Maritime Archaeology

Newsletter from Denmark

The Vaaler Moor boat, a central find of early northern Europe in on display again at Schloß Gottorp in Schleswig. A good occasion to reflect on its importance.Photo: Nicholas Ranchin Dundas.

No. 25 Summer 2010

2

CONTENTS:

Vaaler Moor and more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Hull form of the Oseberg ship . . . . . . . . . . 4

Medical practice on HMS St George . . . . 10

Setting up the mastin early medieval Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . 14

Læsø 2009:A maritime archaeological survey . . . . . 19

A capsized wreckand a surprise at 4am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SPLASHCOS, a European Networkon Submerged Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

N0 . 25 SUMMER 2010

Published 2010:

ISBN 978-87-85180-05-6Published bythe Viking Ship Museum in Ros kilde .DKK 349 / EUR 47 + postage

Vaaler Moor and more

More and more students in maritime archaeology, that means more and more opportunity for maritime archaeological projects, now and in the future . Such projects can take very different forms as the Newsletter, including this 25th edition, shows . Submerged landscapes and fascinating flint are more than ever at the centre of attention, as Anders Fischer reports . Others, such as the grand old man of Danish maritime archaeology, Ole Crumlin Pedersen do not think flints are fascinating at all . At least, that was one of the things he said while presenting his new book Archaeology and the Sea, in Roskilde – where else? – in the beginning of May this year . It is a fascinating book, consolidating more than fifty years of research in many fascinating aspects of maritime archaeology in northern Europe, centering on Denmark and the place of its people in space and time . Flint is not included, or hardly . But there is much to read on ships and ships graves, naval prowess and defence, trade and exploration as well as detailed work on finding sources and starting (re-)constructing protohistoric ships, published in many books and articles . It is all conveniently brought together as number 3 in the Viking Ship Museum‘s series Maritime Culture of the North . It is, as usual, given pride of place .

The book is also a personal account . On the very first page, it relates how Crumlin-Pedersen consulted prehistory professor C .J . Becker in Copenhagen on the prospects of studying archaeology and do ‘something‘ with boats . Not an option, according to the then authority, no way to earn a living . So Crumlin-Pedersen decided to study naval architecture and tackle history and archaeology from that angle, indirectly or directly providing a living for a whole

3

generation of maritime archaeologists . More than a decade later, I experienced a different attitude in Becker‘s contemporary, friend and counterpart in Leiden, P .J .R . Modderman . His early career had made him excavate ‘M 107‘, a high medieval ship site in recently reclaimed land . That was in many ways by chance . He saw its importance, however, and felt that specialised technical understanding needed to be developed, just as this is the case with flint or pottery . It was an understanding he did not see himself developing . But he certainly encouraged the idea to try and combine archaeology and maritime technology . Boats are, after all, at least as fascinating as flints or pottery in bogs .

Every second year Modderman organised an excursion to different parts of Europe . 1978 brought us to Denmark and back in two minibuses, and archaeological shipfinds were high on the agenda . Ladby, Lejre, Roskilde, and Åmose were some of the stops with boat connotations . Moesgård, Vorbasse, and Vedbæk were not forgotten, and neither was Vandkunsten in Copenhagen, to pay respects to C .J . Becker . But first we visited Schleswig and the Landesmuseum in Gottorp Slot . It was the last time in many years that I saw the Vaaler Moor ‘boat’ that adorns the cover of this issue .

After many years of storage, it was recently put back on display; a good occasion to visit it with students, in two minibuses actually (yes, the Maritime Archaeology Programme acquired a second second-hand car!) . Moreover, it could be taken as starting point for the students to dive into a wealth of archaeological questions: how does the boat compare to logboats in their respective countries, from Portugal to Sweden? What are the different research traditions? How is the boat supposed to fit into the ‘development of ships’? But equally: how can this boat or group of boats be interpreted in the wider archaeological context? What are the different archaeological contexts along the North Sea in the relevant time period? How,

do these relate to geology and waterlevel change? A maritime archaeologist, like every archaeological specialist, should after all be able to work with a wider archaeological understanding .

The museum’s director, Claus von Carnap-Bornheim, vice-director Ralf Bleile and their staff are thanked for the warm welcome that we received, coming back for the students to experiment with different techniques in documenting the construction . The work will be consolidated in a booklet, as we did earlier with the Gredstedbro ship as starting point .

But there is more than Vaaler Moor . Work on the find material of the St George, the British maritime pearl on the Danish west coast has seriously started . Paul Montgomery reports in this issue . Two other theses follow, and a detailed study of the rudder is nearly ready for publication . Two reports were published as a result of last year’s fieldwork, on which a short note by Jens Auer . Just like a report on the excavation of the logboat-find ‘Kadoelerveld’ the full reports are available on the internet (www .maritimearchaeology .dk) . Vibeke Bischoff has a fine contribution on the Oseberg ship . It is yet one further step in a tradition of detailed technical analysis that Crumlin-Pedersen started . Jan Hammer Larsen reports on an area survey in the Kattegat . And then, in April, the pipelaying barge Castoro Sei started its work on the Nordstream pipeline, the first transnational maritime construction project that included archaeological consideration over its full trajectory through the maritime zones of five individual countries . Will construction work be as consciously considerate with cultural heritage as promised? It would be a novum, but why not .

Thijs J. Maarleveld

4

The Oseberg ship, built in AD 820 and buried in a grave mound 13 years later, was excavated in 1904 . Shortly after, the ship was re-assembled for exhibit at the Viking Ship Museum, in Bygdøy, Oslo (Brøgger 1917) . For almost 100 years, the ship, of which almost 95% of the original wood is present in an amazing state of preservation, was regarded as a truthful reconstruction . It is 21 .5 m long with a breadth of 5 .0 m . However, when the ship was assembled in 1906-07, a series of decisions were made, that deserve careful scrutiny .

In 1987, a full-scale reconstruction, baptised Dronningen, was built in Norway . It was based on drawings of the exhibited ship . Dronningen capsized during its very first sea trial, sailing on a close reach in a

Hull form of the Oseberg ship

Beaufort 5 wind . Her speed was about 8-10 knots . Analyses of the sailing trial, as well as a subsequent test of a 1:10 scale model in a hydrodynamics laboratory, showed that the bow water shipped over the sheer, when the vessel reached a speed of approximately 9 knots and a heel angle of approximately 10 degrees (Godal 1988) .

There have been many hypotheses about what went wrong . Was it the keel rocker, the shape of the bow, too small a crew, too little ballast, or too large a sail (Bischoff 2007)? Would the original ship have done better? The only way to find out was a thorough

The well preserved Oseberg Ship in the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo, Norway. Photo: The Viking Ship Museum, Oslo.

5

examination of the exhibited remains . With the firm belief that new methods and new expertise would bring new answers, the Oseberg Project 2006 aimed to evaluate and reconstruct the hull form of the Oseberg ship anew, through new documentation methods and a reconsidered interpretation of the preserved parts (Bischoff et al. 2007) .

Recording and modellingIn 2006, the interior was systematically photographed, and two different scanning methods were used to document both the interior and exterior of the vessel . The outside was documented with a photo scanner, 10 points/mm2 and with minimum 0 .5 mm accuracy . The inside was scanned by laser, 0 .3 points/mm2 with 6 .0 mm accuracy . Photo scanning is a very time-consuming process and creates large digital files, but it is much more detailed and accurate than laser scanning, which is rougher and more blurred . Both scanning processes were complimentary to each other and a great help in the reconstruction process . On the basis of the scans, 2D drawings of all parts

were made . Cracks and deformations in the individual elements were scrutinised in order to reconstruct the hull form reliably . The drawings and photographs that had been made during excavation and assembly formed additional information .

Each part was then cut out of cardboard and assembled in a 1:10 scale model . For this purpose, the 1:10 scale drawings were printed on paper and then glued onto cardboard with the same scaled thickness as the ship parts, ensuring that the planks can be assembled correctly, and that all preserved parts are taken into account . By creating a physical 3-D model in this way, a reliable hull form can be established . As the hull form is a coherent structure, one cannot make alterations in one dimension without influencing changes in other dimensions . If a large percentage of the ship is preserved,

The elements were cut in cardboard and assembled in a 3-D reconstruction model at 1:10 scale in which all preserved parts were taken into account. Photo: W. Karrasch, The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde.

6

the model thereby will present a reasonably precise image of the original ship (Ravn et al. forthcoming) .

Adjustments to hull formThe outside of the ship as exhibited appears smooth and coherent and shows no visible signs of irregularities . The inside of the ship, however, is more irregular, with several cracks and fragmentary pieces . The internal structure and planking show the results of manipulation . When found, the ship was deformed and broken in 2000 fragments . In the grave mound, the sides had been pressed down, so that the bottom of the hull was at the same height as the sheer . During the excavation in 1904, all ship parts were measured and documented in situ, before they were removed and stored for about 2 years . During assembly, the reconstructors

understandably faced problems on which they took radical decisions .

Photographs from the storage show very fragmentary, deformed and dried-out hull parts, and it is obvious that the reconstructors had a tremendous task. In the 1917 publication, it is noted that some parts had to be steamed up to three times in order to press them into their original shape (Brøgger 1917: 86-87). A photo taken during the assembly of the ship shows, that the reconstructors did not have sufficient control of the angle of the stem. The top strakes were not attached to the stem, and there were major problems in connecting the planking in that area. These problems most likely resulted from the very start of the reconstruction process. The keel had been laid slightly too straight. It was broken in many fragments when found, so its rocker is unknown. Equally, the stem was made to heel a bit too much forward. Difficulties then occurred when the upper strakes – where the ship is broadest – did not reach the rabbet. In consequence, the reconstructors had to

During the assembly of the ship the reconstructors did not have sufficient control of the angle of the stem. Photo: The Viking Ship Museum, Oslo.

7

press the ship's sides inward. For this to be possible, the beams were shortened.

Also, the floor timbers are very fragmentary . The lower edges of the floor timbers and the protruding cleats upon which they sit had collapsed . This problem caused the planks to appear up to 7 cm closer to the floor timbers than they originally were . The lines drawing used for building the full-scale reconstruction Dronningen did not take this collapse into consideration . Furthermore, the top ends of several floor timbers in the forward part of the ship were broken at the eighth strake . While putting the ship together for display in Bygdøy, the reconstructors pressed the top ends of the floor timbers further into the ship than they would have been initially, causing the bow to be more narrow and more flat in cross-section than it would have been originally .

By superimposing a simplified sketch of an excavated floor timber on a cross-section of the recent laser scan of the timber as displayed, it was clear that during discovery, the floor timbers in the bow were wider than they appear today . This is supported by the fact, that the beams in the bow seem to have been shortened, although it wasn’t possible to determine by how much . During reassembly, some were cut or were put together from parts that did not fit . The fact that several of

the supports between the floor timbers and the beams in the bow were skewed, instead of vertical, as are other supports in the aft of the ship, supports this observation .

On the basis of these observations, it was possible to stipulate some changes in the hull form that might be crucial to the sailing performance of the ship . Adjusting the shape of the floor timbers and reconstructing the collapsed cleats and frame edges gives the hull more fullness and lifts the stem . Correcting the shape of the floor timbers by making them wider gives the bow area a concave cross-section and more hollow waterlines below the bilge .

Sailing performanceAfter completion of the cardboard model, its dimensions were recorded . This was done with a digitising tool (Faro Arm), and the measurements were directly entered into the drafting programme Rhinoceros (Hocker 2000, 2002) . On the basis of this, a 3-D lines drawing and a 3-D solid model were produced . Physical waterproof models were then made of the lines that had been used in 1987 and of the new lines in order to see, if the sailing performance had changed after readjustment of the hull form . The models were tested in the laboratory of the Norwegian Marine Technology Research

Below left: The lower edge of the floortimbers and the protruding cleats were collapsed. Below right: The top parts of the floortimbers in the bow area were pressed in during the installation. Photos: V. Bischoff, The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde.

8

Institute (MARTINEK) in Trondheim, with different displacements, different heel angles, and different leeway angles . The engineers then measured the sailing performance of the ship under conditions up to 20 knots and up to 15 degrees of heel angle and 10 degrees of drift angle .

The flow of water around the hull was remarkably different in the two scale models . The old model pressed the water to the sides rather than guiding the flow under the hull . This meant that the bow dived instead of gaining lift, when speed increased . The new model created bow water that guided the flow under the hull, which made the bow lift remarkably when gaining speed . The tank tests showed two completely different ships with very different performance levels .

ConclusionsThis research has led to a better insight into the original hull form of the Oseberg ship and has provided more knowledge of the sailing capabilities of a Nordic ship of around AD 800 . The project showed that the ship originally had more fullness in the submerged part of the hull, and that it has been broader above the waterline in its forward part than it appears on display today . The new reconstruction of the Oseberg ship has a more concave cross-section in the bow area with its stem lifted a little more out of the water . The reconstruction reveals that this lift gives the vessel a more rockered keel than was assumed and realized in the exhibited ship . All these factors are of vital importance for the water flow around the hull, affecting the ship's overall sailing performance .

The corrected reconstruction of the bow shape allows the conclusion that the Oseberg reconstruction Dronningen actually had less buoyancy below the bilge and a different run of the strakes in the bow than the original

Several bities in the bow area were shortened or assembled incorrectly during reconstruction for exhibition in 1906-07. Photo: V. Bischoff, The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde.

9

ship, which may have been the cause for the bow water to ship over the sheer so unfortunately resulting in the sinking of the vessel in 1987 . Although the new hull form was tried in a tank test, it remains to be seen if a new full-scale reconstruction will allow for a more seaworthy, more stable, and better-sailing vessel .

Vibeke Bischoff

ReferencesBischoff, V ., 2007, Gåden Osebergskibet .

Kysten 2007, Nr . 3, 36-40 .Bischoff, V . Paasche, K . & Røvik, G ., 2007,

Rekonstruksjon av Osebergskipets form . Unpublished report .

Bonde, N . & Christensen, A .E ., 1993, Dendrochronological dating of the Viking Age ship burials at Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune, Norway . Antiquity 67: 575-583 .

Brøgger, A .W ., Falk, Hj . and Shetelig, H ., 1917, Osebergfundet . Bind I . Kristiania .

Godal, J ., 1988, Rapport om Prøvesegling . Unpublished report .

Hocker, F ., 2000, New tools – for maritime archaeology . Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde, Denmark, No .14, 27-30 . Roskilde .

Hocker, F ., 2002, New tools – for maritime archaeology . Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde, Denmark, No . 18, 50 . Roskilde .

Ravn, M ., Bischoff, V ., Englert, A . & Nielsen, S ., forthcoming, Recent Advances in Post-Excavation Documentation, Recon-struction and Experimental Maritime Archaeology . In: Catsambis, A ., Ford, B . and Hamilton, D . (eds .), Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology . New York .

Bonde, N . & Stylegar, F .A . Fra Avaldsnes til Oseberg . Dendrokronologiske under-søkelser av skipsgravene fra Storhaug og Grønhaug på Karmøy . Viking, Norsk arkeologisk årbok Bind LXXII – 2009, Oslo 2009 .

Rhinoceros, a 3-D design software package, is suitable for making a surface modeling of the hull, which is required to produce a solid test model for a hydrodynamics laboratory. Drawing: Vibeke Bischoff.

10

IntroductionThe history of HMS St George and its subsequent loss in 1811 is one that provides many opportunities for the archaeologist to investigate . After a long range of excavation campaigns that started with the initiatives of Gert Normann, the find material has been conserved in the regional conservation facilities at Ølgod and is curated and exhibited in the Strandingsmuseum St George in Thorsminde, close to the wreck location . The St George represents a unique example of a cultural assemblage from the age of sail that has remained in a good state of preservation . The significance of this wreck is related to both her association with one of the worst naval disasters in the history of the English Royal Navy and to the fact that she is one of the few examples of a well preserved shipwreck from the Napoleonic wars . The value of the St George in this context is that it represents an opportunity to investigate a relatively undistorted view of mariners’ life aboard a Royal Navy ship . Finally, the majority of previous research concerning this period has relied heavily on historical narrative and documents, rather than on archaeological evidence .

The primary goal of the research presented here is to provide a fresh archaeological perspective on the remains of the St George shipwreck . A huge amount of artefacts have been collected . Master students of the Maritime Archaeology Programme have been invited to study the material . The study presented here is based on the first master thesis that resulted from this research . A more comprehensive monograph is foreseen as the start of a series of reports on different aspects of the assemblage .

In the present research, two distinct areas were chosen to be addressed: firstly,

Medical Practice on HMS St George

the ships surgeons’ tools, and secondly, the hygiene related items of the crew from the St George . Traditionally, the study of this age has been heavily influenced by the ideas and romanticism of the period, not to mention historic novels . In light of this, the artifacts in this research were addressed from the perspective of Michael B . Schiffers behavioural archaeology . This approach focuses on observing and understanding what people actually did, rather than on what is thought and said they were doing .

Samples of fine toothed combs and different kinds of toothbrushes from HMS St George. Photos: Paul Montgomery.

11

Personal health care practices The subject of personal health care practices is a primary one in this research project . The majority of the artefacts analysed are toothbrushes, manicure sets, shaving brushes and fine toothed combs (used to comb one’s hair and combat lice) . They have been described with their social setting in view . Each of the items was analysed, drawn, photographed and set in their archaeological and social context in the ship .

Within the analyses of this part of the assemblage, there were a number of discoveries concerning the behaviour related to personal hygiene . The most striking was the number of different kinds of toothbrushes and their variation in use and manufacture . Typically the brush-handles are made of bone and horn . That may suggest uniformity, but it stands in stark contrast to the wide range of shapes that were available to the consumer . This aspect of hygiene was without question within the individuals own control and this control gave the options and freedom to try different styles . The assortment of shapes would point to objects that were made for a wide social market who wanted toothbrushes for many reasons; both practical for cleaning your teeth and as a refinement of one’s image .

These aspects of material culture have been ignored in the past as it was deemed not significant for archaeology . When one looks at the wider collection of the context of the St George, it can be easy to only focus on the guns or swords that are so iconic for this age and which are the bread and butter of naval specialists . But with this assemblage there is so much more one can do . With the material culture in hand one can seek to recreate and develop a deeper understanding of the past experiences of the human beings using it . Daily life for the men on the St George was influenced by items such as toothbrushes and combs . As simple as they are, they provide us with an insight into the daily life of the common man aboard the ship, and give us a sense of the way that individuals approached personal health care .

Material cultureof maritime medical practicesThe other focus of the thesis relates to tools and appliances that are attributed to the more formal tool-kit of the barber surgeon as a functionary on board ship . The two sets of medical tools and related items, nearly sixty in total, were analysed from the perspective of their production, composition, role and utility .

When we look at the assemblage, the majority of items are related to the removal of damaged tissue, which was a surgeon's option if he thought that a wound would become infected and thereby cause death . However, this was not his only option . Items such as the bullet probe would indicate that the surgeon also had the option to remove projectiles and clean wounds . Additionally,

Trepanation tool. Photo and drawing: Paul Montgomery.

12

the recovery of a series of splints would point to the non-amputation of broken limbs . Such a discovery points to an established system of treatment without the use of surgery . We can only assume that for the common sailor viewing the surgeon at work, his viewpoint was dominated by the bloody work of the surgeon rather than the less visible treatments . The surgical tools on the St George provided for both . The recovery of pre-manufactured wooden leg stumps also indicates that there were provisions made for the loss of limbs while on the ship .

There is no question that the experience of treatment was not a pleasant one for the person being treated, but the system which shows from the remains that have been found has a logic behind it . The logic was a very simple one that was dictated by the needs of every ship, namely man power . The tools of the surgeon were very much like the tools of other tradesmen, in that they existed for the purpose of maintenance and repair of the crew . His goal was to keep as many people alive and fit for work as he could, which was the only way to keep the ship working and effective . This system was one which was not based on the notion that injured crew members were useless crew members, as even crew with limbs removed would still have to contribute to the ship . In this context every person on the ship had a role; the loss of a leg would change these roles but they still could be an effective member of the wider crew .

ConclusionsPersonal hygiene items and surgeons‘ tools have been relatively under researched in Napoleonic studies, and indeed their relevance and importance may seem minor when compared against the military aspects of battles at either the Nile or Trafalgar . However, understanding the health behaviour of the crew and the health care system onboard is a crucial part of under-standing the social fabric that allowed such ships to go to war . Their significance is on a

par with the guns or cannons, as the health of an army often is its most important resource . With this in mind, the present research has sought to explore the human factors on board ship, thus the human experience .

The medical assemblage of the St George wreck is one that is well rounded with tools for a number of different minor and major operations being included in the set . In the case of the St George the research has shown that the tools used by the surgeon correlated quite well with the recommended lists of the Admiralty . The variation in quality in this context is the most relevant point that has come to light in this research . The quality of the tools is linked with the human experience and therefore with behaviour . In the case of an amputation the quality of the

Splints and wooden legs. Photos: Paul Montgomery.

13

tools had a significant impact on the medical outcome and patient experience . In this age before effective pain killers, the sharpness of the blade was the only way to minimize pain and loss of blood . When studying the assemblage of the surgical toolkit that remains, it is easy to understand why sailors viewed the work of a ships surgeon on a par with that of a butcher .

One of the more reveiling discoveries from the assemblage was that of personal hygiene, in the context of the ship, which had the potential to impact far beyond

an individual . In the crowded decks of the St George the hygiene of one person could affect a much wider pool of people . The remaining materials point to a level of personal hygiene that was practiced by more than just the higher level of the ship’s society . The use of behavioural archaeology in the context of the St George is based on the view that the world which was in action on the ship was one created by human behaviour expressed in the materials . The range of styles and functions of items point to wider perspectives of the society, and the research indicates that assumptions relating to the idea that the lower classes were not as concerned with hygiene as the upper classes have to be reconsidered .

Paul Montgomery

The loss of HMS St George on the Danish west coast in 1811 was a dramatic event, visualised in a diorama in the Strandings-museum in Thorsminde, where the impressive collection is kept. Photo: Thijs Maarleveld.

14

The origin of the sail in Scandinavia and on the southern Baltic coast persists being a mystery even today, despite the fact that this topic was one of the first to be addressed in Scandinavian maritime archaeology more than 100 years ago (Åkerlund 1963: 9; Christensen 1982: 19-20) . The earliest evidence for the use of sail in Scandinavia is found on the Gotlandic picture stones usually dated to c . 7th/8th century AD, even though the earliest known archaeological proof for the use of sail in that area seems to date no further back than the 11th century AD . The earliest certain archaeological evidence for the use of sail in Scandinavia is found on the Oseberg ship and dates to c . 820 AD .

The lower mast fastening system is the best-known technical feature related to the use of sail in prehistoric northern Europe .

Setting up the mastin early medieval Scandinavia

The lower mast fastening systems from early medieval Scandinavia can roughly be divided into two groups: 1) keelsons, a center-line timber located in the bottom of the vessel and placed on top of several frames, and 2) mast fastening systems associated to a single (mast) frame in the vessel . From the distribution of the archaeological record of mast fastening systems known to this point, keelsons seem to have been unknown in the eastern part of Scandinavia before c . 1250 AD . Hence, lower mast fastening systems related to (mast) frames will be of crucial interest here . Objectives of primary interest are the search for information on the origin and diffusion of the sail in Scandinavia as well as an attempt to increase understanding and knowledge of technology-transfer between the different regions of Scandinavia . Tracing possible internal as well as intercultural contacts in terms of distinct, datable and recognizable technologies in remotely located regions of ethnic and linguistic similarity may yield interesting knowledge regarding material and conceptual exchange (or lack of exchange) within ethnically and linguistically homogeneous groups settled in

The Charbrowo 1 (left) and Czarnowsko I (right) ships under excavation near the Baltic coast of Poland in 1900 and 1957 respectively. The mast step timber in the Czarnowsko I ship is made of birch, lashed to the frame with willow twigs. Photos: Muzeum Narodowe, Szczecin.

15

Types and geographic dispersion of mast fastening systems (not keelsons) from Scandinavia and the southern Baltic, before 1250 AD.

geographically large areas located far away from each other .

The absence of keelsons in eastern Scandinavia prior to c . 1250 AD seems somewhat enigmatic and calls for further investigation and comparison of the mast fastening systems that actually did exist in Scandinavia and the southern Baltic in the preceding period . Comparisons of the lower mast fastening systems from all over the area make things even more puzzling . It appears that preferences and technical choices in the basic construction of essentially similar mast fastening systems diverge between western and eastern Scandinavia .

At least 9 examples of mast fastening systems of a type technically related to only one (mast) frame, predating 1250 AD, have been found within the Scandinavian area (Haithabu included) . They are known from all over the region from Bergen in the northwest and Stockholm in the northeast to Haithabu in the south . At least six additional

mast fastening systems of similar (technical) types are known from the southern shores of the Baltic . A map showing the location of all included finds can be seen below .

The specific kind of mast fastening systems under consideration differs somewhat in size, morphology, and technique . However, it is possible to distinguish them into two main types on the basis of technical characteristics: type 1, having a cavity (mast step) for the mast heel carved directly into a (heavy) mast frame, and type 2, a composite system composed of two elements, a mast frame and a block or chock, fixing the mast heel in combination . Mast fastening systems of type 1 can be further subdivided into two groups – group a and b, see image on page 16 . Subgroup a applies to mast frames with traces of “mast boards” (behind or in front of the mast) or to frames without any identifiable traces of connection between mast frame and overlaying structures . Subtype b only includes mast frames with

16

stanchions placed on either side of the mast cavity . Mast fastening systems of type 2 can be subdivided into three groups on basis of the fastening method of the mast fastening device (block/chock): a) vertical nailing, b) horizontal nailing, and c) lashing, see the image on page 17 .

Regional distribution of the five different subgroups is shown in the map . From this, it appears that each of the subgroup is located either west or east of a line running from the island of Rügen, just off the southern Baltic coast, to the southern part of Sweden . The line divides the Baltic Sea and the southern shores of the Baltic in two parts as well as literally split Scandinavia in two .

In the western part of Scandinavia, all mast fastening systems have been fixed by means of vertical nailing (type 2a) . The pattern using vertical nailing when fixing mast fastening systems seems very consistent in this area and throughout the whole

period in question . Further examples of this fastening method can be observed on two small mast step timbers from Skuldelev 6 (c . 1035 AD) and Bergen (no .: 81442) (c . 1248 AD) (Christensen 1985: 27, 264; Crumlin-Pedersen et al . 2002: 300) .

In the eastern part of the area, mast fastening devices have been fixed by means of horizontal nailing into the mast frame, or they have been lashed to the mast frame (type 2b and 2c) . Examples of both subgroups are known from eastern Sweden and the southern Baltic coast .

Furthermore, it is also evident that mast frames with incorporated mast step and with stanchions placed on both sides (type 1b) are exclusively to be found on the eastern side of the dividing line . Conversely, mast fastening systems of type 1a are found only on the western side of the dividing line .

Discussion and conclusionWhat can actually be deduced from this analysis? First, it should be kept in mind that so far, only a few seagoing vessels, dating to the period before c . 1250, have been found in eastern Scandinavia . Furthermore, Viking and early Medieval ship building in the southern and eastern Baltic area has (for

Examples of mast frame types.a) type 1a from Bergen (c.900-1100 AD).b) type 1b from Bulverket (11th/12th Century).After Crumlin-Pedersen 1997: fig. 5.2; Westerdahl 1985: fig. 16).

17

several reasons) not been subject to as much study as is the case in Norway and Denmark . Consequently, the dating of and provenience of ancient vessels discovered in the eastern and southern Baltic is usually imprecise . A lot of work can still be done in that respect .

The clear division of the mast fastening types puts the concept of the seagoing boat, traditionally thought as a means of unbounded transport and contact in question . The eastern part of Sweden shows strong relations to the southern Baltic coast, while the western part, all the way from Bergen in the north to Haithabu in the south, shows similarity in the basic technological choices of mast step solutions . The mast steps reveal obvious differences between the eastern and western part of Scandinavia before c . 1250 AD .

A possible explanation for the well-defined demarcation in mast step techniques

could be vessel-size . Mast fastening systems in relation to frames are, unlike keelsons, usually considered light constructions less suitable for traversing the sea (Crumlin-Pedersen 1997: 119-120) . However, this does not explain the technological differences . Regarding this, it should be mentioned that finds of two keelsons off the coast of Poland and Finland, both probably predating 1250 AD, show a possible connection to Southwest Scandinavia (Hunniche 2009: 48-49) .

The small boats from Viks I (c . 1135 AD ) and Bulverket ( 11th/12th century AD) could very well be of local (East Scandinavian) origin even though they show some of the characteristics of West Scandinavian vessels: clinker planking with hair caulking and clenched nail fastening . However, these constructional traits are also the characteristics of eastern Baltic/Prussian shipbuilding in this period (Indruszewski 1996: 184, 189; Larsson 2000: 136) . If these vessels prove to be of local Swedish origin, the most interesting thing (in respect to the current subject) is the type 2b and 1b mast fastening systems . Locally build East Scandinavian vessels equipped with these kinds of mast fastening systems would be interesting as this might point to a common

Examples of types of “block‘s/chock‘s” used in relation to mast frames:a) type 2a from Haithabu (900.1100 AD).b) type 2b from Viks I (1134).c) type 2c from Charbrowo 1 (10th Century).After: Crumlin-Pedersen 1997: fig. 5.2; Larsson 2000: fig. 7a; Ellmers 1972: abb. 72).

18

origin of the Scandinavian clinker built vessel, but definitely not to a common origin of the sail .

In conclusion, this suggests that no technological transfer between East and West Scandinavia (at least regarding mast-fastening technology) took place and that, in this respect, technological exchange between the regions stopped before c . 800 AD . Furthermore, it seems that similarity in technological choices does not depend solely on (presumed) ethnic or linguistic affinity, but on cultural proximity .

Thomas Albæk Hunniche

ReferencesBill, J ., Gøtche, M ., Myrhøj, H . M . 2000:

Roskildeskibene . I: Christensen, T . & Andersen, M . (red .): Civitas Roscald – fra byens begyndelse . Roskilde, s . 211-259 .

Christenssen, A . E . 1982: Viking Age Ships and Shipbuilding . Norwegian Archaeological Review Vol . 15, Nos . 1-2 .

Christenssen, A . E . 1985: Boat finds from Bryggen . I: Herteig, A . E . (red .): The Bryggen Papers, main series, vol . 1 . Bergen .

Crumlin-Pedersen, O . 1997: Viking-Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haitabu and Schleswig . Roskilde .

Crumlin-Pedersen, O . & O . Olsen (red .) 2002: The Skuldelev Ships I . Topography, Archaeology, History Conservation and Display, Roskilde .

Ellmers, D . 1972: Frühmittelalterliche Handelsschiffahrt in Mittel- und Nord-europa. Neumünster .

Herfert, P . 1968: Frühmittelalterliche Bootsfunde in Ralswiek . Ausgrabungen und Funde: Archaeologische Berichte und Informationen 1968, 13 . Berlin, s . 211-222 .

Hunniche, T .A . 2009: Mastefæstet i Nordeuropa 800-1600 e.Kr. En undersøgelse af mastefæstet som udtryk for kulturelle kontakter og indicium

for et fartøjs regionale og kronologiske tilhørsforhold, analyseret på baggrund af et teknisk og morfologisk studie af vikingetidens og middelalderens mastefæstningssystemer . Unpublished thesis, University of Southern Denmark . Esbjerg .

Indruszewski, G 1996: A Comparative Analysis of Early Medieval Shipwrecks from the Southern Shores of the Baltic Sea. Unpublished thesis, Texas A&M University . Texas .

Larsson, G . 2000: The Reconstruction of the Viks Boat . I: Litwin (red .): Down the River to the Sea . Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdansk 1997 . Gdansk, s . 131-138 .

Nicolaysen, N . 1882: Langskibet fra Gokstad ved Sandefjord . Kristiania .

Westerdahl 1985: Holznägel und Geschichte . Eine schiffs archäologische Hypotese . Deutches Schiffahrtsarchiv: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift des Deutschen Schiffarthsmuseum 1985/8, s . 7-42 .

Åkerlund, H . 1963: Nydamskeppen. En studie i tidlig skandinavisk skeppsbyggnads-konst. Göteborg

19

In 2008, the Northern Jutland Coastal Museum applied for funds to carry through an archaeological survey of the area around the island of Læsø . In June 2009, the Cultural Heritage Agency granted a subsidy out of the so-called §28 funds that would suffice for about a quarter of Læsø’s coastline . The western end from Alsdyb to Vesterø Havn was chosen as the target area . It includes the dangerous northwest reef and the area where most finds have been reported . The purpose of the survey was twofold: on the one hand to produce a consistent database to assess the area’s archaeological wealth, but also to check on the systematic errors introduced into DKC, the Danish central register of cultural heritage sites, when information on

Læsø 2009:A maritime archaeological survey

maritime finds and maritime losses had been blended into one system .

As funds had only been allocated relatively late in the year, it was decided to use a calm period in late summer to do the fieldwork . In July, preparatory meetings were organised with local people who are familiar with the area, and in August, archival data was collected, and archaeological sites were pinpointed . The end of August and the beginning of September were chosen for the actual fieldwork, as experience had shown that the waters around Læsø can be quite clear in that period, provided that the weather is calm .

Team and logisticsFlexibility as to the weather conditions was optimised by deploying a small team of three commercially qualified divers, including an electro-technician from the underwater group, a maritime conservator, and an

The research area around Læsø's northwest reef and Als Dyb. The inspected wreck-sites are indicated.

20

archaeologist curator . Fortunately, there was also a flexible array of supporting vessels at the team’s disposal, including a 31 feet Viksund Goldfish, on which the team stayed overnight in Vesterø harbour, and a 12 feet fibreglass boat with a Humminbird 997 side scanner and plotter . A Viknes 31 motor cruiser was used for proton magnetometer survey .

Mode of operationThe purpose of the project was to produce an overview, partly by means of sonar and proton magnetometer scanning . When solid features were encountered, a quick inspection including rough measurements and 10-15 minutes underwater video recording was undertaken of the encountered cultural remains . In order to check whether the identification of the find should be supported or rejected, the observations were then compared with the information kept in the central register of antiquities and finds . Secure GPS-positions were taken in order that the sites can be relocated .

Eight wreck-sites, numbered Vrag 1 to Vrag 8 were inspected . A range of other

positions were registered but could not be inspected in the available time frame .

Magnetometer and side scanning sonarIn the course of 2008 and 2009, the area around Stokken, the west and northwest parts of Læsø, had been surveyed, which led to the identification of a range of potential sites – mostly wreck-sites – most of which could be identified with a magnetometer because of the presence of small amounts of iron . All wrecks, even old ones, contain some iron, ranging from nails with which wooden constructions have been assembled to anchors, iron fittings, ballast iron, canons, weapons, and other gear . Both recent and older wrecks can therefore be located by means of a magnetometer . Even loose finds of the size of an anchor or canon will give a good reading . But the values registered will not be as high as with a complete wreck, so it is quite recognisable whether one has to do with a loose find or a large piece of wreckage . The bottom of a wooden vessel of considerable age can generally be recognised from about 100 meter on both sides of the transponder or ‘fish’ .

After an anomaly has been recognised through the reading of the magnetometer, the side scanner can be used . It gives a very

The plotted lines of the magnetometer survey. Some 400 nautical miles were covered.

21

detailed picture of the sea bottom, showing both natural and anomalous features . Scans made of wrecks or surfaces with outstanding sedimentary features or discrimate layers that have been exposed by erosion are very clear .

Remains of a submerged landscape?In the context of the inspection of Vrag 1, a denuded layer with stubs or tree stumps was observed at a depth of approximately 2 m, a little south of the location . The tree stumps

that were encapsulated in the sediment showed evidence of burning . A preliminary evaluation of this find is that it is the remains of a submerged landscape . The area was drowned around 10,000 years ago . Samples have been taken, and these will allow for a more precise evaluation .

There are clear signs of erosion south of Vrag 1 with sediment transport going north as a result of the current . This process is an important factor in the development of Læsø’s northwest reef . The erosion has also denuded the natural and cultural layers in which the tree stumps and burned wood are embedded . Most probably these layers are related to the submergence of the area some 10,000 years ago . Scientific analysis of the samples and more extensive underwater research will clarify this matter .

Other resultsBesides the observation of prehistoric layers west of Læsø´s west coast, eight wreck-sites were described . A preliminary assessment indicates that three of these are archaeological in the sense that they were lost more than 100 years ago, which is the cut-off date for blanket archaeological protection in Danish waters . One of these is the historical wreck of the Gaston Albert that was lost on the northwest reef in 1895 . Four wrecks can be identified on the basis of maritime archaeological observations in combination with archival checks, in particular through the Danish wreck register, Dansk Søulykkesstatistik . Below, two of these will be presented, Vrag 1 and Vrag 8 . For information on the others, the reader is referred to the formal report .

Vrag 1The wreck lies in 2 .30 m water, with its sternpost oriented north to north-west (340˚) . The ship is flush built in oak, 16 m long and 5 .10 m wide . The stempost is broken . Typical scantlings are 15 x 15 cm . Room and space is 20 cm . Ceiling planks are 28 x 5 cm . The keel is 39 cm wide . At 9 .30 m from the

Scan of Vrag 1. Both the broken stempost and the mast step can clearly be distinguished.

The scan of Vrag 8 is so clear that one can almost count the frames. A plan drawing of the site can be produced on the basis of it.

22

sternpost a mast step is observed measuring 25 x 24 cm and cut 14 cm into the keelson . Remains of a cargo may be planks packed in woven material . Provisional date is 16th century .

Excavation and documentation as well as dendro-chronological sampling are recommended . The wreck is exposed at the bottom surface and is threatened by mechanical erosion and ship-worm .

Vrag 8This wreck lies north-south at a depth of 5 m . It is treenail-fastened, flush built in oak . There are large square nail holes, 1 cm x 1 cm . The preserved length is 17 m . The greatest width is 5 .2 m . Floors measure from 25 cm x 24 cm up to 30 cm x 27 cm . The width of the planking varies from 26 to 37 cm, whereas these planks are 7 to 8 cm thick . The ceiling planks are 5 or 6 cm thick and vary in width: 21, 25, 34, or 36 cm .

Apparently, we are dealing with a strongly built vessel of the 17th or early 18th century . It is very professionally built . It could be a navy or a company vessel . It is remarkable, that it did not show at all on the magnetometer . Evidently, little iron was used in its construction, and all that was has rusted away . It is recommended to excavate the ship, to document it, and to analyse its construction and date through dendro-chronological analysis .

ConclusionThe maritime archaeological survey in the shallow waters along Læsø’s west coast and its northwest reef has produced a range of results . Its aim was to get an overview of archaeological sites in the area, and it has produced 9 sites of which 8 are wreck-sites and the ninth is a site on which prehistoric layers dating from before the submergence of the area are exposed .

The prehistoric layer with tree stumps and embedded wooden objects displaying signs of fire should be more closely investigated with a view to prehistoric human activity .

A range of scientific analyses would be appropriate . Most probably the layers extend all along the island Stokken in a north-westerly direction .

Through their inscription in the register Vrag 1, 5, and 8 are recognised as archaeological and protected . Three other wreck-sites could be identified through archival research . Vrag 3 is called Havlitten, vrag 4 Inge Lene, and Vrag 7 is the Tordenskjold . Vrag 6 could not be identified .

The combined use of sidecansonar, proton magnetometer, and diving inspection with photo and video documentation of anomalies proved very effective . Natural and cultural phenomena could be distinguished, and it was possible to establish which sites need further investigation and which are of lesser research interest .

Jan Hammer Larsen

The mast step of Vrag 1 measures 25 x 24 cm. It is cut 14 cm deep in the broad keelson. Photo: Mads Gulløv.

23

Between July and August 2009, 12 Maritime Archaeology Programme students and staff spent three weeks carrying out an underwater survey in Prerow on the German Baltic coast . The annual MAP field school was organised in co-operation with the Landesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege, Abteilung Archäologie und Denkmalpflege, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the authority responsible for cultural heritage in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern .

The field school concentrated on the survey of site Ostsee Bereich V, Fundplatz 17, the well preserved wreck of a capsized local trading vessel dating to the first half of the 19th century . However, on the second day the field school team was asked to help with the recovery of a wreck section

A capsized wreckand a surprise at 4am

that had been discovered by tourists on a nearby beach . Wreck section, Fundplatz 77 (also codenamed 4am wreck after the time students had to get up to reach the site) was subsequently lifted, disassembled and fully recorded by the field school team . The wreck, part of a 16th century converted clinker vessel, is now subject of an MA thesis at the Maritime Archaeology Programme .

More information on the field school, as well as digital copies of the published field school reports can be found on the new blog webpage of the Maritime Archaeology Programme: www .maritimearchaeology .dk .

Jens Auer

24

Increasing interest in underwater Stone AgeThe prehistory of the European continental shelf appears to be a matter of increasing interest and cooperation among European scholars . Two years ago, the pan-European Deukalion group was established under the direction of Nic Flemming from the UK and Dimitris Sakellariou from Greece . The aim of this group is the lobbying for major research funding for the study of submerged sites and landscapes on the European continental shelf . The cross-European interest in sub-merged Prehistory became even more visible at the meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in September 2009, where a one-day session dedicated to inundated Prehistory was one of the best attended sessions of the whole meeting .

SPLASHCOS, a European networkon Submerged Prehistory

In November 2009, scholars of Stone Age heritage on the continental shelf established a formal network, funded by the EU . It is set up for the development of international collaboration among prehistorians, under-water archaeologists, marine geophysicists, environmental scientists, heritage agencies, and commercial and industrial organisations operating on the European seafloor . This has become possible thanks to a grant, given via the COST Organization, which promotes

70 scholars from all parts of Europe assembled in York 2010 for the purpose of presenting for the first time ever a comprehensive status on submerged settlement and landscapes all the way around the coastline of the continent. Photo: Dimitris Sakellariou.

25

cooperation in science and technology (http://www .cost .esf .org/domains_actions/isch/Actions/TD0902-Submerged-Pre-hi-storic-Archaeology-and-Landscapes-of-the-Continental-Shelf-End-date-May-2013) . The COST Action runs to 30 September 2013 . Funds are dedicated to meetings, workshops, conferences, visits to laboratories, training programmes, technical and scientific publi-cations, and dissemination to a wider public . At present, the number of nations participating in the action has reached 19 . These are: Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Nor-way, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and United Kingdom .

Focus on Early PrehistoryThe network is concerned with more than one-third of the European continent that was flooded, when the glaciers of the last Ice Age melted . In principle, the whole 1-million year history of human occupation of Europe

is within the scope of the COST action . In practice, we expect to focus primarily on the time range 110,000 to 6000 years ago – i .e . the period of low sea-level in connection with the last Ice Age, spanning parts of the Middle Palaeolithic, the whole of the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic, and parts of the Neolithic .

It is assumed that the drowned lowlands and shorelines of the present-day European seafloor hosted some of the highest human population concentrations of the continent . These landscapes were bordered by the continent’s most productive environments for fishing and shellfish collection, and their generally very fertile soils presented particularly attractive territories to Stone Age hunters, gatherers, and farmers . Since

The network has a strong focus on involving young researchers. Here chair Geoff Bailey in dialogue with a group of Early Stage Researchers. York, March 2010. Photo: Dimitris Sakellariou.

26

transportation by boat was essential at least as far back as the final part of the Upper Palaeolithic (Fischer 1996), these landscapes must also have served as effective corridors for dispersal of populations, information, and trade items (Bailey 2004) . Moreover, these regions were probably even more important for human settlement during the Ice Ages than today because the European hinterlands would have been colder, more arid and less attractive to human settlement than is the case under modern climatic conditions .

The archaeological sources on Europe’s early Prehistory must, therefore, be consi-dered highly biased and fragmentary as long as large and unique parts of it are still lying unexplored on the continental shelf . The COST action is a first pan-European attempt at changing this situation .

The steadily growing evidence on sub-merged Mesolithic settlement produced through diving investigations in the western Baltic (e .g . Pedersen et al . 1997; Skaarup & Grøn 2004; Lübke 2004; Andersen 2009) has been a fundamental inspiration for the establishment of the network . It is assumed by the organisers of the COST action that similar richness in early pre-hi-storic material is available in many other places on the European continental shelf . Scattered observations in support of this hypothesis do in fact already exist from coastal waters around Europe (Benjamin et al. in preparation) . One of the aims of the action is to take initiatives in fund-raising for archaeological surveying and testing of hitherto unexplored areas of the continental shelf suspected to have special potential for finding remains of early prehistoric activity .

The SPLASHCOS organisationAt the kick-off meeting in Brussels in November 2009, Geoff Bailey from UK and Dimitris Sakellariou from Greece were elected as chair and vice-chair respectively of the action . In addition, the following four working groups were established (Chair in brackets):

WG1 . Archaeological Data and Inter-pretations (Anders Fischer, Denmark)WG2 . Environmental Data and Recon-structions (Jan Harff, Germany)WG3 . Technology, Technical Resources and Training (Ole Grøn, Denmark)WG4 . Commercial Collaboration and Outreach (Julie Satchell, UK) .

Activities and applicationSome of the activities of the Work Groups are especially relating to Denmark, the focus area of the present Newsletter . This, for instance, applies to the pan-European digital archive on early prehistoric finds and sites from the seabed for which WG1 is to establish the basis . More than half of the presently known prehistoric sites from the European continental shelf are apparently recorded in the digital archive of the Heritage Agency of Denmark (www .kulturarv .dk/databaser/fund-og-fortidsminder; Fischer 2004) . For the purpose of establishing such a pan-European archive, the group will most probably need additional members from countries not yet represented in the network .

WG3 is engaged in organising research and training missions for Early Stage Researchers of the network . Visits to sub-merged Stone Age habitation sites and relevant archaeological institutions are expected to take place in Denmark, the UK, and possibly Israel in 2010 . In addition, the possibility of running an international field school on the practice of underwater Stone Age investigation in Denmark in 2011 is looked into .

Further information can be found at the SPLASHCOS website: http://php .york .ac .uk/projects/splashcos . Individuals interested in applying for membership of the working groups can make contact via the website .

Anders Fischer

Maritime Archaeology

Newsletter No . 25 Summer 2010 from Denmark

ISSN 1902-0708

EDITORS:

Thijs J . Maarleveld & Helle Kildebæk Raun

Lay-out: Jens Lorentzen & Ewa Britt Nielsen

DTP: Helle Kildebæk Raun

PRINT:

PE offset A/S, Varde

© Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

and authors 2010

Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from

Denmark is a continuation of Maritime

Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde,

Denmark and is published once a year by:

The Maritime Archaeology Programme,

University of Southern Denmark

at the Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

Niels Bohrs Vej 9 DK-6700 Esbjerg

Tel . +45 6550 4177 Fax +45 6550 1091

e-mail: hkraun@hist .sdu .dk

The Newsletter is supported by:

University of Southern Denmark

Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies

Fiskeri- og Søfartsmuseet

The National Museum of Denmark

The Danish Institute in Athens

Langelands Museum

The Viking Ship Museum

Holstebro Museum

Strandingsmuseum St . George

Bangsbo Museum

Moesgård Museum

Haderslev Museum

ReferencesAndersen, S .H . 2009: Ronæs Skov.

Marinarkæologiske undersøgelser af kystboplads fra Ertebølletid . (Summary in English) . Højbjerg, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab .

Benjamin, J . Bonsall, C ., Pickard, C . & Fischer, A . (eds) in preparation: Sub-merged Prehistory . Oxford, Oxbow .

Bailey, G . 2004: The wider significance of submerged archaeological sites and their relevance to world prehistory . In Flemming, N . (ed .) Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea, 3-10 . York, Council of British Archaeology .

Fischer, A . 1996: At the border of human habitat . The Late Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic in Scandinavia . In Larsson, L . (ed .) The Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia, 157-176 . Stockholm, Almquist & Wiksell .

Fischer, A . 2004: Submerged Stone Age – Danish examples and North Sea potential . In Flemming, N . (ed .) Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea, 23-36 . York, Council of British Archaeology .

Lübke, H . 2004: Spät- und endmesolitische Küstensiedlungsplätze in der Wismar-bucht – Neue Grabungsergebnisse zur Chronologie und Siedlungsweise . Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 52, 83-110 .

Pedersen, L ., Fischer, A ., & Aaby, B . (eds) 1997: The Danish Storebælt since the Ice Age – man, sea and forest. Copenhagen, A/S Storebæltsforbindelsen .

Skaarup, J . & Grøn, O . 2004: Møllegabet II. A submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern Denmark . BAR International Series 1328 . Oxford, British Archaeo-logical Reports .

A cold winter in northern Europe meant that training in spring needed to extend into the night.Photo: Jens Auer.