an average ratio of 4:2. That does not mean some merchant ships can be broader or narrower and the same is true for warships. As I haven’t made a clear analysis of the ratio length:width from other sources I can’t make a clear statement about this. Waldemar states warships are usually broader than merchant ships is a general trend. But exceptions are always possible and maybe there might be other general trends when you look at the type of ship, for instance frigates. As for the longitudinal distortion of a ship, this distortion already happened before the ship ever touched water during the preparations for the launch procedure.

Returning to the mentioned book titles and authors, the only one  I haven’t read properly is Eric Rieth. He has the habit of mainly writing in French. It is not my intention to downplay the work of these authors but in my view, H. N. Kamer is the only one who is so bold to dive deeper into the matter in his book ‘Schepen op Schaal’, (Ships to Scale). In that book the first chapter is dedicated to the strange contradiction of the general ratio’s Nicolaes Witsen gives for a ship and the actual ratio’s from his example ship. Kamer concludes the pinas of Witsen wasn’t a pinas at all but another kind of ship. Kamer is the first one to have made these remarks about Witsen. Kamer also shows pictures of how the sheer-strake is attached to the ship and makes some remarks about that. He does that in two articles for the ‘Tijdschrift voor Zeegeschiedenis’ (Periodical for Naval History) and later in one of his books, I can’t remember which one, he wrote two books. I am writing this now while I don’t have the books at hand.

The remark from mtaylor struck me as lightning. For years now I have the suspicion Nicolaes Witsen did not write his books on his own. That is the reason I made the remark it would be interesting to scan the texts with a computer with regard to sentence structure and word choice. And to compare the texts with for instance the ‘Journey to Moscow’, a book I think Nicolaes really wrote himself, as a travelogue. It wasn’t unusual to borrow texts and pictures from one another in the sixteenth century. But to identify the father of Nicolaes Witsen as a co-author or even as the one who started Nicolaes’ book is very intriguing and I hadn’t thought of that possibility.

Also the question Mark poses is very intruiging.  Nicolaes Witsen’ father  produced: “eenige grondt-slagen, en tekeningen, (voormaals) ontworpen”. I translated this as ‘some basic principles and drawings, (previously) designed’. What is the meaning of the Dutch word ‘ontworpen’ here exactly? The word ‘ontwerpen’ in Dutch usually means designing,  in the meaning of creating. But it is possible it can also mean ‘to draft’ as to register someone else’s products. So did the father of Nicolaes produce designs, or did he merely make drawings of what he saw? This question is directly related to the plates in Nicolaes’ books and what happens to these plates if you compare the two editions. Who made the initial drawings for these plates?

The remark from Waldemar : „As it is, we are still waiting for a single book – scientific, thorough study on shipbuilding, giving alternative solutions, authoritative, impressive, comparing design principles used in different periods/regions, embracing their influence on the differences in ships construction, with no shortcuts nor any mistakes, be it Dutch or otherwise.“

I think this will be an undertaking hardly possible for one man or woman. It is impossible to say something definitive about procedure and sequence if there are no written sources from a certain period. I am trying to make an analysis from the book of Cornelis van Yk up until the ships launch, taking Witsen along as a comparison. I encountered up until now, so many things for the first time, while also trying to connect my findings to other sources and literature, I think I might be lucky if I can finish this undertaking in a satisfying way during my lifetime. My aim is to write a book with which it should be possible to build a ship in reality. But there are so many other subjects waiting for a proper analysis.

Last but not least, the original books. We know that there are several variants from Witsen’ books and two from Cornelis. I have done some research with regard to these variants which I have to complete by another last survey of the original copies of these books. Diederick Wildeman has written a very interesting article which is incorporated in the book of Ab Hoving about Witsen. The most interesting part of these variants is the appendix in the edition of 1690 where Witsen writes about developments in shipbuilding and makes a remark that he went actual looking at the ships themselves. But the facsimile issues of the original copies are quite sufficient in my opinion, certainly regarding the text, when you want to analyse the parts about shipbuilding.

 

PS. The Hohenzollern model is very interesting but I have some serious doubts about what is written about this model. I try to come back to this subject soon.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Waldemar]

Philemon,

 

From what has been already said (for example – about availability of materials, or unknown shipwrights‘ choices in many detailed aspects), it is quite clear, that all attempts to make a perfect, true reconstruction of any particular 17th-century ship are doomed from the start (with the possible exception of the special case – the „Vasa“ of 1628). Papers by Fred Hocker are perhaps among the most enlightening publications on this issue.

 

Yet, hopefully, your (and other researchers) efforts would allow still better reconstructions, i.e. closer to the reality. Sometimes such efforts give definitive answers, sometimes just warn about various possibilities, and both of these I consider valuable contributions. This is my point of view.

 

Keep on,
Waldemar

[Philemon1948]

Hello Waldemar,

 

I agree. There is no 'true' reconstruction. The text of Cornelis makes that perfectly clear. But what is possible is getting closer to their way of working by trying to reconstruct the building process. And that is what I am doing. And I would call a copy of the Vasa a replica, not a reconstruction. If you copy the Vasa the thing you could call a reconstruction is the building-procedure, not the actual product.

 

Thanks.

 

PS, This notion is related to the , by me, hated words 'authentic' and 'original'. There is no way for instance, you can copy the way of working of the shipwrights of the seventeenth century.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The length of the keel part four.

A construction piece taking over a function from another construction piece is something which occured more often during the process of shipbuilding in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic. In chapter 24 Cornelis mentions the following about the 154 feet ship: “Voor in ’t Schips Boegen lagen 7 Banden onder den Geschuts-Overloop gepast, die 22, 23, 24 a 25 Voeten lang, 15 a 16 duimen dik, en breed waren. d’ Eerste van onderen kwam de Knoop van Kiel en Steven te vervangen (…..).” (Cornelis van Yk. p. 150, r. 18, 1697). (Fore in the bow of the ship lay seven breasthooks, mounted beneath the gundeck, who were 22, 23, 24 to 25 feet long and 15 to 16 inches thick and high. The first and lowest replaced the node of keel and stempost (.....).”Apart from the significance of what is being said here, to which we will come back to later in detail, Cornelis uses here the word “knoop”. He uses this understanding at different places in his book. Literally translated it means ‘button’ or ‘knot’. Because of the more or less abstract meaning we will translate this understanding with ‘node’. Cornelis uses this understanding at several places in his book mainly to indicate a specific location. For instance in chapter 14 where he states: “Een Hoeker, lang 80 Voeten, de Santstrook viel uit op het Agterspant, of anders 13 Voeten 6 Duimen uit de Hieling, na dese, en voor op de Knoop van de Steven, die dan ook 14 voeten voor over viel, na die Liny: als in den Figura B te sien is.” (Cornelis van Yk. p. 68, r. 27, 1697). (A ‘Hoeker’ (Dutch type of ship red.), long 80 feet, the garboard strake pans out at the last frame, or also thirteen feet six inches from the heel of the keel, like this, and fore at the node of the stempost, which had a rake of 14 feet, like the line: as can be seen in figure B. (Figure ‘B’ must be figure ‘W’ red.)). (Attachment 6).

 

 

 

 

In this quote two locations are identified where the garboard strake has a certain direction. One of these places is the node of stempost and keel. To be able to know exactly where the garboard strake has this direction one has to know the exact position of this node. About the garboard strakes more in chapter five and six of this book.

In chapter two of his book Cornelis describes galleys as they were built in Italy. He states: “‘t Schip, vande Knoop vande Steven voorwaards, werd Proda, en vande knoop van de agtersteven agterwaards, Poppa genaamd.” (Cornelis van Yk. p. 9 r. 25, 1697). (The ship, from the node to the stempost forwards, was called ‘Proda’, and from the node at the sternpost backwards, ‘Poppa’).

The understanding ‘node’ can evidently mean a transition from the keel to the bow as well as the stern. This point is in the seventeenth century easier to find at the sternpost than at the stempost. At the stempost this point can be defined as the point where the upper side of the keel meets the front of the sternpost. So the point where you meet the sternpost at the keel. At the stempost this  transition is much more smooth so a node like point P provides a handy tool.

If we assume point P coincides with this node, the definition of the node fore can be: the point from which the rake and height of the stempost are plotted. This point P is a fixed point independent from how the construction is assembled. As we already saw this point does not automatically coincide with the back of the joint between stempost and keel but it is possible. The two pictures Cornelis shows in his book to explain how he determines the profile of the stempost suggest this. (Attachment 7 and 8).

 

 

Furthermore the certer for a ‘Fluitschip’ from chapter 24, 140 feet long, contains a peculiar description. When the stempost is described it says: “En viel uit het langste las vande Steven 22 voet voor over”. (Cornelis van Yk. Chapter 24. 1697). (And the rake was measured from the longest joint of the stempost 22 feet). In this case we could conclude the back of the joint and point P coincide. Why Cornelis uses the description ‘longest joint of the stempost’ instead of ‘node’ is not clear. It could be to emphasize the joint has the length of the part of the keel in front of the node. A similar description can be found in the certer for the 168 feet ship from chapter 24, where Cornelis states: “Viel uit het binnenste Lasch 24 voet”. (Cornelis van Yk. Chapter 24). (The rake measured from the inner joint 24 feet).

With ‘inner joint’ Cornelis presumably would have meant the back of the joint as visible at plate 7 and 8. The understanding ínner’ could also mean this is the joint at the back of the stempost which is situated more in the ‘inner’ part of the ship, contrary to the joint used to connect the two pieces of the stempost.

In Nicolaes’ books the understanding ‘node’ isn’t present. This could very well be related to the fact that using this concept ‘node’ expresses a familiarity with the process of shipbuilding and the subsequent practice. The considerations regarding to this concept were contained in the heads of the participants of this practice and were not recorded until Cornelis van Yk came along. These examples originating from the process of shipbuilding are mentioned much more often by Cornelis than Nicolaes. It also shows that, from the very beginning of building, there existed a fundamental difference in approach between what Cornelis van Yk and Nicolaes Witsen are presenting concerning the building process.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

The length of the keel part five.

 

 

 

What we don’t encounter in a reconstruction on paper and in the computer, nor with building a model, is the unruly practice of shipbuilding. A confrontation with the problems arising from a lack of size or the impossibility in finding the right shape is omitted. Because Cornelis does describe sometimes the consequences of a lack of size or the right shape, we can use that to simulate this unruly practice somewhat. The keel of the ‘Eendracht’ consists of three parts. The length of these parts has to be established. They are determined at respectively 10,65, 13,83 and 17,84 meter. 42,32 meter in total. These lengths are chosen more or less at random with the predetermined intention to have a clear distinction in length between the three parts to be able to argue the order of these parts. The rule of thumb from Cornelis states a safe approach is 9/10^th of the length of the ship. For the ‘Eendracht’ this is 39,49 meter exclusive the lengths you need for the two joints. When purchasing these pieces of wood the length of the intended joints has to be known to be able to establish if the three keel parts meet the requirements of this rule of thumb.

The following measurements to be able to establish length LK can be derived from the certer of the ‘Eendracht’:

 

 

Total length ship:                       155 feet, 43,88 meter

Width top stempost:                  3 feet, 5 inches, 0,98 meter,

Rake stempost:                         22 feet, 6,23 meter

Rake sternpost:                         3 feet, 6 inches, 1,01 meter.

 

 

If we subtract the rakes from the stem- and sternpost and the width of the stempost from the total length of the ship we end up with 35,66 meter, LK, the length of the keel between the node of the stem and the upper-backside of the keel, the point where the rake of the sternpost is measured from. To be able to join the first keelpart with the stempost within the pale this keel will have to be longer than 35,67 meter. In the part about the joints we will see what is left for the joint between keel and stempost if we construct the keel with the mentioned keelpart lengths.

At the rear the keel receives a certain length extra in the shape of the so-called ‘hieling’, the ‘heel’ of the keel. Cornelis only mentions this part as a point to measure from but doesn’t give a description. Nicolaes states in chapter 18 the following: “De lip, die achter aen de kiel uitsteeckt, stut het roer, en verhindert dat ietwes tusschen steven en roer in kome te schieten, en zoo onklaer werde”. (Nicolaes Witsen. p. 331, k. 1, r. 49, 1690) (The protrusion, which sticks out from the backside of the keel, supports the rudder, and prevents something to enter between keel and rudder, thus becoming unserviceable). Nicolaes mentions you also have to take into account the length of the joint between keel and stempost, called the ‘kinnebak’, and the heel: “Men moet wel letten dat men de Kiel een weinigh langer aanleght als zyne maat vereischt, om het Kinnebak en Hieling daar aan te konnen maken. “ (Nicolaes Witsen. p. 168, k. 1, r. 51, 1690). (One has to be aware to make the keel a little longer as its size demands, to be able to make the ‘kinnebak’ and the heel). This ‘kinnebak’ is the joint of stempost and keel. What Nicolaes seems to suggest is the length of the keel is given and/or measured without taking into account the length of the heel and this ‘kinnebak’, the joint fore. The front of the keel coincides in this case with the rear butt-joint of this joint fore. This also means the rake of the stempost is plotted from this point at the keel. Nicolaes gives a picture of the heel and ‘kinnebak’. The ‘kinnebak’ resembles a compressed plated scarf. (Nicolaes Witsen. Plate 51. 1671). (Attachment 9).

 

The description of this plate by Nicolaes is as follows: “By letter O, op de plaat, is a de Middel-krab, b de Sponning, c het Klampje tegen de Kiel, d een Paal daar het Stapel-blok mede vast gemaakt is, e het Stapel-blok, f de Hieling en, g het Kinnebak. “(Nicolaes Witsen. p. 168, c. 1, l. 55, 1690). (At letter O, at the plate, is the middle-scratch, b the rabbet, c the cleat against the keel, d a pole with which one of the stocks also is attached, e the stock, f the heel and, g the ‘kinnebak’.) In Cornelis’ book this joint does not appear. More about this in the chapter about the stempost. Nicolaes also give a clear side view of the heel. (Plate 48, Nicolaes Witsen. 1671). (Attachment 10).

 

About the letters ‘bd’ he states: “De hieling van de kiel, en dickte” (Nicolaes Witsen. p. 146, c. 2, l. 26, 1671). (The heel of the keel, and thickness). If we measure the angle of the oblique surface makes with the upper side of the keel this turns out to be approximately 45˚. If we use this angle for the keel of the ‘Eendracht’, this angle yields at the height of the keel aft an extra length of 0,29 meter for the keel itself and 0,08 meter for the shoe, in total 0,37 meter. This 0,37 meter is from now on the length of the heel.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Philemon1948]

 

 

The length of the keel part six.

 

 

If a measurement is given from the rear of the keel towards fore you have to know if this is done from the upper-backside or lower-backside of the keel. Nicolaes gives in his glossary no definition of the heel but he gives a definition of the verb ‘hielen’: “Hielen. Het achter te veel neder zakken der Scheepen. Of: op en neder rijden.” (Nicolaes Witsen. Glossary, p. 595, 1690). (Hielen. Sinking in too much aft of the ships. Or, riding up and down). Here ‘hielen’ has a relationship with the under-backside of the keel. Something similar is shown by Nicolaes by describing the word ‘Hiel’ he describes as: “Hiel. Het onderste gedeelte van de masten. De hielen van stengen zijn vierkant.” (Heel. The lower part of the masts. The heels of the topmasts are square). Here also the emphasis is at the lower end of the construction part.

 

 

Nicolaes mentions the length for this ‘kinnebak’, which can be translated with the term ‘box-scarf’, for his 134 feet example ship: “'t Kinbak lang 8 duim”. (p. 111, k. 1, r. 1, 1690).” (The box-scarf long eight inches). This a bit more than 0,2 meter. In this case you can hardly speak of a joint. This box-scarf looks more like a stretched butt-joint. The function of this joint is presumably more of a ‘searching’ nature. When the stempost is erected this joint will have functioned as a sort of guide to position the stempost in the median plane of the ship. If all seams are closed then the stempost stands in its right place, so not turned towards port or starboard. The tilting of the stempost in longitudinal direction is more visible in the part which runs beyond the box-scarf and rests on the keel. (Attachment 11, Plate 51, Nicolaes Witsen, 1671).

 

 

In the construction a joint with a length of 0,2 m. on a ship length of 43,88 m. is not functional. Besides this, the joint will also have had a function to prevent displacement athwart instead of making a sturdy connection with the keel. Nicolaes also mentions they used just one bolt to connect the keel and the stempost with this box-scarf. As mentioned before it seems like Nicolaes gives the length of the keel without the extra lengths the box-scarf and the heel require.

 

 

During the seventeenth century the length of the keel increases relative to the total length of the ship. The reason for this is the decrease of the inclination of the stem- and sternpost and the subsequent decrease of the rakes. The data Cornelis and Nicoales supply clearly show this to be true for both stem- and sternpost. Cornelis only mentions this phenomenon concerning the stempost. “Heden werd dese Steven veel steilder gesteld, waar door veel Langte, en Bogt ontgaan werd.” (p. 56, r. 41, 1697). (Today this stempost is set much steeper, whereby one needs less curvature and length).

A change in length of the sternpost has a direct consequence for the rake. This is not the case with the stempost because the profile of the stempost above has almost the same direction as the front perpendicular. More about this phenomenon in the chapter about the sternpost and the sternconstruction. In the appendix an analysis of the length of the keel compared to the length of the ship and an analysis of the rakes with regard to the length of the ship.

 

 

In this case I will drop this appendix and give a last post with some sort of last statement what to think of this all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Philemon1948]

The last post in this series.

 

What do all the above posts mean? The first edition of the book of Nicolaes Witsen is published in 1671, the second one, dated but not published, in 1690 while the book of Cornelis van Yk is published in 1697. We now stand on the brink of 2022, 351 respectively 325 after the publication of the books of both authors. And yet, a thorough analysis of both books has yet to be published. How is that possible? Whole libraries are published about the VOC, about Rembrandt and about the Golden Age he lived in, but about the actual practice of shipbuilding in this Golden Age, nothing exists to this date which gives an answer to what is written in those books. That is to say, a thorough analysis lacks. It is not even possible to publish a wikipedia lemma about Cornelis van Yk because the necessary literature to back up this article lacks. No one has ever dared to try to give an answer to these questions. No one has ever tried to analyse the inconsistencies in the books of Nicolaes Witsen end Cornelis van Yk and what they state.

I won’t try to give an answer to the question why this is so. But I have presented here a few inconsistencies in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and stipulated at some present in the book of Cornelis van Yk. Which is only a fragment of the inconsistencies you can find. What consistent information is there to be found in both books? And how do you know it is consistent? And how does this compare to the mentioned inconsistencies?

In the book ‘Vasa’ (2018) , Fred Hocker mentions the ‘Dutch building method’. But what is this method exactly? And if it differs from the methods applied by for instance the English and the French, or the Spanish and Portuguese, in what way?

This whole field of research is still completely open and largely unexplored. What are we waiting for? In 2022 it will be 325 years since Cornelis van Yk published his book. A beautiful opportunity for organising a joint effort to unlock some of the secrets written down in his book, in its 65th lustrum of existence. And compare it with Nicolaes Witsen’s book.

Edited December 26, 2021 by Philemon1948

[Gregory]

21 minutes ago, Philemon1948 said:

And yet, a thorough analysis of both books has yet to be published. How is that possible?

No money in it..

[mtaylor]

5 hours ago, Gregory said:

No money in it..

And possibly a lack of hard data???

[trippwj]

There is some potentially useful information to be found in the modern academic publications. While it is true there are no deep dive comparisons of Witsen and Yk,the two also represent the end of one construction style and the advent of another.  See the preface in Hoving for a brief overview.

 

It is an interesting topic, but I doubt that it would warrant a book length publication but, perhaps, something in one of several journals.

 

[Philemon1948]

"At the turn of the millennium, Reid Byers, a computer systems architect, set out to build a private library at his home in Princeton, N.J. Finding few books on library architecture that were not centuries old and in a dead or mildewed language, he took the advice of a neighbor across the street, the novelist Toni Morrison.

Ms. Morrison “once famously said if there is a book you want to read and it doesn’t exist, then you must write it,” recalled Mr. Byers, 74, in a video chat from his current home, in Portland, Maine." The New York Times, 24 December 2021.

And that is exactly what I am doing. And I think there is more than one book to write. I limit myself to one phase of the construction. But there is much more to find in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. Maybe my efforts will make a difference or be an impulse for more people to address the topic. I hope so anyway.

[trippwj]

5 hours ago, Philemon1948 said:

"At the turn of the millennium, Reid Byers, a computer systems architect, set out to build a private library at his home in Princeton, N.J. Finding few books on library architecture that were not centuries old and in a dead or mildewed language, he took the advice of a neighbor across the street, the novelist Toni Morrison.

Ms. Morrison “once famously said if there is a book you want to read and it doesn’t exist, then you must write it,” recalled Mr. Byers, 74, in a video chat from his current home, in Portland, Maine." The New York Times, 24 December 2021.

And that is exactly what I am doing. And I think there is more than one book to write. I limit myself to one phase of the construction. But there is much more to find in the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. Maybe my efforts will make a difference or be an impulse for more people to address the topic. I hope so anyway.

 

I have finally had an opportunity to sit myself down and look through this topic with a more critical eye and resources that I have compiled at hand. I must appologize, sir, for a couple of prior posts. It is now apparent to me that you are indeed intimately familiar with at least one of the researchers I suggested earlier. As I was preparing a reply I realized that I had seen something quite similar - and then it struck me. I have followed your chapters on Academia for some time, and the Pitch on a topic concerning Cornelis van Yk and Nicolaes Witsen document finally provided me with enough wattage to illuminate my decidedly dim light (that is to say, the light bulb went off).

 

It is apparent that you have invested many years and much effort into developing your thesis. I wish I had more to offer other than possible resouces that I occassionally stumble across in the archeological record, Best of luck with this, and keep pushing onward -

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

[Philemon1948]

Hello Wayne,

 

You are right. My writings on Academia are somewhat dated though. The posts about the length of the ship I published on this forum are more developed and mature versions of the Academia ones. My aim was and is to stimulate discussion. Because that is essential to achieve a more balanced interpretation of the texts I am trying to interpret. For me, writing and discussing is thinking. I don’t write because I know, I write because I want to know. But I now know discussion is almost impossible because barely anyone reads these books. That is a pity. I have only met one person with whom I was able to thoroughly discuss certain aspects of the book of van Yk and this was, not by chance, a shipwright.

Now I find myself in a very crucial phase in my writing and a very paradoxical one. This paradox has to do with the making of the sheer strake and subsequently fitting the sheer strake at the ship. I use a CAD program to reconstruct the geometry of a ship but this fitting of the garboard strake can not be simulated in the computer. Yet, establishing the shape of this sheer strake when it is lying flat can’t be done on scale 1 to 10, the scale I use to make some models of construction parts. Establishing the shape of the sheer strake can only be done at scale 1 to 1 or with a computer using a CAD program because you draw at scale 1 to 1 in a computer.

Anyway, I find this a fascinating subject but I regret the lack of fundamental discussion. Thank you for your motivating reaction.

 

Jaap Luiting

[Philemon1948]

A little 'Post Scriptum' to all my previous posts.

 

When doing research it is evident that you are searching for, or relying on, reliable information. Ab Hoving states that reliable information about shipbuilding in the Dutch Seventeenth Century Republic is very scarce. Yet, he presents the information he retrieves from the work of Nicolaes Witsen as very reliable. It is not difficult to prove that this is not the case. See my previous posts. When researching historic facts, there should be more than one source to be able to establish the reliability of this fact. In Nicolaes Witsen’ case this is not possible. Even Nicolaes himself shows that his own measurements of his example ship deviates completely from the ratio’s he presents. Why does Ab Hoving regards the data from Nicolaes as utterly reliable while Nicolaes himself shows they are not?