Iberian (Basque) Atlantic Whaler ca. 1550 — as, dos, tres…

[Waldemar]

 

Although the extremely important wreck of a mid-16th century seagoing ship built in the Basque region of Spain has already been studied in great detail and presented to the public in the comprehensive, multi-volume monograph The Underwater Archaeology Red Bay. Basque Shipbuilding and Whaling in the 16th Century, published by Parcs Canada in 2007, nevertheless, the following presentation will not be a repetition of the material contained therein, but rather to complement certain omissions or even a different interpretation of this archaeological find. In a nutshell, the aim of this exercise is to recreate and present the method of designing a ship in terms of its geometrical conception, an issue that is fundamental to naval architecture and yet so little understood today for the early modern period.

 

Somewhat retrospectively, it can already be said that the Red Bay Vessel is an example of the then classic proportion as, dos, tres (breadth : keel length : total length = 1 : 2 : 3), recommended by authors of numerous works of the period, and applied in this particular case in a very literal, astonishingly precise manner.

 

Apart from the main proportions of the ship, no less important from the point of view of the history of naval architecture is the method used to form the shape of the hull, and taking into account its specific details. In this ship, one of the widespread Mediterranean methods of hull forming was used, which, nota bene, was also adopted at about this time in England, and was still used there in its generic form in the first decades of the 17th century, before being creatively developed into the more sophisticated ways generally referred to today as English moulding.

 

 

Archaeological model of the wreck of San Juan, the Basque whaling ship, scale 1:10 (Parcs Canada)

 

 

 

Shapes of the ship's hull reproduced by applying the found method of designing the vessel:

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the monograph of the wreck itself, which may be not available to everyone, much interesting material regarding the hull structure of the shipwreck can also be found in the provided below publication by Robert Grenier, The Basque whaling ship from Red Bay, 2001 (public domain).

 

Grenier Robert - The basque whaling ship from Red Bay - 2001.pdf

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Waldemar

[Martes]

Extremely sleek and elegant hull form, even accounting for a very deep flat tuck.
In a design sense she is a small carrack?

[Waldemar]

 

1 hour ago, Martes said:

In a design sense she is a small carrack?

 

The general proportions (as, dos, tres) do indeed correspond to what is usually referred to as nao or carrack, but already the way the hull shapes are formed is more universal and was employed for a variety of vessel types of a very different proportions. In fact, it is most suitable for long galley-type vessels.

 

As a curiosity I will also say that the length-to-width ratio of this ship at the height of the waterline is only about 2.8 : 1, and apparently these vessels were able to cross the ocean successfully and in both directions . Thanks precisely to these quite pointed hull lines. However, at the expense of payload capacity...

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Waldemar

[Doreltomin]

You bet it's an extremely sleek and elegant hull form!

 

It may not seem evident today, but during the15th century the Basques were the most advanced in terms of hull design and navigation onto the unfamiliar (for other Europeans) waters of the Atlantic, and one of their most advanced boats was called a "txalupa" - that's precisely from where our name "shallop" comes in all languages!

 

Also trying to answer your question about "a small carrack". I have been long been puzzled by this name, which sounds so distinct of any common European language, be it of Romance or Saxon origin. It was only later when I accidentally stumbled upon the name of a Crusaders' stronghold that I came to guess the origin of the word. The place was  called "Krak des chevaliers" and was given in 1142 to the Knights Hospitaller by Raymond II, Count of Tripoli and it fell in 1271 to the Mamluk Sultanate after a 36-days long siege. The name "krak" itself comes from the Syriac language (Has nothing to do with today's Syria except of the geographic area; it comes straight from the language used by the old Phoenicians and, while called "Aramaic" it was precisely the language used by Jesus and all his disciples).

 

So in this Syriac language the word "krak" means a fortress ready to withstand a siege therefore my own theory is that after the fall of the said fortress into the Muslim hands, which actually ended any dream of European domination in the area, instead of calling krak a fortified city, they slowly started to call krak a fortified ship, prepared for war. Remember at the time the distinction between warships and merchants was muddled and probably if need arose, they could have taken any merchant available and prepare her for battle.

 

So in some respects, to my eyes a krak/carracca/carraque/carrack is what we would call today a warship and not specifically a type of ship, as the ships at the time were called nao/nau/nave/navire (all coming from the Latin navis) in the Mediterranean area. So what we have here, being a Basque whaler, I would daresay would not be properly called a carrack as it is not intended to go to war.     

 

Waldemar, sorry for my digression, but I felt it had to be told! Now bringing it back to our sheep, that is going to be another VERY interesting journey which I will follow with much interest!

[Alvb]

50 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

 

 

The general proportions (as, dos, tres) ... In fact, it is most suitable for long galley-type vessels.

 

 

Am I misunderstanding something?

As, dos, tres doesn't sound like a long ship to me.

[Waldemar]

 

 

40 minutes ago, Doreltomin said:

Waldemar, sorry for my digression, but I felt it had to be told! Now bringing it back to our sheep, that is going to be another VERY interesting journey which I will follow with much interest!

 

Thank you, @Doreltomin. Interesting and erudite posts are always welcome .

 

[Waldemar]

 

4 hours ago, Alvb said:

5 hours ago, Waldemar said:

 

 

The general proportions (as, dos, tres) ... In fact, it is most suitable for long galley-type vessels.

 

 

Am I misunderstanding something?

As, dos, tres doesn't sound like a long ship to me.

 

 

5 hours ago, Waldemar said:

The general proportions (as, dos, tres) do indeed correspond to what is usually referred to as nao or carrack, but already the way the hull shapes are formed is more universal and was employed for a variety of vessel types of a very different proportions. In fact, it is most suitable for long galley-type vessels.

 

[Alvb]

Ok, you explain your passage, which I don't quite understand, with this very passage. 

Not very helpful, don't you think?

[Waldemar]

 

3 hours ago, Alvb said:

Ok, you explain your passage, which I don't quite understand, with this very passage. 

Not very helpful, don't you think?

 

Indeed, the difficulty in understanding is not helpful probably in any venture. And it's nice that you also seek some help here .

 

[Waldemar]

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

The diagram shown above is almost self explanatory and in principle does not require any extensive comments. It contains the basic design assumptions necessary for the subsequent stages of the ship's hull design. At this first stage, the design sequence for this vessel would look more or less like this:

 

— the length of the hull (between the posts) was set at 40 cubits, or their equivalent of 80 feet,

— this length was then divided into eight equal parts of 5 cubits (10 feet) each,

— the sum of the two rakes, fore and aft, was set to 3/8 of the length of the hull, in a mutual ratio of 2 : 1, leaving 5/8 of the length of the hull for the keel,

— the position of the master frame is half the length of the hull, just behind the middle line (see diagram),

— the group of so-called pre-assembled frames includes a total of 14 sub assemblies, for which 1/4 of the length of the hull was provided, asymmetrically in respect to the middle line (see diagram),

— the garboard strakes, integrated into the keel, occupy 4/5 of the keel length, starting from the beginning of the keel,

— the number, height and rise of the decks, fairly standard for the era, have a direct effect on the height of the two posts, as well as on the angle of the sternpost (the length of the latter will eventually be shortened to allow the tiller to enter the hull below the third deck).

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Conceptual frames

 

The longitudinal position of the structural group of pre-assembled frames defined at the same time the position of the three main conceptual frames — master frame, fore quarter frame and aft quarter frame. In this way, that the position of the master frame fell in the middle of this group and both quarter frames at its extremities (see diagram). As a result, the position of the master frame is correspondingly set back from the pre-determined position of the actual middle line of the entire length of the hull. For perfect geometry, the run of the decks must also be adjusted accordingly, bringing it into line with the new position of the ‘middle’ of the hull.

 

In passing, it may also be added that the length of the structural keel (without the vertical scarfs connecting it to the adjacent components of the keel assembly) has already been determined symmetrically to the new position of the ‘middle’ of the hull, i.e. to the position of the conceptual master frame. The structural keel, relative to the design keel, is shorter at its aft end by the length of the heel piece and, in contrast, slightly longer at its fore end, by encompassing the stem post in its design/geometric sense (see diagram).

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Master frame

 

The formation of the master frame shapes at this stage of design is primarily necessary to make a (single) set of wooden templates, used in turn to cut the actual frame timbers, and this for almost the entire length of the hull. This second process, of a non-graphical nature, is perhaps best described in the earliest English shipbuilding manuals of the first decades of the 17th century — the so-called Salisbury manuscript ca. 1620–1625 and the so-called Newton manuscript of the second quarter of the century, which describe still essentially Mediterranean methods, employing a single set of wooden templates, featuring fixed radii of the individual sweeps groups, to obtain the shapes of most of the frames needed.

 

The following sequence of master frame design for the San Juan is proposed:

 

— the breadth of the master frame (inside the planking) was set at exactly 1/3 of the hull length between the rabbets (39 1/2 cubits x 1/3 = 13 1/6 cubits, or 26 1/3 feet),

— the heights of the various design elements, such as the height of the maximum breadth of the hull and the maximum draught, depend directly on the predetermined heights of the decks, and so: the draught level was set at 2.5 feet below the second deck, and the height of the maximum breadth at one and a half feet above the draught line (the latter figure is very important for the hydrostatic properties of the ships, and more specifically their lateral stability). Also, by the way, if this had been a warship or at least an armed one, this would have resulted in about four and half feet of gun port height above the water,

— sweeps:

• first a breadth sweep was drawn with a radius equal to half the maximum breadth of the hull,
• then a vertical line was drawn from the intersection of the boca line (1^st deck) with the inner edge of the frame timbers (inner because the deck is inside the frame timbers), the intersection of this line with the breadth sweep giving point A (see diagram); in passing, it may also be added that it was the breadth at the level of the boca that was often given as the principal or only breadth of the ships in this period and in this method. Thus, the breadth of the San Juan would have been given in the sources as 23 feet 8 inches or (nearly) 12 cubits,
• the futtock sweep was then traced, tangent at point A to the breadth sweep and running to a point on the base line located at a distance of 2/5 from the axis of symmetry (see diagram); the radius of this sweep is not predetermined and is consequential (the diagram also shows with dashed lines an easy and well known way to find the centre of this sweep),
• next, a ‘softening’ bilge sweep was added with a radius equal to 2/3 of the height of the maximum breadth (13.5 feet x 2/3 = 9 feet); in addition to just softening the contour of the frames, this sweep is also of fundamental conceptual importance, as it is used for subsequent master frame transformations to obtain all the other predefined frames,
• finally, a toptimber sweep with a radius smaller than the breadth sweep, i.e. equal to 1/3 of the maximum breadth, has been added.

 

The radii of the individual sweeps have been selected so that their proportions relative to each other ensure the correct shape of the hull along almost its entire length. For example, the reduction of the toptimber sweep radius in relation to the breadth sweep radius avoids the formation of upperworks that are too voluminous and too high, which becomes particularly obvious with the later transformations of the main frame, i.e. approaching the ends of the hull.

 

Fashion frame

 

According to the advice or insights of authors of the period, such as João Baptista Lavanha or Manoel Fernandes, the contour of the fashion frame of the San Juan was indeed created using an inverted futtock template obtained from the previously defined shape of the master frame. It has to be said that, on the one hand, the position and size of the fashion frame was defined somewhat arbitrarily or independently, yet, in order to obtain the fairest possible, deformation-free hull shapes in this region, an effort was made to synchronise this contour sufficiently well with all the other frames obtained in the ‘regular’ way (by means of a harmonious, controlled transformation of the master frame).

 

Apart from the (inverted) futtock template itself, the defining points of the fashion frame shape are the two points, marked in the diagram as B and C. Point B is defined by the height of tuck, itself located halfway up the load waterline. Point C lies on the waterline and its distance from the sternpost is equal to half the length of the floor (see diagram). The futtock template passes through these two points so that the junction of the radii of the two sweeps of this template coincides with point C.

 

In fact, all other dimensions of the fashion frame, such as its greatest breadth or the length of the wing transom, located somewhat above, are already only consequential.

 

It may also be added that an attempt to raise the tuck height, although clearly advantageous for hydrodynamic reasons, would at the same time be very difficult with this method of design and construction (one fixed-length template for ‘all’ frames!), and at the same time with these proportions, without generating even more onerous inconveniences, such as insufficient underwater hull volume in this area, too high upperworks, or too high the greatest breadth of the hull aft, unfavourable for the proper carrying of sails.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

A very good test of the validity of the readings and findings of the design method employed, and presented so far, including both the specific proportions and the absolute dimensions applied in the design of San Juan, is to compare the values of the two largest breadths of flat stern panel: the first measured in the actual wreck and the second obtained in the manner shown above.

 

The point is that, firstly, this particular dimension could have been precisely measured on a very well-preserved, undeformed fragment of the shipwreck's stern, so the measurement effected under these conditions is the most authoritative for comparisons, and secondly, it is at the same time a resultant dimension, in one way or another dependent on virtually all other proportions, linear dimensions or radius values found and shown so far. To put it differently, any change in even one of these design parameters, whether relative or absolute, would inevitably have an impact on the breadth of the stern panel ultimately resulting from the reconstruction carried out.

 

This verification falls favourably: the monograph gives a measured value of 394 cm for this dimension, while the reconstruction of the ship’s design presented above results in a value of 394.8 cm (for the cubit length of 0.5746 m given in the monograph). Or, four millimetres per side, which is virtually nothing for such relatively large sizes, and well within both the manufacturing and archaeological/measuring tolerances. This is also shown in the diagram below (including drawing and photo from the monograph).

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

 

Line of the floor (refers to diagram above)

 

This is the most important design line determining the character and properties of the vessel. In a manner very characteristic of the Mediterranean method, it consists of four geometrical segments, that is, two central and two end segments, including the three conceptual frames separating these segments (see diagram). This particular configuration is a relic and is closely related to the non-graphic moulding of the shape of the frames (that is, without drawing them on paper beforehand), immediately traced to actual scale on the mould loft.

 

The run of the central segments of this line, or more precisely the co-ordinates for the central frames, i.e. between the quarter frames, were the result of the use of the geometrical devices also shown in the diagram. For the shaping of the remaining frames, at both ends of the hull, the use on the mould loft of these geometrical devices (normally any of the numerous variants and sub-variants of the mezzaluna) was no longer possible, because these end segments were no longer tangent to the horizontal keel line, as is the case for the two central segments.

 

This particular inconvenience eventually led to the introduction of more and more complete plans drawn on paper, incorporating more and more design elements, such as the longitudinal design lines in their entirety, as well as 'all' frame contours. Nevertheless, until then, the role of the end segments of the longitudinal design lines, which were the guides for the erected frame timbers, was fulfilled by wooden battens or ribbands, yet this was only at the stage of the actual construction of the vessel. These physical ribbands had to be tangent to the elliptical lines thus extended from the central segments (of the mezzaluna type), and in addition, by natural bending, they were given the shape of circular arcs or curves very close to them. As a result, they can also be approximated quite well in this way on the reconstruction plan.

 

Apart from the above, the division of the longitudinal design lines into a larger number of geometrically simple segments (in this case four), gave more freedom or flexibility in shaping the run of the entire design line, actually even necessary for the correct implementation of the design intent.

 

* * *

 

In a rather surprising way, almost the entire length of the two central segments is below the top edge of the keel. This was arranged so that a longitudinal concavity with a profile corresponding to these segments, about two inches deep, was cut into the upper surface of the keel along this length. This procedure meant that for the central frames fitted into this concavity it was not necessary to add hollowing/bottom curves, as was already necessary for all the other frames, i.e. with the individual deadrise more or less distant from the keel.

 

* * *

 

The width of the line of the floor (at the master frame) is very large. It amounts to as much as 2/3 of the width of the base design deck (boca), well beyond the range categorically recommended, for example, by Fernando Oliveira (ca. 1570–1580), that is, of 1/3 to 1/2 (alternatively, the width of the line of the floor in the San Juan can also be equal to 3/5 of the maximum breadth of the hull, which gives practically the same value as 2/3 of the width of the boca). In doing so, Oliveira specifies that different values in this range are appropriate for different types of ship. On the other hand, the author of the so-called Salisbury Manuscript (ca. 1620–1625) is content merely to state that the optimum width of the line of the floor is half the breadth of the hull, without further explanation.

 

It is this large width of the line of the floor that makes the San Juan have such an unusually sharp entry and run, especially in the lowest parts of the hull. Reducing this width would result in increasingly full hull ends (with the same shape of the transformed base master frame).