Thank you very much, Kroum Batchvarov 💙💛✌️

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

Thank you for watching!

I am so glad to finally know the etymology of futtock (foot hook). Thanks! So far I couldn't help but assume it was like fuð : butt = futtock : buttock. I hope those who read Old Norse (or modern Scots, or Bavarian) will forgive me for the comment.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

All old documents I have seen either spell it as futtock or foot hook.

THANK YOU Kroum Batchvarov for a most interesting lecture! This is SO useful to us model builders. ❤😍

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

My pleasure! I am glad it was helpful!

Best description of framing I have seen!! Thank you!!👍👍👍

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

Thank you! This is very kind of you and I am glad that it worked out.

Love it! Thank you, sir!

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

My pleasure!

Having understood that you will be a bit scarce on You Tube, I hope your researches and studies will bring you back with even more of the story of man and sail.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

The channel will work as usual, but I will not be able to respond to comments immediately

Best wished on your archaeological trip back to the Black Sea, Kroum!

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

Thank you very much!

👍👍👍👍👍

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

19 күн бұрын

👍

Which woods would they prefer for futtocks and logging knees? Good luck in the field .Those waters may be getting unnecessarily turbulent.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

There is the odd mine intercepted by the human navies, yes. It depends on what timber was available. As a general rule, oak tended to be a favourite, of course. Though other species have been attested in ship archaeology.

Thank you very much!!!

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

Thank you for watching.

Thank you, as usual:)

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

My Pleasure!

Thank you for your video, and success with your excavation!

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

Thank you very much indeed! I am hoping for a productive season.

Thank you for starting this sequence of videos on framing: There is nothing in naval architecture that I was more curious about and have questions about than framing in the 17th century. However, the pictures you show worry me, because they do not match what I thought was scholarly consenus on the topic. After watching your video a couple of times, I came to the conclusion that nothing that you actually say is in conflict with what I thought is academic consensus, so maybe it's just the pictures that are giving *me* the wrong impression. The drawing you show starting ca. at 5:00 shows something close to the stylized framing of English Admiralty models -- alternating frames consisting of floor timber + upper futtock and lower futtock + toptimber (in the case of four-part frame bends), with alternating *gaps* as we go up a frame bend/pair. I am concerned about these gaps, not the space gaps on the longitudinal dimension that you discuss starting ca. at 10:40. It is my understanding that the consensus is that at least the larger English warships (i.e. those that we typically see represented by Admiralty models) were never actually framed like this, even if some smaller ships (other than two- and three-deckers) may have come close for a limited time period. If you look at the English 1677 construction programme, as evidenced in the wreck of the Anne and original documents for the 1677 program (such as scantling lists and building contracts, some of which go into the dimensions of scarphs for the frame timbers -- connecting them bottom to top, necessarily without gaps), the framing was clearly different: Every frame bend consisted of a pair of frames, one consisting of floor timber+middle futtock+top timber and the other of lower+upper futtock., with no vertical gaps between timbers at all, and port and starboard lower futtocks touching and resting on the keel. Every third frame bend had the frame pair linked; the fill-frames consisted of two frame bends (pairs) that were separated, spaced out, and "free-standing", without vertical gaps. So, moving longitudinally, you’d see a sequence of a double frame, four single frames, a double frame, four single frames, etc. each resting on the keel and without gaps from keel to the top end of each frame. [With some slight longitudinal offsetting to align upper futtocks and toptimbers with the sides of the gunports where this was easily possible.] It is my understanding that this was universal for at least the 20 two-deckers of the 1677 programme, and given that so many dockyards and master shipwrights were involved, it must have reflected practice that extended much beyond that programme. Could you cover in a video how far Admiralty/Navy Board model framing is stylized or was ever implemented in actual ships? I'd love to see a framing plan of Vasa as built, if you have one. Haven't been able to get the books you recommended on Vasa yet, and don't know if they contain one. Which was the easier side to shoot a cannonball through, port or starboard? Just asking in case the Swedes put Vasa back into service to renew the Thirty Years' War or the potop szwedzki.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

For the 1677 Thirty Ships programme of King Charles II (and not Pepys, sorry), watch the next video. I speak of it there. I wrote my MA thesis on this topic and did quite a bit of reading of contracts and specifications, of Keltridge and Battine, of Thomas Fagge and dictionaries. Then I also looked at the - at the time - available shipwrecks. Warwick seems to have had a single futtock and toptimber as per Navy Board models (I did the frame recording of the central section of this wreck in 2011 for the project director), the Sea Venture seems to have had two futtock, but if I recall correctly one fore and aft fastener was found, so the pattern of doubled frame and filling most definitely is not visible on either of these wrecks. It is not visible on the early 17th century Cape Cod wreck, either. All of them demonstrate the gaps. DItto Vasa, although there it is a bit less regular and clean-cut than on the English wrecks. Vasa has 3 futtocks plus a toptimber. Generally. The framing plan of the ship has yet to be drawn (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa since I am the one who is supposed to do it!) but will be included in the hull volume of the ship. The port aft side of the middle deck remains to be recorded and Dr. Hocker and I have to figure out when we both are available to do it. I do formulate a hypothesis in my MA on the Navy Board models, but now I have a more probable hypothesis on how the style emerged. Yes, I do believe that in the earlier years, when the ships were smaller, the Navy Board style actually represented physical practice. When writing my thesis, Mr. Lavery very kindly spent hours of his time at the NMM to discuss my ideas and mostly to support them, so did Mr. Peter Goodwin. The interim decades have not yielded any archaeological material to make me reconsider what I wrote than. Though I wish to God my writing style had been more readable. I have wanted to rewrite and publish it as an article ever since, but... somehow never have the time to do it.

@yxx_chris_xxy

Ай бұрын

@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist Dear Kroum, thank you so much for taking the time for such a detailed and interesting answer while you are travelling. As for early to mid-17th century vessels of moderate size, FWIW, this random person on the internet believes you are right if your thesis is/was that the framing is as in/very similar to Navy Board models modulo longitudinal gaps that increase upwards as framing gets lighter. (To me, though, these gaps mean it's not Navy board style anymore, reconciling your thesis with what I have read -- but that's beside the point since I brought up Navy Board Model framing, not you in your video.) However: Both Warwick and Sea Venture are from the very early 17th century and smallish. Do you have an opinion on the Anne wreck off Hastings, which is the only 17th century wreck I have ever visited in place, so I have a special soft spot for it, and it is from the 1677 programme? As you have probably noted, the framing I have spoken of is argued for in the Richard Endsor books. His book on Anne has some photos of the wreck that seem to support this framing, though the photos are framed (word overload) a bit selectively. What do you think? In any case, looking forward very much to the coming videos!!!

@yxx_chris_xxy

Ай бұрын

@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist Is there some way to read your master's thesis other than by inter-library loan? TAMU isn't very nice about sharing these. Getting that masters thesis on the framing of La Belle was a struggle.

@yxx_chris_xxy

Ай бұрын

Ignore, got the thesis. Super interesting. I can also already say that the rumors about bad writing are greatly exaggerated...

Does this design hold for Dutch Fluyt or fluitschips? I had heard they were constructed differently and more cost effectively.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

In essence, yes. The frame pieces are going to be the same, regardless whether this is a fluyt, jacht or pinaas or an English man-of-war. The difference is in the distribution and manipulation of these pieces. On an English ship, they are going to be square to the centreline, they are going to be pretty uniform in dimensions, they are likely to be completely converted. On a Dutch vessel they would seem more random, but there still are going to be the same pieces: there will be first futtocks between the floor timbers, second futtocks butting into the wrongheads of the floor timbers, etc. Vasa, for example has three futtocks plus a toptimber, but they differ in number from port to starboard. In a Dutch ship the timbers will not end cleanly in a fair line, but as the individual timbers fall. There may actually be two timbers next to each other used to fill up the space where a second futtock would be - this is a specific example from Vasa. And the two sides would not be matching these timber distributions. However, overall - yes, the frame has the same pieces, though with different names.

Thank you! May you have good luck in your field work! One hopefully quick question: did framing practices change much from the late 16th century to the early 17th?

@yxx_chris_xxy

Ай бұрын

Curious about that too. I expect that the answer is "surprisingly little" between 1511 and 1690, though there was some real innovation starting in France in the very late 17th and early 18th century commonly associated with Blaise Pangalo and later Blaise Ollivier. More than that, they made framing more aesthetically pleasing, which can't be said of the likes of Seppings (much later). And here is the video to prove that: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zmh1tc-NYNvdfpM.html

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

Surprisingly little indeed is the correct answer. I might be able to give you more specific answer with examples in September after the season on a 16th century ship. ;-) The timbers are going to be the same, depends on the size of the vessel.

@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist

Ай бұрын

@@yxx_chris_xxy More or less, correct. The double-frame emerges by 1684 as evidenced by La Belle. In England - changes begin to be observed in teh documents and allegedly in the archaeological record c. 1676-79. Watch the next video in the series for discussion of this.

@yxx_chris_xxy

Ай бұрын

@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 1690 was sloppy -- I am aware of the framing of La Belle but am super curious to learn about the changes in England in the late 1670s. Looking forward to that video!

Do you learn anything from commenters?