One of His Majesty’s ‘Beste Kraffwells’: the wreck of an earlycarvel-built ship at Franska Sternarna, Sweden
Jonathan AdamsCentre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Johan RönnbyUniversity College, Södertörn, PO Box 4101, S 141 04 Huddinge, Sweden
We report recent fieldwork on an early-16th-century wreck in the Stockholm archipelago, Sweden. The discovery not onlyprovides new insights into early carvel shipbuilding and its adoption across northern Europe but manifests the changing role ofships and the nature of power and agency in the process of state formation at the dawn of the modern world.
Key words: carvel, shipwreck, Gustav Eriksson Vasa, agency, state formation, Sweden.
In December 1990 the discovery of a wreck belowFranska Sternarna (the French Stones), in theNämdöfjärd area of the Stockholm Archipelago
(Fig. 1), caused unusual excitement in the press. Thestory was syndicated throughout the world with pre-dictable exaggerations of the ship’s state of preserva-tion and its unique importance. These superlativesseem to be de rigueur when describing almost anywreck, yet in this case there seemed to be some sub-stance in claims for the site’s significance, if not for itsdegree of preservation (Adams, 1991). On the basisof a map published by Anders Franzén (1961: 19)showing the locations of Sweden’s most famouswarship losses, the wreck was identified as the LybskaSvan (Swan of Lübeck), the carvel-built flagship of thefleet assembled by Gustav Eriksson Vasa in 1522 tofight the Danes. As the first dynastic monarch ofmodern Sweden Gustav Vasa is often referred to as‘Landsfather’, and enjoys enduring iconic status. This,together with the fact that the Danish Admiral signedthe document of surrender on board the Swan, imme-diately elevated the wreck, and what might be donewith it, to a highly-charged ideological and emotionalplane (Cederlund, 1994; 1995).
ProtectionAll wrecks in Sweden which sank over 100 years agoand which have no owner are automatically protectedunder the Swedish Ancient Monuments and Finds Act1988. Almost all of them can be freely visited by divers
on the basis that no damage is done to the site andnothing is removed. This is effectively ‘look—don’ttouch’ legislation and by comparison internationallyworks well. Certainly an approach which combinesblanket protection while encouraging public access isto be applauded but, human frailty being what it is, nosystem is perfect. A few sites which are regarded asbeing particularly sensitive and/or the subject of long-term research excavations, such as the 17th-centuryKronan (for example, Einarsson, 1990) are given addi-tional protection by the relevant county authority. Thewreck at Franska Sternarna was duly designated a siteon which diving was forbidden except by permit fromStockholm’s County Authority.
By this time a consortium had been formed,centred around the company whose divers had foundthe wreck. Their aim was to generate funding in orderto excavate and raise the remains, housing them in apurpose-built museum in Stockholm like that of theVasa of 1628, the flagship of Gustav Adolphus IIVasa, grandson of Gustav Eriksson Vasa. After dis-cussion with the Stockholm County Authority it wasagreed that three archaeologists, the present authorsand Peter Norman, should conduct a preliminarysurvey, all three having research interests in ships ofthis period.
Preliminary historical assessmentDuring the first inspection dives in 1991 it was quicklyapparent that this was indeed the wreck of a ship from
bs_bs_banner
The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2012) ••.••: ••–••doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2012.00355.x
the first half of the 16th century. Structural character-istics, artefacts and ordnance were all consistent withthe date of 1524 when the Swan was lost. The majorinconsistency was the size, for although the ship wasnot small for the period, it certainly seemed too smallto be the Swan (Adams et al., 1991). Even as the initialeuphoria surrounding the discovery began to subside,attention was drawn to the fact that the loss of theSwan in this location had already been challenged onhistorical grounds (Daggfeldt, 1963; Cederlund, 1995).The following interpretation of the sources provides aclearer historical framework with which the recently-gathered archaeological data can be integrated.
The events with which the Swan is associated arerooted in nothing less than the genesis of Sweden as anindependent nation-state, a process in which GustavEriksson Vasa was a central figure. At this timemuch of the region comprising Sweden, Norway andDenmark had been communally governed throughlong precedent under various agreements. Ideasof nationhood were not as developed as they laterbecame, but even at this time Denmark had become thedominant partner, leading to resentment among manyof the region’s constituencies. Indeed some feared thatDenmark’s ambitions under king Christian II werenot just simple dominance but overtly imperialistic.Swedish resentment of the situation developed into
armed conflict against Denmark through a resistancemovement led by the Stures, the leading Swedish noblefamily at the time. After winning the battle of Bränn-kyrka in 1518, Sten Sture the younger, leader of theSwedish Independence Party, forced an uneasy trucewith Denmark. Pending further negotiations, a groupof young Swedish noblemen, Gustav Vasa amongthem, were sent to wait with the Danish fleet, but wereinstead taken as hostages to Denmark.
This did nothing to prevent the Swedes continuingarmed resistance, and Gustav Vasa, perhaps realisinghow untenable his position was becoming, abscondedto the Hanseatic city of Lübeck in 1519. Wary of Den-mark’s growing power, the city’s wealthy merchantsgladly approved his sanctuary. For them it was politi-cally expedient, while for Gustav Vasa it established arelationship that was to prove crucial in the subsequentstruggle. Nor was that long in coming, for things tooka disastrous turn for Sweden in 1520 when Sten Sturethe younger died from wounds sustained in battle.Christian took Stockholm, had himself crownedhereditary king of Sweden, and, in a misguided attemptto secure his power, attempted to rid himself of allopposition through mass execution. In the infamous‘Stockholm Bloodbath’ of 1520 more than 80 membersof the Swedish elite were slaughtered, including GustavVasa’s father and brother-in-law (Roberts, 1968: 17;
Figure 1. Map of southern Sweden showing the location of the Kravel site in the Stockholm archipelago (inset B). (J. Adams)
Derry, 1979: 84). Gustav Vasa, although he hadreturned to Sweden, was lying low and so avoidedthe same fate.
His narrow escapes from Danish pursuers havefurnished popular history with many colourful adven-tures, some no doubt apocryphal (Åberg, 1996) but inany event he was one of the few prominent Swedishnobles who survived, and so assumed leadership of theresistance. Although his elevation had come aboutthrough a violent process of elimination, he was soonto demonstrate that his abilities were particularly wellsuited to military and political leadership. He begancampaigning in earnest the next year, but although heachieved two rapid and decisive victories he realisedthat his army of farmers and miners would need rein-forcing with professional mercenaries. He also saw thatultimate success depended on sea-power and so heturned to his old friends in Lübeck for both. Theyeffectively provided him with troops and a fleet of shipson a ‘fight now—pay later’ basis. Of all the ships in thisfleet, the Swan was the largest, and, valued at 7600Lübeck marks, was worth some two-and-a-half timesmore than any other vessel (Glete, 1977: 37).
Gustav Vasa took possession of the fleet in thespring of 1522. During that year he fought severalbattles at sea and blockaded Stockholm that winter.Severe weather prevented the Danish Admiral SörenNorby from reaching the besieged city, which duly fellto the Swedes in June 1523. Gustav Vasa, alreadycrowned at Västerås, entered Stockholm as the newking. Well aware that his position was far from guar-anteed, in 1524 he sent his fleet in pursuit of Norby,who had withdrawn to his base at Visby on Gotland,but the enterprise failed, and the Swan was apparentlyan indirect casualty of the campaign.
Why, then, had Franzén, at least initially, believedthat the Swan was wrecked hundreds of kilometresaway in the Nämdöfjärd?1 Possibly because this loca-tion is suggested in a standard work, Svenska FlottansHistoria, 1, 1522–1634, written in 1890 by Axel Zetter-sten. However, it has been argued in a perceptivearticle by Bertil Daggfeldt (1963) that Zettersten hadmisunderstood his sources. His examination of the twosources closest in time to the events in question revealswhat happened to the Swan, though they are far fromclear, even contradictory in important respects. Oneaccount is that of Peder Swart, Gustav Vasa’s biogra-pher, who in the 1560s was writing of his king’s heroicexploits. His accounts certainly leave room for doubtabout the Swan’s ultimate fate, not least because hegives two versions of events and this is probably wherethe subsequent confusion arose. In the first version hestates that the Swan was wrecked at Horn on Ölandon the way back from Kalmar in the autumn of 1525.Yet in his later text he doesn’t mention the place, onlythat the Swan sank in 20 fathoms (which would beimpossible at Horn).
The other source is Clement Renzel, who had held acommand in the very fleet sent by Gustav Vasa against
Sören Norby in 1524, and who, between 1536 and1538, wrote an account of his life at sea including theevents of 1524–5. He states that in 1524 the Swan wason her way back from Gotland to Stockholm but thatStaffan Sasse, the captain, had to turn back in badweather as the ship was leaking so badly. His onlychance to save the ‘old and rotten’ ship was to beachher on Öland. More significantly, he writes that a yearlater, in 1525, after a further bloody campaign inKalmar, Gustav Vasa dispatched one of his ‘bestekraffwell’ (best carvels) back to Stockholm. AlthoughRenzel’s exact words are somewhat equivocal, Dagg-feldt is surely right in interpreting them to mean thaton board were the guns and other equipment removedfrom the Swan. It was this ship which was wrecked‘between Dalarö and Djurshamn in 25 fathoms ofwater’, an area that includes the Nämdöfjärd. Theremoval of valuable ordnance from the Swan would beconsistent with its beaching and abandonment onÖland rather than actually sinking, and it may be thatthe presence on board of ordnance from the Swan gaverise to Swart’s confusion (Daggfeldt, 1963: 25).
Research implicationsThe evidence that supports the identification of theNämdöfjärd wreck as the royal kravel in question issummarised below, but even had it not belonged toGustav Vasa, as a ship from his time it is a highlysignificant find. Shipbuilding in northern Europe wasthen going through one of its most crucial periods ofdevelopment. The changes of hull-form, constructionand rig that took place during the 15th and 16th cen-turies set shipbuilding on a trajectory from which it didnot deviate in fundamental principles until the end ofthe wooden shipbuilding era in the 19th century. Wehave very few substantial sections of ship structuresurviving from this formative period. Yet, fascinatingthough the technology certainly is, it is the changes inthinking that these ships represent which provide thereal stimulus for research into their remains. Essen-tially they manifest the strategies, decisions and actionsof those whose political, economic and maritimecompetition was to change society on a global scale.Johnson (1993; 1996) has demonstrated the ways inwhich changes in social attitudes and mentality arevisible in, among other things, the changing internalarrangements of domestic architecture in the medievalperiod. In a similar way, through the ship, we gainsharper insights into processes that were changingEuropean society at almost every level. Among thepotent agents of change were those like Gustav Vasaand his competitors who sought power, grasped it andfought ruthlessly to keep it.
Changed circumstances, changed directionWith the wreck protected by Stockholm’s CountyAuthority, plans were made for further survey work,
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
supervised by the authors and funded by the countyunder the auspices of the Swedish National MaritimeMuseum. However, work was delayed after the pro-spective buyer of two 16th-century bronze guns beingoffered for private sale wisely decided to check thestatus of the accompanying documentation. When thiswas found to be spurious the police were notified.Given the date of the guns, the timing and other cir-cumstances it was presumed that the guns had beenillegally removed from the wreck at Franska Stenarna,but this was never proved and no-one was evercharged. It was, however, three years before permis-sion was given to re-start work, during which time thecompany involved ceased trading and the consortiumwas wound up.
The long wait was frustrating but it provided anopportunity to restructure the project. Using thefunds in the manner intended by the consortiumwould have bought only three or four days on site. Asa business they intended, quite legitimately, to chargeall services to the project at a commercial rate. Analternative strategy was to change the status of theproject to non-profit, and to base it in collaboratinguniversities and museums. This way the productivetime on site could be multiplied many times over.This depended on obtaining the most expensive com-ponents at cost or as donations, not to mention thetime of some key people. The conceptual approachwas also radically changed in that the emphasis wasto be non-intrusive, at least for the foreseeable future.The project design was duly developed on the basisthat this was not the Swan,2 and while this might havedampened the ardour of some potential sponsors,it conveniently reduced the glare of publicity untilsuch time as there were results to share with themedia. The wreck was simply referred to as the‘kravel’ (carvel), a term that would have been usedand understood in the ship’s own time.
In keeping with the non-intrusive policy, distur-bance of structure, contents or sediments would onlybe necessary where they appeared to be under threat,or where samples were required for analysis anddating. Recovery of objects or samples was onlyundertaken after liaison with the Swedish NationalMaritime Museum. Our data would be primarilyobtained through close inspection and various formsof recording. It was hoped that in time a form ofreconstruction could be achieved that amounted to‘virtual’ salvage rather than physical recovery. As thestructure lies in relatively deep water, and as it iscomplex, fragmented and in parts considerably dis-torted, it is perhaps doubtful whether one couldever achieve a high-fidelity reconstruction of hull-form without some excavation and recovery of keyelements. However, the principles of the ship’s build-ing tradition and details of construction were certainlyavailable, and we believed that the process of record-ing would provide the basis for meaningful analysis ofthe vessel in the context of its turbulent times, falling
as they did at such a significant juncture in the devel-opment of modern Europe.
The wreckUnlike so many Baltic wrecks, the remains of thekravel no longer constitute one integral unit. A consid-erable amount of the structure survives but much of itis disarticulated. Where total salvage is not to becarried out, shipwrecks in this condition can revealinformation on design and construction of a moredetailed nature than hulls that are intact, simplybecause it is accessible. Normally wrecks are partiallyburied in sediment while exposed surface details areobscured or eroded by marine growth. The depth ofthis wreck prevents the latter, although the surfaces oftimber have been severely abraded. Tool-marks andcarpenters’ marks do not therefore survive on exposedsurfaces, though aspects of timber conversion, andconstruction, are readily apparent. Notably, variousfittings and many of the principal rigging elements suchas masts and spars survive, something that is relativelyunusual, though happily less so in the Baltic.
The majority of the hull remains and its contentscame to rest on steeply sloping rock and clay belowFranska Stenarna, between c.30 and 55 m deep(Fig. 2). The ship lies on its port side and hangs pre-cariously on a sloping ledge with much of the structureoverhanging an even steeper drop to the sea-bedanother 20 m below. Over the centuries the wood hasdistorted considerably and much of the hull is drapedover the contours of the rock. This, together with thedepth, low light, low temperature and the dislocationof much of the structure makes recording a challeng-ing process. To do so an array of datum points wasinstalled around the structures, and their three-dimensional co-ordinates were established using NickRule’s DSM programme (Rule, 1989; Adams andRule, 1991; Rule, 1995). The co-ordinates were thenused as a control for the production of conventionalplans, using video and still photography. Figure 3 isa plan prepared in this way, iteratively improvedseason by season as new datums were added and struc-ture plotted accordingly. Even so, due to the factorsacknowledged above, this plan must be taken asinterim.3
The other sideFurther wreckage was found in shallow water onthe other side of the skerry. Detailed examination ofthis part of the site between 1995 and 1998 showed asubstantial number of scattered elements and a largesection of coherent structure. While Franska Stenarnacould have claimed many victims, the materialobserved is consistent with a vessel of the kravel’s age.While association has yet to be confirmed, it seemshighly likely that this structure is part of the starboardside of the kravel (Fig. 4).
Hull constructionThe hull of the wreck below Franska Stenarna is ofcarvel construction, a much-discussed term consideredin more detail below in the context of European shipdevelopment. The timbers are oak and fastened withtreenails. Despite the apparent confusion of loosetimbers in many parts of the site, the plan shows thatthere is still a general coherence to the remains. Muchof what survives of the port side is covered by slabs oflimestone ballast which shifted as the ship sank. Atsome point the hull fractured along the line of floors/first futtocks on the starboard side, leaving the keel,some floor-timbers, and, in places, the garboardstrake and a few lower starboard planks in situ. Twosections of the starboard side now lie collapsedinwards on the ballast. At first it was presumed thatthe rest had slipped farther down the slope or hadfragmented, but the similarity of the structure lying inshallow water described above provides a more likelyexplanation as to why so little of the starboard side ispresent at depth. The ship must have partially brokenup on the rocks.
As the hull narrowed towards both bow and stern,the floors were fashioned from grown, crookedtimbers, a number of which are either still in situ orlying near their original positions (Fig. 3). As onemight expect from a period in which timber for build-ing ships in this manner was abundant, the framingsystem used timbers of appropriate curvature. The
system consists of floors set across the keel with theheels of the first futtocks between them. However,their arrangement is by no means regimented withregard to their sided dimension or how far theyextend. The floors, for example, extend part-waythrough the turn of the bilge, but there is consider-able variability in how far. Similarly there is variabil-ity in how near the centreline the first futtocks start,as well as their sided dimension. In other words thereis a clear system but the builders did not regard strictuniformity as being necessary. This was not becausetheir approach was crude, probably the opposite. In ahull-form that curves throughout its moulded section,it is not only possible to place joints or overlapsbetween futtocks at any height, but is advantageousas it avoids lines of weakness (Adams et al, 1990;Adams, 2003).
Deck structureThe majority of the deck structure lies scattered downthe slope, but several of the largest beams from themiddle of the ship lead down the slope from the mainwreck assemblage. The lengths are difficult to measureas they are overlaid by other collapsed elements. Onewhich was possible to measure by passing a tape underother timbers was 6.25 m long. Others are possiblylonger. Two smaller beams are still located in the hullat the stern, but as the ship lies so far over they havecollapsed outwards and now extend out over the void,upside down.
Figure 2. Diagram showing site topography and the main concentration of wreck material. Depths are indicative: not to scale.(J. Adams)
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
BowA 4-m-long section of the stem lies still approximatelyin position, though no longer attached (Fig. 3). It isvery similar to the lower stem element of the shipthought to be the San Juan (1565), a Basque vesselfound at Red Bay, Labrador (Grenier et al., 1994:138; Grenier et al., 2007). The forward ends of thecollapsed starboard planks are angled where theywere rebated into the stem. The upper section ofplanking (though now lying lower down the slope)includes a wale, which instead of simply buttingagainst the stem, turned and extended to the forwardedge of the stem. The wales on the well-knowndrawing of a Mediterranean carrack by ‘WA’ do thesame (Sleeswyk, 1990: 347). Similar wales aredepicted on various carrack-like vessels engraved byFrans Huys in the 1560s after paintings by PeterBruegel the Elder, particularly a print later used in1596 by Lambert Cornelisz in Voyage ofte schipvaertvan Jan Huygen (Groot and Vorstman, 1980: pl. 5).This method of terminating the wales seems to havebeen fairly ubiquitous within the carvel traditionand continues at least into the late-17th century,as seen in the wreck recently discovered at Dalarö,Sweden (Eriksson, forthcoming).
In this section of hull-planking one of the hawse-holes can be seen cut into the two planks above thewale (Fig. 3). Below these, sections of starboard struc-ture, frame and filling timbers from the curved area ofthe bow lie fanned out on the sea-bed, in what seemsto be at variance with the canting arrangement thatlater became widespread. This arrangement may beconnected to the long rake of the bow that would havemade arranging cant-frames problematic. Certainly inthe Mary Rose (1510–45), frames continued to rise at90° from the stem well forward of the keel/stem scarf,and recent investigations may demonstrate what wasdone forward of the point reached by excavationin 1982 (Hildred, 2006). Below these frames lie thekravel’s port-side hull-planks with an arrangement of
timbers defining and reinforcing the port hawse-hole(Fig. 3).
Stern assemblyParts of the stern structure are relatively well pre-served. The keel has fractured a few metres forwardof the sternpost, allowing the whole stern assembly tofall away from the rest of the hull. It now lies as adislocated but coherent unit. The sternpost and theattached stern section of keel was braced by a largeknee, now loose but still approximately in position.Two filling pieces that were originally faired into thestern knee are still attached by treenails to the port-side hull-planking and hang just above the kneeand sternpost. The sternpost tapers upwards and isrebated to hold a series of filling transoms, all ofwhich are still in place (Fig. 5). The main or wingtransom is missing and probably lies further down theslope. The curved fashion-pieces are still attached tothe ends of the transoms, and some of the diagonalouter planks are also still present. The vessel’s sternwas therefore ‘square’ and very similar in manyrespects to that of the Red Bay wreck (Loewen, 2007:132–3) and to the much larger Mary Rose (Rule,1982: 99, 104; Marsden, 2009: 88). Concretion on thesternpost indicates the location of gudgeons forhanging the rudder. The rudder itself, with the tillerstill attached, lies in deeper water and was located byROV survey in 2003.
In terms of its general construction, the hull consistsof oak planks, presumably sawn, which are fastenedby treenails to oak frames. The latter, even the floorsand first futtocks in the lower hull, seem to be relativelylight. Prior to beginning the survey, when overalllength of the vessel could only be estimated, it was theframes, together with the relatively thin planks (evenallowing for erosion) which were an early indicationthat the ship was unlikely to be the Swan. In un-erodedlocations the planks appear to be c.45–50 mm thick inthe lower hull, compared to 95–100 mm for those in a
Figure 4. Plan of the structure lying to the east of the stones in 6 m of water. It lies 200 m from the main assemblage andcomprises part of the side of the vessel. Ceramic and pewter artefacts are present dating from the 16th century and scantlingsare also consistent with those of the main site. (J. Satchell/J. Adams)
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
similar position in the Mary Rose, recorded in theAnthony Roll as ‘tunnage 700’.4
Spars and riggingThe most obvious element of the rig is the pole of oneof the masts, a large single trunk of pine, 450 mm indiameter at its foot (Fig. 3) and lying at a steep angledown the slope. The head is at c.45 m depth, andalthough a direct measurement is difficult to obtaindue to obstructions, geometry indicates a total lengthof c.19–20 m. Contemporary illustrations suggest themainmast height was similar to the length of the keel,which for the kravel was c.18 m. This is broadly con-sistent with the 1587 Instrucción náutica para navegar
by Diego Garcia de Palacio, which states that themainmast should be the same length as the keel andrake, though recommends that it should be somewhatless. The foremast should be the same length as thekeel, and the mizzen four-fifths the length of the fore-mast. Most illustrations depict mizzen masts consider-ably shorter than the main. Recent video taken duringthe ROV survey suggests two sheaves just belowthe top, one above the other. Iron-staining was alsoevident around the mast-head, presumably associatedwith fastenings for chess-trees, a fighting-top and pos-sibly a topmast. In 2003 what is probably the foremastwas discovered lying further down the slope, togetherwith other spars and timbers, but it has not yet beenmeasured.
Figure 5. Illustration of the stern structure, together with an elevation of the keel, sternpost and stern knee, showing theposition of transoms, deadwood fillers and the lowermost port-side hull-planks. Inset: perspective. (J. Adams)
FittingsCapstanA capstan was found at a depth of 40 m just aft ofthe mast. Its drum and spindle appear to be cut fromone piece of timber, probably oak. Its whelps are stillattached, although the surfaces of the various elementsare eroded. Its general shape resembles those found onthe wreck of the Basque galleon believed to be the SanJuan in Red Bay (Grenier, 1988: 78), and on the wreckfound at Villefranche-sur-Mer, tentatively identified asthe Lomellina of 1516 (Gerout et al., 1989: 100–104).Grenier reports that the position where the Red Baygalleon’s capstan was found suggested that it had beenmounted on the upper deck just aft of the mainmast.Although the capstan on the kravel has fallen somedistance down the slope, its position is consistent witha similar placement. These early capstans were turnedwith levers that were passed right through squaredchannels cut in the top of the drum.
BittsTowards the bow a large beam can be seen protrudingfrom underneath a section of collapsed starboard-sidestructure. It is 0.5 m square in section, and its end isfashioned to brace against the side of the hull. Twoshort bollards 0.5 m long and 250 mm square are mor-tised into it at right-angles (Fig. 3, site point b1). Notall of it can be clearly seen but the size, arrangementand position suggest that these are the bitts, aroundwhich the anchor cables would have been secured.In shape it resembles the bitt-beam evident in manyillustrations of early carracks and also in the Matarómodel, a votive ship from the Catalan monasteryof San Simon de Mataró dated to around 1450(Hutchinson, 1994: 39–40).
OrdnanceUndoubtedly, one of the most significant assemblageson the wreck is the collection of wrought-iron guns.Several arsenals and museums have examples in theircollections but these were poorly understood andthought to be primitive, inherently dangerous to use,and indicative of an early date (pre-16th century) oran impoverished society. It is only since these gunshave begun to be found associated with closely-dated16th-century shipwrecks that their long-lived role ascomponents of the integrated naval weapons systemsof the time has begun to be appreciated. Underwatersites where these guns have been found are still rela-tively few. Many of these are chance finds, so far notassociated with ship structure or carriage elements.Assemblages associated with shipwrecks, thoughwithout surviving carriages, have been recovered offNorth America, for example at Padre Island (Arnoldand Weddle, 1978: 189) and Molasses Reef (Keithet al 1984; Keith and Simmons, 1985: 414; Simmons,1988).
Smaller assemblages where guns have been foundin association with carriages and in the context ofshipwrecks include the Cattewater wreck, Plymouth,dating from c.1500 (Redknap, 1984: 49–57) and theStudland Bay Wreck, Poole, Dorset (also dated toc.1500). Sites with assemblages comparable to thatfrom the kravel are rare and none contains as manypieces still attached to their wooden carriages. Fromthis point of view, the collections that probably havemost immediate relevance are those of the MaryRose (1545) (Hildred, 2011), the Villefranche wreck(Gerout et al., 1989) and the wreck found at Anholtin Denmark (Howard, 1986). The Mary Rose, flagshipof Henry VIII, capsized in the Solent in 1545. Of theoriginal inventory, seven wrought-iron guns wererecovered still attached to their carriages, some of themstill being on their carriage wheels (Hildred, 2011: 148).The wreck at Villefranche had up to 15 wrought-ironguns, though only one was still on its carriage (Geroutet al., 1989:101–104) and at Anholt five guns werefound on their carriages (Howard, 1986: 445).
On the kravel, six of the more accessible largewrought-iron guns were surveyed or closely inspectedin 1994, though it was obvious the total number wasfar greater. Something of a puzzle was that none of theguns had their chambers fitted. Subsequently it wasrealised that the heavy concretion around the upside-down gun 1 included its chamber, but otherwise onlytwo chambers could be found, both loose in the stern,presumably where they were being transported. Manymore probably lie at the bottom of the slope. What alsobecame apparent was that the largest of the guns musthave been lying on the ballast in the hold of the vessel,stowed fore and aft, rather than being deployed asactive armament; this is similar to the Villefranche andAnholt situations, rather than the Mary Rose wherethe guns were found deployed at their action stations.
Gun 1, on the other hand, overlies a section ofstarboard-side planking, suggesting that it collapsedfrom a position higher in the hull (Fig. 3). Not only isits chamber present but it is significantly smaller thanthose which originally lay on the ballast. In 1998another gun was discovered, which had fallen througha port in the sterncastle, also with its chamber in place(Fig. 6.a). Access makes measurement difficult but itappears to be the same size as gun 1. In 2003 four moreguns were discovered, two more heavy guns furtherdown the slope and two lighter pieces, one of whichalso has its chamber in place (Fig. 6.b). It seems clear,therefore, that there are two groups: one consisting ofthe heaviest guns which were being transported in thehold; the other of lighter pieces disposed around theship. So far, the number of guns found still attached totheir carriage is at least 14, while the various carriage-beds, barrels and chambers indicate that the total issomewhat higher.
The length of the larger guns is c.3.5 m overall. Theirbarrels are between 1.5 and 1.7 m long and their cham-bers between 0.7 m and 0.8 m. Concretion makes it
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
difficult to measure the bore but they are approxi-mately 200 mm (Fig. 7). The largest of the guns whichappear to have been deployed around the ship were3 m long and with a smaller bore. There are also twopieces which are presumably swivel-guns, having bedswhich taper into a long tiller with which the gun couldbe pointed. One was found outboard, above the mainstructure, consistent with having fallen from a positionon deck. It is badly eroded, but is reminiscent of theCattewater gun (Redknap, 1984: 49). It has a bore ofc.50 mm, and the nature of the concretion around theback of the breech-chamber suggests an iron wedgesimilar to the Anholt guns. In 2003 another gun of
similar form and size but in rather better condition wasseen lying at c.40 m.
Manufacture and constructionThe construction of this type of gun is now relativelywell known, although there have been some mis-conceptions arising from observations of degradedexamples. The kravel assemblage exhibits many of thefeatures commonly seen in guns of this type, thoughwith interesting differences from pieces of similar sizeknown from elsewhere (Fig. 8).
The method of attaching the guns to their woodensledges seems to have varied, being either a rope
Figure 6. a) A gun which has fallen from the sterncastle though a port and now leans precariously against the cliff. b) A smallersterncastle gun standing muzzle down among other wreckage. (stills from video: J. Adams)
Figure 7. One of the large wrought-iron guns in the hold. The concreted muzzle can be seen extending just forward of thetimber bed or carriage. The timber carriage of another lies just above it (scale: 30 cm). (J. Adams)
woolding, iron straps, or both. Presumably the largerguns at least were mounted on axles and trucks,though none has been seen so far. Where the under-side of the sledge is visible there is a shallow rebateinto which an axle could have been set, as in the caseof guns 2 and 4 (Fig. 3). Iron staining may derivefrom retaining bolts and the rebate is also where onemight judge the centre of balance to be. However,only one gun, seen during a recent ROV video surveyin the deeper part of the site, has a rectangular slotthrough the rear of the sledge to take an elevatingpost, like those of the Mary Rose (Hildred, 2011:156).
ShotTwo lead shot were recovered. These were 75 mm and35 mm in diameter, which would be consistent withsizes of shot used for swivel-guns. A third shot was100 mm in diameter and appeared to be hollow. Twostone shot were recovered, of 110 mm and 140 mmdiameter, consistent with the ship’s own guns ratherthan those being transported in the hold.
Correlating gun finds with their original names isproblematic, but wrought-iron guns during this periodincluded types known as: fält slangor (equivalent tothe English term ‘sling’), kvarterstycken (quarterpiece),falkunetter (falconet), falkunbarsser, mickhackar, mick-hackebarsser and skeppshakar. These could fire cast-iron or lead shot. The other main class of guns were thestenbösser, literally ‘stone guns’ but meaning guns thatfired stone shot. The inventory for the Swedish warshipLeonen in 1541/42 lists 23 stenbösser, the largest firing9-inch shot (229-mm). Allowing for concretion, thelarger guns carried aboard the kravel could have firedshot of this sort of size. In English terminology thesewould equate to ‘port-pieces’.
Society on boardMany artefacts lie around the wreck that relate both tothe ship’s warlike function and to its social organisa-tion and general life on board. Most have been leftwhere they lie but in consultation with staff from the
Swedish National Maritime Museum, a few objectswhich were judged to be at risk were recovered at theend of the first season of work. After initial fieldrecording they were transported to the museum wherethey were conserved and subsequently displayed. Itemsrecovered included several of the shot referred toabove, but the majority of the others were presumablyassociated with the galley: principally a large, castcopper-alloy cauldron and a large copper-alloy caul-dron or kettle made from beaten and riveted plate.Both were lying below the fallen mast, and this may nothave been far from their original position, being con-sistent with the location of the galley in other shipsof this period (pers. comm. Christopher Dobbs, MaryRose Trust). Also recovered were two small, three-legged cooking pots, one of copper alloy (Fig. 9) theother of earthenware (Fig. 10).
There is no sign of an extensive brick-built galleystructure like that found on the Mary Rose (Rule,1982: 107; Dobbs, 2009). Something similar may liebelow the many collapsed timbers which obscurethe ballast in this area, but if the galley was built frombricks and lime mortar it may have fragmented andbeen widely scattered during the violent wreckingprocess. What does bring the Mary Rose to mind is asimilarly wide variety in the types of cooking vesselsfound. In the English ship, given the apparent simplic-ity of the enormous brick firebox supporting its twohuge brass cauldrons, one might have been forgiven forassuming food preparation was rudimentary. Recentexperimental work by Christopher Dobbs using afull-size reconstruction has shown it to be anything butcrude (2009: 133–5). Using cooking methods attestedby the galley structure itself as well as the various uten-sils and cooking vessels found, Dobbs’s reconstructionof this Tudor ‘Aga’ has proved capable of concurrentlyproducing a wide range of foods, not only for largenumbers but appropriate to their widely varied rankand social status.
This work has provided important new insights intoour understanding of food and drink at sea in the 16thcentury and how it may have related to society afloat.Indeed one could argue that the social hierarchy on
Figure 8. Reconstruction of a Mary Rose port-piece (A2604) of similar size to the larger kravel guns. Mary Rose port-piecesare of similar bore but vary in length of barrel and chamber. The carriages of the kravel guns extend all the way to the muzzleas seen in Fig. 7. Only one of those seen to date has a slot for an elevation post. (J. Adams, after Hildred, 2011: 148)
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
board, only partly reflected in the few surviving cabins,is revealed in its entirety through the galley. Perhaps weare getting a similar picture on the kravel where evi-dence for internal organization of space is not yetapparent from the structure seen so far. Internal par-titioning is relatively light, and if it survives must bescattered and fragmentary. In any case, presuming thatthe ship is one that was acquired second-hand, divisionof space may not have reflected social organization asexplicitly as one specifically built for the king’s admi-rals. The smaller cooking pots, on the other hand, mayindicate food preparation for those high-ranking indi-viduals who held command of one of the king’s bestships.
SamplesWoodSamples of both oak and pine were taken for dendro-chronology but only one, from an oak hull-plank, wassuccessfully dated. It included sapwood, the outermostgrowth ring dating to 1512. The curve most closelymatched a north Polish reference chronology, andgiven the sapwood allowance for trees growing in thisregion, this is likely to have been very near the fellingdate (pers. comm. Alf Bråthen, dendrochronologist).
Sub-samples of the planks recovered for dendro-chronology were sent to Professor Thomas Nilssonof the Swedish Agricultural University at Uppsalafor microbiological analysis. The aim was to identifystrains of fungus whose presence would indicatewhether the timbers used in the vessel’s constructionwere relatively new or had been subject to a degree ofdegradation. Analysis showed that there were indeedstrains of fungus which can only have infested thetimber prior to sinking, suggesting that the ship wasunlikely to have been very new (pers. comm. Nilsson).
StoneA sample of ballast-rock was recovered in order todetermine its geology and origin. It was identifiedas limestone and analysis suggests it most probablycomes from Finland, although Öland is also a possibil-ity (pers. comm. Sölve Johansson, Byggkonsult SölveJohansson AB). In appearance it is very similar to thelimestone slabs which are set into the entrance ofKalmar Castle, that city being adjacent to Öland wherethis ship had probably come from. However, Finlandmay also fit circumstantially as suggested below.
InterpretationIdentityAlthough many questions remain, on the basis of thearchaeological and historical information gathered sofar we can advance the following hypothesis: that this isthe vessel which Clemens Renzel records as having beenlost on the return voyage from Kalmar in 1525, carryingthe ordnance and other equipment from the Swan. The
supporting evidence can be summarised as follows. TheSwan is likely to have been considerably larger than thevessel wrecked in the Nämdöfjärd. The larger pieces ofordnance were stowed in the hold rather than deployedaround the vessel. Although ships often transportedtheir own armament in this way if it was not required tobe at immediate readiness, these guns are larger andmore numerous than one would expect for a vessel ofthis size, particularly as there are almost certainly otherson the site below the area recorded so far.
The other factor that supports this interpretation isthat none of these guns has a chamber fitted. Althoughone might expect some to fall out during wrecking, onewould expect them to lie in the general vicinity of theguns. The only two chambers found so far which arelarge enough for these guns were in the hold astern.The smaller guns elsewhere on the site, which arealmost certainly the ship’s own, do have chambersfitted. All the shot found so far on the site is for calibresconsiderably smaller than the great stenbössers, and arealso presumably for the ship’s own guns.
The location of the wreck is consistent with Renzel’sdescription of where the kravel was lost, ‘betweenDalarö and Djurshamn’. So too does the depth of 25fathoms (c.45 m—the wreck lies between 30 and 55 m).The wreck is also from the right period and is of acarvel-built ship. At this date carvel hulls were stillrelatively rare and prestigious, so it is consistent with adescription as ‘one of His Majesty’s best carvels’. Thedendrochronological date, though not conclusive, sup-ports this. A Polish origin for the timber is plausible asGustav Vasa is known to have acquired several shipsfrom Gdansk, Lübeck and other north German cities.Indications that the vessel was not new are consistentwith the purchase of a second-hand vessel.
As for identifying the specific vessel, there are someintriguing possibilities. It could of course be one of theoriginal 1522 fleet bought from Lübeck, though apartfrom the Swan we know none of them by name. ButGustav Vasa acquired more ships between then and1524, including one from a Lübeck merchant namedKort Konig. Vasa did not have many carvels so it ispossible that this is the one formerly owned by Konig.Of the others we know nothing but we do know thatone was ordered from Finland to Kalmar in 1525,providing a good link to a Finnish origin for the lime-stone ballast. Indeed this ship and the one formerlyowned by Kort Konig could be one and the same.
Ship type and originIn its construction, the vessel in the Nämdöfjärdexhibits one of the major technological changes weobserve in the maritime archaeological record of thisperiod: the adoption of the carvel method of shipconstruction, which superseded clinker building atleast for large merchant vessels and prestige warships.The late Basil Greenhill distrusted the term enoughto abandon it (1995: 60) but it is retained here firstlybecause that was the term used by the people who
built and used these ships, and secondly becauseGreenhill himself did much to remove confusion overwhat the term actually meant: a frame-led construc-tion sequence in which planks are laid flush and fas-tened to the frames, not to each other. Of course thenotion of flush-laid, non edge-joined planks was notnew in northern Europe, though the sequence of con-struction which produced them was rather different.What has been defined as the ‘bottom-based’ con-struction of cogs (Hocker and Vlierman, 1996) is oneexample, and recent research by McGrail into theRomano-Celtic boat found at Barland’s Farm sug-gests a very early form of frame-regulated construc-tion (Nayling and McGrail, 2004).
In the case of this kravel there are various charac-teristics which clearly indicate Mediterranean andIberian influence. With regard to size, the keel wasbetween 17 and 19 m long. It is difficult to be moreprecise at this stage as both the stem and the aft sectionof keel are disarticulated and the main section of keel isunder the remnants of the starboard side and ballastand thus inaccessible. Large carracks had length-to-breadth ratios of around 2.5:1, but proportionsrecorded in the Venetian ‘Timbotta manuscript’ indi-cate that the smaller vessels became progressively nar-rower in proportion to their length (Friel, 1994: 82).This document may be of dubious relevance to a vesselbuilt somewhat later in a different region, but it illus-trates that at this period the suggested parametersfor the proportional relationship, even betweenfundamental elements, were fairly wide. The kravel’smain breadth according to these proportions wouldhave been c.6.5–7 m, with a depth in hold of c.3–3.5 m,consistent with the size of the observed beams.
According to English formulae in use some half acentury later, capacity would have been c.120–150 tuns.However, tonnage formulae and keel-to-breadth ratiosonly give a crude indication of size at this time. Swedishläster (lasts) were approximately equal to two tons butat this period they varied according to the commodityconcerned (Jansson, 1946: 47). Carracks and theirderivatives also had long raking stems and the radius ofthe kravel’s surviving stem timber is consistent with this.Stems of long radius had the effect of extending themain body of the hull, producing a hull shape that wasmuch finer than the keel-to-breadth ratio might suggest.The Mary Rose, for example, had a keel-to-beam ratioof 2.8:1, which with its rake of stem gave a relatively finehull. Grenier made a similar observation about the RedBay wreck, San Juan. That had a keel of only 14.75 m(less than twice the breadth), but was 22 m long at theweather-deck (Grenier, 1988: 72).
Whatever the true figures, the kravel is a product ofthe process of development which produced the north-ern European 3-masted ship around the second quarterof the 15th century, fusing aspects of northern andsouthern technology. This vessel is a carrack deriva-tive, in that it was a northern-built ship incorporatingfeatures developed in Mediterranean carracks and
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
evidently the caravels, galleons and naos of the Atlanticcoast. However, in view of the region of origin indi-cated by dendrochronological analysis, and as theterm ‘carrack’ was apparently not used in Sweden, it isperhaps more appropriate to stick to the name used atthe time: ‘kravel’. For while there are problems identi-fying other ship types such as ‘holk’ and ‘krejer’, whoseclassification was clearly interchangeable, it is evidentfrom contemporary Swedish documents that the termkravel was specific (Glete, 1977: 29), having genericsignificance related to frame-led construction. The factthat the same word, albeit in regional form, derivedfrom the Portuguese ‘caravella’, appears right acrossnorthern Europe, suggests this was also the case wher-ever the new technology was adopted.
As an example of the carvel ships being built innorthern Europe by this time, this vessel is a valuableaddition to the database in terms of ship technologyand the general developments in shipping and mari-time enterprise of the period. The evidence implicatesthese ships in the activities of the ‘new men’ of the age,and this particular one in the state-building enterpriseof Gustav Vasa, undoubtedly one of the most powerfuland effective agents of his time (Glete, 1993; Åberg,1996; Glete, 2000). In this way an investigation of theship and the associated primary historical documentsprovide a new means of understanding the socialcontext in which these changes took place, and which,in the final analysis, is where the causes of change areto be found.
Notes1. By the time Anders Franzén gave a paper on the Franska Stenarna wreck at a symposium at Fort Bovisand in March 1993,
he stated that it was probably not the Swan, and encouraged the present writers to push forward investigation of the wreck.2. In a review of Adams and Rönnby (1996) for this journal, Michael Springman doubted whether so much would have been
spent on this project had it been realised that the wreck was not that of the Swan (1998: 270). Firstly, we had been of theopinion that this ship could not be the Swan since inspecting it in 1991, and secondly, the cash budget for a project of thissize was modest. While the total cost of the 1994 operation would have exceeded £175,000 at commercial rates, the majoritywas provided through sponsorship or help in kind (see acknowledgements).
3. The depth, the very low light levels, the often fragmentary and distorted nature of the structure and its generally precarioussituation make detailed recording a slow process and the plan varies in the degree of accuracy between different parts of thewreck. The position of some peripheral datums, for example on the collapsed stern section, mainmast and lower guns, areprovisional at this stage. These and any other points surveyed with fewer than four measurements will be expressed at a finite3-D position with no indication of error. Their apparent perfection will flatter the overall result. Hence the true absoluteaverage residual is probably around 20 mm. As of August 2007, 707 distances and relative depths have been taken, of which40 were ignored (5.6%).
4. The ‘Anthony Roll’ is an illustrated manuscript presented to Henry VIII in 1546 by Anthony Anthony, as part of ‘ADeclaration of the Royal Navy’, listing naval ships, their ordnance and other equipment. It is now in the Pepys Library,Magdalene College Cambridge.
5. Various formulae were used to calculate the capacity of a vessel, originally equated with the number of Bordeaux wine casks(tuns) which could be stowed, for example (keel-length ¥ breadth ¥ depth in hold) � 100 (Salisbury, 1966).
AcknowledgementsAs well as our respective universities, the Swedish National Maritime Museum provided a substantial proportion of the fundingas well as administrative and practical support. Stockholm County Authority provided permits, funding and considerableencouragement. Logistically, key sponsors included Boston Shipping; Stolt Comex Seaway; Gas & Equipment, Aberdeen;Dundee Port Authority; the Royal Swedish Navy; Anders Tegnerud, Nynäsdyk and Lars Göran Uthberg, ProMare. Manycolleagues commented on earlier drafts, including Carl Olof Cederlund, Seán McGrail, J. D. Hill, Jerzy Gawronski, AlexHildred and Nick Rule. We are also indebted to Carl Henric Ankeberg of the Stockholm County Authority and to Jan Gletewho also kindly read the article from a historical perspective. Professor Glete’s death in 2008 robs us of a pre-eminent historianof European political and maritime history. This paper is therefore in part dedicated to him and also to team members. Errorsthat remain are our responsibility.
ReferencesÅberg, A., 1996, Gustav Vasa. Stockholm.Adams, J., 1991, Editorial; Nautical Archaeology Society Newsletter 91: 3.Adams, J., 2003, Ships Innovation and Social Change. Stockholm.Adams, J. and Rönnby, J., 1996, Furstens Fartyg. Swedish National Maritime Museum, Uppsala.Adams, J., van Holk, A. F. L. and Maarleveld. Th. J., 1990, Dredgers and Archaeology, Shipfinds from the Slufter. Alphen aan
den Rijn.Adams, J. and Rule, N., 1991, ‘DSM’ an evaluation of a three dimensional method of survey on underwater sites. In R. Reinders
(ed.) Scheepsarchaeologie: prioriteiten en lopend onderzoek: 145–55. Proceedings of the Glavimans Symposia 1986 & 88.Flevobericht no. 322. Rijksdienst Ijsselmeerpolders.
Adams, J., Norman, P. and Rönnby, J., 1991, Rapport från marinarkeologisk vrakbesiktning, Franska Stenarna,Nämdöfjärden, Marinarkeologisk tidskrift 2, 8–10. Stockholm.
Anthony, Anthony, 1546, The Anthony Roll. An Inventory of Henry VIII’s Ships, giving lists of ordnance. Pepysian Library,Magdalene College Cambridge.
Arnold, J. B. and Weddle, R., 1978, The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island, the Spanish Shipwrecks of 1514. New York.Cederlund, C. O., 1994, The Royal Ships and Divine Kingdom, Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 47–85.Cederlund, C. O., 1995, Svanen Som Blev en Anka. Vrakidentifiering och marknadsföring av nationella myter. Uppsala.Daggfeldt, B., 1963, Lybska Svan. Tidskrift I Sjöväsendet 1963, 3–27.Derry, T. K., 1979, A History of Scandinavia. Minneapolis.Dobbs, C., 2009, The Galley, in P. Marsden (ed.), Mary Rose: Your Noblest Shippe. Anatomy of a Tudor Warship, 124–35.
Portsmouth.Einarsson, L., 1990, Kronan—underwater archaeological investigations of a 17th-century man-of-war. The nature, aims and
development of a maritime cultural project, IJNA 19.3, 297–307.Eriksson, N., forthcoming, Recording a big 3-dimensional ship structure, thoughts rendered from the Dalarö wreck project, in
J. Henderson (ed.), Proceedings of IKUWA 3.Franzén, A., 1961, The Warship Vasa. Deep Diving and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm. Stockholm.Friel, I., 1994, The Carrack: The Advent of the Full Rigged Ship, in R. Unger (ed.), Cogs, Caravels and Galleons, 77–90.
London.Gerout, M., Reith, E. and Gassend, J. M., 1989, Le Navire Génois de Villefranche. Un naufrage de 1516? Archaeonautica 9.
CNRS, Paris.Glete, J., 1977, Svenska örlogsfartyg 1521–1560. Flottans uppbyggnad under ett tekniskt brytningsskede, in Forum Navale.
Skrifter utgivna av Sjöhistoriska Samfundet Nr 31.Glete, J., 1993, Navies and Nations. Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America 1500–1860. Stockholm.Glete, J., 2000, Warfare at Sea 1500–1650. Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe. London.Greenhill, B., 1995, The Archaeology of Boats and Ships, an Introduction. London.Grenier, R., 1988, Basque Whalers in the New World: The Red Bay Wrecks, in G. Bass (ed.), Ships and Shipwrecks of the
Americas, 69–84. London.Grenier, R., Loewen, B. and Prouix, J-P., 1994, Basque shipbuilding technology c.1560–1580: The Red Bay Project, in
C. Westerdahl (ed.), Crossroads in Ancient Shipping, 137–41. Oxford.Grenier, R., Bernier, M-A. and Stevens, W. (eds), 2007, The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay. Basque Shipbuilding and
Whaling in the 16th Century. Ottawa.Groot, I. de and Vorstman, R., 1980, Maritime Prints by Dutch Masters, Plate 5. London.Hocker, F. and Vlierman, K., 1996, A small cog wrecked on the Zuiderzee in the early fifteenth century. Lelystad.Howard, F., 1986, Early Ship Guns, Part I: Built-up Breech-loaders. Mariner’s Mirror 72, 440–48.Hildred, A., 2006, New excavations on the Mary Rose, 2003–2005, unpublished report, Mary Rose Trust.Hildred, A. (ed.), 2011, Weapons of Warre. The Armaments of the Mary Rose. Archaeology of the Mary Rose 3. Portsmouth.Hutchinson, G., 1994, Medieval Ships and Shipping. London.Jansson, S. O., 1946, Om läst och lästetal. Sjöhistorisk Årsbok. Föreningen sveriges sjöfartsmuseum i Stockholm, 27–48.Johnson, M., 1993, Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape. London.Johnson, M., 1996, An archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford.Keith, D. H., Duff, J. A., James, S. R., Oertling, T. J., and Simmons, J. J., 1984, The Molasses Reef wreck, Turks and Caicos
Islands, BWI: A Preliminary Report, IJNA 13.1, 45–63.Keith, D. H. and Simmons, J. J., 1985, Analysis of hull remains, ballast, and artefact distribution of a sixteenth century
shipwreck, Molasses Reef, British West Indies, Journal of Field Archaeology 12.4: 411–24.Loewen, B., 2007, The Square Tuck Stern: a Renaissance innovation?, in R. Grenier, M-A. Bernier and W. Stevens (eds), The
Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay: Basque shipbuilding and whaling in the 16th century, III, 132–48. Parks Canada, Ottawa.Marsden, P. (ed.), 2009, Mary Rose: Your Noblest Shippe. Anatomy of a Tudor Warship. Portsmouth.Nayling, N. and McGrail, S., 2004, Barland’s Farm Romano-Celtic Boat. London.Palacio, Diego Garcia de, 1587, Instrucción náutica para navegar. Mexico City (facsimile reprint Madrid, 1944).Redknap, M., 1984, The Cattewater Wreck: the investigation of an armed vessel of the sixteenth century. National Maritime
Museum. Archaeological Series No. 8, BAR Brit. ser. 131, Greenwich.Renzel, C., Berättilse om Konung Göstaffz Historia, Manuscript. Royal Library, Sweden.Roberts, M., 1968, The Early Vasas. A History of Sweden, 1523–1611. Cambridge.Rule, M., 1982, The Mary Rose. The Excavation and Raising of Henry VIII’s Flagship. London: Conway Maritime Press.Rule, N., 1989, The Direct Survey Method (DSM) of underwater survey, and its application underwater, IJNA 18.2, 157–62Rule, N., 1995, Some techniques for cost-effective three dimensional mapping of underwater sites, in J. Wilcock and K.
Lockyear (eds), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993. BAR S598, Oxford.Salisbury, W., 1966, Early Tonnage Measurement in England, Mariner’s Mirror 52.1, 41–51.Simmons, J. J., 1988, Wrought iron ordnance: revealing discoveries from the New World, IJNA 17.1, 25–34.Sleeswyk, A. W., 1990, The Engraver Willem A. Cruce and the Development of the Chain-Wale, Mariner’s Mirror 76, 345–61.Springman, M., 1998, Review of Fursten’s Fartyg (The Prince’s Ship), IJNA 27.3, 270–71.Swart, P., Konung Gustaf I:s krönika, Manuscript, Royal Library, Sweden.Zettersten, A., 1890, Svenska Flottans Historia I, 1522–1634. Stockholm.
J. ADAMS & J. RÖNNBY: THE WRECK OF AN EARLY CARVEL-BUILT SHIP AT FRANSKA STERNARNA
