The cannon from Dunwich Bank, Suffolk

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (1996) 25.1: 21–32

The cannon from Dunwich Bank, Suffolk

Rudi Roth12, Farrow Cl., Gt. Moulton, Norwich, NR15 2HR, UK

The cannon was discovered and raised inthe summer of 1994 after a painstakingsearch in nil visibility by the nautical ar-chaeologist Stuart Bacon, Director of theSuffolk Underwater Studies Unit. The siteof discovery is near the Dunwich Bank,Southwold, off the Suffolk coast and isdesignated under the protection of WrecksAct, 1973. It is in close proximity to thelocation of the Battle of Sole Bay in 1672between Dutch and Anglo-French fleets.The ‘sea treasure’ cannon first came topublic attention through regional news-papers in October and November 1994.Mr Bacon organized its professional con-servation and it is now on display at theUnit’s base in Front Street, Orford. Thesand abrasion on the seabed has blurred orobliterated all inscriptions and to someextent the mouldings, leaving only an out-line of their shape. The basering mouldingson both sides have been crudely chiselledaway to reduce the diameter, a practiceundertaken at times to fit the piece intoan available gun carriage. The gun wasmeasured by the author and assigned thenumber 709 (Fig. 1). Subsequent researchsuggests that it is a very exciting discovery.The design originates from a very crucial,yet rarely-discussed period of continentalordnance development between 1530 and1550. The gun also sheds further light onthe transfer of ordnance technology anddesign within the Habsburg Empire, whichhas remained largely unexplored. Anotherpoint of interest is the possible great age ofthe gun at the time of its loss. For this

reason, the report of Stuart Bacon’s dis-covery has to be set against a broaderbackground in order to substantiate theidentification and to explain its significancewithin the context of ordnance history.

Internal ballisticsThe design of the gun with its long first andshort second reinforce indicates manu-facture during the transition period fromserpentine to corned gunpowder in the firsthalf of the 16th century. The differencesbetween these powders and the impli-cations of their use is of profound impor-tance. ‘Serpentine powder’ was a dust-likesubstance which consisted of sulphur, salt-petre and charcoal mixed in specific pro-portions which varied somewhat during itsperiod of use with all three gunpowders.Serpentine was the first type of gunpowdercharacterized by unpredictable ignitionand uncontrolled burning. It easily ab-sorbed humidity and spoiled; it requireda confined space to develop its explosiveenergy and was apparently unusablewith unchambered guns. This basic gun-powder was superseded by ‘lump powder’(Knollenpulver) which is first mentionedin 1429. It was composed of the sameingredients and proportions, but wasmixed wet, at first with water and laterwith spirits of wine; after this process itwas dried and stored in fist-sized lumps.The lumps had much reduced hygroscopiccharacteristics which allowed for extendedstorage, and longer-maintained qualityand safer manufacture. They were broken

1057–2414/96/010021+12 $18.00/0 ? 1996 The Nautical Archaeology Society

up before or during loading with the ad-ditional benefit of consistent proportionsof ingredients in every part of the chargewhich resulted in a stronger powder al-together. Such powder was easier to ignite;its burning could still not be controlled butit allowed the use of unchambered guns.Much confusion surrounds lump powder;it was also called serpentine powder dueboth to its close resemblence after it wasbroken up and as a convenient distinctionfrom corned powder. ‘Corned powder’ wasmade from the same ingredients and pro-portions and was also mixed wet like lumppowder. Whilst still wet, however, it wasgranulated into a predetermined size ofcorn, dried in this shape, stored andloaded. The ignition of such powder wasimmediate and its burning speed wascontrolled through the size of its corns. Itwas, by virtue of its uniform consistency,also a stronger gunpowder and usable inchambered or unchambered guns with the

same ease and effectiveness. The firstevidence of its introduction and actual usedates from the early 1470s and it lastedwith many subsequent manufacturingimprovements until the end of the blackpowder and muzzle-loading era in the late19th century. All these propellants werecommonly referred to as ‘gunpowder’; theneed to distinguish between black powderand the fundamentally different, nitro-based propellants emerged only in thesecond half of the 19th century.Guns that were used with serpentine

powder required a single long reinforcewhilst the stronger (and usually heavier)guns used with corned black powder wereconstructed with two reinforces due to thedifferent burning properties of the propel-lants. Serpentine powder guns would burstwith corned powder whilst serpentinepowder could to some extent still beused in a corned powder gun. As a result,serpentine powder guns lingered on and

Lengthmm

Holy Roman Emperor Charles 1519–1558

Bronze Saker 11' 6" Spanish ft.Underwater Study Centre, Orford

Drawing Scale 1:10 by R. Roth

Diametermm

Figure 1. The Dunwich Bank gun, Drawing No. 709 (R. Roth).

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 25.1

22

were produced up to the early 17th cen-tury. Another characteristic of the periodis the frequent extreme length of guns.Serpentine powder required a greaterlength of bore to produce the desiredvelocity of the projectile due to the variedinitial position of the shot at the momentof the propellant’s explosive burning. Theneed for a certain gun length to achievethis velocity and the lack of any scientificmeans of analysing internal ballistics,changed this requirement speedily into thebelief that the longer the gun, the greaterthe range. The introduction of cornedpowder and many decades of observationeventually showed this assumption to beincorrect. The pace of this gradual changefrom serpentine powder to corned powderwith the subsequent change in artilleryequipment differed in various countriesand was strongly influenced by circum-stances such as the loss of artillery pieces.The design of the Dunwich gun is forcorned powder but still betrays the un-certainty of the trial and error approach bythe great length of the first reinforce, thecomparatively short second reinforce andthe great calibre length of the gun itself.

Historical backgroundA more systematic approach towardsgreater artillery standardization, soon fol-lowed by an increasingly frequent changeof gunpowder, began with the GermanEmperor Maximilian I about 1500. Thisprogress was forcefully continued by theHabsburg Archduke Ferdinand I (1522–1564) due to his defence requirements inthe east against a massive Turkish on-slaught. His brother, the Holy RomanEmperor Charles V (1519–1558), had simi-lar defence requirements for maintainingthe Holy Roman Empire in a period ofprogressive religious divisions and the on-going hostility of the French in addition toperiodic domestic rebellion. The Houseof Habsburg had indeed much demandfor artillery and its homeland of Tyrol

emerged rapidly as a leading force in thecreation of the best European artillery.A rich source book for this Habsburgand imperial artillery is the so-calledGeschützbuch. It is an inventory of Charles’artillery of altogether 520 guns, of which145 were cast by Gregor Löffler. It wascommissioned in the Spanish language,although Charles did not speak Spanishhimself, with the drawings probably madeby German draughtsmen. His son, thelater King of Spain Phillip II, was raised inSpain, hardly ever saw his father and couldnot communicate with him in the samelanguage. Archduke Ferdinand was theprimary promoter of Habsburg imperialartillery, crowned King of Hungary in1526, King of the Habsburg homeland in1530 and succeeded Charles V as emperorafter his abdication in 1556. He was, fur-thermore, the primary employer of GregorLöffler and, having been educated inSpain, was familiar with Spanish ways andfluent in the language.Several copies of the inventory, all dated

between 1550–52, are known to exist, oneexample is Codex 10.817 in the ViennaNational Library. Each type of gun isillustrated and 19 pieces are reproduced inEssenwein’s work Quellen zur Geschichteder Feuerwaffen. Additional pieces are inEgg’s Der Tiroler Geschützguss. Of these 19guns, three are attributed to Peter Mülichand cast between 1523–1529, four guns toMartin Beten between 1533–36, 11 piecesto Gregor Löffler between 1533–1545, andone mortar is said to have been cast inGhent (Flanders). Löffler’s guns are cer-tainly different from all the other Germanguns before or after this period, partlythrough the simplicity of his mouldingsand decoration but especially because ofthe vertical, single dolphin at the breechinstead of the increasingly frequent geo-metric breech mouldings. With the excep-tion of two guns, all the Löffler guns inEssenwein’s book are of the sameAugsburg design, among them a ‘Lange

R. ROTH: CANNON FROM DUNWICH BANK

23

Schlange’ of identical appearance to theDunwich gun (Fig. 2, top).

The gunfounder Gregor LöfflerGregor Löffler was a member of a gun-founding family which originated from theTyrol, casting guns and church bells ofexcellence primarily for the Habsburg dy-nasty, the German emperors and GermanImperial cities. He was born in 1490 andappointed Imperial Master Gunner in 1523by Charles V himself with his foundry atAugsburg. He died in 1565 and is thebest-known member of the gunfoundingdynasty, regarded as possibly the best gun-founder of his time in Europe. In 1524,Löffler cast a large order of ordnance forFerdinand and the Emperor for which theInnsbruck painter Ulrich Tiefenbrunn pro-vided the decoration (Egg, 1961: 137).In 1536, Löffler received an order for 33new guns from the recently crowned KingFerdinand for which the Innsbruck paint-ers Sebastian Schel and Bartlme Näberlewere commissioned to provide the decor-ation. (Egg, 1961: 138) In 1538, Löfflerreceived a further order from the king, this

time for 96 pieces for which he providedthe decoration himself (Egg, 1961: 139). Itwas the final touch to his Augsburg designwhich the king liked and which Löfflerapparently continued to use for manymore of his later cast guns. He was, fur-thermore, a shrewd dealer in the coppertrade who found himself soon in a positionto advance funds for the casting of guns tovarious paymasters which were eventuallyrepaid with interest. After much delay andnegotiations, Löffler was finally persuadedto open another foundry at Innsbruck in1540 and settled there himself in 1544. Hewas of such professional standing thathe could afford to dictate the conditionsof his employment to Ferdinand and theEmperor alike. For example in 1535,Ferdinand’s wife Maria of Hungary, thethen Stadtholder of the Netherlands (1531–1555), demanded that Gregor should besent temporarily to the Netherlands to castguns for her, but not even the emperorhimself could persuade him. Gregor statedthat he had many children and that hedisliked moving all his tools and instru-ments to Holland with its strange practices

Figure 2. Löffler guns: Lange Schlange (centre); Halbe Schlange (top); Kurze Schlange (bottom) (afterEssenwein, 1877).


24

and that he had in any case no obligation atall to work abroad or go campaigning inthe field. He was, however, prepared to castMaria’s guns at Augsburg for the price of2 Gulden per cwt instead of the usual 2Gulden 45 kreuzer (Egg, 1961: 137).

Identification of the Dunwich gunThe cannon apparently identical to theDunwich gun which is illustrated in theinventory of 1550 and reproduced inEssenwein’s book is described as a LangeSchlange, a ‘long serpent’, cast by Löfflerbut without a date. Unfortunately, nosimilar gun by him is known to havesurvived and the claim of identical designis therefore to some extent limited to exter-nal appearances and artistic decorationbased on the illustrations in the inventory.A Lange Schlange was supposed to fire ashot of 12 pounds (Essenwein, 1961: 77),but comparative analysis with the otherknown illustrated guns indicates that thegun in the illustration is actually a HalbeSchlange, a ‘half serpent’ or serpentine, ofabout 6 lb shot weight. It appears, further-more, that the reproduced drawings are ata scale of about 1:10. A comparison ofproportions with other similar guns in thetable below, demonstrates not only thecorrectness of the approximate scale butalso the similarity between the Dunwichgun (Fig. 1) and Löffler’s piece as illus-trated in the inventory. The design, intro-duced about 1530, is known as theAugsburg design with the last guns castabout 1550. This Augsburg design withits breech dolphin and simple reinforcemouldings was supposed to be ornamentedalso in the ventfield (Egg, 1961: 134) whichis not the case with either the Dunwich orthe Löffler gun illustrated. According tothe inventory of 1550, this is not necess-arily the case even with the largest of theLöffler guns and such omissions forsmaller calibres are even more likely as isevident with guns from other periods andfounders. Convenient as this apparently

straightforward identification is, thereare some discrepancies which make itvery unlikely that the Dunwich gun wasactually cast by Löffler.The primary obstacle is the fact that it is

designed in the Castillian or Spanish footof 279 mm. Whilst the connection withLöffler’s design is obvious, he neverworked outside Germany. In addition, aman of his standing and attitude is ex-tremely unlikely to have cast guns to hisown design in Germany or for Germancustomers using Spanish measurements.An exception of course might be a Spanishorder of which there are only two onrecord. The first was from the Duke ofAlba for 12 Falconets in 1547. They wereto be cast with the coat of arms of theDuchy of Hessen and were intended aspresents of ‘captured’ guns from theSchmalkhalden War to gentlemen of theSpanish nobility. It is obvious that theseguns could not have been cast in Spanishmeasurements. The second order was forthe Marques de los Naves in 1549 for anumber of Falcons and ‘Scharfentinlen’(approximately 3 pdr.), smaller guns andof unknown length or weight.A widely-used measurement unit as a

standard for gun design in the 15th centurywas the Nürnberg artillery foot (293 mm)in much of southern Germany and neigh-bouring areas. Although larger than theSpanish foot, this unit fits the Dunwichgun and the pieces compared with itequally well. However, the only record ofmeasurements used by Löffler is an orderby the city of Nürnberg for various piecesof ordnance in 1553/4 which were specifiedin Viennese or Austrian feet. As Löfflerwas primarily in Habsburg employ formost of his working life, this measurementunit is very probably the one which hegenerally used. With an equivalent of316 mm neither the Viennese/Austrian footnor any of the other, similar, Austrian feetmatch the Dunwich gun or the gunscompared with it.


25

During measuring, it became apparentthat the Dunwich gun bore a remarkablesimilarity to another gun, a shorter piece ofthe same calibre, registered as No. 345 andcurrently in the Tower of London. It is aFlemish saker cast in 1555 at Malines byRemigy de Halut bearing the coat of armsof Philip II as King of England. The pieceis 10 Spanish feet long, has a Castillianweight mark and is listed in the Tower’sinventory as No. 19–304. (Fig. 3). Themouldings throughout the whole length ofthe gun proper (not including the breech)are practically identical with the Dunwichpiece. The two dolphins on the reinforcehave the same lines and basic design andthe vent, almost the only remaining andfrequently observed detail of individuality

between different founders of the samedesign, is identical. There is no doubtabout the identification of the Tower gunwhich was cast at Malines in the very heartof the Spanish Netherlands. Perhaps notsurprisingly, the very characteristic shapeof the gun’s cascabel is identical with oneof the smallest Löffler guns, a falcon, in theInventory of Carl V. Furthermore, Remigyde Halut is known to have cast guns forCarl V and the Tower Catalogue statesthat one of his guns cast for Carl V, wasbadly damaged in the Great Fire of 1841(Blackmore, 1976: 204).In this context, the position of Malines

itself in relation to Spain requires someclarification. Malines already had a largeand very capable gunfounding industry

Lengthmm

King Philip II of Spain as King of England

Bronze Saker 10' 0" Spanish ft.Tower of London

Drawing Scale 1:10 by R. Roth

Diametermm

OPVS · REMIGY · DE · HALVT ANNO · 1555

Figure 3. The Tower Saker, Drawing No. 345 (R. Roth).


26

by the middle of the 15th century. It wasa part of Carl the Bold’s Burgundywhich, after his death at the Battle ofNancy in 1477, became part of theHabsburg domain through marriage. HansPoppenreuter of Malines, the famous gun-founder who originated from Germanyand cast many of the English guns at thebeginning of Henry VIII’s reign, is wellknown (Ffoulkes, 1937: 4). He was de-clared Royal Gunfounder and the foundrya royal foundry in 1520 by Charles Vhimself, (Martin, 1988: 64). Poppenreuterdied in 1534 and was succeeded by Remigyde Halut, who also married his widow, asthe gunfounder at Malines from 1536 untilhis death in 1568 (Kennard, 1986: 86).To date, no conclusive documentary

evidence is known which would confirm atwhat date and how this particular Löfflerdesign came to Spain or Malines, but aprocess of elimination and considerationof contemporary practices offer a validexplanation. Gunfounders were competi-tive and sceptical of any new (strange)design and de Halut is unlikely to haveacquired from Poppenreuter or in a clan-destine way a gun design for his ownproduction on his own initiative. Thegunfounders of this period were highlyindividualistic in their production of gunsand in demonstrating their craftsmanshipin a competitive environment in the middleof the 16th century. Because he was usuallypaid only for his successes, founders wouldbe reluctant to experiment lightly with thebasics of design and risk costly failures.Gunfounders would also work as a rule inthe local measurement unit and set up theirtools, templates and models in this unit.Unless requested otherwise, founders areknown to have cast guns even for foreignpaymasters in their local measurementunit. It was, however, a different matterwhen a paymaster delivered the designtogether with his order. Maria’s unsuccess-ful request in 1535, and the involvement ofEmperor Carl himself, is the ideal scenario

for just such an occurrence—the transferof Löffler’s well-proven design through of-ficial channels to another part of the em-pire, Malines. The chronology of eventssuggests a modus operandi which is quitefamiliar in ordnance development up tothe 19th century. Accordingly, Maria, hav-ing failed to get the best founder, acquiredfrom Ferdinand the best-known design.Then a gunfounder had to be chosen whowould cast the guns and finally a foundryhad to be found to ensure productionwithout further delay. It would be Malinesbecause it was probably the best gun foun-dry under Spanish control, had been aroyal foundry since 1520 and had theadded convenience of a recently deceasedmaster founder. The appearance of a de-sign in Spanish feet is in this context avery strong indication that it was pro-moted and introduced from the highestlevel of Habsburg authority and not by alocal nobleman or authority. This assump-tion is also supported by the promotion ofRemigy de Halut to a fondeur royale,shortly after his appointment by Charles Vhimself (Martin, 1988: 64).The proposition that the Dunwich Bank

gun was cast in Malines by Remigy deHalut is thus very likely but not conclusive.There are two objections, namely a decor-ative feature on Löffler guns which is saidto be characteristic only of them and is alsoapparent from Charles’ inventory. This isthe decoration, on the muzzle neck whichis said to feature always on top a mask orobject, a kind of trade mark. This ispresent on the Dunwich gun. However,this feature on Löffler’s guns was notexclusively his. The same style and decor-ation can also be observed on the chasegirdle and/or at the muzzle neck, usually inland service guns, for example on someDutch guns. A further point is the absenceof the breech dolphin which is a typicalcharacteristic of most Löffler guns, laterSpanish pieces, but not with the Dunwichgun or pieces compared with it. However,


27

the excavation of the Spanish Armadaship La Trinidad Valencera resulted in thediscovery of three 40-pounder batteringpieces, all cast in 1556 by Remigy de Halutand all with the typical breech dolphin.The Spanish Armada (Martin & Parker,1988: 218) illustrates one of these gunsbesides other Spanish gun types from theperiod (Fig. 4, no. 2). The gun design forthe recovered 40-pounder battering piecesby de Halut in 1556 does not fit theSpanish or the Malines foot but is a perfectmatch with the Vienna foot (316 mm) witha length of 8 ft 6 in. Furthermore, thereis a drawing in the Inventory of 1550(Essenwein, 1877: Pl. CXX) of a Löfflergun of apparently identical design andlength but with the decoration for theimperial city of Ulm and cast in 1533. Thepiece is clearly marked with the weight

of 4808 lb, in the contemporary Vienna/Austrian pound of 514·35 gm. Convertedto the Castil libra, the gun would have aweight of 5376 libra whilst the weightmarks of the three Halut guns from LaTrinidad Valencera were 5316, 5260 and5186.Further circumstantial evidence as to the

transfer of gun design and the founderof the Dunwich gun is provided by anadditional piece which is mentioned in theTower catalogue as the ‘Red Horse’, castfor Charles V by de Halut in 1551. It wascaptured in 1662 from a Dunkirk priva-teer, has now been registered as No. 716and is today displayed at the entranceof the town hall of Enkhuizen (Fig. 5). AsDunkirk was part of the Netherlandsin 1551 with the Burgundy pound of489·0 g, the gun would have fired a shot

Figure 4. The 40-Pounder (No. 2) from The Spanish Armada (after Martin & Parker, 1988).


28

of about 5 lb. The piece is of the samelength, within the usual tolerances, as theDunwich gun but is of an improved designinsofar as the proportions express a greaterawareness of internal ballistics with cornedpowder. The decoration at the muzzle neckhas either not been carved or has beendispensed with all together whilst a broadband just behind the muzzle astragalwas intended for the carving of leaves likethose of the Dunwich gun. The cascabel isagain the same as the saker at the Towerwith a vent patch identical to the Towerand Dunwich guns. The coat of arms isthe same as that on the Dunwich gun,although that of the latter possibly pro-truded higher above the gun’s body (Fig.6). The following identification basedon technical dimensions and proportionswhich are the root of any gun designdepend to a small extent on educatedguesswork combined with experienceand comparative information. The causesare wear of the gun and manufacturingtolerances which for the gun’s lengthalone, can deviate by minus 1 inch or plus0·2 inch from the design length. By com-bining the technical information for thefour guns, it would appear that thechronology of development begins withthe illustrated Löffler gun, followed bythe Dunwich gun (saker 709), then theEnkhuizen gun in 1551 (saker 716) and

finally the Tower saker of 1555 (saker 345).Table 1 states the length and bore of eachgun in mm as well as the length in thevarious possible feet of design with theirequivalents in mm. Those of the Löfflergun are approximate dimensions.By adjusting the scale of the Löffler gun

illustration to about 1:10 the followingproportions may be calculated (Table 2).Column 1 is the length in calibres andcolumns 2–4 are the lengths of the firstreinforce, second reinforce and the chaseincluding the muzzle, which are all ex-pressed in 1/21 parts of the gun’s length.Columns 5–10 express the thickness ofmetal in fractions of 1/16 of the calibre oneach end of these three parts of the gun butexclude the muzzle swell, taken on eitherside of the separating mouldings.The calculations in Table 2 do not reflect

the accurate proportion of the unknowndesign since the calibre is measured fromthe gun or that presumed to be the originalcalibre. The proportions of saker 716 fromEnkhuizen are of greater thickness ofmetal in comparison with saker 709 duepartly to the smaller calibre of 93 mm asmeasured. The change of reinforce lengthand thickness of metal with saker 716reflects the adherence to an existing designbut with improvements in comparison withsaker 709, which were dictated by theuse of stronger propellant. The additional

Figure 5. The Enkhuizen gun (Photo R. Roth).


29

calculation of saker 716 (b) in the samecalibre as No. 709 from Dunwich demon-strated this clearly as also does the simi-larity to saker 345. The Enkhuizen gunsignifies therefore a development stagebetween the Dunwich gun and saker 345which is a new, more balanced design bythe same founder for a shorter gun andfor use with the same propellant. The firstreinforce is shorter but followed by alonger second reinforce like the Enkhuizengun in comparison with the Dunwich gun.More obvious are the slighter proportionsat the vent of saker 345 in comparison withsaker 716 (b) and the somewhat greaterstrength in the forward parts of thegun. This results in a weight difference ofless than 400 lb despite the much greaterlength and unusually small calibre of theEnkhuizen saker 716.

ConclusionDue to the obliterated inscription on theDunwich gun, it is unlikely that absolutecertainty will ever be obtained as to whenand by whom it was cast, although dueto the existence of saker 716 and the cor-roborating historic and other evidence,there remains little doubt as to the name offounder and place of foundry. The gun can,therefore, be identified with considerablecertainty as a Flemish Saker of 11 ft 6 in(Spanish feet), made for land service accord-ing to an adapted design by Löffler and castby de Halut at Malines between 1536 and1556 for Emperor Charles V. The chancesare small indeed that the number of distinc-tive, identical details on the three differentguns did not come from the same craftsman,particularly as two of the pieces are dated.The calibre of the Dunwich gun is that ofabout a 6-pounder and the pieces mighthave been described as such by the Dutch orSpanish after 1611 but not at the time ofcasting. The Germans might have called thepiece a ‘Halbe Schlange’ or ‘Saker’ whichwere both of similar calibres but oftenshorter. The name ‘Sagro/Sacre’ might havebeen the Spanish description but there alsothe guns became shorter. The date bracketof casting is determined by de Halut’s workbeginning at the foundry in 1536, and theabdication of Charles in 1556. Consideringthe date of 1551 on saker 716 at Enkhuizenand the date of Maria’s request, the castingdate can be further reduced to between 1536and 1551. The definite chronological devel-opment of these four guns with their changesand adaptations of the original design by deHalut and the alleged incorporation ofLöffler’s trade mark, suggests a casting datebetween 1536 and 1540 as the most likely.More room for speculation concerns the

time and reason which brought the gun tothe Suffolk coast. It was a serviceable piecewith an excess of only 1·2 mm bore diam-eter at the seat of the shot. This indi-cates that the gun was roughly in the firstquarter of its service life which is measured

Figure 6. Coat of arms of Charles V on theEnkhuizen gun (Photo: R. Roth).


30

by the number of shots fired by the gun.Fifty-year-old guns were quite common onboard ships and the Dunwich gun would fitvery well among other guns of the SpanishArmada. There is no evidence that anyArmada ship sank in the area. However, atleast one Armada ship apparently wentaground on the Dutch coast and was nodoubt stripped by the Dutch who werethemselves at war with Spain. The authorhas recently received an underwater videofrom the same site featuring a further gunwhich has not yet been raised. The pieceappears to be of the same adaptedAugsburg design from about 1530 but witha slightly different grouping of mouldings.The piece has a somewhat smaller calibrethan the first gun and compares very wellwith that from Enkhuizen although nodimensions are available at present. Thecoat of arms appears to be erased and theinscriptions on the basering are not visibleon the video but the diver believes he hasrecognized some or all of the name Remigyde Halut. All other details seem identicalto the Enkhuizen gun. Whilst no final con-clusion can be drawn, the discovery of a

second gun of very similar appearance anddate, diminishes the possibility of DunwichBank being the wreck-site of a solitarymerchantman. Because it is unusual for agun of this age to be still aboard a Dutchwarship in 1672, two such guns are even lesslikely and with it the dating of the wrecksite of the battle of Sole Bay. Furtherarchaeological investigation is under waywith a good chance of finding further gunsand other artefacts, which, once recovered,may provide more definite information asto the period, history and type of shipwhich found its end off the Dunwich Bank.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Stuart Bacon for allhis support and help in recording. Myprofound thanks to Colin J. Martin for hislarge scale drawing of the Remigy de Halutgun from La Trinidad Valencera and histime in discussing the relevant information.I am also indebted to Martin Dean formaking available and discussing the under-water video of the second gun and toCharles Trollope for his comments on thefirst draft of this paper.

Table 1. The length and bore of the Löffler, saker 709, 716 and 345 guns

GunLengthin mm

Cal.mm

Spanish ft279 mm

Nurnberg292·4 mm

Austria316 mm

Malines ft280·1 mm

Löffler 3212+ – 95 – – – –Saker 709 3212+163 97 11* 5·15+ 10* 11·58+ 10* 1·94+ 11* 5·60+Saker 716 3206+185 93 11* 5·85+ 10* 11·30+ 10* 1·67+ 11* 5·30+Saker 345 2776+186 97 9* 11·40+ 9* 5·72+ 8* 9·38+ 9* 10·92+

Table 2.

Gun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Löffler gun 33·81 5·674 3·543 11·78 16·58 15·32 14·48 13·38 12·63 6·31Saker 709 33·11 5·779 3·497 11·72 17·89 17·23 15·75 14·68 11·87 8·57Saker 716 34·47 5·082 4·008 11·90 20·04 16·25 15·39 13·07 11·87 8·17Saker 345 28·61 5·197 3·858 11·94 17·40 15·34 14·59 13·03 12·20 7·09Saker 716 (b) 33·05 (with 97 mm calibre) 18·88 15·25 14·43 12·20 11·05 7·05


31

ReferencesBlackmore, H. L., 1976, Ordonance Catalogue of the Royal Armouries. London.Essenwein, A., 1877, Quellen zur Geschichte der Feuerwaffen, (2nd edition, Graz 1969).Egg, E., 1961, Der Tiroler Geschützguss. Innsbruck.Ffoulkes, C., 1937, The Gunfounders of England. London.Kennard, A. N., 1986, Gunfounding and Gunfounders. London.Limm, P., 1989, The Dutch Revolt. Harlow.Martin, C. & Parker, G., 1988, The Spanish Armada. London.


32

The cannon from Dunwich Bank, Suffolk

Documents

Transcript of The cannon from Dunwich Bank, Suffolk