Well, I lied. I do have one more thing to add to the conversation. In order to dispel any uncertainty on the interpretation of the reporter, I posted Dr. Pulak directly with what I believe is a fairly unbiased question on the subject. His first comment dispels any doubt, when he writes:
"Frame first construction does represent an improvement over shell-first construction for a number of reasons."
I have included the rest in its entirety.
Thanks,
Cole
Dear Mr. Cioran,
Frame-first construction does represent an improvement over shell-first
construction for a number of reasons. But, the resulting hull is not
necessarily stronger or superior to one built shell-first. The Dutch
did indeed continue to build ships by this method (actually, a variety
called 'bottom-based' tradition) well into the 17th century. The
Duyfken you mention, as well as the better known Batavia were both built
in the typical Dutch tradition using planking held in place temporarily
with wooden cleats, which were then removed and the resulting holes
plugged up with wooden pegs. The Dutch were the last to use shell-first
building in northern Europe, whereas the English and the French had
already adapted the Mediterranean skeletal-first technique no later than
the early 16th century. I should add here that most modern vernacular
craft built around the world today still use full- or
partial-shell-first construction.
Skeletal construction has the advantage of not building asymmetrical
hulls (i.e, the port and starboard sides of the ship are identical),
which is nearly impossible to do in a plank-first ship. This is because
in skeletal building, the hull form is dictated and controlled in
vertical sections through the use of frames. In plank-first
construction, the shape of the hull is maintained through horizontal
control of the laid planking, which are somewhat dictated by the natural
runs of the planks themselves. More importantly, however, skeletal
building allows for the documentation of the hull and permits design
improvement that can be worked out directly on existing documentation
and then registered permanently. Thus, ship designs could then be
communicated on paper to others, which resulted in an accelerated
exchange of ideas and improvement of design. Shell-first building, on
the other hand, is not conducive for paper documentation, and the method
is generally passed on orally through a master-apprentice relationship.
Another advantage that became important in skeletal building is that now
the actual shapes of the ships framing were determined before the hull
was built--as opposed to the custom-made frames fitted in shell-built
hulls-- patterns for the frames could be taken directly to the forests
and the felled trees crudely shaped to the desired frames, which were
than transported to the shipyards. This saved significantly in
transportation costs of shipbuilding timber.
As regards strength of the hull, for earlier ships this would not have
been an important consideration. Either method could be employed to
build stronger or weaker hulls, depending on the level of craftsmanship
and materials. But, once artillery began to be used in ships, hulls had
to be reinforced with additional framing. Skeletal construction
provided an added advantage here, for the strength of the hull could be
maintained through an integrated framework, which, in turn was protected
by heavy planking. Non- or partially-integrated framing used in
shell-building would not have been as durable for this purpose.
In a nutshell, I suppose this would be the major difference between the
two methods. I hope I have been able to answer your question.
Thank you for the warning about the web-page address; I'll pass it on to
the web-master and hope that he can fix it soon.
Best wishes,
Cemal Pulak
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Nautical Archaeology Program
Department of Anthropology
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4352
tel: 9979) 845-6697
E-mail:
[email protected]
Cioran, Nicholas wrote:
> Dr. Pulak,
>
> I just read the January article in Science News on the harbour finds
> in Israel, and have a question.
>
> It appears that the reporter is saying that the frame first
> construction methods represent an improvement in both technique and
> generate a superior hull. I'm wondering if this is an accurate
> representation, or do you believe that the frame first system
> represents a economical improvement at the cost of the quality of the
> hull? My apologies, as the word quality is a bit of a nebulous a term
> in this situation, as there are a number of factors that could be
> effected, such as seaworthiness, maneuverability, durability,
> longevity, as so forth. That being the case, do you feel that there
> were any trade offs between the two techniques?
>
> I'm curious because I am minded of Dutch ships of the early modern era
> like the Duyfken, which was built hull first, well after the
> transition to frame first in the Mediterranean was firmly ensconced.
>
> As a final note, your web page has your email as
[email protected]
> <mailto:
[email protected]> in the text, but the hot-link goes to
>
[email protected] <mailto
[email protected]>.
>
> Thanks,
> Nicholas (Cole) Cioran
