Archaeologists find a supersized medieval shipwreck in Denmark

The sunken ship reveals that the medieval European economy was growing fast.

See full article...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Interesting stuff. My fuzzy knowledge of olden times didn't include shipping 200-300 tons of cargo on wind-powered supertankers until now.

 

[Chinsukolo]

Cool read, ty

 

[Albino_Boo]

One of the big uses of cogs was the Bordeuax wine trade. Wine was carried in large barrels called tuns. Ships capacity was measured in the number of barrels they could carry. The tun was 252 gallons and weighted approximately 1 ton. This is the origin of the ton as unit of mass.

The castles were so named because they were used as fighting platforms. There was no crime of piracy and the law stopped when out of sight of land. Great Yarmouth and the English Cinque Ports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinque_Ports had a long running war about controlling the Herring trade. They would regularly attack each other's ships.

 

[Dave9911]

One of the big uses of cogs was the Bordeuax wine trade. Wine was carried in large barrels called tuns. Ships capacity was measured in the number of barrels they could carry. The tun was 252 gallons and weighted approximately 1 ton. This is the origin of the ton as unit of mass.

The castles were so named because they were used as fighting platforms. There was no crime of piracy and the law stopped when out of sight of land. Great Yarmouth and the English Cinque Ports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinque_Ports had a long running war about controlling the Herring trade. They would regularly attack each other's ships.

Most interesting, I hadn't known the root of the word Ton.

thanks

 

[BadSuperblock]

Cogs were built to carry bulk goods—things like bricks, grain and other staple foods, fabric, salt, and timber.

And Spam. Probably lots of Spam.

 

[Randomizer]

This... Seems like a bit of a stretch to conclude based ONLY on the ship.

I know there are a LOT of assumptions in archeology, since most archeological finds are examples of the many. But JUST this example only means the one was certainly built. That ANY others like it were built are assumptions. So the possibility exists that this was a one-off and that the experiment failed.

Not being an archeologist, I don't have access to those records. But history is rife with one-off examples of things that weren't done again. That it took this long to find this thing could suggest that there weren't many of them made, and that leads to a potential conclusion that maybe, this was the only one, and efforts to make ships bigger in the face of this one's loss ended because they were more expensive and labor intensive.

After all, if you can produce two that carry 200 tons each, for roughly the same cost in time and effort to make one that carries only 300 tons, you're not really improving your bottom line. And you're limiting your runs to full loads, which might not move as fast as the smaller ships. Add to that the potential issues for fitting this behemoth into a port to load and unload, and you're limiting the destinations in which it can operate.

So, I don't think that confidence in the returns for, or their ability to build, these huge ships was that big. Unless the archeological record has more corroborating evidence of them, I'd not be jumping to that conclusion.

Where is the stretch? The fact that even one was built shows that the investment was made at least once, and the fact that they were trying to make changes or stretching boundaries implies that they were hitting some sort of constraints with existing ship sizes. This happened at least once regardless of the fact that this was one such ship or if dozens were built but didn't survive. People this successful and capable of pulling off projects on this scale aren't morons, for the most part.

This ship could have sunk for any number or reasons. Storm, or the load shifted, or it's size outgrew the construction methodology and it broke up or leaked too much and sank, or it could have been scuttled, or carried to to sea by a storm, etc.

 

[Qyygle]

This... Seems like a bit of a stretch to conclude based ONLY on the ship.

I know there are a LOT of assumptions in archeology, since most archeological finds are examples of the many. But JUST this example only means the one was certainly built. That ANY others like it were built are assumptions. So the possibility exists that this was a one-off and that the experiment failed.

Not being an archeologist, I don't have access to those records. But history is rife with one-off examples of things that weren't done again. That it took this long to find this thing could suggest that there weren't many of them made, and that leads to a potential conclusion that maybe, this was the only one, and efforts to make ships bigger in the face of this one's loss ended because they were more expensive and labor intensive.

After all, if you can produce two that carry 200 tons each, for roughly the same cost in time and effort to make one that carries only 300 tons, you're not really improving your bottom line. And you're limiting your runs to full loads, which might not move as fast as the smaller ships. Add to that the potential issues for fitting this behemoth into a port to load and unload, and you're limiting the destinations in which it can operate.

So, I don't think that confidence in the returns for, or their ability to build, these huge ships was that big. Unless the archeological record has more corroborating evidence of them, I'd not be jumping to that conclusion.

I think you're misreading the article there. I don't think that quote is directly about This cog, but rather the entire Class of vessel design, 'the cog', most of which weren't as large as this one found. The statement seems more that, being able to build cogs for trade and travel proved medieval Europe's merchant class was begining to grow in wealth and power.

 

[Albino_Boo]

This... Seems like a bit of a stretch to conclude based ONLY on the ship.

I know there are a LOT of assumptions in archeology, since most archeological finds are examples of the many. But JUST this example only means the one was certainly built. That ANY others like it were built are assumptions. So the possibility exists that this was a one-off and that the experiment failed.

Not being an archeologist, I don't have access to those records. But history is rife with one-off examples of things that weren't done again. That it took this long to find this thing could suggest that there weren't many of them made, and that leads to a potential conclusion that maybe, this was the only one, and efforts to make ships bigger in the face of this one's loss ended because they were more expensive and labor intensive.

After all, if you can produce two that carry 200 tons each, for roughly the same cost in time and effort to make one that carries only 300 tons, you're not really improving your bottom line. And you're limiting your runs to full loads, which might not move as fast as the smaller ships. Add to that the potential issues for fitting this behemoth into a port to load and unload, and you're limiting the destinations in which it can operate.

So, I don't think that confidence in the returns for, or their ability to build, these huge ships was that big. Unless the archeological record has more corroborating evidence of them, I'd not be jumping to that conclusion.

Its not assumption based on one ship. There are extensive tax records still extant and the records of Edward III taking up cogs from trade to fight the battle of Sluys in 1340. The English fleet consisted of somewhere between 120-150 cogs. The English invasion forces in the 100 years wars were all carried on cogs. Henry V landed about 30 miles further along the coast from the D Day beaches.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

But the cargo is also conspicuously absent. Cogs were built to carry bulk goods—things like bricks, grain and other staple foods, fabric, salt, and timber. Those goods would have been stowed in an open hold amidships, secured by ropes and chains (some of which remain on the wreck). But barrels, boards, and bolts of fabric all float. As the ship sank and water washed into the hold, it would have carried away the cargo.


Some of it may have washed up on the shores or even more distant beaches, becoming a windfall for local residents. The rest probably sank to the bottom of the sea, far from the ship and its destination.

12 meters depth is easily accessible to a competent swimmer. You can guarantee that if a ship or boat with an open hold went down in 12 meters of water while carrying valuable cargo, someone would be out there as soon as conditions permitted diving on the wreck to cut loose things that would float and tie ropes around things that don't so they could be pulled to the surface.

 

[GKH]

For additional context, the cog in the article photo is the Ubena von Bremen and is about 23m (75ft) long as compared to the 28m (90ft) of this one.

Ship sizes from lengths can be hard to grasp (is that really that much bigger?), so for reference, this is a 75ft yacht vs an 86ft model from the same manufacturer of similar basic design. The article calling this cog an absolute unit is not an exaggeration.

 

[Fred Duck]

Note the sterncastle.

Duly noted.

What's a sterncastle?

Edit: Ohhhhhh. In the article, it's referred to as a "stern castle" so the final frontier was missed is all.

I have made a helpful diagram with all the nautical terms I learnt today.

Stern is also a humourous term for your bum.

I suppose that means Howard's End is a Stern Castle.

 

[Veritas super omens]

I think you're misreading the article there. I don't think that quote is directly about This cog, but rather the entire Class of vessel design, 'the cog', most of which weren't as large as this one found. The statement seems more that, being able to build cogs for trade and travel proved medieval Europe's merchant class was begining to grow in wealth and power.

Yes...it's just one, rather large, cog in the wheel of medieval commerce.

 

[Veritas super omens]

So meta etymology...why was a 252 gallon barrel called a tun?

 

[Veritas super omens]

So...this being ars, I must comment on this delightful sentence: "But Svaelget 2, an absolute unit of a ship."

What is the metric conversion of the "unit" unit?

 

[KCP6030]

"Øresund, the straight"
I think you mean 'strait'.

 

[Veritas super omens]

"Øresund, the straight"
I think you mean 'strait'.

Damn straight.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Duly noted.

What's a sterncastle?

Edit: Ohhhhhh. In the article, it's referred to as a "stern castle" so the final frontier was missed is all.

I have made a helpful diagram with all the nautical terms I learnt today.
View attachment 126308

Stern is also a humourous term for your bum.

I suppose that means Howard's End is a Stern Castle.

Fun fact: the uppermost weather deck (aka, there's no deck or covering above it) on the stern castle is called the "poop deck". However, contrary to what common sense might tell you, that's not where sailors went to take their ease, they did that in the "head", which naturally were at the front of the ship in enclosed seats that hung over the rail, such that anyone aft could watch as the results of your effort floated past and pass judgement. In high seas, when a wave washes over the poop deck and swamps the ship, it's called "getting pooped".

 

[llanitedave]

Damn straight.

Said George Strait.

 

[ZenBeam]

Fun fact: the uppermost weather deck (aka, there's no deck or covering above it) on the stern castle is called the "poop deck". However, contrary to what common sense might tell you, that's not where sailors went to take their ease, they did that in the "head", which naturally were at the front of the ship in enclosed seats that hung over the rail, such that anyone aft could watch as the results of your effort floated past and pass judgement. In high seas, when a wave washes over the poop deck and swamps the ship, it's called "getting pooped".

Was there some reason they built ships to have people poop overboard near the front, instead of toward the rear? Did they like watching poop float by?

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

Was there some reason they built ships to have people poop overboard near the front, instead of toward the rear? Did they like watching poop float by?

I know absolutely nothing about boats.
My guess is that they didn't want the bridge to also be the toilet.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Was there some reason they built ships to have people poop overboard near the front, instead of toward the rear? Did they like watching poop float by?

There's likely multiple reasons, but the main one is that the enlisted crew was not permitted aft of the mizzenmast, and if they were on duty above deck they weren't supposed to be below, so the seat of ease for enlisted crew was put forward at the bow where the overhang was greatest and wave action over the bow would mostly wash the streaks away. Officers would have had their own head below deck aft. Crew below decks would have used a chamber pot, as the fellow below is shown emptying into the head.

 

[void&]

Was there some reason they built ships to have people poop overboard near the front, instead of toward the rear? Did they like watching poop float by?

A square rigger is more likely to be have the wind blowing over the stern of the ship towards the bow. So the freshest air is at the stern.

Note: To those who might feel compelled to point out that even ancient square riggers could sail into the wind, spare me the jibes. I don't need your tacky comments..

 

[Northbynorth]

I am surprised that the the Hanseatic League was not mentioned in the article. It was an economic superpower in Northern Europe at the time, and the cog was one of their main stay vessels. It was not a country, as such but a strong network of independent trade towns and guilds. They dominated the area for a couple of hundred years. Their main network stretched from London to Novgorod, with the centre around the southern Baltic.

I would be surprised if it was not one of their ships. As for the huge size, maybe to be better able to defend against pirates and ships from the main rivals, the national states in the area. They had a lot of conflicts and fought regular wars against states

 

[Albino_Boo]

So meta etymology...why was a 252 gallon barrel called a tun?

From the latin Tunellus, meaning barrel. They really thought hard about that name.

 

[drinkingcoffee]

As a bit of an aside, I just read the really interesting book "Fabric of Civilization", all shit cloths and textiles. We don't tend to think much about these anymore, since they've become so easy to produce, but for most of history making cloth was a lot of work and (basically the point of the book) a big driver of civilization in general.

This quote is about older viking ships but I think was still somewhat relevant in the 1400s too:

"A Viking Age sail 100 meters square took 154 kilometers (60 miles) of yarn. Working eight hours a day with a heavy spindle whorl to produce relatively coarse yarn, a spinner would toil 385 days to make enough for the sail. Plucking the sheep and preparing the wool for spinning required another 600 days. From start to finish, Viking sails took longer to make than the ships they powered."

 

[UweHalfHand]

Typo, probably. Figure caption says Skaelget, text says Svaelget

 

[FranzJoseph]

As a bit of an aside, I just read the really interesting book "Fabric of Civilization", all shit cloths and textiles. We don't tend to think much about these anymore, since they've become so easy to produce, but for most of history making cloth was a lot of work and (basically the point of the book) a big driver of civilization in general.

This quote is about older viking ships but I think was still somewhat relevant in the 1400s too:

"A Viking Age sail 100 meters square took 154 kilometers (60 miles) of yarn. Working eight hours a day with a heavy spindle whorl to produce relatively coarse yarn, a spinner would toil 385 days to make enough for the sail. Plucking the sheep and preparing the wool for spinning required another 600 days. From start to finish, Viking sails took longer to make than the ships they powered."

You might be interested in ACOUP – the historian behind it has a whole blogpost series on economies of making clothing in the ancient world.

And yes, even just making clothing for one family was a big part of that family's labour, to the point that that any women and girls were working a spindle almost 24/7. It's only after more modern tools like the spinning wheel (and latter industrial revolution's looms) that clothing became more affordable (that, and slavery of course – Manchester being the cotton slavery capital of the world).

The whole ACOUP is a veritable treasure trove on anything ancient – from the logistics of armies, economy of food production to movies' battles critique. And yes, LotR movie battles are indeed one of the worst in terms of realism (only "surpassed" by the TV series in how dumb it was), even if the actual books were pretty heavy on the logistics and march distances, JRRT being a soldier in WWI.

 

[Oldmanalex]

Read the article, add several new facts to my list of facts that I do not need to know, but somehow have an insatiable hunger for. Read the comments, learn three times as much. This is why I am addicted to Ars. Where else would I learn how long it takes to make a Viking sail, or why the ship's latrines were at the bow? Why do I need to know these things? Because.........

 

[Sonix]

I would be surprised if it was not one of their ships. As for the huge size, maybe to be better able to defend against pirates and ships from the main rivals, the national states in the area. They had a lot of conflicts and fought regular wars against states

The time the ship was built falls roughly into the timeframe where the Hanseatic league was at its apex, having recently gained control over all trade in the Øresund in the first Danish-Hanseatic War. It would therefore make sense that this time would produce some very massive merchant ships.

 

[Neutronbeam]

Everyone seems to be avoiding the entirely logical and facile assumption that the reason why the boat didn't have a lot of cargo is because it only needed to carry minor supplies, since it was a day/evening PARTY BOAT. Just some wine, roasted meat and fun people with the motto "Don't act Middle Aged, party like it's the Renaissance!"

EDIT: added "of" and took out extra "t"

 

[Veritas super omens]

From the latin Tunellus, meaning barrel. They really thought hard about that name.

A so barrel vault and tunnel also derive there. Thanks.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Read the article, add several new facts to my list of facts that I do not need to know, but somehow have an insatiable hunger for. Read the comments, learn three times as much. This is why I am addicted to Ars. Where else would I learn how long it takes to make a Viking sail, or why the ship's latrines were at the bow? Why do I need to know these things? Because.........

All facts are useless...until they aren't...

 

[Albino_Boo]

Everyone seems to be avoiding the entirely logical and facile assumption that the reason why the boat didn't have a lot of cargo is because it only needed to carry minor supplies, since it was a day/evening PARTY BOAT. Just some wine, roasted meat and fun people with the motto "Don't act Middle Aged, party like it's the Renaissance!"

EDIT: added "of" and took out extra "t"

After the White ship disaster in 1190 party boats were a no no. The White ship was travelling from Normandy to England carrying the heir to the English throne. The crew and passengers were blind drunk. The ship sank killing 140 nobles , including the only legitimate male heir. This led to a 30 year civil war.

 

[lunix]

Fun fact: the uppermost weather deck (aka, there's no deck or covering above it) on the stern castle is called the "poop deck". However, contrary to what common sense might tell you, that's not where sailors went to take their ease, they did that in the "head", which naturally were at the front of the ship in enclosed seats that hung over the rail, such that anyone aft could watch as the results of your effort floated past and pass judgement. In high seas, when a wave washes over the poop deck and swamps the ship, it's called "getting pooped".

That arrangement just makes good sense as on sailing ships, the wind hardly ever comes straight from the front.

It's probably not accurate to imagine that the spray may have served as an early Japanese style cleaning system? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[8x10 glosssy]

Damn straight.

George strait.

 

[Oldmanalex]

After the White ship disaster in 1190 party boats were a no no. The White ship was travelling from Normandy to England carrying the heir to the English throne. The crew and passengers were blind drunk. The ship sank killing 140 nobles , including the only legitimate male heir. This led to a 30 year civil war.

Makes me wonder if Caligula's giant party boats were really scuttled, or maybe there was one orgy too many, and the crew got overly involved in the more fun duties. Anyway, a party boat went down on the Thames a few years ago with several killed, so we can be reassured that if there was a lesson to be learned from these various disasters, it has remained securely unlearned.

 

[Greatorex]

As a bit of an aside, I just read the really interesting book "Fabric of Civilization",

Was this following Hank Green's interview with the same author as well?


EDIT:
Oh yes, and am I reading the article right when I imagine the ship with its starboard side buried in sand? Is there wreckage at this point a hemi-section of ship?

 

[panckage]

Was there some reason they built ships to have people poop overboard near the front, instead of toward the rear? Did they like watching poop float by?

Not saying it was used for this, but a potential application would be an early speedometer. If you know the length of the ship and measure the time it takes the poop to float by the length of the ship, then you can determine speed of the ship relative to the surface of the water.

So maybe it's called the poop deck because the people on the rear deck had a unusually keen interest in watching poop float by...