The Great Northern War underwater: A Swedish ship barrier of 1715 in Northeast Germany

Historical Archaeology in Central EuropeNatascha MehlerEditor

special publicatioN NuMber 10

Historical Archaeology in Central Europe(Full Color Edition)

Natascha MehlerEditor

special publicatioN NuMber 10,the society for historical archaeology

©2013 Society for Historical Archaeology 9707 Key West Avenue, Suite 100 Rockville, MD 20850

SHA Journal Editor: J.W. Joseph

ISBN:978-1-939531-02-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2013936866

Published in the United States of America

COVER IMAGE: by Thomas Pertlwieser, Department of Prehistory and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna. It is a composite of elements from the following images: Wooden gallows and breaking wheels in front of the town walls of Einbeck 1654, by Martin Zeiller (from Zeiller 1654); and Hoard of watches found with a metal de-tector at the Bad Jungbrunn site, Lavant (Photo by H. Stadler, 2008; courtesy of the Department of Archaeology, University of Innsbruck, Austria).

BACK COVER IMAGE: The chimneys of Krupp Steel Works in Essen, Germany (courtesy of Stadtbildstelle Essen, ca. 1890. Exact date unknown).

Dedicated to Paul Courtney

iv Historical Archaeology in Central Europe

ContentsForeword .................................................................................................................................................... vii

I. Development, Current researCh, anD perspeCtIves

Breaking New Ground: Historical Archaeology in Central Europe ......................................................... 11�ĆęĆĘĈčĆ��ĊčđĊė

��ǡ��ǡ��ǣ��ƪ�� ...................... 31�ĆĎēĊė��ĈčėĊČ�

Archaeology of the Modern Period in the Czech Territories: A Long Tradition and Long Beginnings ...................................................................................................53

ĆėĔĒŃė�~ĊČĐđĎęğ�

Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries: Historical Archaeology as a Problem Child—The Case of Slovenia ...................................................... 69

�ĆęĆėĎēĆ��ėĊĉĔěēĎĐ�

Some Remarks about Historical Archaeology in Poland ........................................................................ 95�ĊĘğĊĐ��ĆďğĊė�

Historical Archaeology in Slovakia ......................................................................................................... 103�ĆėĎġē�,Ěėēż

Historical Archaeology in Hungary ..........................................................................................................111ġćĔė��ĔĒĐĆ

II. relIgIon, ConflICt, anD Death

The Archaeology of Execution Sites in Early Modern Central Europe ................................................. 139 ĔĘę��ĚđĊė�

Religion, Belief, and Anthropological Research in Central Europe ...................................................... 149�ĚĘĎ��đėĎĈčǦ�ĔĈčĘđĊė�Ȁ��čėĎĘęĎēĊ��ĔĔĕĊė�

Confessionalization in the Domestic Sphere during the 16th Century: Archaeology and Reformation ................................................................................................................ 167

�ĉČĆė��ĎēČ�

Ottoman Mosques and Cemeteries in the Hungarian Territories ........................................................ 185�ćĔđĞĆ�ĊėĊđĞĊĘ�

��Ƥ��Ȅ ��Ƥ�� ............................................................................................203

�ėēĊ��ĔĒĆēē�

vHistorical Archaeology in Central Europe

The Great Northern War Underwater:

A Swedish Ship Barrier of 1715 in Northeast Germany ............................................................................231

�ĎĐĊ��ĊđĆĘĚĘ�

Archaeology and Remembrance: The Contemporary Archaeology

��ǡ��Ǧ��Ǧ��ǡ��Ƥ�� .........................................................241

�đĆĚĉĎĆ��čĊĚēĊ�

The Drau Valley Tragedy: The Historical Archaeology of World War II Cossacks in East Tyrol ........ 261

�ĆėĆđĉ��ęĆĉđĊė�Ȁ�ėĎĊĉėĎĈč��ęĊĕĆēĊĐ

III. teChnology, InDustry, anD moDernIzatIon

Craftsmen’s Pottery Kilns in Belgium, The Netherlands,

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland ........................................................................................................279

�ēĉėĊĆĘ��ĊĊČĊ�

New Technologies in the Manufacture of Clay Tobacco Pipes in Central Europe ...............................295

�Ćđċ��đĚęęĎČǦ�đęĒĆēē�

Industrial Archaeology in Essen: The Former Friedrich Krupp Cast Steel Works ..............................305

�ĊęđĊċ��Ĕĕĕ�

Industrial Archaeology and Cultural Ecology: A Case Study at a 19th-Century

Glass Factory in Germany .........................................................................................................................317

�ĆĎēĊė��ĈčėĊČ�

Aviation Archaeology in the Alps ...........................................................................................................325

�ĔđċČĆēČ�ĆđĈč

Iv. lanDsCapes anD CItIes In Change

Landscape, the Individual, and Society: Subjective Expected Utilities in a Monastic

Landscape near Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Lower Austria ..........................................................339

�ĎĈčĆĊđ��ĔēĊĚĘ�Ȁ��čĔĒĆĘ��űčęėĊĎćĊė�

Vienna, The Architecture of Absolutism ................................................................................................365

�ĆĚđ��ĎęĈčĊđđ�

��Ï��ȋ��Ȍ��Ǧ�� ..............379

ĊėğĞ��ĎĊĐĆđĘĐĎ�

Archaeology in Pirna: The Systematic Study of Post-Medieval Finds Based on the

Example of a Small Town in Saxony ........................................................................................................395

�Ćđċ��đĚęęĎČǦ�đęĒĆēē�

A Case Study on Cultural Contacts and Cultural Adaptation in Colonial Panamá—

German Historical Archaeology in the New World ...............................................................................410

�ĆĎēĊė��ĈčėĊČ�Ȁ��ēēĊęęĊ��ĊĎĘĈčĐĆǦ�ĊēğđĊė

231Historical Archaeology in Central Europe

0,.(�%(/$686

the Great northern War underwater: A Swedish Ship Barrier of 1715 in northeast Germany

a B s t r a C tThe Swedish ship barrier is an important archaeological and historical monument of the Great ��Ǥ�� Ǧ�� Ǥ� �� ǡ� �� Ǥ��ǡ��Ǥ��ǡ��Ƥ��Ǥ

IntroDuCtIon

The ship barrier of 1715 is one of many underwater archaeological sites on the Baltic coast of the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Western

Pomerania (Figure 1). From the air it is still visible today. Like a string of pearls, each dark spot on the sandy bottom of the Bay of Greifswald represents one ��ȋ��ȌǤ��Ƥ��Ƥ��aerial surveys could be carried out in the early 1990s. ��ǡ� �� Ƥ�� anomalies as being the remains of old shipwrecks that corresponded to 18th-century historical sources. Now a pipeline is planned through the Baltic Sea from Russia

to Germany to supply western Europe with gas. After crossing the waters of Finland, Sweden, and Denmark the pipeline enters the German territory and will cross the ship barrier (Figure 3).

The site is situated on a natural shoal at the eastern entrance of the Bay of Greifswald between the Rügen Island’s Mönchgut Peninsula in the northwest and the small island of Ruden in the southeast (Figure 4). ��Ƥ��1 km from the west to the east. This site—lying at a depth of only 3-4 m—is regarded as one of the most impressive visible underwater monuments of Germany.

the great northern War anD the Defense of stralsunD

The wrecks commemorate a very important event in the history of northern Europe (Frost 2000). They are a monument to the struggle for su-

premacy in the Baltic Sea during the Great Northern War from 1700 to 1721. In this period the Russian Empire fought together with Saxony-Poland and Denmark-Norway against the Swedish kingdom. During that time Sweden reined over large parts of Pomerania on the southern Baltic coast. The war took place foremost around and in the Baltic Sea and reached Pomerania in August 1711 when Danish troops entered the coun-try from Mecklenburg. Later the forces where joined by troops from Saxony and Russia and outnumbered the Swedish troops. This situation forced the Swedish troops to concentrate on the defense of the fortresses of Stralsund and Stettin and Rügen Island. In the fol-�� ơ�� sieges by the allied troops. The besieging armies had

serious problems with supplies and the transport of heavy siege artillery. The town of Greifswald was at that time the only suitable harbor to bring the much needed artillery on land but it was still blocked by the Swedish who ruled over the Bay of Greifswald. After the fortress of Stettin had to surrender in September 1713 only Rügen Island and Stralsund remained in Swedish hands. The last siege of Stralsund began in the end of 1714. This time troops from Denmark, Russia, Saxony, and recently joined Prussia tried to break the Swedish defense. The Swedish still had Rügen Island under con-trol to defend the waterways to the town of Stralsund from land with heavy gun batteries. This strategic advantage also prevented the landing of the urgently needed artillery. Heavy artillery was placed on the narrow western entrance into a narrow strait between the mainland and Rügen Island called the Strelasund. More complicated was the situation at the eastern

232 Historical Archaeology in Central Europe

entrance to the Bay of Greifswald. Guns were placed on Rügen Island’s Mönchgut Peninsula, the small island of Ruden, and on the northwestern tip of the island of Usedom. The water between the Mönchgut Peninsula and the small island of Ruden is very shallow because of natural shoals. In 18th-century sources these shoals are also called the Ruden reef. The access of bigger ships into the bay was only possible by a few passages. One of these passages, the so called �� (middle deep), was out of reach for the land batteries. For this reason the Swedish decided in 1715 to block this pas-�� Ƥ��

pass into the bay within reach of their guns. For this purpose the Swedish requisitioned several small and medium sized vessels from the harbors in the area. The ships were loaded with cobblestones and sunk across the Mitteltief passage together with big anchors. In ��ƪ��Ƥ��ǡ��back by the artillery at the small island of Ruden. The Swedish plan seemed to work, but already in September 1715 another attack followed. According to some his-torical sources a local pilot who was treated badly by the Swedes ran over to the Danes (Krüger 2002:189) and

Figure 1. 7KH�XQGHUZDWHU�VLWHV�FRQQHFWHG� WR� WKH�*UHDW�1RUWKHUQ�:DU� LQ�QRUWKHUQ�*HUPDQ\�� WKH�6ZHGLVK�VKLS�EDUULHU�RI��DW�WKH�HQWUDQFH�RI�WKH�%D\�RI�*UHLIVZDOG��WKH�VPDOO�'DQLVK�IULJDWH�0\QGHQ�ORVW�LQ��DW�&DSH�$UNRQD��WKH�ORVW�6ZHGLVK�VXSSRUW�ŶHHW�RI��RQ�WKH�ZHVW�FRDVW�RI�5¾JHQ�,VODQG��DQG��WKH�ORVW�6ZHGLVK�ŶHHW�RI��LQ�WKH�.LHO�%D\��0DS�SURYLGHG�courtesy of the Department of Prehistory and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna, Austria).


guided the Danish ships to a secret passage in the bar-

rier. During the night the Danish dragged their ships

through this passage using anchors that were brought

out by the boats. This sudden change of the situa-

tion caused confusion among the commanders of the

��Ǥ��ƪ��Sweden while others burned their own ships to avoid

having them captured by the Danes. The heavy siege

artillery was subsequently brought ashore in the harbor

of Greifswald and positioned in front of the besieged

fortress of Stralsund. In November 1715 Rügen Island

was conquered by a joint Danish-Prussian army. The

fortress of Stralsund surrendered in December 1715

just one day after the Swedish King, who resided there,

secretly escaped to Sweden. After the war was over

the barrier was gradually forgotten. The anchors were

most probably salvaged, but the shipwrecks with their

cargoes of stones remained a hazard to shipping at least

until the mid-19th century. Then they were forgotten for

the next 150 years until they were rediscovered in 1996

(Förster et al. 2002; Krüger 2002; Scherer 2003).

the monument

Today the remains of the ships are regarded as a

unique archive of local shipbuilding traditions of

the late 17th century and an important historical

monument of European history. The surveys of the pre-

vious years showed that the ships were built using carvel

and clinker (or lapstrake) building techniques—the for-

mer characterized by planks set edge-to-edge and the

latter by overlapping planks. The remains of the vessels

vary in length from 11.5 m to almost 20 m. Some are up to

7 m wide. The dimensions are not related to the build-

ing technique: clinker-built ships are among both the

smaller and larger wrecks. All dated ships were built in

the last quarter of the 17th century. The origin of the oak

that was used for the ships is from around the area. There

is almost no sedimentation around the wrecks because

of currents caused by the wind. Therefore the ballast

mounts that cover each wreck are the only protection

for the timbers. Only the lowest parts of the ships have

survived beneath the cobblestones. Some test trenches

on selected wrecks of the monument were excavated in

the past. They gave some information on the construc-

��ǡ��Ƥ��Ǥ��trunks of young conifer trees were placed under the

heavy ballast, probably to prevent any destruction that

could be caused by the stones (Förster et al. 2002:378).

Two deadeyes were found in the vicinity of one wreck.

��Ƥ�� 1679 in Brandenburg that was still placed in the mast

step of a vessel (Förster et al. 2002:378).

legIslatIon anD the preservatIon of monuments

The site is protected by state heritage legisla-

tion today. This protection by the Monument

Protection Act of the German federal state of

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania has existed since

1993. Until 1990 this part of Germany belonged to the

territory of the former German Democratic Republic

(GDR). Diving in the coastal waters of the GDR was

very limited because of strict border regulations. For

this reason the underwater heritage remained almost

undisturbed until the early 1990s. With the political

Figure 2. 7KH� VKLS� EDUULHU� RI� �� LV� DOPRVW� �� NP�long and visible from above in the shallow ZDWHU� RI� WKH� HDVWHUQ� HQWUDQFH� RI� WKH� %D\� RI�*UHLIVZDOG� �,PDJH� E\� 2WWR� %UDDVFK�� FRXUWHV\� RI� /DQGVKXW�/DQGHVDPW� I¾U� .XOWXU�XQG�'HQNPDOSŶHJH��6FKZHULQ��


change activities of many kinds were increasing in the waters of the state. For this reason regulatory legislation was urgently needed. Today the Monument Protection Act of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania considers un-derwater cultural heritage in particular. Furthermore it is regulated that any costs related to interference at a monument, including maintenance, professional restoration, recovery, and documentation of the monu-ment shall be borne by the entity that causes the in-terference. This means that any archaeological work ��Ƥ��archaeological site.

�� Ƥ�� of a modern infrastructural network was needed in the former GDR. The heritage legislation proved its necessity because wherever building took place ar-chaeological sites turned up on land and underwater. In the beginning the acceptance of archaeology as a Ƥ�� was hard to achieve. Today the Authority for Culture and Preservation of Monuments (the Authority) has es-tablished a permanent position within these processes in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and is widely ac-cepted by the public.

One of the main tools for the management of cultural heritage in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is a GIS

database for the collection of all available data. The data on underwater heritage are collected from historical archives, water-related authorities, aerial photography, information from the public, and the work of the Society for Underwater Archaeology of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. This society is a sport diving association

Figure 3. 7KH�JDV�SLSHOLQH�FRUULGRU�EHWZHHQ�9\ERUJ�LQ�5XVVLD�DQG�/XEPLQ�DW�WKH�%D\�RI�*UHLIVZDOG�LQ�QRUWKHUQ�*HUPDQ\��&RPSDQ\�SUHVV�UHOHDVH��1RUG�6WUHDP�$*��

)LJXUH�� 7KH� IHGHUDO� VWDWH� RI� 0HFNOHQEXUJ�:HVWHUQ�3RPHUDQLD��*HUPDQ\��DQG�SODFHV�PHQWLRQHG�LQ�WKH�text. The rhombus at the eastern entrance of the %D\�RI�*UHLIVZDOG�LQGLFDWHV�WKH�VLWH�RI�WKH�6ZHGLVK�VKLS�EDUULHU�RI��,PDJH�E\�DXWKRU��FRXU�WHV\�RI�/DQGHVDPW�I¾U�.XOWXU�XQG�'HQNPDOSŶHJH��Schwerin.)


with archaeological interest and is cooperating very

closely with the Authority. Together with archaeologists

the members of the society participate in surveys and in

some excavations. All data collected by the society are

added to the database.

One major source of data about potential archaeological

sites in the waters of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

is the aerial survey of the coast. Due to the geological

��Ƥ��create long beaches and shallow waters with moving

sands. These circumstances caused many ships to

founder on the shoals. Today the light sandy ground en-

��Ƥ��Ǥ��

are visible from a height of 300 m down to a water depth

of about 6 m in good conditions. In many cases these

��Ƥ��Ǥ��-

ber of the potential underwater archaeological sites in

the database of the Authority exceeds 1,400.

Fourteen among these sites are found in the ship barrier

of 1715. The ship barrier remained undisturbed for al-

most 300 years. The 1-km-long barrier was constructed

to close an important shipping passage, and consider-

ing the narrow entrance to the Bay of Greifswald it was

only a matter of time before this monument would be

threatened by building projects.

fIelDWork anD results 2006—2009

The pipeline planned within the North-European-

Gas-Pipeline-Project (NEGP) will connect Russia

and Germany from Vyborg to Lubmin near the

town of Greifswald at the Bay of Greifswald though

the Baltic Sea. It will be 1,220 km long. The modern

shipping canal at the eastern entrance to the bay and

the nature preserves of Ruden Island leave no other

route into the bay except through the ship barrier. The

planned building of a dual pipe pipeline means an

enormous impact on the seabed. The Authority was

included in the negotiations from the beginning along

with similar groups in Finland, Sweden, and Denmark,

through which the pipeline will pass. Necessary actions

were planned very early with the builders, Nord-Stream

AG. Planning also included geophysical surveys of the

whole pipeline route within German waters to locate

previously unknown potential archaeological sites

and objects. The results of these

surveys will be the basis for the

determination of future archaeo-

logical activities. Some areas of

�� Ƥ��ǡ� ��as the ship barrier of 1715, were al-

ready in the underwater database,

��Ƥ��an early stage of the process.

�� Ƥ�� Ƥ�� launched in 2006 to get more

detailed information about the

barrier in the area of the pipeline

corridor. This campaign included

a geophysical survey and diving

examinations of the wrecks. The

��Ƥ��-

ment without any disturbance and if not, how to limit

the interference. For this purpose side scan data were

collected to give an overview of the sites (Figure 5). A

�� ơ�� -ried out to give more information about bathymetry,

correct position, and possible hidden parts of the bar-

rier in the sediment. Considering all collected data

the decision was made to recover one of the wrecks to

guarantee better protection of the adjacent wrecks. To

keep the interference as small as possible the smallest

and most disturbed site, Ostseebereich VII, Mönchgut,

Fpl. 67 (Mönchgut 67), was chosen to be excavated and

recovered.

��Ƥ��gather further information from the chosen site for the

Figure 5. $�VLGH�VFDQ�RYHUYLHZ�RI�D�FD��P�ORQJ�VHFWLRQ�RI�WKH�VKLS�EDUULHU�RI��LQ�WKH�%D\�RI�*UHLIVZDOG��7KH�VKDGRZV�RI�WKH�VKLSZUHFNV�DUH�YLVLEOH�DORQJ�WKH� OHQJWK�RI� WKH� VFDQ� �,PDJH�E\� ,1120$5��5RVWRFN�� FRXUWHV\�RI�/DQGHVDPW�I¾U�.XOWXU�XQG�'HQNPDOSŶHJH��6FKZHULQ��


planned recovery of the wreck. Detailed documentation of the site was done, and test trenches were excavated. The examination of the site revealed the remains of one side of a ship 9 m long and 4.7 m wide (Figure 6). The wreck lay on top of the sediment protected only by a small ballast mount of cobblestones (Figure 7). Most parts of the ship were gone. Parts of the outer planking, frames, and ceiling planking survived under the ballast, but there were no signs of the keel, keelson, or the posts. The visible parts showed overlapping oak planks con-nected by rivets in clinker technique.

In summer 2009 the full excavation of the site and re-covery of all timbers of the wreck was carried out. Each timber was documented in detail in 1:1 scale after the recovery. The wreck represents a rather small vessel. During the work it was discovered that a second layer of planks was added to the clinker planking of the hull in the carvel manner. For this purpose the steps in the clinker planking where smoothed with an axe or adze. While the planks within the strakes of the clinker plank-ing were joined by 20-25-cm-long lashes, the planks of the outer carvel planking were but-end joined within the strakes. The timbers were dated by dendrochronology to after 1658 A.D. and were most probably cut in the area. There was almost no ��ơ�� clinker and the carvel planking of the outer hull. This could suggest that the construction

of both layers occurred when the vessel �� Ƥ�� ǡ� �� Ƥ�� Ǧbuilt planking showed repairs, and the ��ơ��addition to the fact that one was clinker-built and the other carvel. The pattern of the framing gave further reason to suggest that extra framing was added to the hull during a major rebuilding of the ��Ǥ��Ƥ�� was hardly distinguishable from late ��ǡ��ƪ��Ǧlaid planking was comparable to that

��Ǧ��ƪ��Ǥ��Ƥ��Ǧ��Ǧ��planking are known from the archaeological record on the southern Baltic coast (Ossowski 2006; Grundvad Nielsen 2010). All of them are post-medieval with the earliest example built around 1550 (Mäss 1994). There are several reasons for a second layer of planks. It could be a rebuilding of an old vessel but also a protection against ice or a strengthening for heavy cargos. It also �� Ƥ�� a clinker-built hull can cause problems when working with a net (Eichler 1990:218).

)LJXUH�� 6LWH�SODQ�RI�WKH�ZUHFN�0¸QFKJXW��'UDZLQJ�E\�5RPDQ�6FKRO]��FRXUWHV\�RI�/DQGHVDPW�I¾U�.XOWXU�XQG�'HQNPDOSŶHJH��6FKZHULQ��

Figure 7. 7KH�IHZ�SUHVHUYHG�WLPEHUV�RI�0¸QFKJXW��ZHUH�FRYHUHG�ZLWK�EDOODVW�VWRQHV��3KRWR� E\� -DPHV� 0F&OHDQ�� FRXUWHV\� RI� /DQGHVDPW� I¾U� .XOWXU� XQG�'HQNPDOSŶHJH��6FKZHULQ��


�� Ƥ�� leather shoe representing life on board and a bar shot as evidence for warfare (Heinze 2010). After the recovery and detailed documentation the timbers were stored in water tanks. To prevent a loss of information through possible accidents during the pipeline building process the adjacent wrecks of the barrier on both sides of the planned pipeline were documented in situ. During

construction in the vicinity of the monument, the adja-cent wrecks will be marked with buoys. Archaeologists will be on site to observe the construction. After the ��Ƥ��Ǥ��ơ��this unique monument for the public, the shape of the wreck site will be recreated to reconstruct the appear-ance of the barrier as seen from the air.

other marItIme evIDenCe of the great northern War

The Swedish ship barrier of 1715 is not the only underwater site related to the Great Northern War in northern Germany. In Mecklenburg-

Western Pomerania there are two more sites connected to this historical event. Research on a shipwreck at the northern point of Rügen Island could identify it to be the small Danish frigate ��. The ship sank within minutes after hitting an uncharted rock near Cape Arkona in 1718 (Auer 2004). The remains of two other vessels were found on the west coast of the same island. The results of a survey of these sites and the recovery of one of them in 2003 gave reason to connect these wrecks with an incident of the Great Northern War. In 1715 the Danes prevented the landing of a Swedish �� ƪ�� ǯ�� Ƥ�� ȋ��¡��and Nakoinz 2005). Additional archaeological evidence

of this war turned up in the Bay of Kiel in the state of Schleswig-Holstein. A huge area with scattered gunshot was found close to the shore. Later an 18th-century gun barrel was found further out in the bay. The site was ��Ƥ�� -ately grounded after the Battle of Colberger Heide in 1715 west of the island of Fehmarn. Total destruction ��ƪ��ǡ�� ƪ�� Hedwig Sophia were taken as a prize (Belasus 2002). In 2008 the wreck of the abandoned Hedwig Sophia was found in the same area, and surveys were carried out in 2009 and 2010 by the Archaeological State Authority of Schleswig-Holstein together with the Maritime Archaeological Programme at the University of Southern Denmark in Esbjerg and the University of Kiel (Auer 2011).

ConClusIon

The Swedish ship barrier of 1715 is a unique monu-ment in itself but just one part of the enormous cultural value buried along the German Baltic

coast. Opportunities for high standard archaeological access to this vast archive are currently controlled by the state heritage protection program and are only possible when potential sites are threatened by human interfer-ence. Until today no research institution or university has been permanently involved in the underwater ar-chaeology of Germany, and for this reason comprehen-��Ƥ��Ǥ

The ship barrier represents only a short period in time, but this and the fact that all ships were requisitioned in the same area and sunk at the same time makes them a very important resource. It gives us the unique opportu-nity to study the ships and their building traditions and how they appeared next to each other in the harbors around the Bay of Greifswald and the island of Usedom. They have the potential to give us a glimpse into the

human mind about 300 years ago, to analyze the techni-cal understanding of those days and what might have ��ƪ��Ǥ��ƪ��Ǧ��Ǧbuilt vessels, and in the wreck recently excavated both techniques seem to have been combined.

The excavation of the site Mönchgut 67 showed that even small remains of a ship can reveal important in-formation. The clinker building tradition in this area seems to have survived unaltered from the late medieval period to the late 17th century or even early 18th century. �� ƪ��Ǧ�� Ǧ��ƪ��carvel building tradition that makes the early modern context most likely. The people that were practicing ��ơ��lived next to each other but also engaged in a certain degree of technical exchange. Yet they stuck to their own shipbuilding philosophies. Obviously there was no need for a major change in shipbuilding in general. For


some purposes or people the older clinker technique was still accepted as a good solution, even until today ��Ǧ��Ƥ��Baltic coast.

The shipyards, where the small and medium sized ves-sels of the ship barrier were built, were most probably not using any drawings at that time. Therefore, unlike in the building of many navy vessels, we do not know much about the building of this kind of vessel during that period. A detailed survey of all wrecks within the barrier would be desirable to shed more light on this

piece of unwritten history and to uncover the social and �� ƪ�� -ment of shipbuilding or led to the maintenance of old solutions for centuries.

The remaining ships of the barrier will be preserved underneath their stone ballast for other archaeologists to come, thanks to heritage legislation in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the growing acceptance of it among the public. Our common underwater heritage will be safe for future generations.

referenCes�ĚĊėǡ� ĊēĘ

2004 Fregatten Mynden. A 17th-century Danish Frigate Found in Northern Germany. ��Journal of Nautical Archaeology 33(2):264-280.

2011 Prinsessan Hedvig Sophia 2010. Fieldwork Report. �� 3. Maritime Archaeological Programme, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.

�ĊđĆĘĚĘǡ��ĎĐĊ� ��ơ��ò��Ú��ȑ��

Gun from Kiel Fjord]. Starigard 2002:30-35.

�ĎĈčđĊėǡ��Ěėę��Ǥ1990 Holzbootsbau und der Bau von stählernen Booten

und Yachten [Wooden Boat Building and the Building of Steel Boats and Yachts]. RKE Verlag, Kiel, Germany.

śėĘęĊėǡ��čĔĒĆĘ� ��Ơ��ò��

Ostsee. Untersuchungen an Wrackfunden des 13.-15. Jahrhunderts [Ship Building and Trade in the Southwest Baltic Sea. The Examination of Wreck Finds of the 13th-15th Centuries]. In ��Ǥ��¡��¡��é�Ȃ��, Friedrich Lüth, Ulrich Schoknecht, editors, pp. 221-236. Landesamt für ��ƪ��ǡ��ò��ǡ��Ǥ

śėĘęĊėǡ��čĔĒĆĘǡ� ĔĆĈčĎĒ��ėűČĊėǡ�Ćēĉ��čĔĒĆĘ��ĈčĊėĊė� ��ơ��Ȅ

taucharchäologische Untersuchungen im Greifswalder Bodden [The Swedish Ships Barrier of 1715—Underwater Archaeological Examination in Greifswald Bay]. In ��Archäologie und Geschichte in Norddeutschland, Ulrich Masemann, editor, pp. 371-388. Archäologischen Gesellschaft im Landkreis ��Ȁ�ò��Ǥ�Ǥǡ��Ȁ�ò��ǡ�Germany.

ėĔĘęǡ��Ǥ��Ǥ2000 The Northern Wars: War, State and Society in

Northeastern Europe 1558-1721. Longman, Harlow, England.

ėĚēĉěĆĉ��ĎĊđĘĊēǡ��ĊēęĊ2010 Converted Clinker Vessels from the 16th-17th

Century. A Case Study of the Ostsee Bereich IV, Fischland, FPL 77. Master’s dissertation, Maritime Archaeological Programme, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.

�ĊĎēğĊǡ� ĆēĆ2010 Bericht zur Hauptuntersuchung der

Unterwasserfundplatzes Mönchgut 67 im Rahmen des Ostseegaspipelinebaus von Vyborg nach Lubmin [Report on the Excavation of the Underwater Site Mönchgut 67 in Connection to the Baltic Sea Gas Pipeline Construction from Vyborg to Lubmin]. Landesamt für Kultur und ��ƪ��ǡ��ǡ��Ǥ

�đĊĎēČĤėęēĊėǡ��ĚēčĎđĉǡ�Ćēĉ��đĎěĊė��ĆĐĔĎēğ� ��ơ��ǡ�

Gem. Wittow, Kr. Rügen [Two Early Modern ��ơ��ǡ��ǡ�County of Rügen].� ��ƪ��Ǧ��53(2005):315-346.

�ėűČĊėǡ� ĔĆĈčĎĒ� ��ơ��

1715 und ihr historischer Hintergrund [The Ships Barrier in Greifswald Bay of 1715 and its Historical Background]. In ��¡��heute, Carl-Olof Cederlund and Kersten Krüger, editors, pp. 186-193. Ingo Koch Verlag und Co. KG, Rostock, Germany.

�ĤĘĘǡ��ĊđđĔ1994 A Unique 16th Century Estonian Ship Find. In

��Ǥ��and Ship Archaeology (Roskilde 1991), Christer Westerdahl, editor, pp. 189-194. Oxbow, Oxford, England.


�ĘĘĔĜĘĐĎǡ��ĆđĉĊĒĆė2006 Two Double-Planked Wrecks from Poland. In

��Ǥ��Archaeology (Roskilde 2003), Lucy Blue, Frederic M. Hocker, and Anton Englert, editors, pp. 259-265. Oxbow, Oxford, England.

�ĈčĊėĊėǡ��čĔĒĆĘ� ��ơ��

��ơ��Greifswalder Bodden [Four Examined Clinker Ships in a Swedish Ships Barrier of 1715 in Greifswald Bay]. Magister dissertation, University of Bamberg, Germany.

Mike Belasusdeutsches SchiffahrtsmuseumHans-Scharoun-Platz 1d-27568 BremerhavenGermany

The Great Northern War underwater: A Swedish ship barrier of 1715 in Northeast Germany

Documents

Transcript of The Great Northern War underwater: A Swedish ship barrier of 1715 in Northeast Germany