Technical drawings & Dutch shell first

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Allan,

 

Good to see you like Hitchens's quote.

 

 

Hello Jaager,

 

Thank you for your thoughts. Let me pick your post apart to answer appropriately.

 

You say: "The first step in this is to define just what constitutes an effective design plan."

 

Not necessarily. The point I am trying to make is that building ships according to the Dutch shell first building method does not exclude the use of technical drawings. As we've seen, Witsen is very clear about this. When he describes the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method he says: "The figure on the plate near the letter W, which is at the top, shows how one makes teh division on paper, before the ships are begun, ...". Witsen is clearly talking about design on paper before construction starts. The first step for me is to recognize this.

If this design constitutes 'an effective design plan' is another matter. I am quite sure the shipwright thought he was working according to 'an effective design plan'.

 

You say: "I think that any controversy about Dutch ship design methods are caught up in a side eddy."

 

And why do you think this is so? I can imagine that the only information you get about 'Dutch ship design methods' comes from English texts. I can only hope that my former posts show that there are some interesting quotes from 17th century Dutch texts that were not translated into English. And in relation to this I think we have to ask ourselves what made Van Duivenvoorde assert this in her dissertation of 2008:

 

"The late-sixteenth and seventeenth-century ships built according to a bottom-based construction tradition were not predesigned on paper."

 

She asserted this without providing a source, so let's turn to another dissertation which asserts the same as Van Duivenvoorde's and which provides a source:

 

Kelby James Rose, The Naval Architecture of Vasa, a 17th-century Swedish Warship (dissertation), 2014, page 50:

 

"Things are further complicated in the Dutch shipbuilding tradition as the engineer and builder was effectively the same person. In the 17th century, the master-shipwright was responsible for both design and construction, aided by ship carpenters who worked according to the shipwright's directions. Seminal scholar A.J. Hoving summarizes this phenomenon, explaining 'there was no distinction between design and construction. The ship was not designed on the drawing board but was shaped during the building process, not on the basis of an engineer's calculations but through the master shipbuilder's active engagement in the building process on the yard.⁴"

 

Footnote 4 reads: "Hoving 2012, 9.", and on page 332 we can find Kelby Rose means: "Hoving. A.J. 2012. Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press."

 

And there we can indeed find:

 

Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in teh Dutch Golden Age, 2012, page 9:

 

"The building method Witsen described by Witsen is called the shell first method, as distinguished from its counterpart, the frame-first method. ...

Another fascinating aspect of this method is that there was no distinction between design and execution. The ship was not designed on the drawing board but was shaped during the building process, not on the basis of an enigineer's calculations but through the master shipbuilder's active engagement in the building process on the yard. ...

In my view, however, the most important feature of this method is that building took place without preparatory drawings: the design came into being in the yard through the actual construction of the ship itself. ...".

 

Which is a translation made by Alan Lemmers of a Dutch text published in 1994:

 

Hoving, Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt, 1994, page 28:

 

"De methode die Witsen aanvankelijk beschrijft, wordt de 'schaalbouw' of 'shell-first' methode genoemd, en onderscheidt zich van zijn tegenhanger, de zg. 'frame-first' methode, doordat de bouwer eerst de buitenhuid van het schip bouwt, waarna hij de spanten erin aanbrengt. ...

Het fascinerende aan deze constructiemethode is ook, dat er geen onderscheid is te maken tussen ontwerp en uitvoering. Het schip werd niet ontworpen op de tekentafel, maar kreeg zijn vorm tijdens het bouwproces, niet door de berekeningen van een cijferend ingenieur, maar door een op de werf aan het bouwproces deelnemende scheepsbouwmeester. ...

Het allerbelangrijkste aan de methode is mijns inziens echter dat er werd gebouwd zonder van tevoren gemaakte tekeningen. Het ontwerp van het schip ontstond tegelijk met het schip zelf, op de werf. ...".

 

As we've seen, the statements "the ship was not designed on the drawing board" and "building took place without preparatory drawings" can not be sustained; Witsen simply says differently in 1671 and 1690; to repeat again:

 

"The figure on the plate near the letter W, which is at the top, shows how one makes the division on paper, before the ships are begun, ...".

 

I hope you agree that leaving out this simple sentence when quoting from Witsen changes the complete perception of the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method.

 

So I agree totally, the controversy about Dutch ship design methods are indeed caught up in a side eddy, as you call it; since 1994, since the 'seminal scholar' made sure the controversy got caught up in a side eddy. Saying that no technical drawings were used in Dutch shell first shipbuilding stopped the search for these technical drawings and made discussion about these technical drawings almost impossible. It even led to four articles in four different languages to discredit these technical drawings.

 

It's up to us to move the 'controversy about Dutch ship design methods' back into the main stream; as we're doing already right now.

 

 

You say: "They run continuous experiments with no controls. They make multiple changes instead of just one. The main probable advantage is that by having a large three axis plan to start, there is documentation for replication if it is a successful design. If a design is a failure, they could only guess at which factors were the wrong ones."

'Experiments without controls'. Dutch shipwrights were informed by the people who used their ships. Suggestions for change came from the 'users'. Admiral De Ruyter for example was in direct contact with the shipwrights and was allowed to make changes in the design of the ships, even when the building of the ships had already started.

'They make multiple changes instead of just one'. In constructions as large as ships you can have several unrelated problems at the same time, which can therefore be tackled in one go.

I can give examples of 17th century Dutch shipwrights who used technical drawings and/or a coordinate system to build a 'good' ship again, or to change only one parameter. I know of an example of a repeat ship of the VOC where only the width of the flat was changed by 3 inches. And ... all these ships were built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method.

 

You say: "A comparison of a draftsman at work in Baker and what Rembrandt shows, shows a significant difference in the size of the drafting table and the size of the compass as well as the size of the sheet. The two are doing different things, except for a few basic factors."

I didn't know the size of the equipment mattered in ship design. But Dutch shipwrights used big drawings as well, so I guess they had big drafting tables and maybe even a big compass too. Here is a technical drawing from the Scheepvaartmuseum with a length of 107 cm (42 inches) and a height of 38 cm (15 inches):

Scheepvaartmuseum, Amsterdam. Bezaanjacht, A.0149(0868).

 

Are Baker's draftsman and shipwright Jan Rijcksen doing different things? Please explain.

 

You say: "Van Duivenvoorde describes a process that leaves too much open to chance."

I agree.

 

You say: "I think that relying on the 'natural shape that bottom planking would take' as the sole starting point would probably produce hulls similar to a Birch bark canoe."

For me there is no 'natural shape that bottom planking would take'; the shape that the bottom planking takes is decided upon by the shipwright. The natural shape of wood is a tree.

 

You say: "Jan Rijcksen is likely defining the deadrise and the breadth of the midship, fore- and aft mould frames (as well as the stem and stern)."

I described what I think can be seen on the drawing in front of Jan Rijcksen in an earlier post. I think we see a complete contour of the master frame, but I do not think we see 'fore- and aft mould frames' in Jan Rijcksen's drawing.

 

You say: "The shipwright would not need patterns from a mould loft to assemble any of the five key components."

I agree. The VOC standardized its ships in 1697 and used a coordinate system to make sure that the run of the flat and the flexible battens followed the specifications. I know of an example of 1703 though where the master shipwright of the Admiralty of Rotterdam is ordered to make nine full size moulds for a ship of 140 feet and has to make these nine moulds for all of the five Admiralties; forty five in all.

 

You say: "It would be silly/pointless to do what Jan Rijcksen is doing after the hull is built. There is not enough there to get an exact repeat."

We do not know if Jan Rijcksen had finished his design drawing when he was painted by Rembrandt; are we looking at a completed design drawing in the painting? I already showed you a completed design drawing for a pinas from the Scheepvaartmuseum which has frame sections every ten feet of the length. That would make a repeat build possible, don't you think?

 

Kind regards,

 

Jules

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

As we've seen in an earlier post, the following quote can be found in:

 

Wendy van Duivenvoorde, The Batavia shipwreck: an archaeological study of an early seventeenth-century Dutch East Indiaman (dissertation), August 2008, page 40:

 

"Witsen demonstrates the use of a master frame in Dutch bottom-based construction, which was inserted after the assembly of the bottom-planking had been completed. ...

By inserting the frame floor and first futtocks the first step was made to define the hull curvature above the bottom, which was dictated by the second futtocks that made up the turn of the bilge. The shipwright defined this curvature based on the shape of the bottom, and did not design it by drawing a midships mould. Witsen does describe how to draw the dimensions of the master frame on paper, but it is not certain whether such drawings were truly used in the shipyard (Fig. II. 11)."

 

We discarded Van Duivenvoorde's assertion "but it is not certain whether such drawings were truly used in the shipyard" using Hitchens's razor, but let's have a look at where this assertion found its roots anyway.

 

 

Figure W and context

 

The figure II, 11 Van Duivenvoorde mentions is displayed on page 44 of her dissertation: it is the figure W as incorporated in Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen's 'Architectura Navalis et Regimen Nauticum' of 1690 between the pages 168 and 169; the same figure we've seen before when describing Rembrandt's painting of master shipwright of the VOC Jan Rijcksen of 1633.

 

Before having a look at what figure W actually shows, let's first have a look at the context in which Witsen placed his figure W. Here is the complete plate LII, placed between the pages 150 and 151 of Nicolaes Witsen's 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' of 1671. This plate includes figure W, at the top of the plate:

Plate LII shows that figure W has a relation to the figures V, X and Z, which together show different steps of the building process while working according to the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method. Figure W shows the design of the main frame, figure V shows the placement of the 'buikstuk' (floor timber) and two 'zitters' (lower futtocks) in the main frame position according to the design, figure X shows the placement of the 'oplangen' (second futtocks) on the ends of the floor timber according to the design, and figure Z shows the placement of the 'stutten' (top timbers) according to the design.

Figure AA on plate LIII between the pages 152 and 153 can be regarded as complementary to figure Z because it shows almost the same building stage as figure Z. Here is that figure AA:

As we can see, the figure AA shows more of the designed shape of the 'stutten' (top timbers) than figure Z.

 

The combination of the figures V, X, Z and AA shows the building of the main frame according to the design made in figure W. In the text that accompanies these figures, Witsen gives a complete description of how all the building elements are placed and how their positioning was controlled during the building of the ship.

 

 

Figure W

 

After we've seen how figure W is used while building according to the Dutch shell fist shipbuilding method, let's have a look at what figure W actually shows itself: how was the design made? Here is that figure W, again, but now with some added lines and arcs:

 

Witsen gives an explanation about how the design in figure W is made on page 151 of his book of 1671. Allow me to not give Witsen's text but only Alan Lemmers's translation of Witsen's text in:

 

Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012, page 17:

 

"The figure at the letter W, above, shows how to make the construction on paper, before starting on the Ship, a, d, is the main deck, from e and h arcs are drawn, g the intersection in the turn of the bilge, f and l the highest points of the rise of the floors, y the keel, and k the place on which the keelson and the floor timbers will come, as indicated in the print.

But to make sure the rake of the futtocks and the curve of the bilges, one makes a model or drawing on paper: one draws a line on the depth, and divides the width into four parts, puts the point of the compass on the third of four parts, and draws a circle lower than two thirds of the depth, as shown at g in the hollow of the bilges; and if the floor is wide, and rises three fifths, as at f, then one puts the foot of the compass on f, makes a scratch at h, and another at g; then again a scratch at h, and puts the foot of the compass on that center point, and draws the curve of the bilges, as one can see done from f to g. From f to l and from y to k one has the rise of the floor."

 

Note that the points 'f' and 'g' do not have a fixed position. Although Witsen gives the width of the flat, three fifths of the width of the ship, he does not give the rise of the flat, so the height of point 'f' is not known, and he describes the position of point 'g' just as "lower than two thirds of the depth".

The same vagueness can be found in Anthony Deane's description of the design of the main frame. There we can find: "and set one leg of my compasses in the floor line at K and sweep it from H to L" without explainig where L is, and "strike it under the breadth line, downwards from E to N" without explaining where N is. The position of the center of the reconciling sweep, point O, is also not explained. (Lavery, Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture, 1670, 1986, page 68.)

There is a reason for this vagueness; we'll get to that later.

 

Also notice that the point 'g' is actually not on the arc of the second futtocks, but on the arc of the lower futtocks.

 

Since we can deduce some design principals from Witsen's figure W and Witsen's accompanying explanations, let's call those principals Witsen's design principals.

 

 

Witsen's design principals

 

Width/depth-ratio

The footmarks in the figure W show that the figure has a width of 20 feet and a height of 8 feet. The width/depth-ratio is therefore 20/8 or 2,5/1. This relates to the 'normal' ratio that for example can be found in Grebber's table we've seen before; the width of the ship equals one fourth of the length of the ship, the depth of the ship equals one tenth of the length of the ship. Witsen probably used the width and depth of a ship with a length of 80 feet for his design example.

 

Two arcs and a straight line

The main frame's design consists of two arcs, parts of circles, and a straight line.

Witsen says that from 'e' and 'h' in his figure W "werden de bochten getrocken", "arcs are drawn", and that 'e' and 'h' are the centers of, respectively, a circle and a curve, in which the point of the compass has to be placed; using a compass of course results in arcs, parts of circles.

In Witsen's figure W the line from the point 'f' to the point 'l' is a straight line.

 

Center point determination

To determine the center point of an arc between two points, Witsen uses 'the principle of the scratches' to construct a straight line exactly in between those two points. To draw an arc between the two points, the center point of the arc has to lie on this straight line. Like this:

To draw an arc from point a to b, put the point of your compass in point a and draw a part of a circle through point b. Then put the point of your compass in point b and draw a part of a circle through point a. The two intersections of the two circles are called point c and point d. Draw a straight line through the points c and d. Any point on this straight line can be used as a center point to draw an arc from point a to point b. Let's for example choose point e on the straight line. Put the point of your compass in the point e and draw the arc from point a to point b.

 

Smooth transitions

The center points of the two arcs in the figure W, the arc for the lower futtock and the arc for the second futtock, and the point where these two arcs touch are on one straight line. This results in a smooth transition between the two arcs.

We can find this same principle for example in Deane's 'Doctrine': 'The reconciling of several sweeps demonstrated'. (Lavery, Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture, 1670, 1986, page 64.)

 

The center of the arc of the lower futtock is on a line perpendicular to the end of the straight line of the flat. This results in a smooth transition between the arc and the straight line.

We can find this same principle for example in Deane's 'Doctrine': 'The sweep of the stem and stern post demonstrated, with the bigness of the same.' (Lavery, Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture, 1670, 1986, page 54).

 

The three-quarters-width arc

The arc of the second futtock has a fixed radius; the radius is fixed at three quarters of the width of the ship. In the case of Witsen's example ship the radius of the arc is fixed at three quarters of 20 feet: at 15 feet.

We will see that this last principle was not always applied.

 

 

Witsen's design principles applied

 

Here is an example of the application of Witsen's design principles. How to draw a main frame in six easy lessons.

 

Step 1

Draw, at an appropriate scale, a rectangle that has a length equal to the width of the ship and a height equal to the depth of the ship; in this case 20 feet by 8 feet. Like this:

 

Step 2

Draw, at the same scale, a rectangle underneath the middle of the rectangle that has a length equal to the width of the keel and a height equal to the height of the keel. Like this:

 

Step 3

Mark the point 'e' on the upper end of the rectangle at a distance of three quarters of the width of the ship from point 'a'. Put the point of your compass in this point 'e' and draw an arc from point 'a' to point 'g'; point 'g' is somewhere underneath one third of the height of the rectangle. Draw a straight line from point 'e' to point 'g'. Like this:

 

Step 4

Mark a point 'h' on the line from 'e' to 'g' and put the point of your compass in this point 'h'. Draw a long enough arc from 'g' to make sure a straight line from the keel will touch the arc. Like this:

 

Step 5

Mark a point near 'y' on the height of the keel where you want the planking to begin. Draw a straight line from this point near 'y' that is tangent to the arc from the point 'g'. Name the point where the straight line touches the arc, point 'f'. Draw a straight line from point 'h' to point 'f' and check if this line is perpendicular to the straight line from the point near 'y' to point 'f'. Like this:

 

Step 6

Repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 for the other side of the figure. Erase the construction lines. Your design of the main frame is ready. Like this:

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

[flying_dutchman2]

This is a fascinating topic and I have been reading this thoroughly. It also gives me a better understanding of it all (Thank you Jules).

I use Witsen's manuscript and Hoving's book which is an interpretation of Witsen's manuscript plus several other books to attempt to either built another Fluit (First I need to finish the Zeehaen), or the war yacht, the Heemskerck. 

 

Marcus

[Jaager]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:25 AM, Jules van Beek said:

They run continuous experiments with no controls. They make multiple changes instead of just one.

The "they" that I was referring to are the English.

I was mostly doing a criticism  of the English.

 

The supposed advantage of a complete design on paper and the use frames at every station - frame first - is probably not all that significant.  The design is still based on intuition and past performance.  It is much better for us who wish to do a reproduction though..

 

Something scientific would have to wait for a test basin.  Even then real significance would need the development of precise instrumentation and a way to record the results.  I think a smoked drum was state of the art up until well into the 20th century.  Identifying laminar flow and looking for eddies.

 

I do not think we are disagreeing all that much.  I just think we have different standards for what constitutes a sophisticated design document. 

I believe that the Dutch started with something on paper.  It was just basic. 

What the English or French started with on paper probably produced a hull with less variability between what different yards would produce  than would obtain between the various Dutch yards - if some new factor was introduced.  The Dutch system probably selected for a degree of commonality with the shipwrights.

 

 

On 7/1/2023 at 8:25 AM, Jules van Beek said:

which has frame sections every ten feet of the length. That would make a repeat build possible, don't you think?

Yes.   But 10 foot sandwiches would be a bear for my method.  

But the corvette  Falmouth of 1827  has three 16'  sandwiches, and six 8'.  The USN designer certainly did not over exert himself with those plans.

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Marcus,

 

Thank you for the 'thank you'.

Good to see you're using the primary source, Witsen's manuscript, next to the secundary sources, mainly Hoving's books I guess. You are one of the lucky few who can actually read the primary source. Keep on using it!

Good luck with finishing your Zeehaen.

 

 

Hello Jaager,

 

Thank you for your reply.

I am sure we're not disagreeing all that much and I sure hope you did not take my reply in that way. Keep those remarks coming.

Thanks for the: "I believe that the Dutch started with something on paper. It was just basic."

But, I am not sure why you make a separation between 'what the English and French started with on paper' and 'what the Dutch started with on paper' though.

And, I think you are implying that the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method was not suited to produce a ship according to design drawings.

Would you care to expand on those two remarks?

 

Thanks to the both of you,

 

Jules

[Jaager]

Jules,

 

I am coming at this from a particular bias as far as my attachment of relative values.

That is POF model building.  The English plans are often detailed enough for me to develop frame timber patterns with almost no traditional lofting (i.e.  using XZ and YZ points to get the XY data that I need.)

 

The Dutch plans would essentially be following the directions for a design that are in Deane's Doctrine.   That is a lot of hands on lofting and the result is a best guess because of the number of choices that need to be made along the way.  One minor advantage with the Dutch hull is that there seems to be s long section on either side of the deadflat that are a replication - sort of barge-like.  The English started a slope change almost immediately on either side. 

Because Deane used arcs - a compass - something that I have taken as the core of whole moulding - there is a sameness with any design that follows the method. 

You are describing something similar. 

What Deane did using 5 data points per WL and a flexible batten on paper,  the Dutch appeared to do in the yard using the actual planking. 

 

I think that the Dutch used too much "you just gotta know" in their decisions for me to even think about building a hull using what data that they have left us.

I do concede that my long ago ambition to build Deane's Royal Charles 1672 - the one that came after the one that the Dutch stole - would be a fantasy rather than what the ship actually looked like.  There are no plans, jut the data that Deane started with. 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Jaager,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

"What Deane did using 5 data points per WL and a flexible batten on paper, the Dutch appeared to do in the yard using the actual planking."

There are seventeenth century Dutch technical drawings for pinases in the Scheepvaartmuseum that contain waterlines. I showed one already in an earlier post. And, I haven't finished this thread yet...

 

"I think the Dutch used too much "you just gotta know" in their decisions for me to even think about building a hull using what data that they have left us."

There are people who have built hulls using the data the Dutch have left us though. To name but one: Donald McNarry. He built a model of Dromedaris (c1652) "based entirely on the eighteen-gun pinas hull draughts, the deck details from the work of Nicholaes Witsen and contemporary Dutch models, the mast and spar dimensions from Cornelis Van Yk, the decoration, rigging and many other details from the precise pen-paintings by the Elder Van de Velde.", and a model of HMY Mary (1660) using "a contemporary plan in Witsen of a very similar yacht." (Donald Mc Narry, Ship Models in miniature, 1975, p. 28 and 41.)

He even made two models of Naseby (1655), the Royal Charles stolen by the Dutch. (opus cit. p. 30 and 48).

 

Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien?

 

Best regards,

 

Jules

 

 

[Jaager]

1 hour ago, Jules van Beek said:

There are people who have built hulls using the data the Dutch have left us though.

There are models, yes.  I do not believe that I said that models could not be built. 

But like every kit of a ship with a famous name and no complete plans from its time ,  that the result actually matches the original is wishful thinking at best.

In the circumstance it is honest to make the label reflect the fact that it is one man's guess and thus a decorator model and not an actual historical representation.

"The ship name if model makers name had built it."

1 hour ago, Jules van Beek said:

He even made two models of Naseby (1655), the Royal Charles stolen by the Dutch

He made those two  models - and as excellent as they may be - he essentially gave them any old name from an historical perspective.

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Jaager,

 

We are not disagreeing. All I am trying to say is that everybody has his own standards for deciding if information is reliable enough to jusitify a reconstruction. You clearly have set yourself a higher standard than McNarry did for himself, and for his clients.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jules

[Doreltomin]

Hello Jules, many, many thanks again for taking your time to explain the subtleties of Dutch ship design and also to translate the relevant bits and pieces from Dutch to proper English. Some may not feel it, but reading from a three centuries old text isn't the same as just knowing the language. I do not know exactly how much the Dutch language changed in these three centuries, but as a non-Dutch speaker, I can understand the meaning of a Dutch simple sentence like "Geen fiets hier", yet I could have not by any means understand all the subtleties of Witsen's text without your compassionate translation so this is why your effort is much appreciated. 

 

Also I have seen some fellow members compare the "Dutch system of designing ships" which you are introducing here with others, mainly the one developed in England - and even as a "proof" produced some fine examples of naval plans developed around 1815-1825 from which a medium-experienced modeller could build a splendid authentic model, saying that compared with these, the "Dutch system" may seem crude.

 

My friends, have you ever noticed that our host here speaks specifically about the system presented by Witsen in his two books: 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' published in 1671, with a second more enlarged and completed version 'Architectura Navalis', published in 1690. This is specifically 17th century and there's an old saying along the lines "you can't compare pears with apples" or whatever fruit suits you.

 

I also remember my father in the late '60's using his slide rule with an uncanny dexterity, yet in the '80's during my school days I had to buy myself a handheld calculator while learning doing the structural calculations which my father did by his rule. Also, forgive my father for I have sinned, even if he taught me too how to use it and I still have his rule somewhere, I can't remember anymore how to use it as the calculator is much easier. Therefore in much the same way 19th century navy drawings cannot be compared with any 17th century "system" simply because the first have some 100 more years of drafting expertise added to them. 

 

So just let me ask you the following: if you had to go to a dentist, would you prefer one which uses the latest 21-th century tech, or someone whose cabinet employs technologies and techniques which stop to 1980? It's just 43 years ago now, less than half a century, yet their technologies have had a good advance.  

 

So, speaking about ship designs, please return to 1671 and show me a single original draft of a ship from any nation, be it Spanish, Venitian, French or English, of similar age and also similar or better in complexity than these Dutch drafts which our friend Jules is presenting us here. I bet you can't find any. Most 17th century English ship plans are either drafts of real 17th century ships as taken off in their 18th century yards, or genuine bits or pieces left by sheer chance by some of the 17th century shipwrights, which generally speaking are NOT enough to build a complete ship if you don't add knowledge for the said ships from other sources.

 

During the 17th century shipwrights of most nationalities cautiously kept to themselves their "secrets of trade" and there are just some happy exceptions to the rule which can help us to understand how not only they designed their ships, but also how ship drafting evolved from mere scratches on a wooden board to the wonderful complete drafts available in the 19th century. 

 

One more remark about the Dutch system of "shell first", or alternatively, "bottom first" as it was specifically called in some books. The "shell first" is mainly the old system which was used for ships around all Europe; it was first spread in the Mediterranean by the Minoans and Phoenicians and everybody used it in the same way for several centuries and it's still in use for traditional boats today, although this is almost a dead art now.  I remember seeing some ten to twenty years ago a little movie showing the build of a Portuguese traditional riverine boat in the same way.

 

It was specifically during the 17th century that the English, based on a wide array of foreign sources too, developed a practical and successful method to raise a plan off an existing ship in order to replicate it. This is the whole trick. But Jules' drawings clearly demonstrate that the Dutch were able at this point to do the same, so it may never be clear whether the Dutch took this art from the English or it was the opposite, or even they both learned from the same third source.  So even if Witsen's method may look crude, he was fully able to build a whole ship using his methods, and after having built one ship, he could have raised the curves from existing frames and was perfectly able to replicate his design, if it proved successful, or to slightly modify it to obtain some desired properties. 

 

Also what is shown here is that the Dutch were perfectly able to develop ship lines which suited their own shallow waters. These Dutch ship lines are completely different of any ship lines the English or other nations did use at the same time -  and also if you read attentively what Jules presented when dealing with the yachts presented by Witsen, their shipwrights were perfectly able to adapt their designs from the Dutch shallow waters to the Swedish waters. Too bad the design of the Swedish royal yacht Lejonet isn't shown in the book, although a portrait of that fine craft survives in a painting done by Backhuysen which is now kept in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. 

 

Best wishes and keep your wonderful History lesson coming, Jules!

Doreltomin

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Doreltomin
Noticed some English spelling errors - sorry, am not a native English speaker!

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Doreltomin,

 

Thank you very much for the moral support. Much appreciated.

Also a big thank you for taking the time for placing everything in a wider, more international, context.

I promise to keep my 'history lessons' coming, as long as you promise to keep your posts in this thread coming.

 

The kindest regards,

 

Jules

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

In a former post we designed a main frame by applying Witsen's design principles. One of those principles is the three-quarters-width arc principle. In the text about this principle I already mentioned that this principle was not always applied. Let's have a look at a design where this principle can not be applied and let's also have a look at how this 'problem' can be solved.

 

To do this exercise I selected the design of a ship according to the data we can find in the 'Table' of master shipwright Jan Dircksz Grebber, the tutor of Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen's father, Cornelis Jansz Witsen.

 

 

Jan Dircksz Grebber

 

As seen in an earlier post, Jan Dircksz Grebber made a 'Table' which contains information about the main dimensions of the ship and of dimensions of important ship parts related to the length of the ship. We can also find dimensions which are of interest for the design of the main frame of the ship. These are: the width of the ship, the depth of the ship, the width of the flat of the ship, the rise of the flat of the ship, the width at the bilge of the ship and the depth at the bilge of the ship. There is also information about the 'stutten' (top timbers), but we'll get to that later.

 

To be able to compare the design according to Grebber's data with the design Nicolaes Witsen shows in his figure W, we will take the data Grebber provides for a ship with a length of 80 feet, because a ship of this length has the same width and depth as Witsen shows: 20 feet and 8 feet.

In Grebber's table we find the following data for a ship of 80 feet: width 20 feet, depth 8 feet, width of the flat 13 feet 3 1/4 inches, the rise of the flat 8 inches, the width at the bilge 18 feet 6 inches, and the depth at the bilge 2 feet 8 inches. Let's start the design of Grebber's main frame.

 

Step 1

Draw the reactangle of the width and the depth of the ship and place the rectangle of the keel underneath it. Like this:

Figure 1.

 

 

Step 2

Place the points 'f' anf 'g' according to the data Grebber provided for these points. Then pick a point on the keel near 'y' where you want the planking to begin. Draw a straight line from that point to point 'f'. 

Mark point 'e' at three quarters of the width of the ship from point 'a'. Put the point of your compass in point 'e' and draw an arc from point 'a' to point 'g'. Like this:

Figure 2.

 

It is clear that when we use the point 'e' as the center of the arc of the second futtocks, the arc will not intersect point 'g'. We have to find another center of the arc, another point 'e', that will make the arc connect point 'a' with point 'g'. We can use one of Witsen's design principles for this: center point determination. Like this:

Figure 3.

 

Now we can move on to design the arc between the points 'g' and 'f', the arc of the lower futtocks. We can, again, use Witsen's design principle 'center point determination' for this. Like this:

Figure 4.

 

We can easily find a point 'h' that, when used as a center point, will generate an arc between the points 'g' and 'f', but we notice that the transition of the straight line of the flat and the arc in point 'f' is not smooth. To say it differently: the straight line between the points 'f' and 'h' is not perpendicular to the end of the straight line of the flat.

We can try to solve this problem by making sure the straight line from 'f' to 'h' is perpendicular to the straight line of the flat. Like this:

Figure 5.

 

We now see that the new center point of the arc, point 'h' is on the perpendicular line, that the transition of the straight line of the flat and the arc in point 'f' is smooth, but we also notice that the transition of the arc of the second futtocks and the arc of the lower futtocks in point 'g' is no longer smooh.

 

This shows that the data provided in the 'Table' of Grebber can not be linked by making use of all of Witsen's design principles. Witsen's 'smooth transitions' design principle can not be met when using all the data provided by Grebber; the problem is overdetermined: there simply is too much information. And although this sounds dramatic, we can easily solve the problem by redrawing the straight line of the flat, like this:

Figure 6.

 

When we draw a new straight line from the keel that is tangent to the arc of the lower futtocks, as we've done before, all problems are solved: all transitions are smooth again.

All this results in a design of the main frame of Grebber's ship of 80 feet like this:

Figure 7.

 

If we want to rewrite Grebber's data accordingly, we only have to lower point 'f' vertically by 0,3 inches to make sure it touches the new straight line of the flat again. This means all the data Grebber provided in his 'Table' can stay intact, except that the rise of the flat should not read 8 inches but 'approximately 7 3/4 inches'. If this will not do, then the height of the turn of the bilge can be changed a bit. All in all we have to balance the data for the points 'f' and 'g' carefully. Sounds like designing.

 

I hope the above explains why Nicolaes Witsen stayed rather vague in his description of the positions of the points 'f' and 'g' in his figure W.

 

In the next post I will show what has been said about Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen's design method and about his figure W.

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

 

 

 

[amateur]

Hi Jules,

 

very interesting stuff to read. Thank you for taking the time to write and post.

 

what I was wondering: those drawings did not make it into the archived building contracts (as far as I am told bybothers, never checked myself). Where in the proces between ‘ordering a ship’ and ‘launch’ did they play a role. Was it in the translation of design into a specified contract, or in the proces of building a ship from the measures as stated in the contract? 
 

Jan

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Amateur,

 

Thank you for joining in.

To answer your question let me first give a short recapitulation of the above.

 

Witsen says in 1671 that the technical drawings he inherited from his father were designed by his father. Since a design is made before the building starts, the drawings of his father were made before the building started.

 

Witsen says in 1671 about figure W, the figure used for designing the main frame, that it was made before the building started.

 

Rembrandt's painting of master shipwright Jan Rijcksen of 1633 shows Rijcksen at work. Hoving says in 1994 about this painting: "The paper in the hand of the master builder shows the graphic representation of what usually can be found in a written contract"; thus describing the transformation of a written contract into a technical drawing. Since, for me, the logical sequence for building a ship is: contract, design, build, Rijcksen is shown designing, before the building starts.

 

I have an example of 1669 and an example of 1696 which show that a design drawing was made before the building starts. I will dedicate posts to these examples in the future.

 

These five examples are all related to the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method, and show the use of technical drawings before the building starts.

 

 

As you know, I have an engineering background. For me the logical steps in a project are:

 

1. Making a quotation, eventually accompanied by pre-design drawings, also called sales-drawings.

2. Receiving an order, in the form of a contract.

3. Making design drawings.

4. Getting approval of the design drawings.

5. Building the design, by using the design drawings, also called production drawings.

6. Changing the design drawings into as built drawings.

 

So for me it is logical that we find drawings in almost every step of the project, except in the contract; our clients did not provide the technical drawings, we made them. And to me this makes sense, we were responsible for the functioning of our design, not our clients. When our clients wanted something built by us according to their design, fine, but they were immediately made responsible for the functioning of their design. Not many of our clients wanted that.

 

So, in my experience, a technical drawing can have multiple identities: it can be a pre-design drawing, a design drawing, or an as built drawing.

 

 

And now to your question: where did 'those drawings', meaning all Dutch technical drawings of the seventeenth century I guess, play a role? To say it differently: are 'those drawings' pre-design drawings, design drawings, or as built drawings?

Please do not take this the wrong way, but, since you are grouping all Dutch technical drawings of the seventeenth century into one bunch and ask me how 'they' played a role, I hope you understand that I can not answer your question. Every individual technical drawing has its own identity, grouping them prevents me from providing you with an answer.

 

But, we could of course start a discussion about individual Dutch technical drawings of the seventeenth century. Let's start immediately. How do you think these two technical drawings from the Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam, which I think can be grouped, played a role?

Scheepvaartmuseum, Amsterdam. Technical drawing of a yacht. Front view. A.0149(0866).

 

Scheepvaartmuseum, Amsterdam. Technical drawing of a yacht, marked 'ANNO 1657". Rear view. A.0149(0876).

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Jules

 

[Doreltomin]

Hello Jules, 

Thank you for appreciating my post, and also your invitation to continue posting on your topic - so you do not consider comments to "pollute" your topic! Also yes, it is important to put your lessons on Dutch shipbuilding of the 17th century into the right context.

 

Also, about your lesson on drawing the proper arc to close between the large sweep and the floor, I can't read Witsen's text to know how he does it, but this is a simple geometry problem and can be easily solved.

 

Many geometry problems can be done in more than one way so the trick is to find the easiest way and I would simply drop a perpendicular to line eg from the point g until it intersects the floor line. Then I would take the compass, put the needle in that point of intersection, let's call it x, and would draw an arc from point g to the floor line, called y. Thus, segment gx and segment xy are of equal length. Then I would rise a perpendicular to the line of the floor in point y until it intersects line eg. Let's call this new point z. We now have two new segments of equal length, zg = yz and the needed connecting arc can be drawn from point g to y by simply putting the compass needle in point z. But I can't say how close this outcome gets to Grebber's list of parameters. I would consider the height of point g given and the geometry procedure will give the rest of the points. But he may have worked backwards, starting from the given point y and determining the g, which may be complicated.

 

Also we must keep in mind that today we can do these drawings using vectorial softwares of unprecedented precision, while in the 17th century they only had basic tools and probably couldn't measure everything too precisely.

 

Also I cant't say about Dutch shipbuilders, yet English shipbuilders of the time spoke of a "rise of floor" which meant the angle the floor did from the horizontal. It was given as a fraction like "one foot of rise for every eight of length" and can be easily connected with our way of telling a slope in percentage. Thus, a slope of 100% would mean an angle of 45°. 

 

Best wishes,

Doreltomin

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Doreltomin,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

To reassure you: posting in this topic is never considered as polluting. All feedback is welcome.

 

You say we have to place 'my lessons on Dutch shipbuilding', as you call them, 'in the right context'.

The goal of this thread is a different one though. The goal is to make the perception that no technical drawings were used when building ships with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method disappear. To paraphrase: to make sure it becomes generally accepted that technical drawings were used when building ships with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method.

So, for the moment, I have to leave putting all this in the right context to others, like you. And, as said, this is very much appreciated.

 

There are indeed many ways to skin a cat, or to draw an arc. I do not use Witsen's method when drawing the figures, but, for obvious reasons, I have to show Witsen's way of doing it. To repeat what Witsen says about this:

"... as at f, then one puts the foot of the compass on f, makes a scratch at h, and another at g; then again a scratch at h, and puts the foot of the compass on that center point, and draws the curve of the bilges, as one can see done from f to g."

 

The problem I tried to show is: when you want a straight line and two arcs to go through the points Grebber gives, and you want all the transitions to be smooth, there is an inherent problem: the problem is overdetermined. To solve this problem you have to change one of the coordinates of one of the points, or give up on one of the smooth transitions. Since Witsen in a section of his book about the transition of the floor into the bilge says that this transition should be smooth, I decided to slightly change one of the coordinates of the points Grebber gives.

To phrase the problem differently: the coordinates of the transition points can not be given with exact accuracy. How Grebber determined them I do not know, but a certain inaccuracy in the coordinates he gives in his 'Table' is to be expected, certainly for the time period we are talking about. As seen, Witsen says in his book of 1690 that Grebber's 'Table' was made thirty six or forty years ago, in 1650 or 1654.

Maybe Witsen's vagueness in describing the coordinates of the transition points in his figure W shows that he was well aware of this problem.

 

The 'rise of floor' is, for example, given by Witsen on page 67,I of his book of 1671: half an inch per foot. But when coordinates for the end of the floor are given, we of course have to stick to those, or at least try to stick to those.

 

Again, many thanks,

 

Jules

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

In this post we will have a look at what has been said about the design method and the figure W that Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen published in his books 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' of 1671 and 'Architectura Navalis et Regimen Nauticum' of 1690.

 

But I would like to begin this post with a quote from Nicolaes Witsen's book of 1671 (page 178, II):

 

"Nec in navi candentem lignum attingere, die te Scheep valt en geen hout raeckt, zeiden de ouden, wanneer ze van een zaeck spraken, die hen onmogelijk scheen."

 

My translation:

 

"Nec in navi candentem lignum attingere, he who falls in a ship and does not touch wood, the elders said, when they talked about a thing that seemed impossible to them."

 

'It is impossible to fall in a ship and not touch wood'. For this post I would like to transform this into: it is impossible to talk about Dutch shell first shipbuilding without mentioning the works of A.J. Hoving. A lot of what will be treated in this post will therefore refer to what has been said by A.J. Hoving. There simply are not that many publications of others about the technical interpretation of the books of Witsen of 1671 and 1690. I managed to find some though, and these will follow. But it is almost inevitable that we start with what A.J. Hoving says about Nicolaes Witsen's design method and about his figure W, back in 1986.

 

 

A.J. Hoving, Dutch 17th century shipbuilding, in: Model Shipwright, Number 58, December 1986.

 

A.J. Hoving published his article 'Dutch 17th century shipbuilding in Model Shipwright, Number 58, December 1986, on the pages 29 to 36. In this article the figures W and V from Witsen's 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier are placed on page 30 as 'FIGURE 4'. Like this:

Detail of: Model Shipwright, Number 58, December 1986, page 30, FIGURE 4.

 

 

In the accompanying text to this 'FIGURE 4' Hoving writes, as we can see in the photo:

 

"FIGURE 4

Top: This was the way the form of the Northern Dutch main frame was planned. The second dotted line from the bottom shows the height of the flat, the third the height of the bilge. The top dotted line is the height of the deck. From e and h the curved lines on the other side are drawn with compasses. Note the flat floor and the angle with the bilge. The lower diagram shows the first legger with a sitter on each side, placed on the floor. (Witsen, ibid)."

 

The 'Witsen, ibid', refers to the text to FIGURE 2 on page 29 of the article: "From Witsen: Aeloude en Hedendaegse Scheepsbouw en Bestier".

 

Let's have a look at Hoving's text. Talking about figure W Hoving states three things:

 

1. That the figure W was used to plan the main frame.

 

Since Hoving's expression 'to plan' involves an action in the future, according to him the figure W was made before the building of the ship started. As we've seen, this is what Witsen says as well: "The figure on the plate near the letter W, which is at the top, shows how one makes the division on paper, before the ships are begun, ...". Hoving therefore confirms Witsen's statement.

 

But, Hovingh writes this in the main text of his article (page 29):

 

"Because of this lack of published material in Holland I was practically 'raised' with the English way of building ships - make a drawing first and then take off the measurements and shape. With this background I did not understand a thing of what I was reading, and it was a considerable time before I began to see there was an important difference between the way of building a ship as described by Witsen and that by van Yk. Both methods did not look like the English way of doing it. ...

In fact there was no mention of any plans or paperwork at all. ...

In Holland there was no paperwork. The master shipwright had in his head all the formulae for length, thickness, and breadth of every part of the ship, and had a different way of forming the shape of the hull. ...".

 

To me Hoving's statements in the main text contradicts Hoving's statement about figure W: "This was the way the form of the Northern Dutch main frame was planned".

Since Witsen clearly mentions the making of a plan by showing and describing figure W, and clearly mentions that figure W was made on paper, the making of the design of the main frame by using the method described by Witsen clearly resulted in 'plans' and 'paperwork'. So Hoving can not say that "there was no mention of any plans or paperwork at all".

And since Witsen's books talk about the situation 'in Holland', see for example the title of chapter 8 of Witsen's book of 1671: "How ships are built in Hollandt these days", Hoving can not say: "In Holland there was no paperwork."

 

 

2.  That the points e and h in figure W are used as center points for drawing arcs, parts of circles, with a compass.

 

Again, as we've seen, this is what Witsen says as well: "from e and h arcs are drawn". Hoving therefore confirms Witsen's statement.

 

 

3. That the flat floor and the bilge form an angle.

 

Hoving's statement "Note the flat floor and the angle with the bilge" is quite incomprehensible. In Witsen's figure W we do not see an angle between the flat floor and the bilge. As we've seen in an earlier post, one of Witsen's design principles is that there is a smooth transition between the straight line of the flat and the arc of the bilge, and that this smooth transition is guaranteed by placing point h, the center of the arc of the bilge, on a straight line perpendicular to the end of the straight line of the flat. Hoving therefore does not confirm what we see in Witsen's figure W.

 

That Hoving's statement about the angle between the flat floor and the bilge in the accompanying text to FIGURE 4 is not a mistake, can be concluded from what Hoving writes in the main text of his article. We can find for example on page 32, III:

 

"The bilge was formed as shown in figure 4, from three or four planks next to each other. It should be noted that there was a pronounced angle at the point where the flat bottom changed into the bilge. ...".

 

And on page 34, II we can find:

 

"Is there any value in knowing that there were two methods of building ships in Holland? I think that there is. Take, for example, the Wasa. If this ship, constructed by a Dutch shipwright, had been built in the Northern way, there would be a very obvious angle between the flat of the bottom and the bilge. There was no such angle, pointing to the fact that the shipwright must have been from the Southern parts of Holland. ...

There were, of course, other small differences between the products of the two areas; but the foregoing one was the main one. ...".

 

So according to Hoving there is an 'angle', a 'pronounced angle', and a 'very obvious angle' between the flat of the bottom and the bilge. As said: this angle can not be seen in Witsen's figure W; on the contrary: Witsen's figure W shows there is a smooth transition between 'the flat of the bottom and the bilge'.

 

FYI: the Swedish warship Vasa was built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method, 'in the Northern way'.

 

 

Bjorn Landstrom, The Royal Warship Vasa, 1988.

 

Landstrom does not show Witsen's figure W itself, but shows his own interpretation of Witsen's figure W: figure 29 on page 33 of his book about the Swedish warship Vasa. Here is that figure 29:

Landstrom, The Royal Warship Vasa, 1988, page 32, figure 29. Landstrom's interpretation of Witsen's figure W.

 

 

On page 32 of his book, Landstrom refers to his figure 29, like this:

 

"Nicolaes Witsen's book on shipbuilding appeared in its first edition in 1671, and in the illustration on page 169 he shows a main frame that is far more advanced; it is shown here in illustration 29. It would have been the one that was usual in warships from the 1630s until the end of the century. His flat (see page 106 of his book) would be between 3/5 and 2/3 of the beam; it was not horizontal, as it might have been in English ships, but rose by between 1/2" and 1" per foot from the rabbet on the keel for its entire width. It continued in a sweep drawn from a point on a line perpendicular to, and at the outer end, of the flat. This was called the runghead sweep. Its radius was less than the depth and less than the difference between the half of the flat and half the breadth.

The center of the sweep up to the greatest braedt lay on the line of greatest breadth, its radius being greater than half the breadth and less than the whole breadth, and was normally 4/5 of the breadth. Its radius would be longer or shorter so as to give respectively a relatively straight or full form. Finally the frame terminated upwards in a short sweep above the line of the greatest breadth, being followed by a straight line or a reverse sweep."

 

To clarify: the references to the pages of Witsen's work given by Landstrom relate to the pages of Witsen's book of 1690.

 

Please notice that Landstrom mentions the smooth transition between the straight line of the flat and the 'runghead sweep' in his text, and shows in his figure 29 that the smooth transition between the 'runghead sweep' and the 'sweep up the greatest breadth' is guaranteed by making sure that the center of the 'runghead sweep', the center of the 'sweep up the greatest breadth' and the transition point of the two sweeps are on one straight line; Landstrom is thereby confirming one of Witsen's design principles: smooth transitions.

 

 

A.J. Hoving & Robert Parthesius, Hollandse scheepsbouwmethoden in de zeventiende eeuw, in: Batavia Cahier 3, 1991.

 

In the article 'Hollandse scheepsbouwmethoden in de zeventiende eeuw', 'Dutch shipbuilding methods in the seventeenth century', we can find the following on page 6:

 

"Waar het om gaat is, dat met het vormen van de sitters de volgende fase in de vormgeving van het ship is aangebroken, namelijk de ronding van de kimmen. Hoewel Witsen een methode geeft om het spant wiskundig te construeren⁵, blijkt uit niets, dat dat op de werf ook daadwerkelijk gebeurde."

 

My translation:

 

"What is the most important, is that with the shaping of the lower futtocks the next phase in the shaping of the ship has arrived, the rounding of the bilges. Although Witsen gives a method to construct the frame mathematically⁵, nothing shows that this was actually practiced on the yard."

 

The footnote 5 on page 11 reads: "Witsen t.o.p. 151.", "Witsen, opposite page 151."; which makes it clear that Hoving and Parthesius are talking about the figure W in Witsen's book of 1671.

 

I am not sure why it is so important for the authors to make the distinction between the design on paper before the building starts, as Witsen states, and the application of that design on the yard. Why would a shipwright make a design for a ship on paper if he will not use that design to build that ship? And, to me, it is clear from the figures that Witsen presents as the following steps in the building process of the ship, the figures V, X, Z and AA, that the design on paper shown in figure W was used to build the ship; to me it is clear that Witsen's design method 'was actually practiced on the yard', as the authors call it.

 

It is not clear to me why the authors put the word 'mathematically' in italics; Witsen's design method is clearly mathematical.

 

In the next post we will have a look at A.J. Hoving's magnum opus of 1994.

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

 

[Mark P]

Good Evening to all;

 

Many thanks to Jules for continuing with this interesting thread. I would like to add a few thoughts to the comments on the differences/similarities between English and Dutch shipwrights' use of draughts.

 

Firstly, the use of draughts for the design of ships in England can be traced back as far as Mathew Baker, whose beautifully illustrated notebook contains various examples of theoretical drawings, dating from the 1580s onwards. Although these might seem very sparse compared to later draughts, it must be remembered that the method used then was dependent upon the construction of a midship section, and of the various rising and narrowing lines, drawn as curves on plan and sheer. Armed with this information, a shipwright could either set out manually (to scale or full-size) or calculate mathematically, the shape of the hull at all stations fore and aft of the midship frame. There is a very good explanation of this method, well illustrated, in a thesis by Taras Pevny, titled 'Capturing the Curve'; which can be downloaded from the internet. 

 

Secondly, one of the illustrations in Baker's work shows a master shipwright at work, drawing a detailed ship's draught using a pair of compasses. 

 

Thirdly, the Scott MS, a detailed treatise on the construction of all the curves to be used in the setting out of a ship's draught, along with various rules governing proportions, and which mentions the use of a bow to draw curves, was written by George Waymouth, who died circa 1612. 

 

The foregoing make it very difficult not to believe that ship design, in England at least, was based on the construction of a draught made prior to building, and that the proportions of the ship were decided beforehand, based on well-practiced rules governing the relationship of length, breadth and depth, as well as the radii of various curves, well before the end of the 16th century. The Scott MS was originally accompanied by a number of draughts of different types of vessel, both ships & galleys, which, even if they still survive, are in a location which is not recorded anywhere that I have found. 

 

There are also methods given to calculate the area within a frame, which is presumably linked to displacement calculations, and understanding the level of the waterline. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited July 13, 2023 by Mark P

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Mark,

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

"The foregoing make it very difficult not to believe that ship design, in England at least, was based on the construction of a draught made prior to building, and that the proportions of the ship were decided beforehand, based on well-practiced rules ..., well before the end of the 16th century."

 

To see if your 'in England at least' can be replaced by 'in the Netherlands at least', we can first have a look at Witsen's book of 1671. In this book Witsen says that the credit for the restoration of Dutch shipbuilding has to go to the Frisians (page 47, my translation):

 

"The Frisians were the first to build big ships after the dark ages in the Netherlands.

To the Frisians praise is due, for the restored shipbuilding, in the Netherlands, as most writers say. They were the first to restore the shipping to the Sont and the Baltic sea after the iron century, before all the other non Baltic nations...

They built their ships low in the middle, the fore and aft very high, overhanging aft, the decks were covered with leather, which was nailed to it."

 

After this Witsen gives an extensive description of how ships were built in, what he calls, 1520. The plates that accompany Witsen's text, plate XVIII and XIX, show that Witsen based his description on Oliveira's 'Liuro da Fabrica das Naos', which, I think, is generaly dated 1565-1580 now. Witsen says on page 53 that he found Oliveira's work, without mentioning its author, in the library of Isaac Vossius.

 

And Witsen also gives a description of how ships were built 200 years ago, so around 1470, and, since he put 'V. Merosotis' in the margin of his description, he probably used Claude-Barthelemy Morisot's 'Orbis Maritimi sive rerum in Mari' of 1643 for that description.

 

It is of course impossible to tell from this how the Frisians designed their ships, and if they used graphic design methods as described by Oliveira, and shown by Witsen.

 

On the other hand we know that in 1597 the master shipwright of the admiralty of Amsterdam was ordered to make models of a rowing yacht and a warship of 200 'last', so these models could be judged by prince Maurits. This at least shows some ship design activity in the Netherlands in the late 16th century, and maybe we may even assume that draughts were used to make these models.

(Sigmond, Zeemacht in Holland en Zeeland in de zestiende eeuw, 2013, p. 271.)

 

Again, many thanks for sharing your thoughts and for providing context, much appreciated,

 

Jules

 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

Let's continue with having a look at what has been said about Witsen's main frame design method and about his figure W.

 

I promised to have a look at A.J. Hoving's magnum opus of 1994 in this post, but, since the treatment of two publications from an earlier date than 1994 got more voluminous than anticipated, this will have to wait. So let me start this post with a report from a symposium of 1988.

 

A.J. Hoving, A 17th-century 42-feet long Dutch pleasure vessel, a research into original building techniques, in:

Reinders & Paul, Carvel Construction Technique, Skeleton first, Shell first, Fifth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 1988, 1991.

 

In his presentation at the symposium Hoving explains that he has built two models of the same pleasure vessel: one model using the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method as described by Witsen in his book of 1671 and one model using the frame first shipbuilding method as descrfibed by Van Yk in his book of 1697. He further explains that he built both models to find out of:

 

"It might also be possible to answer the question what the differences were between the products of the various methods."

 

and that he:

 

"wanted to find out whether it was still possible to build only with a specification, and using the same techniques as our ancestors did."

 

I think that the last challenge Hoving set himself is based on his assumption that no technical drawings were used when building ships with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method. This is confirmed by Hoving's rephrasing of the challenge in one of his conclusions: "can a model be built without any plans".

 

This assumption can only mean that Hoving denies that Witsen describes and shows how the design of the main frame of a ship was made on paper when building according to the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method in 1671.

We have already seen in an earlier post that Hoving had recognized Witsen's design method and even used Witsen's figure W in his article in Model Shipwright in 1986. To refresh our memory, Hoving then said this about figure W: "This was the way the form of the Northern Dutch main frame was planned."

But now, two years later, in 1988, at the symposium, Hoving does no longer think it necessary to mention Witsen's figure W.

 

I think Hoving wants to show us with this test that if he can build a model without any plans, the seventeenth century shipwright built their ships without any plans; that seventeenth century shipwrights made no preliminary design and that the shape of the ship was determined by the building method.

 

 

No figure W

 

The surprising thing is though, that to prove his thesis Hoving uses a seventeenth century technical drawing to make his reconstruction of the pleasure vessel. This can be told from what Hoving says on page 77 of the report of the symposium:

 

"For the experiment a Pleasure vessel of 42 feet was chosen. Witsen (1671) gives a contract specifiaction on page 175 of his book. This particular specification was chosen because it seemed to have all the relevant information and because it concerns a relatively simple vessel, of which Witsen even gives a sketch, which looks a bit like a working drawing;"

 

Here is Witsen's "sketch, which looks a bit like a working drawing" of the pleasure vessel:

Witsen, Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier, 1671, plate LXXI, opposite page 176, "Speeljacht langh 42 voet".

 

 

And it turns out Hoving also made a design drawing based on this seventeenth century technical drawing before he starts building the model of the pleasure vessel. Let me explain.

 

Since the report of the symposium shows no illustrations, we have to turn to Hoving's book 'Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt' of 1994 to find the illustrations Hoving used for his presentation at the symposium of 1988. In his book of 1994 we can find the nine photos Hoving made during the building of his model of the pleasure vessel, illustrations III.4 til III.12, and we can find the reproduction of the seventeenth century technical drawing Hoving used, illustration III.2, and the design drawing Hoving made based on this seventeenth century technical drawing, illustration III;3. Here are those two drawings:

Detail of: Hoving, Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt, 1994, page 258, figures III.2 and 3.

 

 

Let me translate the two texts accompanying the illustrations:

 

"III.2 We do not only have a rather extensive contract for this little vessel, but Witsen also added a sort of working drawing. Remarkable is that Witsen added no frame drawing. Apparantly one thought the shape of the hull appeared on its own when using the data given in the contract."

 

"III.3 Prior to building the model a sort of building plan was made. In this plan the data of the contract, which could be transformed into a simple sketch, is shown."

 

These texts are remarkable. Hoving states first that Witsen made no frame drawing because the hull shaped itself, but then Hoving explains he designed a main frame for building his model. And in Hoving's text of his presentation at the symposium we can indeed find that he used his main frame design to build his model: two of his main frames were inserted in the hull of his model (page 78, I):

 

"..., and only then, at one third of the ship's length from the stem, the lower part of a frame (called buikstuk) and two knees (called sitters) were placed. The same was done some distance forward. Between these two frames the shape of the hull was constant. Now the bilge was planked and here the sitters determined the shape. ...

Next some futtocks (called oplangen) were erected."

 

Since Hoving designed the shape of these parts of the main frame, buikstuk, sitters and oplangen, before the building of the model started, and their shape was not taken from the actual shape of the model, Hoving's test is superfluous. Hoving's test now only shows that it is possible to make a ship with the Dutch shell first building when the main frame is designed before the building starts; which Witsen of course already shows.

 

But the most important omission is of course that Hoving does not explain how he made the design of the main frame of the pleasure vessel. He uses Witsen's general rules to determine where the bilges end:

 

"The height of the top-bilge-plank reached up to one third of the depth (Witsen, 1671, p. 67), the width was on both sides one inch per ten feet length of the ship narrower than the total width (Witsen, 1671, p. 67)."

 

but he fails to mention that Witsen gives a description of a method, and even a figure, to show how the main frame was designed: the description on page 151 and the figure W on plate LII of his 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' of 1671.

 

 

Hoving's conclusions

 

During his presentation at the symposium of 1988 Hoving presents two conclusions from his model building tests to his audience.

 

Hoving's first conclusion can be found on page 79 of the symposium's report:

 

"Once both hulls have been planked, they differ only slight on the outside. Partly this is caused by the graceful lines of the model of the pleasure vessel. A ship with a flatter bottom would have shown a greater difference. The use of boeitangen caused a flat part of the bottom on both sides of the keel over a relatively long distance, without any curving. The transition to the vertical side of the ship happened in the bilge, so that a real brake could be seen. The flatter the bottom, the more visible the angles. With a bottom not so flat, as here, the transition between the bottom and the bilge was not so obvious. Besides, a small vessel, planked with relatively wide planks always makes a more angles impression than a bigger ship, planked with planks of the same width."

 

Hoving's second conclusion can be found on page 80 of the symposium's report:

 

"Finally it is clear that the other reason to do the experiment (can a model be built without any plans) worked out fine. I can say that it has appeared to be a very interesting method, and once you know what the tricky parts are, a very easy one too."

 

 

Regarding conclusion 1

 

Hoving states in his conclusion that the two models "differ only slightly" and that "with a bottom not so flat, as here, the transition between the bottom was not so obvious". This shows that the difference between the two models must not have been that great. The rest of the conclusion is actually not a conclusion drawn from the test, but Hoving's reflection on the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method, which he could have written without doing the test.

Since the report of the symposium contains no illustrations, we can not compare the results of the two building methods ourselves.

 

 

Regarding conclusion 2

 

Hoving forgets to mention in his second conclusion that to "find out whether it was still possible to build only with a specification", to find out if a model "can be built without any plans", he actually used a plan.

 

I think we are allowed to say Hoving chose the pleasure vessel for his tests because Witsen "provided a sketch, which looks a bit like a working drawing" of that pleasure vessel. Why did Hoving not choose a "contract specification" for which Witsen did not provide a "working drawing" to "find out whether it was still possible to build only with a specification", to find out if a model can "be built without plans"?

 

The question now of course arises if Hoving would have arrived at the same reconstruction of the pleasure vessel without Witsen's seventeenth century "working drawing".

And a second question arises as well: where does the "working drawing" of the pleasure vessel Witsen published in his books of 1671 and 1690 come from? Why was it made and by whom?

 

With Witsen's pleasure vessel Hoving seems to have chosen the wrong subject to answer his two initial questions: the "graceful lines" of the pleasure vessel cause that the two models "differ only slightly", and the use of Witsen's "sketch, which looks a bit like a working drawing" and the use of a preliminary design drawing to "find out whether it was still possible to build only with a specification" makes the test redundant.

 

 

1994

 

As seen, in his book 'Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt ' of 1994 Hoving presents a reconstruction of the same pleasure vessel. This time the comparison of the two models built with the two different shipbuilding methods is not presented; only the results of the model of a pleasure vessel built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method are presented. Hoving explains he used Witsen's technical drawing of the pleasure vessel to build his model, and explains he made a 'sort of construction drawing' before he started building the model.

Hoving's conclusions of 1994 (my translation):

 

Page 258: "Also all other characteristics were there: the flat bottom, the angle in the bilge, ...".

 

 

2012

 

In his book 'Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age' of 2012 Hoving presents the same reconstruction of the pleasure vessel, but calls it a 'pleasure yacht' now. Again Witsen's technical drawing is mentioned as a source for the reconstruction, and his 'Preliminary drawings of the pleasure yacht' are presented as well.

Hoving's conclusions of 2012:

 

Page 206: "All other features of the shell-first method were present - the nearly flat bottom, the angle in the bilges, ...".

 

I think that we can draw two conclusions from all this: that Hoving is convinced that a ship can be built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method without preliminary drawings, although Witsen shows this was not done, and Hoving's own test does not show it can be done, and that Hoving is convinced that building a ship with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method always results in a ship with 'an angle in the bilges', although Hoving's own test is not conclusive.

 

 

FYI:

On page 72 of the same report of the symposium of 1988 which holds Hoving's presentation, we can find a research report of Rob Oosting which is titled:

"Preliminary results of the research of the 17th-century merchantman found at lot E81 in the Noordoostpolder (Netherlands)".

In Oosting's research report we can find the following "preliminary conclusions":

 

"- first, it was possible to reconstruct the lines drawing for the lower part of the hull ...

- second, the bottom strakes of the 17th-century merchantman were built up to the tenth strake before frames were inserted. ...

-third, ... It is obvious that a 'bottom-first' technique is used in Dutch shipbuilding for a long period and for different ship types.

- fourth, it is important to compare the archaeological data from the research of the 17th-century merchantman with the contemporary written sources such as the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk. Close examination can lead to a better interpretation of those two, voluminous, standard works on Dutch shipbuilding in the 17th century."

 

Here is the reconstruction of the lines drawing of the 17th-century merchantman which was built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method which Oosting mentions in his first preliminary conclusion, figure 5:

I think, by just looking at this lines drawing, we can already "come to a better interpretation of those two, voluminous, standard works on Dutch shipbuilding in the 17th century": we do not see an 'angle in the bilges' as Hoving calls it. This of course confirms what Witsen shows us in his figure W: the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method can generate smooth transitions.

 

 

G.C. Dik, De Zeven Provincien, 1993.

 

Dik's book on the reconstruction of Zeven Provincien of 1665 was published posthumously in 1993.

 

Let's start with Dik's figure 73 on page 40. Here it is:

The text underneath the figure reads (my translation):

 

"73. Construction of the main frame of Zeven Provincien according to the method described by Nicolaas Witsen."

 

And on page 43 of his book Dik writes (my translation):

 

"2.11 Construction of the main frame

Only Witsen gives a method for the construction of the main frame or middle frame (151 I 46 and plate LII). I want to remark that we have to consider this method only as a global shape determinator. Every shipwright followed his own method and there were many variants, for example depending on the use of the ships.

Therefore the little known main frame shapes show clear differences. Those from the north differ from those of the more southern yards, especially in the shape of the bilges: which is the transition of the straight flat into the rising side. Zeven Provincien came from the side of the Maas and therefore had round bilges.

Van Yk (page 70) considers round bilges to be better than the angular ones common elsewhere, which delivered a seam which was harder to close. The main frame that I used, created by comparing different known frame shapes, corresponds to Witsen's construction (151 I 46). This frame made a good match with the wide transom."

 

We see that there is no reference in Dik's main text to his figure 73 we have seen before, but it is nevertheless clear from the text that text and figure are related.

 

When we have a look at Dik's text, we see that although Dik seems to say, based on a quote from Van Yk, that ships form the north, Witsen's ships, had angular bilges, he uses Witsen's figure W to design a ship with round bilges. That's why we see a straight line and two arcs, parts of circles, as the main shapes of the main frame design of Dik's Zeven Provincien. We can see that the center point of the arc of the bilges lies on a perpendicular line drawn from the end of the flat, which of course results in a smooth transition from the flat to the bilge. I am not sure how Dik made the smooth transition from the arc of the bilge to the arc of the second futtock though: if Dik respected all the coordinates and the two fixed arc radiae, his figure is overdetermined. I am sure Dik wanted the transitions to be smooth though.

 

Dik refers to Van Yk's page 70 to say that ships built in the north had angular bilges, or 'an angle in the bilges' as Hoving calls it. Since this would clearly contradict what Witsen's design principles tell us, let's have a look at what Van Yk says on this page 70.

 

 

Cornelis van Yk, De Nederlandsche Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt, 1697

 

Page 70 (the quote actually starts on page 69):

 

"Ook kan ik niet sien, wat Gemeenschap de Hekbalk met 't Schips Vlak sou hebben: dewijl het Vlak, al van de Kiel af, begind op te rysen, en dan in de Kimmen ook al zagt en eenparig omgaat; zulks datmen niet wel sou kunnen seggen, waar 't Vlak begin of Einde soude nemen. Dog in Hollands Noorder-kwartier, alwaar men nog gewoon is 't Schips onderste Fatsoen, niet door Centen, gelijk aan de Maaskant, maar door de Planken selve, die om 't Schip vaaren sullen, te geven, en by haar Boejen genaamd werd, heb ik gesien dat by sommige Meesters nog Scheepen werden gebouwd, die, in 't op, of omgaan van de KImmen, een Plank hebben, die al dapper over d'andere Planken inkomt, en aldaar een Kimmende Naad geevd. Sulks dat het Vlak, hier door vande Kimmen, schijnd onderscheiden te sijn.

Dog dese Mode heeft aan de Maaskant, daar de Kimmens, met het Vlak eenparig omgaan, geen ingang, 't geen best agte."

 

My translation:

 

"Neither can I see what relation the main transom would have with the ship's flat: because the flat starts to rise from the keel and goes round into the bilges softly, so one can not tell where the flat starts or ends. But in the Northern Quarters of Holland, where it is still common to give shape to the ship's underside, not by using cents as on the side of the Maas, but by using the planks themselves, which is called 'Boejen' by them, I have seen that ships were built by some masters, which, in the rising or rounding of the bilges, have a plank which already comes in considerably over the others, which results in a seam. So that the flat and the bilge seem to be separated.

But this fashion is not followed on the side of the Maas, where the bilges go round evenly with the flat, which I consider to be best."

 

And although Van Yk clearly says that 'some masters' built ships from which 'the flat and the bilge seem to be separated', this quote is used over and over again to show that all ships from the north, let's call them Witsen's ships, have sharp transitions from the flat to the bilge; that all ships built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method have sharp transitions from the straight of the flat to the arc of the bilge.

We already know that this has to be a misconception because of what Witsen shows in his figure W, which Dik, using Witsen's figure W to design the main frame of his Zeven Provincien, must also have realized, but we can also be sure that this is a misconception because of what Witsen says in his books. Here are some examples.

 

Witsen, 1671, page 67, I:

 

"Wanneer het schip wijder is als de proportie of even-maet hier gegeven, dan laet men de laetste vlackgangh wat meer rijzen, als anderzints wel zoude geschieden, op dat het met de kimme wel moge over-een-komen, en niet zy gelijk een trogh. ...".

 

My translation:

 

"When the ship is wider than the proportion given here, the last board of the flat is lifted a bit more, as done normally, so it matches well with the bilge, and is not like a trough. ...".

Wooden Water Trough. A design which, according to Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen, is not suitable for ships.

Suzi Jones, 1978, Paradise Valley Folklife Project Collection, Buckaroos in Paradise: Ranching Culture in Northern Nevada, 1945-1982, Amerocan Folklife Center, American Memory.

 

 

Page 48, I (my translation):

 

"Now we find ships with round parts are strongest, in those days they believed the opposite. That's why they built their ships flat and angular."

 

And some translations from Alan Lemmers from: Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012, page 66:

 

"(266 I 29) The Bilge Strakes are planks, which stand between the bottom and the rising sides of the ship, are roundish and stand traversely in relation to the waters surface, and such, because when the ship heels over considerably, or touches ground, it will sit flat and will be less harmed: the roundness is also useful because a chined bilge is more liable to leak and is more vulnerable, when it hits the ground. ...".

 

"(276 I 41) Square and angular ships are weak, and when they pound, they easily crack."

 

 

Archaeology and Dutch shell first

 

We have seen in a recent post that we can conclude from archaeological evidence that ships built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method can have smooth transitions from the flat to the bilges (Vasa), we have seen in this post that we can conclude from archaeological evidence that ships built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method can have smooth transitions from the flat to the bilges (E81), and in a future post we will find more archaeological evidence that ships built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method can have smooth transitions from the flat to the bilges (B&W 5).

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Jules van Beek

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

In our quest to find out what has been said about Witsen's main frame design method and about his figure W, we finally get to Hoving's magnum opus. This post is dedicated to:

 

A.J. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt, 1994.

 

In 1994 A.J. Hoving publishes his 'Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt'; 'Nicolaes Witsen's art of shipbuilding unveiled'. This work is translated into English by Alan Lemmers and published in 2012 with the title 'Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age'; we will have a look at Hoving's book of 2012 later.

 

 

Introduction

 

The first illustration in Hoving's book, not counting the illustrations in the foreword of Andre Wegener Sleeswyk, is the title page of Witsen's 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' of 1671 made by Romeyn de Hooghe. Part of what Hoving writes about Witsen's title page reads (my translation):

 

"... : at the top the allegorical figure of Shipbuilding is flanked by Mercury and Mars, gods of trade and war, while Dutch and foreign shipbuilders display their produce."

 

De Hooghe shows the 'allegorical figure of Shipbuilding' wearing a dress made of a sail, wearing a crown made of shipmodels, holding a shipmodel in her right hand and holding a compass and a technical drawing in her left hand. Here is a detail of the compass and the technical drawing the 'allegorical figure of Shipbuilding' is holding in her left hand:

 

Witsen's figure W and Hoving's figure I.10.

 

In his book of 1994, as in his article of 1986, Hoving talks about Witsen's figure W. We can find figure W as figure I.9.' in paragraph '1.5 Theorie van de 17de-eeuwse scheepsbouw', 'Theory of Seventeenth Century Shipbuilding', of Chapter I of Hoving's book.

We have to notice that Hoving does not show Witsen's figure W in the normal sequence of shipbuilding Witsen presents: Hoving takes Witsen's figure W out of its context and presents it as an isolated figure in the foreword of his book, on page 35, while he presents the building sequence of the pinas in chapter II, which starts on page 57.

As we have seen Witsen presents his figure W together with the figures V, X and Z on plate LII to show that these four figures are related, they show sequential steps of the building process when building a ship with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method. And, as seen in an earlier post, we can add figure AA to this sequence.

By placing these related figures in different sections of his book , Hoving breaks Witsen's building sequence apart: we find figure W on page 35, figure V on page 91, figure X on page 101, figure Z on page 103, and figure AA on oage 113 on the page. By doing so, Hoving distorts the view of the building process Witsen shows us so clearly.

 

Hoving has also included an illustration to show that Witsen's main frame design method does not work: figure I.10. He shows his reconstruction of the main frame of Witsen's example pinas together with, what he claims to be, the result of Witsen's main frame design method when applied to that same example pinas. Hoving wants to show us that since the two resulting contours of the main frame of the example pinas are not the same, Witsen's main frame design method does not work.

 

Here are Hoving's figure I.9., which is a reproduction of Witsen's figure W, and figure I.10., Hoving's two reconstructions of the main frame of Witsen's example pinas:

Detail of: A.J. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-Bouw-Konst Open Gestelt, 1994, page 35, figures I.9 and I.10.

 

 

The text that accompanies the figure 'I.9' is the text we can find in Witsen's 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier' of 1671, and, since the English translation of this text can be found in an earlier post, I will not repeat it here.

 

In the main text of his paragraph 1.5, on page 34, Hoving says the following about Witsen's figure W:

 

"Hoewel uit niets blijkt, dat er op de werf gewerkt werd met wiskundige constructies om tot bijvoorbeeld de vorm van het grootspant te komen, geeft Witsen toch een methode, die men als zodanig kan beschouwen (zie afb. I.9).

Nergens in literatuur of archiefmateriaal komt men sporen tegen van het daadwerkelijk gebruik van deze 'wiskundige' methode. Toegepast op de voorbeeldpinas levert hij ook een volstrekt andere vorm op. Het heeft er alle schijn van, dat Witsen, die kennis had van de mathematische methoden die elders in Europa werden gehanteerd, deze formule zelf ontwierp, uit statusoverwegingen, of uit de behoefte verklaringen te vinden voor bestaande fenomenen. ...

Als de methode toch door bouwmeesters gehanteerd werd, kan zij alleen hebben gediend voor het ontwerpen van het spant op papier. Op de werf was zij nutteloos, omdat daar nooit een volledig spant werd samengesteld en in z'n geheel op de kiel geplaatst, maar, zoals uit het hiernavolgende blijkt, deel voor deel, afhankelijk van de fase waarin de bouw zich bevond, werd aangebracht."

 

My translation:

 

"Although nothing shows that mathematical constructions were used on the yards to, for example, determine the shape of the main frame, Witsen does supply a method, which could be viewed like that (see fig. I.9.)

Nowhere in literature or archive materials traces of the actual use of this 'mathematical' method can be found. Applied to the example pinas it delivers a completely different shape. It appears that Witsen, who had knowledge of the mathematical methods used elsewhere in Europe, designed this formula himself, out of status considerations, or out of the urge to find explanations for existing phenomenae. ...

If the method was used by master shipwrights anyway, she could only have been used for the design of the frame on paper. In the yard she was useless, because a complete frame was never assembled and placed in its entirety on the keel, but was placed, which is shown in the following, part after part, depending on the phase the build was in."

 

We can see that this text does not provide a link to the figure I.10 we have seen presented next to figure I.9, but with this figure I.10 Hoving illustrates the 'completely different shape' of the pinas when designed according to Witsen's method or 'formula' he describes in his main text.

Hoving's text which accompanies this figure I.10 reads, as we can see on the photo above:

 

"Als Witsens theoretische spantconstructie wordt toegepast op het hoofdspant van de pinas blijkt dat de indrukwekkende methode niet klopt: de getrokken lijn stelt de pinas voor, de gestippelde lijn is het product van de theorie. Witsen heeft de kwestie een wetenschappelijk tintje willen geven."

 

My translation:

 

"When Witsen's theoretical frame construction is applied to the main frame of the pinas, it is clear that the impressive method does not work: the solid line shows the pinas, the dotted line is the product of the theory. Witsen wanted to give the subject a scientific appearance."

 

 

Hoving's 7 statements

 

Let's have a further look at what A.J. Hoving is saying in his main text and the text that accompanies his figure I.10. To do this I have taken seven statements from Hoving's texts and put my comments underneath:

 

1.

"Although nothing shows that mathematical constructions were used on the yards".

To repeat myself: Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen 'shows that mathematical constructions were used on the yards'. Why would a shipwright make a design for a ship on paper if he will not use that design to build the ship? And it is clear form the figures that Witsen shows as the following steps in the building process of the ship, the figures V, X, Z and AA, that the design on paper shown in figure W was used to build the ship.

 

2.

"Nowhere in literature or in archive materials traces of the actual use of the 'mathematical' method can be found."

The work of Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen is the literature that shows 'the actual use of this 'mathematical' method'. The only works that completely describe the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method are Witsen's books of 1671 and 1690. Hoving demanding another example to confirm what Witsen says in these two books is simply not acceptable.

And, again, Witsen's design method is mathematical; there is no need to place 'mathematical' in parenthesis.

 

3. 

"It appears that Witsen, who had knowledge of the mathematical methods used elsewhere in Europe, designed this formula himself, out of status considerations, or out of the urge to find explanations for existing phenomenae."

Well, Christopher Hitchens's razor springs to mind again here. Claiming Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen was a deceiver who 'designed the formula himself' 'out of status considerations' is beyond the pale; especially when absolutely no proof for this statement is given here. The proof can hardly be that Witsen 'had knowledge of the mathematical methods used elsewhere in Europe'.

Hoving repeats his 'Witsen is a deceiver' statement in parts 6 and 7 of his text, the parts that relate to Hoving's figure I.10, and he probaly considers those parts to be the proof for the statements here. So see my comments to Hoving's text parts 6 and 7.

 

4.

"If the method was used by master shipwrights anyway, she could only have been used for the design of the frame on paper."

Are we looking at doubts in Hoving's point of view? Is he saying that the method was used by master shipwrights after all, but only on paper? Witsen says the design is made on paper, there is no doubt about that, and we have been looking at the 'not used on the yard' argument before, and rejected it before, but Hoving finally gives an explanation of why he thinks Witsen's design method can not have been used in the yard in the fifth part of his text:

 

5.

"In the yard she was useless, because a complete frame was never assmbled and placed in its entirety on the keel, but was placed, which is shown in the following, part after part, depending on the phase the build was in."

This explanation baffles me. Hoving seems to say that when the parts of a main frame are placed when they are joined together Witsen's design method does apply, but when the parts fo a main frame are placed separately, Witsen's design method does not apply.

When we follow Hoving's reasoning and have a look at English frame first shipbuilding, we can see that the frames were not placed in their entirety either. Does this mean that the English shipwrights did not use a 'design for the frame on paper' either? (See for example the illustrations of this method by Anton van den Heuvel in: Hoving & Lemmers, In Tekening Gebracht, 2001, page 40.)

And there is another problem with Hoving's reasoning. As can be seen in Witsen's figure V, and in its description, the floor timber and the two lower futtocks of the main frame are bolted together. Does this mean that Witsen's design method was used for the floor timber ande the two lower futtocks, but not for the second futtocks and the top timbers?

 

6.

"When Witsen's theoretical frame construction is applied to the main frame of the pinas, it is clear that the impressive method does not work: the solid line shows the pinas, the dotted line is the product of the theory."

To determine if Hoving's statement 'the impressive method does not work' is true, I have tried to reproduce Hoving's figure I.10.

Hoving tested Witsen's design method by making a design of the main frame of Witsen's example pinas. Therefore he must have used the data Witsen provides for his example pinas, let's first extract the appropriate data of the example pinas from Witsen's text:

Width of the ship: 29 feet or 29 feet 3 inches,

Depth of the ship: 13 feet,

Width of the flat: 21 feet,

Height of the flat: 5 inches or 6 inches,

Width at the bilge: 27 feet or 27 feet 1 inch,

Height of the bilge: 4 feet 5 inches or 4 feet 5 1/2 inches,

Width of the keel: 2 feet,

Height of the keel: 16 inches,

Start of the planking underneath the top of the keel: 4 inches.

 

Witsen's underlined data is used to make the drawing in red in the figure underneath. The points relating to the top timbers are not taken from Witsen's data, but taken from Hoving's figure I.10.

Hoving's dotted lines in figure I.10 are used to make the drawing in blue in the figure underneath.

 

This results in the following figure:

Hoving's figure I.10 with superimposed reconstruction lines. In red the lines of Witsen's example pinas, in blue the lines which Hoving claim to be the lines resulting from Witsen's design method.

 

 

The red lines are close to what Hoving shows, so we can assume that we're talking about the samle thing here: the main frame of Witsen's example pinas.

In Hoving's design of the main frame of the example pinas the transition between the arc of the second futtock and the arc of the lower futtock looks smooth, but the transition between the arc of the lower futtock and the straight line of the flat is certainly not smooth, so I decided to copy this in my red lines. We will later see that a better design, a smoother design of the main frame of Witsen's example pinas is possible though.

 

The blue lines are of course also close to what Hoving shows; after all we simply overlayed Hoving's dotted lines with our blue lines. But the blue lines also show that the contour of the main frame of the example pinas Hoving created can not be the result of the application of Witsen's design method.

To name the problems with Hoving's reconstruction:

- The width of the ship is different from what Witsen specifies for his example pinas.

- The width and the height of the flat are different from what Witsen specifies for his example pinas.

- The contour of the main frame underneath the line of the greatest width consists of a straight line and one arc instead of a straight line and two arcs, as Witsen specifies in his method.

- The arc of the toptimber above the line of the greatest width does not follow the points of the toptimbers, but instead has the same radius as the arc underneath the line of the greatest width.

 

So the complete contour of Hoving's reconstructed main frame using Witsen's method consists of one straight line and one arc. And, as we can clearly see, the transition between the straight line and the single arc is not smooth. This clearly shows that Hoving's reconstruction can not be a design of a main frame resulting from Witsen's design method.

 

Although Hoving tries to show differently, it surely is possible to design the main frame of Witsen's example pinas by applying Witsen's design method though. Like this:

The main frame of Witsen's example pinas of 134 feet when Witsen's design method is applied.

 

 

The legitimation for joining the straight line of the flat to the arc of the lower futtock with an extra arc can be found in a quote from Witsen's book of 1671. A quote we have already seen in an earlier post (page 67, I):

 

"Wanneer het schip wijder is als de proportie of even-maet hier gegeven, dan laet men de laeste vlackgangh wat meer rijzen, als anderzints wel zoude geschieden, op dat het met de kimme wel moge over-een-komen, en niet zy gelijk een trogh. ...".

 

My translation:

 

"When the ship is wider than the proportion given here, the last board of the flat is lifted a bit more, as done normally, so it matches well with the bilge, and is not like a trough. ...".

 

And, to avoid discussions about my translation, let me also give Alan Lemmers's translation of Witsen's text in: Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012, page 59, I:

 

"When the ship is wider than the proportions given here, then the last bottom strake is given a little more rise than would otherwide be the case, going well into the turn of the bilge, and not be like a trough. ...".

 

Now let's turn back to Hoving's original statement:

 

"When Witsen's theoretical frame constrcution is applied to the main frame of the pinas, it is clear that the impressive method does not work: the solid line shows the pinas, the dotted line is the product of the theory."

 

I think it is clear now that nothing justifies this statement: Witsen's theoretical frame construction is not applied to the main frame of the pinas, it is clear that the impressive method does work, and the dotted line is not the product of the theory. This leaves only: "the solid line shows the pinas", and, as shown, even that can be contested because Hoving's solid line shows an angled transition between bottom and bilge.

 

7.

"Witsen wanted to give the subject a scientific appearance."

This statement can only be seen as support for Hoving's 'Witsen is a deciever' statement in part 3 of his text, this time based on the conclusion that 'the impressive method does not work' from part 6 of his text. Since we've concluded that Hoving's statement 'the dotted line is the product if the theory' can not be supported, and that therefore the statement 'the impressive method does not work' can not be supported, we can also conclude that Hoving's statement 'Witsen wanted to give the subject a scientific appearance' can not be supported.

And since this is the only underpinning for Hoving's statement in part 3 of his text: "it appears that Witsen, who had knowledge of the mathematical methods used elsewhere in Europe, designed this formula himself, out of status considerations, or out of the urge to find explanations for existing phenomenae", we can discard Hoving's part 3 also.

 

 

Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen the deceiver

 

We have seen that Hoving in 1686 says this about Witsen's figure W: "This was the way the shape of the Northern Dutch main frame was planned."

We have seen that Hoving in 1988 fails to mention Witsen's figure W when reconstructing the main frame of the pleasure vessel.

Now, in 1994, Hoving presents Witsen's figure W as the product of Witsen's imagination; thereby claiming Witsen is a deceiver.

Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen the deceiver.

Wanted for presenting fake mathematical ship design methods.

 

 

It is however unlikely that Nicolaes Witsen was a deceiver. To show this we can for example have a look at the information Hoving himself provides about Nicolaes Witsen in his book of 1994. Just some highlights (page 22, my translation):

 

"Nicolaes Cornelisz. Witsen ... He was mayor of the city thirteen times ... In 1672, the Disaster Year, he became a member of the committee for the defence of Amsterdam ... As a diplomat he was active in England ... he was the mentor of Tsar Peter the Great when he stayed in Holland ... Witsen, in his diversity, more or less embodies the Renaissance ideal of the 'Uome Universale' ... in a never relenting effort to understand the structure and meaning of creation ... an enlightened thinker and a valuable, though unconventional representative of his time."

 

Hoving does not mention that Witsen also was a Fellow of the Royal Society of London.

 

On top of this, more related to our subject shipbuilding, several parts in Witsen's book of 1671 show that Witsen did research on the shipyards himself; you can find those parts yourself. But there is also a supplement to Witsen's book of 1690 that Witsen had printed in 1693 but was never published; this supplement is kept in the Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam. From this unpublished supplement we can learn that Witsen performed the contractual technical examination of the new ship Ridderschap in 1683. Here is part of what he wrote following that examination (page 19, I, my translation):

 

"In the year 1683, I examined the build of a heavy ship, called Ridderschap, and found quite a lot of changes, in relation to ships built in our youth: I saw the beakhead and the stem post standing much straighter and steeper as ever, the decks and lower deck supported in the midship, which was done in England, but was never usual in Holland: ...

Making a comparison between a ship, still existing, that was built in 1645, I noticed many differences: ...

The same I have seen in London, in the year 1688; because the ships that I saw there in 1658 differed much in their appearance; ...

In the year 1689 many shipowners and sea merchants put down a design, after which they thought the High Government of the Country should order building the Merchantmen much smaller ...

In the year 1691 I saw again the construction of about fifty ships, and noticed that the appearance of Flutes, Pinasses, as Frigates, quite differs from those that were usual before, and in my youth: the Merchantmen noticeably wider, etc."

 

Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen performing a contractual technical examination of a ship to me proves he was considered to be an expert in these matters in 1683, and his comments show he was still very much interested in the developments of shipbuilding after that date.

 

Nicolaes Cornelisz Witsen actually being a deceiver must have gone unnoticed by all the people who praised his work when it was published in 1671, and by all the other people who wrote about Witsen, or his work, after that date; even the Royal Society of London must have been deceived, as two renowned Witsen biographers, Gebhard (1881-1882) and Peters (2010).

 

 

Hoving on Witsen's work

 

In Hoving's book of 1994 Nicolas Cornelisz Witsen's book of 1671 is praised and discredited at the same time: Witsen's work is a first rate source and Witsen's work is incomprehensible.

 

Hoving, 1994, page 22 (my translation):

 

"If it were only these inconsistencies, the book would not have been less readable, but sometimes Witsen changes the subject twice or trice per paragraph, frequently even per sentence.

And so the book got a chaotic character: he who reads the text gets lost almost immediately (even if he is sufficiently introduced in these matters). ...

and so we are confronted with an impenetrable lump of complete and half digested information which is introduced to us as a book.

The result of this is that it is completely unclear when the text talks about general information or about specific information about the pinas, and no one is actually able to make sense of it, which results in the fact that always the same citations from the book are found in literature: rather than drowning in Witsen's maelstrom of confusingly combined information, people cite one another.

Others, discouraged by the impenetrable nature of the work, simply qualify it as nonsense, written by someone who did not know what he was talking about. I hope, among other things, to show that the contrary is true: in my opinion the book is a first rate historical source, which hides much more information than people are willing to accept."

 

But, to move on undeterred, we can only select one key sentence from this diatribe of course: "in my opinion the book is a first rate historical source".

But, Hoving saying that Witsen's book is a first rate historical source, makes it incomprehensible that Hoving does not trust this first rate historical source for only a very small part of it, for the part of Witsen's book where Witsen describes the method for designing the main frame. Although Hoving says that Witsen's book is inconsistent, chaotic, an impenetrable lump, unclear, a maelstrom of confusingly combined information, and impenetrable, Witsen is very clear in describing his method for designing a main frame. So why did Hoving choose to only discard this small part of Witsen's book? To put it differently: why would Hoving declare figure W to be a fake, and why does he declare Witsen to be a deceiver, when he considers Witsen's book to be a first rate historical source?

 

I think I can answer that question by giving some more citations from Hoving's book of 1994; citations from when Hoving talks about the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method or 'Witsen's building method' as he calls it (page 28, my translation):

 

"The fascinating thing about this building method is also, that there is no difference between design and execution. The ship was not designed on the drawing board, but begot its shape during the building process, not by the calculations of an engineer, but by the master shipwright who participated in the yard: ..."

 

"The most important thing about this method though is the fact that , according to me, the ship was built without making a preliminary drawing. The design of the ship materialized on the yard, together with the ship itself."

 

And this must be Hoving's motivation for discarding Witsen's description of the method for designing the main frame: admitting that a design on paper was made before the building of the ship started, as Witsen clearly says in the description of the method, would clearly maean that making statements like the two we've seen above is impossible. When you admit that Witsen describes a method for making a design on paper, you can not claim that "the ship was not designed on the drawing board" or that "the ship was built without making a preliminary drawing".

 

 

Conclusion

 

As we've seen, Hoving did not succeed in discarding Witsen's figure W: we have seen that it is possible to make a design of the main frame of Witsen's example pinas by using Witsen's design method, and Hoving provided therefore no evidence for his claim that Witsen's design method is a product of Witsen's imagination. Witsen's statement that the design method he describes is used before the building of the ship starts is therefore still very much valid; to repeat that statement again:

 

"The figure at the letter W, above, shows how to make the construction on paper, before starting on the Ship."

 

 

Epilogue

 

The compass and the technical drawing in the left hand of the allegorical figure of Shipbuilding are not shown by De Hooghe by accident, he shows them because shipwrights used compasses and technical drawings.

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

The quest continues: how are Witsen's method for designing main frames, and his figure W, interpreted through the ages.

 

Otte Blom, Ontzagh voor de "Zeven Provincien", 1995.

 

Blom spent years on the reconstruction of the warship Zeven Provincien of 1665, and building a very large model of it. Blom registered all the results of his research in a manuscript, probably with the intention to once publish his manuscript. But Blom passed away before he could publish his manuscript., in 2005. Luckily Blom's widow decided to publish Blom's manuscript on the internet. Blom's foreword of the manuscript mentions 'February 1995', so I decided to date it at 1995.

 

Here is a detail of plan 24-00-03 of Blom's manuscript:

Otte Blom, Ontzagh voor de "Zeven Provincien", 1994, detail of plan 24-00-03.

 

 

In the upper left box on the drawing we can read:

 

"Meetkundige constructie van het grootspant volgens 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheepsbouw en Bestier' van Nicolaes Witsen plaat nr LII, blz. 150."

 

My translation:

 

"Geometrical construction of the main frame according to 'Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheepsbouw en Bestier' of Nicolaes Witsen plate nr LII p. 150."

 

From this we can tell Blom used figure W from Witsen's book of 1671 to make the main frame design for his reconstruction of Zeven Provincien.

 

What do we see in Blom's drawing? A radius of 3/4 of the width of the ship for the arc of the second futtocks, a radius of 2/9 of the radius of the arc of the second futtocks for the arc of the lower futtocks, an unspecified arc instead of a straight line for the flat, a radius of the toptimber of 3/4 of the width of the ship, and smooth transitions.

 

I think Witsen's design intentions are well reflected in Blom's main frame design for his Zeven Provincien.

 

 

A.A. Lemmers, Techniek op schaal, 1996.

 

In his 'Scaled technology' of 1996 Alan Lemmers writes this on page 22 (my translation):

 

"In 1671 the book Aeloude en hedendaegsche scheepsbouw en bestier of Nicolaes Witsen (1641-1717) appeared in Amsterdam.⁴⁹ Witsen was  no shipbuilder, but a regent and a lawyer. Nevertheless he was interested in shipbuilding and wrote an extensive work about the shipbuilding practices in his hometown. It is probably conceived in the form of interviewing master shipwrights, for it is very chaotic and therefore impenetrable. It is astonishing in its completeness though, and is the most important source for the knowledge of seventeenth century shipbuilding ...

The build progressed through a number of fixed steps, which finally resulted in a ship lying in the water. The formulae the shipwright used were based on century long experience and gave enough room to vary in details 'according to the eye of the master'. Ships were built according to charters: so no drawings, and no models."

 

The description of footnote 49 can be found on page 323 of Lemmer's book. It reads: "HOVING 1994".

 

Although Lemmers says that Witsen's work is 'the most important source for the knowledge of seventeenth century shipbuilding', he combines this with leaving out Witsen's passage about design and its figure W: "so no drawings".

And although Lemmers mentions that Witsen's work probably was conceived by interviewing shipwrights, for him this does not mean that he has to take Witsen seriously on the subject of design.

 

Beginning on page 311 Lemmers gives a summary of his book in English. On page 312 we can find:

 

"The two main building traditions in the Netherlands, the 'shell-first' method in Amsterdam and the 'frame-first' method in Rotterdam, worked entirely without the use of drawings or models, relying on prefixed proportional rules, building sequence and experience."

 

In the foreword of his book of 2012 Hoving writes this about our author Alan Lemmers:

 

"... my good friend and colleague Dr. Alan Lemmers, a historian and researcher at the Instituut voor Maritieme Historie. We worked together for many years in the attics of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, where we studied and restored the huge collection of ship models and nautical objects known as the Dutch Navy Collection."

 

 

A.J. Hoving & A.A. Lemmers, In tekening gebracht. De achttiende eeuwse scheepsbouwers en hun ontwerpmethoden, 2001.

 

In their 'Put into drawing. The eighteenth century shipbuilders and their design methods', Hoving says in chapter 'II Scheepsontwerp in Amsterdam en het Noorderkwartier', 'II. Ship design in Amsterdam and the Noorderkwartier' (page 21, my translation):

 

"Nicolaes Witsen (1641-1717) was, among other things, a lawyer, an administrator, and an influential politician, but he was also very interested in shipbuilding, about which he wrote his book Aeloude en Hedendaegse Scheepsbouw en Bestier. It is thanks to this book that we have kind of a sharp picture of the formulae that led to the end product, and of the building method of his age.

The knowledge about the building method is especially important because, as said, ships in Witsen's time were built without any prior design. The decision moments were incorporated in the building method and will be briefly discussed here."

 

Although Hoving states that we have to thank Witsen for writing his book because it is because of Witsen's book that we have a clear picture of the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method, Hoving leaves Witsen's design method and figure W completely out of his story, and even states "ships in Witsen's time were built without any prior design".

 

 

Hope

 

But, it turns out Witsen's figure W can be found in Hoving's story after all, be it somewhere else completely. Witsen's figure W is placed, completely detached from the text above, and without context, in chapter 'III. Scheepsontwerp in Rotterdam', 'Ship design in Rotterdam'; a chapter also written by Hoving. Here it is:

Hoving & Lemmers, In tekening gebracht, 2001, detail from page 60.

 

 

The accompanying text to the figure reads (page 60, my translation):

 

"Witsen's construction of a main frame: by means of points from which parts of the frame are scribed. Smaller arcs, of which the centers are on the radius of a larger arc of a circle, join it fluently. From: Nicolaes Witsen, Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheepsbouw en Bestier (Amsterdam 1671)"

 

And in the main text we can read on page 59 (my translation):

 

"The drawing of the main frame was already described by Witsen. His story shows little difference with English and French methods of the period: the frame is shaped by constructing a couple of arcs of circles together."

 

Main elements we can find in these two texts: figure W shows arcs of circles, and smooth transitions. And that is indeed what Witsen shows us.

 

To me, the statement Hoving makes in his Amsterdam chapter, "ships in Witsen's time were built without any prior design", is contradicted by the statement Hoving makes in his Rotterdam chapter: "The drawing of the main frame was already described by Witsen", and in the description of figure W in that same Rotterdam chapter: "Witsen's construction of a main frame ...", because, as Witsen describes, Witsen's figure W is made before the building of the ship starts: it is a 'prior design'.

 

It makes me wonder if the text accompanying the illustration is actually written by A.J. Hoving.

 

 

H.N. Kamer, Schepen op Schaal, 2002.

 

In his 'Ships to Scale' of 2002 Kamer questions Dik's reconstruction of Zeven Provincien that he made in the years 1983-1986, and which was, as we've seen, published posthumously in 1993. Kamer thinks that Van de Velde drawings of Zeven Provincien show a different hull shape than Dik chose for his reconstruction.

 

Kamer says this on page 52, my translation:

 

"An excellent study was done by G.C. Dik under the title De Zeven Provincien. ...

For the shape of the main frame, Dik, after comparing the shapes used in some historical models of a somewhat later period, used the drawing Witsen shows on plate LII of his book.

A characteristic of Witsen's frame shape is that the centerpoints of the arcs that shape the contour of the greatest width are on the horizontal line that can be drawn on the height of the lower gun deck, at the height of the scupper holes. The greatest width of the hull is therefore on the level of the lower gun deck. Under this line the frame contracts towards the arcs of the bilge.

... It can be stated that Zeven Provincien built in 1665 can not have had the Witsen frame shape published in 1671."

 

Kamer also made his own version of Witsen's figure W and shows it on page 53 of his book. Here it is:

Kamer, Schepen op Schaal, 2002, detail of page 53.

 

 

Kamer's short accompanying text reads (my translation):

 

"The shape of the frame, as drawn by Witsen."

 

I am not going into Kramer's arguments for questioning Dik's reconstruction here, but it is clear that Kramer interprets Witsen's figure W in the same way Dik did; which is good.

 

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

[Jules van Beek]

Hello all,

 

Three archaeologists today, so let's call this the archaeology-post.

 

Kroum Nikolaev Batchvarov, The Framing of Seventeenth-Century Men-of-War in England and other European countries (thesis), 2002.

 

Batchvarov in the 'Acknowledgements', page vi:

 

"I had the great luck of studying under Dr. Fred Hocker and am much obliged to him for all that he taught me. Dr. Kevin Chrisman has been a tremendous source of encouragment. If there is any value in this work it is thanks to his advice. He has been a mountain of support in this endeavor."

 

Batchvarov says this about Dutch shipbuilding, page 106:

 

"Chapter VII Dutch Shipbuilding

...

Evidence of Dutch shipbuilding comes from sources somewhat similar to the English. There are surviving charters or specifications, some limited iconographic evidence, models and two major contemporary treatises on Dutch shipbuilding. Nicolaes Witsen's Aeloude en Hedendaegse Scheepsbouw en Bestier of 1671, and Cornelis van Yk's Nederlandse Scheepsbouwkonst Opengesteld of 1697. ...

The draughts that exist in the English archives are non-existent for the Dutch, as they did not use them in building their ships.¹⁷³ This leaves as the most important sources the work of Witsen and van Yk."

 

Footnote 173 reads (page 165): "¹⁷³ A.J. Hoving, "17th century Dutch Shipbuilding". Model Shipwright vol. 58, p."

 

And Batchvarov continues on page 108 with:

 

"The most important work has been done by Albert Hoving. In his numerous publications on Dutch shipbuilding methods and practices he has made a huge contribution to the state of our knowledge. Of special interest is his rendition of Witsen's book.¹⁸⁰ This chapter owes a tremendous debt to Hoving's work.

 

From the works of Witsen and van Yk it is clear that the Dutch seventeenth-century shipwrights did not do things the same way that their English counterparts did. While in England the practice was to develop a draught before laying down the keel and then lofting the frames, the Dutch shipwrights did nothing of the kind. He worked completely without drawings.

English shipwrights and naval architects were still one and the same person at this time, but at least the theoretical possibility of one person developing the lines and another building the ship from the drawings existed.

That theoretical posibility did not exist in the Netherlands, as drawings were not used until 1724 and then only under the influence of English shipwrights.¹⁸¹"

 

Batchvarov's footnote 180 reads (page 165): "¹⁸⁰ For a full list of Mr. Hoving's publications used in this study see the bibliography."

And his footnote 181 reads (page 165): "¹⁸¹ Hoving, "A 17th-century Dutch 134_foot pinas", Part I, p.216."

 

The short conclusion: Batchvarov names Witsen as the most important source, but leaves out Witsen's description of the design of the main frame on paper; by naming A.J. Hoving as his source.

 

 

Frederick M. Hocker, Bottom-based shipbuilding in Northwestern Europe, in: Hocker & Ward, The Philosophy of Shipbuilding, 2004.

 

F. Hocker devotes a large section of his story about bottom-based shipbuilding to Dutch shell-first shipbuilding. On page 82, II we can find:

 

"Nicolaes Witsen, in his 1671 treatise on shipbuilding and navigation (revised for the second edition of 1690), described the method in detail. After the keel and postst were erected, the planks of the bottom were laid up and temporarily held in place by clamps, chains, and wooden cleats nailed across the seams. When the outboard edge of the bottom was reached, the midship floor timber was fastened in place across the hals ("neck", or widest part of the bottom) and its first futtocks erected. Thereafter the bilge was planked. Once the bilge had been rounded, the rest of the floors and the first futtocks could be added, and the sheerstrake run along the tops of the futtocks. With the sheerstrake in place, the rest of the sides could be planked.¹²⁸ This sort of construction was practiced in the northern Netherlands."

 

Hocker clearly leaves out Witsen's description of the design of the main frame and his figure W here. And he does so while referring to Witsen's work of 1690 in footnote 128 (page 92, I):

 

"128. N. Witsen, Architectura Navalis et Regimen Nauticum, ofte Aeloude en Hedendaegse Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier (Amsterdam, 1671; 2d ed., 1690), 164-75."

 

The pages Hocker refers to, the pages 164-175, obviously include page 170, which holds Witsen's description of how the main frame was designed, and include plate LII, which shows the figure W. This shows that Hocker deliberately neglected Witsen's description and his figure W.

 

Hocker contionues his story with his interpretation of what French spy Pierre Arnoul says about the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method in his report of 1670; I will get back to that, and to what his fellow spies Etienne Hubac and Seignelay say, in a future post. After mentioning Arnoul, Hocker continues with mentioning subjects we have already treated in earlier posts:

 

"The two methods produce hulls with similar topsides, but the bottom-based system of the north may result in a more angular bilge.¹³⁰ The angle is the result of the planking method; ...

Van Yk was aware of this method and considered a bad practice.¹³¹ ...

Seagoing ships were also built this way, as several seventeenth-century VOC-ships, finds from the Christianshavn excavations in Copenhagen, and the Vasa show.134 ..."

 

And Hocker then wraps it all up like this on page 84, I:

 

"This bottom-first style of construction had several advantages. ... It also avoided the necessity for predetermination of the frames, a potential problem. ...".

 

And thus Hocker simply states that 'predetermination of the frames 'did not exist in Dutch shell first shipbuilding. He thereby again takes the clear decision to not mention Witsen's design method for the main frame or his figure W.

 

Hocker opening his story about Dutch shell first shipbuilding with saying that he is going to present Witsen's description of this method, "Nicolaes Witsen described the method in detail", and then leaving out a part of Witsen's description without providing us with an explanation why he left out this part of Witsen's description, does not seem justifiable to me. Hocker misrepresents Witsen's description here, and does not explain why he chose to do so.

 

I would like to finish this with Hocker's footnote 130 (page 92, I):

 

"130. A.J. Hoving, "A Seventeenth-Century Dutch 134-foot pinas. Part I: A reconstruction after Aeloude en Hedendaagse Scheepsbouw en Bestier by Nicolaes Witsen 1671", IJNA 17 (1988): 217.

Hoving was the first to compare critically the building methods described by Witsen and van Yk and note the differences in shape they produce. Later research using models indicates that a harder bilge is not necessarily produced by this method, and Hoving's analysis has revealed a great deal about the details of this method of construction. See A.P. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsens Scheeps-bouw-konst open gestelt."

 

We have already paid attention to the 'difference in shape' the two building methods produce, and found none, but Hocker's conclusion about the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method is welcome anyway: "a harder bilge is not necessarily produced by this method". This conclusion of course confirms what Witsen shows us, and also confirms conclusions from earlier posts.

 

And what other conclusion could one possibly expect from the Director of Research at the Vasa Museum, the museum built to hold the remains of the ship that was built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method and that does not show a 'harder bilge'.

Landstrom, Zeilschepen, 1970, detail from page 133, illustration 265.

Vasa's main frame, without a 'harder bilge'.

 

 

Christian P.P Lemée, The Renaissance Shipwrecks from Christianshavn, 2006.

 

Lemée says this about Witsen's book of 1671 in his paragraph 'Architecture Navalis' (page 95):

 

"In north-western Europe, one of the first books to mention naval architecture is Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier, first published in 1671 (reprinted in 1690) by Nicolaes Witsen, who was the son of a master shipbuilder.¹³ ...

The book is important as it is the oldest document describing Northern European shell-based shipbuilding methods. Though its information is relevant, it is a compilation of different sources, and as A. Hoving mentions, several mistakes invaded the text.¹⁴"

 

Lemée's footnotes read, too briefly: "13. Witsen 1671", and "14. Hoving 1994", so we do not know what made Lemée say that 'several mistakes invaded the text' of Witsen; we know Lemée's statement is based on Hoving's book of 1994, but that's it.

 

In his chapter about wreck B&W 5, Lemée, commendably, reproduces Witen's complete plate LII as figure 4.2.75 on page 187 of his book. This plate of course shows Witsen's figure W. Since we know Witsen's plate LII by heart, I will not show it here again.

Lemée's text accompanying his figure 4.2.75 reads:

 

"Fig. 4.2.75. (right) Illustration from Witsen's 1671 treatise depicting a ship under construction. The plank-built shell is complete up to the turn of the bilge and the first futtocks are raised on each side of the hull (V).

The sheer has not yet been fastened, as the futtocks are in the process of being angled outwards. This is done by hanging a plumb line from a defined height on the futtocks. The position where the line crosses a transverse straight-edge placed on top of the bilge (X) indicates a precise horizontal distance between a point on the futtock top and the top of the bilge."

 

We notice that Lemée mentions the figures V and X from Witsen's plate LII, but that he does not mention Witsen's figure W. Lemée does not give an explanation for why he neglects figure W; but it might be possible that he considers Witsen's figure W to be one of the 'several mistakes' that 'invaded' Witsen's text, for, as we've seen, Hoving claims in his book of 1994 that Wtsen's figure W is the fruit of Witsen's imagination.

 

In Lemée's main text we can find the following on page 186 though, the page adjacent to the page that shows the reproduction of Witsen's plate LII:

 

"Geometric investigation

During the excavation, it was already observed that the rounded cross-section of the hull of B&W 5 seemed to have been built using a geometric proportioning system. It seems likely that the vessel's shipbuilders had made use of arcs to define the master frame of the ship, perhaps in a way similar to the pure skeleton-based building concept of English and Portuguese hull design methods. The 1:20 scale model, complemented with the 1:10 scale model reconstructing the building sequence, indicates that the B&W 5 hull follows closely the system described by Witsen. ...

The master frame of B&W 5 was not preserved; however, as the area of the hull where it was positioned had been destroyed. Nevertheless, it was possible to establish a likely master frame design by identifying key measurements throughout the wreck."

 

This is of course very strange: Lemée shows a plate from Witsen's work which illustrates a design procedure with "arcs to define the master frame", and at the same time suggests that the "arcs to define the master frame" of wreck B&W 5 were perhaps based on "the pure skeleton-based building concept of English and Portuguese hull desugn methods".

Lemée, when talking about geometry in his main text, even mentions "that the B&W 5 hull follows closely the system Witsen described", but then seems to forget to mention that Witsen gives a geometrical design method: that the "system Witsen described includes a geometric design method. Why did Lemée not just describe Witsen's design method for the main frame as shown in figure W?

Especially since the outcome of Lemée's research on the shape of the main frame of B&W 5 confirms Witsen's design principles: a smooth transition of a straight line and two arcs. This is what Lemée says about the shape of the main frame of B&W 5 on page 188:

 

"Definition of the theoretical master frame, ...

The rising line of the floor could be measured by defining a straight line between the point 2 feet from the centerline of the edge of the sixth strake. ...

From the seventh to the ninth strake, the bilge followed an arc whose radius was about 5 Amsterdam feet, ...

The radius of the futtock mould was 10 1/2 Amsterdam feet in the area between the top of the bilge and the wale. ...".

 

And Lemée had already confirmed that B&W 5 was built with the Dutch shell first shipbuilding method as described by Witsen; Lemée, page 179, I:

 

"However the understanding of the shipbuilding methods used with B&W 5 as the overall concept was already clearly seen in the extant hull: a shell-based bottom construction with skeleton-based sides. The method is described by Witsen, and to a certain extent by Ralamb, as will be discussed below."

 

And here is the complete reconstruction of the lines of B&W 5 by Lemée; figure 4.2.56:

Lemée, The Renaissance Shipwrecks from Christianshavn, 2006, page 186, figure 4.2.56.

 

 

Lemée's text to the figure reads:

 

"Figure 4.2.56. The frame drawing body plan of the reconstructed starboard side of the hull B&W 5 (stern on the left, bow on the right). The shape of the floor strakes is uneven, and there are straight lines between the second and sixth strake at nearly all frame stations. The lines represent the inner edge of the planking seams. Drawing: CL".

 

 

Excerpts

 

In the rest of Lemée's work we can find no mentions of Witsen's design method for the main frame or Witsen's figure W either. We can find things like this though, on page 41, I:

 

"The shell-based method is a non-graphical concept where the shipbuilder does not use drawings. It is principally the master shipbuilder's eye and experience, combined with simple measuring tools (e.g. a plumb line, measuring sticks, etc.) that are used in the fashioning process, taking place mainly during construction."

 

Or this, on page 192, I:

 

"This hybrid method, combining the shell-based and the skeleton-based building concept, is described by Witsen, although he does not mention the use of moulds.21"

 

Lemée's footnote 21 reads: "With the exception of illustration 33 on Pl. LXXXVI (see Hoving 1994), where a curved model is represented. This mould could be intended for the design of the deck beams."

 

But, although Lemée claims the contrary here, Witsen does mention the use of moulds in his books. For example in his book of 1671 on page 60, I (my translation):

 

"D the second futtock; which makes the width, and depth of the ship, for example, if one places the mould of the second futtock, put a nail on the depth of the ship, and let a plumb hang down from there, and measure on the bilge how much it hangs form the nail; because the ship is wide over the bilges 27 feet, and has a width of 29 feet over all, hanging from each side one foot. Or if one takes the width 27 feet, and each side hanging 1 foot, gives 29 feet."

 

So, while Lemée describes in his accompanying text to his figure 4.2.75 how a plumb line was used to place the second futtocks, he completely missed that Witsen says that moulds of the second futtocks were used for this placement.

 

Since there are more sections in Lemée's book in which Witsen is misquoted and/or misinterpreted, which I will not repeat here, I think I am allowed to say that Lemée is not capable of reading his primary source himself; he depends on others for this.

 

To be continued,

 

Jules

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Jules van Beek

[mtaylor]

I have some questions/thoughts, Jules.

 

1) Given all the wars that went through Europe over the centuries, is likely that many (most?) records were destroyed?

 

2_ Guilds in many ways were secret societies so if build plans were made, would be realistic to think they were destroyed when the ship was launched?  I do believe that much knowledge in the past was word of mouth and not recorded in an archival form.

 

I'm just curious....  thanks for any thoughts.

 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello MTaylor,

 

Thank you for your questions. Sorry for taking so long in replying.

 

Let me repeat your first question:

 

"1) Given all the wars that went through Europe over the centuries, is it likely that many (most) records were destroyed?"

 

About Dutch naval records, I am afraid it was not because of wars that most records were destroyed. To repeat after J. de Hullu, archivist of the National Archives in The Hague from 1902-1924, specializing in the archives of the Admiralty, the VOC and the WIC: "From the start, one would almost say, the archives of the Admiralty Colleges were doomed."

22 February 1604: fire in the Admiralty of Rotterdam.

12 January 1771: fire in the Admiralty of Friesland in Harlingen.

8 January 1844: fire in the centralized Archives of the Admiralties in the Department of the Navy in The Hague.

 

I have spent a lot of time going through the burnt remnants of these naval records, mostly on microfilm, in the National Archives in The Hague.

 

The VOC-archives have fared better. I will show an example of the use of technical drawings in Dutch shell first shipbuilding from these archives in a future post.

 

 

And your second question:

 

"2) Guilds in many ways were secret societies, so if build plans were made, would it be realistic to think they were destroyed when the ship was launched? I do believe that much knowledge in the past was word of mouth and not recorded in an archival form."

 

Regarding the guilds, again, a big problem for research arises. To study Dutch shell first shipbuilding we have to turn mostly to the Guild of the Shipcarpenters in Amsterdam. Nowadays the archives of this guild are kept in the minicipal archive of the City of Amsterdam. This is what the municipal archive of Amsterdam says about the archive of the Guild of the Shipcarpenters of Amsterdam on its website: "Not much is left of the archive. Just some of the financial registers are kept in the municipal archives."

 

I have never heard that the Guild of the Shipcarpenters in Amsterdam recommended destroying build plans after the ships were built. If the Guild recommended destroying, its recommendation must not have been followed, for example: Witsen shows a lot of build plans in his book of 1671, the Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam holds a lot of seventeenth century build plans in its collection, I know build plans were kept at an artist's place in Amsterdam in 1669, and I know of a handbook of a shipwright of the second half of the seventeenth century that holds coordinates of built sloops, and build plans of ships and their construction. To me, all these sources show that build plans were not destroyed after building the ship, but that the build plans were used as "an archival form", as you call it.

I will dedicate future posts to the design drawings at the artist's place and the handbook of the shipwright to show what I mean.

 

"Knowledge was not recorded in an archival form". I do not know about your memory capacity right now, but my memory capacity is certainly not enough to hold all the data of one ship, let alone of several ships. Drawings were made in architecture, be it in house building or ship building, in the seventeenth century because they served a purpose: they expanded the memory capacity; once the drawing is made you can forget about the data used to make that drawing. These drawings for me are a form of knowledge "recorded in an archival form", as you call it.

 

Why do we accept that drawings were made in seventeenth century house building, and why don't we accept that drawings were made in seventeenth century ship building?

Here is for example a design drawing made by the 'City carpenter', we would call him city architect now, of the city of Leiden Willem van der Helm in 1669:

'City carpenter' Willem van der Helm made design drawings for buildings and bridges for the city of Leiden from 1662 to the early 1670s, and, as we can see, also made a design drawing for the yacht of the city of Leiden in 1669. (From: Elske Gerristen, 'De grondt, standt teeckeninge ende profyl geteeckent op de cleene maet', UvA).

Gerristen says: "Every city had her own city yacht that had to be replaced regularly. The city carpenter usually provided the designs."

I think 'building architect/naval architect' Willem van der Helm shows us that there was no 'hard' separation in design activity in 1669.

 

In general I think we have to keep a very open mind to study design activity in the seventeenth century. When we assume that 'knowledge in the past was word of mouth and not recorded in archival form', as you suggest, the will to research is the victim: when we assume that there are no 'records in archival form', I am pretty sure we will not find any 'records in archival form'.

 

Regarding Dutch ship design activity, we first of all have to accept that Rembrandt shows us design activity of a shipwright in 1633, and that Witsen shows us design activity of shipwrights in 1671. I notice that, for some, it is very hard to even accept those two facts.

 

I hope this answers your questions. If not, please do not hesitate to ask some more.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jules

 

[mtaylor]

Thanks for the answer.  I appreciate it.

[Doreltomin]

Hi Jules, 

 

Thank you for continuing your lesson on Dutch shipbuilding techniques, it is very much appreciated! Also, while I can't really add anything on the subject as all period sources are written in Dutch, and even 17th century one, which I can't read,  just a few thoughts on the general topic of "building without plans". I have seen various kinds of professionals at work, from carpenters to blacksmiths, to furniture restorers, scissormakers or jewellers. I believe any good blacksmith with good experience on it would do a horseshoe without any plan, based on his own experience. Also it takes only one master plus an apprentice to do it, so virtually everything comes of a single mind. It may also be true for cartwheel makers, who generally speaking work in a team, or even the makers of the carts themselves, when all the details are traditional and known to all workers in the shop.

 

This may also be true even for small traditional boats. I lived part of my life in a city by the Black Sea shore here in Romania, which also used to have a small fleet of fishermen boats. I never saw one of these fishermen boats being actually built, only repaired (this is sadly a dying art) yet it is obvious they only follow a known pattern. Even more, some time  ago while being in a small city in neigbouring Bulgaria I saw the structure of a traditional boat half finished and thrown away to rot in a backyard. It was absolutely the same "blueprint" so to say, despite the fact that it was some hundred kilometers south and in a different country. So these traditional makers are completely able to do a traditional thing in their own way without any plan, following only a standard procedure. The old people a talked with, which did still remember the old days when you could visit a boat shop and order a traditional boat told me the first question a boat builder would pose to the customer would have been "how many (frames) the boat you want to be?"- this is just another way to say the length of the boat, considering the distance between frames is already known and "traditional". Now, the problem is in a boat shop would probably work up to four to five people, all led by the master boat builder, which would take them a reasonable amount of time in building one boat - several weeks for instance.

 

But this would have been not possible for larger ships, which would need much bigger teams to build them, not only because a small number of people would take a completely unrealistic time horizon to do all the tasks, but also because bigger ships would need bigger pieces of wood which are simply not possible to move and to put in the right place just by a handful of people. So, when a master builder has to lead a bigger team, he can divide the tasks and give pieces of the ship to different builders, which may then be brought together. But to make sure the pieces fit, they have to be DESIGNED in some way, otherwise they would NOT fit. This is where design becomes compulsory. You can make a perfect horseshoe with no plan, if you have already done five to ten horseshoes a day for several years. It may also be true for traditional boats or cartwheels.

 

But all blacksmiths I have seen make a small plan, even if it's only scribbled in chalk on their table, if they want to make something different, which they have not done before. This is also true for jewellers, which usually do a small sketch just for themselves before starting to cut gold or silver. This also applies for our modeller fellows which would do a careful planning, which would often include a small sketch, before starting to cut an expensive piece of exotic wood. So making a plan is a natural thing - it comes probably of our way of thinking. Also, if a plan may not be necessary when working alone, it becomes crucial if you have to work in a team with someone else. Otherwise, how could a team member understand the piece you need? 

 

So I come here to some conclusions:

 

Firstly, doing a plan is a natural way of our brain to imagine something new. This plan doesn't necessarily need to be done with a pencil on a piece of paper. It can be done in various ways. Remember that paper was not always as available as it is today, nor were pencils, quills, ink, rulers, compasses and various other drafting tools. It may have been that shipbuilders traditionally used wax tablets for their draft, or a flat piece of plank on which you do your lines in chalk or a piece of coal. Moreover, having a plan done on paper or even in parchment would NOT help too much if brought on the shipyard, which is usually outside in the rain and aside some water.  You can imagine how difficult would be to deploy a big sheet of paper if it rains or the wind is blowing. So if the shipwright had a plan, he would jealously keep it to himself safely home and refer to it when he will need it. I don't believe there may have been a guild's rule to destroy the design after the ship was made. Yet, I believe the were rules which said the plans were private property of the shipwright and he would keep to himself.

 

It is not different today with architects, which have to provide copies of their plans to their customers for the building permit to be issued and then for the house to be built But the originals of these plans are private property of the architect and there may be a legal bound that both the customer and the architect will not give the plans to any third party. 

 

So I believe each shipwright may have had an archive (of sorts) regarding his builds, which would jealously keep to himself as it encompassed his tricks of the trade. It doesn't have to be a large archive with carefully drawn plans of ships, it may have been just a stack of leaflets with calculations regarding the ship's dimensions. 

 

Secondly, it has been said that the shipwright was able to do the shape of the hull just by pinching the floor boards and then do some tricks with the leeboard and such. Yes, it may have been like that for the first build, but then if the ship shape went right, why wouldn't the shipwright note just for himself the shape of each frame, to easier reproduce a successful design? Moreover, how would a shipwright ensure the ship he is doing would be symmetrical on both sides, except if he has a way to "measure" the shape and replicate on the other side?    

 

Thirdly, how would you convey your design to another member of the team if you can't draft it in some way, to tell the EXACT shape of the wooden member you need for your build?

 

So these are just some things to ponder while claiming "shipbuilders did their tricks without any plans". Also, the plan doesn't necessarily have to be done in paper.

 

It has been also claimed that Greek temples from the classic period were built without plans, because, obviously, no plan of this survived. Yet lately in an unfinished Greek temple, a scribbling have been found on a marble wall, which proved to be exactly the plan of the said temple. After the temple would have been finished, the wall would have been polished flat and the scribbling erased, but since it was left unfinished, the "plan" survived!

 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Doreltomin,

 

Thank you for taking the time to share your reflections; again, much appreciated.

 

Allow me to paraphrase your conclusion:

 

For big projects it is natural for humans to use drawings as a means of registration during the design of the project, and it is natural to use drawings as a means of communication during the realization of the project.

Since the building of a large ship qualifies as a big project, it is normal to find humans using drawings for building a large ship.

 

You say this about intellectual property:

 

"Yet I believe there were rules which said the plans were private property of the shipwright and he would keep (them) to himself."

 

Let me give you an example of these rules: the master shipwright of the VOC had to swear an oath of the second degree. This oath included the clause:

 

"That we shall not take outside the house or the office, or hand to anyone, any books, paper accounts, writings or extracts thereof, or anything concerning the foresaid Company, without order of the foresaid Lords or Masters. That all that is written, heard or seen by us, or what is ordered to be managed or to be kept secret by the Directors or the lawyers of the Company, or what our conscience should understand to be kept secret, we will keep secret and will not reveal to anyone."

 

I think we can conclude from this that any designs the master shipwright of the VOC made, would stay the property of the VOC. I think this also shows that the VOC decided on what master shipwright of the VOC Gerrit Claesz Pool was allowed to share with Tsar Peter I in 1697; I will get to that in a later post.

 

Again, thank you very much,

 

Jules

[Mark P]

Good Morning Jules;

 

Thank you for the post no. 53. Some very clear points are made here, ones to keep in mind when Dutch shipbuilding methods are being discussed. It would seem to be rather a shame (to say the least) that available 17th century sources have been, and will presumably continue to be, misinterpreted through what seems to be a combination of both wilful and negligent misinterpretation. 

 

English records have also been considerably reduced by fires: at least two at the Navy Office, and the disastrous fire at the Cotton Library, where many Medieval, Tudor and early Stuart documents had been collected. 

 

Keep up the good work!

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Mark,

 

Thank you for sharing your views on the treatises of these three archaeologists. You are using qualifications I would not dare to repeat here, but which are probably fully justified. We will get to some more treatises of archaeologists later in this thread, and, I'm afraid, it will get worse: you have been warned.

 

I am sorry to hear your work is also plagued by the archival losses due to fires. Paper and fire do not seem to go well together. Luckily more and more archives digitize their collections and share them on the internet. For some archives this comes too late though: they already suffered irreparable damage to their collections ages ago.

 

So, I repeat after you: keep up the good work!

 

All the best,

 

Jules