04/11/2008
Johan Rönnby
University College of Södertörn

Preliminary version

THE GHOST SHIP. Current state of research and project plan for maritime
archaeological exploration, Nov. 2008.

Background

In the middle of the Baltic Sea, 30 nautical miles East of the island of Gotska sandön,
an exceptionally well preserved wooden ship wreck is standing on the bottom at a
depth of 125 meters. The hull is intact and judging from the type of ship and its
decorations a preliminary dating would place it in the first half of the 17th century.

The ship was discovered in 2003 by Deep Sea Productions and MMTAB/Marin
Mätteknik during their search for the Swedish DC-3 airplane lost in 1952. During the
recording of a TV series, ”The Wreck Divers”, in 2007, the ship was surveyed using a
Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). The analysis below is based on this
documentation. In 2008 an international research group (see below) was formed in
cooperation between the University of College of Södertörn and the discoverers with
the aim of further researching and analysing the wreck.

Hull

The ship is estimated to be 25 metres long with a maximum width of about 8 metres.
The stern is 6.5 metres over the bottom at its highest point. These measurements have
been obtained using side scan sonar imagery and can therefore be said to have a small
margin of error. The hull sides are concave. This so called ”tumble-home” was typical
for Dutch fluits, but how significant this feature is cannot be established with the
available documentation. The hull is curved lengthwise with the stern standing about
twice as high as the midship deck.

The ship is built in carvel technique with three wales. Just aft of the midsection there
is a chain wale for shrouds and in the hull side there are some small scuppers. The
railing lowers in front of the position of the main mast over the forward deck. Above
the railing some supporters can be seen as well as two kevels on either side. These are
placed just aft of the positions of the fore-mast and the main-mast.

Bow

The bow is blunt without a beak head, There are no marks indicating that there has
been a beak head attached. In front of the bow, lying on the bottom, there is a small

1

figure of a bearded man (?), which may have been placed on the bow. Near the top of
the stem there are remnants of something that was possibly used to attach this figure.
Near the chest of this figure there is a decoration that could be a large rose.

The bowsprit is in place, lying on the starboard side of the bow. At the front of the
bowsprit there are two timbers fitted vertically. The ship has double hawse holes on
the starboard and port sides. They seem to lack decorations, but the scuppers are
reinforced on the outside by a horizontal L-formed timber and a small timber between
the holes. Both the cat heads are in place and between them a slightly curved timber
that is probably part of a small balustrade, which was also used as a belaying rail or
pin rack. The deck planks on the foredeck are partly intact. The foredeck ends level
with a sturdy crossbeam about five metres behind the bow.

Stern

The stern is round with a counter on top. The counter has fallen off and there is reason
to believe that the hull sides have been bent somewhat outwards in the process. Inside
the place of the counter, you can see the floor of the cabin situated furthest aft.

Under this floor there is a small opening (Dutch: hennegat) where the tiller meets the
steering stand. Under this small opening you can see two small apertures on either
side of the sternpost as well as two somewhat larger windows further forward on the
starboard and port sides. These apertures are all surrounded by carvings in the shape
of flowers and may be cabin windows. Alternatively the two closest to the sternpost
are just hawse holes. Slightly below, on the starboard side, there is another square
opening and further below a nailed down hatch. These openings are most likely for
loading, the upper one for planks and the closed one for ballast.

The rudder is on the port side of the sternpost and there are clear traces of the pintle
and gudgeon assemblies. It appears that the rudder was partly lifted when the ship hit
bottom, which explains its present position.

Rig

The ship has three masts with the main mast placed at the centre of the ship, a fore
mast close to the bow and a smaller mizzen mast. The fore and main masts are still
standing, while the mizzen mast has fallen over. This is presumably because it was not
stepped as deeply in the hull as the others. Outside of the ship on the starboard side
there is a long timber, which is most likely the mizzen mast. Adjacent to this timber
there are traces of a fighting top as well as a flag button. At the top of both masts that
are standing there are trestletrees. These probably held top masts that are now lying
on the port side of the ship. Across the poop there is also a long timber that could be
the spar of the main-mast or another top mast.

On deck, particularly on the port side, near the loading hatches, there are many parts
of the rig, including blocks and deadeyes. The loose sediments in this area probably
contain remnants of the sails.

Decorations

2

The ”beak head” below the bow has already been mentioned. Around the area where
the tiller enters the hull there is some flower ornamentation. The top of the rudder is
decorated with three flowers arranged in triangular form. This motif is traditionally
Dutch (alternatively three vats or a clover leaf) and has been in use until modern
times. A so-called buss painted by van de Velde in 1650 has an almost identical
decoration.

Two figures are lying below the stern. They were most likely placed on either side of
the sternpost. A preliminary analysis indicates that they are male figures clad in
clothing of the time with plumed hats.

Near the stern on the starboard side there is also a large piece of wood with flower
decorations that was probably part of the counter.

The decorations on the ship are impressive but not extraordianary for the period. It is
more correct to say that it is charactertistic of that day. Compared to the decorations
on war ships from this era, they are more on the discrete side.

Details

There are three hatches in the partly very well preserved main deck, two before the
main-mast and a smaller one further aft. The one in the middle is the main loading
hatch, normally 7 x 7 ft, large enough to take on water barrels (per com Ab Hoving
’08).

Directly aft of the main-mast there are three knights with sculptures of moustachioed
male faces. Two of the knights are connected by a belaying rack. Some pins are still in
place. One more knight is at the back of the foredeck. This knight has a block fastened
to it.

Aft of this knight there is a windlass. It has pawls made out of wood with holes at the
tips for shafts that were used to pull it around.

A stock anchor is hanging on the port side just behind the bow. The stock is wooden,
the arms are V-shaped and the flukes triangular (similar to those on the Vasa).
Opposite, on the starboard side, there is an identical anchor. A third anchor is lying
under the starboard cat head outside the ship.

In front of the poop deck there is a pump made of a drilled out timber. Directly on the
starboard side there is a circular hole which is either the hole for the mizzen mast or
the remnants of a second pump.

Age and ship type

The ship is undoubtedly an example of Dutch ship building. Judging from its exterior
and the equipment on board and comparing with pictures from the time it can be dated
to the middle of the 17th century (see Noons, van de Velde et al). A ship model at the
Naval Museum in Amsterdam, dated cirka 1650, is also reminiscent of the wreck. The
knights (compared with Vasa) may indicate that the ship was built a few decades

3

earlier. With our knowledge at present a dating in the period 1630-50 seems
reasonable.

The most common denomination of Dutch long distance trading ships of this period
was fluit. A small fluit was often called a bootjen. In Holland there are a number of
different names for these ships depending on how they were classified in terms of size
and function (for example kat ship or buss). Their basic construction was, however,
one and the same.

The Ghost Ship is definitely built in the fluit tradition. It is, however, too early to say
how it was registered at the time. The fact that it is built in the Dutch tradition is also
no guarantee that it was owned and sailed by Dutchmen. Dutch shipyards regularly
built ships for buyers from other nations.

Potential for research and analysis

The Ghost Ship is a unique marine archaeological find, which in terms of the state of
preservation probably has no equal in the world.

 The ship can generally be seen as a starting point for describing the history

behind the success of the Dutch economy in the 17th century and the driving
forces behind it. This includes the introduction of a global economy with the
East India trade and the establishment of trading posts in the New World.

 From a theoretical perspective the wreck is also a part of processes in the pre-

industrial development of capitalism. A discussion in this field will touch on
the importance of technology as a driving force in history and also the role and
the significance of reformist morals in this connection.

 Because of the great scope and special importance of the Baltic trade for the

Dutch, these trading ships were a vital part of the economic and political
structures during this period of Baltic Sea history. Upwards of two thousand
trading ships would sail into the Baltic each year. Salt and manufactured goods
were brought to the North, raw materials such as iron, chalk and timber were
carried from the coasts of the Baltic to Amsterdam and the Netherlands.

 From a purely marine archaelogical perspective, the wreck will give us a

chance to study the construction of a type of ship that we so far know only
from pictures, written sources and significantly less intact wrecks. Dutch
shipbuilding led the world in the 17th century. Timber was imported from all
of northern Europe and ships were made to order for Swedish shipping
companies among others. The design became world leading not just by virtue
of shipbuilding traditions, but also through innovative practices both in the
technology and the production methods. Even though the Dutch had to rely on
windmills for power, the shipping industry became a forerunner of 19th
century industrialisation.

 By studying structures and dimensions in detail and comparing this with

written sources the question of the denomination of this ship should be
resolved. If a more exact dating of the sinking of the ship can be obtained

4

though dendrochronological analysis of wood from structural elements or
contents, there is a better chance of identifying from written sources the ship
itself, its name, its provinence, etc. It would make it possible to compare and
contrast archaeological and written sources.

 A comparison of the relatively discrete decorations of the wreck with motif

and design on war ships of the time is another interesting task. The flower
ornamentation and the reason for the renewed popularity of plant related
decorations during this period is yet another area of study. An analysis of the
ornamentation and a interpretational discussion in this connection would also
relate to general ideological aspects of the successful, yet strongly reformist
christian Dutch tradesmen. The Dutch historian Simon Shama has dubbed
their attitude as one of an ”embarrassment of richness”.

 The ship also gives us a unique chance to study the distribution of space and

the interior organization of a 17th century ship. It would give an insight into
the general conditions of the seamen, but it is also an archaeological study of
mentality. It is a way of entering into the lives of these people and ”to be in the
same room as 17th century humans”. An aspect of their strict religious morals
was that they would often in different ways remind themselves of the
fickleness of luck and prosperity. Stories of sudden disaster, shipwrecks and
sea ghosts were probably recounted regularly in the galley at night.

 A chemical analysis can be made of the state of deterioration of the wood in

this specific under water environment. The Ghost Ship can be seen as an
interesting comparison to other wrecks, not least the Vasa.

Marine archaeologial research planned for November 2008.

A first stage of marine archaeological research will be performed on the wreck in
November 2008. The work will be conducted with a Remotely Operated Vehicle
(ROV) equipped with cameras, light and a robot arm with a manipulator. Work is
expected to include the following elements:

1. Establishing a more exact site plan of the shipwreck with exact measurements.

Making a photo mosaic study. Improving the existing side-view drawing of the
ship.

2. Documentation of a selection of special details, including the rudder, wales for

the shrouds, the counter, some decorations.

3. Initiating the study of the interior with the help of a small ROV equipped with

a video camera.

4. Sampling wood for dendrochronological and preservation analysis. For the

dendrochronological analysis the priority is for timber with the outermost year
rings preserved (cargo or fire wood). The samples will, however, be taken only
from items lying loose, which restricts the choice

5

Participants in the reference and work group, November 2008.

Jonathan Adams, Southampton University, England.

Lars Einarsson, Kalmar länsmuseum, Sweden.

Niklas Eriksson, Statens Maritima Museer, Sweden.

Yvonne Fors, Structural Chemistry, Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University,
Sweden.

Jerzy Gawronski, Bureau Monumenten en Archeologie, Amsterdam, Holland.

Donovan Griffin, Nautical Archaeology Program Conservation Research Lab, Texas
A&M University. USA.

Björn Hagberg, Deep Sea Productions

Fred Hocker, Vasamuseet,, Sweden.

Ab Hoving, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Holland.

Martjin Manders, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en
Monumenten/Dutch Heritage. Holland.

Benno van Tillburg, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en
Monumenten. Dutch/Heritage. Holland

Johan Rönnby, Södertörn University, Sweden.

Bilagor:

1. Rough map of the wreck site (080314)
2. Drawing of the ship seen from the port side (Niklas Eriksson)
3. Suggested analysis of the state of deterioration of the ship wreck (Yvonne

Fors)

4. Photo of the stern (Marin Mätteknik).

6

Bilaga 3

Stockholm University

2008-10-09

Proposal about chemical analyses (from a preservation perspective) of wood

samples from the ”Ghost Wreck" at Gotska Sandön

Background
In anaerobic aquatic environments, sulfate-reducing bacteria produce hydrogen
sulfide, H

2

S. In the ”footprints” of the so-called erosions bacteria, which consume

cellulose in marine archaeological wood, the hydrogen sulfide can react with lignin-
rich parts of the wood structure and form reduced organosulfur compunds; eg. thiols
and disulfides. In the presence of iron, Fe

2+

also iron sulfides, for example pyrite, FeS

2

are formed. This mechanism has been proved in all shipwrecks of marine
archaeological wood that have been analysed such as the Vasa, the Kronan, the
Danish Viking ship of Skuldelev, the British Mary Rose, the Australian Batavia, etc.
Accumulation of sulfur and iron in various amounts has turned out to be another
pathway of the natural circulation of sulfur in aquatic environments with implication
to the formation of fossil fuels. One exception is the German Bremen Cog, which was
preserved in low-sulfate river water. In contact with high humidity and oxygen the
iron sulfides (pyrite) are oxidised to sulfuric acid, H

2

SO

4

. This can be traced to the

formation of acidic sulfate and iron salts in the surface wood of the museum ship
wrecks.

The Ghost Wreck
There are strong reasons to believe that the hull of the”Ghost Wreck” at Gotska
Sandön is contaminated by sulfur and iron. There are no a reasons for panic, but it is
strongly recommendable that the involved project leaders and the people responsible
for the preservation of the wreck are provided with information of the chemical and
biological state of the wood. With that knowledge appropriate decisions can be made
about how the wood best should be handled and conserved.

Suggestions on analyses
If crystalline salts are precipitated on the surface wood some time after the salvage, an
XRD (X-ray powder diffraction) can be performed on samples from these salts,
carefully scraped from the wood surface. This will reveal the identity of the salts, and
give information about their origin. If iron/sulfate salts are identified the conclusion
can be drawn that the iron sulfides in the wood have started to oxidise to sulfuric acid.
With pH-indicator paper the development of the acids by time can be studied. The
occurrence of acids (increased acidity) are indicated at pH-ranges below pH = 3.5-4.

A simple elemental analysis (for example performed by gas chromatography) for the
total amount of sulfur and iron, give a view about how contaminated the wood is. It
can also be a good idea to make a total elemental analysis, which includes other
elements than sulfur and iron, in order to achieve a wider insight about the chemical
situation. If the analysis is performed at a number of depths down in a wood core

7

drilled from the surface and inwards the hull also the distribution of the contaminants
in the hull can be estimated.
For a detailed profile (0.5mm spacing) of for example sulfur and iron x-ray
fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) is needed. This gives a much more detailed profile
of the distribution in the wood hull. With help of this method we now know that the
distribution of contaminants can be very different between ship wrecks. For instance,
it is mostly the outer surface of the Vasa’s wood (0-2 cm) that contains sulfur, while in
the British Mary Rose the sulfur and iron has evenly penetrated throughout the hull.

With SEM (scanning electron microscopy) and EDS (energy dispersive x-ray
fluorescence) the total amount of most elements over a selected wood surface can be
measured. In a cross section, cut across the direction of the wood fibers, the
distribution of the elements in the wood cell structure on a microscopic level are
revealed.

With light microscopy studies of wood cuts one can trace wood degradation by
erosion bacteria and other kind of biological activity and erosion. This (besides the
information from adequate chemical and mechanical stability tests) is relevant to form
an opinion about the quality of the wood, which is also partly connected to the
accumulation of the sulfur.

The above would be adequate for a good start to the understanding of the chemical
situation of the wood in the Ghost Wreck. Further, for a full speciation of the different
sulfur compounds (how much reduced and oxidised sulfur) advanced sulfur
spectroscopy (with a synchrotron as ion source) is needed. This is highly informative
but unfortunately not a very easy-accessible technique. The analyses are very
exclusive and only available at a limited number of laboratories in the world of, and
require the help of specialists. The Vasa and Mary Rose samples were analysed at
SSRL (Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory), California, USA and EFSR
(European Synchrotron Radiation Facility), Grenoble, France.

Finally, as a first step I recommend:

 Total sulfur and iron analyses of at least one core, drilled from the surface

wood inwards the hull. Preferably, several cores should be taken at different
areas of the ship for a more representative overview.

 Analyses of the total sulfur and iron distribution in the wood cell structure;

SEM (EDS).

 Light microscopy studies to trace the bacterial degradation.

Sample dimensions
For the elemental analyses wood cores from the hull are needed, drilled form the
surface inwards. A 0.5 cm in diameter is enough, and an electric drill can be used. For
the advanced sulfur spectroscopy an increment bore must be used, which are turned
slowly in order to avoid heat development, that would affect the sulfur composition.

For the light microscopy and SEM analyses larger sample dimensions are required to
be able to make appropriate cutting (by hand with razor blades). A ”cube” of at least
1x1x1 cm

3

is enough.

8

References and further reading
Fors Y: Sulfur-Related Conservation Concerns for Marine Archaeological Wood,
Doctoral thesis, Structural chemistry, Stockholm University, 2008 (and references
therein).

9