Page 222 - Nicolaes Witsen & Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age

Chapter Three
batten to drawn curved lines. Sometimes the length of the stem, measured on the outer face, is given in the contract as well.
For the sternpost the contracts also mention the height of the garboard stern rabbet and parts of the construction of the t uck, such as the leng th, thickness, and cur ve of the wing transom, the height at which the fashion pieces touch the sternpost, and often, though not always, the height of the stern timbers and the di stance between them. Sometimes the dimensions of the keel are given.
The thickness of the frames was stipulated in the con- tracts more often th an the ri se and bre adth of the fl oor; this thickness was indicated on the k eel, in the bilges, and at the height of the m aster ribband and the top of the top timbers. The strength of the construction was ap- parently considered more important than the shape of the hull. The dimensions of other struct ural elements, suc h as the c eilings, deck clamps, waterways, deck beams, and wales, also received more attention than their exact position.
In most cases these are al l the dimen sions that are given. Occasionally the size of the beakhead is mentioned as well as parts of the stern gallery.
Contracts, Formulas, Methods, Tools, and Materials
At first sight it would seem that a contract as brief as that described above could not possibly result in a reliable im- age of the intended ship . Too many details seem to be missing. Yet even the sc arce information contained in short contracts like those pro vided by Raven must have been sufficient for the experienc ed shipbuilder, resulting in a ship: it would not have been written down otherwise.
Witsen himself confirms that, in a contract for a 160-foot ship, only the most important parts are indicated, the others easily following therefrom. And though it is larger than the proposed ship [the pinas], yet the pro- portions are the same, and will remain the same, even when the Ships are of much smaller size (97 I 21).
Even when c ontracts describe the rigging, g eneral conclusions can be dr awn: Following the example of these line measurements, the lines for all Ships can be found, of whatever length or width they ma y be, us- ing a proportional calculation from which all lengths will follow (130 I 4 ). So we are ob liged to ac knowledge that more information can be extracted from the contracts than would seem possible at first sight.
But why were certain dimensions explicitly mentioned in the contract and others not? The obvious explanation is
that the author of the contract recorded only such matters as those specific for the ship in question, s imply assum- ing all the other dimensions were unnecessary, since they could be derived w ith the use of the shipbuilding formu- las, as discussed at length in the previous chapter. But if we model builders are to form a more complete picture of a specific ship, the c ontracts and formulas together are not enough: in par ticular, information about the sh ape of the hul l can seldom, if ever, be fou nd in a c ontract. However, by c ombining the c ontracts and formu las with the original building method a s described b y Witsen, we can take a significant step toward the completion of the puzzle. The contract supplies the initial data, which are supplemented by the formul as. By adhering to the de- scribed building method and sequenc e, the builder w ill run into a number of practical problems; since he is work- ing without drawings, he w ill need to solve these prob- lems before continuing to the ne xt step. Of course, there are no guarantees that the solutions we arrive at today are the same as or even s imilar to those of the seventeenth century.
But we have a fourth clue—to lay down a ship’s bot- tom as was done in the seventeenth c entury. For in- stance, today’s model builder w ill have to m ake use of tools similar to the ones used at the time, suc h as the planking tongs that kept the planks in position. Not only does this produce the attributes that are so typic al of a hull fashioned by this method, but the builder will also in- evitably encounter the s ame decision moments at whic h the seventeenth-century shipwright could influence the shape of the hull. These moments contribute decisively to the modern builder’s understanding of the subject.
We do have the assurance that a ship built in this way will have the right proportions and characteristic features, that its parts will have the right dimensions, and that the midship section will have an authentic shape. The shape of the bow and stern of a hull thus reconstructed can of course be questioned, for these depended directly on the talent and experienc e of the indiv idual shipwrights. But their secrets have accompanied them to their graves.
As for the variations in the shape of the bow and stern, these are much less important might be supposed. Wood is a m aterial that, despite its wide-ranging possibilities, has clear restrictions. It can be bent, but only to a certain degree. It must be protected against all kinds of threats— decay, insects, deformation by heat and moi sture, and so on. F or this reason we c an safely assume that if sev- eral shipwrights had built ships according to the s ame contract, the results would not have differed very much. Even though experienc e, talent, and t aste all came into
204