- Email: [email protected]
The Mukran Wreck, sunk off the Isle of Rügen, Germany in 1565: A preliminary report
The InternationalJournal of Nautical Archaeology (1998) 27.2: I 13-125 Article No. na980145
The Mukran wreck, sunk off the Isle of Riigen, Germany in 1565: a preliminary report
®
Maik-Jens Springmann Department of Shiparchaeology, Maritime Museum Rostock, August Bebel StraJ3e 1, 18055 Rostock, Germany
Introduction During a training exercise in 1985, naval divers found a bronze gun near the village of Mukran on the Isle of Rtigen (Fig. 1). According to the initials on the barrel, revealed after cleaning by santt blasting, the cannon was made for the Danish king Christian III in 1551. It is thought to be one of the few bronze breech-loading guns of its kind in the Baltic region. When the gun came into the possession of the Rostock Maritime Museum in 1987, a survey of places where wooden remains had been found was organized. Unfortunately, the location of the cannon site was not recorded exactly, and the advice to make a
Sea
Figure 1. Map of the Isle of Rfigen 1057-2414/98/020113+ 13 $30.00/0
comprehensive survey of the area was not followed. In 1987 the author was asked by the former director of the museum to research the historical background to the loss of the cannon, on the supposition that a ship had sunk in the area, but the political changes in East Germany impeded progress in this research. In 1990 a search by the ship R/V D E N E B from the Bundesamt ffir Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographic was unsuccessful. In January 1994, after discussions with the Landesamt ffir Bodendenkmalpflege MecklenburgVorpommern, another attempt was made with the cooperation of the University of Rostock, Institut ffir Meerestechnik und Schiffbau. With specially designed underwater equipment a comprehensive search of the sea off Mukran was made, the expedition being led by the author. On 13 January 1994, an hour before the expedition was due to end and after a fourday search of an area of about one square nautical mile, the hull of a wreck was located at a depth of 2"5 m. For the general survey and measuring of the wreck the methods Carl Olof Cederlund developed for the scientific documenting of carvel-built ships in the Baltic were followed (Cederlund, 1983). In 1992, the author was advised by Swedish colleagues of the loss of the Swedish ship Finnska Falken. She seems to have sunk off the coast of Warnemiinde on © 1998 The Nautical Archaeology Society
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
to a side scan sonar. The second system was a Searching Eye controlled from an inflatable dinghy. It consists of an SVHS video camera (Sony/Osprey) mounted in a plastic ball connected by means of a cable to a recorder and control system on board the inflatable. The equipment, fitted with a sounding lead and weighted fin, was pulled through the water at a constant height above the seabed at a speed of about 2 knots. It works most effectively at a height of 3 m above the seabed, but of course the quality of the pictures depends upon visibility under water. The sector scanning equipment, with a compact colour imaging sonar system (Simrad MS 900), was very kindly lent to us by Scholz engineers (in Fockbeck near Kiel). As an alternative to visual recordings, the equipment using acoustic signals was thought to be more effective due to the chalk particles in the water making visiMethods used for searching and locating the wreck bility difficult in this area. This equipment Previous expeditions had proved unsuc- is of particular interest when searching for cessful, mainly because they were nothing wrecks, as it has a range of 5-250 m with more than sporadic diver searches in the sonar head at a maximum angle of 45 ° inaccurately measured areas. A special to the seabed. Thereby at up to 100 m even method was developed from previous badly damaged remains show up as red or experience of locating other wrecks based purple shapes on the monitor. In the preon the use of technology developed paratory research coupled with a DGPS to especially for underwater searches. After define the position of the objects on the deciding on a realistic work plan for four screen, it proved no problem. The sector days, searching a limited area, the mem- scanning alone, with the towed sledge bers of the expedition were instructed that along the seabed, gave little indication as the main goal was to search that area to the nature of the objects shown on the sufficiently to be able to say that there were screen. Thousands of reflections turned out no remains to be found there. The support to be large stones, with which the prospecship, normally used for laying buoys and tive area seemed to be covered. Therefore, patrolling the inshore waters off Stralsund, progress could only be made with the had a relatively shallow draught of 2-2 m. Searching Eye. For orientation purposes Electro acoustics and video techniques special buoys fitted with radar reflectors, of were used together in the search. t h e kind used for marking fishing nets, The first system was a towed sledge were positioned using DGPS. It limited the with an installed sector scanning sonar, search area per turn to one cable by one developed by the Institut fiir Schiffbau cable, whereby the centre was monitored in und Meerestechnik of the University of addition. A radar system linked to the Rostock especially for searching for navigation system of the support ship, objects underwater. This system is similar controlled the determination of the search
11 July 1564. The attempted correlation of information, especially about the marine finds of carvel-built ships of the 16th century in the Baltic Sea, soon showed that knowledge in this field is imperfect. To date, only six wrecks found in the Baltic and from this period have been examined and some of those were clinker built. A number of methodological approaches were possible and, although the emphasis of the archaeological analysis was on carvel-built ships, clinker-built ships were also studied in order to make a. comparison with the data from the Mukran Wreck investigation. At present, discussion on the transition between these two techniques is widespread in international research. The present status of research regarding the shipwreck site near Mukran is described below.
114
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
+
+
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
U +
Figure 2. Sketch of the hull remains (Drawing: M.-J. Springmann)
area, and the positioning of the special buoys on the support ship monitor. The inflatable dinghy then meanderingly covered the area, changing course about 20 times. As the camera had a visibility range of about 3 m, this meant that the seabed could be checked in its entirety. Using this procedure five areas were covered, in effect a total area of about one square km. A weighted buoy-line 80 m east of the prospected area is evidence of the failure to pinpoint the wreck during previous years. On the last day the wreck was discovered in the fifth search area.
Topographical situation The wreck belongs to the category of stranded wrecks tq. The intact part of the hull is situated about 180 m from the shore in an area considerably influenced by wave movement. Through currents, wave movement and icing many artefacts have probably settled in the first part of the sediment. The shipwreck lay with its broadside to the shore confirming that the ship had stranded. The forward, northerly part of the ship was covered with more stones than the southern part. These stones are partly
covered by mussels. According to a biologist this refutes the opinion that the wreck was covered by a sandbank prior to 1993. The southern part of the wreck is surrounded by coarse gravel, mixed with clay in places. A chalk reef ends about 30 m on the shore side of the wreck and causes bad visibility during unfavourable weather with strong undercurrents. The undercurrents are probably a result of the close proximity to the harbour wall of the ferry terminal at Mukran. Some of the stones covering the wreck have a diameter of up to l m and whether these can be considered ballast remains to be seen during a more exact examination of the wreck-site. Fortunately, the hull is exposed, especially the stern which points towards the harbour wall and is partly underwashed. The ship does not noticeably list.
Archaeological context 121 The ship's bottom is the only part that is homogenous (Fig. 2). Due to its close proximity to the shore, the parts above the frame floor have been destroyed. The wreck, with a length of about 20 m, is lying on a flat keel with the bow facing north and consists of about 13 starboard floor 115
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
timbers and 17 on the port with a ceiling probably fixed only by treenails. This ceiling is only partly apparent on the starboard side and consists of a minimum of five approximately 25-40 cm wide and 3 cm thick planks assumed to be oak. The rest, which can be seen on the drawing, is the outer planking. In the north after a storm the bow section was discovered. In this context many cannon balls lay between the bow and the first floor timber. The first strake of ceiling planking is not directly against the keel: the clearance is about 30 cm. This gap is called a bilge or air course which otherwise is repeated at the water-line to create an air passage between the outer and inner planking. The gap allows for the pumping out of bilge water by pumps (Keith, 1989: 91). The length of the keel cannot be determined at present. Some traces of rust indicate the use of iron nails. The keelson consists of two parts and its length has been established a s i0 m. Between bow and madcap it loses contact with the ceiling. A maststep with a length of 50 cm was worked into it and 2 m further astern is a 20 cmlong groove. The wood is mostly oak which turns black when there is a lack of oxygen. Parts of the keelson seem to be made of another kind of wood. The floors in the bow section have lost contact with the keelson as they had no support from the stem (Fig. 3). Part of a bilge-stringer on the port completes the shipbuilding details of the wooden remains of the bottom. A piece of wood which has settled in the first horizon on the starboard side and which is partly hidden by the planking could possibly be a knee for a deck (Fig. 4). On the starboard abeam the rabbet at the end of the floor frames are bronze metal accumulations, among others an artefact assumed to be the trunnion of a small cannon. Further astern, there was probably a melted-down silver or pewter bowl which in the summer of 1994 could. no longer be found (Fig. 5). In the bow 116
Figure 3. The keelson has left the frame. The stems are missing (Photo: Axel Kordian)
Figure 4. Probably a deck knee, it is partly under the hull (Photo: Axel Kordian)
area there are many cannon balls especially six and one pounders. About 6 m in almost direct continuation of the keel in the direction of the bow is a cannon covered in a thick coat of ferrous oxide, probably an iron breech-loading gun about 120 cm in length. Whilst removing a buoy abeam the bow on the starboard side, part of an anchor was found which probably belongs to the wreck.
Evidence of ship construction Compared with the Elefanten, t31 built as a warship in Stockholm between 1555-1559, the Mukran wreck was much more beamy. The rising of the floor frames indicates little difference between bow and stern
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
°
-;.'':
{• t
Figure 5. The molten metal found in January could not be found in the summer of 1994 (Photo: Axel Kordian)
->
!,j,,-•
t-_
Figure 6. Dead rise as seen here at the bow of the ship is otherwise barely discernible (Photo: Axel Kordian)
(Fig. 6). The carvel-ship Elefanten was more streamlined, and its sides were given extra protection by wales worked in at obtuse angles, which repeat themselves every two plank breadths. They are reminiscent of the Spanish construction style of the Catalan nao (Ekman, 1945-46: 213). This leads to the assumption that the Mukran wreck was a trading ship that had been converted to a warship. Despite the degree of destruction a convex deadrise is apparent, as it is w h e r e the planking rises along the stem and the futtocks wo;uld have been fixed. Based on Hanseatic specifications, the futtocks can be assumed to be the same length as the floor timbers,
minus the extra length taken up by the curvature (Winter, 1970: 34). This suggests that the maximum beam of the ship was about 8 m. At present no futtocks have been found; these would provide more information about the beam. The Mary Rose, for example, is l l ' 4 m in beam and the Maasilinn wreck is 5"5 m. This is consistent with the dimensions of the Mukran wreck. As Niels Probst wrote, in Nordic, especially Danish, shipbuilding traditions, a flat bottom using the natural growth of the wood is characteristic. The best example of this is the hull of the Gideon near Helsingsg6r, Denmark (Probst, 1991: 143-152). It can be assumed from the shapes of the floor timbers that one third of the stern is missing. By its form, as in the case of the Kraveln (working name) (Adams & R6nnby, 1995: 20-21) it could well be a carrack. Carrack-building dimensions and length and beam ratios of 2.5:1 give a length of about 30 m (Friel, 1994). A round-stern base with a square stern over a transom beam should probably be assumed. A good comparison can be made with the remaining counter as a squarestern construction on the Kraveln (Adams & R6nnby, 1995: 20-21). The rabbet further astern, mentioned above, could have been for the foot of a windlass. A capstan with foot was also found aboard the Kraveln. It was in a good condition and even showed signs of use. The foot of the mast has no abutment at right angles to the ceiling and the keel is not wider at the point of the socket. The length of the mast-step is a result of the necessity of improving the ship's stability after the mast had been erected, by moving the mast forward or back depending on the degree of yawing. A specially-shaped wedge placed in the socket secured the foot of the mast in place. By pinpointing the former position of the socket it was possible to determine the position of the base of the mast when it broke out of its footing. A 117
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
Figure Z Diagram of the two parts of the cannon (Drawing: Henry Just, Kulturhistorisches Museum Rostock) wedge was found in position during survey of the Highborn Cay Wreck (Oertling, 1989: 10). A 30 mm bronze cube with a 25 mm hole which had been subjected to heat treatment was also found. This artefact has been identified as the bearing for a shaft. The type was first found in the Yassi Ada Ottoman wreck and later on the San Esteban, the Villefranche Wreck, the Mary Rose and on the Molasses Reef wreck. In the report on the three latter, bearings of differing diameters were examined. Donald H. Keith assumes that these were in the inside of a block and led the shaft of a block. These blocks were used especially in the higher parts of the rigging (Keith, 1989: 91-92). Armament
Two cannon and a broken piece of a chamber of a cannon (bronze) figured prominently in the preliminary survey of the wreck-site; firstly, the aforementioned breech-loading bronze cannon, and, secondly, an iron breech-loading gun with a ferrous oxide coating. The bronze cannon Assuming that it is a breech-loading cannon, the weapon consists of a powder 118
chamber 40 cm in length and a 68 cm long tube section at the front of the cannon (Fig. 7). The aforementioned chamber piece destroyed by an explosion, a fragment with a vent hole which would seem to be the upper side of the powder chamber, completes the list of findings and leads to the belief that the ship (or ships) had several bronze cannon on board. The broken chamber piece is about 35 cm in length. A transport function for the ship can be ruled out because the broken tube of the cannon was loaded and ready to fire. It is only partly preserved and it would seem that the front of the tube is missing, on the assumption that the powder chamber belongs to the tube. The mouth of the tube resembles a muzzle, so identification is difficult. The powder chamber tapers off at the connection with the tube mouth and protrudes as a connection for 3 cm. As the diameter of the tube is 5cm it can be classified as a one pounder (Gohlke, 1850). The cast decoration of the coat of arms of the Danish royal family with the three lions and nine hearts indicates that the cannon belonged to the royal Danish arsenal in Copenhagen. Below this is the inscription: 'CHRISTIAN VON GOTES G E N A D K O N I C H CH THO
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE M U K R A N W R E C K
DENEMARCKEN NORDWEGEN UND DER GOTEN A N N O DOMINI 1551, proving without doubt that its origins are Danish. The acanthus leaves which decorate the mouth of the chamber are in the style of the Renaissance and are often found on bronze weapons of this period (Miiller, 1968: 116). Those from the foundry of the family Hilger in Freiburg were often used. An important characteristic is the octagonal form of the front part. It is very noticeable that the tube is distorted and that the trunnions as well as the handles on the mouth of the powder chamber are missing. Research in the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen, the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin, in the Marinmuseet in Karlskrona, the Arm6museet in"Stockholm and the Forsvarsmuseet in Oslo and extensive correspondence with Robert D. Smith, chief conservator in the Royal Armouries in the Tower of London and an expert in the field of cannon of that period, and with Alex Hildred, the head of the cannon collection at the Mary Rose Trust in Portsmouth, has revealed that there are virtually no comparable bronze breech-loading guns anywhere in the world, mostly just barely identifiable fragments. Toni L. Carrell, Donald H. Keith (Ships of Discovery, Corpus Christi Museum, Texas) and Joe J. Simmons III, all of whom have made comprehensive studies of ships of the 16th century, were not able to identify the origin of the cannon. Therefore, it can be assumed that, if the two parts did indeed fit together to form one cannon, it would be unique evidence for a short period in the 16th century when bronze breech-loading cannon were used as ships armament. By itself the bronze powder chamber is remarkable. Research into the development of the rare bronze armaments of that time, as far as the author is aware, is only possible at the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen, which t
has the front part of a bombarde and a three-pound bronze back loader from the year 1745 (no. 86) and at the Historisches Museum in Berne which has a chamber of a bombarde. M. Mortensen from the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen strictly separates the powder chamber from the front part and classifies the octagonal tube as a so-called muzzle loader. For him the mouth of the tube is without doubt the muzzle and he accepts the anomaly that the coat of arms and the inscription would therefore be upside down. The latter would then be readable from the front of the muzzle. Even though no bronze items from this period survive today in Denmark, the historical research into this field and particularly into the royal foundry in Copenhagen would substantiate this belief. These muzzle loaders, in their characteristically Danish octagonal form with a calibre of up to 6 pounds, were often used for arming ships until the middle of the 16th century [41. After further research, Reidar Olsen, of the Forvarsmuseet in Oslo, agreed with Mortensen that the piece was probably made by the Danish royal gunsmith, Lauritz Madsen (appointed 1540), the foundry smith at that time. Certain similarities can be seen when comparing the elements of style with surviving drawings made by Madsen tsl. This exemplifies the rapid development of weaponry in the 16th Century. In an article due to appear at the end of 1998, Gerhard Quass reports the sales of weapons from the arsenal of Ulrich von Mecklenburg to Denmark in 1571 whereby these were probably only muzzle loaders. Therefore the possibility that the cannon was possibly imported into Denmark cannot be excluded. A good comparison is found in the descriptions of cannon number 79-81 by Otto Blom. It is not difficult to find parallels with the finds described; the 3/4 pounder with the number 81 was also made by Madsen in 119
NAUTICALARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
1551 as a breech-loading cannon (Blom, 1946: 38). Robert Smith, Gerhard Quass, Reidar Olsen and Arne Blix (Armemuseet Stockholm), all agree that despite any uncertainties the two parts belong together and are part of a breech-loading cannon. Quass, in consultation with Heinrich Mfiller, explained the meaning of the powder chamber being wedged into the presumed breech of the tube. This after comprehensive checks fitted into the profile without any great discrepancies and, therefore, would be able to bear the pressure at this weak part of the tube. The A on the breech of the tube at the same level as the coat of arms and B on the connection at the height of the vent hole indicates that both parts belong together. The octagonal form of the large lifting handle of the powder chamber supported the author's belief that it must have been a back loader. The lifting handle is situated to the left of the vent-hole so it was probably trained by the left hand and ignited by the right. These smaller cannon, especially swivel-mounted guns, were operated by an arquebusier and a servant. On a mediumsized warship there were between 50 and 60 arquebusiers (Kloth, 1921: 128). In the case of the Mukran wreck it is therefore estimated that there would have been approximately 40. Robert Smith notes that the two sections would have been supported on a wooden bed with either wheels or a swivel-type mounting. These were secured to the bed with straps and the powder chamber was placed behind it and held in position with a traverse wedge. Wedge scars can be seen at the butt end of the powder chamber. This type of cannon was used for firing at the rigging or crew of an enemy ship. This type of swivel has been discovered on other wrecks found in Anholt t61, during work on the Cattewater wreck, and in 1994 during work on the Kraveln at a depth of 3036 m. The extent of the arming of ships can 120
be seen in the Liibecker Protokoll Buch (Liibecker Archiv) which lists the arms aboard four ships dating from 1526 (Brehmer, 1888: 166). The sea battle of 21 May 1565 and the possible identity for the wreck This description of the battle of the 21 May 1565 is provisional as the relevant sources are still being compiled. In general, the reports that were made about the fleet movements in May 1565, and the position of ships do not diverge greatly at least as far as ship's names and the names of those responsible are concerned. Special value must be attached to those sources whose authors display a certain amount of knowledge of the subject and who are able to give their reports a definite context. It was decided to give the ships their original names and to translate them afterwards as reversing this process had caused problems in the past. The Swedish admiral, Claes Christerson Horn (in German sources also known as Claus Christernissen) approached Bornholm on the 20 May 1565 with a fleet of approximately 50 ships (Tegel, 1751: 163) ~7]. This newly formed fleet came from Dalar6. On the south coast of the island were nine ships lsl of the allied Danish and Lfibecker fleet under the command of Peder Hvitfeld (in German sources known as Peter Witfeldt). Identification of these ships appears to have proved difficult as their names vary between successive reports. Having been warned by the captain of Bornholm, Sweder Kettink, the nine ships were able to flee from the superior force in the direction of the Isle of Rfigen pursued by Horn's fleet (Blfimke, 1890: 188; Lfibecker Archiv, LA, A27/12). The wind probably died in the evening when, after covering 55 nautical miles, they reached the Prorer Wiek (shown as Proner Wiek on a Swedish registe r map 1695). For unknown reasons the fleet split up near the village of Klein Jasmund, (Stralsunder
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
Archiv, SA, Rep. Hs II 149). Possibly the wind had subsided even more. Five ships sailed in the direction of the topographical landmark of Nordperd. The remaining four ships anchored off Mukran and put ashore heavy artillery and troops and positioned them along the coast E91. The Swedish fleet was not able to follow so quickly and, probably because of their ignorance of the Tromper Wick area, they had to take a pilot on board (Zober, 1843: 26). In the early morning of 21 May, Horn sighted the divided allied fleet and ordered nine ships under the command of the Swedish vice-admiral Bengt Reff (Lindermann calls him Bendt Reuen) to attack the four ships. Horn himself set off in the direction of M6nchgut after the other five Danish-Lfibecker ships. It is doubtful whether he took all of the remaining 41 ships, as Nicolaus Gentzkow in his diary entry for 22 May only mentions 30 Swedish battleships which fought with the fleeing ships in Greifswalder Bay (Zober, 1869: 359). When Hvitfeld recognised his inescapable situation he ordered his ships to be fired. After the ships were already alight, one of the vessels must have broken away from its moorings and, according to Lindemann, drifted into the Tromper Wick and sank (SA Hs II pp. 149). The situation is further confused by Hornborg's mention of a small Liibecker ship being captured by the Swedes (Hornborg, 1944: 132). It can be assumed that the drifting burning ship was attacked by the Swedes but not captured because of the danger. Therefore only three, and not all four, ships are to be found at Mukran. Also these were not, as Otto Bliimke describes (Blfimke, 1890: 188), deliberately stranded but were anchored while they burned. This could certainly have had a tactical advantage for the defence of the shore. The burning ships at anchor we~-e a danger for the Swedish pursuers and together with the artillery on land stopped
them from anchoring and putting men ashore. That the ships were linked together as Otto Blfimke claims, is illogical (Bliimke, 1890: 188). The search of the named area showed no other anomalies or traces of any other ships. The aim of the archaeological investi-' gation is the eventual identification of the ship and the piecing together of the events of the time as found in the special volumes pertaining to shipbuilding in the Liibeck city archives, in the state archives in Hamburg and the Riksarkivet (Imperial Archives) in Copenhagen. According to dendrochronological examination the wood used in the building of the ship was felled in 1499 and 1535, probably in the lower Elbe region south of Hamburg. This may indicate that the ship was built in Hamburgt ~°l. Even if the Liibecker had been placed under the command of the Danish admiralty, it can be assumed that the crew came from the German countries, despite occasional problems in hiring sailors, and that their captains were often vice-admirals appointed by the Council of Lfibeck (Kloth, 1921: 122). If this is true, it is quite possible that the names of the ships were preserved. Where the same names were being u s e d twice at the same time, attributes were usually used, as for example in the case of the Danish Christopher and the Liibecker Christopher (Kloth, 1923: 362, 364). However this did not avoid misunderstandings, especially when the sources of information were misinterpreted. The carrying of the same name is not surprising given the linguistic similarities of the languages, the familiarity and closeness of the opposing royal families and the fashions to be considered (for example, names of saints and gods). The Falke and Engel (or Engelen) were both to be found in the Danish, Swedish and Lfibecker fleets as a matter of continuing tradition, not to mention the ships bought by Gustav Wasa von Lfibeck in 1522 and 121
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
other royal families. This shows that it has always been difficult to associate a name with a single ship, and that a certain number of mistakes must be attributed to the witnesses of the time and their exaggerated reports. The work of Herbert Kloth in the 1920s could prove useful in this context. He attempted to list the Danish and Ltibecker ships involved in the Nordic Seven Year War and to evaluate critically the sources available. At present it is only possible to make an initial rudimentary list tl~l. Otto Bliimke, referring to the report of George von Platen, gives the names of the four stranded ships as Arche, Jiigermeister, Biir and Nachtigall (Blfimke, 1890: 188). Konrad Fritze and Gtinter Krause also accept these names in their treatise (Fritze & Krause, 1989: 209). However, it is possible that the names of the ships were wrongly translated. This may have earlier been the case in the report of Georg von Platen. The reports of the Council Secretary in Stralsund are a good example of this. A general Germanising of foreign terms is to be found in the 16th century. In his chronicles, Tegel mentions the names of the ships pursued by Horn as being Giafle Bii~rnen (the bear of G~ivle, a town in G/istrikland, Sweden), Lybske Christopher (Lfibecker Christopher), Lybske Hiorten (Lfibecker Stag), Nykib'pings Barcken (Nyk6pings Barque, a town on S6dermanland, Sweden), Danske Hector, Rosen, H6ken and Troilus. The name Jiigermeister is missing from this list. However, it cannot be the ship that sank off Mukran as it was captured by the Swedes off Rtigen on 7 July 1565 and sank during its enforced crossing to Sweden (Munthe, 1899: 73_82)[12J. Although some names are mentioned twice, due to the size of the Jiigermeister, a ship of some 500 tons, with a crew of up to 1100 men, making it one of the largest Danish ships of the Nordic Seven Year 122
War, a doubling up of the name is not likely and therefore was not investigated by the author. Garde in his work Danske Flotten Historie names the ships which sank off Mukran as being the Arcken (Ark) under Peder Hvitfeld, the Nachtergallen or Nattergallen (Nightingale) under Claus Skeel, the Bjornen (Bear) under Lawe Westmand and the Hamborger Jegeren (Hamburg Hunter) under Peder Stigge (Garde, 1891: 69-70). Bjornen is mentioned in appendix A of Tornquist's ship list and in the appendix of B/ickstr6m's book for the year 1566 as having a crew of 83 men and armaments amounting to 20 copper and 18 iron cannon (Bfickstr6m, 1884: 25, 386). Therefore, this cannot be the ship either. The same applies to the NykibphTgs Barken and the Troilus. As in the case of the Bjornen, enough information exists pertaining to crew size and armaments to indicate these were medium-sized ships. It is more probable that the Hamborger Jegeren became the Jiigermeister in German sources, as this name would have been more common for the witnesses of the Nordic Seven Year War. According to research at the Riksarkivet Copenhagen [~31 the Arken was built in 1564 in Danzig probably as a trading ship for citizens of that city, and from May 1564 it served under the Danish flag. This does not seem to be an exception as Denmark ordered several ships, probably warships, in Danzig in June 1565 (APG 300.28/104) Bjornen was mentioned several times in 1562 and surprisingly enough also in March 1570 whereby a mistake in the name cannot be ruled out. The Nattergalen is mentioned several times after July 1566 (Barfod, 1995: 218)[14]. Assuming that the ship may have been built in Hamburg, as suggested by dendrochronological evidence, the following ships come into consideration: Hamborger
Jegeren, Lybske Christopher, Lybske Hiorten, Syrig, Liibischer Trotz and the Das Ffichslein. At present it is difficult to
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
identify the nationality of the ships Rosen, H6ken and Troihts but, from their names, they were probably Danish. In a letter from the Duke of Wolgast to Erich the XIV of Sweden the last three vessels were named as they fled to Greifswald Eldena and docked together with the two Danish ships the Jungfi'au Von Enkhuizen ( Jomfi'uen Af Enckhuysen ) and the Ddnische Falken (VLA Rep. 5 Tit. 11 No. 1. vol 4 and 8) or Falken Af Bergen (Barfod, 1995: 198). That makes a total of 16 ships, although German, Danish and Swedish treaties all only mention nine ships as being set alight off Mukran. The ships sequestered in Greifswald until the end of the war are listed in the Repitorium 5 Title 11 No. 1 in the Greifswalder Arkivl151. Therefore only the Lybske Christopher, Lybske Hiorten and the Hamborger Jegeren remain. The first two at least are mentioned in the order of battle at the beginning of July 1565 [161. In Herbert Kloth's 1921 ships' register of the L/ibecker fleet they are missing because they were accompanying vessels, probably trading ships converted to warships, and had no decisive effect on the outcome of the war [lvl.
The Hamborger Jegeren becomes particular.ly interesting at this point. This ship, as its name implies, was probably built in Hamburg and took part in the Nordic Seven Year War on the side of the Danes (Lind, 1902: 57). The possibility of chartering ships from private individuals or, as in' this case from another Hanseatic city, in order to further military objectives was common practice, and written evidence of it exists for the Nordic Seven Year War (Kloth, 1921 appendix and Kancelliets Brevboger 1551-1570). The arming of Lfibecker ships with Danish cannon is improbable and there does not seem to be any written evidence for it 1j81. It is possible that the Mukran wreck is that of the Hamborger Jegeren. Research in the State archives in Hamburg has not led to any results as yet. It can only be hoped that the relevant archives were not destroyed by the great fire in 1842.
Acknowledgement The compiling of results in this article was only possible with the help of friends and colleagues. My warmest thanks go out to all those involved, especially to Frank Blasejezack and Phil Williams.
Notes [1] Due to the coastal particularities of Mecklenburg-Westpommerania, the author divides the wrecks found into three categories according to their position and method of prospecting; Stranded ships (found near the shore); shelf wrecks found on a seashell; and estuary wrecks found in bays (Springmann, 1997). [2] The preparation of the archaeological work was done with Prof. Ellmers of the Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum Bremerhaven. [3] Stora Kraveln in the interpretation of the sources is often mistaken for the Stora Kraveh7 Elefanten. [4] Letter from M. Mortensen of 22.05.95. [5] Collection of drawings, Tojhusmuseet, Gammelt Dansk Metallskyts. [6] See the Anholt collection in the Tojhusmuseet Copenhagen from a wreck about 1450 near Anholt Island in the Kattegatt. [7] Arnold Munthe mentions 48 ships (Munthe, 1899: 60). [8] Gyllengranat only mentions 8 ships (Gyllengranat, 1840: 128). [9] Lindemann mentions 400 courtiers and serfs (SA, Rep.Hs II pp. 149). [10] HeuBner K. U. On behalf of Landesamt ffir Bodendenkmalpflege M-V from 9.5.1994. [11] In order to estimate the Swedish fleet the author relied on a ships' list compiled in 1968 by Olaf Rossander (Archives of the Sj6historika Museet). It contains a comprehensive list of the ships in the Swedish fleet from 1560-1565. A list of Danish ships can be found in the letters of the Danish chancellor L. Laursen 1561-1565 (Riksarkivet, Imperial Archives, Copenhagen). No claim can be 123
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2 made that the list is complete, some ships' names in the title of the L/ibecker archives are not listed. As the archive material had to be moved during the war to avoid destruction, a lot of information material has only just been handed back from Russia and is not yet available to the public. This also applies to the Interna Seesachen Konvention 2 of the old senate archives. Especially promising titles of the Acta Svecica are not yet available. These will probably prove to reveal many interesting facts when opened. In addition to this some titles pertaining to artillery and war, for instance. The Danica 307 are totally missing. The original sources of the Riksarkivet Stockholm unfortunately were not available to the author, and according to a statement by Folke Ludwigs (Riksarkivet Stockholm) they no longer exist. Therefore the ship's list cannot be guaranteed to be a complete list of ships involved. [12] Thanks to G/inter Lanitzki, Berlin. [13] Kind assistance given by Michael H. Gelting. [14] Danske Magazin 3. raekke V, VI and 4. Raekke I, II, IV-VI and in Kancelliets Brevboger, Ed. L. Laursen, 1561-1565 and 1566-1570, Copenhagen 1893-95 and 1896. [15] Tegel only mentions four sequestered ships. [16] Assuming that the Lybske Hiorten is the Danish name for the ship Roter Hh'sch. [1"7] Kloth, 1921; see appendix. [18] After studying the artillery book by Hans Frese (LA, Artill.12/3).
Sources Archives of the Hanseatic Old Contingent A27/11, City of Lfibeck: A27/14, A27/15 (Archiv der Hansestadt L/Jbeck) Artillery A 12/3 Sea Matters 2/1 City Archives Stralsund HS lI 39, 43, 149, 153, 154, 186, 189-192. (Stadtarchiv Stralsund) Hs VII 523. Westpommeranian Archives Rep. 5 Tit. 11/1 Vol 3, 4 Greifswald and 8 (Vorpommersches Landesarchiv Greifswald) State Archives Gdansk: 300 28136, 300 28/104 4 & 5 (Archiwum Panstwowo Gdansku) State Imperial Archives Danske Magazin 3, raekke V, (Statens Arkivet Riksarkivet) VI, raekke 4 l, II, IV-VI Kancelliets Brevboger 1551-1579 Adams J. & R6nnby J., 1995 Kravel Project 1994, Interim Report, Stockholm, Southampton 1995. Dies Report on the examination of the Elefanten Stockholm 1994. Manuscript of the findings of Carl Ekmann, Archives of the Sj6historika Museet, Stockholm. Langenbeks Diplomatorium Vol 4 1564-1570. Rossander O., Svenska Flottans Fartyg 1560-65, Stockholm 1968, Archives of the Sj6historika Museet Stockholm. References Adams, J., 1995, R6nnby J., Ostersjdn Sjunkna Skepps. Stockholm. B/ickstr6m, 1884, P.O., Svenska FIottans Historia. Stockholna. Barfod, J. H., 1995, Christian 3.sfldde. Copenhagen. Biota, O., 1946, Aldre Danske metal og jernso&ker. Copenhagen. Blfimke, O., 1890, Pommern wiihrend des Nordisehen Siebenj6hrigen Krieges. Stettin. Brehmer, W., 1888, HGBII: Geschiitzausriistungen liibeekischer Kriegsschiffe im Jahre 1526. Liibeck. Cederlund, C., 1983, The OM Wrecks of the Baltic Sea, Stockholm. Ekman, C., 1945-46, Skeppstyperna under Gustav Vasas son Erik XIV.s tid. Sj6historisk cb'sbok, 209-228, Stockholm. Friel, I., 1994, The carrack: the advent of the full rigged ship. Cogs, Caravels and Galleons, 77-90, London. Fritze, K. & Krause, G., 1989, 1997, Seekriege der Hanse. Berlin. Garde, H. G., 1891, Den Dansk-Norske S6magts Historia. Copenhagen. Gohlke, W., 1850, Gesehiehte der gesamten Feuerwaffen bis 1850 extended by J. Olmes, reprinted in Krefeld 1977. Hornborg, E., 1944, Sveriges F6ren#Tgens Folkeskrifter 6." Sveriges Sj6f6rsvar, Uppsala. Keith, D. H., 1989, Underwater Archaeology Proceedings fi'om the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference: Ships of Exploration and Discovel3, Research, Baltimore, Maryland. Kloth, H., 1921, 1923, Liibeeks Seekriegswesen in der Zeit des Nordischen Siebenjiihrigen Krieges. ZVLG, XXI, XXII Liibeck. Lind, H. D., 1902, Fra Kong Frederik den andens Tid, Bidrag bilden dansk-norske Somagts Historia 1559-1588. Copenhagen. 124
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE M U K R A N WRECK
Miiller, H., 1968, Deutsche Bronzegeschiitzrohre 1400-1750. Berlin. Munthe, A., 1899, Svenska Sjdhjiiltar, Stockholm. Oertling, T. J., 1989, The few remaining clues... Baltimore. Underwater Archaeology Proceedingsfi-om the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Maryland. Probst, N. M., 1991, The introduction of flush-planked skin in Northern Europe and the Elsinore Wreck. Crossroads h7 Ancient ShipbuiMing, Proceedings of the ISBSA 5: 143-152, Roskilde. Springmann, M.-J., 1997, Schriften des Schiffahrtsmuseums der Hansestadt Rostock, Bd. 2. 'Das Kreidewrack'--Die Typik eh~es Sche~t,racks und deren Einflufl auf schiffsarchiiologische Untersuchungen. Ein Arbeitsbericht. Rostock, 23-28. Tegel, E. J., 1751, Konung Erics den XIV: des Historia. Stockholm. Tornquist, C. G., 1788, Utkast till Svenska Flottens Sj6tag. Stockholm. Winter, H., 1970, Das Hanseschiff hn attsgehenden 15. Jahrhundert. Rostock. Zober, H., 1843, Die Stralsunder Memorialbffcher Joachh~7 LhTdemanns und Gerhard Hannemanns (1531-1611). Stralsund. Zober, H., 1869, Gentzkow Nicolaus. Tagebuch vom Jahre 1558-1567. Greifswald.
125
The Mukran wreck, sunk off the Isle of Riigen, Germany in 1565: a preliminary report
®
Maik-Jens Springmann Department of Shiparchaeology, Maritime Museum Rostock, August Bebel StraJ3e 1, 18055 Rostock, Germany
Introduction During a training exercise in 1985, naval divers found a bronze gun near the village of Mukran on the Isle of Rtigen (Fig. 1). According to the initials on the barrel, revealed after cleaning by santt blasting, the cannon was made for the Danish king Christian III in 1551. It is thought to be one of the few bronze breech-loading guns of its kind in the Baltic region. When the gun came into the possession of the Rostock Maritime Museum in 1987, a survey of places where wooden remains had been found was organized. Unfortunately, the location of the cannon site was not recorded exactly, and the advice to make a
Sea
Figure 1. Map of the Isle of Rfigen 1057-2414/98/020113+ 13 $30.00/0
comprehensive survey of the area was not followed. In 1987 the author was asked by the former director of the museum to research the historical background to the loss of the cannon, on the supposition that a ship had sunk in the area, but the political changes in East Germany impeded progress in this research. In 1990 a search by the ship R/V D E N E B from the Bundesamt ffir Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographic was unsuccessful. In January 1994, after discussions with the Landesamt ffir Bodendenkmalpflege MecklenburgVorpommern, another attempt was made with the cooperation of the University of Rostock, Institut ffir Meerestechnik und Schiffbau. With specially designed underwater equipment a comprehensive search of the sea off Mukran was made, the expedition being led by the author. On 13 January 1994, an hour before the expedition was due to end and after a fourday search of an area of about one square nautical mile, the hull of a wreck was located at a depth of 2"5 m. For the general survey and measuring of the wreck the methods Carl Olof Cederlund developed for the scientific documenting of carvel-built ships in the Baltic were followed (Cederlund, 1983). In 1992, the author was advised by Swedish colleagues of the loss of the Swedish ship Finnska Falken. She seems to have sunk off the coast of Warnemiinde on © 1998 The Nautical Archaeology Society
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
to a side scan sonar. The second system was a Searching Eye controlled from an inflatable dinghy. It consists of an SVHS video camera (Sony/Osprey) mounted in a plastic ball connected by means of a cable to a recorder and control system on board the inflatable. The equipment, fitted with a sounding lead and weighted fin, was pulled through the water at a constant height above the seabed at a speed of about 2 knots. It works most effectively at a height of 3 m above the seabed, but of course the quality of the pictures depends upon visibility under water. The sector scanning equipment, with a compact colour imaging sonar system (Simrad MS 900), was very kindly lent to us by Scholz engineers (in Fockbeck near Kiel). As an alternative to visual recordings, the equipment using acoustic signals was thought to be more effective due to the chalk particles in the water making visiMethods used for searching and locating the wreck bility difficult in this area. This equipment Previous expeditions had proved unsuc- is of particular interest when searching for cessful, mainly because they were nothing wrecks, as it has a range of 5-250 m with more than sporadic diver searches in the sonar head at a maximum angle of 45 ° inaccurately measured areas. A special to the seabed. Thereby at up to 100 m even method was developed from previous badly damaged remains show up as red or experience of locating other wrecks based purple shapes on the monitor. In the preon the use of technology developed paratory research coupled with a DGPS to especially for underwater searches. After define the position of the objects on the deciding on a realistic work plan for four screen, it proved no problem. The sector days, searching a limited area, the mem- scanning alone, with the towed sledge bers of the expedition were instructed that along the seabed, gave little indication as the main goal was to search that area to the nature of the objects shown on the sufficiently to be able to say that there were screen. Thousands of reflections turned out no remains to be found there. The support to be large stones, with which the prospecship, normally used for laying buoys and tive area seemed to be covered. Therefore, patrolling the inshore waters off Stralsund, progress could only be made with the had a relatively shallow draught of 2-2 m. Searching Eye. For orientation purposes Electro acoustics and video techniques special buoys fitted with radar reflectors, of were used together in the search. t h e kind used for marking fishing nets, The first system was a towed sledge were positioned using DGPS. It limited the with an installed sector scanning sonar, search area per turn to one cable by one developed by the Institut fiir Schiffbau cable, whereby the centre was monitored in und Meerestechnik of the University of addition. A radar system linked to the Rostock especially for searching for navigation system of the support ship, objects underwater. This system is similar controlled the determination of the search
11 July 1564. The attempted correlation of information, especially about the marine finds of carvel-built ships of the 16th century in the Baltic Sea, soon showed that knowledge in this field is imperfect. To date, only six wrecks found in the Baltic and from this period have been examined and some of those were clinker built. A number of methodological approaches were possible and, although the emphasis of the archaeological analysis was on carvel-built ships, clinker-built ships were also studied in order to make a. comparison with the data from the Mukran Wreck investigation. At present, discussion on the transition between these two techniques is widespread in international research. The present status of research regarding the shipwreck site near Mukran is described below.
114
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
+
+
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
U +
Figure 2. Sketch of the hull remains (Drawing: M.-J. Springmann)
area, and the positioning of the special buoys on the support ship monitor. The inflatable dinghy then meanderingly covered the area, changing course about 20 times. As the camera had a visibility range of about 3 m, this meant that the seabed could be checked in its entirety. Using this procedure five areas were covered, in effect a total area of about one square km. A weighted buoy-line 80 m east of the prospected area is evidence of the failure to pinpoint the wreck during previous years. On the last day the wreck was discovered in the fifth search area.
Topographical situation The wreck belongs to the category of stranded wrecks tq. The intact part of the hull is situated about 180 m from the shore in an area considerably influenced by wave movement. Through currents, wave movement and icing many artefacts have probably settled in the first part of the sediment. The shipwreck lay with its broadside to the shore confirming that the ship had stranded. The forward, northerly part of the ship was covered with more stones than the southern part. These stones are partly
covered by mussels. According to a biologist this refutes the opinion that the wreck was covered by a sandbank prior to 1993. The southern part of the wreck is surrounded by coarse gravel, mixed with clay in places. A chalk reef ends about 30 m on the shore side of the wreck and causes bad visibility during unfavourable weather with strong undercurrents. The undercurrents are probably a result of the close proximity to the harbour wall of the ferry terminal at Mukran. Some of the stones covering the wreck have a diameter of up to l m and whether these can be considered ballast remains to be seen during a more exact examination of the wreck-site. Fortunately, the hull is exposed, especially the stern which points towards the harbour wall and is partly underwashed. The ship does not noticeably list.
Archaeological context 121 The ship's bottom is the only part that is homogenous (Fig. 2). Due to its close proximity to the shore, the parts above the frame floor have been destroyed. The wreck, with a length of about 20 m, is lying on a flat keel with the bow facing north and consists of about 13 starboard floor 115
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
timbers and 17 on the port with a ceiling probably fixed only by treenails. This ceiling is only partly apparent on the starboard side and consists of a minimum of five approximately 25-40 cm wide and 3 cm thick planks assumed to be oak. The rest, which can be seen on the drawing, is the outer planking. In the north after a storm the bow section was discovered. In this context many cannon balls lay between the bow and the first floor timber. The first strake of ceiling planking is not directly against the keel: the clearance is about 30 cm. This gap is called a bilge or air course which otherwise is repeated at the water-line to create an air passage between the outer and inner planking. The gap allows for the pumping out of bilge water by pumps (Keith, 1989: 91). The length of the keel cannot be determined at present. Some traces of rust indicate the use of iron nails. The keelson consists of two parts and its length has been established a s i0 m. Between bow and madcap it loses contact with the ceiling. A maststep with a length of 50 cm was worked into it and 2 m further astern is a 20 cmlong groove. The wood is mostly oak which turns black when there is a lack of oxygen. Parts of the keelson seem to be made of another kind of wood. The floors in the bow section have lost contact with the keelson as they had no support from the stem (Fig. 3). Part of a bilge-stringer on the port completes the shipbuilding details of the wooden remains of the bottom. A piece of wood which has settled in the first horizon on the starboard side and which is partly hidden by the planking could possibly be a knee for a deck (Fig. 4). On the starboard abeam the rabbet at the end of the floor frames are bronze metal accumulations, among others an artefact assumed to be the trunnion of a small cannon. Further astern, there was probably a melted-down silver or pewter bowl which in the summer of 1994 could. no longer be found (Fig. 5). In the bow 116
Figure 3. The keelson has left the frame. The stems are missing (Photo: Axel Kordian)
Figure 4. Probably a deck knee, it is partly under the hull (Photo: Axel Kordian)
area there are many cannon balls especially six and one pounders. About 6 m in almost direct continuation of the keel in the direction of the bow is a cannon covered in a thick coat of ferrous oxide, probably an iron breech-loading gun about 120 cm in length. Whilst removing a buoy abeam the bow on the starboard side, part of an anchor was found which probably belongs to the wreck.
Evidence of ship construction Compared with the Elefanten, t31 built as a warship in Stockholm between 1555-1559, the Mukran wreck was much more beamy. The rising of the floor frames indicates little difference between bow and stern
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
°
-;.'':
{• t
Figure 5. The molten metal found in January could not be found in the summer of 1994 (Photo: Axel Kordian)
->
!,j,,-•
t-_
Figure 6. Dead rise as seen here at the bow of the ship is otherwise barely discernible (Photo: Axel Kordian)
(Fig. 6). The carvel-ship Elefanten was more streamlined, and its sides were given extra protection by wales worked in at obtuse angles, which repeat themselves every two plank breadths. They are reminiscent of the Spanish construction style of the Catalan nao (Ekman, 1945-46: 213). This leads to the assumption that the Mukran wreck was a trading ship that had been converted to a warship. Despite the degree of destruction a convex deadrise is apparent, as it is w h e r e the planking rises along the stem and the futtocks wo;uld have been fixed. Based on Hanseatic specifications, the futtocks can be assumed to be the same length as the floor timbers,
minus the extra length taken up by the curvature (Winter, 1970: 34). This suggests that the maximum beam of the ship was about 8 m. At present no futtocks have been found; these would provide more information about the beam. The Mary Rose, for example, is l l ' 4 m in beam and the Maasilinn wreck is 5"5 m. This is consistent with the dimensions of the Mukran wreck. As Niels Probst wrote, in Nordic, especially Danish, shipbuilding traditions, a flat bottom using the natural growth of the wood is characteristic. The best example of this is the hull of the Gideon near Helsingsg6r, Denmark (Probst, 1991: 143-152). It can be assumed from the shapes of the floor timbers that one third of the stern is missing. By its form, as in the case of the Kraveln (working name) (Adams & R6nnby, 1995: 20-21) it could well be a carrack. Carrack-building dimensions and length and beam ratios of 2.5:1 give a length of about 30 m (Friel, 1994). A round-stern base with a square stern over a transom beam should probably be assumed. A good comparison can be made with the remaining counter as a squarestern construction on the Kraveln (Adams & R6nnby, 1995: 20-21). The rabbet further astern, mentioned above, could have been for the foot of a windlass. A capstan with foot was also found aboard the Kraveln. It was in a good condition and even showed signs of use. The foot of the mast has no abutment at right angles to the ceiling and the keel is not wider at the point of the socket. The length of the mast-step is a result of the necessity of improving the ship's stability after the mast had been erected, by moving the mast forward or back depending on the degree of yawing. A specially-shaped wedge placed in the socket secured the foot of the mast in place. By pinpointing the former position of the socket it was possible to determine the position of the base of the mast when it broke out of its footing. A 117
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
Figure Z Diagram of the two parts of the cannon (Drawing: Henry Just, Kulturhistorisches Museum Rostock) wedge was found in position during survey of the Highborn Cay Wreck (Oertling, 1989: 10). A 30 mm bronze cube with a 25 mm hole which had been subjected to heat treatment was also found. This artefact has been identified as the bearing for a shaft. The type was first found in the Yassi Ada Ottoman wreck and later on the San Esteban, the Villefranche Wreck, the Mary Rose and on the Molasses Reef wreck. In the report on the three latter, bearings of differing diameters were examined. Donald H. Keith assumes that these were in the inside of a block and led the shaft of a block. These blocks were used especially in the higher parts of the rigging (Keith, 1989: 91-92). Armament
Two cannon and a broken piece of a chamber of a cannon (bronze) figured prominently in the preliminary survey of the wreck-site; firstly, the aforementioned breech-loading bronze cannon, and, secondly, an iron breech-loading gun with a ferrous oxide coating. The bronze cannon Assuming that it is a breech-loading cannon, the weapon consists of a powder 118
chamber 40 cm in length and a 68 cm long tube section at the front of the cannon (Fig. 7). The aforementioned chamber piece destroyed by an explosion, a fragment with a vent hole which would seem to be the upper side of the powder chamber, completes the list of findings and leads to the belief that the ship (or ships) had several bronze cannon on board. The broken chamber piece is about 35 cm in length. A transport function for the ship can be ruled out because the broken tube of the cannon was loaded and ready to fire. It is only partly preserved and it would seem that the front of the tube is missing, on the assumption that the powder chamber belongs to the tube. The mouth of the tube resembles a muzzle, so identification is difficult. The powder chamber tapers off at the connection with the tube mouth and protrudes as a connection for 3 cm. As the diameter of the tube is 5cm it can be classified as a one pounder (Gohlke, 1850). The cast decoration of the coat of arms of the Danish royal family with the three lions and nine hearts indicates that the cannon belonged to the royal Danish arsenal in Copenhagen. Below this is the inscription: 'CHRISTIAN VON GOTES G E N A D K O N I C H CH THO
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE M U K R A N W R E C K
DENEMARCKEN NORDWEGEN UND DER GOTEN A N N O DOMINI 1551, proving without doubt that its origins are Danish. The acanthus leaves which decorate the mouth of the chamber are in the style of the Renaissance and are often found on bronze weapons of this period (Miiller, 1968: 116). Those from the foundry of the family Hilger in Freiburg were often used. An important characteristic is the octagonal form of the front part. It is very noticeable that the tube is distorted and that the trunnions as well as the handles on the mouth of the powder chamber are missing. Research in the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen, the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin, in the Marinmuseet in Karlskrona, the Arm6museet in"Stockholm and the Forsvarsmuseet in Oslo and extensive correspondence with Robert D. Smith, chief conservator in the Royal Armouries in the Tower of London and an expert in the field of cannon of that period, and with Alex Hildred, the head of the cannon collection at the Mary Rose Trust in Portsmouth, has revealed that there are virtually no comparable bronze breech-loading guns anywhere in the world, mostly just barely identifiable fragments. Toni L. Carrell, Donald H. Keith (Ships of Discovery, Corpus Christi Museum, Texas) and Joe J. Simmons III, all of whom have made comprehensive studies of ships of the 16th century, were not able to identify the origin of the cannon. Therefore, it can be assumed that, if the two parts did indeed fit together to form one cannon, it would be unique evidence for a short period in the 16th century when bronze breech-loading cannon were used as ships armament. By itself the bronze powder chamber is remarkable. Research into the development of the rare bronze armaments of that time, as far as the author is aware, is only possible at the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen, which t
has the front part of a bombarde and a three-pound bronze back loader from the year 1745 (no. 86) and at the Historisches Museum in Berne which has a chamber of a bombarde. M. Mortensen from the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen strictly separates the powder chamber from the front part and classifies the octagonal tube as a so-called muzzle loader. For him the mouth of the tube is without doubt the muzzle and he accepts the anomaly that the coat of arms and the inscription would therefore be upside down. The latter would then be readable from the front of the muzzle. Even though no bronze items from this period survive today in Denmark, the historical research into this field and particularly into the royal foundry in Copenhagen would substantiate this belief. These muzzle loaders, in their characteristically Danish octagonal form with a calibre of up to 6 pounds, were often used for arming ships until the middle of the 16th century [41. After further research, Reidar Olsen, of the Forvarsmuseet in Oslo, agreed with Mortensen that the piece was probably made by the Danish royal gunsmith, Lauritz Madsen (appointed 1540), the foundry smith at that time. Certain similarities can be seen when comparing the elements of style with surviving drawings made by Madsen tsl. This exemplifies the rapid development of weaponry in the 16th Century. In an article due to appear at the end of 1998, Gerhard Quass reports the sales of weapons from the arsenal of Ulrich von Mecklenburg to Denmark in 1571 whereby these were probably only muzzle loaders. Therefore the possibility that the cannon was possibly imported into Denmark cannot be excluded. A good comparison is found in the descriptions of cannon number 79-81 by Otto Blom. It is not difficult to find parallels with the finds described; the 3/4 pounder with the number 81 was also made by Madsen in 119
NAUTICALARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
1551 as a breech-loading cannon (Blom, 1946: 38). Robert Smith, Gerhard Quass, Reidar Olsen and Arne Blix (Armemuseet Stockholm), all agree that despite any uncertainties the two parts belong together and are part of a breech-loading cannon. Quass, in consultation with Heinrich Mfiller, explained the meaning of the powder chamber being wedged into the presumed breech of the tube. This after comprehensive checks fitted into the profile without any great discrepancies and, therefore, would be able to bear the pressure at this weak part of the tube. The A on the breech of the tube at the same level as the coat of arms and B on the connection at the height of the vent hole indicates that both parts belong together. The octagonal form of the large lifting handle of the powder chamber supported the author's belief that it must have been a back loader. The lifting handle is situated to the left of the vent-hole so it was probably trained by the left hand and ignited by the right. These smaller cannon, especially swivel-mounted guns, were operated by an arquebusier and a servant. On a mediumsized warship there were between 50 and 60 arquebusiers (Kloth, 1921: 128). In the case of the Mukran wreck it is therefore estimated that there would have been approximately 40. Robert Smith notes that the two sections would have been supported on a wooden bed with either wheels or a swivel-type mounting. These were secured to the bed with straps and the powder chamber was placed behind it and held in position with a traverse wedge. Wedge scars can be seen at the butt end of the powder chamber. This type of cannon was used for firing at the rigging or crew of an enemy ship. This type of swivel has been discovered on other wrecks found in Anholt t61, during work on the Cattewater wreck, and in 1994 during work on the Kraveln at a depth of 3036 m. The extent of the arming of ships can 120
be seen in the Liibecker Protokoll Buch (Liibecker Archiv) which lists the arms aboard four ships dating from 1526 (Brehmer, 1888: 166). The sea battle of 21 May 1565 and the possible identity for the wreck This description of the battle of the 21 May 1565 is provisional as the relevant sources are still being compiled. In general, the reports that were made about the fleet movements in May 1565, and the position of ships do not diverge greatly at least as far as ship's names and the names of those responsible are concerned. Special value must be attached to those sources whose authors display a certain amount of knowledge of the subject and who are able to give their reports a definite context. It was decided to give the ships their original names and to translate them afterwards as reversing this process had caused problems in the past. The Swedish admiral, Claes Christerson Horn (in German sources also known as Claus Christernissen) approached Bornholm on the 20 May 1565 with a fleet of approximately 50 ships (Tegel, 1751: 163) ~7]. This newly formed fleet came from Dalar6. On the south coast of the island were nine ships lsl of the allied Danish and Lfibecker fleet under the command of Peder Hvitfeld (in German sources known as Peter Witfeldt). Identification of these ships appears to have proved difficult as their names vary between successive reports. Having been warned by the captain of Bornholm, Sweder Kettink, the nine ships were able to flee from the superior force in the direction of the Isle of Rfigen pursued by Horn's fleet (Blfimke, 1890: 188; Lfibecker Archiv, LA, A27/12). The wind probably died in the evening when, after covering 55 nautical miles, they reached the Prorer Wiek (shown as Proner Wiek on a Swedish registe r map 1695). For unknown reasons the fleet split up near the village of Klein Jasmund, (Stralsunder
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
Archiv, SA, Rep. Hs II 149). Possibly the wind had subsided even more. Five ships sailed in the direction of the topographical landmark of Nordperd. The remaining four ships anchored off Mukran and put ashore heavy artillery and troops and positioned them along the coast E91. The Swedish fleet was not able to follow so quickly and, probably because of their ignorance of the Tromper Wick area, they had to take a pilot on board (Zober, 1843: 26). In the early morning of 21 May, Horn sighted the divided allied fleet and ordered nine ships under the command of the Swedish vice-admiral Bengt Reff (Lindermann calls him Bendt Reuen) to attack the four ships. Horn himself set off in the direction of M6nchgut after the other five Danish-Lfibecker ships. It is doubtful whether he took all of the remaining 41 ships, as Nicolaus Gentzkow in his diary entry for 22 May only mentions 30 Swedish battleships which fought with the fleeing ships in Greifswalder Bay (Zober, 1869: 359). When Hvitfeld recognised his inescapable situation he ordered his ships to be fired. After the ships were already alight, one of the vessels must have broken away from its moorings and, according to Lindemann, drifted into the Tromper Wick and sank (SA Hs II pp. 149). The situation is further confused by Hornborg's mention of a small Liibecker ship being captured by the Swedes (Hornborg, 1944: 132). It can be assumed that the drifting burning ship was attacked by the Swedes but not captured because of the danger. Therefore only three, and not all four, ships are to be found at Mukran. Also these were not, as Otto Bliimke describes (Blfimke, 1890: 188), deliberately stranded but were anchored while they burned. This could certainly have had a tactical advantage for the defence of the shore. The burning ships at anchor we~-e a danger for the Swedish pursuers and together with the artillery on land stopped
them from anchoring and putting men ashore. That the ships were linked together as Otto Blfimke claims, is illogical (Bliimke, 1890: 188). The search of the named area showed no other anomalies or traces of any other ships. The aim of the archaeological investi-' gation is the eventual identification of the ship and the piecing together of the events of the time as found in the special volumes pertaining to shipbuilding in the Liibeck city archives, in the state archives in Hamburg and the Riksarkivet (Imperial Archives) in Copenhagen. According to dendrochronological examination the wood used in the building of the ship was felled in 1499 and 1535, probably in the lower Elbe region south of Hamburg. This may indicate that the ship was built in Hamburgt ~°l. Even if the Liibecker had been placed under the command of the Danish admiralty, it can be assumed that the crew came from the German countries, despite occasional problems in hiring sailors, and that their captains were often vice-admirals appointed by the Council of Lfibeck (Kloth, 1921: 122). If this is true, it is quite possible that the names of the ships were preserved. Where the same names were being u s e d twice at the same time, attributes were usually used, as for example in the case of the Danish Christopher and the Liibecker Christopher (Kloth, 1923: 362, 364). However this did not avoid misunderstandings, especially when the sources of information were misinterpreted. The carrying of the same name is not surprising given the linguistic similarities of the languages, the familiarity and closeness of the opposing royal families and the fashions to be considered (for example, names of saints and gods). The Falke and Engel (or Engelen) were both to be found in the Danish, Swedish and Lfibecker fleets as a matter of continuing tradition, not to mention the ships bought by Gustav Wasa von Lfibeck in 1522 and 121
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2
other royal families. This shows that it has always been difficult to associate a name with a single ship, and that a certain number of mistakes must be attributed to the witnesses of the time and their exaggerated reports. The work of Herbert Kloth in the 1920s could prove useful in this context. He attempted to list the Danish and Ltibecker ships involved in the Nordic Seven Year War and to evaluate critically the sources available. At present it is only possible to make an initial rudimentary list tl~l. Otto Bliimke, referring to the report of George von Platen, gives the names of the four stranded ships as Arche, Jiigermeister, Biir and Nachtigall (Blfimke, 1890: 188). Konrad Fritze and Gtinter Krause also accept these names in their treatise (Fritze & Krause, 1989: 209). However, it is possible that the names of the ships were wrongly translated. This may have earlier been the case in the report of Georg von Platen. The reports of the Council Secretary in Stralsund are a good example of this. A general Germanising of foreign terms is to be found in the 16th century. In his chronicles, Tegel mentions the names of the ships pursued by Horn as being Giafle Bii~rnen (the bear of G~ivle, a town in G/istrikland, Sweden), Lybske Christopher (Lfibecker Christopher), Lybske Hiorten (Lfibecker Stag), Nykib'pings Barcken (Nyk6pings Barque, a town on S6dermanland, Sweden), Danske Hector, Rosen, H6ken and Troilus. The name Jiigermeister is missing from this list. However, it cannot be the ship that sank off Mukran as it was captured by the Swedes off Rtigen on 7 July 1565 and sank during its enforced crossing to Sweden (Munthe, 1899: 73_82)[12J. Although some names are mentioned twice, due to the size of the Jiigermeister, a ship of some 500 tons, with a crew of up to 1100 men, making it one of the largest Danish ships of the Nordic Seven Year 122
War, a doubling up of the name is not likely and therefore was not investigated by the author. Garde in his work Danske Flotten Historie names the ships which sank off Mukran as being the Arcken (Ark) under Peder Hvitfeld, the Nachtergallen or Nattergallen (Nightingale) under Claus Skeel, the Bjornen (Bear) under Lawe Westmand and the Hamborger Jegeren (Hamburg Hunter) under Peder Stigge (Garde, 1891: 69-70). Bjornen is mentioned in appendix A of Tornquist's ship list and in the appendix of B/ickstr6m's book for the year 1566 as having a crew of 83 men and armaments amounting to 20 copper and 18 iron cannon (Bfickstr6m, 1884: 25, 386). Therefore, this cannot be the ship either. The same applies to the NykibphTgs Barken and the Troilus. As in the case of the Bjornen, enough information exists pertaining to crew size and armaments to indicate these were medium-sized ships. It is more probable that the Hamborger Jegeren became the Jiigermeister in German sources, as this name would have been more common for the witnesses of the Nordic Seven Year War. According to research at the Riksarkivet Copenhagen [~31 the Arken was built in 1564 in Danzig probably as a trading ship for citizens of that city, and from May 1564 it served under the Danish flag. This does not seem to be an exception as Denmark ordered several ships, probably warships, in Danzig in June 1565 (APG 300.28/104) Bjornen was mentioned several times in 1562 and surprisingly enough also in March 1570 whereby a mistake in the name cannot be ruled out. The Nattergalen is mentioned several times after July 1566 (Barfod, 1995: 218)[14]. Assuming that the ship may have been built in Hamburg, as suggested by dendrochronological evidence, the following ships come into consideration: Hamborger
Jegeren, Lybske Christopher, Lybske Hiorten, Syrig, Liibischer Trotz and the Das Ffichslein. At present it is difficult to
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE MUKRAN WRECK
identify the nationality of the ships Rosen, H6ken and Troihts but, from their names, they were probably Danish. In a letter from the Duke of Wolgast to Erich the XIV of Sweden the last three vessels were named as they fled to Greifswald Eldena and docked together with the two Danish ships the Jungfi'au Von Enkhuizen ( Jomfi'uen Af Enckhuysen ) and the Ddnische Falken (VLA Rep. 5 Tit. 11 No. 1. vol 4 and 8) or Falken Af Bergen (Barfod, 1995: 198). That makes a total of 16 ships, although German, Danish and Swedish treaties all only mention nine ships as being set alight off Mukran. The ships sequestered in Greifswald until the end of the war are listed in the Repitorium 5 Title 11 No. 1 in the Greifswalder Arkivl151. Therefore only the Lybske Christopher, Lybske Hiorten and the Hamborger Jegeren remain. The first two at least are mentioned in the order of battle at the beginning of July 1565 [161. In Herbert Kloth's 1921 ships' register of the L/ibecker fleet they are missing because they were accompanying vessels, probably trading ships converted to warships, and had no decisive effect on the outcome of the war [lvl.
The Hamborger Jegeren becomes particular.ly interesting at this point. This ship, as its name implies, was probably built in Hamburg and took part in the Nordic Seven Year War on the side of the Danes (Lind, 1902: 57). The possibility of chartering ships from private individuals or, as in' this case from another Hanseatic city, in order to further military objectives was common practice, and written evidence of it exists for the Nordic Seven Year War (Kloth, 1921 appendix and Kancelliets Brevboger 1551-1570). The arming of Lfibecker ships with Danish cannon is improbable and there does not seem to be any written evidence for it 1j81. It is possible that the Mukran wreck is that of the Hamborger Jegeren. Research in the State archives in Hamburg has not led to any results as yet. It can only be hoped that the relevant archives were not destroyed by the great fire in 1842.
Acknowledgement The compiling of results in this article was only possible with the help of friends and colleagues. My warmest thanks go out to all those involved, especially to Frank Blasejezack and Phil Williams.
Notes [1] Due to the coastal particularities of Mecklenburg-Westpommerania, the author divides the wrecks found into three categories according to their position and method of prospecting; Stranded ships (found near the shore); shelf wrecks found on a seashell; and estuary wrecks found in bays (Springmann, 1997). [2] The preparation of the archaeological work was done with Prof. Ellmers of the Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum Bremerhaven. [3] Stora Kraveln in the interpretation of the sources is often mistaken for the Stora Kraveh7 Elefanten. [4] Letter from M. Mortensen of 22.05.95. [5] Collection of drawings, Tojhusmuseet, Gammelt Dansk Metallskyts. [6] See the Anholt collection in the Tojhusmuseet Copenhagen from a wreck about 1450 near Anholt Island in the Kattegatt. [7] Arnold Munthe mentions 48 ships (Munthe, 1899: 60). [8] Gyllengranat only mentions 8 ships (Gyllengranat, 1840: 128). [9] Lindemann mentions 400 courtiers and serfs (SA, Rep.Hs II pp. 149). [10] HeuBner K. U. On behalf of Landesamt ffir Bodendenkmalpflege M-V from 9.5.1994. [11] In order to estimate the Swedish fleet the author relied on a ships' list compiled in 1968 by Olaf Rossander (Archives of the Sj6historika Museet). It contains a comprehensive list of the ships in the Swedish fleet from 1560-1565. A list of Danish ships can be found in the letters of the Danish chancellor L. Laursen 1561-1565 (Riksarkivet, Imperial Archives, Copenhagen). No claim can be 123
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 27.2 made that the list is complete, some ships' names in the title of the L/ibecker archives are not listed. As the archive material had to be moved during the war to avoid destruction, a lot of information material has only just been handed back from Russia and is not yet available to the public. This also applies to the Interna Seesachen Konvention 2 of the old senate archives. Especially promising titles of the Acta Svecica are not yet available. These will probably prove to reveal many interesting facts when opened. In addition to this some titles pertaining to artillery and war, for instance. The Danica 307 are totally missing. The original sources of the Riksarkivet Stockholm unfortunately were not available to the author, and according to a statement by Folke Ludwigs (Riksarkivet Stockholm) they no longer exist. Therefore the ship's list cannot be guaranteed to be a complete list of ships involved. [12] Thanks to G/inter Lanitzki, Berlin. [13] Kind assistance given by Michael H. Gelting. [14] Danske Magazin 3. raekke V, VI and 4. Raekke I, II, IV-VI and in Kancelliets Brevboger, Ed. L. Laursen, 1561-1565 and 1566-1570, Copenhagen 1893-95 and 1896. [15] Tegel only mentions four sequestered ships. [16] Assuming that the Lybske Hiorten is the Danish name for the ship Roter Hh'sch. [1"7] Kloth, 1921; see appendix. [18] After studying the artillery book by Hans Frese (LA, Artill.12/3).
Sources Archives of the Hanseatic Old Contingent A27/11, City of Lfibeck: A27/14, A27/15 (Archiv der Hansestadt L/Jbeck) Artillery A 12/3 Sea Matters 2/1 City Archives Stralsund HS lI 39, 43, 149, 153, 154, 186, 189-192. (Stadtarchiv Stralsund) Hs VII 523. Westpommeranian Archives Rep. 5 Tit. 11/1 Vol 3, 4 Greifswald and 8 (Vorpommersches Landesarchiv Greifswald) State Archives Gdansk: 300 28136, 300 28/104 4 & 5 (Archiwum Panstwowo Gdansku) State Imperial Archives Danske Magazin 3, raekke V, (Statens Arkivet Riksarkivet) VI, raekke 4 l, II, IV-VI Kancelliets Brevboger 1551-1579 Adams J. & R6nnby J., 1995 Kravel Project 1994, Interim Report, Stockholm, Southampton 1995. Dies Report on the examination of the Elefanten Stockholm 1994. Manuscript of the findings of Carl Ekmann, Archives of the Sj6historika Museet, Stockholm. Langenbeks Diplomatorium Vol 4 1564-1570. Rossander O., Svenska Flottans Fartyg 1560-65, Stockholm 1968, Archives of the Sj6historika Museet Stockholm. References Adams, J., 1995, R6nnby J., Ostersjdn Sjunkna Skepps. Stockholm. B/ickstr6m, 1884, P.O., Svenska FIottans Historia. Stockholna. Barfod, J. H., 1995, Christian 3.sfldde. Copenhagen. Biota, O., 1946, Aldre Danske metal og jernso&ker. Copenhagen. Blfimke, O., 1890, Pommern wiihrend des Nordisehen Siebenj6hrigen Krieges. Stettin. Brehmer, W., 1888, HGBII: Geschiitzausriistungen liibeekischer Kriegsschiffe im Jahre 1526. Liibeck. Cederlund, C., 1983, The OM Wrecks of the Baltic Sea, Stockholm. Ekman, C., 1945-46, Skeppstyperna under Gustav Vasas son Erik XIV.s tid. Sj6historisk cb'sbok, 209-228, Stockholm. Friel, I., 1994, The carrack: the advent of the full rigged ship. Cogs, Caravels and Galleons, 77-90, London. Fritze, K. & Krause, G., 1989, 1997, Seekriege der Hanse. Berlin. Garde, H. G., 1891, Den Dansk-Norske S6magts Historia. Copenhagen. Gohlke, W., 1850, Gesehiehte der gesamten Feuerwaffen bis 1850 extended by J. Olmes, reprinted in Krefeld 1977. Hornborg, E., 1944, Sveriges F6ren#Tgens Folkeskrifter 6." Sveriges Sj6f6rsvar, Uppsala. Keith, D. H., 1989, Underwater Archaeology Proceedings fi'om the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference: Ships of Exploration and Discovel3, Research, Baltimore, Maryland. Kloth, H., 1921, 1923, Liibeeks Seekriegswesen in der Zeit des Nordischen Siebenjiihrigen Krieges. ZVLG, XXI, XXII Liibeck. Lind, H. D., 1902, Fra Kong Frederik den andens Tid, Bidrag bilden dansk-norske Somagts Historia 1559-1588. Copenhagen. 124
M-J. SPRINGMANN: THE M U K R A N WRECK
Miiller, H., 1968, Deutsche Bronzegeschiitzrohre 1400-1750. Berlin. Munthe, A., 1899, Svenska Sjdhjiiltar, Stockholm. Oertling, T. J., 1989, The few remaining clues... Baltimore. Underwater Archaeology Proceedingsfi-om the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Maryland. Probst, N. M., 1991, The introduction of flush-planked skin in Northern Europe and the Elsinore Wreck. Crossroads h7 Ancient ShipbuiMing, Proceedings of the ISBSA 5: 143-152, Roskilde. Springmann, M.-J., 1997, Schriften des Schiffahrtsmuseums der Hansestadt Rostock, Bd. 2. 'Das Kreidewrack'--Die Typik eh~es Sche~t,racks und deren Einflufl auf schiffsarchiiologische Untersuchungen. Ein Arbeitsbericht. Rostock, 23-28. Tegel, E. J., 1751, Konung Erics den XIV: des Historia. Stockholm. Tornquist, C. G., 1788, Utkast till Svenska Flottens Sj6tag. Stockholm. Winter, H., 1970, Das Hanseschiff hn attsgehenden 15. Jahrhundert. Rostock. Zober, H., 1843, Die Stralsunder Memorialbffcher Joachh~7 LhTdemanns und Gerhard Hannemanns (1531-1611). Stralsund. Zober, H., 1869, Gentzkow Nicolaus. Tagebuch vom Jahre 1558-1567. Greifswald.
125